See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318855369

Pavement design considerations for subgrades stabilized with recycled materials

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.1201/9781315100333-161

CITATIONS READS
0 1,032

3 authors, including:

Nishantha Bandara Elin Jensen

Lawrence Technological University Lawrence Technological University
19 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   377 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nishantha Bandara on 05 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pavement Design Considerations for Subgrades Stabilized with
Recycled Materials

N. Bandara & E. Jensen

Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, Michigan, U.S.A.

T. Binoy

The Manik & Smith Group, Inc., Canton, Michigan, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT: This paper is aimed at identifying and characterizing pavement design considerations asso-
ciated with using recycled materials for pavement subgrade stabilization. Traditionally, remove-replace
option or stabilization with cement, lime, asphalt or other manufactured chemicals are used for subgrade
improvements, when poor, unstable subgrade soils were encountered. Due to rising cost of these tradi-
tional stabilizers and the fill materials, highway and airport agencies are looking for recycled materials
for subgrade stabilization. These recycled materials include Cement Kiln Dust (CKD), Lime Kiln Dust
(LKD), Fly Ash (FA), Concrete Fines (CF) and others. An extensive laboratory study was performed to
characterize the short-term, and long-term performance of subgrade soil samples stabilized with recycled
materials. Using the laboratory test results, pavement design inputs were developed from a limited ana-
lytical investigation. The developed pavement design parameters include the stabilized layer moduli val-
ues for mechanistic-empirical pavement designs and structural layer coefficients for 1993 AASHTO pave-
ment designs.

1 INTRODUCTION agencies are in a need to identify potential recycled

When the pavement structures are constructed on
silty and clayey subgrades, with the varying moisture
conditions, sometimes these subgrades become soft
and need some type of treatment before constructing
upper pavement layers. According to the research re-
port published by Kentucky Transportation Center
(Hopkins et al, 2002), pavement construction prob-
lems can be classified into the following five catego-
ries:
1. Failure of weak soil subgrades under construction
traffic loading
2. Failure of granular base courses under construction
traffic loading
3. Failure of partially completed pavement/base ma-
terials under construction traffic loadings
4. Premature failure of pavement shortly after con-
struction
5. Difficulties in achieving proper compaction of
granular base and pavement materials due to the
inadequate bearing strength of the soil subgrade.
Due to the rising costs of materials utilized in tra-
ditional treatment techniques, highway and airport
materials to treat unacceptable subgrade soils. Recy-
cled materials not only provide a less costly alterna-
tive for subgrade stabilization, they also alleviate
landfill problems.
Most of the previous research studies related to
subgrade stabilization are limited to quantifying im-
mediate benefits during the construction phase,
providing a stable layer to facilitate the construction
activities. However, there is a need to identify the
long-term advantages and disadvantages associated
with subgrade stabilization. With satisfactory long-
term benefits, subgrade stabilization can be poten-
tially used for optimizing pavement designs that will
result in cost-effective pavement sections. Addition-
ally, long-term risks associated with subgrade stabili-
zation such as heaving and/or cracking of subgrade
can be proactively addressed by remedial actions or
limiting usage of those stabilizing materials.
The data for this paper is obtained from a research
study conducted for Michigan Department Transpor-
tation (MDOT) to evaluate the short and long term
subgrade stabilization properties and characteristics
using recycled materials (Bandara, 2016).
2 BACKGROUND 4 MIX DESIGN PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

The history of subgrade stabilization dates back to Mix design process to select the optimum stabilizer
1960’s, where most of the studies were performed to percentage for long-term stabilization or short-term
study the properties and behavior of lime and cement modification was determined using ASTM D 4609
for subgrade stabilization. More recent studies are “Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of
aimed at identifying the properties and behavior of re- Chemicals for Soil Stabilization”.
cycled materials such as Lime Kiln Dust (LKD), Ce- Three soil samples obtained from MDOT construc-
ment Kiln Dust (CKD), Fly Ash (FA) for subgrade tion sites were used for this study. These soils were
stabilizations. These studies include; a comprehen- deemed unsuitable for construction due to poor field
sive review of materials, methods and protocols for performance. These three soils can be categorized as
mix designs for subgrade and base stabilization as re- typical unsuitable soils found in Michigan and char-
ported in NCHRP W144 (Little and Nair, 2009), Sub- acteristics of these soils are shown in Table 1.
grade stabilization with CKD and lime (Bandara,
2009), the effects of freezing/thawing and wet- Table 1 Properties of Selected Soils.
ting/drying for the durability of CKD stabilized clay
Soil Passing LL PL PI Soil Classifica-
samples (Zaman et al, 2009), pavement subgrade sta- Sam- #200 (%) (%) (%) tion
bilization using recycled materials (Bandara et al, ple Sieve US AASHTO
2015) and the freeze-thaw durability of subgrades sta- No. (%) CS
bilized with recycled materials (Bandara et al, 2015). Soil1 99.5 31.3 19.2 12.1 CL A-6
A more recent study conducted for Ohio Department Soil2 65.8 16.0 12.4 3.6 ML A-4
of Transportation (Sargand et al, 2014) aimed at de- Soil3 98.9 48.1 26.6 21.5 CL A-7-6
veloping guidelines for incorporating chemical stabi-
lization of the subgrade in pavement design and con- Mix design process to determine the optimum sta-
struction practices. However, this study only bilizer percentage includes mixing of different per-
considered the traditional stabilizers such as lime and centage stabilizing material with dry soil and water
cement. and performing Atterberg Limit Tests, Standard Proc-
tor Tests and Unconfined Compression Strength
(UCS) tests. UCS tests were performed on soil sam-
3 RECYCLED MATERIALS FOR SUBGRADE ples compacted to the optimum moisture content us-
STABILIZATION ing a calibrated Harvard Miniature Compaction de-
vice. For the LKD material, the optimum LKD
The following recycled stabilizing materials were content was determined by using Eades-Grim test as
used in this research study to determine the benefits described in ASTM D 6275. After the compaction,
and risks of using them for pavement subgrade stabi- the samples were cured for 0, 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days.
lization. These materials were selected based on their After curing some of the samples were subjected to
availability in large quantities in Michigan for use in capillary soaking for 24 hours prior to UCS tests.
subgrade stabilization. ASTM D 4609 recommends that an increase in UCS
1. Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) – CKD was sup- of 50 psi or more due to chemical treatment indicate
plied by Lafarge from their Alpena, Michigan an effective treatment. Therefore, the minimum per-
Cement plant centage of stabilizer that provides a UCS increase of
2. Lime Kiln Dust (LKD) – Two types of LKDs 50 psi or more following chemical treatment and ca-
were supplied by Mintek Resources, pillary soaking considered as the design stabilizer for
a. LKD – LKD from burning lime long-term stabilization. If the stabilizer does not pro-
stones vide sufficient gain in strength, these materials can be
b. DLKD – LKD from burning Dolomite considered as soil modifiers for construction facilita-
lime stones tion. Soil modification potential was evaluated by
3. Fly Ash (FA) – Fly ash from Detroit Edison performing UCS tests at 0, 3 and 7 days of curing
Monroe power plant (Laboratory results without capillary soaking. The following tables show
showed that the FA contained 21.5 % free the results of the mix design process.
lime (CaO) by weight)
4. Concrete Fines (CF) – Concrete fines from Table 2 Mix Design Results for Long-Term Stabilization.
crushing Portland cement concrete pavement
materials from I-96, Livonia, Michigan Soil Type CKD (%) LKD (%)/FA (%)
5. LKD and FA mix- to provide free lime to FA CL, A-6 8 3/9
for hydration. ML, A-4 4 2/5
CL, A-7-6 4 3/9
Table 3 Mix Design Results for Short-Term Modification. 5.2 Field Investigation of Stabilized Pavement
Soil Type FA (%) LKD (%)
Sections
CL, A-6 15 6 Field investigation program consists of coring, dy-
ML, A-4 15 - namic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing, and Falling
CL, A-7-6 15 -
Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing.
DCP testing was performed pursuant to ASTM D
Concrete Fines (CF) and Dolomite Lime Kiln Dust
6951 on the exposed stabilized subgrade. The pave-
(DLKD) did not show any potential for long or short
ment surface layer and base layer was removed by
term stabilization for the selected soil types.
coring and hand augers, respectively. DCP measures
the resistance to penetration due to an impact load ap-
plied via a rod. The penetration per blow value was
5 PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
used to estimate the in-situ CBR using a correlation
developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Pavement design parameters of subgrades stabilized DCP measurements also generated a thickness log of
with recycled materials were determined using labor- the stabilized layer and in-situ soil stiffness results
atory testing, limited field investigations and analyti- based on the resistance to penetration values. Based
cal evaluation of typical pavement sections with sta- on the collected DCP data, the penetration rate (pen-
bilized subgrade layers. etration rate per blow, DCP) was calculated for each
depth. These values were then converted to CBR us-
5.1 Laboratory Testing ing Equation 2 established by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE, 1992).
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed
according to ASTM D1883 on the mix ratios selected (2)
for stabilization. The method used for preparation and .

compaction of soil specimens was ASTM D698

Method C. Fifty-six blows were applied to each of the FWD data were collected on selected projects at
three layers. The soil and stabilizing materials were 50-foot intervals along a 500- foot test section. Three
mixed with water to achieve an OMC as determined load levels were initially used: 9,000 lbs (pounds),
by the Standard Proctor Test. The compacted speci- 12,000 lbs, and 15,000 lbs. Collected FWD data were
mens were subjected to 96 hours of soaking prior to analyzed to estimate the elastic modulus of pavement
CBR test. Once CBR was determined, the Equation 1 layers for flexible pavements and effective modulus
shown below was used to determine the subgrade re- of subgrade reaction for rigid pavements. IILI-BACK
silient modulus of stabilized subgrade materials back calculation program was used for rigid pave-
(NCHRP, 2004). ments and the method given in AASHTO 1993 Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO, 1993)
2555 .
(1) was used to calculate layer coefficients for the stabi-
Where Mr = subgrade resilient modulus in psi lized layer.
Based on the discussions with MDOT, stabilization
The Table 4 below shows the results of CBR tests contractors in Michigan, and stabilization engineer-
and calculated subgrade resilient modulus values. ing consultants, the following projects were identified
for field evaluation.
Table 4 CBR Test Results.
Table 5 Selected Pavement Sections for Field Data Collection.
Soil Treatment CBR (%) Mr Mr In-
(psi) crease Project Stabilization Construction Year
(%) Material
CL, A-6 Untreated 3.5 5,600 - I-75/I-96, Wayne Lime, Lime/Fly 2008
8% CKD 8.2 9,800 75 County, Michigan ash, CKD
3% LKD/9% 33.4 24,000 328 M-84, Bay and Lime, Lime/fly 2010
FA Saginaw County, ash
ML, A-4 Untreated 2.5 4,500 - Michigan
4% CKD 56.3 33,000 633 Waverly Road, CKD 2010
2% LKD/5% 44.9 29,000 544 Ingham County,
FA Michigan
CL, A-7- Untreated 6.7 8,600 - SR 310/US 40, LKD 2008
6 4% CKD 55.3 33,000 283 Licking County,
3%LKD/9% 49.8 31,000 260 Ohio
FA
5.2.1 AASHTO Layer Coefficients from DCP Data
AASHTO layer coefficients for stabilized layers were
calculated from the methodology developed by B. K.
Roy, (2007). The methodology is based on the aver-
age DCP penetration rate (PR -inches/blow) and the
thickness of the stabilized layer as shown in Equation
3:
(3)
Where, DCPNi = DCP number for the ith layer, BRi
= DCP blow rate for the ith layer (blows/inch), Ti =
Thickness of the ith layer
The structural number (SN) of the ith layer was
calculated as:
(4)
.
Once the SN of the layer was established, the struc-
tural layer coefficient of the stabilized layer was ob-
tained by dividing the SN by the layer thickness.
5.2.2 AASHTO Layer Coefficients using FWD Data
The AASHTO 1993 Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures (AASHTO, 1993) provides a method to
calculate structural layer coefficients from FWD data.
This method was developed for evaluating pavement
structures for rehabilitation planning. The first step
of this calculation process is to estimate the subgrade
resilient modulus (MR) using the following equation:
.
(5)
Where, MR = subgrade resilient modulus (psi), P =
applied load (lbs), dr = deflection at a distance r from
the center of the load (inches), r = distance from the
center of load (inches)
The deflections used in the back calculation of MR
must be measured from a minimum distance from the
center of the load plate to be independent from the
effects of the pavement layers. The minimum dis-
tance (r) can be determined from the following equa-
tion:
0.7 (6)
Where,
(7)
ae = radius of the stress bulb at the subgrade - pave-
ment interface (inches), a = FWD load plate radius
(inches), D = total thickness of pavement layers
above the subgrade (inches), Ep = effective modulus
of all pavement layers above the subgrade as esti-
mated below (psi) in an iterative manner.
1.5 (8)
Where, d0 = deflection measured at the center of the
load plate and adjusted to a standard temperature of
68ºF (inches), p = FWD load plate pressure (psi)
Once the subgrade modulus and effective modu-
lus are estimated, the following AASHTO equation
was used to calculate the effective structural number
(SNeff) of the pavement:
0.0045 (9)
After the SNeff of the pavement is estimated, the
following equation was used to calculate the struc-
tural layer coefficient of the stabilized subgrade (a3):
(10)
And solving for a3:
(11)
Where, a1 = structural layer coefficient of the asphalt
layer (assumed 0.42), a2 = structural layer coefficient
of the base and subbase layer (assumed 0.10), m2 =
drainage coefficient of the base and subbase layer (as-
sumed 1.0), a3 = structural layer coefficient of the sta-
bilized subgrade layer, m3 = drainage coefficient of
the stabilized subgrade layer (assumed 1.0)
Based on the above procedure, the pavement sub-
grade modulus, effective modulus of pavement lay-
ers, effective structural number of the pavement sec-
tion, and the structural layer coefficient of the
stabilized subgrade at each FWD test point were cal-
culated.
5.2.3 Summary of Field Investigation Data
The field data collected through DCP testing and
FWD testing were analyzed to obtain AASHTO
structural layer coefficients and the modulus of stabi-
lized layers for pavement design. Table 6 shows the
summary of these analyses using different methods.
Table 6 Summary of Field Data Results. In this section, the impact of soil stabilization was
evaluated in terms of expected service life as deter-
Test Year Treat- Using DCP Using FWD
Site Built ment
mined by pavement analyses and design. Two soft-
(age) CBR Mr ai ai k ware applications were used. WESLEA uses a linear
elastic multi-layer analysis. AASHTOWare Pave-
I-75 2008 CKD 46.7 29.9 0.17 n/a 242
(7) ment ME Design is a revision of the National Coop-
erative Highway Research Program mechanistic-em-
I-75 2008 CKD 68.4 38.1 0.17 n/a 258
(7)
pirical (ME) pavement design guide.
I-75 2008 Lime 92.5 46.3 0.24 n/a 356
(7)
6.1 Pavement Sections for WESLEA Analysis and
I-75 2008 Lime/ 94.1 46.8 0.26 n/a 264
(7) FA AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
I-75 2008 Lime 55.8 33.5 0.10 n/a 266 The analysis was conducted assuming that the exist-
(7)
ing pavement structures were placed on the subgrades
M-84 2010 LKD 23.2 19.1 0.06 0.48 n/a (Soil-1, Soil-2, and Soil-3) investigated in this study
(5) and the subgrade was stabilized using the suitable mix
M-84 2010 Lime 39.6 26.9 0.10 0.48 n/a designs presented in Table 2. Furthermore, the thick-
(5) ness and properties of the base and subbase were
Wa- 2010 CKD 87.5 44.6 0.27 0.16 n/a maintained as constructed for the analysis. In brief,
verly (5) the project details are listed below.
Road
SR 2008 CKD 49.8 31.1 0.17 0.14 n/a
Two subgrade stabilized reference pavement sec-
310 (7) tions were selected for comparative analysis with one
Units- CBR in %, Mr in ksi and k in psi/in.
being a rigid pavement (I-75, Wayne County, Michi-
gan) and one being a flexible pavement (M-84, Bay
and Saginaw County, Michigan).
The results show, the stabilized layers were effec- The overall objective of this comparative analysis
tive five to seven years after construction. These lay- is to investigate the effect of subgrade stabilization on
ers may have gone through several freeze/thaw cycles pavement response.
per year and still show higher moduli values than un-
derlying subgrade soil.
6.1.1 Design Traffic
It should be noted that the above calculated mod-
uli and layer coefficient values represent the in situ Annual average daily traffic on the selected section of
site conditions at the time of testing. These values I-75 was 41,800 vehicles per day during the year of
may change due to moisture levels, freeze/thaw construction (2008) with 13,742 commercial vehi-
conditions, and other factors. Therefore, the above cles. Annual average daily traffic on the selected sec-
summary results should not be used without adjust- tion of M-84 was 11, 515 vehicles per day during the
ments in design. year of construction (2010) with 265 commercial ve-
hicles.

6 INCORPORATING SUBGRADE 6.1.2 Pavement Layer Properties for WESLEA and

STABILIZATION INTO PAVEMENT DESIGN
Short-term and long-term performances of stabilized
subgrades with recycled materials were evaluated
during using a series of laboratory experiments and
by evaluating field performance of stabilized pave-
ment sections. Both laboratory and field studies
showed significantly higher modulus values for the
stabilized subgrade layer when compared to the orig-
inal subgrade material. Also, if proper mix designs
were used, these studies show that the stabilized layer
was durable.
AASHTOWare Analyses
The in-situ subgrade in both of the selected sections
of I-75 and M-84 was clay (CL/A-6). However, dif-
ferent subgrade soil types (CL/A-6, ML/A-4, and
ML/A-7-6) were analyzed under the pavement struc-
ture to compare the effect of these different subgrades
and the effect of stabilization upon them.
For the WESLEA analysis, I-75 pavement was con-
sidered as an equivalent flexible pavement section
with 13 inches of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) paved on
the as constructed 16 inches of base layer over eight
inches of subbase layer. For the M-84 analysis, a con-
structed flexible pavement section with 7.75 inches of
HMA and 6 inches of aggregate base over 18 inches
of subbase was used. For the stabilized pavement de-
signs, a 12- inch thick stabilized layer with modulus
values shown in Tables 4 were used directly beneath
the subbase layer. Default Poisson’s ratios 0.35 for
HMA, 0.4 for granular materials, 0.35 for other ma-
terial including stabilized layers and 0.45 for sub-
grade soils were used.
For the Pavement ME analyses, the Poisson’s ra-
tio for the PC layer was considered as 0.2. As sug-
gested by the MDOT ME pavement design guideline,
a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 was implemented for all
other layers including HMA. Asphalt binder grade
PG 64-22 was used for M-84 while 70-22 was used
for I-75 for pavement ME design. The default mod-
ulus of elasticity recommended by the software appli-
cation was used.
6.2 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis using
WESLEA
WESLEA is a linear elastic multi-layer program that
enables the response analysis of a pavement structure
including the effects of complex load systems. It was
designed for layered elastic analysis of flexible pave-
ment structures. All layers are assumed to be isotropic
in all directions and infinite in the horizontal direc-
tion. The fifth layer is assumed to be semi-infinite in
the vertical direction. Material inputs include layer
thickness, modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and an index in-
dicating the degree of slip between the layers. Loads
are characterized by pressure and radius. The
WESLEA program calculates normal and shear
stresses, normal strain, and displacement at specified
locations.
to fatigue cracking. Alternately, if Nd<Nf, the pave-
ment structure failed due to rutting.
It should be noted that these predicted load cycles
should be used for comparison only. The predicted
number of cycles to failure were calculated consider-
ing the horizontal strain at the bottom of the asphalt
layer when considering fatigue cracking and vertical
strain the surface of the subgrade when considering
rutting.
6.2.1 Interpretation of WESLEA Results and Deter-
mination of Structural Layer Coefficient of
Stabilized Layers
The pavement responses under a standard load (dual-
wheel with 18-kip axle load) were calculated for the
pavement sections described previously. Both I-75
and M-84 pavement analyses consisted of nine pave-
ment sections each (3-untreated subgrades with dif-
ferent subgrades materials, 3-stabilized sections with
CKD and 3-stabilized sections with LKD/FA). Tables
7 and 8 show the calculated pavement responses for
each pavement section.
Both pavement sections show that failure was due
to fatigue cracking of the asphalt layer. This is the
generally expected failure criteria for thick pavement
sections such as the I-75 and M-84 sections.
Table 7 Pavement Responses under Standard Load for I-75
Equivalent Flexible Pavement Structure.
Sub- Treatment Stabilized Subgrade Pavement Re-
grdae sponse
Soil Thickness Layer εt (10- εc (10-
(in) Mod- 6) 6)

ulus
WESLEA analysis provides an effective method (ksi)
of comparing different pavement sections in terms of CL, Untreated 0 - 74.31 140.16
their structural response under standard loads. The A-6 8% CKD 12 9.8 72.56 77.93
3%LKD/9%FA 12 24.0 69.40 44.17
performance of these pavement sections was com- ML, Untreated 0 - 74.31 140.16
pared using following equations developed by the As- A-4 4% CKD 12 33.0 68.40 35.66
phalt Institute. 2% 12 29.0 69.00 40.71
LKD/5%FA
. .
0.0796 (12) CL, Untreated 0 - 74.31 140.16
A-7- 4% CKD 12 33.0 68.40 35.66
6 3%LKD/9%FA 12 31.0 68.67 37.94
.
1.365 10 (13) HMA Thickness = 13 inches
Failure Mode = Fatigue Cracking (Nf)
Where, Nf = load cycles to failure due to fatigue
cracking, Nd = load cycles to failure due to rutting, εt The tables 7 and 8 show the critical pavement re-
= maximum horizontal strain at the bottom of the as- sponse due to a standard load (tensile strain at the bot-
phalt layer, εc = maximum vertical strain on the sur- tom of the asphalt layer) was always lower for stabi-
face of the subgrade, E1 = elastic modulus of the as- lized pavement sections. This is due to the structural
phalt mixture contribution from the stabilized layer to the overall
pavement structure performance.
Once the Nf and Nd were determined from the
above equations, the critical pavement response was
determined by comparing the number of load cycles
to failure. If Nf < Nd, the pavement structure failed due
Table 8 Pavement Responses under Standard Load for M-84 Table 9 Layer Coefficients for Stabilized Layer based on I-75
Pavement Structure. Pavement Section.

Sub- Treatment Stabilized Sub- Pavement Re- Subgrade Soil Treatment Layer Coefficient
grdae grade sponse
CL, A-6 8% CKD 0.009
Soil Thick- Layer εt (10-6) εc (10-6)
ness Modulus 3%LKD/9%FA 0.020
(in) (ksi) 4% CKD 0.030
CL, Untreated 0 - 144.76 146.52 ML, A-4 2% LKD/5%FA 0.030
A-6 8% CKD 12 9.8 140.52 144.76 CL, A-7-6 4% CKD 0.030
3%LKD/9%F 12 24.0 140.20 140.20 3%LKD/9%FA 0.030
A
ML, Untreated 0 - 146.52 146.52
A-4 4% CKD 12 33.0 138.89 138.89 Table 10 Layer Coefficients for Stabilized Layer based on M-84
2% 12 29.0 139.67 139.67 Pavement Section.
LKD/5%FA
CL, Untreated 0 - 146.52 146.52 Subgrade Soil Treatment Layer Coefficient
A-7-6 4% CKD 12 33.0 138.89 138.89 CL, A-6 8% CKD 0.003
3%LKD/9%F 12 31.0 139.24 139.24 3%LKD/9%FA 0.010
A
4% CKD 0.010
HMA Thickness = 7.75 inches
ML, A-4 2% LKD/5%FA 0.010
Failure Mode = Fatigue Cracking (Nf)
CL, A-7-6 4% CKD 0.010
3%LKD/9%FA 0.010
The structural contribution of the stabilized layer was
quantified by employing an iterative process. In the
WESLEA analysis, asphalt thickness values were Using the WESLEA analysis, layer coefficients of the
changed to obtain the same critical response as the stabilized layer can be used to determine the
pavement section having untreated subgrade. For ex- structural number (SN) of the stabilized layer as well
ample, to determine the structural contribution of 8%
CKD for Soil 1 (CL/A-6) in the I-75 pavement sec- as in designing pavement pursuant to AASHTO 1993
tion, the asphalt section was reduced from 13 inches guidelines.
to 12.75 inches. This reduction increased the critical
tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer from
72.56×10-6 to 74.31×10-6. 6.3 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) for 1993
AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design
For the 1993 AASHTO pavement design analy-
sis, the layer coefficient of stabilized subgrade (a4)
was calculated using the reduced HMA thickness. As- The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is the design
suming an AASHTO layer coefficient of 0.42 for as- input parameter representing the in-situ soil in the
phalt layer, the layer coefficient for Soil 1, stabilized AASHTO 1993 pavement design guideline for rigid
with 8% CKD for 12 inches, was calculated by equat- pavements. Modulus of subgrade reaction is the total
ing Structural Numbers (SN) for a 0.25-inch thick as- support provided by all layers below the concrete
phalt layer to a 12-inch thick stabilized soil with 8% pavement structure including any base and subbase
CKD as defined below. layers. The modulus of subgrade reaction is measured
directly on subgrade surface using a plate test. How-
(14) ever, the long-term effective design value of k is af-

fected by factors such subgrade resilient modulus,
subgrade moisture conditions, confinement provided
(15) by the constructed pavement structure, and loss of
0.42 0.25 12 (16) support, if any.
. . In order to incorporate the effect of the stabilized
% 0.009 (17)
layer, hence increased stiffness, a composite value of
k was used. The method used to calculate the compo-
Similarly, the following layer coefficients were deter- site k was based on American Concrete Pavement As-
mined for each soil type stabilized with a different sociation (ACPA) published design charts (ACPA,
percentage of stabilizing materials. 2012).
ACPA also provides an online composite modu-
lus of subgrade reaction (kc) calculator for using
above charts for multiple layers of subbase and sub-
grade materials as given in the following link.

(http://apps.acpa.org/applibrary/KValue/#).
ACPA online composite modulus calculator was used
for following combinations of base, stabilized sub-
grade and natural subgrade to determine kc.
Once the composite modulus of subgrade reaction
is determined, Figure 1 was used to correct the mod-
ulus of subgrade for the potential loss of support
(LOS) due to pumping, etc. An MDOT established
value of 0.5 is used for LOS (for open graded base
materials) to determine the effective modulus of sub-
grade reaction as shown in Figure 1. As an example,
the effective modulus of subgrade reaction is 213
psi/in for a 8% CKD stabilized subgrade material with
16 inches of aggregate base material.
6.4 AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design proce-
dure is the most recent state-of-the-art pavement de-
sign method introduced by National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP, 2004). The
Pavement ME design analysis shows similar perfor-
mance results for both the untreated and stabilized
pavement sections. Only minor improvements were
estimated from the Pavement ME Design approach.
7 CONCLUSIONS

This study quantified the characteristics of subgrades

stabilized with recycled materials that would provide
a stable platform during construction as well as po-
tentially contribute to improved long-term pavement
performance. A series of laboratory experiments, and
a field data collection program of existing stabilized
pavement sections were performed to assess the char-
acteristics of stabilized subgrades. Based on the re-
search findings, the following conclusions,
comments, and recommendations are made.
The soil types selected for the study represented
weaker subgrade soils found in the State of Michigan.
More specifically, if these soils are encountered dur-
ing construction, soil removal and replacement are re-
quired to complete construction activities. Three
problematic soils types were identified and used for
  this study: CL (A-6)-type soil from Detroit, Michi-
gan; ML (A-4)-type soil from Livonia, Michigan; and
CL (A-7-6) type soil from Chippewa County in the
Figure 1 Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Considering Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Potential Loss of Support (Ref: AASHTO 1993 Pavement De- The laboratory investigation program included de-
sign Guideline).
termining basic soil characteristics and properties:
The following table shows the calculated effective grain size, Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit, Maximum
modulus of subgrade reaction values for subgrades Dry Density and Optimum Water Content, and Un-
stabilized with different stabilization materials. confined Compressive Strength (UCS). After deter-
mining these baseline soil properties, a series of mix
Table 11 Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction. designs were performed to determine the minimum
stabilizer percentage required for long-term stabiliza-
Subgrade Soil Treatment Composite k Effective tion or short-term subgrade modification. For all soil
(kc) psi/in. Modulus of
Subgrade Re-
types, CKD and LKD mixed with FA were identified
action (Keff) as long-term stabilization materials when used at spe-
(psi/in.) cific percentages. FA and LKD only worked for some
CL, A-6 Un-stabilized 418 209 soil types as a short-term modifier to construct upper
8% CKD 426 213
3%LKD/9%FA 482 241
pavement layers. CF and DLKD did not show any
ML, A-4 Un-stabilized 418 209 short or long term potential for subgrade stabilization
4% CKD 524 262 for selected soil types.
2%LKD/5%FA 506 253 The field investigation of four sites revealed that
CL, A-7-7 Un-stabilized 418 209 stabilized layers retained strength after a number of
4% CKD 524 262
freeze/thaw cycles and moisture cycles.
3%LKD/9%FA 515 257
Using the laboratory data from the suitable stabi-
lized subgrades, pavement design inputs were devel-
oped from a limited analytical investigation. The in-
put parameters were determined for the stabilized
layer modulus values for mechanistic-empirical pave-
ment designs as shown in Table 4 and structural layer
coefficients for 1993 AASHTO pavement designs as Little, D.N. and Shafee Yusuf, F.A.M (2001), “Example Prob-
shown in Tables 9 and 10. lem Illustrating the Application of the NLA MDTP to Ascer-
tain Engineering Properties of Lime-Treated Subgrades for
Mechanistic Pavement Design/Analysis”, National Lime As-
REFERENCES sociation, http://www.lime.org/AMDTP.pdf, accessed Feb-
ruary 15, 2013.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of-
Mallela, J., Von Quintus, H., Smith K. (2004), “Consideration
ficials (AASHTO) (1993), AASHTO Guide for Design of
of lime-stabilized layers in Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Pavement Structures, American Association of State High-
Design”, National Lime Association, Arlington, VA 22203.
way and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
MDOT (2009), “Cement Kiln Dust Stabilized Test Section on I-
Bandara, N. and Grazioli, M. (2009). “Quantifying Pavement
96/I-75 in Wayne County, Construction Report”, Report No.
Subgrade Strength Improvement and Pavement Performance
R-1530, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing,
by Chemical Treatment for Typical Michigan Subgrade
MI
Soils”, Eighth International Conference on the Bearing Ca-
MDOT (2015), Michigan DOT User Guide For Mechanistic-
pacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, Champaign, IL.
Empirical Pavement Design, Michigan Department of Trans-
Bandara, N. and Grazioli, M. (2009), “Cement Kiln Dust Stabi-
portation, Lansing, Michigan
lized Test Section on I-96/I-75 in Wayne County, Construc-
NCHRP (2004), “Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
tion Report” Report No. R-1530, Michigan Department of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures”, National Cor-
Transportation, Lansing, Michigan.
porative Highway Research Program, Transportation Re-
N. Bandara, Tarik Binoy Habib, Haithem S Aboujrad, Juliana
search Board, National Research Council,
Sato, (2015). “Freeze-Thaw Durability of Subgrades Stabi-
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ar-
lized with Recycled Materials”, ASCE Cold Regions Engi-
chive/mepdg/Part2_Chapter1_Foundation.pdf, accessed
neering Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.
March 15, 2015.
Nishantha Bandara, Tarik Binoy Habib, Haithem S Aboujrad,
National Lime Association, (2006) “Technical Brief: Mixture
Juliana Sato, (2015). “Pavement Subgrade Stabilization with
Design and Testing Procedure for Lime Stabilized Soils.”
Recycled Materials”, ASCE Airfield and Highway Pavement
http://www.lime.org/Oct2006VerMix Design.pdf”, February
Conference, Miami, Florida.
13, 2013.
Nishantha Bandara, Elin Jensen and Tarik Binoy (2016). “Per-
Nikraz, H.R., “Engineering Properties and Performance of Lime
formance Evaluation of Subgrade Stabilization with Recy-
Kiln Dust for Subgrade Stabilization of Soft Clay,” Proceed-
cled Materials”. Research Report RC-1635, Michigan De-
ings, 3rd International Conference on Road & Airfield Pave-
partment of Transportation, Lansing, Michigan.
ment Technology, Vol. 2, Information Institute of Science
Button, J.W. (2003). “Kiln Dust for Stabilization of Pavement
and Technology, Ministry of Communications, P. R. China,
Base and Subgrade Materials”, Report No. TTI-2003-1,
1998, pp. 1466-1472
Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX.
PCA (1992b). “Soil-Cement Laboratory Handbook”, Portland
Collins, R.J. and Emery, J.J. (1983). “Kiln Dust-Fly Ash Sys-
Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
tems for Highway Bases and Sub-bases”, Report No.
Roy, B.K., (2007), "New Look at DCP Test with a Link
FHWA/RD-82/167, Federal Highway Administration, Wash-
to AASHTO SN Concept," ASCE Journal of Transporta-
ington DC.
tion Engineering , pp. 264-274, American Society of Civil
Dempsey, B. J and Thompson, M. R (1968). “Durability Prop-
Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.
erties of Lime-Soil Mixtures.” Highway Research Record
Sargand, S., Khoury, I, Gray, J. and Al-Jhayyish, A.(2014), “In-
No. 235, National Research Council, Washington DC., pp.
corporating Chemical Stabilization of the Subgrade in Pave-
61-75.
ment Design and Construction Practices”, ODOT/FHWA-
Hopkins, T. C. (2002), Beckham, T. L., Sun, L., Ni, B., and
2014/12, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus,
Butcher, B., "Long-Term Benefits of Stabilizing Soil Sub-
OH.
grades," Research Report KTC-02-19/SPR-196-99-1F, Uni-
Thompson, M. R. (1966). “Shear strength and elastic properties
versity of Kentucky Transportation Center, College of Engi-
of lime-soil mixtures.” Highway Research Record, Washing-
neering, Lexington, Kentucky.
ton, D.C., 139, 1-14.
Little, D.N. (2008) “Evaluation of Structural properties of Lime
Thompson, M.R. (1970a) “Suggested Method of Mixture De-
Stabilized Soils and Aggregates.”
sign Procedures for lime-Treated Soils.” ASTM Special
http://www.lime.org/soil.pdf, accessed February 12, 2013
Technical Publication, No. 479.
Little, D.N. (1999), “Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime
Thompson, M.R. (1970b), “Soil Stabilization for Pavement Sys-
Stabilized Soils and Aggregates, Volume 1: Summary of
tems – State of the Art”. Technical Report: Department of the
Findings”, National Lime Association,
Army, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,
http://www.lime.org/SOIL.PDF, accessed February 14,
Champaign, IL.
2013.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1992), Description and
Little, D.N. (2000), “Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime
Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, De-
Stabilized Soils and Aggregates, Volume 3: Mixture Design
partment of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wash-
& Testing Protocol for Lime Stabilized Soils”, National Lime
ington DC.
Association, http://www.lime.org/SOIL3.PDF, accessed
Windows Pavement Analysis Software (WinPAS) Guide
February 13, 2013.
(2012), American Concrete Pavement Association, Rose-
Little, D.N. and Nair, S. (2009a). “Recommended Practice for
mont, IL.
Stabilization of Subgrade Soils and Base Materials”, NCHRP
Zaman, M., Laguros, J.G., and Sayah, A. (1992), “Soil Stabili-
W144, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
zation Using Cement Kiln Dust”, Proceedings, 7th Interna-
Little, D.N. and Nair, S. (2009b). “Recommended Practice for
tional Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, Texas, pp.1-5.
Stabilization of Sulfate Rich Subgrade Soils”, NCHRP
W145, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.

View publication stats