Evaluation of Resilient Modulus and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for Florida Pavement Subgrades W. Virgil Ping 1, Biqing Sheng 1 Corresponding Author, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Florida State University, 55 Pottsdamer Street, Tallahassee, FL 3310, USA; ping@eng.fsu.edu, 1-850-410-619 (phone), 1-850-410-614 (FAX) Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Florida State University, 55 Pottsdamer Street, Tallahassee, FL 3310, USA; shengbi@eng.fsu.edu, 1-850-410-6131 (phone), 1-850-410-614 (FAX) ABSTRACT: The performance of subgrade generally depends on its load bearing capacity, which can be determined by the resilient modulus and the modulus of subgrade reaction. AASHTO pavement design guide (1993) suggested a theoretical relationship between modulus of subgrade reaction and resilient modulus of subgrade based on the assumption that the subgrade material is linear elastic, which was not evaluated by experimental work. This paper presents an experimental study to evaluate the load-deformation and resilient modulus characteristics of the granular subgrade soils using field and laboratory tests. An extensive field static plate bearing load testing program was conducted to evaluate the in-situ bearing characteristics of typical Florida pavement subgrade soils. In addition, laboratory cyclic triaxial tests were performed to evaluate the resilient modulus characteristics of the subgrade materials. Based on the experimental results, correlation relationships were developed between the subgrade soil resilient modulus and the modulus of subgrade reaction to calibrate the AASHTO theoretical relationship. It was found that the calibrated relationship was close to the AASHTO theoretical relationship with a difference around 10%. INTRODUCTION Subgrade materials are typically characterized by their resistance to deformation under load, which can be either a measure of their strength or stiffness. A basic subgrade stiffness/strength characterization is resilient modulus (M R ). Resilient modulus is a measurement of the elastic property of soil recognizing certain nonlinear characteristics, and is defined as the ratio of the axial deviator stress to the recoverable axial strain. Both the AASHTO 1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO, 1993) and the mechanistic based design methods (AASHTO, 008) use the resilient modulus of each layer in the design process. The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is a required parameter for the design of rigid pavements. It estimates the support of the layers below a rigid pavement surface course. The modulus of subgrade reaction is determined from field plate bearing load tests (Huang, 1993). However, the field plate bearing load test is elaborate and time-consuming. Recently, resilient modulus has been commonly applied for both flexible and rigid pavement in the design guide (AASHTO, 1993). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a relationship between the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) and the subgrade soil resilient modulus (M R ). This allows the designer to treat the seasonal variation of the subgrade soil k-value by simply converting the same seasonal resilient modulus that would be used for flexible pavement design. 1
In Florida, several major research studies in the past years have been conducted to evaluate the resilient modulus characteristics of Florida pavement soils (Ping et al., 000; Ping et al., 001; Ping et al., 001; Ping et al., 00; Ping et al., 008). An extensive field static plate bearing load testing program was performed on selected field pavement sites to evaluate the bearing characteristics of pavement subgrade soils (Ping et al., 00). A laboratory triaxial testing program was carried out to evaluate the resilient modulus of subgrade materials. Recently, comparative studies were conducted between the resilient modulus and modulus of subgrade reaction for Florida subgrade soils (Ping and Sheng, 011). Calibrated correlation relationships were developed from experimental results. This paper presents a series of characterization effort of the subgrade modulus from the laboratory cyclic triaxial test and field experimental studies such as field plate bearing load test. The subgrade soil resilient modulus and the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) using field measured experimental results were evaluated. The details could be found elsewhere (Ping et al., 000; Ping et al., 001; Ping et al., 008). The experimental programs are described briefly as follows. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS An extensive field static plate bearing load testing program was carried out to evaluate the in-situ bearing characteristics of pavement base, subbase, and subgrade soils (Ping et al., 001; Ping et al., 00). Typical granular subgrade soils were excavated from the field test sites and obtained for laboratory resilient modulus evaluation. In conjunction with the field experimental programs, a laboratory triaxial testing program was performed to evaluate the resilient modulus characteristics of the subgrade materials. Field Static Plate Bearing Load Test A series of tests were conducted on selected field flexible pavement sites around Florida (Ping et al., 000; Ping et al., 00). The sites were evenly scattered within the state to better represent different soil conditions in Florida. Granular materials (A-3 and A--4 soils) were most commonly encountered as roadbed in Florida. Thus, only the granular soils were analyzed in the field study. The plate bearing load test procedures employed may vary somewhat, depending on the adoptive agencies, but the method is generally in close agreement with ASTM D 1196 (ASTM, 004). In Florida, the plate load test is designated as FM 5-57 in the Manual of Florida Sampling and Testing Methods (FDOT, 000). At each site, the asphalt concrete structural layer was cut and removed. For each layer of the pavement beneath the asphalt concrete, including the base, subbase (stabilized subgrade), and subgrade (embankment), the in-situ moisture content and density were measured using a nuclear gauge device. Representative bag samples of each layer were taken for future testing of resilient modulus in the laboratory. The plate bearing load test was conducted on the subgrade (embankment) layer. A 305 mm (1 in.) diameter circular steel plate was used for applying the load (ACI, 006). A schematic illustration of the test setup is shown in Figure 1. After completion of the plate bearing load test program, the subgrade soil layer was excavated up to more than 1 m below the tested stratum to check the layer
homogeneity. All soil materials were reconstituted in the laboratory to the in-situ moisture and density conditions for the resilient modulus test. Laboratory Triaxial Test Figure 1. Field Plate Bearing Load Test The triaxial test setup is shown in Figure. Both T9-91I (AASHTO, 1991) and T307-99 test (AASHTO, 003) methods were adopted for preparing and testing untreated subgrade materials for the determination of resilient modulus. At least two duplicate resilient modulus tests were conducted on each type of soil. The differences between most of the two replicate tests were within about 5 percent (Ping and Ge, 1997). Thus, the resilient modulus test was repeatable. Figure. Schematic of Triaxial Cell for Resilient Modulus Measurement ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Field Experimental Results The field experimental program was conducted to evaluate the supporting characteristics of in situ pavement layers. The plate bearing load test results were calibrated by using secant modulus concept (Ping et al., 000; Ping et al., 00). In the field testing program the number of load 3
Load, P applications, the angle of internal friction, and the geometry of the bearing plate are constant. Based on this information, after analyzing the data obtained from the field plate load test, a twoconstant hyperbolic model was proposed to represent the relation of the load-deformation as follows (Ping et al., 00): P (1) where P = load, Δ = deflection, and a, b = constants. a b The representation of the load-deflection curve is illustrated in Figure 3. It was found that the hyperbolic models have good agreements with the experimental curve. P ult E i E sec (at P = P ult /) asymptote P = Δ/(a+bΔ) P ult / 1/b tanθ = 1/a Deformation, Δ Figure 3. Rectangular Hyperbolic Representation of Load-Deflection Curve Modulus of subgrade reaction k is defined as the following equation: k 0 where k = modulus of subgrade reaction, σ 0 = pressure applied to the surface of the plate, and Δ = deflection of the plate. The k values were calculated with σ 0 = 10 psi (68.9 kpa) on 1 in. diameter plate. The detailed calculation may be found elsewhere (Ping and Sheng, 011). Laboratory Triaxial Test Results The resilient modulus (M r or M R ) was calculated from the load and deformation using the following equation: d M r (3) where d = axial deviator stress, and R () 4
R = axial resilient strain. For granular soils, the resilient modulus M r is commonly expressed by the following regression models to show the variation of the M r versus the bulk stress (θ) and confining pressure ( 3 ): where = sum of the principal stresses, ( 1 + + 3 ), 3 = confining pressure, and k 1, k, k 3, k 4 = regression constants. r 1 k M = k (4) k4 M r = k3 (5) In actual field conditions, the confining pressure at subgrade layers was found to be approximately 13.8 kpa (.0 psi). Because the laboratory resilient modulus is stress dependent, a constant stress level has to be determined in selecting the resilient modulus of roadbed soils for pavement design. In a laboratory resilient modulus test, the resilient modulus value obtained at a deviator stress of 34.5 kpa (5.0 psi) under the confining pressure 13.8 kpa (.0 psi) was considered representative of the in-situ subgrade modulus (Ping et al., 001). The subgrade resilient modulus was then obtained from the bulk stress of 75.8 kpa (11.0 psi) at different moisture conditions. DISCUSSIONS ON RESILIENT MODULUS AND MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION A theoretical relationship between the k-value and resilient modulus was developed in the Appendix HH of the AASHTO design guide (AASHTO, 1993), which is as follows: 3 M (psi) k(pci) R (6) 19.4 It should be noted that this theoretical relationship was developed based on the assumption that the roadbed material is linear elastic. The elastic layer theory and equation provide the basis for establishing the relationship. Some other relationships based on the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) database were established in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (M-EPDG) (AASHTO, 008) and elsewhere (Setiadji and Fwa, 009; Khazanovich et al., 001). It is usually impractical to conduct plate bearing load tests in the field on representative subgrade soils for design projects. Thus, it is necessary to develop a relationship between the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) and the roadbed soil resilient modulus (M R ). This allows the designer to obtain the k value by simply converting the soil resilient modulus. By changing the units of M R and k to MPa and MPa/m, Equation (6) becomes the following: k. 08 (7) measured M R 5
Equation (7) was based on the definition of k using a 30 in. (76 mm) diameter plate. The deflection Δ of a plate on a solid foundation can be determined by the following equation (Huang, 1993): (1 v ) qa (8) M R where q = applied pressure, 10 psi; v = Poisson s ratio; a = radius of the plate; and M R = resilient modulus. The modulus of subgrade reaction, which is defined as the ratio between an applied pressure q and the deflection Δ, can be expressed as: k q M R (1 v ) a (9) It can be found that the modulus of subgrade reaction k is inversely proportional to the diameter of the plate (Huang, 1993)). If v = 0.45 and a = 15 in. (381 mm), then Equation (9) becomes: M (psi) k(pci) R (10) 18.8 Due to the rigid plate restriction of the computer programs, AASHTO re-defined the equation of modulus of subgrade reaction, which is as follows: P k (11) V where P is the magnitude of the load (in pounds) applied to the 30 in. plate and V is the volume (in cubic inches) of soil (directly beneath the plate) that is displaced by the load. This is considered a valid re-definition and allows the rigid loading plate constraint to be relaxed. Without the rigid plate restriction, an elastic layer computer program was used to predict the deflected shapes, displaced volumes and k-values under a 30 in. plate for a range of roadbed soil resilient moduli. Then, Equation (10) becomes Equation (6). However, it is well known that granular materials and subgrade soils are nonlinear with an elastic modulus varying with the level of stresses. Therefore, this theoretical relationship needs to be calibrated in order to be accommodated in the pavement design. It should be noted that the field experiments were conducted using a plate with diameter of 305 mm (1 in.) in the plate bearing load test. Since the modulus of subgrade reaction k is inversely proportional to the diameter of the plate, the k-values need to be converted to the values that resulted when the plate diameter in the plate bearing load test was 76 mm (30 in.). The 6
comparisons between laboratory resilient modulus and modulus of subgrade reaction for subgrade soils were made and the relationship is shown as follows: k MPa/m).5 M (MPa) (1) ( R or k( pci) M R (psi) /17. 5 (13).5.03 %difference 11%.03 (14) As shown in Equation (14), it appears that the correlation relationship obtained from the experimental results is close to the theoretical relationship with a difference about 11 percent, which is reasonable. This calibrated correlation relationship could be utilized in the Florida pavement design guide for obtaining realistic resilient modulus values of Florida subgrade soils from laboratory measured resilient modulus values. CONCLUSIONS Several major field and laboratory experimental studies were conducted in Florida to evaluate the resilient modulus and load-deformation characteristics of Florida subgrade soils. The resilient modulus measured in laboratory was compared to the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) measured from field test to evaluate the AASHTO theoretical relationship. A calibrated linear relationship was developed to correlate resilient modulus and modulus of subgrade reaction (k). It was found that the calibrated relationship based on the experimental results was close to the AASHTO theoretical relationship. Conducting the soil resilient modulus test in laboratory and selecting an appropriate resilient modulus value for pavement design are very complex processes. The processes are even more time-consuming, labor intensive, and costly on conducting in-situ field plate bearing load test and obtaining field measured k-values. Therefore, the calibrated relationship between the resilient modulus and modulus of subgrade reaction (k) could be utilized in the Florida pavement design guide for obtaining realistic subgrade resilient modulus design values from laboratory resilient modulus measurements. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this research was provided by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Research Center of the FDOT. The strong support from the FDOT managers, Bruce Dietrich, David Horhota, Bill Miley, Robert Ho, and Emmanual Uwaibi, are gratefully acknowledged. Harold Godwin, Rick Venick, and Ron Lewis with the FDOT State Materials Office conducted the filed plate load tests. Zenghai Yang, Ginger Ling, Chaohan Zhang, Haitao Liu, and Jian Lan, all former research assistants, performed most of the laboratory resilient modulus tests. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsors. 7
REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) (1991). Interim Method of Test for Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and Untreated Base/Subbase Materials. AASHTO Designation: T9-91I, Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Volume I & II, Joint Force on Pavements, Highway Subcommittee on Design, Washington D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) (003). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials. AASHTO Designation: T307-99, Washington D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) (008). Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. Interim Edition, Washington D.C. American Concrete Institute (ACI) (006). Design of Slabs-on-Ground. ACI Committee 360, Technical Committee Document 360R-06. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (004). Standard Test Method for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. ASTM D1196-93. Burmister, D. M. (1943). The theory of Stresses and Displacement in Layered Systems and Application to the Design of Airport Runways. Proceedings of the Highway Research Board. Florida Department of Transportation (000). Florida Method of Test for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load Test of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components. FM 5-57, Tallahassee, Florida. Huang, Y. H. (1993). Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Khazanovich, L., Tayabji, S.D., and Darter, M.I. (001). Backcalculation of Layer Parameters for LTPP Test Sections, Volume I: Slab on Elastic Solid and Slab on Dense-Liquid Foundation Analysis of Rigid Pavements. Technical Report, No. FHWA-RD-00-086, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. Ping, W.V., and Ge, L. (1997). Field Verification of Laboratory Resilient Modulus Measurements on Subgrade Soils. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1577, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 53-61. Ping, W.V., and Yang Z. (1998). Experimental Verification of Resilient Deformation for Granular Subgrades. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the transportation Research Board, No. 1639, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-. Ping, W.V., Wang, Y., and Yang, Z. (000). Field and Laboratory Evaluation of Resilient Modulus Measurements on Florida Pavement Soils. Research Report No. 0636(F)-4538, Research Center, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Ping, W.V., Liu, C., and Yang, Z. (001). Implementation of Resilient Modulus in the Florida Flexible Pavement Design Procedure. Research Report No. 0780(F), Research Center, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Ping, W.V., Yang, Z., Liu, C., and Dietrich, B. (001). Measuring Resilient Modulus of Granular Materials in Flexible Pavements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 8
Transportation Research Board, No. 1778, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 81-90. Ping, W.V., Yang, Z., and Gao, Z. (00). Field and Laboratory Determination of Granular Subgrade Moduli. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 4, 00, pp. 149-159. Ping, W.V., Ling, C.C., Zhang, C., Liu, H., and Lan, J. (008). Design Highwater Clearances for Highway Pavements. Publication FDOT BD-543-13, Research Center, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Ping, W.V., Sheng, B., Ling, C.C., Dietrich, B., and Horhota, D. (010). Influence of Base Clearance on Subgrade Resilient Modulus of Florida Roadway Pavements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 154, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 176-186. Ping, W.V. and Sheng, B. (011). Developing Correlation Relationship between Modulus of Subgrade Reaction and Resilient Modulus for Florida Subgrade Soils. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 3, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 95-107. Setiadji, B.H. and Fwa, T.F. (009). Examining k-e Relationship of Pavement Subgrade Based on Load-Deflection Consideration. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 3, pp. 140-148. 9