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

net/publication/260061662

Model for prediction of resilient modulus incorporating matric suction for

recycled unbound granular materials

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · November 2013

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2012-0406

CITATIONS READS

52 1,172

3 authors:

Abdelhalim Moawad Azam Donald Anthony Cameron

Mansoura University University of South Australia
33 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   759 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Md Mizanur Rahman
University of South Australia
155 PUBLICATIONS   1,818 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Expansive clay soils, soil suction and ground movement prediction View project

Model for prediction of resilient modulus incorporating matric suction for recycled unbound granular materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdelhalim Moawad Azam on 23 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1143

ARTICLE
Model for prediction of resilient modulus incorporating matric
suction for recycled unbound granular materials
A.M. Azam, D.A. Cameron, and M.M. Rahman
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

Abstract: This paper presents experimental results on the effect of matric suction on the resilient modulus of four recycled
unbound granular materials. The recycled materials were prepared at moisture contents ranging between 70% and 90% of
optimum moisture content (OMC) and tested in a repeated load triaxial test (RLTT) apparatus under various stress regimes.
Soil-water characteristic curves (SWCC) were established for each material by preparing samples at various moisture contents
and measuring matric suction with filter papers. To obtain the wet end of the SWCC, further samples were conditioned on a
tension plate at suctions controlled by the hanging water column method. Some published models for prediction of resilient
modulus were applied to the experimental data, but the correlations were unsatisfactory generally, and so an improved model
was sought. Subsequently, a model with four terms and six constants was developed, which followed the general power law. A
single set of material constants was found for all recycled materials to provide satisfactory predictions of resilient modulus (R2 =
0.88), over a wide range of stresses and moisture states.

Key words: recycled aggregates, matric suction, soil-water characteristic curve, resilient modulus, predictive model.

Résumé : Cet article présente les résultats expérimentaux de l’effet de la succion matricielle sur le module de résilience de
quatre matériaux granulaires lâches recyclés. Les matériaux recyclés ont été préparés à des teneurs en eau variant de 70 à 90 %
de la teneur en eau optimale (TEO) et ont été testés dans un appareil d’essai triaxial à charge répétée (ETCR) sous différents
For personal use only.

régimes de contraintes. Les courbes de rétention d’eau (CRE) ont été établies pour chaque matériau en préparant des échantillons
à différentes teneurs en eau et en mesurant la succion matricielle avec des papiers filtres. Afin d’obtenir la portion humide de la
CRE, d’autres échantillons ont été conditionnés sur une plaque à tension à des succions contrôlées par la méthode de la colonne
d’eau suspendue. Certains modèles de prédiction du module de résilience publiés ont été appliqués aux résultats expérimentaux,
mais les corrélations étaient généralement insatisfaisante, alors un modèle amélioré a été recherché. Par la suite, un modèle
comportant quatre termes et six constantes a été développé, qui est conforme à la loi de puissance générale. Un seul ensemble
de constantes de matériaux a été déterminé pour tous les matériaux recyclés afin d’obtenir des prédictions satisfaisantes du
module de résilience (R2 = 0,88), et ce, pour une variété de contraintes et d’états d’humidité. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : agrégats recyclés, succion matricielle, courbe de rétention d’eau, module de résilience, modèle prédictif.

Introduction affected by the compressive strength of the original concrete, the

Resilient modulus is an important engineering parameter for
the characterization of unbound granular materials (UGM) as it is
used in mechanistic pavement thickness design, for example, in
the 2002 Design guide of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2002). The resilient modulus is an
indication of the elastic behaviour of unbound pavement materi-
als and soils under repeated traffic loads.
The resilient modulus depends on various factors, such as
deviator stress, confining stress, density, and moisture content.
George (2004) and Mohammad et al. (1999) reported that the most
influential soil index properties with respect to resilient modulus
were moisture content, degree of saturation, material passing
#200 sieve, liquid limit, plasticity index, and density. Witczak
et al. (2000) studied the influence on the resilient modulus of
cohesive soils of changes of relative moisture content either side
of optimum moisture content (OMC) for material compacted at
maximum dry density (MDD). It was observed that even low vari-
ations in moisture content resulted in significant changes in re-
silient modulus.
Nataatmadja and Tan (2001) found that the resilient modulus of
well-graded recycled (or crushed) concrete aggregate (RCA) can be
amount of softer material in the RCA, and the aggregate shape.
Many predictive models have been developed, such as the
K–Theta (K–␪) model (Hicks and Monismith 1971), the modified
universal model (AASHTO 2002), and the models of May and
Witczak (1981), Gupta et al. (2007), Liang et al. (2008), and Cary and
Zapata (2011). Those models were based on the behavior of sub-
grade soils and (or) virgin aggregate, not recycled products, with
their added complexity. A few of the models referred to include
the effect of matric suction on resilient modulus and have been
shown to be successful, but how practical they are to implement
can be an issue. So the challenges are to develop a model for
recycled materials, which preferably incorporates soil suction in a
simple but effective way.
Thus, the paper sets out to review previously published models
for resilient modulus (Mr) and the effect of matric suction. Exper-
imental data from repeated load triaxial test (RLTT) studies on
four unbound recycled granular materials are presented, and the
influence of initial matric suction on material behaviour is high-
lighted. An improved and simplified predictive model for resil-
ient modulus is presented for all these materials. A single set of

Received 6 November 2012. Accepted 2 September 2013.

A.M. Azam, D.A. Cameron, and M.M. Rahman. School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Australia.
Corresponding author: D.A. Cameron (e-mail: donald.cameron@unisa.edu.au).

Can. Geotech. J. 50: 1143–1158 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0406 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 26 September 2013.
 1144 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

constants and exponents was found to be adequate for the
materials tested.
Literature review
Models for prediction of resilient modulus
Several constitutive models for modeling the resilient modulus
of soils have been proposed in the past. Hicks and Monismith
(1971) found from their studies that stress level is the most influ-
encing factor on the resilient modulus of granular pavement
materials. The authors proposed the simple K–␪ model, which
includes only bulk stress
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
drying a saturated sample or by wetting a dry sample; the former
is generally preferred.
Walker (1997) reported that significant matric suctions can be de-
veloped in a UGM. Walker (1997) measured both matric and total
suctions for three unbound pavement materials (crushed basalt
base, sandstone base, and clay soil as subgrade) taken from two ex-
perimental pavements. The materials were compacted by both stan-
dard and modified compactive effort and suctions were measured by
the filter paper (FP) method. Matric suction was found to range from
0 to 45 kPa for crushed basalt, from 0 to 3500 kPa for sandstone, and
from 500 to 9500 kPa for clay material. The matric suctions were

(1) Mr ⫽ k1␪k2
where Mr is resilient modulus (MPa), ␪ is bulk stress (= ␴1 + 2␴3
(MPa)), ␴1 is major principal stress, ␴3 is confining pressure, and k1
and k2 are the regression constant and exponent, respectively.
May and Witczak (1981) proposed a power equation (eq. (2),
hereafter referred to as the May and Witczak model) that relied on
normalized measures of the mean stress and the octahedral shear
stress as follows:
recorded at OMC and were found to be 5, 400, and 650 kPa for
crushed basalt, sandstone, and clay subgrade, respectively. Therefore
it may be concluded that matric suction exists within an UGM, albeit
of a lower level than in clay, which will contribute to strength and
stiffness (Heath et al. 2004; Gupta et al. 2007).
Nokkaew et al. (2012) measured the matric suction of three
recycled asphalt pavements (RAP) and three RCA base course prod-
ucts. The authors used a hanging water column test to determine
the SWCC by progressive drying. The measured matric suctions
ranged from 0.05 to 75 kPa for the recycled products.
Several empirical equations have been proposed to fit suction –

冉 冊冉 冊
moisture content data to an SWCC (e.g., van Genuchten (1980);
␴m k1 ␶oct k2
(2) Mr ⫽ K0 Fredlund and Xing (1994)). These equations rely firstly on the sat-
pa ␶ref urated water content of the soil. Houston et al. (2006) provided
SWCC fitting parameters for both plastic and nonplastic soils
where pa is atmospheric pressure, ␴m is mean normal stress (= (␴1 + based on the particle size distribution and the soil plasticity. The
2␴3)/3); ␶oct is octahedral shear stress (= 共兹2/3兲共␴1 ⫺ ␴3兲); ␶ref is refer- basic equation for the SWCC was an extension of that proposed by
For personal use only.

ence shear stress (= 兹2/3qf); qf is peak shear strength (= d + ␴d tan␤);
d and ␤ are Drucker–Prager failure parameters; and K0 is a regression
parameter.
The mechanistic empirical pavement design guide proposed a
variation of eq. (3) as the modified universal model (AASHTO 2002)
for prediction of resilient modulus. The universal model is:
Fredlund and Xing (1994).
In 2012, Gould et al. (2012) introduced a new model for an SWCC
(hereafter referred to as the Gould et al. model) that was built on the
characteristic features of the SWCC, as shown in Fig. 1, which in-
cluded the
• air-entry value (uae);

冉p␪ 冊 冉 冊
• residual suction (ur);
k2 ␶oct k3
(3) Mr ⫽ K1pa ⫹1 • minimum suction (umin);
a pa • maximum suction (umax);
• saturated gravimetric water content (wsat);
where K1 and k3 are regression parameters or exponents. • slope of the initial portion of the curve (m);
It should be noted at this point that not one of these models • slope of the central portion (n); and
incorporated the moisture state of the UGM. The importance of • slope of the final portion of curve (o).
moisture state on the performance of UGMs is discussed in the
next section. In addition, two fitting parameters were required to consider
the curvature of the SWCC at uae and ur, (i.e., ␾ae and ␾r).
Soil suction in UGM and soil-water characteristic curve The Gould et al. model is
(SWCC) models
m⫺n ∗
In Australia, UGM of a pavement are placed generally well
above soil water tables, and tend to remain unsaturated while in
(4) w(u∗) ⫽ ⫺
␾ae␲
关f(u ) ⫺ f共umin
∗
兲兴 ⫺ n␾⫺␲o 关g(u∗) ⫺ g共umin
∗
兲兴
r
service. The change in total suction is usually represented by the m⫹n ∗ m⫹o ∗
change in matric suction as the solute suction does not seem to be ⫹ ␺ ⫺ umin ⫹ wsat
2 2
sensitive to the changes in the soil water content, according to
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) and Khoury et al. (2003). In the
longer term and with saline soils this may not be the case. where
Nonetheless, recent developments in the theory of unsaturated
soil behavior have concentrated on matric suction. Although (5) u∗ ⫽ log10(u), ∗
uae ⫽ log10(uae), and ur∗ ⫽ log10(ur)
Kodikara (2012) recognized the importance of matric suction on
the volume change of compacted soils, their concern about the (6) f(x) ⫽ ␾ae共x ⫺ uae
∗
兲 tan⫺1关␾ae共x ⫺ uae∗ 兲兴
hysteresis developed between wetting and drying of soils led 1
them to propose an alternative parameter, moisture ratio, ew, ⫺ ln兵1 ⫹ 关␾ae共x ⫺ uae
∗ 2
兲兴 其
2
which is the product of specific gravity and gravimetric moisture
content. Validation of Kodikara’s proposed new model is needed. (7) g(x) ⫽ ␾r共x ⫺ ur∗兲 tan⫺1关␾r共x ⫺ ur∗兲兴
Many researchers (e.g., Fredlund et al. 1994; Vanapalli et al.
1
1996, 1998; Sawangsuriya et al. 2008) have expounded the impor- ⫺ ln兵1 ⫹ 关␾r共x ⫺ ur∗兲兴2其
tance of the relationship between matric suction and moisture 2
content (gravimetric or volumetric) on soil behavior. This rela-
tionship is presented by a SWCC. The SWCC can be established by where x is matric suction (= um).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Azam et al.
Fig. 1. Characteristic features of SWCC (adapted from Gould et al. 2012).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
In summary, an UGM can have significant suction and a SWCC
may be established for the UGM. The next section discusses the
influence of suction and how it has been incorporated into pre-
For personal use only.
dictive models for resilient modulus.
Previous resilient modulus models incorporating soil
suction
It has been shown that resilient modulus of subgrade soils and
UGMs increases with increase of matric suction (or decrease of
moisture content) (Craciun and Lo (2010) and Azam and Cameron
(2013a), for UGMs; Cary and Zapata (2011) for UGMs and subgrades;
Brown (1996), Parreira and Goncalves (2000), Khoury and Zaman
(2004), Yang et al. (2005), Gupta et al. (2007), and Liang et al. (2008),
for subgrades). Correlations have been developed by most of these
researchers between resilient modulus and matric suction.
Fredlund et al. (1977) attempted to relate the resilient modulus
of compacted subgrades with deviator stress, with the regression
constants being dependent upon matric suction. Experimental
data indicated good correlation between the observed and esti-
mated resilient moduli. Equation (8) presents this early Fredlund
et al. model as follows:
(8) log Mr ⫽ cld ⫺ mld(␴1 ⫺ ␴3)
where cld and mld are functions of matric suction.
Yang et al. (2005) explored correlations with either total or ma-
tric suction for subgrade soils and found that matric suction pro-
vided the better correlation. The authors proposed a predictive
model incorporating deviator stress and matric suction
(9) Mr ⫽ k1(␴d ⫹ ␹wum)k2
where ␹w is Bishop’s effective stress parameter.
␹w has the same numerical limit as the degree of saturation, as
it varies between 0 and 1 (completely dry and saturated, respec-
tively). Yang et al. (2005) adopted the empirical expression for ␹w
developed by Khalili and Khabbaz (1998)
(10) ␹w ⫽ 冋 (ua ⫺ uw)b
ua ⫺ uw 册
0.55
1145
where (ua – uw)b (referred to as uae previously) is the air-entry value
of matric suction, at which point when drying the soil, air starts to
enter the largest pores in the soil matrix.
Gupta et al. (2007) studied the effect of soil suction on the resil-
ient modulus of subgrade soils. The authors found that the rela-
tionship between resilient modulus and matric suction was a
power function. A new model was developed (referred to hereaf-
ter as the Gupta et al. model) as follows:
(11) Mr ⫽ K1pa 冉 ␴b ⫺ 3K6
pa 冊冉
k2 ␶oct
pa
⫹ K7 冊 k3
⫹ ␣1(ua ⫺ uw)␤1
where ␴b is bulk stress (= ␪ (kPa)), ua – uw is matric suction (kPa), K6
and K7 are regression parameters (K6 ≤ 0 and K7 ≥ 1), k1 ≥ 0, k2 ≥ 0,
and ␣1 and ␤1 are the intercept and slope of the resilient modulus
relationship with matric suction (power equation), respectively.
The constants ␣1 and ␤1 were derived from the resilient modu-
lus data for samples prepared over a range of suction for each
material and conducted with a bulk stress of 83 kPa and an octa-
hedral shear stress of 19 kPa as recommended by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 2003; hereafter
referred to as NCHRP 1-28A) for subgrades under typical pavement
stress conditions. Correlations between these parameters and ba-
sic soil properties were offered, however, they were not statisti-
cally strong.
Liang et al. (2008) also investigated cohesive subgrade soils and
presented a predictive model for resilient modulus (eq. (12)),
which was similar to the universal soil model. The mean stress
was expanded to almost an effective stress term incorporating
matric suction and ␹w (Khalili and Khabbaz 1998). The accuracy of
the proposed model was validated against experimental data for
A-4 and A-6 soils (silty and clay soils, respectively).
冉 冊冉 冊
␪ ⫹ ␹wum k2 ␶oct k3
(12) Mr ⫽ k1pa ⫹1
pa pa
The model of Liang et al. (2008) is attractive as it takes into
account the effect of both stress state and moisture content.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1146
Cary and Zapata (2011), proposed a predictive model that incor-
porated the effect of seasonal variations in matric suction on re-
silient modulus, as given in eq. (13). A silty sand subgrade and a
base course were tested to validate the model. The base material
was tested under drained and undrained conditions; however, the
subgrade was tested under a drained condition.
冉 冊冉 冊冉
␪net ⫺ 3⌬uw-sat k2 ␶oct k3 um0 ⫺ ⌬um
(13) Mr ⫽ k1 pa ⫹1 ⫹1
pa Pa pa
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
where k1 , k2, k3 , and k4 are regression parameters (k1 > 0, k2 > 0,
k3 < 0, and k4 > 0); ␪net is net bulk stress (= (␪ – 3ua), where ua is pore
air pressure); ⌬uw-sat is build-up of pore-water pressure under sat-
urated conditions, in such cases ⌬um = 0; umo is initial matric soil
suction; and ⌬um is relative change of matric soil suction with
respect to umo due to build-up of pore-water pressure under un-
saturated conditions, in this case ⌬uw-sat = 0.
All these suction-inclusive models have practical limitations. As
already stated, the Gupta et al. (2007) model requires resilient
modulus testing of samples of the material prepared at different
matric suctions under a set stress regime. A limitation of the
model of Liang et al. (2008) is that an accurate determination of
matric suction is required for wet soil conditions (low suctions) to
obtain the air entry value. For the application of the model of Cary
and Zapata (2011), the pore-air pressure is required to determine
the net bulk stress and the likely change of matric suction must
also be known because of pore-water pressure build-up during
For personal use only.
repeated loading.
To simplify and possibly to improve these models, the authors
devised a testing program to generate data for unbound recycled
granular material and subsequently evaluated existing models
before developing a new model.
Materials
Two products from different South Australian suppliers were
blended in this research to form the recycled product; 20 mm RCA
base material and 20 mm recycled clay masonry (RCM). The prod-
uct suppliers were ResourceCo (RCO) and Adelaide Resource Re-
covery (ARR). The RCO product was blended in the University
laboratory at 10%, 20%, and 30% RCM by total aggregate dry mass.
The ARR material was delivered as a premixed combination of
RCA and RCM (80% RCA + 20% RCM).
Testing program and discussion
The experimental program included particle size distribution,
Atterberg limits, modified Proctor compaction and measurement
of initial matric suction. In addition, unconsolidated, undrained,
triaxial shear tests and RLTTs with multiple stress stages per-
formed.
Basic engineering properties
The particle size distribution of each blend of RCO was com-
pared with the Department for Transport, Energy, and Infrastruc-
ture (DPTI 2011) specifications for sub-base material and the
grading curves were found to be satisfactory. The grading curve of
the ARR product was compared with DPTI specifications for base
material and was found to be within the specified limits. In Table 1
the basic engineering properties of the blends are compared with
the DPTI specifications.
The plasticity of fines as described by liquid limit and plasticity
index generally met DPTI specifications for base material, except the
liquid limit for the ARR blend, which was one percentage point
higher than the maximum required. The MDD decreased and the
OMC increased as the percent of RCM increased for the RCO mate-
rial, which agreed with the finding of Poon and Chan (2006).
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
Suction measurement and SWCC
The FP method according to ASTM (2003a) standard D5298 was
used for indirect measurement of matric suction for the blends.
Samples of 100 mm diameter were prepared at different levels of
moisture content (dry side of OMC) and at a target dry density
ratio of 98% MDD.
Two samples were prepared at the same chosen moisture con-
冊
k4 tent. The sample height was reduced to 100 mm; compaction was
conducted in two layers, each 50 mm high after compaction. Ini-
tial trials were made by placing the filter paper on top of the first
compacted layer, followed by compaction of the second layer.
However, it was found that compaction of the second half of the
sample caused damage to the filter paper, and so subsequent sam-
ples were compacted without rodding between the two layers to
facilitate separation of the two halves of the sample and insertion
of filter papers. An air dry filter paper, Whatman No. 1 (85 mm
diameter), was protected by a 90 mm diameter filter paper on each
face to form a stack of three filter papers. The stack of papers was
placed in the middle of the sample, and the complete sample was
subsequently held securely in a tight fitting polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) tube. More details of the FP method are available in Azam
and Cameron (2013a).
The hanging water column technique was conducted according
to ASTM (2003b) standard D6836 to verify the values of matric
suction less than 10 kPa, which is the lower limit of suction for
filter papers (ASTM (2003a) standard D5298). The hanging column
(HC) apparatus consisted of four main parts: testing cell, outflow
column, manometer, and the HC as shown in Fig. 2. The testing
cell contained a low air entry (35 kPa) ceramic plate of 300 mm
diameter to condition the specimens to the required suction. Sam-
ples of dimensions, 72.6 mm diameter and 69 mm height, were
prepared in a stainless steel mould at OMC and at 98% MDD by
static compaction in one layer. The samples that were kept in the
mould were soaked in water for one week before testing to ensure
saturation of the sample.
Thereafter the samples were placed on the ceramic plate of the
testing cell and then the upper chamber of the cell was closed. The
reservoirs were filled with water and the plastic tube and the air
bubbles were removed. Thereafter, the specimens were allowed to
equilibrate for at least 48 h until movement of the air–water in-
terface ceased. After equilibration, the desired suction increment
was applied by adjusting the elevation of the water reservoirs
until the manometer represented the desired suction. Equilib-
rium was achieved when water ceased to flow from the specimen.
The specimen was weighed for determination of the moisture
content corresponding to the end suction, and was then returned
to the testing cell for applying the next suction level. At the end of
the test, the specimen was dried to obtain the final mass.
The suction data from both methods of measurement were
combined to form each SWCC. The average of the FP data for each
moisture content preparation was adopted; however, only one
sample for each blend was used to provide the HC data.
The results are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 for the RCO and the
ARR blends, respectively. The legend in these two figures differ-
entiates suction determined by HC and suction measured by FP.
The fitting of the suction data in these figures is according to
Gould et al. (2012; eqs. (4–7)). The regression parameters and the
correlation coefficient (R2) for each SWCC are provided in Table 2.
The regression parameters were determined by manual fitting,
using the soil properties from the experimental data, and the
parameters were found to fall within the allowable ranges re-
ported by Gould et al. (2012).
The shapes of the SWCCs were as expected, being generally
S-shaped. The fitting of the SWCC data for the 30% RCO blend was
incomplete as a residual suction was not evident from the data;
consequently the value of residual suction was set equal to the
maximum suction (106 kPa) to remove the second bending point
from the SWCC, as suggested by Gould et al. (2012).
Published by NRC Research Press
 Azam et al. 1147

Table 1. Engineering properties for blends.

Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (°)
RCM Fines Liquid Plasticity MDD OMC 70% 80% 90% 70% 80% 90%
Blend (%) (%) limit (%) index (%) (t/m3) (%) OMC OMC OMC OMC OMC OMC
DPTI-SA for base — — 25 (max) 6 (max) — — 150 (max) 150 (max) 150 (max) 45 (min) 45 (min) 45 (min)
DPTI-SA for sub-base — — 28 (max) 8 (max) — — 250 (max) 250 (max) 250 (max) 40 (min) 40 (min) 40 (min)
RCO 10 7.0 23.5 2.5 1.88 12.1 81 6 25 41 53 51
20 7.0 23.0 2.5 1.86 12.5 40 46 30 49 44 46
30 7.0 23.0 2.0 1.84 14.2 72 0 32 37 53 45
ARR 20 6.0 26.0 0.0 1.92 11.6 76 54 70 56 56 51
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

Fig. 2. Hanging water column apparatus.

Upper Reservoir
Outflow
Column

Manometer
For personal use only.

Lower Reservoir

Testing Cell

For samples of the two 20% crushed masonry blends prepared at
moulding moisture contents between 60% and 80% relative mois-
ture content (RMC), matric suction ranged from 35 to 450 kPa for
the ARR material, but was less for the RCO blend (22 to 275 kPa).
The greater plasticity of fines in the ARR product is the probable
reason for this difference in water retention.
It was expected that with the addition of more crushed masonry
in the blend, the matric suction would increase because of the
greater plasticity of the RCM fines. This indeed was observed at
matric suctions greater than 10 kPa for the RCO blends (Fig. 3).
Unexpectedly however, the 30% RCO soil showed less water retain-
ing capacity at low suction than did the 20% RCO material.
Suction and compaction
The matric suction data from the previous section are shown
against the compaction curve of each of the two materials with
20% RCM in Figs. 5 and 6. All materials were prepared to the same
dry density (98% of MDD) and so the data appear along a single
horizontal line, with the numerical value above or near the point
being the measured suction for that moisture state and dry den-
sity. It should be noted that the zero air void line intersected the
suction data at 2.6 and 4.6 kPa for the 20% RCO and the ARR
blends, respectively. The zero air void line (degree of saturation =
1) should intersect the suction data at 1 kPa, which theoretically is
considered the minimum. The small difference in measured suc-
tion and theoretical suction values at this wet soil end may be
attributed to the inaccuracy of both measuring low suction and
determination of specific gravity of mixed soil.
Kodikara (2012) constructed suction contours alongside com-
paction curves for different compaction energies to develop a
constitutive model for compacted soil. Suction contours could be
constructed for each material in the current study (refer to Figs. 5
and 6), provided further dry densities were explored.
Static triaxial test
As undrained triaxial testing is recommended by DPTI (2011) for
appraisal of recycled products for pavements, unconsolidated–

Published by NRC Research Press

 1148 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. 3. SWCC for RCO blends.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

Fig. 4. SWCC for ARR blend.

For personal use only.

Table 2. Regression parameters for each blend using the Gould et al. (2012) model.
Blend uae ur umin m n o ␾ae ␾r wsat(%) R2
10% RCO 7 35 1 −0.0001 −0.093 −0.026 3.5 80 14.5 0.996
20% RCO 5 30 1 −0.0085 −0.099 −0.008 15.0 6.5 16.0 0.999
30% RCO 6 106 1 −0.001 −0.105 −0.005 0.8 0.22 15.6 0.992
ARR 5 15 1 −0.0045 −0.099 −0.016 60.0 70.0 14.5 0.997

undrained triaxial shear tests were performed according to
Australian standard AS1289.6.4.1 (Standards Australia 1998) to
determine total shear strength parameters (apparent cohesion, c;
and angle of friction, ␾). Samples 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm
high were prepared for the triaxial cell at 70%, 80%, and 90% OMC,
and at 98% of MDD. Samples were prepared by static compaction
in two layers. The 20% blends were tested at two additional mois-
ture levels (60% and 100% OMC) to verify the relationship between
deviator stress and initial matric suction. Specimens were sub-
jected to three confining pressures; 25, 50, and 75 kPa. Owing to
the high shear strength of these granular materials, greater con-
fining pressures could not be considered with the available equip-
ment.
Figure 7 provides stress–strain curves for a confining pressure
of 50 kPa for three different RMC values for the 10% RCO blend. It
is evident from this figure that the moulding moisture content of

Published by NRC Research Press

 Azam et al. 1149

Fig. 5. Suction data against the compaction curve for 20% RCO blend.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
For personal use only.

Fig. 6. Suction data against the compaction curve for ARR blend.

Published by NRC Research Press

 1150
Fig. 7. Examples of stress–strain curves at different relative moisture contents for 10% RCM (RCO) at 50 kPa confining pressure.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
Fig. 8. Variations of deviator stress and static Young’s modulus with initial matric suction for 20% blends at 75 kPa confining pressure
For personal use only.
each sample had a significant effect on the peak deviator stress;
increased moisture content decreased the peak stress.
The static (monotonic) Young’s modulus was determined from
the stress–strain graph after making any necessary zero strain
adjustments. The secant modulus was determined to half of the
maximum deviator stress. The variations of the peak deviator
stress and Young’s modulus with initial matric suction are plotted
in Fig. 8; power functions have been fitted to the data. In general,
the stiffness and the strength of the blended materials increased
as the initial matric suction increased. Gupta et al. (2007) also
found that power law relationships could be successfully applied
to deviator stress and suction data for subgrade soils.
The impact of mean normal stress on Young’s modulus is de-
picted in Fig. 9 for all blends at different confining pressures and
moisture contents. As expected, the static Young’s modulus in-
creased as the mean normal stress increased. Again, the relation-
ship for all the data in this plot can be represented by a power
function as provided in eq. (14). Modulus and mean stress have the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
same units. The correlation coefficient for this power function
was 0.86. This function may be implemented in finite element
programs, such as AFENA (Carter and Balaam 1995) and will be
used in the future to predict the stresses and strains under static
wheel loading for the UGM.
(14) E ⫽ 184␴m
0.85
The values of apparent cohesion and friction angle for blends at
different levels of moisture content are presented in Table 1. The
maximum allowable cohesion of 150 kPa for a base was met by all
blends. Seventy-five percent of the specimens had friction angles
meeting the DPTI specification for base products, which was a
minimum value of 45°.
The apparent cohesion and friction angle of each blend did not
trend consistently with moisture content. However, the shear
strength for a given normal stress (e.g., 100 kPa) did decrease as
Published by NRC Research Press
 Azam et al.
Fig. 9. Young’s modulus against mean normal stress.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
Fig. 10. Apparent cohesion against percentage of optimum moisture content.
For personal use only.
expected (Azam and Cameron 2013b). The reasons for this appar-
ent contradiction may be the steepness of the failure envelope of
these materials and the small range of applied confining stresses,
which could have led to errors in interpretation of the peak
strength parameters.
For material compacted to the same dry density but at different
initial moisture contents, strength will vary largely because of soil
suction differences and not soil structure, so in keeping with
unsaturated soil theory regarding soil strength (e.g., Khalili and
Khabbaz 1998), the angle of friction was assumed constant for
each blend. Subsequently the average friction angle for each
blend was enforced and the cohesion intercept was adjusted ac-
cordingly. The resultant values of apparent cohesion are depicted
in Fig. 10. The cohesion is observed to decrease as the moulding
moisture content increased, generally speaking.
It is evident from Figs. 8, 9, and 10 that both initial moisture
content (or matric suction) and mean normal stress influence the
strength and stiffness of recycled UGM.
1151
Repeated loading triaxial test
The Australian test method (AustRoads) for resilient modulus eval-
uation was conducted for the blends (AustRoads 2007). In general,
the AustRoads procedure is similar to the approach specified by
AASHTO (2007) standard T307-99 in the multistage and the precon-
ditioning stage. However, the shape of the cyclic load pulse differs
between the two approaches. The shape is trapezoidal for AustRoads,
and ramping, loading, and unloading occur over a 3 s period. In con-
trast, the AASHTO protocol adopted a haversine shaped pulse over a 1 s
period. Furthermore, the number of load repetitions applied in the
AustRoads method in each stress stage is 200, but AASHTO stipulates
just 100 cycles. Lekarp et al. (2000), quoting Hicks (1970), stated that the
loading period made no difference to the resilient modulus, al-
though they suggested that saturated samples having low permea-
bility may be affected if drainage becomes ineffective.
Combinations of applied repeated vertical and static confin-
ing stresses were applied over 66 stress stages for each stage to
characterize the vertical resilient strain response. The required
Published by NRC Research Press
 1152 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. 11. Stress levels for resilient modulus (base material) (Austroads 2007).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

Fig. 12. Resilient modulus testing for the ARR blend at different levels of RMC.
For personal use only.

values of repeated deviator stress and static confining pressure for
the 66 stress stages for base material are shown in Fig. 11.
Based on the basic engineering properties reported earlier in
this paper, the RCO blends were expected to be suitable for sub-
base applications, while the ARR blend might be suitable as a base
course (in the top 150 mm below the pavement surface). Sub-base
materials are divided into upper and lower sub-base layers in the
approach taken by AustRoads (2007). The upper sub-base layer is
150 to 250 mm below the pavement surface, whereas the lower
sub-base is more than 250 mm below the pavement surface.
Replicate samples were prepared at target moisture contents of 70%,
80%, and 90% OMC and a target dry density of 98% of MDD (modified
compaction effort) for each blend. Sample deformations were mea-
sured with two pairs of inductance coils (“Emu” coils, Dawson 1994;
Janoo et al. 1999; Gabr et al. 2013) mounted on the sample.
The resilient modulus was calculated from the average over the
last six cycles of each stress stage. An example of the observed
variations of resilient modulus with RMC is shown in Fig. 12 for
the ARR blend. It is evident from Fig. 12 that the resilient modulus
decreased as RMC increased within all stress stages. The resilient

Published by NRC Research Press

 Azam et al.
modulus of samples in the last loading stage prepared at 67%
RMC was 120 MPa greater than for samples of the same material
prepared at 86% RMC. Therefore it is clear that it is important to
take the effect of moisture content on resilient modulus into
consideration, when considering a predictive model for resil-
ient modulus.
According to the recommendations of Vuong and Arnold
(2006), the number of stress stages may be reduced for relatively
lower strength materials, which are more suitable for upper and
lower sub-bases, to avoid failure of the material. Accordingly,
some samples failed before reaching the last stages of resilient
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
modulus testing where failure is increasingly more likely, as the
ratio of deviator stress to confining pressure is higher.
In summary, the importance of moisture content has been shown
on the static Young’s modulus, undrained strength, and resilient
modulus of these recycled materials. Thus the moisture state should
be incorporated in predictive models for resilient modulus.
Evaluations of models against new data
The resilient modulus testing of 24 samples generated 1406 data
points. The goodness of fit was accomplished by the statistical
software PASW 18, which was verified with the data analysis func-
tions in MS EXCEL. Statistical measurements are the coefficient of
correlation (R2), adjusted coefficient of correlation (Radj2
) and rela-
tive accuracy (standard error/standard deviation or Se/Sy). Subjec-
tive criteria for goodness of fit were reported by Witczak et al.
(2002). An excellent fit can be defined as Se/Sy ≤ 0.35 and R2 ≥ 0.90.
Values of Se/Sy of 0.36 to 0.55 and an R2 of 0.70 to 0.89, represent a
good fit. A fair fit is defined by Se/Sy of 0.56 to 0.75 and an R2 of 0.40
For personal use only.
to 0.69.
Additional statistical checks on each predictive model were per-
formed in terms of root mean square deviation (RMSD). The RMSD
is a measure of the differences between values predicted by a
model and the values actually measured. RMSD is used to compare
forecasting errors of different models for a particular variable, as
it is scale-dependent (Hyndman and Koehler 2006). In the follow-
ing discussion, percentage differences within the data were ap-
plied to obtain %RMSD to eliminate dependency on scale. This
modified RMSD, or %RMSD, is defined by
兺 [(x
冪 ⫺ xmeas)/xmeas]2
pred
(15) %RMSD ⫽ 100
n eq. (12). Figure 16 presents the fitting of the resilient modulus data.
where xpred is predicted value, xmeas is measured value, and n is
number of datasets.
Predictions of modulus were made using the various models,
and constants and exponents for each equation were found. The
correlations were assessed as previously discussed for goodness of
fit and %RMSD. The simple K–␪ model (eq. (1)) was the first model
investigated. The values of the constant and the exponent of the
K–␪ model, were 457 and 0.65, respectively. The correlation coef-
ficient was 0.72 and the relative accuracy was 0.53, which implied
a good correlation. The %RMSD was 16.3.
Subsequently, the May and Witczak predictive model (eq. (2))
was applied and evaluated. Figure 13 presents the resilient modu-
lus data using the May and Witczak model. Information concern-
ing the constants and exponents, the total number of data points
(n), and statistical values are presented in a legend to the figure. It
is apparent from Fig. 13 that the May and Witczak model provided
improved predictions for the resilient modulus for all blends, as
R2 was 0.75 compared with 0.72 for the K–␪ model. Similarly,
%RMSD was less at 14.9.
The modified universal model (eq. (3)) provided an R2 of 0.72 and
a value of Se/Sy of 0.53, and % RMSD = 16, which was as good a
statistical fit as the K–␪ model. So the May and Witczak model
provided better predictions. Nonetheless, this model may be im-
1153
proved by taking the effect of moisture content into consider-
ation, as discussed previously.
The measured data were applied to the model of Yang et al. (2005),
which considered moisture state in the form of matric suction, as
given by eq. (9). A comparison of predicted and measured resilient
modulus data are provided in Fig. 14. Predictions were only fair (R2 =
0.50 and %RMSD = 20.7), which is supported by the plot.
Thereafter predictions were sought from the model proposed
by Gupta et al. (2007), which also incorporated matric suction. The
initial matric suction of each specimen was applied in this model,
according to the SWCC for the blend. The model parameters, ␣1
and ␤1, were derived for a specific bulk stress level of 83 kPa and
an octahedral shear stress of 19 kPa, for subgrades, as recom-
mended by NCHRP 1-28A. As the tested material was UGM, more
appropriate stress levels were sought.
The specific recommendation by NCHRP 1-28A for the stress levels
suitable for base materials is a bulk stress of 208 kPa and an octahe-
dral shear stress of 49 kPa. Stresses close to the recommended values
of NCHRP are applied in the first stage of the AustRoads test protocol,
(bulk stress of 250 kPa and an octahedral shear of 47 kPa), and so the
data from this stage were used to find the parameters, ␣1 and ␤1, for
application of the Gupta et al. model. These stresses form the lowest
stress combination applied to base materials through the AustRoads
protocol. Admittedly, these stresses are much higher than those ap-
plied on subgrades, however, the Gupta et al. model cannot be eval-
uated without the parameters of ␣1 and ␤1. It was hoped that the
general form of the model could be appraised for granular bases
using this modification.
It was soon realized that the model was material dependent, as
a very poor statistical fit was achieved for all the data (R2 of 0.15
and %RMSD = 28). Nonetheless, the Gupta et al. model provided
reasonable values of R2 for individual blends as shown in Table 3.
As this model could not achieve the objective of this paper, which
was to predict resilient modulus over a wide range of materials, it
was not considered any further.
It should be noted that the Gupta et al. model tended to over-
estimate modulus (refer Fig. 15 for 20% RCO) and that the regres-
sion parameters seemed inconsistent between blends (refer
Table 3). It may also be observed that the trends for 10% and 30%
RCO, were better and had correlation coefficients of 0.85 and 0.89
and %RMSD of 10.7 and 9.7, respectively.
Finally the measured resilient moduli and specimen data were
trialled against the model of Liang et al. (2008), which is given in
The regression constants and exponents and the correlation coef-
ficient, R2, and % RMSD are presented in this figure. It was found
that the Liang et al. model provided reasonably good predictions
for the resilient modulus, but the R2 value of 0.74 fell in between
that for the models of May and Witczak (1981) and K–␪. A practical
limitation of this model is that an SWCC is needed to determine
the parameter ␹w.
The model of Cary and Zapata (2011) was unable to be applied to
the RLTT data as the change in suction with repeated loading was
unknown. The build up of pore-water pressure and soil pore-air
pressure during RLTT were not measured, primarily as it was
considered to be difficult and so was seen as an inappropriate test
procedure for commercial laboratories to conduct.
In summary, all of the investigated resilient modulus models
were unable to provide adequately reliable predictions for the
range of UGMs in this study. The K–␪ and May and Witczak models
provided good predictions for resilient modulus, as R2 was higher
than 0.70, despite the exclusion of the effect of moisture state. The
three models that do incorporate moisture state, did not perform
any better, when appraised against the data from the materials in
this study. Indeed the model of Gupta et al. (2007) appeared not to
be suitable for UGMs. The Liang et al. model (2008) performed
better than the Yang et al. (2005) model. A practical limitation
common to these suction-based models is the difficulty in the
Published by NRC Research Press
 1154 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. 13. Predicted resilient modulus against measured resilient modulus for all blends, May and Witczak (1981) model.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
For personal use only.

Fig. 14. Predicted resilient modulus against measured resilient modulus for all blends by Yang et al. (2005) model.

Table 3. Regression parameters for each blend using the Gupta et al. determination of the parameter, ␹w, which generally requires ac-
(2007) model. curate determination of the SWCC.
Blend K1 k2 k3 K6 K7 ␣1 ␤1 R2 To improve the prediction of resilient modulus and to improve
practicality, a new model was developed for recycled UGM, which
10% RCO 0.30 1.08 0.0 1.05 0.43 47.0 0.33 0.84 is presented in the following section.
20% RCO 0.20 1.20 −0.10 1.00 1.20 105 0.18 0.77
30% RCO 0.25 1.14 0.0 1.02 1.20 31.3 0.32 0.89 Proposed simplified model incorporating soil
ARR 0.002 0.78 1.33 3.87 83.1 9.58 0.41 0.84
suction
The model for prediction of modulus could be improved by con-
sidering particle size grading, and aggregate properties, however,

Published by NRC Research Press

 Azam et al. 1155

Fig. 15. Predicted resilient modulus against measured resilient modulus for 20% RCM (RCO) blend by Gupta et al. (2007) model.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

Fig. 16. Predicted resilient modulus against measured resilient modulus for all blends by Liang et al. (2008) model.
For personal use only.

particle size gradings were generally similar for the materials in this
study. Moreover, as discussed throughout this paper, the major defi-
ciency of current models is consideration of moisture state through
degree of saturation or soil suction. Although some models already
exist, they have been based on correlations with subgrades and have
been found wanting when applied to UGM.
The multiplication of power terms is common to most models,
although the model of Gupta et al. (2007), as expressed by eq. (11),
multiplied the stress terms and added the suction term.
A trial was conducted to introduce RMC, which represents the
compacted moisture content normalized by the OMC, in the May
and Witczak model. RMC was incorporated as another multiplying
power term. The correlation coefficient was improved to 0.80 and
%RMSD was reduced to 13.1.
Further improvement was sought by adopting matric suction
into the model, which has been shown to be a much better
predictor of engineering behaviour than moisture content
(Khoury et al. 2003; Cary and Zapata 2011). Because Gupta et al.
(2007) and Azam and Cameron (2013a) found that the relation-
ship between the resilient modulus and matric suction of a
material could be represented by a power function, the initial
sample matric suction was adopted in the model in the form of

Published by NRC Research Press

 1156 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. 17. Predicted resilient modulus against measured resilient modulus for all blends by eq. (16).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

Fig. 18. Predicted resilient modulus against measured resilient modulus for all blends by eq. (17).
For personal use only.

a power law, as provided in eq. (16). The initial matric suction moduli (Fig. 17) may be compared directly with Fig. 13 (May and
after compaction was chosen to be normalized by the atmo- Witczak model). It is evident that the suction term has brought in
spheric pressure. most of the outlying data points. Indeed, the addition of the ma-
tric suction term in the May and Witczak model increased the
(16) Mr ⫽ k0 冉 冊冉 冊冉 冊
␴m
pa
k1 ␶oct
␶ref
k2 um
pa
k3 correlation coefficient by 10 percentage points.
Further trials to produce even better correlations were con-
ducted. Soil density has been shown by numerous researchers
to affect resilient modulus (Mohammad et al. 1999; George
where um is matric suction, after compaction and before load- 2004; Hopkins et al. 2007; Ba et al. 2011). Therefore the dry
ing (kPa). density ratio was considered for incorporation into the model.
The effect of adding matric suction to the model was strong; R2 In terms of the recycled material in this current study, the blend
improved to 0.85. The plot of measured to predicted resilient composition (RCM percent) was found to have a significant effect on

Published by NRC Research Press

 Azam et al. 1157

Table 4. Correlation coefficients for each blend by eq. (17). ulus reliably for all blends using a single set of regression con-
Blend R2 2
Radj Se/Sy %RMSD Model rating stants, over ranges of stress and moisture states (R2 of 0.88).
The final resilient modulus model requires crushed masonry
10% RCO 0.86 0.86 0.37 10.6 Good content (can be zero), dry density, shear strength, initial matric
20% RCO 0.82 0.81 0.43 11.1 Good suction, and stress state. The proposed model does not require the
30% RCO 0.93 0.93 0.27 8.7 Excellent determination of air entry value from SWCC to evaluate the effec-
ARR 0.89 0.89 0.33 9.2 Good
tive stress factor, ␹w. It does require knowledge of the initial ma-
Note: RMSD, root mean square deviation. tric suction prior to loading, which may be measured by FP or by
other testing methods, or by using available empirical equations
Table 5. Comparisons between predictive models for the RLTT data. for the SWCC, combined with the moisture content of the UGM.
Furthermore, the model does not require specialized testing
Model Equation R2 %RMSD
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13

equipment for testing of unsaturated soils.

K–␪ (Hicks and Monismith 1971) 1 0.72 16.3 A further achievement of this model is the successful applica-
May and Witczak (1981) 2 0.75 14.9 tion to the resilient modulus of recycled C&D aggregate products,
Modified universal (AASHTO 2002) 3 0.72 16.0 which has not been achieved previously. Crushed masonry con-
Yang et al. (2005) 9 0.50 20.7 tents up to 30% in blends with RCA have been considered.
Gupta et al. (2007) 11 0.15 28.0
Liang et al. (2008) 12 0.74 15.4 Further research
Proposed model 17 0.88 9.8
Although the proposed empirical model appears to be a valu-
able contribution to the prediction of resilient modulus of recy-
cled UGM and perhaps other material, further validation is
the compaction characteristics of the materials (MDD and OMC) as needed across a wide range of materials, moisture contents, and
shown in Table 1. Therefore a further term was introduced that in- densities. Future developments in the theory of unsaturated soils
cluded dry density ratio moderated by the influence of RCM content. may lead to new insights, for example, the new framework for the
The final model proposed is behavior of compacted soils proposed recently by Kodikara (2012).
An attempt was made to incorporate aspects of this theory, how-
(17) Mr ⫽ k0 冉 冊冉 冊冉 冊冋
␴m
pa
k1 ␶oct
␶ref
k2 um
pa
k3 DDR(1 ⫺ k4RCM/100)
100
册 k5
ever, further testing would be required to acquire other recom-
mended parameters.
For personal use only.

where DDR is dry density ratio (%), RCM is percent of recycled clay
masonry (%), and k4 and k5 are regression parameters (factors and
exponents).
Validation of proposed model
The application of the final proposed model (eq. (17)) improved
the correlation coefficient by a further three percentage points
(R2 = 0.88); the comparison of measured and predicted moduli is
provided in Fig. 18. This improvement is largely because of the
addition of the last term, which included dry density ratio and the
percent of RCM in the blend. The value of R2 of 0.88 is considered
a good fit, but the value of Se/Sy of 0.35 lies on the boundary
between good and excellent. The %RMDS for the proposed model
was 9.8.
The fitting of data of each blend by eq. (17) using the single set of
regression parameters in Fig. 18 provided a good prediction for
10% RCM, 20% RCM (RCO), and the ARR blend, and an excellent
prediction for 30% RCM (refer to Table 4).
A comparison of the published models reviewed in this paper
and the proposed model (eq. (17)) is given in Table 5, based on the
total dataset generated by RLTT testing of recycled UGM in this
project. It is evident from this comparison that the proposed
model was superior in prediction of resilient modulus and had the
added advantage over two of the other models that only the initial
matric suction is required.
Conclusions
Matric suction has been shown to impact on the strength of
unsaturated soil. The initial matric suction has an important ef-
fect on the behavior of UGM, such as the shear strength, the static
Young’s modulus, and resilient modulus. This research has dem-
onstrated that matric suction should be incorporated as a state
variable in the prediction of resilient modulus.
Resilient moduli from RLTT under the AustRoads protocol were
determined for four blended products. After evaluation of exist-
ing models for prediction of the resilient modulus of the recycled
UGM in this investigation, an improved and practical model was
developed. The new model was found capable of predicting mod-
References
AASHTO. 2002. Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Struc-
tures. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, AASHTO NCHRP
Project 1-37A. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 2007. Standard method of test for determining the resilient modulus
of soils and aggregate materials. AASHTO standard T307-99. American Asso-
ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washing-
ton, D.C.
ASTM. 2003a. Standard test methods for measurement of soil potential (suction)
using filter paper. ASTM standard D5298. ASTM International.
ASTM. 2003b. Standard test methods for determination of the soil water charac-
teristic curve for desorption using hanging column, pressure extractor,
chilled mirror hygrometer, or centrifuge. ASTM standard D6836. ASTM In-
ternational.
AustRoads. 2007. AustRoads repeated load triaxial test method: determination
of permanent deformation and resilient modulus characteristics of unbound
granular materials under drained conditions. Standard, AG-PT/T053. Aus-
tRoads, Sydney, Australia. (Reprint of APRG 00/33 (MA) June by Vuong. B.T.,
and Brimble.
Azam, A.M., and Cameron, D.A. 2013a. Geotechnical properties of blends of
recycled clay masonry and recycled concrete aggregates in unbound pave-
ment construction. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25(6): 788–798.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000634.
Azam, A.M., and Cameron, D.A. 2013b. Laboratory evaluation of recycled con-
crete aggregate and recycled clay masonry blends in pavement applications.
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, 2(1): 328–346. doi:10.1520/
ACEM20120016.
Ba, M., Fall, M., Samb, F., Sarr, D., and Ndiaye, M. 2011. Resilient modulus of
unbound aggregate base courses from Senegal (West Africa). Open Journal of
Civil Engineering, 1: 1–6. http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojce. doi:10.4236/ojce.
2011.11001.
Brown, S.F. 1996. Soil mechanics in pavement engineering. Géotechnique, 46(3):
383–426. doi:10.1680/geot.1996.46.3.383.
Carter, J.P., and Balaam, N.P. 1995. A general finite element program for geotech-
nical engineering. School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Cary, C., and Zapata, C.E. 2011. Resilient modulus for unsaturated unbound
materials. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 12(3): 615–638. doi:10.1080/
14680629.2011.9695263.
Craciun, O., and Lo, S.-C.R. 2010. Matric suction measurement in stress path
cyclic triaxial testing of unbound granular base materials. Geotechnical Test-
ing Journal, 33(1): 1–12. doi:10.1520/GTJ102390.
Dawson, A. 1994. The E-mu system, users manual. 2nd ed. University of Notting-
ham, UK.
DPTI. 2011. Part 215 Pavement Materials Appendix 1, Master specification, Divi-
sion 2, Road Works. Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure

Published by NRC Research Press

 1158
(DPTI, formerly DETI-SA). Available from http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/
contractor_documents/specifications_-_division_2_roadworks.
Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H. 1993. Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fredlund, D.G., and Xing, A. 1994. Equations for the soil-water characteristic
curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31(4): 521–532. doi:10.1139/t94-061.
Fredlund, D.G., Bergan, A.T., and Wong, P.K. 1977. Relation between resilient
modulus and stress conditions for cohesive subgrade soils. Transportation
Research Record, 642: 73–81.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., and Huang, S. 1994. Prediction the permeability func-
tion for unsaturated soils using the soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31(4): 533–546. doi:10.1139/t94-062.
Gabr, A.R., Mills, K.G., and Cameron, D.A. 2013. Repeated load triaxial testing of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of New South Wales on 10/30/13
recycled concrete aggregate for pavement base construction. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 31(1): 119–132. doi:10.1007/s10706-012-9572-8.
George, K.P. 2004. Prediction of resilient modulus from soil index properties.
Final report. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Mississippi.
Gould, S., Rajeev, P., Kodikara, J., Zhao, X.-L., Burn, S., and Marlow, D. 2012. A
new method for developing equations applied to the water retention curve.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 6(3): 806–814. doi:10.2136/sssaj2011.
0260.
Gupta, S., Ranaivoson, A., Edil, T., Benson, C., and Sawangsuriya, A. 2007. Pave-
ment design using unsaturated soil. Final Report. Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Research Service Section.
Heath, A.C., Pestana, J.M., Harvey, J.T., and Bejarano, M.O. 2004. Normalizing
behavior of unsaturated granular pavement materials. Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(9): 896–904. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2004)130:9(896).
Hicks, R.G. 1970. Factors influencing the resilient properties of granular mate-
rials. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Hicks, R.G., and Monismith, C.L. 1971. Factors influencing the resilient response
of granular materials. Transportation Research Record, 345: 14–31.
Hopkins, T.C., Beckham, T.L., and Sun, C. 2007. Resilient modulus of compacted
crushed stone aggregate bases. Kentucky Transportation Centre, University
of Kentucky, USA, Research report No. KTC-05-27/SPR-229-01-1F, prepared in
For personal use only.
cooperation with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and the FHWA.
Houston, W.N., Dye, H.B., Zapata, C.E., Perera, Y.Y., and Harraz, A. 2006. Deter-
mination of SWCC using one point suction measurement and standard
curves. Geotechnical Special publication. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, 147: 1482–1493. doi:10.1061/40802(189)123.
Hyndman, R.J., and Koehler, A.B. 2006. Another look at measures of forecast
accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting, 22(4): 679–688. doi:10.1016/j.
ijforecast.2006.03.001.
Janoo, V., Irwin, L., Knuth, K., Dawson, A., and Eaton, R. 1999. Use of inductive
coils to measure dynamic and permanent pavement strains. In Proceedings
of the Accelerated Pavement Testing International Conference, Nev.
Khalili, N., and Khabbaz, M.H. 1998. A unique relationship for X for the deter-
mination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils. Géotechnique, 48(5):
681–687. doi:10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.681.
Khoury, N.N., and Zaman, M.M. 2004. Correlation between resilient modulus,
moisture variation, and soil suction for subgrade soils. Transportation Re-
search Record, 1874: 99–107. doi:10.3141/1874-11.
Khoury, N.N., Zaman, M., Nevels, J.B., and Manny, J. 2003. Effect of soil suction
on resilient modulus of subgrade soil using the filter paper Technique. In
Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Record.
[CD-ROM].
Kodikara, J. 2012. New framework for volumetric constitutive behaviour of com-
pacted unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49(11): 1227–1243.
doi:10.1139/t2012-084.
Lekarp, F., Isacsson, U., and Dawson, A. 2000. State of the art. I: Resilient re-
View publication stats
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
sponse of unbound aggregates. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
126(1): 66–75. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2000)126:1(66).
Liang, R.Y., Rabab'ah, S., and Khasawneh, M. 2008. Predicting moisture-
dependent resilient modulus of cohesive soils using soil suction concept.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 134(1): 34–40. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
947X(2008)134:1(34).
May, R.W., and Witczak, M.W. 1981. Effective granular modulus to model pave-
ment responses. Transportation Research Record, 810: 1–9.
Mohammad, L.N., Huang, B., Puppala, A.J., and Allen, A. 1999. Regression model
for resilient modulus of subgrade soils. Transportation Research Record,
1687: 47–54. doi:10.3141/1687-06.
Nataatmadja, A., and Tan, Y.L. 2001. Resilient response of recycled concrete road
aggregates. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 127(5): 451–453. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2001)127:5(450).
NCHRP. 2003. Harmonized test method for laboratory determination of resilient
modulus for flexible pavement design. Final Report 1-28A, National Cooper-
ative Highway Research Program (NCHRPA), Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Nokkaew, K., Tinjum, J.M., and Benson, C.H. 2012. Hydraulic properties of recy-
cled asphalt pavement and recycled concrete aggregate. Geocongress 2012
Conference, Geotechnical Special Publication 225. American Society of Civil
Engineers. pp. 1476–1485. doi:10.1061/9780784412121.152.
Parreira, A.B., and Goncalves, R.F. 2000. The influence of moisture content and
soil suction on the resilient modulus of a lateritic subgrade soil. Presented at
GeoEng - An International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engi-
neering, Melbourne, Australia.
Poon, C.S., and Chan, D. 2006. Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates and
crushed clay brick as unbound road sub-base. Construction and Building
Materials, 20(8): 578–585. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.045.
Sawangsuriya, A., Edil, T.B., and Bosscher, P.J. 2008. Modulus-suction-moisture
relationship for compacted soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(7): 973–
983. doi:10.1139/T08-033.
Standards Australia. 1998. Soil strength and consolidation tests -Determination
of compressive strength of a soil-Compressive strength of a specimen tested
in undrained triaxial compression without measurement of pore water pres-
sure. AS1289.6.4.1. Standards Australia, SAI Global Limited, Sydney, NSW,
Australia.
van Genuchten, M.T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
44(5): 892–898. doi:10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E., and Clifton, A.W. 1996. Model for
the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 33(3): 379–392. doi:10.1139/t96-060.
Vanapalli, S.K., Sillers, W.S., and Fredlund, D.G. 1998. The meaning and rele-
vance of residual state to unsaturated soils. In Proceedings of the 51st Cana-
dian Geotechnical Conference, Edmonton, Alta.
Vuong, B.T., and Arnold, G. 2006. Predicting in-service performance of alterna-
tive pavement materials for New Zealand conditions. Land Transport New
Zealand Research Report 304, Wellington, New Zealand. ISBN 0-478-28716-X,
ISSN 1177-0600.
Walker, P.J. 1997. Measurement of total suction and matric suction in pavement
materials at Dandenong ALF site. Road & Transport Research, 6(4): 48–58.
Witczak, M.W., Andrei, D., and Houston, W.N. 2000. Resilient modulus as func-
tion of soil moisture – summary of predictive models. Development of the
2002 guide for the development of new and rehabilitated pavement struc-
tures, NCHRP 1-37 A, Inter team technical report (Seasonal 1).
Witczak, M.W., Pellinen, T., and El-Basyouny, M. 2002. Pursuit of the simple
performance test for asphalt concrete fracture/cracking. Journal of the Asso-
ciation of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 71: 767–778.
Yang, S.-R., Huang, W.-H., and Tai, Y.-T. 2005. Variation of resilient modulus with
soil suction for compacted subgrade soils. Transportation Research Record,
1913: 99–106. doi:10.3141/1913-10.
Published by NRC Research Press