Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

Resilient modulus of black cotton soil

K.H. Mamatha a, S.V. Dinesh b,⇑
a
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur, Karnataka 572103, India
b
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur, Karnataka 572103, India

Received 28 June 2016; received in revised form 25 January 2017; accepted 28 January 2017
Available online 6 February 2017

Abstract

Resilient modulus (MR) values of pavement layers are the basic input parameters for the design of pavements with multiple layers in
the current mechanistic empirical pavement design guidelines. As the laboratory determination of resilient modulus is costly, time con-
suming and cumbersome, several empirical models are developed for the prediction of resilient modulus for different regions of the world
based on the database of resilient modulus values of local soils. For use of these relationships there is a need to verify the suitability of
these models for local conditions. Expansive clay called black cotton soil (BC soil) is found in several parts of India and is characterized
by low strength and high compressibility. This soil shows swell – shrink behaviour upon wetting and drying and are problematic. The BC
soil shows collapse behaviour on soaking and therefore the strength of the soil needs to be improved. Additive stabilization is found to be
very effective in stabilizing black cotton soils and generally lime is used to improve the strength and durability of the black cotton soil. In
this paper, the results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil samples for the determination of MR under soaked and unsoaked con-
ditions at a relative compaction levels of 100% and 95% of both standard and modified proctor conditions are reported. The results indi-
cate that the black cotton soil fails to meet the density requirement of the subgrade soil and shows collapse behaviour under soaked
condition. To overcome this, lime is added as an additive to improve the strength of black cotton soil and repeated load tests were per-
formed as per AASHTO T 307 - 99 for MR determination. The results have shown that the samples are stable under modified proctor
condition with MR values ranging from 36 MPa to 388 MPa for a lime content of 2.5% and curing period ranging from 7 to 28 days.
Also, it is observed that, the CBR based resilient modulus is not in agreement with the laboratory based MR value and therefore it is
necessary to use the laboratory determined MR or MR predicted from an appropriate prediction equation for pavement design. An
attempt is also made to develop an empirical model for the prediction of MR of lime stabilized black cotton soil. There is a good agree-
ment between the predicted and laboratory MR values with an error of 12%.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Resilient Modulus; Lime Stabilization; Strength; Prediction Model

1. Introduction leads to cracking of the structure. The resilient properties

Flexible pavement design is based on dimensioning
multi-layered system where layer thicknesses vary depend-
ing on the subgrade load carrying capacity. An excessive
plastic and repeated elastic deformation in a pavement
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dineshsv2004@gmail.com (S.V. Dinesh).
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement
Engineering.
of the pavement components influence the short term
deformations of the pavement structure. Resilient modulus
is a measure of the elastic modulus of the material at a
given stress state. Therefore, resilient modulus of subgrade
soil is one of the key material property that is required for
the mechanistic-empirical (M-E) design/analysis of multi-
layered flexible pavement system. The use of the resilient
modulus for pavement design is recommended by the
AASHTO [1–3] to replace bearing capacity parameters
such as CBR and SSV.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.008
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
172 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
The 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures [2] describes four different approaches i.e., labo-
ratory testing, back calculation using non-destructive test-
ing, estimation of MR from correlations with other
properties and estimation of MR from original design
and construction data for the determination of design resi-
lient modulus value.
The factors that influence the resilient modulus of sub-
grade soils include physical condition of the soil (i.e., mois-
ture content and unit weight), stress level and soil type.
Many studies have been conducted to investigate these
effects on the resilient modulus. The resilient modulus of
soils is not a constant stiffness property but depends on
stress state, which includes the deviator and confining stress,
soil type and its structure [4], soil gradation, compaction
method, specimen size and testing procedure [5]. The effect
of some of these factors on the resilient modulus of subgrade
soils is significant. Research studies showed that the resilient
modulus of subgrade soil decreases with an increase in the
moisture content or the degree of saturation [6–10]. Unsatu-
rated cohesive soils showed that the resilient modulus
decreases with the increase in moisture content and pore
pressure build-up [9]. The resilient modulus increases with
an increase in the dry unit weight of the soil [8,11–13]. How-
ever, this effect is small compared to the effect of moisture
content and stress level on resilient modulus [14]. In general,
the increase in the deviator stress results in decrease of the
resilient modulus of cohesive soils due to the softening effect
[14]. Several models [15–32] have been proposed for the pre-
diction of resilient modulus of soils based on soil physical
characteristics and stress state. But, these models are region
specific and there is need to verify these models for predic-
tion of MR of local soils. There are limited studies on the
prediction of MR values of stabilized soils [33,34].
These studies have reported the prediction model for resili-
ent modulus in terms of unconfined compressive strength
(qu) [33] and back calculated falling weight Deflectometer
(FWD) modulus in terms of qu [34]. The correlation devel-
oped by Thompson [33] is recommended to determine the
design resilient modulus for lime stabilized subgrade [3,35].
But, it is reported that the MR values predicted from the cor-
relations developed by Thompson [33] and Little et al. [34]
demonstrated the lack of clear relationship between MR
and qu [36] and these relations have a severe limitation as
they do not take into account the stress state. The literature
demonstrates that the clayey soils can be effectively altered
with lime stabilization. Lime stabilization reduces plasticity,
swell potential and improves strength and stiffness of the soil
[37–45]. Cation exchange and flocculation/agglomeration
reactions takes place relatively rapidly and produces quick
changes in plasticity, workability and engineering properties
[39]. The cementation is mostly by pozzolonic reaction and
can significantly improve the long term performance of the
lime stabilized soils [46,47].
Black cotton soils are formed by the weathering of Dec-
can lava in the major parts of India. The black cotton soils
are inorganic clays characterized by high plasticity, higher
fraction of fines, low strength, high compressibility and are
expansive in nature. These soils show very high swell –
shrink behaviour due to moisture variations which makes
them unsuitable for foundations, subgrades etc. There are
many failures of road bases, foundations, canal slopes
founded on such expansive soils. BC soils are formed over
large geographical areas and replacement of such soils
locally will not be cost effective. Therefore, such soils have
to be stabilized and MR values are to be determined to
develop empirical correlations for the prediction of MR
values for the pavement design.
This paper reports the results of resilient modulus of
black cotton soil at relative compaction levels of 95% and
100% under both standard and modified proctor condi-
tions. An attempt is made to explore the effectiveness of
lime stabilization for improving the resilient modulus of
expansive black cotton soil subgrade, verify the suitability
of existing models for prediction of MR and development
of a new model for the prediction of MR of lime stabilized
BC soil.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Black cotton soil which is widely available in several
parts of Karnataka state, India is considered for the pre-
sent investigation. Black cotton soil was collected from
Bagalkot, Karnataka, India and tested for its engineering
properties. All the tests were carried out as per relevant
Indian standard guidelines and Table 1 shows the engineer-
ing properties of the selected soil.
The soil consists of 10% sand, 36% silt and 54% clay and
Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribution curve. The soil is
classified as A-7-C as per HRB classification system and
A-7-6 AASHTO classification system [48] and highly com-
pressible clay with the group symbol CH as per IS classifi-
cation system and unified soil classification system [49].
The liquid limit and plasticity index of the soil are 71%
and 48% respectively. The BC soil has a free swell of 34%
and the soil is classified as low swelling clayey soil [50].
The soaked CBR is less than 2% under modified proctor
conditions. The unconfined compressive strength is 89kPa
under unsoaked condition and the soil showed collapse
behaviour when it is subjected to soaking. As per
MoRT&H [51] guidelines the soil having liquid limit
greater than 71% and plasticity index greater than 45%
respectively is unsuitable for subgrade. In addition, the
MoRT&H [51] guidelines specifies minimum dry unit
weight of 18 kN/m3 for compacted subgrade. IRC:SP:72-
2007 [52] specifies the use of unit weight corresponding to
standard proctor condition for low volume roads. The
selected soil fails to meet the MoRT&H criteria (i.e., liquid
limit, plasticity index and unit weight requirements) to be
used as subgrade for low volume roads (village roads).
The selected soil shows reasonably good strength under
 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184 173

Table 1 Table 2
Engineering properties of black cotton soil. Physico-chemical properties of black cotton soil.
Sl No. Property Black cotton soil Parameter Value
1 Specific Gravity 2.72 SiO2 68.30%
2 Grain Size Distribution (%) Fe2O3 6.20%
Gravel 0 Al2O3 13.3%
Sand 10 CaO 3.10%
Silt 36 MgO 7.5%
Clay 54 Others 1.6%
3 Soil Classification pH 7.53
I.S Soil classification CH Specific surface 300 m2/gm
H.R.B classification A-7-C Cation exchange capacity 49.35 milli equivalence/100 gm
4 Consistency Limits Organic matter 1.86%
Liquid Limit (%) 71
Plastic Limit (%) 23
Plasticity Index (%) 48
Table 3
Shrinkage Limit (%) 12
Physico-chemical properties of industrial lime.
5 Compaction Characteristics
Standard Proctor Test Parameter Value
OMC (%) 24 Minimum assay 90%
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 14.6 Molecular weight 56.08 gm/mole
Modified Proctor Test Chlorides 0.04%
OMC (%) 19 Sulphates 0.4%
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 16.8 Aluminium, Iron and Insoluble matters 1.0%
6 Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa) Arsenic 0.0004%
Unsoaked 89 Lead 0.004%
Soaked –
7 CBR (%)
Under Modified Proctor Condition 2.2. Methods
Unsoaked condition 4
Soaked condition <2 2.2.1. Sample preparation
8 Swelling Index (%) 34
For preparing untreated sample, calculated quantity of
oven dried soil was mixed with calculated volume of water
100 and mixed thoroughly to get a homogeneous soil mass. In
90 Clay
Silt Sand Gravel the preparation of lime treated soil specimens, it was
80 observed that when dry lime powder was added to the soil,
70 it absorbed water present in the soil and there was a notice-
60
% Finer

able change in the consistency of the soil lime mixture. This

50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Paricle Size (mm)
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of black cotton soil.
unsoaked condition but under soaked conditions strength
is low. In view of the above, the BC soil considered for
the present study is a problematic soil. Therefore, it is nec-
essary to improve the strength of soil by adopting any of
the available strength improvement techniques. In the pre-
sent case, additive stabilization is considered and industrial
lime is selected for stabilization. Tables 2 and 3 show the
physico-chemical properties of black cotton soil and indus-
trial lime (quick lime) respectively. The specific surface area
of the selected soil is 300 m2/gm and cation exchange
capacity is 49.35 milli equivalence per 100 gm. The higher
specific surface area leads to higher reaction capacity of
the soil during hydration and pozzolonic reaction and this
justifies the selection of lime as additive for stabilization.
will interfere with the role of water content in soil stabiliza-
tion. In the field application, lime is added in the form of
slurry in the jet grouting method. By trial and error, it
was found that by using water content equal to 100% by
weight of lime, not much change was observed in the con-
100 sistency of the specimen. Therefore, additional water con-
tent equal to 100% by weight of lime was provided to
prepare lime treated specimens. The samples were prepared
at standard and modified proctor conditions by static com-
paction. The untreated samples were tested immediately
after compaction and the lime treated samples were cured
for 7, 14 and 28 days in a desiccator at 100 percent relative
humidity at a temperature of 23 °C [53] in a temperature
controlled chamber so that reaction between soil particles
and lime is continued. In case of unsoaked condition, the
samples were tested immediately after curing, whereas
under soaked condition the samples were soaked for one
day after curing. For soaking, the samples were covered
by a membrane with the filter paper and porous stones kept
at top and bottom and then immersed in a water bath
where the height is maintained below the top surface of
compacted soil sample such that water enters through por-
ous stones from bottom by capillary action. The soaked
174 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
samples were kept in air for drying for about one hour and
then testing was carried out. The unconfined compression
tests were carried out on samples prepared at modified
proctor condition. The repeated load triaxial tests were car-
ried out on samples prepared at standard and modified
proctor conditions. Also, the samples prepared at 95% of
dry and wet sides of optimum density for both standard
and modified proctor conditions were considered for the
repeated load tests.
2.2.2. Repeated load test
Untreated and lime treated black cotton soil samples of
50 mm diameter and 100 mm [54] height were prepared at
the desired moisture contents and dry unit weights for
determining resilient modulus. A lime content of less than
2% is not sufficient to improve the strength of the soil
and therefore, for preparing treated samples, lime contents
of 2%, 2.25%, 2.5%, 2.75% and 3% were considered for the
experimental study. The dosage of lime content was fixed
from the consideration of development of a minimum
unconfined compressive strength value of 420 kPa [55] for
subgrade applications. A series of repetitive load tests were
conducted on both lime treated and untreated samples.
Untreated black cotton soil samples were tested under both
unsoaked and soaked conditions and lime treated samples
were tested under soaked condition.
A repeated axial cyclic stress of fixed magnitude with a
load duration of 0.1 s, followed by a 0.9 s rest period was
applied to cylindrical test specimen. Load and rest period
together constitutes one loading cycle (1 s) which amounts
to 1 Hz frequency. The stress pulse shape was haversine in
nature. The repeated load tests were performed at the con-
fining pressure and deviator stress levels recommended by
the AASHTO T-307-99 [56]. The sample in the repeated
load test was subjected to a combination of three confining
pressures and five deviator stresses. Each combination is
applied in 100 cycles after preconditioning of 500 cycles.
The total resilient or recoverable axial deformation
response of the specimens were measured and used to cal-
culate the resilient modulus. The last five cycles in each
combination of confining pressure and deviator stress were
considered to calculate resilient modulus and then the
mean resilient modulus was determined and reported. This
yields 15 resilient modulus values for each sample for dif-
ferent stress state. The tests were terminated when the total
vertical permanent strain exceeds 5% [56].
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Lime fixation
Lime rapidly modifies the clay fraction of the material
involving ion exchange and flocculation when sufficient sta-
bilizer is available, continues with the development of
hydrated calcium and alumina silicates and eventual
cementation. Cementation usually takes longer than mod-
ification and will continue provided clay, moisture, and a
pH in excess of about 12.0 is available. During this process,
the clay mineral structure is broken down and forms col-
loidal gels of calcium aluminate and silicate hydrates which
have cementing properties similar to those of Portland
cement. The lime – soil proportion requirement of soil sta-
bilization was carried out as per ASTM D 6276 – 99a [57].
The lime dosage was varied from 1% to 10% in an incre-
ment of 0.5%. It was observed that a lime content of 2%
yielded a stable pH of 12.6. Thus, lime contents of 2–5%
with an increment of 1% were considered for the determi-
nation of consistency limits, compaction characteristics
and unconfined compressive strength of lime stabilized
black cotton soil.
3.2. Consistency limits
The effect of lime stabilization on consistency limits was
evaluated for lime stabilized soil with lime content varying
from 2% to 5%. Fig. 2 shows the variation of consistency
limits with lime content. It is observed that the addition
of lime to the soil reduced liquid limit and plasticity index.
The plastic limit was found to increase with the lime con-
tent. With a lime content of 2%, the liquid limit and plas-
ticity index were reduced to 64% and 38% respectively
from 71% and 48% making the soil suitable for subgrade
application [51]. With 5% of lime, the liquid limit reduced
from 71% to 58% and plasticity index reduced from 48%
to 28%. The reduced plasticity index is attributed to floccu-
lation and agglomeration that occurs with the addition of
lime to the soil. At this stage, the calcium ions from lime
gets attracted to the surface of clay particle and displace
water and other ions imparting improved workability and
reduced plasticity index of soil.
3.3. Compaction characteristics
The compaction characteristics of lime stabilized black
cotton soil was investigated under both standard and mod-
ified proctor conditions. The soil was mixed with lime paste
(as detailed in Section 2.2.1) and mixed uniformly to get a
homogeneous mixture. Water was then added to the soil –
lime mixture and mixed thoroughly. The uniform mix thus
obtained was filled into the compaction mould followed by
80
70
Consistency Limits (%)
60
50
40
30
20
LL
PI
10
PL
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lime Content (%)
Fig. 2. Variation of consistency limits with lime content.
 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184 175

compaction in accordance with ASTM D 698-07 [58] and 3.4. Unconfined compressive strength test
ASTM D 1557-09 [59]. Figs. 3 and 4 shows the compaction
curves for the lime stabilized black cotton soil under stan- A series of unconfined compressive strength tests were
dard and modified proctor conditions respectively. It is carried out to study the strength behaviour and to obtain
observed that the addition of lower lime contents (2–3%) the optimum lime content corresponding to modified proc-
has no significant effect on the maximum dry unit weight tor condition to achieve a reasonable strength of 420 kPa
and optimum moisture content. As the lime content which is the minimum strength requirement for subgrade
increases (>3%), the maximum dry unit weight was found as per NCDOT [55].
to reduce and optimum moisture content increased slightly. Untreated and lime treated black cotton soil samples of
The addition of higher percentages of lime to the BC soil 38 mm diameter and 76 mm height were prepared at the
results in rapid cation exchange phenomenon which ulti- modified proctor condition as detailed in Section 2.2.1
mately results in soil–lime interaction causing the soil par- for determining unconfined compression strength. The test
ticles to possess flocculated structure resulting in lower dry specimens were prepared at the respective maximum dry
unit weight. This is due to the resistance offered by the floc- unit weight and optimum moisture contents as obtained
culated structure to the impact applied during compaction. from Fig. 4. The specimens were tested in accordance with
The flocculated structure of the soil requires additional ASTM D 2166-13 [62] and ASTM D 5102-09 [53] respec-
amount of water to fill the voids resulting in increased tively for untreated and lime treated conditions. The soil
water contents compared to untreated soil [40,60,61]. With was treated with 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% lime and cured for
a lime content of 5%, the maximum dry unit weight is 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. All the prepared samples were tested
reduced from 14.6 kN/m3 to 13.6 kN/m3 and optimum under soaked condition and soaking was performed as
moisture content increased from 24% to 28% under stan- detailed in Section 2.2.1. Fig. 5 shows the variation of
dard proctor condition. Similarly, the maximum dry unit unconfined compressive strength with curing period and
weight reduced from 16.8 kN/m3 to 15.9 kN/m3 and the lime content. It is evident that the addition of lime to black
optimum moisture content increased from 19% to 22% cotton soil shows improvement in strength. The strength
under modified proctor condition. further improves significantly with curing period. It is
observed that the soil possesses a strength of 420 kPa at
17 a lime content of 3% when cured for 3 days. NCDOT
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

0%
[55] specifies that a lime treated soil having strength of
16 2%
420 kPa can be used as subgrade. Though the lime stabi-
3%
lized soil possesses higher strength with increase in lime
15 4%
content and longer curing period, a lime content yielding
5%
the subgrade strength requirement of 420 kPa with a nom-
14
inal curing period of 7 days has been considered for further
investigation. Higher lime contents yielding higher strength
13
will be uneconomical. During the pavement construction, it
12
is necessary to open for traffic at the earliest. A curing per-
10 15 20 25 30 35 iod of 28 days is too long and cannot be adopted practi-
Water Content (%) cally. Therefore, an optimum lime content of 2.5% and a
Fig. 3. Compaction curves of lime stabilized black cotton soil under nominal curing period of 7 days was considered for dura-
standard proctor condition. bility studies and CBR test based on the minimum strength
criteria in terms of unconfined compressive strength as per
17
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

0% 2000
2%
16 2%
3%
3% 1500 4%
15 5%
4%

5%
1000
14

13 500

12 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Content (%) Curing Period (Days)

Fig. 4. Compaction curves of lime stabilized black cotton soil under Fig. 5. Variation of unconfined compressive strength of black cotton soil
modified proctor condition. with curing period and lime content under soaked condition.
176 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184

NCDOT [55]. For resilient modulus determination, lime under both unsoaked and soaked conditions. The lime
content varying from 2% to 3% which provides an uncon- contents considered for the determination of MR are lower
fined compressive strength in the range of 300 kPa to (2–3%), the effect of lime stabilization on the maximum dry
750 kPa was considered. unit weight and optimum moisture content for the above
range is not significant (as noticed from Figs. 3 and 4).
3.5. Durability The lime treated samples were compacted at the respective
standard and modified proctor conditions. Also, both dry
A set of unconfined compressive strength samples were and wet of optimum under standard and modified proctor
prepared at a lime content of 2.5% based on minimum conditions were considered for investigation in order to
strength requirement of 420 kPa at 7 days. The samples simulate the field compaction condition. As MoRT&H
were subjected to 7 day curing followed by alternate wet- [51] specifies 95% relative compaction for clayey subgrade,
ting and drying cycles. The 7 day cured samples were sub- the densities corresponding to 95% of both standard and
merged in potable water at room temperature for about 5 h modified proctor conditions were considered. Table 4
and then removed. Then the soaked samples were placed in shows the unit weights and water contents considered for
an oven at 71 °C for about 42 h for drying. This wetting for investigation. Three samples were prepared at each test
5 h and drying for 42 h constitutes one wetting – drying condition and tested. For analysis purpose, the averaged
cycle [63]. In case of untreated BC soil, the samples were values are reported.
submerged in water with a thin membrane around the soil Table 5 shows the test results of resilient modulus on
specimen as the samples showed collapse tendency on sat- untreated black cotton soil. The soil is found to possess
uration during wet cycle. At the end of each wetting and reasonably higher MR values under unsoaked condition
drying process, the volume of the specimen was recorded irrespective of unit weights and water contents considered.
to determine the volumetric strain during wetting, drying The soil samples corresponding to standard proctor condi-
and differential strain. The unstabilized samples subjected tion collapsed upon soaking and Fig. 7 shows the photo-
to wetting and drying showed an expansion of 22.5% com- graphic views of collapsed samples. On the other hand,
pared to initial volume and the sample showed immediate the soil samples corresponding to modified proctor condi-
collapse. Fig. 6 shows the variation of volumetric strain tion were found to be stable after soaking at OMC at
on wetting, drying and differential strain with number of 41.4l Pa and 27.6 kPa and on the dry side of OMC at
cycles of alternate wetting and drying of lime stabilized 41.4 kPa confining pressure. At low confining pressures
samples. Results show that volume change of the specimen
decreases as the number of wetting and drying cycles Table 4
increase. It is observed that the lime stabilized sample show Unit weights and water contents considered for investigation.
50% decrease (i.e., 22.5–12.3%) in volumetric expansion in Sample Unit weight Unit weight Water Water content
the first wetting cycle when compared with unstabilized soil Condition (kN/m3) rato ðcs =copt Þ content (%) ratio ðws =wopt Þ
sample. The differential volumetric strain has decreased Unstabilized BC Soil
from 4.12% to 0.23% at the end of 8 cycles. However, at Standard Proctor Condition
the end of 5 cycles, the lime stabilized sample attains vol- Dry side 13.8 0.95 20 0.83
ume stability. Optimum 14.6 1 24 1
Wet side 13.8 0.95 28 1.16
Modified Proctor Condition
3.6. Resilient modulus of unstabilized and lime stabilized soil Dry side 16.0 0.95 17 0.89
Optimum 16.8 1 19 1
A series of repeated load tests were conducted on Wet side 16.0 0.95 23 1.21
untreated and lime stabilized black cotton soil samples Lime Stabilized BC Soil (2%)
Standard Proctor Condition
14 Dry side 13.8 0.95 21 0.84
12
Volumetric strain during wetting Optimum 14.5 1 25 1
Volumetric Strain (%)

Volumetric strain during drying Wet side 13.8 0.95 28 1.12

10 Modified Proctor Condition
Differential strain (%)
8 Dry side 15.8 0.94 17 0.85
Optimum 16.7 1 20 1
6 Wet side 15.8 0.95 23 1.15
4 Lime Stabilized BC Soil (3%)
2 Standard Proctor Condition
Dry side 13.8 0.95 22 0.88
0
Optimum 14.5 1 25 1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Wet side 13.8 0.95 30 1.20
No. of Cycles
Modified Proctor Condition
Fig. 6. Variation of volumetric strain on wetting, drying and differential Dry side 15.8 0.95 15 0.75
strain with no. of cycles of alternate wetting and drying for lime treated Optimum 16.7 1 20 1
soil sample. Wet side 15.8 0.95 25 1.25
 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184 177

(i.e., 13.8 kPa) and on the wet side of OMC, samples are
Wet side of modified

Collapsed
proctor condition
unstable. The samples show large deformation at different

Sample
stages depending on the sample density and water content
and Fig. 8 shows the sample subjected to large deformation
S

during testing. The measured strains are in the order of

greater than 5%. The samples showed collapse behaviour
184
162
138
119
106
147
114
98
88
70
95
85
72
62
50
U

during testing. This confirms the MoRT&H [51] guidelines

of minimum proctor density for subgrade soils and there-

Collapsed
Modified Proctor

fore black cotton soil cannot be used as subgrade material

Sample
when compacted to proctor conditions when unit weight is
105

104

less than 18 kN/m3. Since densification does not provide

99
91
79
78

93
90
72
70
S
condition

reliable results, black cotton soils have to be stabilized by

281
268
238
219
212
202
192
173
145
131
148
133
119
105
suitable additives to yield desirable MR values for pave-

96
U

ment design.
Dry side of modified

Collapsed
proctor condition

3.6.1. Effect of lime on MR values

Sample

Tables 6–10 show the test results of resilient modulus on

101
91
88
71
65

black cotton soil treated with 2%, 2.25%, 2.5%, 2.75% and
S

3% lime respectively for curing periods varying from 7 to

209
187
161
127
123
127
119
114
112
110
106

28 days. Under standard proctor condition, the MR values

97
93
85
67
U

range from 67 MPa to 243 MPa, 73 MPa to 272 MPa,

80 MPa to 302 MPa, 87 MPa to 331 MPa and 94 MPa to
Collapsed

360 MPa respectively for the above lime contents and cur-
Wet side of std. proctor

Sample

ing periods with varied stress state. On the dry and wet side
of the standard proctor condition, the lime treated samples
S

showed collapse behaviour upon soaking. Under modified

proctor condition, the MR values range from 79 MPa to
Collapsed
condition

326 MPa, 86 MPa to 357 MPa, 94 MP to 388 MPa,

Sample

101 MPa to 419 MPa and 108 MPa to 450 MPa under
U

the above lime content and curing period. On the dry

and wet side of modified proctor condition the MR values
Collapsed

decreases due to density effect and water content. The MR

Sample

values range from 40 MPa to 322 MPa and 32 MPa to

Std. Proctor

305 MPa respectively on dry and wet side of modified proc-

S
condition

tor condition with lime contents varying from 2% to 3%

over a curing period of 7 to 28 days with varied stress con-
124
119
115

109
98
97

98
91
78
74
96
89
86
79
58
U

ditions. At the end of MR testing, the total permanent

strain was reduced from greater than 5% to less than 3%
Collapsed
proctor condition

in case of lime stabilized BC soil compared to unstabilized

Dry side of std.

Sample

soil. The MR values show the general trend of increase with

an increase in confining pressure and decrease with an
S

increase in deviator stress and this trend is in agreement

Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil.

with those of Rada and Witczak, Seed et al., Pezo and

121
115
107
98
93
96
91
87
80
70
90
85
81
70
42
U

Hudson, Thomson and Robnett and Maher et al. [14,64–

67]. At a constant density, the samples compacted to dry
Stress (kPa)

side showed higher MR values when compared with those

Deviator

compacted to wet side. In general, the MR values were

13.8
27.6
41.4
55.2
68.9
13.8
27.6
41.4
55.2
68.9
13.8
27.6
41.4
55.2
68.9

found to increase with an increase in density and decrease

with increase in water content. The MR values were found
to increase with an increase in the lime content and curing
U – Unsoaked condition.
Pressure (kPa)

period.
S – Soaked condition.
Confining

3.7. Comparison of CBR based MR and laboratory MR

41.4

27.6

13.8

The CBR of black cotton soil treated with lime content

Table 5

Sl No.

corresponding to desired strength requirement of subgrade

10
11
12
13
14
15

i.e., 2.5% was investigated. The soaked CBR of lime (2.5%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
178 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
Fig. 7. Collapsed samples after soaking (standard proctor condition).
Fig. 8. Sample subjected to large deformation during testing.
stabilized 7 day cured black cotton soil was found to be 5%
at modified proctor condition. Based on MR correlation
with CBR (Eqs. (1) and (2)) as per IRC:37-2012 [68], the
MR values of untreated (CBR<2) and lime treated
(CBR = 5%) black cotton soil were found to be less than
20 MPa and around 50 MPa respectively. From the results
of repeated load tests with the above mentioned test condi-
tions (i.e., corresponding to modified proctor condition
under soaked condition) the range of MR values vary
between 70–105 MPa and 94–272 MPa respectively for
untreated and lime treated black cotton soil. This clearly
indicates that the laboratory MR values are not in agree-
ment with those determined from the widely used CBR
based correlation. Therefore, it is desirable to use the resi-
lient modulus values which are experimentally determined
or predicted from appropriate prediction equations that
are either developed or validated for local soil conditions
for pavement design.
M R ¼ 10  CBR for CBR  5 ð1Þ
M R ¼ 17:6  CBR0:64 for CBR > 5 ð2Þ
For a CBR of 2% with a traffic of 0.1–0.2 msa (million
standard axels), the pavement thickness as per IRC:
SP:72-2007 [52] works out to be 425 mm. The stress analy-
sis was carried out using KENPAVE for the designed pave-
ment section. The results of the analysis show a confining
pressure of 60 kPa and a deviator stress of 26 kPa including
geostatic stresses and stresses due to applied load at the top
of subgrade. For these stress conditions, the MR values are
observed as 99 MPa unstabilized subgrade under modified
proctor condition. As untreated soil is not suitable for sub-
grade based on unit weight criteria, the stabilized MR
should be used for pavement design. The improved CBR
of 5% due to lime stabilization reduces the total pavement
thickness to 300 mm traffic being kept constant. For this
pavement section, the stress analysis showed a confining
pressure of 58 kPa and deviator stress of 13 kPa inclusive
of geostatic stresses and stresses due to applied load at
the top of lime stabilized subgrade. Under these stress con-
ditions, the MR value is observed as 272 MPa under mod-
ified proctor condition with 7 days curing period. The MR
value reduces from 272 MPa to 172 MPa and 162 MPa
respectively under dry and wet of optimum considering
95% of relative compaction (under soaked condition) spec-
ified by MoRT&H [51]. Under these conditions, the conser-
vative design MR is 162 MPa (wet of OMC) as against
50 MPa from CBR based design criteria (at OMC). There-
fore, any pavement design should consider compaction
control criteria mentioned by various codes of practices
for selection of design MR value.
3.8. Prediction of MR of unstabilized soil
The resilient modulus of untreated black cotton soil
under soaked condition was predicted from the existing
models. Fig. 9 shows the comparison of laboratory MR
with the predicted MR values from the prediction models
developed by Carmichael and Stuart [19] and Amber and
Table 6
Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2% lime under soaked condition.
Sl No. Confining Deviator Dry side of std. proctor condition Std. Proctor Wet side of std. proctor condition Dry side of modified Modified Proctor Wet side of modified
Pressure Stress condition proctor condition condition proctor condition
(kPa) (kPa)
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28

K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
1 41.4 13.8 Sample Sample Sample 177 222 243 Sample Sample Sample 151 211 237 233 291 326 132 188 208
2 27.6 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 167 188 213 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 143 190 208 204 238 288 118 157 178
3 41.4 149 169 193 131 175 192 191 219 272 108 136 158
4 55.2 127 149 175 114 159 175 169 189 255 85 119 137
5 68.9 92 121 155 86 132 156 136 168 238 59 102 120
6 27.6 13.8 147 186 214 117 172 194 180 215 287 112 155 179
7 27.6 130 154 191 102 138 171 159 184 271 93 128 156
8 41.4 115 132 177 82 115 157 142 171 258 77 109 142
9 55.2 95 118 156 67 95 136 127 162 238 65 88 121
10 68.9 77 99 139 50 89 119 113 156 224 44 76 104
11 13.8 13.8 115 162 195 99 139 176 149 182 256 92 127 161
12 27.6 101 142 170 82 122 149 123 158 230 70 113 134
13 41.4 88 119 159 63 101 139 102 132 223 56 95 124
14 55.2 76 102 143 55 87 123 94 127 201 44 79 108
15 68.9 67 91 128 40 72 107 79 116 187 32 65 94

Table 7
Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2.25% lime under soaked condition.
Sl No. Confining Deviator Dry side of std. proctor condition Std. Proctor Wet side of std. proctor condition Dry side of modified Modified Proctor Wet side of modified
Pressure (kPa) Stress (kPa) condition proctor condition condition proctor condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 41.4 13.8 Sample Sample Sample 198 249 272 Sample Sample Sample 162 229 258 252 318 357 147 210 232
2 27.6 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 187 210 238 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 152 204 225 220 258 315 131 174 198
3 41.4 167 189 216 136 185 205 203 235 295 119 151 176
4 55.2 141 165 195 116 168 185 178 200 275 95 133 153
5 68.9 102 134 172 84 136 163 140 176 255 63 112 132
6 27.6 13.8 165 208 240 131 192 217 194 234 315 125 174 200
7 27.6 145 172 214 113 154 191 170 198 295 103 142 174
8 41.4 129 147 198 90 127 175 149 182 279 85 121 158
9 55.2 105 131 174 74 105 151 131 171 257 71 97 134
10 68.9 84 110 155 54 98 131 115 162 239 47 83 115
11 13.8 13.8 128 182 219 110 155 197 166 203 287 102 141 180
12 27.6 112 159 190 91 136 167 137 176 257 78 126 150
13 41.4 98 132 178 70 111 155 113 147 248 61 105 138
14 55.2 84 113 160 59 95 136 103 141 224 48 88 120
15 68.9 73 100 142 43 79 119 86 128 207 34 72 104

179
 180
Table 8
Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2.5% lime under soaked condition.
Sl No. Confining Deviator Dry side of std. proctor condition Std. Proctor Wet side of std. proctor condition Dry side of modified Modified Proctor Wet side of modified
Pressure (kPa) Stress (kPa) condition proctor condition condition proctor condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28

K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
1 41.4 13.8 Sample Sample Sample 219 275 302 Sample Sample Sample 172 248 280 272 344 388 162 232 257
2 27.6 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 206 233 264 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 161 219 242 235 278 341 144 192 219
3 41.4 184 208 238 142 196 218 216 251 317 131 166 193
4 55.2 155 182 215 119 176 196 186 212 294 104 147 169
5 68.9 111 147 190 83 140 170 144 184 271 68 123 145
6 27.6 13.8 182 231 266 144 212 239 207 252 342 137 192 221
7 27.6 161 191 237 124 169 210 181 212 320 113 157 192
8 41.4 142 163 219 99 140 192 155 192 300 93 133 174
9 55.2 116 145 192 80 114 165 136 179 275 77 106 147
10 68.9 92 120 170 57 106 144 116 169 254 51 91 125
11 13.8 13.8 142 201 243 121 171 217 183 225 317 113 156 199
12 27.6 124 176 211 99 149 184 150 194 284 85 139 165
13 41.4 108 146 197 76 122 170 123 161 274 67 116 152
14 55.2 93 125 176 64 104 150 113 154 247 51 96 131
15 68.9 80 110 157 45 85 130 94 140 228 36 78 113

Table 9
Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2.75% lime under soaked condition.
Sl No. Confining Deviator Dry side of std. proctor condition Std. Proctor Wet side of std. proctor condition Dry side of modified Modified Proctor Wet side of modified
Pressure (kPa) Stress (kPa) condition proctor condition condition proctor condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 41.4 13.8 Sample Sample Sample 240 302 331 Sample Sample Sample 183 266 301 291 371 419 177 254 281
2 27.6 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 226 255 289 Collapsed Collapsed Collapsed 170 234 259 251 298 367 157 210 239
3 41.4 201 228 261 147 207 231 228 267 340 142 181 211
4 55.2 169 199 235 122 185 206 195 223 314 114 161 185
5 68.9 121 160 207 81 144 177 148 192 288 73 133 157
6 27.6 13.8 200 253 292 157 232 262 221 270 369 150 210 242
7 27.6 176 209 260 135 185 230 192 226 345 123 171 210
8 41.4 155 178 240 107 152 210 162 202 321 101 145 190
9 55.2 126 158 210 86 124 180 140 188 293 83 115 160
10 68.9 100 131 186 61 115 156 117 175 269 54 98 136
11 13.8 13.8 156 221 267 132 187 238 200 246 348 123 171 218
12 27.6 136 193 231 108 163 201 164 212 311 93 152 181
13 41.4 118 160 216 82 133 186 134 176 300 72 126 166
14 55.2 101 136 193 69 113 163 122 168 270 55 104 143
15 68.9 87 120 171 48 92 141 101 152 249 38 84 123
 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184 181

Wet side of modified

250

305
259
229
201
169
263
228
206
173
147
237
197
180
155
133
proctor condition
28
200

276
228
196
175
143
228
185
157
124
105
186
165
136
112
14

90

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

192
170
153
124

163
133
109

133
101
150

78

89
57

77
59
40
7
Modified Proctor

450
393
363
334
305
396
370
342
311
284
379
338
326
293
270
28

100
398
318
283
234
200
288
240
212
197
181
267
230
191
182
164
AASHTO T 307
condition
14

50 Carmichael and Stuart

310
267
240
204
152
235
203
169
144
118
217
178
145
131
108
Amber and Quintus
7

0
Dry side of modified

0 20 40 60 80
322
276
244
216
184
285
250
228
195
168
259
218
202
176
152
proctor condition
28

Deviator Stress (kPa)

284
249
218
194
148
252
201
164
134
124
203
177
144
122 Fig. 9. Comparison of laboratory MR with the predicted MR.
14

99
194
179
152
125

170
146
115

143
117
79

92
65

88
74
51
7

Quintus [29]. The resilient modulus prediction model devel-

oped by Carmichael and Stuart [19] is a function of plastic-
Collapsed
Wet side of std. proctor condition

Sample

ity index, water content,% passing 75 lm, confining

pressure, deviator stress and soil type and is given by Eq.
28

(3). On the other hand, the model developed by Amber

Collapsed

and Quintus [29] is a function of bulk stress and octahedral

Sample

shear stress and is given by Eq. (4). The regression co-effi-

14

cients in the model are dependent on % passing 4.75 mm,

425 lm and 75 lm, plasticity index, % of clay and silt, liq-
Collapsed
Sample

uid limit, optimum water content and density, ratio of

moulding water content to optimum water content and
7
Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 3% lime under soaked condition.

density of the sample. It was observed that the resilient

360
314
284
255
224
318
283
261
228
202
291
251
235
210
185

modulus values predicted from Carmichael and Stuart

28
Std. Proctor

[19] prediction equation overestimates MR values by

329
277
248
216
173
275
227
193
171
142
241
210
174
147
130
condition
14

greater than 100%. On the other hand, there exists a close

relationship between the MR values predicted from Amber
261
246
218
183
131
218
191
168
136
108
170
148
128
109
94

and Quintus [29] compare well with laboratory MR values.

7

Other prediction equations developed by Dai et al. [31] and

Collapsed
Dry side of std. proctor condition

Sample

Mohammad et al. [32] cited in this paper were found to be

not suitable for the prediction of resilient modulus of the
28

selected soil.
Collapsed

M R ¼ 37:431  0:4566ðPIÞ þ 0:6179ðwc Þ

Sample

 0:1424ðP200 Þ þ 0:1791ðr3 Þ þ 0:3248ðrd Þ

14

þ 36:722ðCHÞ þ 17:097ðMHÞ ð3Þ

Collapsed
Sample

where, PI = Plasticity index (%)

7

P200 = % passing #200 sieve (i.e., 75l IS sieve).

Stress (kPa)

wc = Water content (%).

r3 = Confining stress (psi).
Deviator

r1 = Deviator stress (psi).

13.8
27.6
41.4
55.2
68.9
13.8
27.6
41.4
55.2
68.9
13.8
27.6
41.4
55.2
68.9

CH = 1 for CH soil.
= 0 otherwise (i.e., for MH, ML or CL soil).
Pressure (kPa)

MH = 1 for MH soil.
Confining

= 0 otherwise (i.e., for CH, CL or ML soil).

41.4

27.6

13.8
Table 10

k k3
M R ¼ k 1 P a ðh=P a Þ 2 ½ðsoct =P a Þ þ 1 ð4Þ
Sl No.

where, Pa = Atmospheric pressure.

10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
182 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184

h = Bulk stress [r1 + r2 + r3].

h
500
2 2
soct = Octahedral shear stress 1
3
ððr1 r2 ÞÞ þðr2 r3 Þ þ 400 R2 = 0.875
1=2
i

Predicted MR
ððr3 r1 Þ2 Þ . 300
k1, k2 and k3 = Regression co-efficients determined from
200
soil properties and are given by Eqs. (5)–(7).
100

k 1 ¼ 1:3577 þ 0:0106ð%ClayÞ  0:0437wc ð5Þ

0
k 2 ¼ 0:5193  0:0073P4 þ 0:0095P40  0:0027P200 0 100 200 300 400 500

Laboratory MR
 0:003LL  0:0049wopt ð6Þ
Fig. 10. Comparison of laboratory MR with predicted MR values for lime
k 3 ¼ 1:4258  0:0288P4 þ 0:0303P40  0:0521P200 treated black cotton soil.
þ 0:0251ð%SiltÞ þ 0:0535LL  0:0672wopt
 0:0026copt þ 0:0025cs  0:6055ðwc =wopt Þ ð7Þ Table 11
Regression co-efficients.
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 k6 k7
3.9. Prediction model for resilient modulus of lime stabilized
12.935 0.473 6.98 0.428 0.809 0.508 0.373
soil
h
2 2
The available prediction equations were found to be not soct = Octahedral shear stress 1
3
ððr1 r2 ÞÞ þðr2 r3 Þ þ
i
suitable for the prediction of resilient modulus of the black 2 1=2
ððr3 r1 Þ Þ in kPa.
cotton soil except the one developed by Amber and Quin-
tus [29]. There is a good comparison between laboratory cs = Unit weight in kN/m3.
MR values and those predicted by Amber and Quintus copt = Maximum unit weight in kN/m3.
[29]. However, black cotton soil shows low subgrade xs = Moulding water content in%.
strength because of collapse behaviour under soaked con- xopt = Optimum water content in%.
ditions when compacted to standard and modified proctor k1, k2, k3, k4, k5, k6 and k7 are regression co-efficients.
conditions. Therefore, treatment is necessary to improve CP = Curing period in days.
the soil properties and therefore, lime is used to treat the L = Lime content in%.
BC soil. There are limited models for the prediction of lime
treated MR and they are purely based on unconfined com- Fig. 10 shows the graphical representation of laboratory
pressive strength of the treated soil. These models do not MR and MR predicted from Eq. (8). The variables consid-
consider other properties of soil and stress states. The suit- ered are bulk stress, octahedral shear stress, density ratio,
ability of these models is questioned by Toohey et al. [36] water content ratio, curing period and lime content. The
for the prediction of lime treated MR. The model developed bulk stress varies from 65.2 kPa to 193.1 kPa and octahe-
by Thompson [33] for lime treated soils was found to dral shear stress varies from 6.51 kPa to 32.48 kPa. The
underestimate the resilient modulus value when compared unit weight ratio varies from 0.95 to 1 and water content
with laboratory MR values and this is in agreement with ratio varies from 0.75 to 1.25 and are given in Table 4.
the findings of Toohey et al. [36]. There is a need to develop The curing period varies from 7 days to 28 days and lime
a prediction model considering basic soil properties, stress content varied from 2% to 3%. The regression co-efficients
state, additive content and curing period. Hence, an obtained for the black cotton soil are listed in Table 11. Eq.
attempt is made to develop a new prediction model for (8) predicts the resilient modulus of lime treated black cot-
the prediction of resilient modulus of lime treated black ton soil with an error of 12% which is acceptable for prac-
cotton soil. Multiple linear regression analysis was carried tical applications.
out. The soil state is considered in terms of water content
and density, the stress state is considered in terms of bulk 4. Conclusions
stress and octahedral stress and the stabilizer effect is con-
sidered in terms of lime content and curing period. The A series of repetitive load tests were carried out on
proposed model is as follows. unstabilized and lime stabilized black cotton soil samples
k 1 hk2 ðccopts Þ 3 ðCPÞ 4 ðLÞ
k k k5 compacted to optimum, dry and wet of optimum for both
MR ¼ ð8Þ standard and modified proctor conditions. The unstabi-
ðxxopts Þ
k7
skoct
6
lized samples were tested under both unsoaked and soaked
where, MR = Resilient modulus in MPa. conditions and lime stabilized samples were tested under
h = Bulk stress [r1 + r2 + r3] in kPa. soaked condition. Based on the test results, following con-
clusions are drawn.
 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
 The black cotton soil shows collapse behaviour under
saturated condition and the soil is not suitable for sub-
grade application under both standard and modified
proctor conditions and it fails to meet the MoRT&H
criteria. Lime stabilization is effective in improving the
resilient modulus of black cotton soil under modified
proctor conditions as lime treated samples are not stable
under standard proctor conditions. Therefore, it is rec-
ommended to compact the subgrade to modified proctor
condition with suitable additive stabilization for all
types of roads including rural roads.
 The lime treatment is found to be very effective in reduc-
ing the plasticity of the black cotton soil. With, 5% of
lime the plasticity index of the soil is reduced signifi-
cantly (by 42%) compared to untreated soil.
 Lime stabilized black cotton soil show stable behaviour
beyond 5 wetting and drying cycles. However, there is
50% reduction in volumetric strain in the first wetting
cycle when compared with untreated soil samples.
 Resilient modulus follows a general trend of increase
with increase in confining pressure and decrease with
an increase in deviator stress.
 The water content has a significant effect on resilient
modulus of soil. At a constant density, samples com-
pacted to dry side of optimum possesses higher resilient
modulus values than wet side of optimum.
 The CBR based correlation underestimates the resilient
modulus of the soil and it is recommended to use the exper-
imentally determined resilient modulus or from any suit-
able validated prediction equations for pavement design.
 Pavement design should consider compaction control
criteria mentioned by various codes of practices for
the selection of design MR value. The MR value
obtained for optimum condition shall be reduced by
an appropriate reduction factor to arrive at the design
MR value corresponding to wet of optimum condition.
 The MR values of lime stabilized black cotton soil pre-
dicted using the prediction model developed in this
study compare well with the experimental values with
an error of 12% which is acceptable from practical
consideration.
References
[1] AASHTO, Guide for Design of Pavement structures, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
[2] AASHTO, Guide for Design of Pavement structures, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
[3] AASHTO, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, Interim
Edition., A Manual of Practice, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2008.
[4] D. Li, T.S. Ernest, Resilient Modulus of Fine Grained Subgrade
Soils, J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (6) (1994) 939–957.
[5] Musharraf. Zaman, Dar.-Hao. Chen, Joakim. Laguros, Resilient
Moduli of Granular Materials, J. Transport. Eng. 120 (6) (1994)
967–988.
183
[6] R.D. Barksdale, A laboratory evaluation of rutting in base course
materials, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the
Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan,
1972, pp. 161–174.
[7] D.G. Fredlund, A.T. Bergan, P.K. Wong, Relation between Resilient
Modulus and Stress Research Conditions for Cohesive Subgrade
Soils, Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 642, Transporta-
tion Research Board, 1977, pp. 73–81.
[8] E.C. Drumn, J.S. Reeves, M.R. Madgett, W.D. Trolinger, Subgrade
Resilient Modulus Correction for Saturation Effects, J. Geotech.
Geo-environ. Eng. 123 (7) (1977) 663–670.
[9] T.S. Brutalia, J. Haung, D.G. Kim, F. Croft, Effect of Moisture
Content and Pore Water Pressure Buildup on Resilient Modulus of
Cohesive Soils in Ohio, The Symposium on Resilient Modulus
Testing for Pavement Components, Utah, 2003, pp. 70–84.
[10] A.G. Heydinger, Evaluation of Seasonal Effects on Subgrade Soils,
Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 1821, Transportation
Research Board, 2003, pp. 47–55.
[11] W.S. Smith, K. Nair. Development of Procedure for Characterization
of Untreated Granular Base Course and Asphalt Treated Course
Materials, FHWA, Final Report, FHWA-A-RD-74-61, Washington
D.C, 1973.
[12] Y.T. Chou, Evaluation of Non-linear Resilient Modulus of Unbound
Granular Materials from Accelerated Traffic Test Data, Final
Technical Report, U.S, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
station, Vicksburg, 1976.
[13] A.J. Allen, Development of Correlation between Physical and
Fundamental Properties of Louisiana Soils (Master’s thesis), Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 1996.
[14] G. Rada, M.W. Witczak, Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory
Resilient Moduli Results for Granular Material, Transportation
Research Record, Issue No.810, Transportation Research Board,
1981, pp. 23–33.
[15] W. Heukelom, A.J.G. Klomp. Dynamic Testing as a Means of
Controlling Pavements During and After Construction, in:
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, 1962,
pp. 495–510.
[16] W.M. Webb, B.E. Campbell, Preliminary Investigation into Resilient
Modulus Testing for new AASHTO Pavement Design Guide,
Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, GA, 1986.
[17] The Asphalt Institute, Research and Development of the Asphalt
Institute’s Thickness Design Manual, Ninth Edition, Research
Report No. 82–2, Ninth ed., Asphalt Institute, Lexington, KY, 1982.
[18] S.T. Yeh, C.K. Su. Resilient Properties of Colorado Soils, Report No.
CDOH-DH-SM-89-9, Colorado Department of Highways and Fed-
eral Highway Administration, 1989.
[19] R.F. Carmichael, E. Stuart, Predicting Resilient Modulus: A Study to
Determine the Mechanical Properties of Subgrade Soils, Transporta-
tion Research Record, Issue No. 1043, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1985.
[20] E.C. Drumm, Y. Boateng-Poku, T. Johnson Pierce, Estimation of
Subgrade Resilient Modulus from Standard Tests, J. Geotech. Eng.
116 (5) (1990) 774–789.
[21] M. Farrar, J. Turner. Resilient Modulus of Wyoming Subgrade Soils,
Report No. MPC 91–1, Mountains-Plains Consortium, Fargo, ND,
1991.
[22] A.M. Rahim, Subgrade soil index properties to estimate resilient
modulus, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 6 (4) (2005) 163–169.
[23] W.A. Dunlap, A Mathematical Model Describing the Deformation
Characteristics of Granular Materials, Technical Report 1, Project
2-8-62-27 (HPS–1–27), Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M
University, Texas, 1963.
[24] H.B. Seed, F.G. Mitry, C.L. Monismith, C.K. Chan, Prediction of
Flexible Pavement Deflections from Laboratory Repeated Load
Tests, NCHRP Report, Issue No. 35, Transportation Research
Board, 1967.
184 K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 171–184
[25] J. Moossazadeh, M.W. Witczak, Prediction of Subgrade Moduli for
Soil that Exhibits Nonlinear Behavior, Transportation Research
Record, Issue No. 810, Transportation Research Board, Transporta-
tion Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1981, pp. 9–17.
[26] R.W. May, M.W. Witczak, Effective Granular Modulus to Model
Pavement Response. Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 810,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1981, pp. 1–9.
[27] J. Uzan, Characterization of Granular Material, Transportation
Research Record, Issue No 1022, Transportation Research Record,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 52–59.
[28] R.N. Stubstad. LTPP Data Analysis: Feasibility of using FWD
Deflection Data to Characterize Pavement Construction Quality,
NCHRP Web Document 52, Project 20-59 (9), Washington, D.C.,
2002
[29] Yau Amber, H.L. Von Quintus. Study of LTPP Laboratory Resilient
Modulus Test Data and Response Characteristics, FHWA, Final
Report, FHWA-RD- 02–051, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2002
[30] B.L. Santha, Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils: Comparison of
Two Constitutive Equations, Transportation Research Record, Issue
No. 1462, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 79–90.
[31] Dai Shongtao, John Zollars, Resilient modulus of minnesota road
research project subgrade soil, transportation research record,
J. Transport. Res. Board 1786 (2002) 20–28, Washington, DC.
[32] L.N. Mohammad, B. Huang, A.J. Puppala, A. Allen, Regression model
for resilient modulus of subgrade soils, transportation research record,
J. Transport. Res. Board 1687 (1999) 47–54, Washington, D.C.
[33] M.R. Thompson, S. Marshall, Shear strength and elastic properties of
lime soil mixtures, Highway Res. Board 139 (1966) 1–14.
[34] D.N. Little, T. Scullion, P.B.V.S. Kota, J. Bhuiyan, Identification of
the structural Benefits of Base and Subgrade Stabilization,
FHWA/TX-94/1287-2, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
University, Arlington, Texas, USA, 1994.
[35] J. Mallela, H. Von Quintus, K.L. Smith, Consideration of Lime
Stabilized Layers in Mechanistic – Empirical Pavement Design
Report submitted to The National Lime Association, National Lime
Association, Arlington, Virginia, 2004.
[36] N.M. Toohey, M.A. Mooney, R.G. Bearce, Relationship between
resilient modulus and unconfined compressive strength for lime
stabilized soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (11) (2013)
1982–1985.
[37] W.G. Holtz, Volume change in expansive clay soils and control by
lime treatment, in: Proceedings of 2nd International Research and
Engineering Conference on Expansive Clayey Soils, Texas A&M
Press, Texas, 1969, pp. 157–174.
[38] M. Thompson, Soil Stabilization for Pavement Systems – State of the
Art, Technical Report – Department of Army, Construction Engi-
neering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, 1970.
[39] F.G. Bell, Stabilization and Treatment of Clay Soils with Lime,
Part – 1, Basic Principles Ground Engineering, 1988, pp. 10–15.
[40] L.D. McCallister, H. Petry. Property Changes in Lime Treated
Expansive Clays Under Continuous Leaching, Final Technical
Report, Report No. GL-90-17, U.S Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C., 1990
[41] D.N. Little, T. Scullion, P. Kota, J. Bhuiyan, Guidelines for Mixture
Design and Thickness Design for Stabilized Bases and Subgrades,
FHWA/TX-95/1287-3F, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas
A&M University System, Texas, 1995.
[42] F.G. Bell, Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils, Eng. Geol.
J. 42 (4) (1996) 223–237.
[43] S. M. Rao, T. Thyagaraj. 2003. Lime Slurry Stabilization of an
Expansive Soil, in: Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers –
Geotechnical Engineering, 156(3), pp. 139–146.
[44] N. Consoli, A. Rosa, R. Saldanha, Parameters Controlling Strength
of Industrial Waste Lime Amended Soil, Soils and Foundations, Jpn.
Geotechn. Soc. 51 (2) (2011) 265–273.
[45] S.K. Dash, M. Hussain, Lime stabilization of soils: reappraisal,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (6) (2012) 707–714.
[46] C. Rogers, D. Boardman, G. Papadimitriou, Stress path testing of
realistically cured lime and lime/cement stabilized clay, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 18 (2) (2006) 259–266.
[47] S.A.A. Khattab, M. Al-Mukhtar, J.M. Fleureau, Long term stability
characteristics of a lime treated plastic soil, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (4)
(2007) 358–366.
[48] ASTM D 3282–09. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and
Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes.
[49] ASTM D 2487–11 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
[50] K. Prakash, A. Sridharan, Free swell ratio and clay mineralogy of fine
grained soil, Geotech. Test. J. 27 (2) (2004) 220–225.
[51] Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Specifications for Roads
and Bridges, fifth ed., Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, 2013.
[52] IRC:SP:72. Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low
Volume Rural Roads, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, 2007.
[53] ASTM D 5102–09. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compres-
sive Strength of compacted Soil - Lime Mixtures.
[54] W.V. Ping, Ching Chin Ling. Enhancement of Resilient Modulus
Data for the Design of Pavement Structures in Florida, Final Report
BD-543-4, Florida A&M University, Florida State University,
Tallhassee, Florida, 2007.
[55] Cement and Lime Stabilization of Subgrade Soils. Project Special
Provisions, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2007.
[56] AASHTO T – 307 – 99, Standard Method of Test for Determining
the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 2007.
[57] ASTM D 6276–99a. Standard Test Method for using pH to Estimate
the Soil-Lime Proportion Requirement for Soil Stabilization.
[58] ASTM D 698–12. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort.
[59] ASTM D 1557–12. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil using Modified Effort.
[60] Suhail A. Khattab, Ibrahim M. Al-Kiki, Abderrahmane H.
Al-Zubaydi, Effects of fibres on some engineering properties of
cement and lime stabilized soils, Eng. Technol. J. 29 (5) (2011)
886–905.
[61] P.C. Naveena, S.V. Dinesh, G. Gowtham, T.S. Umesh, Prediction of
strength development in black cotton soil stabilised with chemical
additives, Indian Geotech. J. (2016), http://dxdoi.org/10.1007/
s40098-016-0209-3 (In Press).
[62] ASTM D 2166–13. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compres-
sive Strength of Cohesive Soil.
[63] ASTM D 559–03. Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures.
[64] H. Seed, C. Chan, C. Lee. Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and
Their Relation to Fatigue Failures in Asphalt Pavements, in:
Proceedings of International Conference on the Structural Design
of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, Michigan, 1962,
pp. 611–636.
[65] R. Pezo, W. Hudson, Prediction models of resilient modulus for non
granular materials, Geotech. Test. J. 1 (3) (1994) 349–355.
[66] M.R. Thompson, Q.L. Robnett, Resilient properties of subgrade
soils, Transport. Eng. J. 105 (1) (1979) 71–89.
[67] A. Maher, T. Bennert, N. Gucunski, W.J. Papp. Resilient Modulus of
New Jersey Subgrade Soils, Final Report, Report No. FWHA-NJ-
2000-01, New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey,
2000.
[68] IRC:37–2012. Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements, Indian
Roads Congress, New Delhi.