1 / 14

Characterization of Unbound Pavement Materials for MEPDG

Characterization of Unbound Pavement Materials for MEPDG. November 15, 2010. Shabbir Hossain, Ph.D., P.E. Research Scientist, VTRC. Objectives and Scope. Develop a predictive regression model for Resilient Modulus for Fine Soil using Unconfined Compression Test

geraldine-travis
Download Presentation

Characterization of Unbound Pavement Materials for MEPDG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Characterization of Unbound Pavement Materials for MEPDG November 15, 2010 Shabbir Hossain, Ph.D., P.E. Research Scientist, VTRC

  2. Objectives and Scope • Develop a predictive regression model for Resilient Modulus for Fine Soil using Unconfined Compression Test • Verify the low resilient modulus for coarse soil • Obtain typical resilient modulus values for VDOT base course aggregates: 21A and 21B

  3. Aggregate and Soil Samples • Nine VDOT construction Districts • Six Fine Soils • Two A-7-5, two A-4, one A-7-6, and one A-6 • Five Coarse Soils (plus five more samples from one construction project) • Six A-2-4, one A-2-6, one A-2-7 and two A-3 • Six Aggregate sources: • Two 21A: Granite gneiss and Schist • Four 21B: Dolomitic LS, LS, Diabase and Marble • Specific gravity and std proctor test (OMC & MDD)

  4. Laboratory Tests • Resilient Modulus Test – AASHTO T 307 • Fine Soil, Coarse Soil and Base Aggregate • Varied degree of saturation (Three, ranging 50 to 100%) • Calculation with MEPDG constitutive Model • K –values from regression (R2 > 0.9) • Resilient Modulus calculated using MEPDG model • Soil: confining pressure 2 psi and deviator stress 6 psi • Aggregate: confining pressure 3 psi and deviator stress 24 psi

  5. Constitutive Models • Models Considered • Model 1: -- Soils Lab • Model 2: -- AASHTO • Model 3: -- MEPDG • k – values from regression analysis (R2 > 0.9) • Mr values - assuming stresses • Confining 2 psi and deviator (cyclic) 6 psi

  6. Laboratory Tests • Quick Shear Test (Triaxial Compression) • At the end of RM test with 5 psi confinement • Unconfined Compression Test – AASHTO T 208 • Fine Soil • Stress-strain Diagram • Initial Tangent Modulus • Varied degree of saturation • Different compaction hammers • Static • Proctor (standard) • Harvard Miniature Compactor

  7. Base Aggregate • K- values for 21As and 21Bs • Resilient Modulus at 3 psi (confining) and 24 psi (dev) • 21A: 12,800 to 20,517 psi • 21B: 18,259 to 31,297 psi • Increase in degree of saturation reduces Mr • Two saturation only: OMC and a lower value • Sample could not be compacted at higher saturation • Good correlation with Quick Shear (Triaxial) test • Mr and stresses at 0.1% strain from quick shear (triaxial) test • Triaxial setup is also complex/ resource intensive

  8. Coarse Soil • K-values for stress dependent constitutive equation • Calculated Mr: confining 2 psi & Dev 6 psi • Resilient Modulus values are low compared to MEPDG recommended • Sample size effect • 3” diameter sample • 6” diameter sample • Comparable values but low • Good correlation with Quick Shear (Triaxial) test • Mr and stresses at 0.1% strain from quick shear (triaxial) test • Triaxial setup is also complex/ resource intensive • Mr is inversely proportional to degree of saturation

  9. Fine Soil • K- values for MEPDG model • Calculated Mr: Confining 2 psi and Dev. 6 psi • Mr is inversely proportional to degree of saturation • Different relation for different lab • VDOT lab and an outside vendor • Very specific to a particular soil but strong correlation • Strong correlation with Quick Shear (triaxial) test results • Unconfined compression test a special triaixal test

  10. Fine Soil • Unconfined Compression Test • Stress-strain plot • Initial Tangent Modulus as a measure of stiffness • Initial Tangent Modulus is inversely proportional to degree of saturation • Different relation for different sample preparation technique • Impact (proctor), Static and Harvard Miniature • Good correlation between resilient modulus and initial tangent modulus • OMC and MDD samples only • Interpolated to match the degree of saturation • Sample preparation

  11. Prediction Model

  12. Prediction Model

  13. Conclusions • Strong influence of degree of saturation on Mr • Both density and moisture • Dynamic modulus test • Reasonable estimate from static triaxial (quick shear) test • Coarse soil values are low compared to MEPDG • Irrespective of sample size • Actual measured value or Catalog of values • Coarse base aggregate is stiffer • Resilient Modulus of Fine soil could be estimated from unconfined compression test

  14. Recommendations • Implementation of resilient modulus for MEPDG • A database of resilient modulus values should be developed • Initial tangent modulus from unconfined compression test should be used to estimate resilient modulus for fine soil • Further data collection to update the model

More Related