Advertisement

Evaluation of Subgrade Resilient Modulus from Unsaturated CBR Test

  • Aneke Frank IkechukwuEmail author
  • Mostafa M. Hassan
  • A. Moubarak
Conference paper
Part of the Sustainable Civil Infrastructures book series (SUCI)

Abstract

Appropriate pavement design requires knowledge of stress-strain response of subgrade layer under cyclic loading. Pavement structure is generally under unsaturated conditions, above groundwater table (GWT). Thus, to appropriately design a pavement, it is significant to consider suction matric (ua − uw). Resilient modulus (Mr) is an important property that characterizes subgrade behaviour through repeated load triaxial test (RLTT), with relatively high reliable testing procedures. However, the nature of the RLTT procedure is costly, time-consuming, and somewhat complicated. To alleviate these constrains, this study focused on the application of conventional California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and unsaturated CBR for estimation of Mr values. Various equation in the literature for estimating Mr failed to consider suction matric. One of the mentioned equation in the literature was adopted to estimate Mr values and the estimated Mr values were compared with values estimated using proposed equation from unsaturated CBR testing with respect to experimental data from the three-compacted fine-grained soils. The limitations of these equations were assessed based on the comparisons between laboratory evaluated and estimated Mr values. The Mr values estimated from unsaturated CBR equation, closely predicted Mr of three subgrades with percentage error ± <5%. The CBR equation from the literature, overestimated Mr values of the studied soils with average percentage error of ± >50% respectively.

References

  1. AASHTO T 307-99: Determining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. ASTM. D4318-10: Standard test method for liquid limit, and plasticity index of soils. American Society for Testing and Materials (2010)Google Scholar
  3. ASTM. D 5298-10: Standard test method for measurement of soil potential (suction) using filter paper. American Society for Testing and Materials (2010)Google Scholar
  4. ASTM. D 698 Standard Test Method for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort. American Society for Testing and Materials (2015)Google Scholar
  5. Ampadu, S.: A laboratory investigation into the effect of water content on the CBR of a subgrade soil. In: Schanz, T. (ed.) Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, pp. 137–144. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cekerevac, C., et.al.: Water influence on mechanical behaviour of pavements: experimental investigation. In: Dawson, A. (ed.) Water in Road Structures, pp. 217–242. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Holtz, W.G., Gibbs, H.J.: Engineering properties of expansive clays. Trans ASCE 121, 641–663 (1956)Google Scholar
  8. Hopkins, T.C.: Minimum bearing strength of soil subgrades required to construct flexible pavement. In: Proceedings, the 4th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Minneapolis Minnesota, vol. 1 (1994a)Google Scholar
  9. Kim, D.G.: Engineering properties affecting the resilient modulus of fine-grained soils as subgrade, Master thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science the Ohio State University (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Kim, D.G.: Development of a constitutive model for resilient modulus of cohesive soils, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science the Ohio State University (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Lee, W.J., et al.: Resilient modulus of cohesive soils and the effect of freeze-thaw. Can. Geotech. J. 32, 559–568 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, D., Selig, E.T.: Resilient modulus for fine-grained subgrade soil. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 120(6), 939–957 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Masada, T., Sargand, S.M.: Laboratory characterization of materials and data management for Ohio-SHRP projects (U.S. 23), Job No. 14695(0), Final report, for Ohio Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Paraire, J.: Suction tests on CBR-diameter specimens. The bearing capacity suction relation. Transport and Road Research Lab (TRRL), Crowthorne, GB (1987)Google Scholar
  15. Paterson, W.D.L., Maree, J.H.: An interim mechanistic procedure for the structural design pavements. National Institute for Transport and Road Research, Pretoria, South Africa (1978)Google Scholar
  16. Powell, W.D., et al.: The structural design of bituminous roads. M.E. TRRL report LR 1132, p. 62 (1984)Google Scholar
  17. Purwana, Y., et al.: Experimental study of suction-monitored CBR test on sand–kaolin clay mixture. Int. J. Geomaterials 3(2), 419–422 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. Saklecha, P.P., et.al.: ANN modelling for strength characterization of subgrade soil in a basaltic terrain. In: Proceedings of ICAMB-2012, 9–11 January, pp. 1215–1220. SMBS, VIT University, Vellore, India (2012)Google Scholar
  19. Sanchez-Leal, F.: Interpretation of CBR test results under the shear strength concept of unsaturated soil mechanics. In: 3rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, pp. 663–668. CRC Press, Recife (2002)Google Scholar
  20. Seed, H.B., et al.: Prediction of swelling potential for compacted clays. J. ASCE Soil Mech. Found. Div. 88(SM-3), 53–87 (1962). Part IGoogle Scholar
  21. Singh, S., Sharan, A.: Strength characteristics of compacted pond ash. Geomech. Geoengin. Int. J. 9(1), 9–17 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2013.772661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sivakumar, V., et al.: CBR, undrained strength and yielding characteristics of compacted tills. In: 3rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, pp. 663–668. CRC Press, Recife (2002)Google Scholar
  23. Sridharan, A., Prakash, K.: Classification procedures for expansive soils. In: Geotechnical Engineering, London, October, vol. 143, paper 12075, pp. 235–240 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. TMH1 METHOD 8: The Determination of California Bearing Ratio Of untreated soils and gravels. Technical Methods for Highway (1986)Google Scholar
  25. Uzan, J.: Characterization of Granular Materials, TRR 1022. TRB, Washington, D.C. (1985)Google Scholar
  26. Vogrig, M., et al.: A laboratory technique for estimating the resilient modulus of unsaturated soil specimens from CBR and unconfined compression tests. In: 56th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Winnipeg, pp. 99–106 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Yang, S.R., et al.: Variation of resilient modulus with soil suction for compacted subgrade soils. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1913, 99–106 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aneke Frank Ikechukwu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mostafa M. Hassan
    • 1
  • A. Moubarak
    • 2
  1. 1.Sustainable Urban Road Transportation (SURT) Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering and Information TechnologyCentral University of TechnologyBloemfonteinRepublic of South Africa
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSuez Canal UniversityIsmailiaEgypt

Personalised recommendations