Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A THESIS
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
by
VIGNESWARAN R
(CE08M174)
MAY 2010
CERTIFICATE
Institute of Technology, Madras, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award
MANAGEMENT, is a bonafide record of work carried out by his under our supervision.
The content of this thesis, in full or in parts, have not been submitted to any other institute
Date: 03-05-2010
Dr.K.Rajagopal
Professor & Head
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thyagaraj for sparing their valuable time and guidance that has rendered throughout the
course of my project work. The knowledge and the values that I have learnt from them
would continue to guide me through the course of my entire lifetime. I also thank them for
giving me a lot of freedom during the course of project work that has led to improve my
Department of Civil Engineering not only for providing necessary support for my project
work but also for providing guidance, direction and valuable feedback regarding my
performance. He has been a constant source of motivation for completing the project on
time.
I feel highly indebted to my L&T ECC guide Mr. S. N Rajan, (Manager, R&D) for
the project duration which helped me to complete my project in time. I am also very
grateful to my friends and lab colleagues in geotechnical department for their advice and
support. I also thank the lab staffs for their assistant and needful help during experiments.
I also take this opportunity to thank all my friends in CTAM XI batch and Tamiraparani
I would also like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Management of Larsen
& Toubro Limited – ECC Division for providing me the opportunity to undergo the
iii
course “Construction Technology and Management” at Indian Institute of Technology
Madras.
I also thank my parents for having tremendous faith in me and for being highly
Last but not the least, I express my humble gratitude to the Almighty for His constant
R.Vigneswaran
iv
ABSTRACT
Expansive soils are widespread all over the world. They are highly problematic due to
their swell-shrink behaviour caused by the seasonal fluctuation in moisture content. They
cause severe distress to lightly loaded structures founded on them, such as the single-
storey dwellings, pavements, canal linings and railway tracks. The volume change
techniques. Chemical alteration, specifically lime stabilization is the most viable choice
adopted globally for treating expansive soils. Lime addition renders the soil non plastic
and gradually imparts strength and stiffness to the soil due to immediate flocculation
This study mainly focuses on the suitability of the lime treated soil for pavement subgrade
stabilization. Four problematic soils were selected for this study, from the places Siruseri,
Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin situated in southern part of the TamilNadu state. The
basic tests carried out to characterize these soils revealed high expansivity. Eades and
Grim test was used to find the optimum lime content required for stabilization. The lime
treated soils were tested for three moisture content levels-dry, wet and optimum states for
different curing periods -3, 14 and 28 days. UCC, CBR, Suction tests and resilient
modulus test based on the AASHTO T-307 protocol were carried out. Main focus was
made to study the resilient behavior of the treated soil under cyclic loading conditions
v
The permanent strains sufficiently reduced and resilient modulus radically increased for
the treated soils. Model studies to simulate the stress dependent behavior of the resilient
modulus values and correlation between the UCC, suction and resilient modulus were also
attempted.
With increase in the subgrade strength due to lime stabilization the thickness of the upper
layer in the flexible pavements can be reduced considerably. Further lime stabilization also
increases the pavement life to a much greater extent. KENLAYER is used for the analysis
purpose. Cost economics was done for different methods such as ordinary design, buffer
layer, blanket course and increased thickness usually carried out for expansive soils. Of
all these methods lime stabilization incurred minimum cost thereby saving 40% of the
cost.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Certificate ii
Acknowledgement iii
Abstract v
Abbreviations xv
1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. Overview…………………………………………………….…………….….. 3
1.5 Methodology………………………………………………………….……….. 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction………………………………………….……………..…….…… 7
vii
2.5.2. Remoulding and Compaction…..…..…………….……..……..…….. 11
2.5.4. Prewetting…………………………………..………….………...…… 11
2.8. Suction……………………………….……………………………………….. 20
3.1. Introduction…………………………………………….…..…………..……... 24
viii
3.4.1. Atterberg Limits…………………………..…………………………. 26
4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………...………. 45
ix
4.4.1. Effect of Confining Pressure……………………………….…..…….. 53
5.1. Introduction………………………………….………….…………………….. 66
x
5.6. Results……………………………………………………………..………….. 74
6.1. Summary…………………………………………………………….………… 75
6.2. Conclusion……………………………………………………..……………… 76
7 REFERENCE
7.1. Reference……………………………………………………………………… 77
A1 Lime Stabilization…………………………………………….……………...……. 82
xi
LIST OF TABLES
4.2 UCC strength for different moisture content and curing days................... 48
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
3.16 Sample preparation…………………………………………………….….. 42
4.2 UCC test results for treated soil at different curing period at optimum 46
moisture content……………………………………………………………
4.3 UCC test results for treated soil at different curing period at dry side 47
moisture content……………………………………………………………
4.4 UCC test results for treated soil at different curing period at wet side 47
moisture content……………………………………………………………
4.5 UCC strength for Siruseri soil with curing days at different 48
moisture content ……………..……………………………………...
4.6 UCC test results for treated and untreated Karaikudi soil sample...... 49
4.7 UCC test results for treated and untreated Paramakudi soil sample... 49
4.8 UCC test results for treated and untreated Tuticorin soil sample…... 50
xiv
4.20 Uzan model……………………………………………………….……….. 61
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
MR Resilient Modulus
BC Bituminous Macadam
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Soil is one of the nature‟s most abundant construction material. Almost all constructions are built
with or upon soil. When unsuitable construction condition are encountered, a constructor has
four options:
In general, options 1 and 2 tend to be impractical today, while in the past, option 3 has been the
most commonly used method. However, due to improvement in technology coupled with
increased transportation costs, option 4 is being used more often today and is expected to
dramatically increase in future.
Expansive soils are soils that swell enough to cause pavement problems and generally fall into
the AASHTO A-6 or A-7 group. Expansive soils swell on absorption of water during wet season
and shrink during dry season. Expansive soils can expand to as much as 10 times its original
size, thus causing severe damage. If the moisture content and or soil type differs at various
locations under the foundation, localized or non-uniform movement may occur in the structure.
This isolated movement of sections can cause damage to the foundation and pavement. Due to
their expansive potential to provide non-uniform support at the base of a pavement structure,
expansive soils must be properly addressed during the design and construction phase, to support
the pavement and traffic loads. Fig. 1.1 shows the failure of pavement in expansive soils.
1
Fig. 1.1 Expansive Soil Problems in Pavements
(Ref. Texas Department of Transportation)
Improving an on-site soil‟s engineering properties is referred to as either “Soil modification” or
“Soil stabilization”. The term stabilization means that the engineering properties of the soil have
been changed enough to allow field construction to take place.
Nearly every road construction project will utilize one or both of these stabilization techniques.
The most common form of “mechanical” soil stabilization is compaction of the soil, while the
addition of cement, lime, bituminous or other agents is referred to as a “chemical” method of soil
stabilization. There are two types of additives used during chemical soil stabilization: mechanical
additives and chemical additives.
Mechanical additives, such as soil, cement mechanically alter the soil by adding a quantity of a
material that has engineering characteristics to upgrade the load-bearing capacity of the existing
soil.
Chemical additives, such as lime chemically alter the soil itself, thereby improving the load-
bearing capacity of the soil. There are the two primary mechanisms by which chemicals alter the
soil into a stable subgrade:
2
1. General increase in particle size by cementation, reduction in plasticity index,
hydraulic conductivity, and shrink/swell potential.
2. Absorption and chemical binding of moisture that will facilitate compaction.
Essentially soil stabilization allows engineers to distribute a larger load with less material over a
longer life cycle. Soil stabilization is used in roads, parking lots, airport runways, building sites,
and landfills.
1.2 OVERVIEW
The performance of any construction project depends on the soundness of the underlying soils.
Unstable soils can create significant problems for pavements or structures. Expansive soil is fine-
grained clay which occurs naturally and is generally found in areas that historically were a flood
plain or lake area and highly unstable. The swelling and shrinkage potential of expansive soil
vary in proportion to the amount of clay minerals present in the soil.
Large areas of our country are covered with expansive soils such as black cotton soil. These
clays have caused persistent difficulties in road construction. Specific problem associated with
road construction over expansive soils is commonly the seasonal volumetric change rather than
its low bearing strength. Expansive soils shrink and crack when they dry out and swell when they
get wet. The cracks allow water to penetrate deep into the soil, hence causing considerable
expansion. This results in deformation of road surfaces, since the expansion and the subsequent
heave are never uniform. Excessive drying and wetting of the soil will progressively deteriorate
the pavement over the years.
To mitigate expansive soil problems several alternative solutions can be applied and stabilization
is one among them. Soil stabilization significantly changes the characteristics of a soil to produce
3
long-term permanent strength and stability. There are various types of soil stabilization and lime
is one among them. Lime is extensively used to stabilize expansive soils.
Resilient modulus is a dynamic test response defined as the ratio of repeated axial load to the
recoverable deformation. Resilient modulus (MR) has become a well-known parameter to
characterize unbound pavement materials because the elastic (resilient) pavement deflection
possesses a better correlation to field performance than the total pavement deflection. Resilient
modulus is more realistic to characterize moving wheel loads.
Soils are typically considered to be either dry, or a fully saturated mixture of soil and water. But
in real world they exist in the form of partially saturated soil. These soils exert a potential
negative pressure over moisture in its vicinity. This is known as suction, and it is responsible for
drawing water into a soil‟s structure. As suction increases, the possibility of substantial volume
change increases. This can be reduced by addition of lime to soil. However, information about
Resilience modulus and suction properties of lime stabilized soils are scarce in the literature.
1.5 METHODOLOGY
The methodology followed in the project is represented in the flowchart shown in Fig. 1.2
4
METHODOLOGY: Expansive Soil
Identification of Expansive
soil
Lime Stabilization
The thesis is organized into six chapters. Chapter one gives the brief description of historical
background, outline, and objective of the project, scope and methodology adopted.
Chapter two gives the summary of identification, Classification and problems in expansive soil,
Lime stabilization and stabilization mechanisms, resilient modulus and its various models and
the suction characteristics.
Chapter three provides the soil characteristics in micro and macro scale level, sampling location
and its basic properties. It also presents the sample preparation and laboratory procedure of UCC,
CBR, Resilient Modulus, and total suction.
Chapter four presents the test results and analysis, done with the various tests is explained in the
form of tables and graphs. Also the correlation with the different tests is also stated.
Chapter five deals with the cost economics of natural and lime treated subgrade soil and its
influence on above layers such as sub-base, base and asphalt layer. Cost economics of different
methods such as buffer layer, blanket course, increased thickness and lime stabilized subgrade is
discussed with the help of Kenpave.
Chapter Six provides the summary, findings and conclusion of the project.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils are present throughout the world. Every year they cause billions of dollars in
damage. Even though expansive soils cause enormous amounts of damage most people have
never heard of them. This is because their damage is done slowly and cannot be attributed to a
specific event. The damage done by expansive soils is then attributed to poor construction
practices or a misconception that all buildings experience this type of damage as they age.
Expansive soil is a term used for soils which exhibit moderate to high plasticity, low to moderate
strength, and high swell and shrinkage characteristics (Holtz and Gibbs 1956). They show
evidence of large volume changes under varying moisture conditions from seasonal changes
(Nelson and Miller 1992). Such soils are commonly found in many arid and semi-arid areas of
the world such as Australia, Canada, China, India, Israel, Italy, South Africa, UK, and USA.
Expansive soils cover nearly 20% of the land area in India and include almost the entire Deccan
plateau, Western Madhya Pradesh, parts of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka,
and Maharashtra (Ranjan and Rao 1991). In our country the typical example of expansive soils
are black cotton soil, mar and kabar.
Three factors play important role in the heave and swell properties of soils: (i) soil properties
such as compaction, natural moisture content variation, dry density, and plasticity index (ii)
environmental conditions, which include temperature and humidity and (iii) natural overburden
pressure and foundation loading conditions. The degree of saturation in a typical expansive soil
increases in stages from 40% to 100%, when the soil starts to heave due to soaking and wetting
conditions. Hence, it can be inferred that swell magnitudes depend on the natural and compacted
moisture content. Swelling characteristics are associated with the wetting of soil particle surface
area and the void distribution between them.
7
2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
The field study is used to determine the presence, extent, and nature of expansive soil and ground
water conditions. The two major phases of field exploration are surface examination and
subsurface exploration. The surface examination is conducted first since the results help to
determine the extent of the subsurface exploration. In situ tests may also be helpful, particularly
if a deep foundation, such as drilled shafts, is to be used.
A study of the site history may reveal considerable qualitative data on the probable future
behaviour of the foundation soils. Maps of the proposed construction site should be examined to
obtain information on wooded areas, ponds and depressions, water-courses, and existence of
earlier buildings. Surface features, such as wooded areas, bushes, and other deep-rooted
vegetation in expansive soil areas, indicate potential heave from accumulation of moisture
following elimination of these sources of evapo-transpiration.
A thorough visual examination of the site by the geotechnical engineer is necessary. The
appearance of cracking in nearby structures should be especially noted. The surface soil at the
site should be examined. Local experience is very helpful in indicating possible design and
construction problems and soil and groundwater conditions at the site.
8
2.4 CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
The swell pressure of a soil is the external pressure that needs to be placed over a swelling soil to
prevent volume increase, while the swell potential of an expansive soil is the magnitude of heave
of a soil for a given final moisture content and loading condition. These expansive soil
parameters can be directly estimated in the laboratory from special oedometer tests or indirectly
from the index properties of the soils and the differential free swell test.
Besides direct quantification of swell potentials from the oedometer tests, it is also possible to
indirectly estimate the degree of expansivity of clay soils from their index properties or from the
differential free swell test. The Atterberg limits and swell potentials of clays depend on the
quantity of water that clay can imbibe. The higher the plasticity index, the greater the quantum of
water that can be imbibed by the soil and hence greater would be its swell potential. The colloid
content (<1 µm) constitutes the most active part of the soil contributing to swelling and a high
colloid content naturally means a greater possibility of expansion (Rao 2006).
9
Fig. 2.2 Plasticity Vs Clay content (Ref. Williams 1957)
Table 2.1 Degree of Expansiveness and Free Swell
(Ref. Seed et.al. 1962)
Degree of Expansiveness DFS (%)
Low <20
Moderate 20 – 35
High 35 - 50
Very High >50
10
2.5.1 REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
Removal of expansive soils and replacement with non expansive soils is one method to provide
stable foundation material. In some cases the expansive strata may be entirely removed.
Generally, the expansive layer extends to a depth too great to economically allow complete
removal and replacement. One mechanism by which the removal and replacement method
mitigates expansive potential is by the control of the moisture content in the underlying clay
layer. The pertinent requirements concerning soil replacement are the type of replacement
material, the depth of replacement, and the extent of replacement.
2.5.4 PREWETTING
Prewetting or ponding is based on the theory that increasing the moisture content in the
expansive foundation soils will cause heave to occur prior to construction and there by eliminate
problems afterward. It is assumed that if the high moisture content is maintained, there will be no
appreciable increase in soil volume to damage the structure. This procedure may have serious
drawbacks that limit its application. Expansive soils typically exhibit low hydraulic conductivity
and the time required for adequate wetting can be up to several years. Furthermore, after the
water has been applied for long periods of time serious loss of soil strength can result causing
reductions in bearing capacity and slope stability.
11
2.5.5 SAND CUSHION
One of the oldest practices used, is the sand cushion technique (Satyanarayana 1969). In this
technique, either the entire depth of the expansive soil stratum or a part of it may be removed and
replaced with a sand cushion compacted to a low density. The cushion is placed directly beneath
the footing. The principle of sand cushion is that while the expansive clay bed swells due to the
percolation of water during monsoon, the sand cushion settles. During summer, as the expansive
soil shrinks, the sand undergoes bulking due to partial saturation. As a result, there will be
minimum volume change in the soil system beneath the footing. It is difficult to arrive at the
exact thickness and the density of the sand cushion. Foundation engineers often suggest some
arbitrary thickness without considering the depth of the active zone, which is the zone within
which potential volume changes occur. If the thickness is inadequate, the problem aggravates as
the high permeability of sand facilitates easy ingress of moisture from the surface run-off and the
swelling process accelerates. This is the main drawback of the sand cushion.
12
both. If fluctuations in water content over time can be minimized and if the water content in the
subsoil can be made uniform, a major part of the expansion problem can be mitigated.
13
clay-bearing soils and aggregates, with which it reacts both chemically and physically to yield
quality road building materials.
Laboratory testing indicates that lime reacts with medium, moderately fine, and fine-grained
soils to produce decreased plasticity, increased workability, and increased strength (Little 1995).
Strength gain is primarily due to the chemical reactions that occur between the lime and soil
particles. These chemical reactions occur in two phases, with both immediate and long-term
benefits.
The first phase of the chemical reaction involves immediate changes in soil texture and soil
properties caused by cation exchange. The free calcium of the lime exchanges with the adsorbed
cations of the clay mineral, resulting in reduction in size of the diffused water layer surrounding
the clay particles. This reduction in the diffused water layer allows the clay particles to come into
closer contact with one another, causing flocculation/agglomeration of the clay particles, which
transforms the clay into a more silt-like or sand-like material. Overall, the flocculation and
agglomeration phase of lime stabilization results in a soil that is more readily mixable, workable,
and, ultimately, compactable. According to Eades and Grim 1960 practically all 4 fine-grained
soils undergo this rapid cation exchange and flocculation/agglomeration reactions when treated
with lime in the presence of water.
The second phase of the chemical reaction involves pozzolanic reactions within the lime-soil
mixture, resulting in strength gain over time. When lime is mixed with clay soil, the pH of the
pore water increases. When the pH reaches 12.4, the silica and alumina from the clay become
soluble and are released from the clay mineral. In turn, the released silica and alumina react with
the calcium from the lime to form cement, which strengthens in a gradual process that continues
for several years (Eades and Grim 1960). As long as there is sufficient calcium from the lime to
combine with the soluble silica and alumina, the pozzolanic reaction will continue as long as the
pH remains high enough to maintain the solubility of the silica and alumina (Little 1995).
Strength gain also largely depends on the amount of silica and alumina available from the clay
14
itself thus it has been found that lime stabilization is more effective for montmorillonitic soils
than for kaolinitic soils (Lees et. al.1982).
Over many past decades, the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) has been used for the
characterization of subgrade soils. The CBR value is similar to the undrained shear strength of
soil which is independent of confining stress conditions, and is different from the stiffness of
soil.
In a road structure subjected to repeated traffic loadings, subgrade soils play an important role in
supporting the asphalt and base layers and traffic loadings. Due to this important role, the
subgrade should have enough bearing capacity to perform its function appropriately. If the
15
subgrade soils respond primarily in an elastic mode, the rutting problem typical in weak
subgrades will not occur.
However, rutting problems are observed in many roads, resulting in expensive rehabilitation
efforts. Therefore, the assumption that subgrade soils are purely elastic is not consistent with
most observation mode in practice. It is more realistic to treat the subgrade soils as elasto-plastic
materials (Kim 2006). In reality, subgrade soils subjected to repeated traffic loadings exhibit
nonlinear resilient and permanent behaviour even at small strains, before reaching their yield
strengths.
MR is a dynamic response of materials defined as the ratio of the repeated axial deviator stress to
the recoverable axial strain. MR could be determined in the laboratory by means of a cyclic
triaxial test at different confining and deviator stresses. The magnitude and sequence of these
stresses are different depending on whether the material is granular or fine-grained soil.
AASHTO T-307 test classifies soil as type I and type II for granular and fine-grained soils,
respectively.
Deformation of subgrade soils can be divided into two parts: recoverable elastic deformation that
is a measure of the resilient behaviour and non-recoverable plastic deformation that indicates the
absorbing behaviour. Current pavement design procedures consider soil support characteristics in
terms of its resilient behaviour. These procedures ignore permanent deformation behaviour even
though it may be a very important component in pavement performance.
16
2.7.2 RESILIENT MODULUS OF LIME TREATED SOIL
Puppala et al carried out resilient modulus tests on lime treated soils for establishing the
percentage of lime required to increase the plastic limit and the influence of moisture contents on
the treated soil. Further empirical correlations were also carried out to predict the resilient
modulus from moisture content, dry density, CBR and UCC. Cohesive silty clay was adopted for
the purpose.
The resilient modulus testing indicated a 20 to 50% increase of MR values and there was a
decrease in plastic deformation. The Mr values correlated well with the CBR or UCS, moisture
content,dry density and degree of compaction for a particular confining pressure.
Fall et al (2007) carried out resilient modulus investigations on treated gravelly lateritic soils.
Their main adjective was to find the effect of compacity on the Mr of lateritic soils and to find
the influence of percentage cement added to stabilize the soil. The Andrei and Uzan-Witczak
universal model were analysed and developed in this paper.
The lateritic soils exhibited an increase in resilient modulus with deviatoric stress or the bulk
stress. Similar trend was observed for cement treated soils, ranging from 300 to 1800 kPa for 1%
cement and 500 to 2500 for 2% cement. They concluded that 3% of cement exhibited the highest
resilient modulus values. Among the four models they adopted (Uzan-Witczak universal model,
Andrei, k theta and power model). The universal model and Andrei model correlated well with
the experimental results.
17
The Mr values are stress dependent and strongly rely on the material tested. Fine grained soils
and granular soils differ in their response to the stress conditions. AASHTO test method
recommends the use of bulk stress model for mathematical modelling of granular soil. There are
several other universal models that can be used for both the soils.
The lime treated soil differs from the typical soil types, due to the cementitious reactions
developed during curing which eventually hardens the material, and hence the model
characterising this composite material should be able to incorporate the hardening behaviour as
well. Various models are compared based on their ability to replicate the experimental Mr results.
The resilient modulus of granular soils increases with increasing confining stresses (Witczak and
Uzan 1988). Several relationships have been used to describe the non-linear stress- strain
behaviour of granular materials. AASHTO 294-92I test method uses bulk stress (q) to model MR
as follows:
M R K1
K2
(1)
Where, K1, K2 are model constants and θ is the bulk stress (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)
Another form of this equation is used by most pavement engineers (Hicks and Monismith 1971;
Shook et al. 1982; Santha 1994) and can be obtained by dividing both bulk stress and resilient
modulus by the atmospheric pressure to make the resulting regression constants dimensionless.
The equation is as follows:
K2
MR
K1 (2)
atm atm
Where, σatm is atmospheric pressure, in units same as those for MR and θ is the bulk stress.
The main disadvantage of the bulk stress is that it does not account for shear stresses and shear
strains developed during loading (Louay et al. 1999; Uzan 1985; Witczak and Uzan 1988). This
model does not properly handle volumetric strains of soils (Brown and Pappin 1981). Moreover,
it cannot adequately explain the non-linear behaviour of granular soils (Uzan 1985).
18
The most basic model used in conjunction with the MR testing of fine-grained soils is a power
model:
M R K d
n
(3)
K2 K3
MR oct
K1 oct (5)
atm atm atm
Where θ atm is atmospheric pressure, K1, K2, K3 are regression constants
1 1
σoct = octahedral normal stress 1 2 3 d 3 3
3 3
1 1
K2 K3
MR d
K1 (6)
atm atm atm
19
Rafael Pezo (1993) suggested a pavement engineer-oriented model that contains separate terms
for both deviator stress and confining stress. It is a general model that suits both granular and
fine-grained soils. The suggested model was as follows:
M R K1 d 2 3 3
K K
(7)
The model can be modified by dividing MR, σd and σ3 by the standard atmospheric pressure, σatm,
which equals 101.3 kPa. In this form of the model the resulting constants will be dimensionless,
especially, K1. The modified model takes the following form:
K2 K3
MR 3
K1 d (8)
atm atm atm
2.8 SUCTION
Soils are three phase system consisting of water, air and soil solids. For many situations, soils are
considered to be fully saturated. While this is a convenient model for many purposes, it does not
accurately represent the real condition in the field.
Clays, and other soils in a natural state, commonly display a water table that has dropped below
the ground‟s surface. If this soil pore-water was only under the influence of gravity, the soil
above the water table level would be dry. However, physical forces act on the boundary between
soil and water, causing the water to be drawn into and held inside the empty pores in the soil
fabric. The pore-water pressure in the ground above the water table level becomes negative with
respect to atmospheric pressure – this being referred to as suction. De-saturation of a soil can be
caused either by environmental changes, or by physical changes such as compaction.
As suction increases, the possibility of substantial volume change increases. This process can be
retarded by the addition of lime, due to reactions occurring at different scales within the clay
fabric.
20
2.8.1 MATRIC SUCTION
At the air-water interface of an unsaturated soil, the pore-air pressure (ua) is greater than the
pore-water pressure (uw). The difference (ua - uw) is referred to as the soil matric suction
(Rahardjo et al. 1995).
Matric suction can be defined as a measure of the energy required to remove a water molecule
from the soil matrix without the water changing state. Matric suction is the result of two
mechanisms, capillarity and adsorption. In terms of the capillarity, the suction is governed by the
size of the soil‟s pores: The smaller the void, the harder it is to remove water from the soil.
Hence, suction will increase as water content decreases, as initially, water is easily removed from
the larger pores.
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) defined osmotic potential as a measure of the additional stress
necessary to remove a water molecule from the water phase, due to the presence of dissolved
salts. An increasing level of dissolved salts in the pore-water will lead to a lower relative
humidity at the air-water interface. The effect of this is to reduce the osmotic potential aiding the
transfer of water molecules. This will seemingly raise the value of suction above that provided
by the soil matrix. The combination of matric suction and osmotic suction is referred to as total
suction.
The resilient modulus of cohesive soils is not a constant stiffness property, but highly dependent
upon factors such as the state of stress, soil structure, and water content (George 2004). The
resilient modulus values changes with respect to parameters such as confining stress, bulk stress,
deviator stress, soil physical properties and moisture content.
The importance of the water content in affecting the resilient modulus of soils has been well
documented by past researchers. For example, Drumm et al. (1997) showed a significant
reduction of resilient modulus of A-4, A-6, and A-7 soils as the moisture content was increased
above the optimum moisture content. Pezo et al. (1992) have observed significant influences
21
exerted by the water content on the measured resilient modulus of cohesive soils. The moisture
content of the subgrade soils underneath the pavement is usually varied over time.
According to Uzan (1998), the clayey soils underneath the pavement exhibit an increase in
moisture content to about 20–30% higher than the plastic limit of the soil. This occurs during the
first 3–5 years of pavement service. Similarly, Elfino and Davidson (1989), Thadkamalla and
George (1995), and Uzan (1998) indicated that the moisture content of the subgrade soils would
vary with season until reaching an equilibrium moisture content. The various methods for
measuring suction are
WP4 uses the chilled-mirror dewpoint technique to measure the water potential of a sample
(Leong et al. 2003). The sample is equilibrated with the headspace of a sealed chamber that
contains a mirror and a means of detecting condensation on the mirror. At equilibrium, the water
potential of the air in the chamber is the same as the water potential of the sample. In the WP4,
the mirror temperature is precisely controlled by a thermoelectric cooler. Detection of the exact
point at which condensation first appears on the mirror is observed with a photoelectric cell. A
beam of light is directed onto the mirror and reflected into a photodetector cell. The
photodetector senses the change in reflectance when condensation occurs on the mirror. A
thermocouple attached to the mirror then records the temperature at which condensation occurs.
WP4 then signals the user by flashing a green LED and/or beeping. The final water potential and
temperature of the sample is then displayed (Fig. 2.4).
WP4 uses an internal fan that circulates the air within the sample chamber to reduce time to
equilibrium. Since both dewpoint and sample surface temperatures are simultaneously measured,
22
the need for complete thermal equilibrium is eliminated, which reduces measurement times to
less than five minutes.
23
CHAPTER 3
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils are found in arid and semi-arid regions. Tamilnadu is one of the places in India,
where large areas are covered by expansive soil. For the present study four types of expansive
soils are collected from different regions of Tamilnadu. The sources and the initial properties are
presented in this chapter.
Microstructure is more important in understanding the soil behaviour. The microstructure of clay
is the complete geological history of that deposit, including both the stress changes and
environmental conditions during deposition. These geological imprints tend to affect the
engineering response of the clay very considerably.
Clay minerals of different types typically exhibit different swelling potentials because of
variations in the electrical field associated with each mineral. The swelling capacity of an entire
soil mass depends on the amount and type of clay minerals in the soil, the arrangement and
specific surface area of the clay particles, and the chemistry of the soil water surrounding those
particles.
24
characteristics are primary indicators of swelling behaviour. Commonly determined properties
such as soil plasticity and density can provide a great deal of insight regarding the expansive
potential of soils.
These samples are selected because they are fundamentally posing a lot of problems to the
structures and pavements in that area.
Siruseri, Chennai
Karaikudi
Paramakudi
Tuticorin
25
3.4.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS
The atterberg tests such as Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and Shrinkage Limit (SL) are
useful in understanding the basic properties of the soils. These tests are carried according to
Indian Standards code of practice.
The liquid limit of fine-grained soil is the water content at which soil behaves practically like a
liquid. The test is done according to IS: 2720 (Part 5). Casagrande‟s apparatus is used for this.
The plastic limit of fine-grained soil is the water content of the soil below which it ceases to be
plastic. It begins to crumble when rolled into threads of 3 mm dia. The test is done according to
IS: 2720 (Part 5). The shrinkage limit of fine grained soil is the moisture content of a soil below
which a decrease in moisture content will not cause a decrease in volume, but above which an
increase in moisture will cause an increase in volume.
Wet sieve analysis is carried out for the sail by taking 500gram of air dried sample and passing
through a set of sieves. The amount of soil retained in each sieve is weighed separately. A graph
is drawn between the samples retained in each sieve to the cumulative passing.
The samples passed through 75 micron sieve were subjected to hydrometer analysis. In this
approximately 50 grams of dry soil was treated with a dispersing agent for 18 hours. A
hydrometer analysis was then performed to measure the amount of silt and clay size particles.
Grain size distribution curve is drawn for the sample size and percentage passing. Fig. 3.3 shows
the Grain size distribution (GSD) for all the samples.
26
jar with water and kerosene are noted and used to find the free swell index. The free swell index
is defined as
Vd Vk
DFS *100
Vk
Vd and Vk are the reading in the jar containing water and kerosene respectively.
Mineralogical analysis of each soil consisted of X-ray diffraction (XRD) on the clay fraction (<2
μm). X-ray diffraction test were done on the samples passing 75 micron and the top clay portion
is collected after sedimentation. It is then dried in oven. A glass plate of standard size is taken
and silicon grease is applied on the top. The oven dried sample is crushed and placed on the glass
plate. The glass plate along with sample is tested and the graph is plotted with the values.
The peak in the graph indicates the clay minerals present in the soil. The XRD graph for all the
samples are shown in Fig.3.6 It is from the graph it is clearly visible that the main minerals
present on the soils are Quartz, Topaz, illinite, Montmorillonite and kaol.
27
Fig. 3.2 Eades and Grim pH test
28
Table 3.1 Physical properties of soils
29
20000 XRD for treated and Untreated Siruseri Soil
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
Siruseri
6000
4000
2000
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
30
XRD for Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin Samples
12000
Karaikudi
Paramakudi
10000 Tuticorin
8000
6000
4000
2000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
13 13
Siruseri Karaikudi
12.5 12.5
12 12
pH
pH
11.5 11.5
11 11
10.5 10.5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Lime Content (%) Lime Content (%)
13 13
Paramakudi Tuticorin
12.5 12.5
12 12
pH
pH
11.5 11.5
11 11
10.5 10.5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
32
OMC and Mdd Curves
1.46 1.55
Siruseri
Untreated Soil Karaikudi
Untreated
1.41
Dry density (g/cc)
1.36 1.45
1.31 1.40
1.26 1.35
15 20 25 30 35 40 15 20 25 30 35
Water content (%) Water Content (%)
1.54
Paramakudi Untreated 1.57 Tuticorin Untreated
Treated
1.52
1.44
1.47
1.39
1.42
1.34 15 20 25 30 35
15 20 25 30 35 Water content (%)
Water Content (%)
Fig. 3.7 OMC and MDD curves for all soil samples
33
3.5 SUMMARY OF BASIC PROPERTIES
1. All the soils show a liquid limit of greater than 60 and plasticity index greater than 25.
The shrinkage limit of the soil is less than 9 for all samples.
2. The differential free swell index of all the soil is greater than 100%.
3. Based on the previous literature on the classification of expansive soil it is visible that the
four soils are highly expansive.
4. Some of the minerals present in these expansive soils were Quartz, kaolinite, feldspar,
Montmorillonite, Chlorite Vermiculite etc.,
5. Eades and Grim test shows the percentage of lime required varies from 3 to 4%.
6. The addition of lime brings about identical changes in the XRD patterns. The treated soil
does not cause any disappearance of the existing mineral peaks present, rather causes
only some suppression of the mineral peaks, specifically the quartz peak.
7. The maximum dry density of the lime treated soil is less than the untreated soil, but the
optimal moisture content increases with treatment.
34
3.6 SAMPLE PREPERATION
The samples were prepared by static compaction. The amount of sample required for the
particular test is found from the volume of the mould and the dry density of the soil. The required
sample is taken and mixed with the lime thoroughly. After through mixing the water is sprayed
uniformly and mixed to achieve the required moisture content. The compacted sample is then
wrapped with cling film and kept in the moisture control room for curing.
The samples are tested in both treated and untreated condition. To check the effect of moisture
content in the curing and subsequent strength the testing is done in all three condition dry,
optimum and wet condition. Also the testing is done at various curing period such as 0, 3, 7, 14
and 28 days (Fig. 3.). For optimum the maximum Mdd is selected. For dry side and wet side 95%
of the optimum is taken for untreated soil and 98% of the maximum Mdd for treated soil.
1.45 1.45
1.43
Dry density (g/cc)
Untreated
1.40 1.40
Treated 4% Lime
1.38 1.38
1.37
1.35
1.33
1.32 1.32
1.30 1.30
1.30
1.29
1.25
15 20 25 30 35 40
Water Content (%)
35
3.6.2 SOAKED SAMPLE PREPERATION
To check the effect of soaking on the strength the 14 days cured samples were soaked in a sand
bath for a period of 24 hours. Before soaking the treated samples were first rolled with filter
paper and then covered with cloth (Fig. 3.9). This prevents loss of fines from the sample. Soaked
samples were prepared for both the UCC and MR test.
The unconfined compression test is a special form of a triaxial test in which the confining pressure is
zero. The test can be conducted only on clayey soils which can withstand without confinement. The
test is generally performed on intact, saturated clay specimens. The test is used to find the
unconfined strength of the soil. It is also used to find the shear strength of the soil. The test is
done according to IS 2720 part 10.
The test is done on all three moisture condition and curing days. The sample is prepared as
stipulated in IS code and covered with cling film to avoid any moisture loss. The covered sample
is kept in desiccators. The tests were carried at deformation of 0.5mm/min.
Also the testing is done at various curing periods such as 0, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days (Fig. 3.10).
36
Fig. 3.10 UCC sample preparation
The California bearing ratio test is penetration test meant for the evaluation of subgrade strength
of roads and pavements. These results obtained by these tests are used with the empirical curves
to determine the thickness of pavement and its component layers. This is the most widely used
method for the design of flexible pavement. Soaked CBR was performed for the treated and
untreated sample to study the effect of soaking.
The test is done according to IS 2720(part 16)-1979. The schematic diagram of the setup is
shown in Fig. 3.11.
37
Pt
CBR (10)
Ps
Where,
From 1986, AASHTO required the use of the subgrade resilient modulus for the design of
flexible pavements. Resilient modulus is an important material property, similar in concept to the
modulus of elasticity. It differs from the modulus of elasticity in that it is obtained by a repeated-
load triaxial test and is based only on the recoverable strains. Resilient modulus is defined as:
d
MR (11)
r
Where MR is the resilient modulus; σd is the repeated deviator stress; and εr is the recoverable
axial strain.
The current standard test method to determine the resilient modulus is described by AASHTO T
307-99 which has recently been upgraded from AASHTO T 294-94 and AASHTO T 274. In
AASHTO T 307-99, traffic conditions are simulated by applying a series of repeated deviator
stresses, separated by rest periods and field conditions are simulated by conditioning and post
conditioning.
The equipment for resilient modulus consists of a triaxial cell, an actuator, two sensitive LVDT
(Linear Variable Differential Transducers), a CDAS (Continuous Data Acquisition System) and a
computer.
The apparatus used for resilient modulus testing is shown in Fig. 3.12. Fig.3.13 shows the whole
equipment; in this the confining pressure used is air which is supplied by a compressor.
38
Fig. 3.12 Loading setup
39
3.9.2 TEST PROCEDURE
AASHTO T-307 is followed for finding the resilient modulus of subgrade soil. The confining
pressure and axial stress is applied according to the following sequence.
40
The first sequence is a conditioning cycle. Haversine load pulse is used for loading. In this load is
applied for a period of 0.1 s and rest is given for 0.9 s. A contact load of 10% of the cyclic load is
maintained throughout the testing condition (Fig. 3.14)
41
Fig. 3.16 Resilient modulus setting
42
The sample is separated into five equal parts and it is placed into the mould one above the other.
After each part of soil is placed it is lightly compacted with hammer and the top portion is
scratched. Similarly all the layers are placed into the mould. The mould is now covered with the
top and bottom plates and compacted using static compaction to achieve uniform density
throughout the sample. The compacted specimen is covered with cling film and placed in a mist
room for curing (Fig.3.18).
The dew point potentiameter (WP4) measures total suction ψ in the range of 0 to 300MPa. WP4
employs chilled mirror technique (Leong et al., 2003) and relative humidity principle for
measuring wide range of suction ψ.
The time taken for measuring the sample is about 5 minutes and the temperature can be varied
between 15 to 50 degree Celsius.
The samples are made in the same manner as UCC and MR. The sample for measuring total
suction is cut from the UCC sample or from the MR. The sample is placed in the measuring cup
and the lid is closed (Fig.3.19). The variation in temperature between the sample and the
43
instrument is maintained below one degree Celsius to get accurate readings. The WP4 waits until
temperature becomes constant. Then it gives the values for total suction in MPa.
CHAPTER 4
44
TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The following section presents the results of laboratory tests performed for the four soils that
have caused extensive problems to foundations and pavements. This section presents the results
of Unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, Resilient modulus and Total
suction measurement. The strength gain with curing is discussed and it is compared with
untreated soil for the Siruseri. Also the relationships between various tests were explored.
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Axial Strain (%)
45
Natural Untreated
Dry side Optimum Wet side
138.64 kPa 191.41 kPa 131.35 kPa
700
0 Days 3 Days
600
7 Days 14 Days
500
Axial Stress (kPa)
28 Days
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 4.2 UCC test results of lime treated Siruseri sample at different curing period at optimal
moisture content
The strength development in the lime treated soil depends on the moulding moisture content
levels, adopted to compact the soil. For all the three moisture content levels the strength at zero
days curing period is around 150 kPa but the failure strain levels differs. The samples compacted
at dry side shows strength of 150 kPa at zero days curing and increases to 270 kPa at 28 days of
curing.
46
300
0 Days
3 Days
250 7 Days
14 Days
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 4.3 UCC test results of lime treated Siruseri sample at different curing period at dry moisture
content
900
800 0 Days
700 3 Days
Axial Stress (kPa)
7 Days
600
14 Days
500 28 Days
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 4.4 UCC test results of lime treated Siruseri sample at different curing period at wet
moisture content
The strength development in the lime treated soil depends on the moulding moisture content
levels, adopted to compact the soil. For all the three moisture content levels the strength at zero
days curing period is around 150 kPa but the failure strain levels differs. The samples compacted
at dry side shows strength of 150 kPa at zero days curing and increases to 270 kPa at 28 days of
curing (Table 4.2). The failure strain also reduces from 6% at zero days curing to 2.5% at 28
47
days. Conversely the samples compacted at optimum moisture content depicts a radical increase
in strength of 600 kPa at 28 days curing. Whereas the samples compacted at wet side shows a
ductile behaviour with no prominent failure points at zero days but eventually the behaviour
changes to brittle and the strength escalates to 750 kPa at a failure strain of 3%. The higher
strength at wet side compacted samples is due to the availability of sufficient moisture content
for the progress of the lime reaction during the curing period and the decreased strength in dry
side is due to the under developed pozzolanic reaction at lesser water content. Fig.4.5 shows the
UCC strength increase with curing days.
Table 4.2 UCC strength for different moisture content and curing days
700
600
UCC (kPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 6 12 18 24 30
Curing Days
Fig. 4.5 UCC strength for Siruseri soil with curing days at different moisture content
48
4.2.3 KARAIKUDI, PARAMAKUDI AND TUTICORIN SOIL SAMPLE
The UCC test results carried out for the other three soils are given in the Fig. 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.
Similar results were observed. Increased UCC strength of 800, 700 and 1300 kPa at 14 days
curing, were observed for the treated karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin soil samples,
respectively. Typical brittle behaviour and failure at lesser strain of around 2.5% were observed.
All the four soils including the siruseri sample have fines content greater than 70% and a liquid
limit more than 75%. The stabilizing effect of lime is fully utilized by these soils due to the
highly compressible and expansive nature. Table 4.3 shows the UCC values for treated and
untreated samples.
800 0 Days
700 14 Days
600
Stress in (kPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Strain (%)
Fig. 4.6 UCC test results for treated and untreated Karaikudi soil sample
900 Paramakudi
800
700 0 Days 14 Days
600
Stress (kPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Strain (%)
.
Fig. 4.7 UCC test results for treated and untreated Paramakudi soil sample
49
1400
Tuticorin
0 Days
1200
14 Days
1000
Stress (kPa)
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Strain (%)
Fig. 4.8 UCC test results for treated and untreated Tuticorin soil sample
The UCC tests also were performed on these compacted samples after subjecting to sand bath
soaking for a period of 24 hrs. Fig. 4.9 compares the effect of soaking on the treated samples
subjected to 14 days of curing. The soaking effect reduces the UCC strength of the soil around 5
-20% depending upon the soil and the water content of the soaked sample increases from 31% to
40%. The soaking of Tuticorin samples does not show any decrease in strength due to high silt
and low clay content in the soil sample.
Testing for untreated soaked UCC samples were not performed, because the sample swells and
disintegrates before testing.
50
1400 UCC for all Soils with Curing
Untreated
1200
14 Days
1000
14 Days Soaked
UCC (kPa)
800
600
400
200
0
Siruseri Karaikudi Paramakudi Tuticorin
Soil Source
California bearing ratio tests were conducted for both treated and untreated samples of Siruseri
samples. The load versus penetration curve for both the untreated and treated soil samples are
shown in Fig. 4.10 and 4.11, respectively. The CBR values are tabulated in Table 4.4.
140
120
100
80
Load kg
Soaked unsoaked
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Peneteration (mm)
51
1600 CBR for Treated Soil 14 days
1400
1200
1000
Load kg
800 Soaked Unsoaked
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8
Peneteration (mm)
The untreated soaked samples have a much lesser CBR value, which shows that the sample
losses strength drastically when immersed in water. This is due to the swelling of the soil. The
CBR values for treated samples were much higher than the untreated samples. The soaked treated
samples does not show much variation from unsoaked case, showing that the strength of the
subgrade remains same in the first cycle. Further, the failure of these samples occurs at much less
penetration than the untreated soil. This is because the sample becomes brittle with treatment.
Untreated 8.5 1
14 days treated 61 55
52
4.4.1 EFFECT OF CONFINING PRESSURE
Fig. 4.12 shows the behaviour of untreated Siruseri soil. With increasing confining pressure the
resilient modulus of the soil increases. But with increasing deviatoric stress the material softens
and shows a decreasing trend.
The behaviour of lime treated Siruseri soil shows an increasing trend with both deviatoric and
confining pressure. This depicts the hardening behaviour of the treated soil (Fig. 4.13).
250
200
MR (MPa)
41.4 kPa
27.6 kPa
150
13.8 kPa
100
0 25 50 75 100
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
90
41.4 kPa
27.6 kPa
80
MR (MPa)
13.8 kPa
70
60
0 20 40 60 80
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
53
4.4.2 EFFECT OF CURING
Fig. 4.14 shows the effect of resilient modulus with curing. As the curing period increases the
response of the soil-lime composites for the cyclic loading transforms to a more responsive trend.
The effect of deviatoric stress at zero curing is not much pronounced but as the curing period
increases the bonding effect and the cementitious compounds formed causes an increase in M R
value with an increase in σd.
270
250
230
MR (MPa)
210
190
170 3 Days
150 14 Days
130 28 Days
110 Untreated
90
70
50
0 20 40 60 80
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
Effect of Moisture
260
240
220
Mr (MPa)
200
180
160 28 Days Dry side
140 28 Days Wet side
120
28 Days Opt side
100
0 20 40 60 80
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
54
4.4.4 EFFECT OF SOAKING
The effect of soaking reduces the modulus, because the samples compacted at optimum content
are able to absorb moisture content more than the wet side moisture content. The soaking reduces
the compaction density and loosens the bonding effect of soil-lime composites, which reduces
the modulus value to lesser magnitude. Fig. 4.16 shows the effect of soaking for the 14 days
treated sample.
14 Days
240
14 Days Soaked
190
MR (Mpa)
140
90
40
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
The Siruseri soil undergoes large deterioration in MR value on soaking, compared to the
Paramakudi and Karaikudi which were more intact and unaffected by moisture ingression.
Conversely, the Tuticorin soil shows large increase in MR value on soaking (Fig. 4.18).
The permanent strain of untreated soil is high in the range of 0.5%. The 28 days treated lime
samples shows a permanent strain of 0.2%. The treated samples shows a decrease in strain value
with curing thereby, preventing the failure of pavement due to rutting.
55
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
Untreated 3 days
0.1
14 days 28 Days
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sequence
300
Untreated
250
14 Days
150
100
50
0
Siruseri Karaikudi Paramakudi Tuticorin
Soil Source
56
Table 4.5 MR strength for all soils with % of fines
Table 4.5 shows the MR values for all the soil with their silt and clay content. Though the four
cohesive soils depicts a similar composition of fines and liquid limit, their mineralogical origin
and inherent chemical composition, may results in higher moisture susceptibility of the lime-soil
composites. Tuticorin sample shows a higher soaked value due to the less clay and high silt
content.
Condition logK1 K2 R2
Untreated Dry 2.643569 -0.05122 -0.0198
Untreated Opt 2.872925 -0.03674 -0.04531
Untreated Wet 2.752072 -0.12702 0.080303
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.050681 0.161128 -0.02149
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.088238 0.303404 0.905385
57
Treated 3 Days Wet 2.950599 -0.02277 -0.07596
Treated 14 Days Dry 2.993331 0.386725 0.757182
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.183456 0.17027 0.559881
Treated 14 Days Wet 2.989247 0.143444 -0.05336
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.155166 0.31183 0.351865
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.257374 0.354651 0.469423
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.249083 0.271264 0.297303
14 Days Soaked 2.836953 0.203914 0.023729
K2
MR
K1 d
atm atm
Condition logK1 K2 R2
Untreated Dry 2.589917 -0.11175 0.658198
Untreated Opt 2.821585 -0.10866 0.670804
Untreated Wet 2.665542 -0.17401 0.720784
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.224394 0.362479 0.68155
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.138537 0.068978 0.060345
Treated 3 Days Wet 3.118594 0.375573 0.629731
Treated 14 Days Dry 3.075133 0.127133 0.166789
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.240846 0.103352 0.557403
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.236794 0.528622 0.788084
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.30022 0.277835 0.843362
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.435811 0.376445 0.758103
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.415137 0.36318 0.680512
14 Days Soaked 3.01679 0.370059 0.819298
The correlation for these models is very low because it does not consider the bulk shear stress
and shear strain during loading.
58
4.4.7.3 OCTAHEDRAL STRESS MODEL
K2 K3
MR
K1 oct oct
atm atm atm
Codition logK1 K2 K3 R2
Untreated Dry 2.595698 0.053757 -0.12805 0.680934
Untreated Opt 2.831586 0.069657 -0.12978 0.735898
Untreated Wet 2.657599 0.020804 -0.18032 0.700949
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.214177 -0.18105 0.417379 0.711983
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.228597 0.328524 -0.03064 0.91955
Treated 3 Days Wet 3.045276 -0.44007 0.509016 0.890986
Treated 14 Days Dry 3.182145 0.375961 0.013129 0.739063
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.280703 0.11384 0.068832 0.752235
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.190567 -0.38585 0.645624 0.909184
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.355135 0.111865 0.243914 0.875227
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.475347 0.164172 0.232343 0.941271
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.428599 0.076071 0.238093 0.873228
14 Days Soaked 3.019324 -0.13238 0.4102 0.838768
K2 K3
MR d
K1
atm atm atm
Condition log k1 k2 K3 R2
Untreated Dry 2.579165 0.053757 -0.12805 0.680934
Untreated Opt 2.579165 0.053757 -0.12805 0.735898
Untreated Wet 2.579165 0.053757 -0.12805 0.700949
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.260607 -0.18105 0.417379 0.711983
59
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.072827 0.328524 -0.03064 0.91955
Treated 3 Days Wet 3.206615 -0.44007 0.509016 0.890986
Treated 14 Days Dry 2.985435 0.379469 -0.01852 0.639343
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.218076 0.11384 0.068832 0.752235
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.313971 -0.38585 0.645624 0.909184
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.277845 0.111865 0.243914 0.875227
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.374234 0.164172 0.232343 0.941271
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.368835 0.076071 0.238093 0.873228
14 Days Soaked 3.043268 -0.13238 0.4102 0.838768
K2 K3
MR
K1 d 3
atm atm atm
Codition logK1 K2 K3 R2
Untreated Dry 2.617116 0.044775 -0.11175 0.711228
Untreated Opt 2.852938 0.051613 -0.10866 0.759907
Untreated Wet 2.677903 0.020349 -0.17401 0.705051
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.18319 0.362479 -0.06783 0.673357
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.27199 0.21969 0.068978 0.943784
Treated 3 Days Wet 2.940325 -0.29347 0.375573 0.896878
Treated 14 Days Dry 3.238593 0.269088 0.127133 0.851471
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.290518 0.081769 0.103352 0.794767
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.079169 0.528622 -0.25948 0.914382
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.354108 0.277835 0.088711 0.895112
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.478476 0.117546 0.282125 0.958047
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.41536 0.051542 0.26116 0.874501
14 Days Soaked 2.963185 -0.08824 0.370059 0.839439
60
The regression model developed is used to predict the resilient modulus values. This was done by
back calculation this is performed. Fig.4.16 – Fig. 4.20 shows the plot between the predicted and
measured resilient modulus values for 28 days treated samples in all the five models.
Of all the models, the regression coefficients are high for octahedral stress model. The octahedral
linear trend line exactly falls on the measured values. So this model can be better used for further
studies.
220 220
Predicted MR
Predicted MR
100 100
100 140 180 220 260 100 140 180 220 260
Measured MR Measured MR
220 220
Predicted MR
Predicted MR
28 Days 28 Days
180 180
14 days 14 days
3 days 3 days
140 140
100 100
100 140 180 220 260 100 140 180 220 260
Measured MR Measured MR
61
260 Power Model
220
Predicted MR
180 28 Days
14 days
3 days
140
100
100 140 180 220 260
Measured MR
• The prediction based on these models is able to converge with the experimental results.
The shear sensitiveness in the form of softening and the hardening effect are captured in
the model. The k3 value initially negative for the untreated soil gradually takes into the
effect of curing and changes to a positive magnitude.
• The k-theta and power model basically used for the cohesionless soils and does not
consider the shear term, and it is not able to predict the behaviour of the lime treated soil
particularly the effect of curing.
• From the results it is seen that model 3, 4, and 5 agrees well with the experimental results
compared to Model 1a and 1b.
62
4500
4000
3500
400
100
200
0 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Total suction (MPa) Total suction (MPa)
63
4.4.2 CORRELATION OF UCC WITH MR
The 2007 Interim M-E Pavement Design Guide and Mallela et al. (2004) indicates that the design
Mr for lime-stabilized subgrade can be approximated from the results of
UCS tests using Equation 1.
Based on the equation 1 the predicted and actual MR for the treated siruseri sample is shown in
Fig.4.27. The table 4.11 shows the value of the actual and predicted MR.
64
250
y = 0.314x + 69.69
200 R² = 0.614
Predicted MR (MPa)
150
100
Thompson
50
Linear (Thompson)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Actual MR (MPa)
65
CHAPTER 5
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The benefits of subgrade stabilization are that they improve the strength, stiffness, and durability
of soft subgrade soils. Such improvement allows reduction in the required thickness of overlying
pavement courses and increases in pavement life. Quantifying the life-cycle cost benefits requires
performing pavement design studies based on anticipated traffic levels, desired serviceability,
etc. The preferred design method would be mechanistic design, which requires resilient modulus
values for the stabilized subgrade and other pavement layers.
66
Fig. 5.1 Pavement composition (Ref. IRC-37)
67
Fig. 5.2 Pavement failure (Ref. Huang 2004)
68
5.4.2 INPUT PARAMETERS IN KENPAVE
There are so many input parameters in KENPAVE. The parameters can be inputted both in SI
and U.S. customary units. Some of the input parameters for linear elastic analysis are traffic load,
material properties, thickness of each layer, number of periods, number of load groups,
etc.(Fig.5.4).
Damage analysis is done for both the stabilized and natural subgrade. The resilient modulus
values changes with respect to the moisture content. This is taken care by adopting different
values for each period. The time of failure for fixed criteria such as traffic, load and for a
particular design is noted and the cost comparison is carried out for them.
69
season.Table 5.1 shows the differnet modulus values used for subgrade. The base and subbase
values are calculated according to the subgrade modulus and used for design purpose.
Table 5.1 Subgrade Modulus in different period
Subgrade
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Modulus MPa
Untreated 40 60 15 50
70
Fig. 5. 5 General information of layers
71
Fig. 5.8 Damage analysis
The damage analysis was done at the bottom of asphalt layer and top of the subgrade. The
volume of traffic is taken as 10 MSA (Million Standard Axles) for year. The results of the
stabilized layer are given back in the form of notepad.
72
Table 5.2 Lime stabilized subgrade
Lime stabilized Thickness Cost/m3 Volume Cost per m
BC 60 6500 0.42 2730
DBm 220 6000 1.54 9240
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Subgrade 500 250 3.5 875
Life 20 years Total Cost per m 15715
Cost per km for two lane 15,715,000.00
73
Table 5.5 Blanket course
Blanket Course Thickness Cost/m3 Volume Cost per m
BC 60 6500 0.42 2730
DBm 220 6000 1.54 9240
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Blanket Course 225 700 1.575 1102.5
Subgrade 500 100 3.5 350
Total Cost per m 16292.5
Cost per km for two lane 16,292,500.00
5.6 RESULTS
1. The life of treated subgrade is much more than untreated subgrade.
2. Buffer layer or blanket course may be introduced before subgrade to prevent the swelling
behaviour but the design life is not got from Kenpave since it‟s not an elastic layer.
3. The introduction of buffer or blanket course increases the cost of pavement much higher
than lime stabilization.
4. Increase in BC and DBM incurred maximum cost compared to all other methods.
5. A cost saving of 20% can be obtained by adopting lime stabilization
74
CHAPTER 6
6.1 SUMMARY
The objective of the research is to examine the effect of lime stabilization on highly expansive
soil. Four types of soil were collected from different places across Tamilnadu and studied for
their expansive behaviour. After evaluating the initial soil properties the soils were classified as
highly expansive soil.
To reduce the effect of shrinkage and swelling and to increase the strength of the soil various
methods were studied. From these lime stabilization was selected, since it works well with
expansive soil. Eades and Grim pH test was used to find out the amount of lime required for each
soil and this percentage was used for further tests.
Compaction tests were carried out for both the treated and untreated soil. Unconfined
Compressive strength and resilient modulus were conducted on these samples for dry, optimum
and wet condition of the OMC curve. The samples were cured for a period of 3, 7, 14 and 28
days. Soaked UCC and MR were also performed for the samples by inserting the sample in a
water bath for a period of 24 hours. Regression models were developed to check the validity of
the results.
California bearing ratio test was done on Siruseri soil for 14 days cured on both soaked and
unsoaked condition. CBR test was also performed on untreated soil. Total suction was measured
for Siruseri soil on all the three condition for 0, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. The total suction values
were then correlated with the UCC and MR values to study the strength gain pattern with respect
to suction.
Cost economics was done between the stabilized and natural subgrade soil. The other options for
pavements on expansive soil such as introduction of buffer layer, Blanket course, and increased
thickness of wearing course are compared with the lime stabilized subgrade.
75
6.2 CONCLUSION
1. With curing the UCC strength, CBR and resilient modulus of the soil increases and the
strength of soaked samples of treated soil does not vary much with unsoaked showing the
treated sample can be used in high water content area without loss of strength.
2. The total suction of lime treated soil increases with curing because of non-availability of
free water.
3. Of the entire regression model used the octahedral stress model has better correlation than
the other models for the value of MR. This model can be used for better prediction of the
resilient modulus.
4. Damage analysis of the pavement is done with the help of Kenpave. By treating the
natural subgrade with lime the thickness of above layer can be reduced to a greater extent.
By stabilizing about 20% of cost of pavement can be reduced and the life of the pavement
is increased.
5. Among all the options on expansive soil such as buffer layer, blanket course, increased
thickness, lime stabilization is the one which cost minimum.
76
7.0 REFERENCE
AASHTO (2003). “Determining the resilient modulus of soils and aggregate materials.” T307–
99, Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing,
Washington, D.C.
AASHTO T-307, “Determining the Resilient Modulus of soils and aggregate materials”.
Al-Homoud, A.S., Basma, Husein Malkavi, and Al-Bashabshah., (1995). “Cyclic swelling
behaviour of clays”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 121, 582–585.
Al-Rawas. A.A., Hago. A., Al-Sarmi. H., (2005). “Effect of lime, cement and Sarooj (artificial
pozzolan) on the swelling potential of an expansive soil from Oman”. Journal of Building and
Environment, 40:681–7.
Arrman. and G.A. Munfak., (1972). “Lime stabilization of organic soils”, National Academy of
Science. Highway Research. USA, PP: 381.
Berger.E.A., (2005). “Lime applications for site and infrastructure construction”, International
Building Lime Symposium 2005, Orlando, Florida, March 9 -11.
Bell F. G., (1996). “Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils”. Journal of Engineering
Geology, Page 223-237.
Brown, S. and J. Pappin., (1981). “Analysis of Pavements with Granular Bases Layered
Pavement Systems,” TRR 810, TRB, Washington, D.C.
Daehyeon Kim and Nayyar. Zia Siddiki., (2006). “Simplification of Resilient Modulus Testing
77
for Subgrades” FHWA/IN/JTRP-2005/23, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University.
Daksanamurthy, V., Raman, V., (1973), “A simple method of identifying an expansive soil”, Soil
and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 13 (1),
pp. 97–104.
Eades, J. L., and R. E. Grim., (1966). A Quick Test to Determine Lime Requirements for Lime
Stabilization. In Highway Research Record 139, HRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1966.
Elfino, M. K., and J. L. Davidson., (1989). Modeling Field Moisture in Resilient. Moduli
Testing, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 24, ASCE, New. York.
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H., (1993) “Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils,” New York:
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Fredlund, D.G., (1997). “An Introduction to Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Unsaturated Soil
Engineering Practice, and Geotechnical”, Special Publication No. 68 (ed. Houston, S.L., and
Fredlund, D.G.), Reston: ASCE, pp. 1-37.
Hicks, R. and C. Monismith., (1971) “Factors Influencing the Resilient Response of Granular
Materials,” Highway Research Record 345, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Houston, W., S. Houston., and T. Anderson., (1992) “Stress State Considerations for Resilient
Modulus Testing of Pavement Subgrade,” 71st Annual Meeting of Transportation Research
Board, Jan. 12-16, Washington, D.C.
Holtz, W.G., and Gibbs, H.J., (1956). “Engineering properties of expansive clays”. Transactions
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 121, 641–663.
Jagannath Mallela., Harold Von Quintus., P.E. Kelly L. Smith, (2004) “Consideration of Lime-
Stabilized Layers In Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design”. National Lime Association.
78
Kate, J.M. and Katti, R.K., “Effect of CNS layer on the behavior of underlying expansive soils
media: an experimental study”, 1980, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 281-305.
Leong E.C., Tripathy S., Rahardjo H. (2003). Total suction measurement of unsaturated soils
with a device using the chilledmirror dew-point technique, Geotechnique, 53(2), 173–182.
Little, D.L. (1987). Fundamentals of the Stabilization of Soil with Lime. (Bulletin 332), NLA,
Arlington, VA. (http://www.lime.org/publications.html).
Little, D.L. (1995). Stabilization of Pavement Subgrades and Base Courses with Lime, Published
by Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. (http://www.lime.org/publications.html).
Little, D.L. (1999). Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime Stabilized Soils and Aggregates,
Summary of Findings (Vol. 1), National Lime Association report.
(http://www.lime.org/SOIL.PDF)
Meissa Fal., Auckpath Sawangsuriya.,Craig H. Benson., et al., (2008) “On the Investigations of
Resilient Modulus of Residual Tropical Gravel Lateritic Soils from Senegal”. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 26:13–35.
Nelson, J.D., Miller D.J., (1992). Expansive Soils Problems and Practices in Foundation and
Pavement Engineering. John Wiley, New York.
Pezo, Rafael F., (1993) “A General Method of Reporting Resilient Modulus Tests of Soils. A
Pavement Engineer‟s Point of View”. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Puppala, A.J., Louay N. Mohammad, and Aaron Allen., (2000) “Engineering Behavior of Lime-
Treated Louisiana Subgrade Soil” Transportation Research Record 1546 page 24-31.
Puppala, A. J., L. N. Mohammad, and W. H. Temple., (2007). “An Octahedral Stress State
Model and Correlations for Predicting Resilient Modulus of Soils”. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE.
79
Puppala, A.J., Ramakrishna, A.M., and Hoyos, L.R. (2003). "Resilient moduli of treated clays
from repeated load triaxial test". Journal of the Transportation Research Board, TRB, TRR No.
1821, pp. 68-74.
Ranjan. and Rao., (2005). Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi.
Robnett, Q. L., and M. R. Thompson., (1976). “Effect of Lime Treatment on the Resilient
Behavior of Fine Grained Soil”. In Transportation Research Record 560, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
Sridharan A. and Sivapullaih P.V., (2005) Mini Compaction Test Apparatus for Fine Grained
Soils ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3
Sriram, A.Rao. and Rama, M.Rao., (2008), Swell - Shrink Behaviour of Expansive Soils Under
Stabilized Fly Ash CushionsThe 12th International Conference of International Association for
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October, 2008.Goa, India
Subba Rao, K.S. and Satyadas, G.C., (1987). Swelling potentials with cycles of swelling and
partial shrinkage. Proceedings 6th International Conference on Expansive Soils, vol. 1, New
Delhi, 137–142.
Thadkamalla, G. B., and K. P. George., (1995) Characterization of Subgrade Soils ... TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 21–27
Thomas, P.J., Baker. J.C., Zelazny. L.W., (2000). “An Expansive Soil Index for predicting
Swell-Shrink Potential”. Soil Science Society of American Journal, 64:268-274.
Tommy C. H., Tony I. B., et.al., “Resilient Modulus of Kentucky Soil”. Kentucky Transportation
Center, Kentucky.
Transportation Research Board, t987, "Lime Stabilization," State of the Art Report 5, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, DC
Uzan, J., (1985) “Characterization of Granular Materials,” TRR 1022, TRB, Washington, D.C.
Williams, A.A.B., (1957), “Discussion on the Prediction of Total Heave from the Double
Oedometer Test”, Symposium on Expansive Clays, South African Institution of Civil Engineer,
page 57.
80
Witczak, M. W., and Uzan, J., (1988). „„The universal airport pavement design system, Report I
of IV: Granular material characterization.‟‟ University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Woojin Lee., N. C. Bohra., et al., (1997). “Resilient Modulus of Cohesive soils”. Journal of Geo-
Technical and Geo-Environmental Engineering, Feb 1997, Page 131-136.
Yang H. Huang. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. Pearson Prentice Hall Publication.
81
APPENDIX A – KENPAVE RESULTS
A.1 LIME STABILIZATION
FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.200E+05 4 3.800E+05 5 1.750E+05
FOR PERIOD NO. 2 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 5.400E+05 4 4.900E+05 5 2.250E+05
FOR PERIOD NO. 3 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 3.600E+05 4 3.250E+05 5 1.500E+05
FOR PERIOD NO. 4 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.800E+05 4 4.350E+05 5 2.000E+05
82
CONTACT RADIUS (CR)--------------- = 12.5
CONTACT PRESSURE (CP)------------- = 483
RADIAL COORDINATES OF 1 POINT(S) (RC) ARE : 0
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 2 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 3 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 4 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 2 ARE: 0.414 3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 5 ARE: 1.365E-09 4.477
83
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 5.915E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.159E+10 DAMAGE RATIO = 2.157E-04
******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
******************************
84
A.2 NATURAL SUBGRADE
FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.000E+05 4 9.000E+04 5 4.000E+04
FOR PERIOD NO. 2 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.450E+05 4 1.300E+05 5 6.000E+04
FOR PERIOD NO. 3 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.000E+04 4 3.500E+04 5 1.500E+04
FOR PERIOD NO. 4 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.200E+05 4 1.100E+05 5 5.000E+04
85
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR BOTTOM TENSION (NLBT)---- = 1
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR TOP COMPRESSION (NLTC)--- = 1
LAYER NO. FOR BOTTOM TENSION (LNBT) ARE: 2
LAYER NO. FOR TOP COMPRESSION (LNTC) ARE: 5
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 2 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 3 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 4 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 2 ARE: 0.414 3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 5 ARE: 1.365E-09 4.477
86
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.463E+07 DAMAGE RATIO = 7.219E-02
******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
******************************
87
A.3 NATURAL SUBGRADE INCREASED THICKNESS
INPUT FILE NAME -D:\\Kenpave results\Natural Subgrade Increased
Thickness.DAT
TITLE -Natural Subgrade Increased Thickness
MATL = 1 FOR LINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM
NDAMA=1, SO DAMAGE ANALYSIS WITH SUMMARY PRINTOUT WILL BE PERFORMED
NUMBER OF PERIODS PER YEAR (NPY) = 4
NUMBER OF LOAD GROUPS (NLG) = 1
TOLERANCE FOR INTEGRATION (DEL) -- = 0.001
NUMBER OF LAYERS (NL)------------- = 5
NUMBER OF Z COORDINATES (NZ)------ = 0
LIMIT OF INTEGRATION CYCLES (ICL)- = 80
COMPUTING CODE (NSTD)------------- = 9
SYSTEM OF UNITS (NUNIT)------------= 1
FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.000E+05 4 9.000E+04 5 4.000E+04
FOR PERIOD NO. 2 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.450E+05 4 1.300E+05 5 6.000E+04
FOR PERIOD NO. 3 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.000E+04 4 3.500E+04 5 1.500E+04
FOR PERIOD NO. 4 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.200E+05 4 1.100E+05 5 5.000E+04
88
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR BOTTOM TENSION (NLBT)---- = 1
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR TOP COMPRESSION (NLTC)--- = 1
LAYER NO. FOR BOTTOM TENSION (LNBT) ARE: 2
LAYER NO. FOR TOP COMPRESSION (LNTC) ARE: 5
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 2 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 3 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 4 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 2 ARE: 0.414 3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 5 ARE: 1.365E-09
4.477
89
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.820E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 6.545E-03
******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
******************************
90