Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 1

SEASONAL VARIATIONS OF A SUBGRADE SOIL RESILIENT MODULUS IN


SOUTHERN BRAZIL

Jorge Augusto Ceratti


Wai Ying Yuk Gehling
Washington Peres Nez
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99, 3o andar. 90.035-190 Porto Alegre RS Brazil
Fax No. 55-51-3316-3999 e-mail:wpnunez@ppgec.ufrgs.br

Word count = 7,399 words


ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes the influence of suction on the resilient modulus of a shale residual lateritic soil.
Laboratory tests were carried out to obtain the moisture content-suction relationship and determine the resilient
moduli of specimens submitted to drying, wetting, or wetting-after-drying paths. A supplementary study on the
effects of compaction method on soil resilient modulus was carried out. Soil suction was measured in situ, with
jet-fill tensiometers installed along test sections built in a Pavement Testing Facility. Test sections were loaded
by a traffic simulator and, periodically, deflections were measured for modulus backcalculation. Laboratory and
in situ results confirmed the consensus that suction remarkably affects soil elastic deformability. Wetting-after-
drying paths proved to be an extremely severe condition that may lower resilient modulus up to four times.
Static compaction led to resilient moduli higher than those of specimens compacted dynamically or by
kneading. In situ results matched reasonable well with laboratory moduli of specimens compacted by kneading
and tested at optimum moisture content. In general, the importance of drainage design and maintenance was
clearly confirmed. In well-drained pavements, subgrade soils will not be saturated for long periods. Suction
will control stress state and soil deformability and guarantee that the pavement will carry the designed traffic
before failure.

INTRODUCTION
In the last decades, great interest has been placed in evaluating subgrade soils deformability by
means of laboratory or field tests. This is particularly justified in developing countries, where
most of roads networks consists of rather thin asphalt pavements whose bearing capacity and
elastic behavior are strongly influenced by the subgrade soil underneath. Besides, all over the
world, the use of pavement mechanistic design methods has become a definite trend. In such
methods (and also in the latest versions of AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements),
subgrade resilient modulus is a fundamental input parameter.
In well-drained tropical and subtropical regions, chemical weathering of rocks
originates two groups of soils, known as saprolitic and lateritic soils. Saprolitic soils are in
direct contact with the rock, preserving its mineralogy and structure. Because of that relict
structure, they are also called genuine residual soils. In upper levels, lateritic soils are found.
The rock structure is no longer identified and all minerals but quartz have been weathered. It
has been have shown that lateritic soils compacted at optimum moisture conditions generally
display high CBR and resilient modulus values and insignificant (if any) expansion (1).
Therefore, this kind of soils, found in 70% of Brazilian territory and in many other countries,
are excellent pavement subgrades.
Medina (2) stated that in most of Brazilian subgrades the balance moisture content is
lower than optimum, resulting in high resilient modulus. However, once lateritic soils may
soften when moistened, it is essential to establish how wetting and drying cycles, frequently
occurring in tropical and subtropical climates, affect those soils deformability.
Compacted subgrade soils are unsaturated soils, where suction plays a definite role in
strength and deformability. Resilient modulus is sensitive to the stress state within the
subgrade, and soil suction controls the stress state in unsaturated soils. Thus, it is important to
quantify the influence of suction on resilient modulus in the design of new pavements and
rehabilitation of existing pavements (3).
Static, dynamic or kneading stresses may be applied when compacting soil specimens
for laboratory resilient modulus test. Since lateritic soils are generally clayey soils, field
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 2

compaction is made with sheep-foot rollers. This action is better reproduced in laboratory
specimens kneading compacted (4).
In an effort to obtain reliable resilient modulus of typical subgrade lateritic soils for
design purpose, a comprehensive study, including laboratory and in situ tests, has been carried
out at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFGRS), Brazil. The research has been
conducted with the following goals:
quantify the effects of moisture content and soil suction on soils resilient modulus;
analyze the effects of drying and wetting cycles and compaction method on soils
resilient modulus;
measure subgrade soils suction in situ; and
compare laboratory and in situ resilient modulus.
This paper presents the results concerning to a shale residual lateritic soil, which is the
subgrade of test sections built at a Pavement Testing Facility (PTF) in UFRGS Campus. In situ
measurements of soil suction and deflections-based backcalculated moduli are analyzed, and
the implementation of experimental results discussed.

OVERVIEW
Environmental variations may be quantified by a parameter called soil suction (commonly
referred to as free energy state of the soil water), or by the relationship between moisture
content and suction (5).
The effects of moisture content and suction on soils resilient modulus have been
reported by several authors (3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). Such effects may be quantified in
laboratory or in situ tests. Laboratory tests allow complete control of stress state, including
soil suction. On the other hand, in situ tests, where resilient moduli are backcalculated from
deflection bowls and soil suction is measured with tensiometers, are considered more
representative. As a general pattern, the higher the soil suction (or the lower the moisture
content) the higher the soil resilient modulus.
According to Ping et al. (15), the laboratory resilient modulus under an optimum
compacted condition intends to simulate the resilient behavior of pavements materials
immediately after construction. During this stage, subgrade soils are typically compacted to a
compaction degree not less than 95%. However, both moisture and density of pavement
structure will change with time due to environmental and traffic factors. Soil suction reflects
the moisture regime subsequent to compaction, climate changes, and fluctuation of
groundwater, better than moisture content or saturation degree. Therefore, it should be used
as the basic soil-moisture parameter indicating the behavior of cohesive soils beneath a
pavement (16).
Several researchers have found that the resilient modulus of a pavement layer
determined from laboratory testing differs significantly from that determined from
backcalculation based on nondestructive tests (NDT). It was found that moduli from
laboratory testing are normally less than the in situ results by anywhere from ten to several
hundred percent (17).
Unlike some studies (18, 19, 20, 21) that focused more on developing a correlation
between laboratory testing and NDT-based backcalculation analysis, Seeds et al. (22) explored
the flaws and weaknesses of the two processes that are likely to result in the observed
differences. It is important to point out that the results of their study were based on an
intensive amount of both laboratory and NDT data gathered from a pavement constructed to
exceptional standards of construction quality, the WestTrack full-scale accelerated load test
facility in northern Nevada. Overall, the findings support the consensus that laboratory and
NDT-based backcalculated moduli do not agree, but in the case of the natural subgrade soil
the results showed considerable scatter but not a significant difference.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 3

Compaction method has a strong influence on soil structure and properties. A study on
the influence of compaction method on the resilient properties of a Brazilian lateritic clay
subgrade, conducted by Svenson (23), showed that for moisture contents higher than
optimum, dynamic compaction yielded higher moduli than kneading compaction; the
differences becoming smaller for high levels of deviator stress. Conversely, no effect of
compaction method was observed in specimens compacted in the dry side of compaction
curve. Mou & Chu (24) found that, for given OMC and compaction degree, static compaction
produces higher dry unit weights and lower suction values than kneading compaction.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Soil Characteristics
The lateritic soil focused in this paper was originated by chemical weathering of shale. Gravel,
sand, silt and clay contents are 1%, 37%, 14% and 48%, respectively. Plasticity tests indicated
a liquid limit of 44% and plasticity index of 21%. According to AASHTO, the soil was
classified as A-7-6(7). Laboratory testing gave a standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight of
16.7 kN/m3 at optimum moisture content of nearly 21%. CBR values (standard Proctor
energy) ranged from 17% (for moisture content of 20.1%) to 3% (for moisture content of
26%, corresponding to 100% saturation degree).
That soil is the subgrade of test sections built at a Pavement Testing Facility in UFRGS
Campus. The subgrade soil was compacted in three 20.0 cm-thick layers. In situ density
testing gave an average compaction degree of 103%. Moisture content for compaction ranged
from 19% to 22% (average 20.4%), ensuring a minimum CBR value of 10% (25).

Laboratory Tests
Laboratory experimental procedures consisted of:
a) specimens preparation and compaction;
b) establishing the suction-moisture content relationship (characteristic curve) by the filter
paper technique; and
c) resilient modulus testing on specimens submitted to drying, wetting, or wetting-after-
drying paths, with suction measurement.

Specimens Compaction
The specimens used to determine the resilient modulus and the suction versus moisture
relationship were statically compacted in small-size cylinders (5.0 cm x 10.0 cm), using the
parameters obtained in the compaction test (OMC and maximum dry density). Immediately
afterwards, the specimens were placed in plastic bags hermetically sealed and taken to a
moisture chamber for 24 hours, in order to achieve uniform moisture distribution.
24 hours later, the samples used to determine the relationship between suction and
moisture content (characteristic curve) were removed from the moisture chamber and open-air
dried to four moisture contents below OMC. The moisture content to be attained by each
specimen was controlled by measuring density. Once the desired density was attained, the
specimen would be placed again in the hermetically sealed bag, identified, and taken to the
moisture chamber for 24 hours to homogenize moisture.

Determination of Suction-Moisture Content Relationship


The suction-moisture content relationship was obtained by using the filter paper method (26).
The method consists of determining the moisture content of a filter paper (same content as the
specimen), and determining the relationship between soil suction and moisture content with
help of a calibration curve. The method is based on the assumptions that a filter paper will
come to equilibrium with respect to moisture flow with soil. (27) The filter paper is placed
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 4

either in direct contact with the soil to determine the matric suction or on a disc above the soil
(without any contact) to measure total suction.

Resilient Modulus Testing


Resilient modulus tests were carried out to study the influence of suction on the soil elastic
deformability. Specimens moisture variation (drying or wetting and wetting-after-drying) was
attained either by:
a) compaction at OMC and then open-air drying (drying path);
b) compaction at OMC and then wetting by absorption (wetting path); or
c) compaction at OMC, drying to 5% below OMC and then placed for two days on a
saturated porous stone and moistened by absorption, in order to attain the desired
moisture content (wetting-after-drying path).
Compacted specimens were loaded according to AASHTO TP 46-94 method. Resilient
modulus test consisted of applying a cyclic load having a haversine-shaped pulse with duration
of 0.1 second and rest period of 0.9 seconds.
For each stress state (combination of confining and deviator stresses), the load and
vertical elastic displacements were measured and used to calculate the resilient modulus. The
load was measured by using a load cell externally mounted, while resilient displacements were
measured using linear variable differential transformers. A pressure transducer was placed in
the centre of the specimen, with the purpose of verifying suction changes due to cyclic
stresses. At the end of each resilient modulus test, a soil specimen was trimmed from the
middle and soil suction tests were performed, using the filter paper technique.

In Situ Tests
In situ measurements of soil suction and deflections (for resilient modulus backcalculation)
were carried out at the PTF in UFRGS Campus, Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul State
capital).
The facility, shown in Figure 1, allows quantifying the performance of full-scale test
pavements under accelerated loading. It includes a linear traffic simulator, test sections and a
control center.
Data analyzed in this paper were obtained as part of a research on alternative materials
for low-volume roads bases (28). Six test sections with 2.5 cm-thick surface treatment
wearing course and dry-bound macadam bases (16.0 cm to 32.0 cm-thick), built over the
lateritic soil focused in this paper, were loaded by the traffic simulator in 1996-1997.
Three jet-fill tensiometers installed along each tested pavement measured subgrade soil
suction during loading and deflection surveys. As shown in Figure 1, the tensiometers porous
tips were embedded 30.0 cm below the top of the subgrade, that is, from 48.5 cm to 64.5 cm
depth from surface.
Periodically during traffic, deflections and soil suction were measured. A simplified
method presented by Noureldin (29) was used for backcalculation of pavement and subgrade
resilient moduli.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Laboratory Results

Suction-Moisture Content Relationship


The relationship between suction and moisture content is presented in Figure 2. It may be
noted that as moisture content decreases suction increases, a behavior also found by several
authors (27, 30, 31). For moisture contents next to OMC, soil suction (after drying and
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 5

wetting) exceeds 1,000 kPa. Conversely, for moisture contents higher than 25%, soil suction
decreases dramatically.

Resilient Modulus Results

Wetting or Drying Paths Figure 3 presents resilient modulus as a function of deviator stress
for specimens compacted at OMC (21%) and then submitted to drying (moisture content
attained = 19%) or wetting (23%). It can be noticed that an increase in moisture content
above optimum results in decreasing soil suction and, consequently, in a reduction of resilient
modulus. Conversely, the resilient modulus results obtained in specimens submitted to a drying
path (19%) were close to those of specimens tested at OMC.
Figure 3 also suggests that for deviator stresses higher than 60 kPa, resilient moduli
turn out to be independent of stress level, characterizing a linear elastic behavior. This trend,
clearly defined in the 23% water content curve, is also detected in the curves corresponding to
OMC and 19% water content.

Wetting-after-drying Cycles Figure 4(a) shows the results of resilient modulus tests carried
out in specimens of soil at moisture content of 19%.
Specimens were compacted at OMC (21%), and then submitted either to drying or to
wetting-after-drying cycles. It may be noted that resilient moduli in specimens submitted to
wetting-after-drying cycles are remarkably lower than the moduli of specimens just submitted
to drying. As shown in Figure 4(b), the same behavior is followed by specimens tested at
OMC.
A linear relationship between the ratio of resilient moduli of samples submitted just to
drying and to wetting-after-drying cycles () is observed in Figure 5. It is also shown that the
soil resilient modulus, compacted at OMC, may be reduced up to four times by wetting and
drying cycles, frequently occurring in poorly drained subgrades. The softening effect of
wetting-after-drying cycles is amplified for higher levels of deviator stress, as those typically
acting on the top of subgrades of thin pavements.

Effect of Soil Suction on Resilient Modulus Figure 6 presents the results of resilient
modulus tests as a function of soil suction, for specimens compacted at OMC and submitted to
drying or wetting cycles. It is noted that resilient modulus values decrease with increasing
deviator stresses. It can be also seen that, disregarding the stress level, the lower the suction
(higher moisture content) the lower the resilient modulus. For suction values up to 1,000 kPa,
resilient modulus increases with that environmental parameter. Further increases in soil suction
no longer result in significant increases of resilient modulus. Similar behavior was reported
elsewhere (10, 16).

Effect of Compaction Method on Resilient Modulus A supplementary study reported by de


Werk (32) analyzed the influence of compaction method on the resilient modulus of
specimens submitted to drying and wetting cycles.
Soil specimens of medium size (10.0 cm x 20.0 cm) were compacted by three methods
(dynamic, static and kneading) and tested at moisture contents of 21% (OMC), 19% and 23%.
Table 1 summarizes resilient modulus test results. Besides model parameters (K1 and K2) and
determination coefficient (r2), the table presents the ranges of resilient modulus corresponding
to deviator stresses from 50 to 80 kPa (theoretically acting 30 cm below granular bases of test
sections built in the PTF). It may be observed that:
a) in specimens tested at 23% moisture content (OMC + 2%), the resilient modulus
was not remarkably affected by compaction method (as also shown in Figure 7);
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 6

b) compaction method did affect the resilient modulus of specimens tested at OMC.
Resilient moduli of specimens statically compacted were 140% higher than those of specimens
obtained by dynamic compaction and 220% higher than those obtained by kneading. A similar
trend is observed in specimens compacted at 19% water content (OMC-2%).
c) all in all, kneading compacted specimens presented the lowest moduli, a fact that
must be taken into account. Lateritic soils are generally compacted with sheep-foot rollers; an
action better reproduced in laboratory specimens kneading compacted. Evaluating soil elastic
deformability in statically compacted samples may lead to overestimating of resilient modulus.
d) Moduli ranges of specimens statically compacted at OMC and OMC-2%, shown in
Table 1, are substantially higher than those shown in Figure 4. Such differences may be
ascribed to different specimen sizes (scale effect), preparations or compaction degrees, and
demand further investigation.

Field Results
Field tests were conducted in the Pavement Testing Facility located in UFRGS Campus during
trafficking of test sections.
During traffic periods, soil suction, measured by jet-fill tensiometers, was never higher
than 20 kPa, suggesting that, due to drainage deficiencies, the subgrade was almost saturated.
In fact, such low suction values correspond to moisture contents higher than 25%.
It was also observed that during a day work (typically from 7 AM to 6 PM), deviator
stresses applied by the traffic simulator reduced subgrade soil suction by 2 kPa. That is, at
night (rest periods) there used to be a small reduction in soil moisture content, reflected in a
subtle increase of soil suction.
Table 2 presents the results of in situ subgrade resilient modulus and soil suction
recorded when deflections were measured. Though in situ suction range is rather narrow (from
0 to14 kPa), the effect on subgrade resilient modulus is highly significant, as shown in Figure
8. It is important to observe that the effective geostatic stress level acting on then top of the
subgrade of thin pavements is generally lower than 10 kPa. Therefore, a suction value as low
as 14 kPa represents a significant increase to be taken into account when analyzing soil elastic
deformability. That increase is sharply lowered by rising saturation degree, explaining the
remarkable influence of soil suction on resilient modulus.
Considering data presented in Table 2, the relationship between in situ resilient
modulus and matric suction may be expressed by the following model:

MR = 142 + 16.9 (a -w) (1)

where MR is the Resilient Modulus in MPa, and (a -w) is the matric suction in kPa.
The regression yielded a determination coefficient r 2 = 0.79 and F0.05(1, 17) = 65.1,
showing that model (1) is statistically significant. However, it must be stated that this model is
true for suction values between 0 e 14 kPa. It is also noticed that while suction was measured
along pavement edges, the deflection basins were measured along the trafficked lanes, thus
representing a somehow different situation.

Comparison between Laboratory and In Situ Results


The comparison between in situ and laboratory results shows that:
a) All backcalculated moduli (shown in Table 2) fit the ranges corresponding to
laboratory kneading compacted specimens, but are substantially lower than those of specimens
obtained by static or dynamic compaction (seen in Table 1). This observation supports the
assumption, previously made, that kneading is the best method to simulate in situ compaction
with sheep-foot rollers.
b) Backcalculated moduli are generally higher than those of specimens compacted by
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 7

kneading at OMC+2% (a condition most probably found in situ, considering low suctions
measured). This is not surprising, once several studies have shown that backcalculated moduli
are generally higher than laboratory ones (15).
c) Backcalculated moduli better agree with laboratory results in specimens submitted
just to drying or wetting paths (shown in Figures 3 and 4). Wetting-after- drying cycles result
in laboratory moduli (Figure 4) considerably lower than backcalculated ones.
It is not expected that in situ and laboratory moduli match perfectly. The
backcalculation method and in situ measurements present limitations. However, though some
theoretical assumptions may be questioned, the similarity of both sets of moduli is quite
reasonable.

IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS


In order to analyze the effects of the results previously presented in pavements design life, a
structure commonly used in Rio Grande do Sul State was selected.
The structure includes a 20.0 cm (8 in.) macadam subbase with resilient modulus of
200 MPa, a 15.0 cm dense-graded rock base with modulus of 250 MPa and a 7.5 cm asphalt
concrete layer with a resilient modulus of 3,000 MPa. The layer coefficients were determined
as 0.14 for granular layers and 0.42 for the asphalt layer, resulting in a structural number of
3.2.
Two resilient moduli were predetermined for the subgrade soil;
a) 150 MPa (20 ksi), corresponding to specimens compacted by kneading and
tested at a OMC+2% (Table 1), representing a poorly drained subgrade; and
b) 225 MPa (30 ksi), corresponding to specimens compacted by kneading but
tested at OMC, representing a well-drained subgrade.
According to AASHTO 1993 Design Chart for Flexible Pavements, for a reliability
level of 95%, an overall standard deviation of 0.35 and a design serviceability loss of 2.5,
provided the subgrade soil is kept well drained (MR=225 MPa), the structure would be able to
carry 10 million equivalent single axle loads (ESALS). However, if an appropriate drainage
system is not provided, and the subgrade soil is wet most of the time, such a pavement will
bear only 5 million ESALS before failure (serviceability loss of 2.5).

CONCLUSIONS
The results presented and discussed in this paper lead to the following conclusions:

Laboratory Results
The moisture content-suction relationship of the focused soil follows the
traditional behavior; soil suction increases as moisture content decreases. For
moisture contents next to OMC, suction exceeds 1,000 kPa. Conversely, for
moisture contents higher than 25%, suction dramatically decreases.
For specimens submitted to either wetting or drying paths, resilient moduli
corresponding to deviator stresses higher than 60 kPa turn out to be
independent of the stress level.
The effects of wetting-after-drying paths on moduli of specimens tested at
moisture contents of 21% (OMC) and 19% are remarkable. The resilient
modulus of the soil, compacted at OMC, may be reduced up to four times by
wetting and drying cycles.
For suction values up to 1,000 kPa, resilient modulus increased with soil
suction, remaining stable for higher suction levels.
For specimens tested at OMC+2% resilient modulus was not notably affected
by compaction method (static, dynamic or kneading). However, for specimens
tested at OMC, static compaction yielded moduli remarkably higher than
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 8

dynamic compaction and kneading. Overall, kneading compacted specimens


presented the lowest moduli.

Field Results
In situ soil suction was never higher than 20 kPa, suggesting that the subgrade
soil was wet most of the time.
Though in situ suction range was rather narrow, its effect on subgrade resilient
modulus was highly significant, as shown by a statistic model proposed in the
paper.

Laboratory x In Situ Results


Backcalculated moduli matched rather well laboratory moduli of kneading
compacted specimens, but were substantially lower than those of specimens
obtained by static or dynamic compaction.
Backcalculated moduli better agreed with laboratory results of specimens
submitted to drying or wetting paths. Wetting-after-drying cycles resulted in
laboratory moduli considerably lower than in situ values.

The importance of providing a well-designed and conserved drainage system has been
demonstrated. Soil suction notably affects soils deformability. A simulation showed that the
design traffic of a typical Brazilian pavement might be reduced to 50% if subgrade soil is
excessively wet for long periods.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 9

REFERENCES
1. Nogami, J. S. and Villibor, D. F. Low-cost Paving with Lateritic Soils. Vilibor Publisher,
So Paulo, 1995. (In Portuguese)
2. Medina, J. de M. Pavement Mechanics. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Press. Rio de
Janeiro, 1997. (In Portuguese)
3. Khoury N.N.; Musharraf, M.Z.; Nevels, J.B.; Mann, J. Effect of Soil Suction on Resilient
Modulus of Subgrade Soil Using the Filter Paper Technique. TRB Annual Meeting (CD
ROM) 2003.
4. Seed, H.B.; Chan, C.K.; Lee, C.E. Resilience Characteristics of Subgrade Soils and Their
Relation to Fatigue Failures in Asphalt Pavements. University of Michigan, 1962.
5. Odezugo, L. O; Donald, I. B.; Parkin, A K. The Effect of Traffic Loads and
Environmental Conditions on Resilient Modulus. In: Australian Road Research Board
Conference, 1994. Proceedings... v.2, pp.191-198.
6. Fredlund, D.G.; Bergan, A.T.; Sauer, E.K. Deformation Characteristics of Subgrade Soils
for Highways and Runways in Northern Environments. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol.12, N. 2, 1975, pp.213-223.
7. Haupt, F.J. Prediction of Subgrade Moisture Conditions. In: International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 1981, v.1.pp.149-156.
8. Emery, S.J. Prediction of Pavement Moisture Contents in Southern Africa. In: Regional
Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, V.8. 1984.
Proceedings Balkema/Rotterdam/Boston, 1984, V.1, pp.239-250.
9. Pufahl, D.E.; Lytton, R.L.; Liang, H.S. Temperature and Suction Profile beneath Highway
Pavements, Computed and measured. In: Transportation Research Record 1307, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp.268-276
10. Phillip, A.W. The Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Soil Suction of Fine-
Grained Soil in Pavement Design. Master Thesis. University of South Australia, 1994.
11. Gehling, W.Y.Y., Ceratti, J.A., Nez, W.P., Rodrigues, M.R. A study of the influence of
suction on the resilient behavior of soils from Southern Brazil. In: International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, 1998. Proceedings International Academic Publisher,
1998, V.1, pp.47-53.
12. Ksaibati, K., Armaghani, J., Fisher, J. Effect of Moisture on Modulus Values of Base and
Subgrade Materials. In: Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (CD- ROM),
2003.
13. Miller, G.A.; Muraleetharan, K.K.; Lim, Y.Y. Wetting-Induced Settlement of Compacted-
Fill Embankments, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1755, (CD-ROM) 2001.
14. Salem, H.M.; Bayomy, F.M. and Al-Taher, M.G Prediction of Seasonal Variation of
Subgrade Resilient Modulus Using LTPP Data. Journal of Transportation Research, (CD-
ROM), 2003.
15. Ping, W.V.; Yang, Z; Liu, C.; Dietrich, B. Measuring Resilient Modulus of Granular
Material in Flexible Pavements. In Transportation Research Record 1778, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001 pp. 81-90.
16. Edil, T.B.; Motan, S.E. Soil-Water Potential and Resilient Behaviour of Subgrade Soils. In
Transportation Research Record 705, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1979, pp. 54-63.
17. Anderson, D.G.; Woods, R.D. Comparison of Field and Laboratory Shear Modulus,
Proceedings, In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. American Society for Testing and
Materials, V.1, Raleigh, N.C., 1975.
18. Daleiden, J.F., Killingsworth, B.M.; Simpson, A.L.; Zamora, R.A. Analysis of Procedures
for Establishing In Situ Subgrade Moduli, Transportation Research Record 1462, TRB,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 10

19. Akram, T.; Scullion, T.; Smith, R.E. Comparing Laboratory and Backcalculated Layer
Moduli on Instrumented Pavement Sections. Special Technical Publication (STP) 1198,
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA, 1994.
20. Nazarian, S.;Rojas, J.; Pezo, R., Yuan, D.; Abada, I. Relating Laboratory and Field
Moduli of Texas Base Materials. Transportation Research Record 1639, TRB,
Washington, D.C., 1998.
21. von Quintus, H.L.; Killingsworth, B.M. Comparison of Laboratory and In Situ
Determined Elastic Layer Moduli, TRB Preprint presented at the Annual Transportation
Research Board Meeting, Washington, D.C.,1998.
22. Seeds, S.B.; Alavi, S.H.; Ott, W.C.; Mikhail, M.; Mactutis, J.A. Evaluation of Laboratory
Determined and Nondestructive Test Based Resilient Modulus Values from WesTrack
Experiment. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli: Third
Volume, ASTM STP 1375, S.D. Tayabji and E.O. Lukanen, Eds., American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohoken, P, 2000.
23. Svenson, M. Dynamic triaxial tests of clay soils. MSc Thesis. Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro Brazil, 1980. (In Portuguese)
24. Mou, C.H.; Chu, T.Y. Soil-Suction Approach for Evaluation of Swelling Potential.
Transportation Research Record, no 790. Washington, DC, pp.54-60, Jan. 1981.
25. Nuez, W. P. Anlise Experimental de Pavimentos Rodovirios Delgados com Basaltos
Alterados. PhD Tesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Brazil, 1997. (In
Portuguese)
26. Chandler, R.J.; Gutierrez, C.I. The Filter-Paper Method of Suction Measurement.
Geotechnique, Vol.36, 1986, pp. 265-268.
27. Fredlund D.G.; Rahardjo, H. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. New York, 1993.
28. Nez, W.P.; Ceratti, J.A.; Arnold, G.P., Oliveira, J.A. Weathered Basalts; alternative
aggregates for thin pavements bases. In: International Symposium on Unbound
Aggregates for Roads, Balkema, Amsterdam. pp. 117-124, 2000
29. Noureldin, S. A new scenario for backcalculation of layer moduli of flexible pavements,
Transportation Research Record 1384, 1993.
30. Hillel, D. Fundamental of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York, 1980.
31. Ridley, A.M, Wray, W.K. Suction measurements: a review of current theory and practices.
In: 1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Paris, 1995
32. de Werk, S.M. Study of the influence of structure on the resilient behavior of compacted
soils. MSc Thesis. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Brazil, 2000. (In Portuguese)
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is part of a study developed with financial support of Ipiranga Asfaltos S. A., the
Rio Grande do Sul State Association of Public Works Constructors (AREOP), the Rio Grande
do Sul State Foundation for Research Support (FAPERGS) and Brazilian Research Council
(CNPq). The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Suyen Nakahara,
Mrcia Rodrigues and Sirley de Werk, for their participation in the research.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 12

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The traffic simulator loading a test section. Detailed view of jet-fill tensiometers.
Figure 2: Suction-moisture content relationship.
Figure 3: Resilient moduli of samples submitted to drying or wetting paths.
Figure 4: Effects of drying and wetting-after-drying cycles on soils specimens tested at (a)19%
and (b) 21%.
Figure 5: Relationship between ratio of resilient moduli and deviator stress.
Figure 6: Relationship between resilient modulus and soil suction.
Figure 7: Effect of compaction method in soil resilient modulus (specimen tested at 23% water
content and confining stress of 13.8 kPa).
Figure 8: Influence of soil suction on soil backcalculated resilient modulus.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Effects of Compaction Methods and Water Content in Soil Resilient Modulus.
Table 2: In Situ Soil Suction and Backcalculated Subgrade Modulus.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 13

water
reservoir

manometer

water
surface treatment
pipe

macadam base

porous tip

subgrade

FIGURE 1 The traffic simulator loading a test section. Detailed view of jet-fill tensiometers.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 14

28
26
24
22
W (%)

20
18
16
14
1 10 100 1000 10000
log suction (kPa)
FIGURE 2 Suction-moisture content relationship.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 15

900

800 W = 19%
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

700 W = 21%
600 W = 23%
500

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deviator Stress (kPa)

FIGURE 3 Resilient moduli of samples submitted to drying or wetting paths.


Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 16

900

800 Wf = 19% (drying)


Wf = 19% (drying and wetting)
700
Resilient modulus (MPa)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deviator stress ( kPa)

(a)

900

800 Wf* = 21%

700 Wf* = 21% (drying and wetting)


Resilient modulus (MPa)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deviator stress ( kPa)

(b)
FIGURE 4 Effects of drying and wetting-after-drying cycles on soils specimens tested
at (a)19% and (b) 21%.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 17

5,0
4,5
4,0
= MrS/ MrSu
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5 19%
1,0
21%
0,5
0,0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Deviator stress (kPa)

MrS=resilient modulus (optimum moisture and drying (19%))


MrSu=resilient modulus (drying and wetting)

FIGURE 5 Relationship between ratio of resilient moduli and deviator stress.


Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 18

d= 12,4 kPa
800 d= 24,8 kPa
d= 37,3 kPa
700
d= 49,7 kPa
600 d= 62 kPa
500
Mr (MPa)

400

300

200

100
0 300 600 900 1200 1500

log suction (kPa)

FIGURE 6 Relationship between resilient modulus and soil suction.


Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 19

c = 13,8 kPa - (wOMC +2%)


1800 D - Dinamic
1600 S - Static
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

1400 K - Kneading
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

Deviator Stress (MPa)

FIGURE 7 Effect of compaction method in soil resilient modulus (specimen tested at 23%
water content and confining stress of 13.8 kPa) (32).
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 20

450
400
350
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Soil Suction (kPa)

FIGURE 8 Influence of soil suction on soil backcalculated resilient modulus.


Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 21

TABLE 1 Effects of Compaction Methods and Water Content in Soil Resilient Modulus (32)
Compaction w (%) K1 K2 r2 Moduli range corresponding to
method (MPa) d = 50 to 80 kPa*
Static OMC+2% 116 -0.64 0.91 133 181
Dynamic OMC+2% 147 -0.01 0.02 147 147
Kneading OMC+2% 134 -0.32 0.78 143 - 167
Static OMC 746 0.01 0.01 741 744
Dynamic OMC 293 -0.11 0.62 300 316
Kneading OMC 216 -0.16 0.77 224 242
Static OMC-2% 788 -0.09 0.40 804 839
Dynamic OMC-2% 610 -0.15 0.5 630 676
Kneading OMC-2% 430 -0.03 0.08 433 439
Model RM = K1 (d/100) K2
* Deviator stresses theoretically acting 30 cm below granular bases of test sections built in the
Pavement testing Facility.
Ceratti, Gehling & Nez 22

TABLE 2 In Situ Soil Suction and Backcalculated Subgrade Modulus


Soil Suction (kPa) Backcalculated Subgrade Modulus (MPa)
0 126
1 167
3 164
3 203
3 234
3 249
4 179
5 195
5 217
5 265
5 271
6 212
7 231
7 250
8 252
9 275
10 300
11 327
14 423