Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering
Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering
Faculty Research & Creative Works

1-1-1994

Determination of AASHTO Layer Coefficients for


Granular Materials by Use of Resilient Modulus
David Newton Richardson
Missouri University of Science and Technology, richardd@mst.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/civarc_enveng_facwork


Part of the Civil Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
D. N. Richardson, "Determination of AASHTO Layer Coefficients for Granular Materials by Use of Resilient Modulus," Proceedings of
the 37th Annual Asphalt Conference (1994, Rolla, MO), University of Missouri--Rolla, Jan 1994.

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil,
Architectural and Environmental Engineering Faculty Research & Creative Works by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is
protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For
more information, please contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.
DETERMINATION OF AASHTO LAYER COEFFICIENTS
for
GRANULAR MATERIALS

Presented at the 37th Annual UMR Asphalt Conference


November 9-10, 1994
University of Missouri-Rolla

David Richardson, PE
Area Coordinator for Construction Materials,
Construction Engineering, and Transportation
DETERMINATION OF AASHTO LAYER COEFFICIENTS
FOR GRANULAR MATERIALS BY USE OF RESILIENT MODULUS

INTRODUCTION
The layer coefficients a2 or a3 for an unbound granular base or subbase material
are found from a relationship with resilient modulus, Eb. The resilient modulus for a
given material can be found by test using the "theta model" or by use of an estimation
regression equation. Eb is a function of several factors, as discussed below.

FACTORS AFFECTING RESILIENT MODULUS


The factors that most significantly affect unbound granular base resilient modulus
are stress state, relative density, degree of saturation, gradation, and particle shape. Of
these variables, stress state is the dominant factor in material stiffness (modulus). The
higher the confining pressure, the higher the modulus. The significance of the other
parameters seems less well defined. Higher relative density, or compactive effort,
increases modulus, but to varying degrees (1-5). The significance may be influenced by
gradation. A higher degree of saturation has been shown to significantly decrease
modulus (1-9). For some aggregates, this effect is of a minor significance (1, 8). It
appears that as fines content increases, resilient modulus decreases (2, 3, 10, 11).
Perhaps with higher fines content, the influence of a high degree of saturation is more
pronounced, possibly due to the generation of pore pressures (2). Thus there may be
an interaction between amount and moisture content of fines. This may be the reason
that several studies have shown that open-graded mixtures have higher modulus values
than their dense-graded counterparts. However, several studies have shown the
reverse (2, 12), or at least that gradation is of negligible significance (7), and others
have shown that there is an optimum fines content for maximum modulus (5, 10). In
regard to particle shape/texture, a more angular/rough aggregate generally exhibits a
higher modulus (3, 12), although in some cases the reverse seems to be true (12, 13).
The effect has been shown to be of variable significance (2), of minor significance (3,
12) and of major significance (3). Thus the influence and significance of particle shape
is not well-defined.
Eb FROM THETA MODEL
It has been shown that the resilient modulus of a granular material is a function of
stress-state:

Eb= k1θk 2 (1)


where
θ = bulk stress
= σ1 + σ2 + σ3
= σx + σy + σz + geostatic stresses
σ1 = σz + γ1z1 + γ2z2 in pavement under centerline of load
(σ1 is vertical total major principal stress; γ1 and γ2 are unit weights of each
overlying material; z’s are thicknesses of each layer overlying the point of
stress computation; γnzn = geostatic stresses)
σz = normal stress in vertical direction from wheel load as computed by elastic
layer analysis
= σd + σc in triaxial cell test (σd = deviator stress; σc = confining pressure)
σ2 = intermediate principal stress in y-horizontal direction
= σy + k0 (γ1z1 + γ2z2)
σ3 = minor principal stress in x-horizontal direction
= σx + k0 (γ1z1 + γ2z2)
σx = normal horizontal stress in x-direction induced by wheel load
σy = normal horizontal stress in y-direction induced by wheel load
k0 = coefficient of each pressure at rest
= (1 – sinΦ) for granular materials (Φ = angle of internal friction)
k1, k2 = regression coefficients as determined from laboratory cyclic triaxial
testing thus, in a pavement structure:

θ = σz + ( γ1z1 + γ 2z 2 )  + σx + k 0 ( γ1z1 + γ 2z 2 )  + σy + k 0 ( γ1z1 + γ 2z 2 ) 


(2)
= σz + σx + σy + ( γ1z1 + γ 2z 2 )(1 + 2k 0 )
In order for Eb to be calculated by use of Eq. 1, values for k1, k2, and θ are
necessary. The following discussion shows the methods by which these three
parameters can be determined.

k1 and k2
The constants k1 and k2 can be determined for a given material by cyclic triaxial
testing (CTX) as shown in Fig. 1. Alternately, in order to be able to estimate k1 (and
hence Eb) without performing a CTX test, values may be approximated as shown in
Table 1. It must be emphasized that k1 values vary considerably within an aggregate
source class, and it is quite possible for a given gravel to have a k1 value greater than a
given crushed stone.

Fig. 1: Typical Resilient Modulus Test Results


Table 1: Estimated Values of k1

Material SCE MCE


(100%) (100%)
Gravel 4300 5000
Crushed stone 4800 6100

NOTE: at ≤ 60% saturation; minus #200 ≤ 10%


SCE = standard compactive effort
MCE = modified compactive effort

The parameter k1 represents the granular material condition and characteristics:


gradation, particle shape and texture, degree of saturation, and relative density. A
larger k1 indicates a superior material/condition. k2 has been shown (5) to correlate with
k1 as follows:
4.657 − log k1
k2 = (3)
1.807

This relationship is shown in Fig. 2. Thus, k1 can be estimated from physical properties
of the aggregate, and k2 can be estimated from a relationship with k1.

Bulk Stress (θ)


Bulk stress in an unbound granular base layer is a function of applied load (P)
and contact pressure (p), stiffness (E1) and thickness (D1) of the overlying asphalt-
bound layer, stiffness (Esg) of the subgrade underlying the base layer, stiffness (Eb) and
thickness (D2) of the base layer, and unit weight of the overlying layers. Because Eb is
a function of θ, and θ is a function of Eb, an iterative procedure is necessary in order to
reconcile the Eb and θ. This can be done by such computer programs as KENLAYER.
Fig. 2: Relationship between experimentally derived factors (k1 and k2) for Theta Model

Eb FROM REGRESSION EQUATION


Bulk stress can be determined for a specific combination of load condition and
pavement cross section by use of KENLAYER. If the use of KENLAYER is not
possible, the following regression equation can be used:

MR = ( 510.505 )(D1) (k1) (E1) (Esg ) (D2 )


−0.458 0.426 −0.107 0.207 0.067
(4)

where k1 can be obtained by test or by estimation as previously discussed. The other


variables in Eq. 4 are necessary to compute bulk stress conditions. As E1 and D1
increase, less stress is transmitted to the base layer, hence Eb decreases. As Esg
decreases, the base layer is less confined under loading, hence Eb decreases. Note
that Eq. 4 can only be used for a single granular layer sandwiched between an asphalt
layer and the subgrade.
Eq. 4 was developed by calculation of base Eb by use of Eq. 1 (Eb = k1θk2). In
the regression equation development, resilient modulus was varied by use of 237
combinations of k1, k2, and θ in the program KENLAYER. These combinations
represented three levels of the following variables: layer thicknesses (D1 and D2),
subgrade modulus (Esg), asphalt layer modulus (E1), and granular material constants k1
and k2:
Stress state: D1 = 2,8,15 in
D2 = 4,12,18 in
E1 = 130,000; 500,000; 2,100,000 psi
Esg = very soft, medium, stiff
K1 = 1800; 3000; 11,000 psi
K2 = 0.776, 0.653, 0.341

For each combination, KENLAYER calculated the bulk stress θ in the granular base and
the deviator stress σd in the subgrade soil from an applied load.

USAGE
Eq. 4 can be used by the designer to approximate Eb of granular material which
is functioning either as a base under an asphalt layer or as a subbase under an asphalt
surface layer and a bituminous base layer. If the latter is the case, E1 should represent
a combination of the two asphalt bound layers as follows:

3
 D1a (E1a )0.333 + D1b (E1b )0.333 
Eeq =
  (5)
 D1a + D1b 

where: Eeq = combined modulus of both asphalt bound layers


E1a = modulus of the asphalt surface layer
D1a = thickness of the asphalt surface layer
E1b = modulus of the asphalt base layer
D1b = thickness of the asphalt base layer
So, to use Eq. 4, the designer should:
1. Assume a D1 and D2 for a particular trial.
2. Determine E1 by either test or by the approximation technique detailed in the
handout on "Determination of AASHTO Layer Coefficients for Asphalt Mixtures"
knowing mixture design characteristics and approximate pavement temperature.
3. Calculate Esg from the procedure given in the handout "Estimation of Fine-
Grained Subgrade Resilient Modulus".
4. Determine k1 of the granular material by test or by assumption (see Table 1).
Other trials of cross-section would only entail further assumptions of D1 and D2.
Once Eb is determined, it can be converted to a layer coefficient a2 or a3 as
shown in the next section.

SEASONAL EFFECTS ON GRANULAR BASE MODULUS


Seasonal effects on Ebase can be found by using KENLAYER. Input to use:
1. Vary k1:
k1(max) = (3) (k1(normal))
k1(thaw) = (0.2)(k1(normal))
k1(wet) = (0.75)(k1(normal))
2. k2 should vary, but KENLAYER does not allow this. It is suggested that k2 be
calculated from k1, avg. If the output is to be used in the AASHTO method to find
layer coefficient a3, then the effects of moisture are taken care of with the m-
coefficient. Thus, a single value of k1 that should be used is the “normal” value.
Esg - for use with the AASHTO method, for the same reason stated above, a
single value (normal, or dry, Esg) should be used.
3. Emax - use 30,000 for base, 20,000 for subbase
4. Emin - use 1000 psi
5. E1 - vary E1 as affected by temperature
RECOMMENDATIONS
Layer coefficients for unbound granular base or subbase materials can be
determined in the following manner:
1. Determine a2 or a3 from the 1986 AASHTO Guide nomographs, or more
accurately:
=a2 0.249 log (Eb ) − 0.977 (6)

=a3 0.227 log (Eb ) − 0.839 (7)

2. Eb (resilient modulus of granular material) can be determined by use of an elastic


layer analysis program such as KENLAYER or by the following equation (Eq. 4):

MR = ( 510.505 )(D1) (k1) (E1) (Esg ) (D2 )


−0.458 0.426 −0.107 0.207 0.067

3. D1 and D2 (D1 = asphalt bound layer, D2 = granular base or subbase layer


thickness) are assumed for a particular design trial. (Note, D1 is the combined
thickness of all asphalt-bound layers).
4. E1 (asphalt material resilient modulus), is determined at a given design
temperature as developed in Ref. 14 knowing either resilient modulus or mix
design characteristics. If more than one asphalt layer is involved, the weighted
average can be obtained by the following equation (Eq. 5):

3
 D1a (E1a )0.333 + D1b (E1b )0.333 
Eeq =
 
 D1a + D1b 

5. Esg (subgrade soil modulus) can be calculated in accordance with the subgrade
resilient modulus handout.
6. k1 can be determined by resilient modulus testing of the granular material, or by
estimation. See Table 1 for guidance.
REFERENCES

1. Rada, G. and M. M. Witczak, "Material Layer Coefficients of Unbound Granular


Materials from Resilient Modulus", Trans. Res. Rec. 852, 1982, pp. 15-21.

2. Barksdale, R. D., "Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base Course Materials",


Proc. 3rd Int'l. Conf. on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, London,
England, 1972, pp. 161-174.

3. Barksdale, R.D., S.Y. Itani, and T.E. Swor, "Evaluation of Recycled Concrete,
Open-Graded Aggregate", Trans. Res. Bd. 71st Annual Meeting, Trans. Res.
Bd., Washington, D.C., 1992, 25 p.

4. Jin, M., K.W. Lee, and W.D. Kovacs, "Field Instrumentation and Laboratory Study
to Investigate Seasonal Variation of Resilient Modulus of Granular Soils",
Trans. Res. Bd. 71st Annual Meeting, Trans. Res. Bd., Washington, D.C.,
1992, 30 p.

5. Rada, G. and M.W. Witczak, "Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory Resilient


Moduli Results for Granular Material", Trans. Res. Rec. 810, Trans. Res. Bd.,
1981, pp. 23-33.

6. Kallas, B.F. and J.C. Riley, "Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Pavement


Materials", Proc. 2nd Int'l. Conf. on the Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements, Univ. of Michigan, 1967, pp. 931-952.

7. Thom, N.H. and S.F. Brown, "The Effect of Moisture on the Structural
Performance of a Crushed Limestone Road Base", Trans. Res. Bd. Annual
Meeting, Trans. Res. Bd., Washington, D.C., 1987, 24 p.
8. Hicks, R.G. and C.L. Monismith, "Prediction of the Resilient Response of
Pavements Containing Granular Layers Using Non-Linear Elastic Theory",
Proc. 3rd Int'l. Conf. on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, London,
Vol I, 1972, pp. 410-427.

9. Finn, F.N., C.L. Saraf, R. Kulkarni, K. Nair, W. Smith, and A. Abdullah,


"Development of Pavement Structural Subsystems", NCHRP Rpt. 291, Hwy.
Res. Bd., Washington, D.C., 1986, 59 p.

10. Jorenby, B.N. and R.G. Hicks, "Base Course Contamination Limits", Trans. Res.
Rec. 1095, Trans. Res. Bd., 1986, pp. 86-101.

11. Barker, W.R. and R.C. Gunkel, "Structural Evaluation of Open-Graded Bases for
Highway Pavements", Misc. Paper GL-79-18, U.S. Corps of Engrs., WES,
1979, 82 p.

12. Thompson, M.R. and K.L. Smith, "Repeated Triaxial Characterization of Granular
Bases", Trans. Res. Rec. 1278, Trans. Res. Bd., Washington, D.C., 1990, pp.
7-17.

13. Haynes, J.H. and E.J. Yoder, "Effects of Repeated Loading on Gravel and
Crushed Stone Base Course Materials Used in the AASHTO Road Test", Hwy.
Res. Rec. 39, Hwy. Res. Bd., Washington, D.C., 19 , pp. 82-96.

14. Richardson, D.N., J.K. Lambert, and P.A. Kremer, "Determination of AASHTO
Layer Coefficients, Vol I: Bituminous Materials", MCHRP Final Rpt. Study 90-
5, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, 1993, 237 p.

Вам также может понравиться