Modulos Resilient in Granulas Soils PDF

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]
On: 25 March 2013, At: 04:50

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Road Materials and Pavement Design

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20
Resilient Modulus for Unsaturated Unbound Materials

a a
Carlos E. Cary & Claudia E. Zapata
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering, Arizona State
University, P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5306, USA E-mail:
Version of record first published: 17 Oct 2011.
To cite this article: Carlos E. Cary & Claudia E. Zapata (2011): Resilient Modulus for Unsaturated Unbound Materials, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, 12:3, 615-638
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2011.9695263
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Resilient Modulus for Unsaturated
Unbound Materials
Carlos E. Cary — Claudia E. Zapata

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 04:50 25 March 2013
Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering

Arizona State University
P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306, USA
ccary@asu.edu
czapata@asu.edu
ABSTRACT. The suitability of the current resilient modulus test protocol (NCHRP 1-28A) for its
application to unsaturated soils was assessed. Modifications to the stress state conditions of
the protocol are necessary due to the axis-translation needed during the test when measuring
matrix suction. This study presents the modulus of unbound materials resulting from tests
performed under unsaturated soil conditions. Two different materials were tested. The base
material was tested under drained and undrained boundary conditions, while the subgrade
was tested under drained boundary condition. The results allowed for the enhancement of the
Universal Model for resilient modulus prediction by incorporating suction as a stress state.
This model predicts the resilient response of unbound materials as a function of external
stress state and matrix suction levels and therefore, it is independent of moisture variation.
KEYWORDS: Resilient Modulus, Unsaturated Soil, Matrix Suction, Environmental Effects.
DOI:10.3166/RMPD.12.615-638 © 2011 Lavoisier, Paris
Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 12 – No. 3/2011, pages 615 to 638
616 Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 12 – No. 3/2011
1. Introduction
The resilient modulus used for characterization of unbound materials is a

fundamental parameter in flexible pavement design. This property is not constant
and depends on different factors such as the stress state, moisture content, dry
density, number of loading repetitions, compaction energy and soil thixotropy (Seed
et al., 1962). In the last few decades, several models have been developed to
incorporate the effects of the aforementioned parameters in the estimation of MR.
However, recent implementation of the new AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (M-EPDG), has emphasized and demonstrated the
fundamental role that environmental factors play in pavement performance (Zapata
et al., 2007; Zapata et al., 2009) and in particular, the importance of moisture
content effects. These findings have increased the interest among the research
community on the effect that variations in soil moisture has on the resilient modulus
of unbound materials during the pavement design life. Even though the
understanding of the fundamental aspects of unsaturated soils has been improved,
the perceived additional complexity of unsaturated soil testing has made
implementation of these advancements into practice highly challenging. Several
models have been proposed to account for the variation of moisture conditions in the
resilient soil response, but most of them are based in total stress analysis and
empirical in nature. If the moisture effects ought to be incorporated into a rational
resilient modulus model, there is a significant need to study the relationship between
pore water pressures (positive or negative) and the resilient modulus response in the
light of unsaturated soil mechanics.
Soil pore water pressure is generated under the moving vehicle loads with little
to no dissipation occurring. This is known as the pore-pressure generation phase and
it is usually considered a short-term condition. The pore-pressure dissipation phase
occurs between vehicle loads and it is primarily a function of the hydraulic
conductivity of the material and the traffic frequency (Gucunzki and Brill, 1994).
Little to no accumulated excess pore pressure build-up should be expected under
repeated loading when the lag time between load repetitions is significantly long
(i.e. low speed traffic). When the excess pore pressure is dissipated, the field
draining condition can be simulated by a drained resilient modulus laboratory test.
Conversely, when the lag time between load repetitions is small (i.e. high speed
traffic), or the conductivity of the soil is relatively low, excess pore water pressure
will be accumulated after repeated loading. This case can be represented by
undrained resilient modulus test conditions. Figure 1 shows results of pore water
pressure build-up measurements under undrained repeated loading on a clayey sand
specimen. As can be observed, after 10,000 load repetitions no significant
dissipation of pore water pressure occurred and therefore evident accumulated
excess pore pressure development took place.
Matrix suction is defined as the work per unit quantity of pure water that has to
be done to overcome the attractive forces of water molecules and the attraction of
Unsaturated Resilient Modulus 617
water to solid surfaces. It has been recognized that seasonal changes in the stress
state should be related to changes in matrix suction, as a fundamental variable within
the stress state of unsaturated soils, and not simply to the moisture content of the
material. Several authors have demonstrated the strong correlation between the
resilient modulus and matrix suction (Khoury and Zaman, 2004; Theyse et al., 2007;
Sawangsuriya et al., 2009). This confirms the fact that matrix suction, being a
fundamental stress state variable, is a much better predictor than soil moisture
content.
22
Pore Water Pressure Build-up (kPa)
21
20
19
18
s d = 98 kPa
s 3 = 56 kPa
17
u w initial = 17 kPa
Loading time = 2.0 s
16 Resting time = 0.8 s
Number of repetitions = 10,000
15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (hr)
Figure 1. Pore water pressure build-up under undrained repeated loading
The moisture flow, in the absence of gravitational gradient, is dictated by matrix

suction or pore water pressure gradients within unsaturated and saturated soils,
respectively. As proposed by Fredlund and Rahardjo (1987), the resilient modulus
(MR) of unsaturated soils can be described as a function of three stress variables, as
shown in Equation [1].
M R = f [(σ 3 − u a ), (u a − u w ), (σ 1 − σ 3 )] [1]
where, ua is the pore air pressure, uw is the pore water pressure, (σ3-ua) is the net
confining pressure, (ua–uw) = ψm is the matrix suction, and (σ1-σ3) is the deviator
stress.
These stress variables, except for ψm, are taken into account in the widely known
Universal Model developed by Uzan and Witczak, in terms of the bulk (θ) and
octahedral shear (τoct) stress invariants (Witczak and Uzan, 1988). This study
explores the feasibility of developing an enhanced version of the Universal Model

by incorporating matrix suction as a fundamental stress state variable.
2. Study objectives
The objectives of this study were: a) To evaluate the applicability of the NCHRP
1-28A protocol “Harmonized Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of
Resilient modulus for Flexible Pavement Design” (NCHRP, 2004) to the
measurement of the resilient modulus in unsaturated soils; b) To measure the
resilient modulus at different matrix suction and external stress state levels to
evaluate the suitability of the Universal Model; and if suitable according to

preliminary findings; c) To introduce matrix suction as a predictive variable in the
Universal Model. The applicability of the proposed model to drained and undrained
conditions was investigated.
3. Background
It is well known that any increase in moisture content reduces the resilient
modulus of the soil, and vice versa (Witczak et al., 2000; Zapata et al., 2007). The
moisture retention characteristics of the soil are intimately related to the matrix
suction, and its relationship is characterized by the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
(SWCC). Matrix suction increases in unbound materials are related to decreases in
moisture contents. As a result, any increase in matrix suction results in a
corresponding increase in the resilient modulus of unbound materials, and vice
versa.
Literature review revealed that at least three distinctive approaches have been
proposed in the attempt to incorporate the effects of matrix suction in the resilient
behavior of soils. The first approach defines the moduli as a function of matrix
suction by translating the concept of effective stress for saturated soils to unsaturated
soils, as proposed by Bishop (1959). The second approach considers the resilient
modulus as a function of three stress variables, as shown in Equation [1] (Fredlund
and Rahardjo, 1987). In this case, the matrix soil suction is one of the components of
the stress tensor. The third and last approach employs a factor that takes into account
the contribution of matrix suction independently from the contribution of externally
applied stresses, in an uncoupled manner. Some of the models described below
reflect each of the approaches presented.
Resilient modulus models that consider suction as predictive variable
Fredlund et al. (1977), made an attempt to relate the modulus of a compacted

subgrade to the stress state variables for unsaturated soils proposed by Fredlund and
Began in the same year (Fredlund et al., 1977; Fredlund and Began, 1977). Two
variables, that are functions of matrix suction, define the linear relationship between
the logarithm of the resilient modulus and the deviator stress: the slope of the line
and the intercept. The modulus is then related to two stress variables: the deviator
stress and the matrix suction. Equation [2] presents this model (Fredlund et al.,
1977):
log MR = cld – mld (σ1-σ3)

[2]
where cld and mld are functions of matrix suction, σ1 and σ3 are the major and minor
principal stresses, respectively. Even though the model was not fully validated with
laboratory data, it incorporates matrix suction as a fundamental stress variable.
In 2002, Parreira and Goncalves presented a model describing the influence of
matrix suction on the resilient modulus of a lateritic subgrade in Brazil (Parreira et
al., 2000). Statistical correlations between the resilient modulus, matrix suction and
externally applied stress were analyzed and the best correlation found is presented in
Equation [3]:
MR = 14.10 σd 0.782ψm0.076 [3]
where σd is the deviator stress and ψm is the matrix suction.

Witczak et al. proposed in 2000 a model incorporating an environmental factor
that represents the contribution of changes in moisture to the resilient modulus
evaluated at a particular externally applied stress (Witczak et al., 2000). This model
has been incorporated in the new AASHTO M-EPDG and read as follows:
b−a k2 k3
a+
( (
1+ EXP β + k S ⋅ S − S opt ))  θ  τ 
M R = 10 ⋅ k1 ⋅ pa ⋅   ⋅  oct + 1
 p a   pa  [4]
where S is the degree of saturation, Sopt is the saturation at optimum conditions, θ is

the bulk stress, τoct is the octahedral stress, pa is the atmospheric pressure, and k1, k2,
k3, a, b, ks are fitting parameters. The location parameter β is equal to ln(-b/a).
In 2005, Yang et al. proposed a model that explicitly incorporates the effect of
both, the externally applied stress and the matrix suction, on the prediction of the
resilient modulus, by using an effective stress concept similar to that used for
saturated soils (Yang et al., 2005). This model is based on the relationship proposed
by Moossazadeh and Witczak in 1981, where the Bishop’s effective stress parameter
represents the moisture condition of the soil (Moossazadeh et al., 1981).
MR = k1(σd + χmψm ) 2
k
[5]
where χm is the Bishop’s parameter, and k1, k2 are regression parameters.

Liang et al. proposed in 2008 a similar model based on the effective stress
approach (Liang et al., 2008). The model is a variation of the Universal Model and it
is presented in Equation [6]:
 (θ + χ mψ m )  τ oct
k2 k3
 [6]
M R = k1 p a    + 1
 p a p
  a 
4. Material characterization
The ASU Geotechnical Laboratory is equipped with a Triaxial system for

unsaturated soil testing that allows full control or measurement of pore water and
pore air pressures, and it is capable of simulating drained and undrained conditions
(Cary, 2008). Under drained conditions, fluid is allowed to leave the sample when
loaded and therefore, the pore water and air pressures dissipate (they can be
controlled). Under undrained conditions, fluid is not allowed to leave the sample,
and pore water and pore air pressure build-up can be measured. In this study, both
drainage conditions were explored and the resilient modulus of a granular base and a
subgrade material was evaluated.
4.1. Material properties
A typical granular base material used in the State of Arizona (denoted GB) and a
subgrade material commonly encountered in the Phoenix Valley (denoted by SG)
were chosen for the testing program (Cary, 2008). Sieve analysis, Atterberg limits,
specific gravity, compaction curves and SWCC tests were performed.
The GB material was classified as A-1-a and the SG subgrade was found to be
an A-4 clayey sand according to the AASHTO soil classification (AASHTO, 2004).
Table 1 shows a summary of the soil index properties.
4.2. Soil-water characteristic curve
The equipment used for testing the granular material GB, was a pressure
membrane of 30.5 cm (12 inch) in diameter and 8.9 cm (3.5 inch) in height as
observed in Figure 2. The saturated cellulose membrane with High Air Entry Value
(HAEV) of 1,500 kPa, used in contact with the bottom end of the specimens, allows
the flow of water under applied pressure but impedes the flow of air through it.
Table 1. Summary of material properties
Material GB SG
Liquid Limit (%) - 22
Plastic Limit (%) - 18
Plasticity Index NP 5
Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve 43 97
Specific Gravity 2.71 2.71
Standard Optimum Moisture Content (%) 7.2 12.1

3
Standard Maximum Dry Density (g/cm ) 2.26 1.91
Soil Classification (AASHTO) A-1-a A-4
Soil Classification (USCS) GP-GM SC
.
Figure 2. Pressure plate setup to obtain suction for GB material
The equipment used for testing the SG soils was a pressure plate of 7.6 cm (3
inch) in diameter and 8.9 cm (3.5 inch) in height as shown in Figure 3. A saturated
ceramic stone with a HAEV of 500 kPa was used in this equipment (Cary, 2008).
Figure 3. Pressure plate setup to obtain suction for SG subgrade
Air pressure was applied to the specimens to get the drying path of the SWCC for
all materials. Once the equilibrium moisture contents at different matrix suction
levels were obtained, the results were fitted with the Fredlund and Xing model
(Fredlund and Xing, 1994). Figures 4a and 4b show the resulting SWCCs. Suction
levels corresponding to target moisture contents for the resilient modulus testing
were then obtained from the SWCCs.
5. MR testing for unsaturated unbound materials
A triaxial system for unsaturated soils and the most recently NCHRP 1-28A
protocol for the measurement of resilient modulus were used in this study. Some
modifications were necessary in both the system and the controlling software to
comply with the requirements of the NCHRP 1-28A test protocol. A summary of the
changes is presented below. Further details can be found in NCHRP (2004) and
Cary (2008).
100
Degree of Saturation (%)

80
60
40
20
0
0 1 1,000 1,000,000
Matric Suction (kPa)
GB Predicted GB Measured
a) GB material
100
Degree of Saturation (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 1,000 1,000,000
Matric Suction (kPa)
SG Predicted SG Measured
b) SG subgrade
Figure 4. Soil water characteristic curves for the GB and SG materials (drying
path)
5.1. Testing equipment
An integrated Unsaturated Soil Triaxial system (UST) system capable of

applying repeated cycles of a haversine-shaped load pulse was used for testing.
Equipped with an electro-hydraulic system with closed-loop digital servo control,
direct control/measurement of pore water pressure (uw) at the top/bottom of the
specimen and direct control/measurement of pore air pressure (ua) at the top of the
test specimen are possible.
Two special features of the UST system, which are considered fundamental for
testing of unsaturated soils, are the high precision Pressure/Volume Controllers
(PVC) and the matrix soil suction measuring device. The PVC devices are fully
integrated and controlled by a computer program.
The matrix suction is measured with a high air entry ceramic disk bonded to the
bottom platen and connected directly to the PVC controllers. This allows for the
measurement of matrix suction changes when drainage valves are closed; and to be
controlled when drainage valves are opened. A low air entry porous stone, which
allows for application of air pressure into the specimen, is bonded to the top platen.
This equipment is usually designed to use water as the primary confining fluid.
Since the NCHRP 1-28A protocol specifies the use of air as confining fluid, an
external line for air pressure supply was added to the system (NCHRP, 2004).
Figure 5 illustrates the schematic of the UST system.
Figure 5. Schematic of the unsaturated soil triaxial system
Additionally, the UST system has a specially designed flushing device

incorporated that helps to prevent air diffused through the high air entry ceramic
disk. This flushing device overcomes the problem of erroneous pore water pressure
and volume change measurements due to the presence of air bubbles in the water
lines and under the ceramic disk.
5.2. NCHRP 1-28A protocol and controlling software
As acquired, the UST system controlling software was based on the AASHTO
307-99 standard for resilient modulus testing (AASHTO, 2002). The new loading
sequences for base/subbase materials, granular subgrades, and fine grained
subgrades proposed in the NCHRP 1-28A protocol were added to the software
(NCHRP, 2004).
The conventional resilient modulus test is based on a total stress approach in
which the triaxial system measures the mechanical response of the material
subjected to different combinations of deviator cyclic stress (σd = σ1-σ3) and total
confining pressures (σ3). From the unsaturated soil mechanics perspective, the air
phase becomes important in the measurement and control of matrix suction and the
total stress is replaced by the net normal stress, which is the difference between the
total stress and the pore air pressure (σ-ua).
This approach does not affect the way the deviator stress is defined since the air
pressure will affect σ1 and σ3 in the same proportion. However, the effect of the pore
air pressure applied to the sample on the cell pressure or any total stress applied
should be compensated by increasing the total stresses (confining and vertical stress)
by the same applied pore air pressure amount. The aforementioned technique is
known as axis translation. By using this technique, the confining pressure, as
presented in the loading procedures of the NCHRP 1-28A protocol, becomes the net
confining pressure (σ3-ua) and the principal vertical stress becomes the net vertical
stress (σ1-ua). Therefore, in order to obtain the total confining pressure needed to be
applied during the test, the net confining pressure was increased by a pressure equal
to the amount of pore air pressure applied to the sample. Modifications to the
NCHRP 1-28A loading sequences in the controlling software were then necessary.
The contact stress is applied to a test specimen to maintain a positive contact
between the loading ram and the specimen cap. The NCHRP 1-28A protocol defines
the contact stress to be 20% of the magnitude of the total confining pressure applied
in a given sequence. If this concept were applied to the increased confining pressure
due to matrix suction control/measurement during the test, the values of the contact
stress would increase significantly. Consequently, a contact stress greater than the
cyclic stress would be applied to certain sequences of the test. In that case, the
response of the material would not be representative of its resilience properties and
induced consolidation of the sample would occur. Therefore, a contact stress equal
to 20% of the net confining pressure should be enough for unsaturated resilient
modulus testing conditions.
Table 2 shows the modifications recommended to be incorporated in the current
NCHRP 1-28A loading procedures to expand the protocol to unsaturated soil
conditions.
Table 2. Changes on the loading procedures for unsaturated soils resilient modulus
testing
Net stress approach for

Total stress approach
unsaturated soils
ψ m is not applied ψ m is applied
σ confining = σ 3 = σ net−confining σ confining = σ 3 = σ net −confining + u a

σ contact = 0.2σ confining σ contact = 0.2σ net −confining
σ d = σ max σ d = σ max
σ cyclic = σ max − σ contact σ cyclic = σ max − σ contact
5.3. Specimen preparation and resilient modulus testing procedure
Specimens were prepared according to NCHRP 1-28A protocol at optimum

moisture content and constant maximum dry density (NCHRP, 2004). The diameter
and height of the specimens were 15.2 cm (6 inch) by 30.5 cm (12 inch) respectively
for the granular material and 10.2 cm (4 inch) by 20.3 cm (8 inch) for the subgrade
material. The 2 materials were compacted and tested at 3 moisture conditions:
optimum (OPT), dry of optimum (DRY) and wet of optimum (WET) conditions.
Two replicates were prepared and run under presumably drained boundary
conditions. Furthermore, 6 GB granular material specimens were tested under
presumably undrained boundary conditions for a total of 18 resilient modulus tests.
Note that the word “presumably” is used in the previous paragraph to define
drainage conditions. Even though drainage valves can be controlled by triaxial
testing machines, absolute certainty about drainage conditions in a soil sample is
never granted. Drainage conditions for materials having sufficiently low
permeability values could be truly undrained even when having the drainage valves
opened.
Deformations were measured by linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) mounted directly on the specimen. Standard clamps attached to the sides of
the granular material specimens were used to support the LVDTs; while studs buried
inside the specimen during compaction were used to support LVDTs mounted on the
subgrade material specimens. Latex membranes of 0.318 mm (0.0125 inch) thick for
the subgrades and 0.635 mm (0.025 inch) thick for the granular base were used to
isolate the specimen from the confining fluid.
Samples were mounted in the USTS unit and a matrix suction corresponding to
the particular moisture condition of interest was imposed on the specimen. Each
sample was allowed to equilibrate at the particular suction value allotted at which it
came to rest. However, it was found that air confining fluid can diffuse through the
membrane, which makes the matrix suction unstable, and consequently, equilibrium
of the specimen was difficult to achieve in a reasonable period of time. Similar
difficulties were reported by Sawangsuriya et al. (Cary, 2008; Sawangsuriya et al.,
2009). Further research is required to explore new materials for isolating specimens
or to evaluate the feasibility of using water, instead of air, as the confining fluid.
Due to the difficulties found in trying to achieve an equilibrium target matrix
suction in a reasonable period of time, the sample was allowed to equilibrate prior to
testing at a moisture content that corresponded to the target equilibrium matrix
suction, as suggested by Andrei (Andrei, 2003). That moisture content was directly
obtained from the SWCC results and corresponded to the desired equilibrium matrix
suction. Once the sample was equilibrated at a moisture value close enough to the
corresponding target suction value, the sample was mounted in the unit and the
target suction value was imposed. This procedure was found to be successful and is
desirable due to time constraints. However, considerations of variability due to
hysteresis in the SWCC should be further investigated.
Finally, prior to the initiation of the resilient modulus tests, any air trapped in the
system was removed by flushing water several times through the water lines. The
moisture content for all specimens was measured at the end of the test. Table 3
provides the initial target matrix suction (ψmo) levels for the materials tested with
their corresponding target moisture content (w%) and degree of saturation (S%).
Table 3. Changes on the loading procedures for unsaturated soils MR testing
GB - Granular SG - Subgrade
DRY OPT WET DRY OPT WET
W (%) 5.0 7.0 7.5 10.1 12.1 14.1
S (%) 67 93 100 65 78 91
ψmo (kPa) 235 4 0 188 81 26
It should be recognized that the order of magnitude of the suction stresses used
for testing at dry of optimum conditions may not be typically experienced by these
materials in the field unless high fine contents were abnormally present in the soil.
However the use of such relatively high suction levels is considered to be useful for
modelling purposes.
6. Analysis of results and discussion
The Universal Model adopted by the M-EPDG was used to fit the resilient
modulus measurements and obtain typical sets of regression constants. The equation
is as follows:
k2 k3
 θ  τ  [7]
M R = k1 ⋅ p a ⋅   ⋅  oct + 1
 pa   pa 
where, MR is the resilient modulus; pa is the atmospheric pressure; k1 ≥ 0, k2 ≥ 0,

k3 ≤ 0 are regression constants; θ is the bulk stress; and τoct is the octahedral stress.
The stress state recommended by the NCHRP 1-28A protocol was used to
compute the resilient modulus values. These values were θ = 208 kPa and τoct = 49
kPa for granular bases; and θ =83 kPa and τoct = 19 kPa for subgrades. The average
resilient modulus values obtained at optimum conditions were 247 and 170 MPa for
the GB and SG materials, respectively. As expected, specimens with higher matrix
suctions (lower degrees of saturation) yielded higher resilient modulus values, and
vice versa.
6.1. Matrix suction dependant resilient modulus model
A major goal of this study was to consider in a more fundamental way the effect
of seasonal variations in matrix suction upon the resilient modulus of materials. It
has been recognized that any seasonal change in the stress state can be better related
to changes in matrix suction, as a fundamental variable within the stress state of
unsaturated soils, instead of simply using the moisture content change or the degree
of saturation. Successful modelling of the effects of suction on modulus should
achieve a smooth transition from unsaturated to saturated conditions in the soils.
Thus the following variation to the Universal Model is proposed:
 θ − 3 ⋅ ∆ u w − sat
M R = k '1 ⋅ p a ⋅  net


k '2
τ 
⋅  oct + 1 
k '3
( ψ m0 − ∆ ψ m
⋅ 
) 
+ 1 
k '4
[8]
 pa  p
 a   pa 
where,
pa = atmospheric pressure
k’1 ≥ 0, k’2 ≥ 0, k’3 ≤ 0 and k’4 ≥ 0 are regression constants
θnet = θ-3ua, net bulk stress and ua is pore air pressure
∆uw-sat = build-up of pore water pressure under saturated conditions. In such
cases, ∆ψm = 0
τoct = octahedral shear stress
ψmo = initial matrix soil suction

∆ψm = relative change of matrix soil suction with respect to ψmo due to build-up
of pore water pressure under unsaturated conditions, in this case ∆uw-sat=0
It should be noted that the use of the net bulk stress (θnet), instead of the total
bulk stress (θ), in the first factor of the model, corresponds to the use of the axis
translation technique that should be applied for resilient modulus testing of
unsaturated soils as previously discussed. As the condition of the soil goes from an
unsaturated state to a saturated state, ua will approach zero and the θnet will approach
θ again.
The third factor is a new term that aims at capturing the contribution of the
matrix suction to the overall resilient response of the material under unsaturated
conditions. Note that by subtracting the relative change in matrix suction (∆ψm) from
the initial matrix suction (ψmo), the actual matrix suction at the time of the resilient
modulus measurement is obtained.
The use of this variable in the third term is intended to reflect the variations of
the matrix suction when undrained conditions are present. The drained conditions
are effective when the ∆ψm value approaches zero. Then, the results will reflect the
resilient response of the material under constant matrix suction or in other words,
when pore water pressures are able to dissipate.
As originally observed for the τoct term, the computational problem of one of the
factors approaching zero is present again. This problem was overcome by adding
“+1” in the third term as previously proposed (Andrei, 2003). The term is also
normalized by atmospheric pressure to keep regression constants non-dimensional.
As long as the last parenthetical term in Equation [8] is greater than 1, it always
contributes to the resilient response of the material. Once this term approaches one,
the model allows for saturated conditions, and therefore, the matrix suction does not
contribute anymore to the resilient modulus. In the saturated state, the first
parenthetical term in Equation [8], starts its contribution by capturing the effects of
the positive pore water pressure in the MR.
When the soil becomes saturated, the classic effective stress approach is invoked.
As the term ∆uw-sat increases, the first parenthetical term will decrease, reducing
the resilient modulus of the material. When the excess pore water pressure becomes
equal to the external applied loads, the effective stress in the material approaches
zero.
6.2. Validation of the model
In order to validate the proposed model, the resilient modulus measurements

were regressed and sets of regression constants (k’1, k’2, k’3, and k’4) were obtained
for all materials as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Equation [4], currently used in the
AASHTO M-EPDG to assess environmental effects on the resilient modulus, was
used to compare the proposed model predictions. Note that “n” total resilient
modulus data points from all specimens corresponding to every single material were
used for the statistical analysis.
1,200
1,000
Predicted MR (MPa)
800
600
400 n = 302
RMS = 79.3
200 S e /S y = 0.371
2
R adj = 0.863
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Measured M R (MPa)
a) Using the AASHTO M-EPDG model (Equation [4])
1,200
k 1 '=1992.89
1,000 k 2 '=0.628
k 3 '=-0.294
Predicted MR (MPa)
800 k 4 '=0.180
600
400 n = 302
RMS = 53.5
200 S e /S y = 0.308
2
R adj = 0.906
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Measured M R (MPa)
b) Using the matrix suction dependent model (Equation [8])

Figure 6. Goodness of fit for all GB data
Figure 6a shows the goodness of fit, for all results from both drained and
undrained resilient modulus tests, in the GB material, when using the AASHTO
M-EPDG model shown in Equation [4]. Figure 6b shows the results obtained by
using the proposed model. The Root Mean Square error (RMS), the standard error
ratio or relative accuracy (Se/Sy) and the adjusted coefficient of determination (R2adj)
were used to assess the goodness of fit. A decrease in Se/Sy from 0.37 to 0.31 and an
increase in R2adj from 0.86 to 0.91 are noted for the proposed model, which
demonstrate an improvement in the prediction. A decrease in the RMS from 79.3 to
53.5 when used the proposed model can also be observed.
700
600
Predicted MR (MPa)
500
400
300
n = 91
200
RMS = 71.2
100 S e /S y = 0.420
2
R adj = 0.825
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Measured M R (MPa)
a) Using the AASHTO M-EPDG model (Equation [4])
700
k 1 '=1480.32
600 k 2 '=0.420
k 3 '=-2.982
Predicted MR (MPa)
500
k 4 '=1.650
400
300
n = 91
200 RMS = 57.7
S e /S y = 0.291
100 2
R adj = 0.918
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Measured M R (MPa)
b) Using the matrix suction dependent model (Equation [8])

Figure 7. Goodness of fit for all SG data
It is to be noted that the proposed model does not explicitly consider dry density
effects. However, the use of matrix suction will account for its effect, when the
SWCC is defined in terms of degree of saturation or volumetric water content.
Finally, the comparison for the SG subgrade is shown in Figures 7a and 7b. In
this case, the data fitted well to the Universal Model giving R2adj in the range of 0.82
to 0.98. When the data was fit to the proposed model, the predictions improved as
compared to those obtained with the AASHTO M-EPDG model. The R2adj value
improved from 0.83 to 0.92; while the Se/Sy dropped from 0.42 to 0.29. These
statistics along with a decrease in the RMS again illustrate an important
improvement of the prediction when the proposed model is used.
As previously mentioned the uncoupled approach represented by the M-EPDG

model does not directly consider the matrix suction as a fundamental stress variable
but rather indirectly incorporates its effect by using the degree of saturation. Even
though the M-EPDG approach and an enhanced version of the same model
suggested by Cary and Zapata in 2010 are adequate for practical purposes; by using
suction directly, the margin of uncertainty in resilient modulus predictions can be
reduced (Cary and Zapata, 2010).
6.3. Comparison to a suction dependant model
The improvement of resilient modulus predictions using the proposed model

over the predictions obtained by using the AASHTO M-EPDG model to assess
environmental effects on the resilient response of unbound materials was clearly
demonstrated. For the authors, further comparison with other matrix suction
dependent models would strengthen the acceptability of the model. Therefore, due to
its similarity to the Universal Model, the model presented in Equation [6] by Liang
et al. was chosen for additional comparisons (Liang et al., 2008).
As discussed in previously sections, the model proposed by Liang et al. follows
the effective stress approach for unsaturated soils proposed by Bishop (Bishop,
1959; Liang et al., 2008). In their investigation, Liang et al. used Khalili and
Khabbaz method for computation of the χm parameter (Khalili and Khabbaz, 1998).
Following the same approach, the authors ran regression analysis using the data
available for GB and SG materials. Figures 8a and 8b show the results of the
regressions performed using Liang et al. model.
When looking at Figure 8a, it is readily evident that Liang et al. model provides
good predictions for the GB material with a R2adj of 0.85. However, when comparing
Figure 8a to Figure 6b it can be noticed that the predictions obtained using the
model proposed in this study result in a R2adj of 0.91, which indicates a considerable
improvement in predicting the resilient modulus. The same conclusion can be
obtained when comparing the RMS values.
1,200
k 1 =1578.31
1,000 k 2 =0.863
Predicted MR (MPa)
k 3 =-0.504
800
600
n = 302
400
RMS = 70.5
S e /S y = 0.390
200
2
R adj = 0.849
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Measured M R (MPa)
a) Using all GB material data
700
n = 91
600
RMS = 162.9
Predicted MR (MPa)
500 S e /S y = 0.942
2
R adj = 0.131
400
300
200
k 1 =2849.3
100 k 2 =0.615
k 3 =-2.767
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Measured M R (MPa)
b) Using SG subgrade data

Figure 8. Goodness of fit using Liang et al. matrix suction dependent model
Similarly, for the SG subgrade, an improvement in predictions can be observed

when comparing Figure 8b to Figure 7b. In this case, a R2adj of 0.13 indicates that
poor results are obtained for the subgrade material when using Liang et al. model.
On the other hand, when using the proposed model the R2adj jumps to 0.92
demonstrating very significant improvement in predictions. Again, the comparison
of RMS values between these two figures support the previous statement.
The estimation of the χm Bishop’s parameter (Bishop, 1959) represents another

uncertainty in this type of models. Different methods to estimate χm have been
presented but none of them have been widely adopted by the research community,
due to several reasons including: difficulties in the evaluation of the parameter, its
dependence on saturation, and its dependence on soil type. Furthermore, since
saturation is related to matrix suction, it is possible that χm depends on suction as
well. Finally, most of the methods proposed for χm estimation require the use of the
material air entry value (i.e. Khalili and Khabbaz, 1998) which is obtained out of the
SWCC geometric properties. Thus, inappropriate SWCC testing practices may
condition the accuracy of the χm estimation and therefore introduce more uncertainty
to the resilient modulus predictions. Even if the use of the effective stress approach
to predict the resilient modulus were widely accepted, inconsistencies in the

prediction of χm would remain.
6.4. Effect of drainage conditions
It should be recognized that under dynamic loading, with little to no lag time
between loading cycles, pore water pressure build-up will cause loss in resilient
response of unbound materials due to a drop in either the transient matrix suction for
unsaturated conditions or the effective stress for saturated conditions.
1000
Resilient Modulus (Mpa) .
800
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Net Bulk Stress (kPa)
WET Drained OPT Drained DRY Drained

WET Undrained OPT Undrained DRY Undrained
Figure 9. Effect of drainage conditions on the resilience of the GB material
To evaluate the effect of drainage conditions on the resilient modulus, the GB

granular material was tested under both drained and undrained conditions. Results
showed a consistent, but not large, decrease of the resilient modulus under undrained
conditions. The resilient modulus decreased up to 20% for samples compacted at
degrees of saturation higher than 70%. For degrees of saturation between 60% and
70%, the undrained condition resulted in a resilient modulus reduction of about 5%,
when compared to the drained condition. For saturation degrees lower than 60%,
there was no significant difference between drained and undrained conditions.
To illustrate the effect of drainage conditions on the resilient modulus results,
moduli measurements corresponding to the last five sequences of the NCHRP 1-28A
procedure for granular bases were plotted, as shown in Figure 9. The measurements
correspond to increasing levels of both confining and deviator stresses. It should be
noted that the impact of drainage conditions on the resilient modulus is significantly
reduced for the specimen tested at dry of optimum conditions. At dry states, any
pore water pressure build-up was observed to be insufficient to significantly reduce
the mechanical capacity contributed to the soil by matrix suction.
7. Conclusions and recommendations
The variation in matrix suction or in the build-up of pore water pressure within
the soil (for unsaturated and saturated soils, respectively) has been recognized as the
driving factor for seasonal changes in resilient modulus. Therefore, matrix soil
suction should be considered as an independent stress state variable in the
determination of the resilient modulus for unbound materials.
Resilient modulus testing on unsaturated materials requires particular conditions
for both the loading procedures and testing equipment. These conditions have not
been recognized or incorporated into the current NCHRP 1-28A protocol. The use of
the axis translation technique requires changes in the loading procedures available in
the protocol. A summary of recommended modifications has been presented in this
document.
Use of water as a confining fluid or new materials for isolating membranes
should be explored as potential solutions to avoid air diffusion occurring during long
term matrix suction equilibration stages of the specimens. To overcome this issue,
the specimen moisture content can be equilibrated prior to mounting in the device.
However, hysteresis in the SWCC might pose a problem that needs to be considered
in further studies.
A modified Universal Model to predict resilient modulus that accommodates
changes in matrix suction has been proposed. The proposed model considers a
smooth transition from unsaturated to saturated conditions in the soils, and improves
the predictions obtained with the AASHTO MEPDG model, which is based upon
moisture content or degree of saturation alone. The proposed model also
demonstrated superior performance when compared to another matrix suction
dependent model. It has been demonstrated that the proposed model can be applied
not only to granular materials but also to subgrade materials. The proposed model
accounts for the effects of drainage conditions, based on preliminary studies on the
resilient response of granular materials. Further research needs to be completed for
assessing the behavior of drainage conditions for fine cohesive soils.
Given that measuring suction and its variation under applied dynamic load is still
a challenging task, the capability of measuring a full stress state resilient modulus is
currently viable just to research institutions. However, the authors believe that as
such testing capabilities are implemented into the state of the practice and a larger
database is developed, the full stress state model is by far the best model available to
predict resilient modulus response.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation for financially supporting this research under project: “Pavement
Design Research towards the Implementation of the Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide”.

Dr. Matthew Witczak provided general overview guidance, valuable input and
corrections to the manuscript. His efforts are greatly acknowledged by the authors.
8. Bibliography
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Method of

Test for Determining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials, AASHTO
Designation T307-99. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, 22nd Edition, The Materials Book, 2002.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Classification of
Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes, AASHTO
Designation M145-91. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, 30th Edition - The Materials Book, 2010.
Andrei D., Development of a Predictive Model for the Resilient Modulus of Unbound
Materials, Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 2003.
Bishop A.W., “The Principle of Effective Stress”, Tecknisk Ukeflad, Vol. 106, No. 39, 1959,
p. 859-863.
Cary C.E., Resilient Modulus Testing for Unsaturated Unbound Materials, Master Thesis,
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 2008.
Cary C.E., Zapata C.E., “Enhancement of the Model for Resilient Response of Soils due to
Seasonal Environmental Changes Implemented in the M-EPDG”, Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. In press.
Fredlund D.G., Rahardjo H., “Soil Mechanics Principles for Highway Engineering in Arid
Regions”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1137, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 1987, p. 1-11.
Fredlund D.G., Began N.R., “Stress State Variables for Unsaturated Soils”, ASCE Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103, No. 5, 1977, p. 447-466.
Fredlund D.G., Began A.T., Wong P.K., “Relation between Resilient Modulus and Stress
Conditions for Cohesive Subgrade Soils”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 642, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1977, p. 73-81.
Fredlund D.G., Xing A., “Equations for the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve”, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1994, p. 521-532.
Gucunzki N., Brill D.R., “A Numerical Model for Pore Pressure Buildup in Airport Pavement
Subgrades”, Conference Proceedings: The 4th International Conference on the Bearing
Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Vol. 2, Minnesota, USA, 1994, p. 1429-1442.
Khoury N.N., Zaman M., “Correlation among Resilient Modulus, Moisture Variation and Soil
Suction for Subgrade Soils”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No 1874, Transportation Research Board of the National

Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, p. 99-107.
Khalili N., Khabbaz M.H., “A Unique Relationship for χ for the Determination of the Shear
Strength of Unsaturated Soils”, Géotechnique, Vol. 48, No. 5, 1998, p. 681-687.
Liang R.Y., Rabab’ah S., Khasawneh M., “Predicting Moisture-Dependent Resilient Modulus
of Cohesive Soils Using Soil Suction Concept”, ASCE Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 1, 2008, p. 34-40.
Mitchell J.K., Soga K., Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, New Jersey, Jhon Wiley & Sons,
2005.
Moossazadeh J., Witczak M.W., “Prediction of Subgrade Moduli for Soil that Exhibits
Nonlinear Behavior”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No 810, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 1981, p. 9-17.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Laboratory Determination of Resilient
Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design”, Research Results Digest, No 285,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004,
p. 52.
Parreira A.B., Goncalves R.F., “The Influence of Moisture Content and Soil Suction on the
Resilient Modulus of a Lateritic Subgrade Soil”, Presented at GeoEng - An International
Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
Sawangsuriya A., Edil T., Benson C., “Effect of Suction on Resilient Modulus of Compacted
Fine-Grained Subgrade Soils”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Seed H.B., Chan C.K., Lee C.E., “Resilience Characteristics of Subgrade Soils and their
Relation to Fatigue Failures in Asphalt Pavements”, Conference Proceedings:
International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 1, Ann Arbor,
USA, 1962, p. 611-636.
Theyse H.L., Legge T.F.H., Pretorious P.C., Wolff H., “A Yield Strength Model for Partially
Saturated Unbound Granular Material”, International Journal of Road Materials and
Pavement Design, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2007, p. 423-448.
Witczak M. W., Uzan J., “The Universal Airport Design System, Report I of IV: Granular
Material Characterization”, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park, 1988.
Witczak M.W., Andrei D., Houston W.N., “Resilient Modulus as Function of Soil Moisture –
Summary of Predictive Models”, Development of the 2002 Guide for the Development of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, NCHRP 1-37 A, Inter Team Technical
Report (Seasonal 1), Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 2000.
Yang R.R., Huang W.H., Tai Y.T., “Variation of Resilient Modulus with Soil Suction for
Compacted Subgrade Soils”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Zapata C.E., Andrei D., Witczak M.W., Houston W.N., “Incorporation of Environmental
Effects in Pavement Design”, International Journal of Road Materials and Pavement
Design, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2007, p. 667-693.
Zapata C.E., Perera Y.Y., Houston W.N., “Matrix Suction Prediction Model Used in the New
AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide”, Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No 2101, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, p. 53-62.
Zapata C.E., Houston W.N., “Calibration and Validation of the Enhanced Integrated Climatic
Model for Pavement Design”, NCHRP Report 602, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Library of
Congress Control Number 2008924251, p. 62, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp
/nchrp_rpt_602.pdf
Zapata C.E., Cary C.E., “A New Generation of Resilient Modulus Characterization of
Unbound Materials”, Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification, Problem Soils, and
Geo-Support, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 187: Selected papers from the 2009
International Foundations Congress and Equipment Expo, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Orlando, Florida, March, 2009, p. 377-384.
Received: 15 June 2010

Accepted: 13 November 2010

Modulos Resilient in Granulas Soils PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Modulos Resilient in Granulas Soils PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 25 March 2013, At: 04:50

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Resilient Modulus for Unsaturated Unbound Materials

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2011.9695263

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Carlos E. Cary — Claudia E. Zapata

Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering

DOI:10.3166/RMPD.12.615-638 © 2011 Lavoisier, Paris

The resilient modulus used for characterization of unbound materials is a

Pore Water Pressure Build-up (kPa)

Figure 1. Pore water pressure build-up under undrained repeated loading

The moisture flow, in the absence of gravitational gradient, is dictated by matrix

explores the feasibility of developing an enhanced version of the Universal Model

evaluate the suitability of the Universal Model; and if suitable according to

Resilient modulus models that consider suction as predictive variable

Fredlund et al. (1977), made an attempt to relate the modulus of a compacted

log MR = cld – mld (σ1-σ3)

MR = 14.10 σd 0.782ψm0.076 [3]

where σd is the deviator stress and ψm is the matrix suction.

where S is the degree of saturation, Sopt is the saturation at optimum conditions, θ is

where χm is the Bishop’s parameter, and k1, k2 are regression parameters.

The ASU Geotechnical Laboratory is equipped with a Triaxial system for

4.1. Material properties

4.2. Soil-water characteristic curve

Table 1. Summary of material properties

Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve 43 97

Percent Passing No. 10 Sieve 36 96

Percent Passing No. 40 Sieve 21 87

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 7 47

Specific Gravity 2.71 2.71

Standard Optimum Moisture Content (%) 7.2 12.1

Soil Classification (AASHTO) A-1-a A-4

Soil Classification (USCS) GP-GM SC

Figure 3. Pressure plate setup to obtain suction for SG subgrade

5. MR testing for unsaturated unbound materials

Degree of Saturation (%)

Matric Suction (kPa)

5.1. Testing equipment

An integrated Unsaturated Soil Triaxial system (UST) system capable of

Figure 5. Schematic of the unsaturated soil triaxial system

Additionally, the UST system has a specially designed flushing device

5.2. NCHRP 1-28A protocol and controlling software

Net stress approach for

ψ m is not applied ψ m is applied

σ confining = σ 3 = σ net−confining σ confining = σ 3 = σ net −confining + u a

5.3. Specimen preparation and resilient modulus testing procedure

Specimens were prepared according to NCHRP 1-28A protocol at optimum

Table 3. Changes on the loading procedures for unsaturated soils MR testing

DRY OPT WET DRY OPT WET

W (%) 5.0 7.0 7.5 10.1 12.1 14.1

ψmo (kPa) 235 4 0 188 81 26

6. Analysis of results and discussion

where, MR is the resilient modulus; pa is the atmospheric pressure; k1 ≥ 0, k2 ≥ 0,

6.1. Matrix suction dependant resilient modulus model

ψmo = initial matrix soil suction

6.2. Validation of the model

In order to validate the proposed model, the resilient modulus measurements

a) Using the AASHTO M-EPDG model (Equation [4])

b) Using the matrix suction dependent model (Equation [8])

a) Using the AASHTO M-EPDG model (Equation [4])

b) Using the matrix suction dependent model (Equation [8])