Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A new approach for developing resilient modulus master surface to

characterize granular pavement materials and subgrade soils
Ahmed S. El-Ashwah a, Ahmed M. Awed b,⇑, Sherif M. El-Badawy c, Alaa R. Gabr d
a
Graduate Research Assistant, Highway and Airport Engineering Laboratory, Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, 60 Elgomhoria St.,
Mansoura 35511, Egypt
b
Assistant Professor, Highway and Airport Engineering Laboratory, Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, 60 Elgomhoria St.,
Mansoura 35511, Egypt
c
Associate Professor, Highway and Airport Engineering Laboratory, Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, 60 Elgomhoria St.,
Mansoura 35511, Egypt
d
Associate Professor, Highway and Airport Engineering Laboratory, Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, 60 Elgomhoria St.,
Mansoura 35511, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

New resilient modulus master surface approach was developed.

The approach characterizes both granular pavement materials and subgrade soils.

The approach considers the effect of stress state and moisture content levels.

The proposed master surface-2018 model produces accurate predictions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Resilient modulus is a fundamental material property used for pavement materials characterization. A
Received 19 October 2017 new methodology for predicting the resilient modulus of unbound/stabilized pavement materials and
Received in revised form 24 October 2018 subgrade soils is developed based on a master surface function at a reference water content. The resilient
Accepted 26 October 2018
modulus measurements at different levels of water content are shifted horizontally with respect to the
Available online 12 November 2018
octahedral shear stress, and bulk normal stress; simultaneously. A total of 2754 resilient modulus labo-
ratory measurements, obtained from literature, for five granular base materials, four subgrade soils, one
Keywords:
recycled crushed concrete material, and three cement-treated stabilized fine materials are used to eval-
Resilient modulus
Master surface
uate the proposed Master Surface model for the resilient modulus prediction as a function of the stress
Unbound granular materials state, and water content. The proposed predictive methodology is compared to well-known models from
Subgrade soils literature. The comparison of the investigated models exhibits that the Master Surface model has the
Stress state most precise and unbiased predictions after numerically optimizing the resilient modulus data.
Water content Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Flexible pavement systems are built in layers (asphalt layers at
the top, followed by base and/or subbase layers over the subgrade)
to distribute traffic loads from the surface layer with the highest
modulus to the subgrade layer with the lowest modulus [1]. The
resilient modulus (MR) of Unbound Granular Materials (UGMs)
and subgrade soils has a significant impact on pavement perfor-
mance [2]. It is the main material property required for the struc-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a_elashwah@mans.edu.eg (A.S. El-Ashwah), ammawed@mans.
edu.eg (A.M. Awed), sbadawy@mans.edu.eg (S.M. El-Badawy), eng-alaa1400@mans.
edu.eg (A.R. Gabr).
tural design of pavements using the AASHTO 1993 [3], the recently
released AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design [2,4], and many other
advanced design methods. MR can be determined through direct
measurements from the Repeated Loading Triaxial Test (RLTT) as
shown in Fig. 1-a [5], or by using correlations between MR and
other material properties i.e., California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and
R-value, or by back calculation from Falling Weight Deflectometer
measurements [2,6].
RLTT, according to AASHTO T307 test protocol, is a laboratory
test that measures MR by applying pulsing (cyclic) loads on a cylin-
drical specimen as shown in Fig. 1-b [7]. The specimen is subjected
to constant confining pressure and cyclic deviator stress in a triax-
ial pressure chamber. The axial deformations are measured by
using Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDTs). The stress

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.212
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385 373

Loading Piston External LVDT

Frame
Cell Pressure Inlet

Load Cell
Chamber Top Platen
Soil Specimen

LVDT LVDT Clamp

Inside Rods
Bottom Platen

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. RLTT Characteristics a) Schematic Diagram of The Triaxial Testing Apparatus [5], b) Generated Irrecoverable Creep Under Repeated-Loading Sequences [7].

Table 1
Summary of Available MR Predictive Models in Literature.

Authors (Reference No.) Literature MR Model Equation

No.
[Monismith, et al. 1967 (10)] MR ¼ K1 ðr3 ÞK2 , Or (2)

K2
MR ¼ K1 rPa3
[Seed, et al. 1967 (11)], [Brown and Pell 1967 (12)], and [Hicks 1970 (13)] MR ¼ K1 ðrsum ÞK2 , Or (3)

K2
MR ¼ K1 rPsum
a

[Yoder and Witczak 1975 (14)] MR ¼ K2 þ K3 ðK1  rd Þ; ðK1 > rd Þ (4)

MR ¼ K2 þ K4 ðrd  K1 Þ;ðK1 < rd Þ
[Thompson and Robnett 1976 (15)] MR ¼ K1 þ K2 ðrd Þ; ðrd < rdi Þ (5)
MR ¼ K3 þ K4 ðrd Þ;ðrd > rdi Þ
[Jones and Witczak 1977 (16)] log ðMR Þ ¼ C1 þ C2  Wc þ C3  S (6)
[Raad and Figueroa 1980 (17)]
K2
K3 (7)
rd
MR ¼ K1 Pa rPa3 Pa
[Moossazadeh and Witczak 1981 (18)]
K2 (8)
MR ¼ K1 rPad
[May and Witczak 1981 (19)]
K1
K2 pffiffi
(9)
MR ¼ K0 : ðr1 þrP2 aþr3 Þ=3 sOct
sref , sref ¼ 32  qf ,
qf ¼ d þ ððr1 þ r2 þ r3 Þ=3Þtanb
6 cos u 6 sin u
d ¼ K0 : ð3sin uÞ,tan b ¼ ð3sin uÞ
[Rada and Witczak 1981 (20)] log ðMR Þ ¼ C1 þ C2  S þ C3  PC þ C4  log ðhÞ (10)
[Uzan 1985 (21)]
K2
K3 (11)
rd
MR ¼ K1 :Pa rPsum a Pa , Or

K2
K3
r s
MR ¼ K1 :Pa Psum a
Oct
Pa


[Johnson et al.1986 (22)] r1 r2 þr2 r3 þr1 r3 K2 (12)
MR ¼ K1 sOct
[Witczak and Uzan 1988 (23)]
K2
K3 (13)
sOct
MR ¼ K1 :Pa rPsum a Pa þ 1
[Tam and Brown 1988 (24)]
K2 (14)
MR ¼ K1 r1 þrr12þrr33 =3
[Elliot and Lourdesnathan 1989 (25)]
K2 (15)
MR ¼ K1 h
mðStress=strengthÞ3
10
[Pezo 1993 (26)] MR ¼ K1 ðr3 ÞK2 ðrd ÞK3 (16)

   2 
[Li and Selig 1994 (27)] MR (17)
MRðOptÞ ¼ a1 þ a2 Wc  WcOpt þ a3 Wc  WcOpt
[Jin et al. 1994 (28)] log ðMR Þ ¼ C1 þ C2  log ðhÞ þ C3  Wc þ C4  T þ C5  cd (18)
[Lee et al. 1997 (29)] MR ¼ a  Su1% þ b  ðSu1% Þ2 at rd = 6 psi and r3 = 3 psi (19)
 
[Drumm et al. 1997 (30)] MRðWetÞ ¼ MRðOptÞ þ C1 þ C2  Class þ C3  MRðOptÞ  ðDSÞ (20)
[Tian et al. 1998 (31)] MR ¼ A0 Pa þ A1 c þ A2  rd tan £ þ A3 h þ A4  Pa MC þ A5 UC (21)
[Hopkins et al. 2001 (32)]
K2
K3 (22)
MR ¼ K1 Pa rsumP3Ka
4 sOct
Pa þ K5
[Ni et al. 2002 (33)]
K2
K3 (23)
rd
MR ¼ K1 rPa3 þ 1 Pa þ 1
[Ni et al. 2002 (34)]
Pa
K3 (24)
r rd
MR ¼ K1 Pa Pa þ 1
sum
Pa þ 1
[Andrei 2003 (35)] aþ ba
K2
K3 (25)
MR ¼ 10 ½ ð Þ  K P
1þexp bþKs  WcWc0pt h sOct
þ1
1 a Pa Pa
[Ooi et al. 2004 (36)]
K2
K3 (26)
r rOct
MR ¼ K1 Pa Pa þ 1
sum
Pa þ 1
[NCHRP., 2004a (37)]
K2
K3 (27)
sOct
MR ¼ K1 Pa Pha Pa þ 1

(continued on next page)

374 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385

Table 1 (continued)

Authors (Reference No.) Literature MR Model Equation

No.
[Gupta et al. 2007 (38)]
K2
K3  b (28)
MR ¼ K1 Pa rsumP3K
a
4 sOct
Pa þ K5 þ a1 la  lx 1

c
[Perez-Garcia et al. 2015 (39)] MR ¼ eaþbðwcWcopt Þ  rrd3 (29)

where; r2 = r3 = rc is the confining pressure, rsum = h is the bulk normal stress, rdi is the deviator stress at which the slope of the MR vs. rd changes, Pa is the atmospheric
pressure, soct is the octahedral shear stress, sref is the reference shear stress, qf is the peak shear stress, Su1% is the axial strain at 1%, Wcopt is the optimum water content, Wc is
a certain water content, c is the cohesion, £ is the internal friction angle in °, T is the temperature of subgrade, Class is the AASHTO classification of the material, UC is the
unconfined strength, cd is the dry density, MC is the moisture content, DS is the difference between degrees of saturation, S is the degree of saturation, and Ki, ai, Ai, ci, and m
are the fitting parameters.

Fig. 2. Variation of MR/MROpt with Moisture Content Level for Different Groups of AASHTO Soil Classification System [4].

range is selected based upon the location of specimen samples in
the pavement system. After a preconditioning sequence of 500 to
1000 cycles to establish the steady-state, the applied cyclic devia-
tor stress is repeated 100 to 200 times over 15 loading sequences
with different stress combinations to characterize the recoverable
axial strain response. For each cycle, MR is estimated by dividing
the deviatoric stress (rd) by the consequent resilient strain (er)
as described in Eq. (1). For each sequence, MR value is determined
as the average of the last 5 cycles based on the values of resilient
strain and deviatoric stress. Groeger et al. [8] presented a detailed
background and discussion on the AASHTO T307.
rd r1  r3
MR ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
er er
where; MR is the resilient modulus, rd is the deviatoric stress, er, is
the resilient strain, r1 is the axial cyclic stress, and r3 is the confin-
ing pressure.
2. Mr predictive models
Many research efforts were devoted to investigate the effect of
different factors on the MR of UGMs and subgrade soils in order to
model it. Lekarp et al. [9] concluded that stress state, dry density,
aggregate gradation, amount of fines (materials passing the No.
200 US sieve), moisture content, particle shape, and aggregate type
have a significant impact on MR. On the other hand, the load dura-
tion and frequency were reported to have minimal effect on MR.
Obviously, in the field, pavement materials are exposed to dif-
ferent stress states based on the location of the material within
the pavement system and traffic loading characteristics. In addi-
tion, the field moisture content of the pavement layers changes
from season to season, especially for the subgrade soil. Thus, many
regression models were developed to model the MR of UGMs and
subgrade soils as a function of the stress state, and water content,
degree of saturation, or matric suction. These models are essential
for the analytical or mechanistic pavement structural design meth-
ods. Table 1 summarizes the available MR predictive models found
in the literature showing the relationships between the different
factors and MR [10–39]. In essence, the reported MR models in
the literature, as presented in Table 1, are basically regression
models with regression constants which are not universal in the
sense that they have to be optimized for each material. In addition,
most of these models are applicable only for certain types of UGMs,
stabilized soils, recycled PCC materials or subgrade soils used in
pavement applications. Moreover, each one of literature MR mod-
els focused on considering certain influential parameters, and there
is no model considers all significant factors together such as stress
state, dry density, aggregate gradation, amount of fines (materials
passing the No. 200 US sieve), moisture content, particle shape, and
aggregate type. However, some of the reported models are imple-
mented in different multilayer elastic analysis softwares; for
example, the K-h model (Eq. 26) is used in the Kenlayer software
to account the nonlinear behavior of unbound materials. Moreover,
Andrei-2003 model [34], which is a modified version of the
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385 375

a) Coarse Grained Materials

b) Fine Grained Materials

Fig. 3. Effect of Water Content Level on MR/MROpt Ratio for a) Coarse-Grained and b) Fine-Grained Materials [4].

universal model, considers both of the stress state and moisture
condition in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.
As reported in the manual of Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide, by increasing the water content level by 1% over
the optimum moisture content (OMC), the MR reduces by 13%
and 10% for fine-grained and coarse-grained materials; respec-
tively [4]. Fig. 2 presents the variation of MR/MROpt with changing
moisture content level for different classes of AASHTO soil classifi-
cation system [4].
Thus, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design takes into consid-
eration the effect of varying moisture content level in the analysis
and design of flexible/rigid pavement systems. Whereas, the
Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model (EICM), which is imple-
mented in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design, is used to pre-
dict the moisture content at the mid-depth of unbound layers.
Then, the Eq. (24) is used to estimate the ratio of MR/MROpt at a cer-
tain moisture content [4]. Fig. 3 illustrates the effect of water con-
tent level on MR/MROpt ratio for coarse- and fine-grained materials
as well as the typical values for the parameters of Eq. (24) [4].
3. Objectives
This paper presents a new analytical methodology for devel-
oping a resilient modulus master surface to characterize granu-
lar pavement materials and subgrade soils as a function of
stress state and water content. The proposed methodology is
compared statistically with well-known predictive models in
the literature.
4. Materials and data collection
The proposed methodology for representing MR master surface
of granular pavement materials and subgrade soils was devel-
oped based on two data sets of 2,714 data points available in
the literature [34,40]. The first data set of 1,674 MR measure-
ments was acquired from the research study of Andrei [34] for
four granular base materials and four subgrade materials. The
eight material types were tested under the following conditions:
 376 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385

d) Recycled
Materials

125.1b
10.1b
RPCC

97.3
85.2
73.2
52.8

38.3
34.2

16.5
40.2

22.0

10.6
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A

100

8.2
107.0a
SFM3

15.9a

97.7
93.7
84.6
69.6
54.7
100
A-6
32

12
20
2nd Set of Database (40)

121.0a
SFM2

11.3a

93.7
86.5

65.8
55.2
80.1
c) Stabilized

100
A-4
23
14
9
Materials

123.0a

A-2-4
SFM1

10.4a

99.6
99.1
98.9
98.1

75.5

42.1
80.8

48.0
100
12
20

8
118.6b
CLAB

98.7
93.9
86.9
79.5
74.4
51.4
34.4

16.7
12.5
30.9
19.0

12.0
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
100
12b

Fig. 4. Developing Master Curve of Dynamic Modulus for an Asphalt Mix [42].
137.8a 147.8b
6.0b
PRAB2

A-1-a

two replicates, two compactive efforts (Standard and Modified

97.6
84.7
76.1
59.8
47.1
44.1
35.2
17.9
14.0
6.3a

100

8.9
6.4
NP

Proctor), and three different water contents (OMC and OMC ± dif-
-
-

128.8a 139.0b

ferent percentages) [34]. The second data set of 1040 MR mea-

5.0b

surements was obtained from Hanifa et al. [40] based on one

virgin coarse limestone aggregate base, three cement-treated sta-
SMAB2

A-1-a

64.2
55.5

32.6
28.4
19.6
89.0

48.0

10.7

bilized fine materials, and one recycled crushed Portland Cement

6.9a

100

6.6
5.1
9.0
NP
-
-

Concrete (PCC) material. The five mixtures were tested after 7

133.5a 135.0b

and 28 days of curing under the following conditions: three repli-

6.4b

cates, and three water contents (OMC and OMC ± 2%) [40]. Andrei
b) Granular Base Materials

[34] MR specimens were tested according to the NCHRP 1-28A

SRAB2

A-1-a

98.8
91.5
78.2
72.7

48.2

17.9
12.2
60.2
50.6

40.1
6.7a

100

(harmonized) resilient modulus test protocol; however, Hanifa

3.9
6.0
NP
-
-

et al. [40] MR specimens were tested according to the AASHTO

140.0a 142.0b

T 307. A summary of the properties of the database materials

5.4b

is presented in Table 2. For the sake of the investigation, the

GLAB2

database materials were classified into four groups as follows:

A-1-a

77.8

57.3
48.2
46.1
39.8
24.8
19.5
93.0

70.7

10.7
6.7a

100

6.5
NP

a) subgrade materials (included the four subgrade materials of

-
-

the 1st data set), b) base materials (included the four base mate-
121.0a 130.3b

rials of the 1st data set and the virgin coarse limestone aggregate
10.6a 9.0b

base of the 2nd data set), c) stabilized materials (included the

A-2-6
32.68

12.11
20.57

three cement-treated stabilized fine materials of the 2nd data

SCSG

83.2
78.3
65.2
45.9

31.3
40.4

25.0
100

set), and d) recycled materials (included the recycled crushed

PCC material of the 2nd data set).
102.2a 111.3b
19.0a 13.7b

5. Development of MR master surface approach

A-2-6
38.84
21.69
17.15

74.15
FCSG

48.3
46.2
42.1

37.7
31.5
40.9
100
112.4a 115.3b

5.1. Asphalt mixtures dynamic modulus master curve

11.0a 8.4b
1st Set of Database (34)

AASHTO R62 and PP61 standards specify the construction of the

A-1-a
a) Subgrade Materials

YSSG

87.6
75.2
45.1
28.9
12.7
12.4
11.1
100

dynamic modulus master curves for asphalt mixes at a reference

9.4
3.1
1.2
NP
-
-

temperature using frequency-temperature superposition [41].

123.4a 132.2b

The time-temperature superposition is a concept originally devel-

11.3a 8.0b

oped by polymer physics scientists [4,42]. The dynamic modulus

testing data at various temperatures are shifted horizontally with
Summary of the Properties of the Database Materials.

A-2-4
28.65

95.85
PVSG

18.7
9.95

91.7
69.6
53.4
37.1

28.6
27.2
24.7
21.6
34.0
100

respect to time until the curves merge into a single sigmoid func-
tion exemplifying the master curve as shown in Fig. 4. The sigmoid
37.50

12.50

0.425
25.00
19.00

0.150
0.075
0.300
4.75
2.36

1.18
9.50

2.00

function combines the effects of temperature and rate of loading

using horizontal shift functions. For more information, the reader
Optimum Moisture Content, WCopt

can be referred to AASHTO R62 and PP61 [41].

Based on modified proctor test.
Based on standard proctor test.
AASHTO Classification System
Grain Size Distribution (mm)
Max. Dry Density, cmax (pcf)

5.2. Development of MR master surface equation and shift function

Plasticity Index, PI (%)
Plastic Limit, PL (%)

Based on the main factors affecting MR found in the literature, a

Liquid Limit, LL (%)

sigmoid function as shown in Eq. (30) was used to describe the

Material Group

general form of MR master surface for UGM/stabilized materials

Material ID
Data Sets

and Subgrade soils.

Table 2

a
log MR ¼ d þ ð30Þ
1 þ eðcþb log ðsr ÞþW log ðhr ÞÞ
b
a
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385 377

Fig. 5. Examples of MR Master Surface Development Before Horizontally Shifting Data a) YSSG Subgrade, b) GLAB2 Granular Base, c) MSF2 Stabilized Material, and d) RPCC
Recycled Material.
378 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385

Fig. 6. Examples of MR Master Surface Development after Horizontally Shifting Data a-1) YSSG Subgrade, b-1) GLAB2 Granular Base, c-1) MSF2 Stabilized Material, and d-1)
RPCC Recycled Material.
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385
Fig. 7. Fitting Parameters of MR Master Surface for the Investigated Materials a) d, b) a, c) c, d) b, e) w, f) a1, g) a2, h) a3, and i) a4.
where; MR is the resilient modulus of UGMs and subgrade soils in
MPa, d, a, c, b, and w are the fitting parameters, hr is the reduced
normal stress at reference water content in MPa, and sr is the
reduced octahedral shear stress at reference water content in MPa.
In Eq. (30), d, d+ a represent the minimum and maximum MR;
respectively, while c, b, and w describe the slope of the sigmoid
function. The Reduced Normal Stress and Reduced Shear Stress in
the previous equation are determined using the stress-water con-
tent shift factor equations, which are second-order polynomial
functions as shown in Eqs. (31) and (32), respectively;
log ðhr Þ ¼ log ðhÞ þ a1 ðWcR  WcÞ þ a2 ðWcR  WcÞ2 ð31Þ
2
log ðsr Þ ¼ log ðsÞ þ a3 ðWcR  WcÞ þ a4 ðWcR  WcÞ ð32Þ
where; WcR is the reference water content (generally use WcR as
OMC) and a1, a2, a3, and a4 are fitting parameters.
The final form of the MR master surface equation is obtained by
substituting the selected shift factor relationships Eqs. (31) and
(32) into Eq. (30) as follows:
log MR ¼ d
a at each stress state/water content combination and the predicted
þ
1 þ e½cþbflog ðsÞþa3 ðWcR WcÞþa4 ðWcR WcÞ gþWflog ðhÞþa1 ðWcR WcÞþa2 ðWcR WcÞ g
2 2
ð33Þ
It should be noted that the resilient modulus can be predicted
without taking the moisture content level as an input in the case
which the reference moisture content will be the same as the
target moisture content level. In this case, only Eq. (30), replacing
Eq. (33), will be used (Eqs. (31) and (32) will be useless) to predict
the resilient modulus replacing log (hr) with log (h), and log (sr)
with log (s).
379
5.3. Fitting the MR Master Surface
The collected MR data at different water contents was shifted
horizontally with respect to h and s; simultaneously, until the data
points merged into a single sigmoid function representing the mas-
ter surface. The stress-water content superposition was done by
determining the five coefficients of the sigmoid function (d, a, b,
c, and w) as described in Eq. (30) and the four coefficients of the
second order polynomials (a1, a2, a3, and a4) as described in Eqs.
(31 and 32), simultaneously. After shifting the MR at each water
content level to the proposed master surface at the reference water
content (WcR), an integrated modulus-water content material
behaviour at a constant, arbitrary chosen, reference water content
is assembled. As expected, the MR of UGMs is directly proportional
with the stress state (stress hardening), while it is inversely pro-
portional with water content level which is referenced by Lekarp
et al. [9]. Contradictorily, the MR of subgrade soils is inversely pro-
portional with the stress state (stress softening) and water content
level which is concluded by Mousa et al. [43].
The fitting parameters of Eq. (33) were determined using non-
linear numerical optimization in the logarithmic space. This was
done using the Solver function in Microsoft ExcelÒ. The sum of the
squared errors between the logarithm of the measured MR values
values was determined using Eq. (34).
X n

X 2
Error2 ¼ log MPredicted
Ri  log MMeasured
Ri ð34Þ
i¼1
The next step was to minimize the sum of the squared errors
using the Solver function by varying the values of the fitting param-
eters: d, a, b, c, w, a1, a2, a3, and a4 for each replicate of the selected
materials. Fig. 5 presents the measured MR data before horizontally
380 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385
a) Li and Selig-1994 Model
c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model
Fig. 8. Predicted Values Vs. Measured MR for Subgrade Materials a) Li And Selig-1994 Model, b) Andrei-2003 Model, c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model, And d) Proposed Master
Surface-2018 Model.
shifting the octahedral shear stress and bulk stress for a) YSSG sub-
grade, b) GLAB2 granular base, c) MSF2 stabilized material, and d)
RPCC recycled material. Fig. 6 exemplifies fitting the MR master
surface with the measured MR data after horizontally shifting the
octahedral shear stress and bulk stress for a) YSSG subgrade, b)
GLAB2 granular base, c) MSF2 stabilized material, and d) RPCC
recycled material.
Unlike the literature MR predictive models, the developed mas-
ter surface was able to capture the following critical findings as
shown in Figs. 5 and 6:

For subgrade and recycled materials, there is no significant
effect of the bulk stress on MR at low shear stress levels, while
the MR increases with increasing the bulk stress at high shear
stress levels;

For subgrade and recycled materials, there is no significant
effect of the shear stress on MR at high bulk stress levels, while
the MR decreases with increasing the shear stress at low bulk
stress levels;

For base and stabilized materials, there is no significant effect of
shear stress on MR at all levels of bulk stress, while the MR
increases with increasing the bulk stress at any level of shear
stress; and
b) Andrei-2003 Model
d) Master Surface-2018 Model

For any type of soil, the MR decreases with increasing the water
content level, as expected.
Fig. 7 summarizes the average ± standard deviation (l ± r),
maximum (Max.), and minimum (Min.) values of the fitting param-
eters of the MR Master Surface model based on different types of
materials (subgrade, base, stabilized, and recycled materials). The
fitting parameters d, a, b, c, w, a1, a2, a3, and a4 represent the beha-
viour of the investigated materials. This is clearly presented
through the variance in the Max., Min., and l ± r values for differ-
ent material types. Fig. 8 confirms the significance of these fitting
parameters as well as their associated horizontal shift, and pre-
sents the influence of the stress state and the water content on
the MR.
6. Performance of the proposed master surface approach
To judge the performance of the proposed Master Surface
approach, the criterion suggested by the HDM-4 guide was
adopted [44]. This criterion is based upon the bias (rotation or shift
of the data with respect to the line of equality) and precision (the
degree of scatter with reference to the line of equality) of the pre-
dicted versus measured data. To determine the relative degree of
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385
a) Li and Selig-1994 Model
a) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model
Fig. 9. Predicted Values Vs. Measured MR for Granular Base Materials a) Li And Selig-1994 Model, b) Andrei-2003 Model, And c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model d) Proposed Master
Surface-2018 Model.
bias and precision; the measured versus predicted data were first
plotted. Then, linear regression analysis was conducted between
measured and predicted MR values. If the slope of the linear regres-
sion equation is close to the unity and the value of intercept is close
to zero, the prediction has a low bias. Higher slope values than
unity means that the predictive model overestimates the data;
while lower slope values than unity means that the predictive
model underestimates the data. As, for the precision, it was evalu-
ated by the goodness of fit statistics which are the coefficient of
determination (R2) standard error of estimate divided by standard
deviation of measured values (Se/Sy), and root mean square error
(RMSE) [45].
The NCHRP Project 9–19 illustrated the criteria of the goodness
of fit statistical parameters [46]. If the R2 is more than 0.9 and Se/Sy
is less than 0.35, the goodness of fit statistics is classified as excel-
lent. However, if the R2 ranges between 0.70 and 0.89, and Se/Sy
ranges between 0.36 and 0.55, the goodness of fit statistics is con-
sidered good.
381
b) Andrei-2003 Model
b) Master Surface-2018 Model
Li and Selig-1994, Andrei-2003, and Perez-Garcia-2015 MR pre-
dictive models that consider the effect of both stress state and
water content were selected for comparison with the proposed
master surface methodology. Thus, these models were numeri-
cally optimized to fit the collected MR data and statistically
compared with the proposed Master Surface model. For the inves-
tigated models, the compacted samples at OMC and maximum
dry density were used to determine the stress state parameters
(K1, K2, and K3), then the moisture content parameters (a1, a2, a3
for Li and Selig-1994 model; a, b, b, and Kw for Andrei-2003
model; and a and b for Perez-Garcia-2015 model) were obtained
based on the samples at wet and dry sides from OMC. Figs. 8
through 11 show the non-constrained regression lines of the mea-
sured versus predicted MR values for subgrade, base, stabilized,
and recycled materials; respectively along with the goodness of
fit statistics.
The bias (slope and intercept) and precision (Se, Se/Sy, R2, and
RMSE) parameters were normalized such that the model with
382 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385
a) Li and Selig-1994 Model
c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model
Fig. 10. Predicted Values Vs. Measured MR for Stabilized Fine Materials a) Li And Selig-1994 Model, b) Andrei-2003 Model, And c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model d) Proposed
Master Surface-2018 Model.
the lowest overall bias and highest precision is the one with all
parameters shown in Fig. 12 close to zero.
Figs. 8 through 11 along with the goodness-of-fit statistics
shown in Fig. 12 demonstrate that the proposed Master Surface
model has the most accurate and least biased MR predictions for
the investigated materials. It yielded an R2 in the range of (0.966
to 0.992) for the investigated materials, compared to (0.924 to
0.989) based on Li and Selig-1994 and Andrei-2003 models. It
was interesting to find that both Li and Selig-1994 and Andrei-
2003 models yielded almost the same goodness of fit statistics
and bias for the investigated data. There predictions are in good
agreement with the measured MR data at the low values of the
MR, however these models showed some bias at the high ranges
of the MR. Although, the two models have close predictions for
the investigated materials, the MR values at OMC should be mea-
sured to be able to predict the MR at different water contents.
Finally, the predictions of Perez-Garcia-2015 model showed the
lowest accuracy (highest scatter) and highest bias (highest rotation
with respect to the line of equality as shown by the slope and
b) Andrei-2003 Model
d) Master Surface-2018 Model
intercept of the unconstrained regression lines) for all investigated
types of materials. This comprehensive investigation showed the
power of the proposed Master Surface methodology in predicting
accurate and less biased MR values for a wide range of different
pavement materials, moisture contents, compactive effort, and
stress states.
7. Conclusions and recommendations
This paper describes the analysis needed to develop a resilient
modulus master surface for UGMs, stabilized soils, recycled PCC
materials and subgrade soils used in pavement applications. After
collecting resilient modulus data at specified stress states and dif-
ferent moisture content levels, the testing data were manipulated
to obtain a continuous surface describing the resilient modulus
as a function of bulk stress, octahedral shear stress, and water con-
tent. Master surfaces of MR can be used for evaluation and charac-
terization of the modulus of UGMs and subgrade soils for
mechanistic-empirical pavement design methods or finite element
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385
a) Li and Selig-1994 Model
c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model
Fig. 11. Predicted Values Vs. Measured MR for Recycled PCC Materials a) Li And Selig-1994 Model, b) Andrei-2003 Model, and c) Perez-Garcia-2015 Model d) Proposed Master
Surface-2018 Model.
analysis considering the stress/moisture dependency of the resili-
ent modulus. The distinctive feature of the proposed Master Sur-
face approach is that it expresses the material behaviour through
its fitting parameters and horizontal shift representing how it
can be affected by stress state and water content levels.
A comparison between Li and Selig-1994, Andrei-2003, Perez-
Garcia-2015, and the proposed Master Surface-2018 models was
conducted using different types of granular materials and subgrade
soils from literature. After analysing the predicted MR values based
on 13 material types with different compactive efforts, and water
content levels tested under different stress states, the following
conclusions are found:

Unlike Perez-Garcia-2015, and Master Surface-2018 models, the
Li and Selig-1994, and Andrei-2003 models require MR values at
optimum water content to be able to predict the MR at different
water contents;
383
b) Andrei-2003 Model
d) Master Surface-2018 Model

The proposed Master Surface model produces precise and less
biased predictions of the MR for different types of pavement
materials ranging from fine to coarse and unbound to stabilized
materials as well as recycled PCC materials;

The Li and Selig-1994, and Andrei-2003 models produce good
predictions, however some bias in the MR predictions are found
at the higher range of MR values; and

The Perez-Garcia-2015 model yields a highly scattered and
biased MR predictions for the investigated types of materials.
Accordingly, the results of this study recommend that the Mas-
ter Surface-2018 model is an applicable and powerful methodology
to characterise the unbound granular, subgrade, stabilized, and
recycled materials considering the effect of moisture condition
and stress state. For example, it can be used as an alternative input
level for characterizing MR of UGMs and subgrade soils in the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.
384 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385

Fig. 12. Bias and Precision Parameters for the Investigated Models a) Subgrade Materials, b) Granular Base Materials, c) Stabilized Materials, and d) Recycled PCC Material.
 A.S. El-Ashwah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 194 (2019) 372–385
Conflicts of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Y. Huang, Pavement Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1993.
[2] ARA Inc, ERES Consultants Division, Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Prepared for National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP 1–37A Final Report,
Washington, D.C., March 2004.
[3] AASHTO, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American
Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.,
1993.
[4] AASHTO, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice,
Interim Edition, American Association of State Highways and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C., July 2008.
[5] S. El-Badawy, Development of A Mechanistic Constitutive Model for the
Repeated Load Permanent Deformation Behaviour of Subgrade Pavement
Materials. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona, 2006.
[6] S. El-Badawy, F. Bayomy, S. Miller, Prediction of the Subgrade Resilient
Modulus for Implementation of the MEPDG in Idaho. (ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 211, in: Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances
in Geotechnical Engineering, Dallas, TX, March 13-16), American Society of
Civil Engineers, 2012, pp. 4762–4772.
[7] S. Muench, Resilient Modulus Testing Animation from University of Tokyo
Geotechnical Engineering Lab. Tokyo, Japan, 2003. www.slidepalyer.com/slide/
1598384/. Accessed July, 2017.
[8] J. Groeger, G. Rada, A. Lopez, AASHTO T307—Background And Discussion, on
Resilient Modulus Testing for Pavement Components. ASTM International,
STP1437, 2003.
[9] F. Lekarp, U. Isacsson, A. Dawson, State of the art. I: Resilient Response of
Unbound Aggregates, J. Transp. Eng. 126 (1) (2000) 66–75.
[10] C. Monismith, H. Seed, F. Mitry, C. Chan, Predictions of Pavement Deflections
from Laboratory Tests, in: Second International Conference on the Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements. 1967, pp. 53–88.
[11] H. Seed, F. Mitry, C. Monismith, C. Chan, Prediction of Flexible Pavement
Deflections from Laboratory Repeated-Load Tests. NCHRP Report No. 35, 1967,
p. 117.
[12] S. Brown, P. Pell, An Experimental Investigation of The Stresses, Strains And
Deflections in A Layered Pavement Structure Subjected to Dynamic Loads, in:
International Conference of Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, 1967, pp.
384–403.
[13] R.G. Hicks, C. Monismith, Factors Influencing the Resilient Response of
Granular Materials, Highway Research Record, No. 345 (1971) 15–31.
[14] E. Yoder, M. Witczak, Principles of Pavement Design, John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
[15] M. Thompson, Q. Robnett, Resilient Properties of Subgrade Soils. Final Report
No. FHWA-IL-UI-160, 1976.
[16] M. Jones, M. Witczak, Subgrade Modulus on the San Diego Test Road
Transportation Research Record, No. 641, 1977.
[17] L. Raad, J. Figueroa, Load Response of Transportation Support Systems, J.
Transp. Eng. 106 (1) (1980) 111–128.
[18] J. Moossazadeh, M. Witczak, Prediction of Subgrade Moduli for Soil That
Exhibits Nonlinear Behaviour, Transportation Research Record, No. 810 (1981)
9–17.
[19] R. May, M. Witczak, Effective Granular Modulus to Model Pavement
Responses, Transportation Research Record, TRB 810 (1981) 1–9.
[20] G. Rada, M. Witczak, Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory Resilient Moduli
Results for Granular Material, Transportation Research Board, No. 810 (1981)
23–33.
[21] J. Uzan Characterization of Granular Materials. Transportation Research
Record No.1022, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 52–59.
[22] T. Johnson, R. Berg, A. DiMillio, Frost Action Predictive Techniques: An
Overview of Research Results, Transportation Research Record, No. 1089
(1986) 147–161.
385
[23] M. Witczak, J. Uzan, The Universal Airport Design System, Report I of IV:
Granular Material Characterization, University of Maryland, College Park, Md.,
Rep. to Department of Civil Engineering, 1988.
[24] W. Tam, S. Brown, Use of the Falling Weight Deflectometer for Insitu
Evaluation of Granular Materials in Pavements. In Australian Road Research
Board (ARRB) Conference, 14th, Canberra, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1988.
[25] R. Elliott, L. David, Improved Characterization Model for Granular Bases,
Transportation Research Record, No. 1227 (1989) 128–133.
[26] R. Pezo, A General Method of Reporting Resilient Modulus Tests of Soils-A
Pavement Engineer’s Point of View. Paper No: 93082, in: Transportation
Research Board, 72nd Annual Meeting, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
[27] W.N. Lee, A. Altschaeffl Bohra, T. White, Resilient Modulus of Cohesive Soils, J.
Geotechnical Geoenviron. Eng. 123 (2) (1997) 131–136.
[28] M.S. Jin, K.W. Lee, W.D. Kovacs, Seasonal variation of resilient modulus of
subgrade soils, J. Transp. Eng. 120 (4) (1994) 603–616.
[29] D. Li, E. Selig, Resilient modulus for fine-grained subgrade soils, J. Geotechnical
Eng. 120 (6) (1994) 939–957.
[30] E. Drumm, J. Reeves, M. Madgett, W. Trolinger, Subgrade Resilient Modulus
Correction for Saturation Effects, J. Geotechnical Geoenviron. Eng. 123 (7)
(1997) 663–670.
[31] P. Tian, M. Zaman, J. Laguros, Gradation and Moisture Effects on Resilient
Moduli of Aggregate Bases, Transportation Research Record: J. Transp. Res.
Board, No. 1619 (1998) 75–84.
[32] T. Hopkins, T. Beckham, C. Sun, B. Ni, Resilient modulus of Kentucky soils.
Report No. KTC-01-07/SPR163-95-1F, 2001.
[33] B. Ni, T. Hobkins, L. Sun, T. Bekham, Modelling the Resilient Modulus of Soils,
in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of
Roads and Airfields, Lisbon, Portugal), Vol. 2, June 2002, pp. 1131–1142.
[34] D. Andrei, Development of a Predictive Model for the Resilient Modulus of
Unbound Materials. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Arizona State
University, 2003.
[35] P. Ooi, A. Archilla, K. Sandefur, Resilient Modulus Models for Compacted
Cohesive Soils, Transportation Research Record: J. Transp. Res. Board, No. 2004
(1874) 115–124.
[36] NCHRP, Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement
Design. National research Council, Transportation research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Research Results Digest No. 285,
Washington, D.C., 2004
[37] A. Rahim, K. George, Models to Estimate Subgrade Resilient Modulus for
Pavement Design, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 6 (2) (2005) 89–96.
[38] S. Gupta, A. Ranaivoson, T. Edil, C. Benson, A. Sawangsuriya, Pavement design
using unsaturated soil technology. Report No. MN/RC-2007-11, 2007.
[39] N. Perez-Garcia, A Model to Predict Changes in Resilient Modulus Resulting
from Wetting and Drying, Infraestructura Vial 17 (30) (2015) 23–30.
[40] K. Hanifa, M. Abu-Farsakh, G. Gautreau, Design Values of Resilient Modulus for
Stabilized and Non-Stabilized Base. (No. FHWA/LA. 14/521), Louisiana
Transportation Research Center (2015).
[41] AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing: Part 3 Provisional Standards. American Association of
State Highways and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2015.
[42] F. Bayomy, S. El-Badawy, A. Awed, Implementation of the MEPDG for Flexible
Pavements in Idaho, ITD project RP 194, NIATT Project KLK557 , National
Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho, December 2011.
[43] R. Mousa, A. Gabr, M., Arab, A., Azam, S. El-Badawy, Resilient Modulus for
Unbound Granular Materials and Subgrade Soils in Egypt, in: Proceedings of
the International Conference on Advances in Sustainable Construction
Materials & Civil Engineering Systems (ASCMCES-17), MATEC Web of
Conferences 120, 06009, Sharjah, UAE, April 18–20, 2017. DOI:
10.1051/matecconf/201712006009.
[44] C. Bennett, W. Paterson, A Guide to Calibration and Adaptation of HDM-4. The
World Road Association (PIARC), The International Study of Highway
Development and Management (ISOHDM), August 2001.
[45] J. Bari, M. Witczak, Development of a New Revised Version of The Witczak E*
Predictive Model for Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures (with discussion), J. Assoc.
Asphalt Paving Technologists 75 (2006).
[46] M. Witzcak, Simple Performance Test for Superpave Mix Design,
Transportation Research Board 465 (2002) 1.