FR 521

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE
`1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's

Catalog No.
FHWA/LA.14/521
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Design Values of Resilient Modulus for Stabilized and July 2015
Non-Stabilized Base 6. Performing Organization Code
LTRC Project Number: 10-3GT
State Project Number: 736-99-1727
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Khalil Hanifa, Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Gavin P. Gautreau
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Louisiana Transportation Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.

4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Final Report
Development September 2010-September 2013
P.O. Box 94245
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes

Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) new AASHTOWare pavement design software, Pavement ME
Design, has recommended the use of laboratory determined resilient modulus of base, subbase, and subgrade soils in characterizing pavements for
their structural analysis and design. Pavement ME Design requires the base course resilient modulus as an input parameter for pavement design.
These resilient modulus design values for stabilized (bound) and non-stabilized (unbound) base materials are not well established for Louisiana.
The primary objective of this research study was to determine resilient modulus design values for typical base course materials, as allowed by
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) specifications. The study also intended to develop resilient modulus models
(k1, k2, and k3) for use to evaluate the resilient modulus for unbound base course materials for use in the MEPDG. To accomplish this objective,
typical base course materials specified and constructed as part of Louisiana roadways were evaluated in this research study. Three stabilized soil
types (classified as A-2-4, A-4, and A-6, according to AASHTO soil classification) were evaluated as bound base materials. Two field materials
(in-place cement stabilized and in-place cement treated base course) were also evaluated as bound base materials. Two aggregate types (Mexican
Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed)) were evaluated as unbound base materials. The basic material properties of the bound and unbound base
materials were characterized through laboratory tests; repeated load triaxial tests were also conducted to evaluate their resilient modulus. Resilient
modulus design values were recommended for the typical base course materials evaluated.
Three mathematical resilient modulus models, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Project 1-37A, 2001) model,
University of Kentucky Transportation Center (UKTC) model (2002), and Uzan (1985) model were evaluated. Material coefficients k1, k2, and k3
for these models were obtained using multiple regression analysis of all standard testing stresses and corresponding resilient modulus values.
These models provide best data “fits” between resilient modulus and testing stresses. Furthermore, using the material coefficients (k1, k2, and k3)
for each model, the resilient modulus can be predicted when the stress condition and type of unbound base course material is known. While the
NCHRP model, UKTC model, and Uzan model all performed well for estimating the resilient modulus of unbound base materials, the NCHRP
model will be recommended and made readily available to the design personnel of DOTD.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Resilient Modulus, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Unrestricted. This document is available through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
Guide (MEPDG), Bound, Unbound, Base Course 21161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 133
Project Review Committee
Each research project will have an advisory committee appointed by the LTRC Director. The
Project Review Committee is responsible for assisting the LTRC Administrator or Manager
in the development of acceptable research problem statements, requests for proposals, review
of research proposals, oversight of approved research projects, and implementation of
findings.
LTRC appreciates the dedication of the following Project Review Committee Members in
guiding this research study to fruition.
LTRC Administrator/Manager
Zhongjie “Doc” Zhang, Ph.D., P.E.
Pavement and Geotechnical Research Administrator
Members
Jeff Lambert, DOTD
Bert Wintz, DOTD
Francisco Gudiel, DOTD
Mark Chenevert, DOTD
Kevin Gaspard, DOTD
Neal West, DOTD
Hector Santiago, FHWA
Directorate Implementation Sponsor

Janice P. Williams, P.E.
DOTD Chief Engineer
Design Values of Resilient Modulus for Stabilized and Non-Stabilized Base
by
Khalil Hanifa, E.I.

Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.
and
Gavin P. Gautreau, P.E.
Louisiana Transportation Research Center

4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
LTRC Project No. 10-3GT

State Project No. 736-99-1727
conducted for
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

Louisiana Transportation Research Center
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author/principal investigator who is
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development or the Louisiana Transportation Research Center. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
July 2015
ABSTRACT
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) new

AASHTOWare pavement design software, Pavement ME Design, has recommended the use
of laboratory determined resilient modulus of base, subbase, and subgrade soils in
characterizing pavements for their structural analysis and design. Pavement ME Design
requires the base course resilient modulus as an input parameter for pavement design. These
resilient modulus design values for stabilized (bound) and non-stabilized (unbound) base
materials are not well established for Louisiana. The primary objective of this research study
was to determine resilient modulus design values for typical base course materials, as
allowed by Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD)
specifications. To accomplish this objective, typical base course materials specified and
constructed as part of Louisiana roadways were evaluated in this research study. Three
laboratory stabilized soil types (classified as A-2-4, A-4, and A-6, according to AASHTO
soil classification) were evaluated as bound base materials. Two field materials (in-place
cement stabilized and in-place cement treated base course) were also evaluated as bound base
materials. Two aggregate types (Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed)) were
evaluated as unbound base materials. The basic material properties of the bound and
unbound base materials were characterized through laboratory tests; repeated load triaxial
tests were also conducted to evaluate their resilient modulus. Resilient modulus design
values were recommended for the typical base course materials evaluated.
Three mathematical resilient modulus models, the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP Project 1-37A, 2001) model, University of Kentucky Transportation
Center (UKTC) model (2002), and Uzan (1985) model were also evaluated. Material
coefficients k1, k2, and k3 for these models were obtained using multiple regression analysis
of all standard testing stresses and corresponding resilient modulus values. These models
provide best data “fits” between resilient modulus and testing stresses. Furthermore, using
the material coefficients (k1, k2, and k3) for each model, the resilient modulus can be
predicted when the stress condition and type of unbound base course material is known.
While the NCHRP model, UKTC model, and Uzan model all performed well for estimating
the resilient modulus of unbound base materials, the NCHRP model will be recommended
and made readily available to the design personnel of DOTD.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project is funded by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development (State Project No. 736-99-1727) and the Louisiana Transportation Research
Center (LTRC Project No. 10-3GT). The assistance with report organization, data analysis,
comments and suggestions from Zhongjie “Doc” Zhang, Pavement and Geotechnical
Administrator of LTRC, are gratefully acknowledged. The authors also appreciated the
assistance from the geotechnical research group of LTRC. The authors would like to thank
Amar Raghavendra for assisting with resilient modulus testing, subsequent data processing
and regression analysis. The authors would also like to thank Benjamin Comeaux for
conducting resilient modulus tests.
v
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
This research established resilient modulus design values for bound and unbound base course
materials that can be used as inputs when the DOTD is ready to begin using Pavement ME
Design. Also, for unbound base course materials, generalized constitutive models for
resilient modulus were evaluated and their corresponding k1, k2, and k3 parameters can be
used to predict resilient modulus.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ V
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT ................................................................................... VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. XI
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. XIII
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
OBJECTIVE ..............................................................................................................................3
SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................7
Physical Properties Tests .............................................................................................. 7
Cement Content for Stabilized Base Materials ............................................................. 8
Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) Resilient Modulus Tests .............................................. 8
Specimen Preparation ....................................................................................... 9
Resilient Modulus Tests.................................................................................. 13
Review of Generalized Constitutive Models for Resilient Modulus .............. 14
Regression Analysis ........................................................................................ 17
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS..................................................................................................19
Physical Properties of Raw Materials ......................................................................... 19
Unconfined Compressive Strength Results ................................................................ 21
Resilient Modulus of Cement Stabilized Base Course ................................... 25
Resilient Modulus of In-Place Cement Treated Base Course ......................... 25
Resilient Modulus of Unbound Materials ....................................................... 28
Recommended Resilient Modulus Design Values .......................................... 31
Results of Regression Analysis....................................................................... 33
Verification of Regression Analysis Coefficients........................................... 34
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................39
RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................41
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ..........................................................43
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................45
APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................47
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Soil classification test procedures ............................................................................... 7

Table 2 Resilient modulus testing matrix .............................................................................. 11
Table 3 AASHTO T-307 testing sequences........................................................................... 14
Table 4 Proposed resilient modulus models .......................................................................... 15
Table 5 Physical properties of soils tested ............................................................................. 19
Table 6 Recommended resilient modulus design values ....................................................... 32
Table 7 Regression analysis input parameter tables .............................................................. 35
Table 8 Regression analysis coefficients ............................................................................... 36
Table 9 A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing data ...................................... 51
Table 10 A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing data ........................................... 53
Table 11 A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing data ............................................ 55
Table 12 A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing data .................................. 57
Table 13 A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing data ......................................... 59
Table 14 A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing data .......................................... 61
Table 15 A-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing data ....................................... 65
Table 16 A-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing data .............................................. 67
Table 17 A-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing data ............................................... 69
Table 18 A-4 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing data ..................................... 71
Table 19 A-4 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing data ............................................ 73
Table 20 A-4 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing data ............................................. 75
Table 21 A-6 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing data ....................................... 79
Table 22 A-6 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing data .............................................. 81
Table 23 A-6 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing data ............................................... 83
Table 24 A-6 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing data ..................................... 85
Table 25 A-6 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing data ............................................ 87
Table 26 A-6 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing data ............................................. 89
Table 27 Mexican limestone at optimum moisture content data ........................................... 93
Table 28 Mexican limestone at +2% moisture content data .................................................. 95
Table 29 Mexican limestone at -2% moisture content data ................................................... 97
Table 30 Regression analysis input parameter tables ............................................................ 98
Table 31 AASHTO T 307 Testing Sequences ..................................................................... 101
Table 32 University of Kentucky Transportation Center Resilient Moduli Values ............ 101
Table 33 Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content data ................................ 105
Table 34 Recycled PCC (crushed) at +2% moisture content data ....................................... 107
Table 35 Recycled PCC (crushed) at -2% moisture content data ........................................ 109
xi
Table 36 Regression analysis input parameter tables .................................................... 110
Table 37 SHRP Protocol P46 Testing Sequences .......................................................... 113
Table 38 Mississippi Department of Transportation resilient moduli values ................ 114
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Bound material specimen preparation ..................................................................... 10

Figure 2 Unbound material specimen preparation .................................................................. 12
Figure 3 Typical results from a RLT test ................................................................................ 13
Figure 4 Particle size gradations of tested specimens ............................................................ 20
Figure 5 Standard Proctor compaction curves for raw soils .................................................. 20
Figure 6 Modified Proctor compaction curves for aggregates............................................... 21
Figure 7 7-Day Cement curves for cement stabilized soils ................................................... 22
Figure 8 Standard Proctor compaction curves for cement stabilized soils ............................ 23
Figure 9 Strength variations with change in moisture content .............................................. 23
Figure 10 Standard Proctor compaction curves for field samples ......................................... 24
Figure 11 Unconfined compressive strength results for field samples .................................. 24
Figure 12 Resilient moduli of cement stabilized base course (A-2-4)................................... 26
Figure 13 Resilient moduli of in-place cement treated base course (recycled soil
cement base) ............................................................................................................ 27
Figure 14 Resilient moduli of Mexican limestone samples ................................................... 29
Figure 15 Resilient moduli of Recycled PCC (crushed) samples .......................................... 30
Figure 16 Typical Sections .................................................................................................... 33
Figure 17 Model verification of Mexican Limestone at optimum moisture content ............. 37
Figure 18 Model verification of Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content ..... 38
Figure 19 A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing graphs............................... 50
Figure 20 A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs ..................................... 52
Figure 21 A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs ...................................... 54
Figure 22 A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing graphs............................. 56
Figure 23 A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs ................................... 58
Figure 24 A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs .................................... 60
Figure 25 A-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing graphs .................................. 64
Figure 26 A-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs ......................................... 66
Figure 27 A-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs .......................................... 68
Figure 28 A-4 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing graphs ................................ 70
Figure 29 A-4 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs ....................................... 72
Figure 30 A-4 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs ........................................ 74
Figure 30 A-6 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing graphs .................................. 78
Figure 32 A-6 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs ......................................... 80
Figure 33 A-6 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs .......................................... 82
Figure 34 A-6 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing graphs ................................ 84
xiii
Figure 35 A-6 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs ................................. 86
Figure 36 A-6 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs .................................. 88
Figure 37 Mexican limestone at optimum moisture content graphs ................................ 92
Figure 38 Mexican limestone at +2% moisture content graphs ....................................... 94
Figure 39 Mexican limestone at -2% moisture content graphs........................................ 96
Figure 40 Model verification of Mexican Limestone at +2% moisture content .............. 99
Figure 41 Model verification of Mexican Limestone at -2% moisture content ............. 100
Figure 42 Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content graphs ..................... 104
Figure 43 Recycled PCC (crushed) at +2% moisture content graphs............................ 106
Figure 44 Recycled PCC (crushed) at -2% moisture content graphs............................. 108
Figure 45 Model verification of Recycled PCC (crushed) at +2% moisture content .... 111
Figure 46 Model verification of Recycled PCC (crushed) at -2% moisture content ..... 112
xiv
INTRODUCTION
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) new

AASHTOWare pavement design software, Pavement ME Design, has recommended the use
of laboratory determined resilient modulus of base, subbase, and subgrade soils in
characterizing pavements for their structural analysis and design. The Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development (DOTD) currently utilizes the 1993 Pavement Design
Guide which requires structural coefficient input parameters. The new Pavement ME Design
software requires the base course resilient modulus as an input parameter for pavement
design. These resilient modulus design values for stabilized and non-stabilized base
materials are not well established for Louisiana. Typical base course resilient modulus
values need to be established for DOTD to begin implementing the new Pavement ME
Design software in the design of pavements in Louisiana. Laboratory testing is therefore
required, to establish resilient modulus values.
Current DOTD specifications allow both bound (soil cement, cement stabilized, and cement
treated base course) and unbound materials to be utilized as base course materials. Bound
materials are controlled by percentage of cement, moisture content and dry density to obtain
design strengths and utilize moisture content and dry density (e.g., ± 2% of optimum
moisture content, ≥ 95% of maximum dry density and percentage of cement) as a quality
control and acceptance criteria in the field. Unbound materials are controlled by moisture
content and dry density (e.g., ± 2% optimum moisture content, and ≥ 98% of maximum dry
density), which are used as a quality control and acceptance criteria in the field. Resilient
modulus testing is not currently a design or quality control parameter. There is a need to
determine the design resilient modulus for the different materials at their in-situ acceptable
values of moisture content and dry density (including field variation that may occur). These
values can then be included in the design of pavement structures.
The use of resilient modulus properties of bases, subbases, and subgrades in the mechanistic
design of pavement structures has been increasing among transportation agencies. Some
state agencies, such as Kentucky and Missouri, have had success in determining the resilient
modulus of aggregates and soils and utilizing this data as input in the new AASHTO
mechanistic model [1, 2]. Other state transportation agencies, such as Utah and Florida, have
realized the importance of establishing resilient modulus values and have initiated research
projects to establish resilient modulus values for typical materials to support implementation
of the new Pavement ME Design software [3, 4].
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this research study was to determine resilient modulus design
values for typical base course materials, as allowed by DOTD specifications. The study also
evaluates generalized constitutive models for resilient modulus and develop material
coefficients (k1, k2, and k3) for use to predict the resilient modulus for unbound base course
materials.
3
SCOPE
The bound (stabilized) and unbound (non-stabilized) base course materials evaluated in this
research study are typical base course materials specified and constructed as part of
Louisiana roadways. Three laboratory cement stabilized soil types (classified as A-2-4, A-4,
and A-6, according to the AASHTO soil classification) were evaluated as bound base
materials and prepared with 7.4%, 7.3%, and 8.5% cement by volume respectively. In-place
cement stabilized (A-4) and in-place cement treated (recycled soil cement base) field base
courses were also evaluated as bound base materials and prepared with 6% and 10% cement
by volume respectively. Two aggregates types [Mexican limestone and Recycled PCC
(crushed)] were evaluated as unbound base materials. The basic material properties of the
bound and unbound base materials were characterized through laboratory tests; and then
repeated load triaxial tests were also conducted to evaluate their resilient modulus. For each
base course material tested samples were made in triplicate for each case (i.e. moisture
content and curing period). A total of 84 specimens were tested. An in-house literature
review of previous research studies, as related to the scope of this study, was also conducted
and includes: Kentucky limestone; ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)-stabilized
blended calcium sulfate (BCS); asphalt base course (AC-30 binder); and asphalt base course
(powdered rubber modified).
5
METHODOLOGY
Laboratory testing was performed on the typical base course materials allowed by DOTD
specifications [5]. The materials evaluated during this study included the cement stabilized
soils (classified as A-2-4, A-4, and A-6 according to AASHTO classification); in-place
cement stabilized (A-4) and in-place cement treated (recycled soil cement base (RSCB)) field
base course; and base aggregate materials (Mexican limestone and recycled crushed Portland
cement concrete).
The laboratory testing program consisted of physical properties tests and repeated loading
triaxial (RLT) resilient modulus tests. The materials were evaluated at three moisture
contents, which represent the range variation allowed during construction: two percent below
optimum, optimum moisture content, and two percent above optimum.
Physical Properties Tests
Physical properties tests were performed in accordance with DOTD standard testing
procedures to provide characterization and classification information for the tested materials.
Table 1 presents the test procedures conducted on the materials.
Table 1
Soil classification test procedures
Test DOTD Testing Procedure
Atterberg Limits TR 428-67
Sieve/Hydrometer Analysis TR 407-99
Sieve Analysis (Aggregates) TR 113-11
Classification of Soils TR 423-99
Moisture-Density Relationship (Standard TR 418-98 Method B (Soils)

Proctor)
Moisture-Density Relationship (Modified TR-418-98 Method G (Aggregates)

Proctor)
7
Cement Content for Stabilized Base Materials
DOTD utilizes a Class II base course for cement stabilized base course design, as specified
by Section 302 of the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges (2006
edition), with the required cement content (Portland cement: Type I or II, or Portland-
Pozzolan cement: Type IP are allowed) to achieve an unconfined compressive strength of
300 psi at seven days (in accordance with standard testing procedure TR 432-02). For each
base course material evaluated, samples were molded at three moisture contents (optimum,
two percent above optimum, and two percent below optimum), established from the
compaction curves, and the cement contents recommended. After curing for seven days in a
100% humidity room, unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted on the samples
and the results used to investigate the variation that molding moisture content has on
unconfined compressive strength for each base course material. The percentage of cement
required to produce an unconfined compressive strength of 300 psi at seven days for each
soil cement material were used in preparing samples for other tests.
There are two types of soil cement designs used by DOTD for existing roadbed materials: in-
place cement stabilized base course, as specified by Section 303 of the Louisiana Standard
Specifications for Roads and Bridges (2006 edition), and in-place cement treated base course,
as specified by Section 308 of the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges
(2006 edition). For in-place cement stabilized base course, the current practice is to
determine the percentage of cement that produces an unconfined compressive strength of 300
psi at seven days. This cement stabilization is for untreated soils and recycled existing base
courses and it is typically 8.5 in. thick. For in-place cement treated base course, the current
practice is to determine the percentage of cement that produces an unconfined compressive
strength of 150 psi at seven days. This cement treatment is primarily used for recycling
existing soil cement base courses for low annual daily traffic (ADT) roads and it is typically
12 in. thick. For both in-place cement stabilized and in-place cement treated base courses,
the percentage of cement required to achieve the desired strength is verified by unconfined
compressive strength tests (in accordance with standard testing procedure TR 432-02).
Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) Resilient Modulus Tests
Repeated load triaxial (RLT) tests for resilient modulus were performed in accordance with
AASHTO procedure T 307-09 [6] standard method for each base course material evaluated
as related to the scope of this study.
8
Specimen Preparation
Bound Materials. Samples of stabilized base materials were compacted in a
cylindrical mold (2.8 in. by 5.6 in. height) using a standard compaction hammer (5.5-lb.
hammer with a 12-in. drop), as shown in Figure 1. Samples were prepared by 5 lifts of
approximately 1 in. to achieve uniform compaction throughout the specimen. A
predetermined amount of the material at specified moisture content was poured into the mold
at each lift and compacted until the specified target density (based on standard Proctor tests)
was obtained, as indicated by the distance from the top of the mold to the surface of the
compacted layer. Each lift was then slightly scratched to achieve good bonding with the next
lift. The specified weight of lift material was compacted into the known volume of the mold
to obtain the required sample density. A testing matrix of samples prepared for resilient
modulus testing is presented in Table 2. For each bound material tested, the data for the
three samples were averaged to generate one summary graph for each test condition (i.e.
moisture content and curing period) and the graphs for the three samples are available in
Appendices A-C.
Unbound Materials. Samples of aggregate base materials were compacted in a split

mold (6 in. diameter by 13 in. height) using a vibratory compaction device, as shown in
Figure 2. Two membranes were used to prevent any damage caused by coarse particles
during specimen preparation, with the aid of a vacuum to achieve a good contact with the
mold. Samples were prepared by six 2-in. lifts to achieve uniform compaction throughout
the specimen. A predetermined amount of the material at specified moisture content was
poured into the mold at each lift. Each layer was then compacted until the specified target
density (based on modified Proctor tests) was obtained as indicated by the distance from the
top of the mold to the surface of the compacted layer. The surface of each lift was then
slightly scratched to achieve good bonding with the next lift. The compacted samples were 6
in. x 12 in. (diameter by height) cylinders. For each bound material tested, the data for the
three samples were averaged to generate one summary graph for each test condition (i.e.
moisture content) and the graphs for the three samples are available in Appendices D-E.
9
(a) Hammer and Mold (b) Sample Compaction
(c) Compacted Sample (d) Sample Being Tested
Figure 1
Bound material specimen preparation
10
Table 2
Resilient modulus testing matrix
7-day 28-day
Material % Cement Target
curing curing
+2% 3 samples 3 samples

Cement
% to achieve
Stabilized Base Opt. 3 samples 3 samples
300 psi
Course (A-2-4)
-2% 3 samples 3 samples

Cement
% to achieve
300 psi
Course (A-4)

Cement
% to achieve
300 psi
Course (A-6)
In-Place
Field
Cement % to achieve
Moisture 3 samples 3 samples
Stabilized Base 300 psi
Content
Course (A-4)
In-Place
Field
Cement % to achieve
Moisture 3 samples 3 samples
Treated Base 150 psi
Content
Course (RSCB)
+2% 3 samples
Mexican
N/A Opt. 3 samples
Limestone
-2% 3 samples
+2% 3 samples
Recycled PCC
N/A Opt. 3 samples
(Crushed)
-2% 3 samples
11
(a) Vibratory Compacter and Mold (b) Sample Compaction
(c) Compacted Sample (d) Sample Being Tested
Figure 2
Unbound material specimen preparation
12
Resilient Modulus Tests
The samples were first conditioned by applying 1,000 load cycles to remove most
irregularities on the top and bottom surfaces of the test sample and to suppress most of the
initial stage of permanent deformation. The conditioning of the samples was followed by a
series of 15 testing sequences, as described in Table 3, consisting of different levels of cyclic
deviatoric stress and confining pressure, such that the resilient modulus is measured at
varying normal and shear stress levels. For each load sequence, the resilient modulus value
is calculated for each of the last five cycles and the values are subsequently averaged. The
cyclic loading consists of repeated cycles of a haversine shaped load pulse. These load
pulses have a 0.1-second load duration and a 0.9-second rest period. Resilient modulus is a
parameter to characterize stiffness of pavement materials under repeated loading, with the
consideration of the influence of stress levels (both confining pressure and deviatoric stress)
and the nonlinearity induced by traffic loading. Resilient modulus is an essential input
parameter in Pavement ME Design. A typical RLT test result is depicted in Figure 3, with
marked recoverable axial strain (εa) and cumulative permanent axial strain (εpe) at a certain
loading cycle. Resilient modulus is defined as:
(4)
Where σd = deviatoric stress; and εr = recoverable axial strain.
Figure 3
Typical results from a RLT test
13
Table 3
AASHTO T-307 testing sequences
Confining
Sequence Max. Axial Cyclic Stress Constant No. of Load
Pressure
Number Stress (psi) (psi) Stress (psi) Applications
(psi)
(Conditioning) 15 15 13.5 1.5 1000
1 3 3 2.7 0.3 100
2 3 6 5.4 0.6 100
3 3 9 8.1 0.9 100
4 5 5 4.5 0.5 100
5 5 10 9.0 1.0 100
6 5 15 13.5 1.5 100
7 10 10 9.0 1.0 100
8 10 20 18.0 2.0 100
9 10 30 27.0 3.0 100
10 15 10 9.0 1.0 100
11 15 15 13.5 1.5 100
12 15 30 27.0 3.0 100
13 20 15 (20*) 13.5 (18.0*) 1.5 (2.0*) 100
14 20 20 (25*) 18.0 (22.5*) 2.0 (2.5*) 100
15 20 40 (45*) 36.0 (40.5*) 4.0 (4.5*) 100
Note: Due to the stiffness of the bound materials, the stresses applied for sequences 13-15
increased compared to AASHTO T 307-09 and are noted in parenthesis. *Bound materials
Review of Generalized Constitutive Models for Resilient Modulus

A number of mathematical models have been proposed for modeling the resilient modulus of
soils and aggregates. Some widely published models proposed for characterizing the
resilient modulus of soils and aggregates are summarized in Table 4. Most mathematical
expressions relate resilient modulus, the dependent variable, to one independent variable: the
deviator stress, σd, confining stress, σ3, or bulk stress, θ (=σ1 + σ2 + σ3); or the two
independent variables: (σd and σ3), (θ and σd), or (θ and τoct). Three mathematical models,
including the one recommended by the mechanistic design guide (NCHRP 1-28A), were
evaluated for the Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed) materials and each is
discussed in detail below [7]. The models were not evaluated for bound materials because
they were developed to characterize raw soils and aggregates. Multiple regression analysis
of all standard testing stresses and corresponding resilient modulus values is used to obtain
material coefficients k1, k2, and k3. The models provide best data “fits” between resilient
modulus and testing stresses. The model proposed by the mechanistic design guide is
recommended but not required so all three models were evaluated to determine which
provides the best data “fit” between resilient modulus and testing stresses.
14
Table 4
Proposed resilient modulus models
Independent
Reference Model Equation
Variables
Moossazadeh and Witczak =
(1981) (Deviator Stress)
Dunlap (1963) =
(Confining Stress)
Seed, Mitry, Monismith and θ
=
Chan (1967) (Bulk Stress)
Uzan (1985) θ, =
UKTC (Ni, Hopkins, and Sun, =

,
2002)
θ,
NCHRP (National Cooperative =
Highway Research Program) (Octahedral Shear
Project 1-28A (Halin, 2001) Stress)
The generalized constitutive model as described in Part 2 Chapter 2 of the mechanistic design
guide, shown in equation (1) and referred to hereafter as Model 1, proposed the following
relationship for presenting resilient modulus data [8].
= (1)
where,
Mr= resilient modulus,
θ = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = bulk stress,
σ1 = major principal stress,
σ2 = intermediate principal stress,
σ3 = minor principal stress/confining pressure,
τoct = √ = octahedral shear stress,
15
Pa = normalizing stress (atmospheric pressure) = 14.7 psi, and
k1, k2, k3 = material constants.
Coefficient k1 is proportional to Young’s modulus. Thus, the values for k1 should be positive
since Mr can never be negative. Increasing the bulk stress, θ, should produce a stiffening or
hardening of the material, which results in a higher Mr. Therefore, the exponent k2, of the
bulk stress term for the above constitutive equation should also be positive. Coefficient k3 is
the exponent of the octahedral shear stress term. The values of k3 are typically negative since
increasing the shear stress should produce a softening of the material (i.e., a lower Mr).
The University of Kentucky Transportation Center (UKTC) resilient modulus model

proposed in 2002 (Ni, Hopkins, and Sun), and referred to hereafter as Model 2, is as follows
[9]:
Mr = (2)
where,
σd= deviator stress.
In this model, resilient modulus increases as the confining pressure increases so the
coefficients k1 and k2 will always be positive. The modulus will generally decrease with the
increase of the deviator stress therefore the coefficient k3 is typically negative for soils and
aggregates.
The model proposed by Uzan (1985), and referred to hereafter as Model 3, is as follows [10]:
Mr = (3)
In this model, increasing the bulk stress, θ, should produce a stiffening or hardening of the
material, which results in a higher Mr so coefficients k1 and k2 will always be positive. The
modulus will generally decrease with the increase of the deviator stress therefore for most
situations the coefficient k3 will be negative.
16
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was conducted using SAS Institute Inc. (SAS) software [11]. The
procedure detailed below was used to analyze the resilient modulus data by use of back-
calculation to determine material coefficients (k1, k2, and k3):
 The resilient modulus for each of the three samples was calculated then averaged to
generate one set of values for resilient modulus and input with other parameters (i.e.
confining pressure, deviatoric stress, etc.).
 SAS software was used to fit the resilient modulus data to nonlinear regression
models using the NLIN (nonlinear) procedure [12].
 Material coefficients k1, k2, and k3 were determined for each model as well as
corresponding Pseudo-R2 [12]. It is important to note that users of linear regression
models are accustomed to expressing the quality of fit of a model in terms of the
coefficient of determination, also known as R2. In nonlinear regression analysis, such
a measure is unfortunately, not readily defined. One of the problems with the R2
definition is that it requires the presence of an intercept, which most nonlinear models
do not have. A measure relatively closely corresponding to R2 in the nonlinear case is
Pseudo-R2.
 The Gauss-Newton option was used for fitting algorithm and goodness-of-fit
measures were determined for each of the three models.
17
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Test results from laboratory studies on the stabilized (bound) and non-stabilized (unbound)
base materials will be summarized and discussed in this section.
Physical Properties of Raw Materials

The Atterberg limits, maximum dry density, and optimum moisture content of the tested
materials are presented in Table 5. The gradation and moisture-density curves of the tested
materials are presented in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6, respectively.
Table 5
Physical properties of soils tested
Maximum Optimum
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Dry Moisture
Material
LL (%) PL (%) Index, PI (%) Density, Content,
γdmax (pcf) ωopt (%)
A-2-41 20 12 8 123.0* 10.4*
A-41 23 14 9 121.2* 11.3*
A-61 32 20 12 107.2* 15.9*
A-42 23 19 4 114.1* 14.2*
RSCB3 23 17 6 105.2* 19.3*
Mexican
N/A N/A N/A 125.1** 10.1**
Limestone
Recycled PCC
N/A N/A N/A 118.6** 12.0**
(Crushed)
Legend: 1-Soils for Cement Stabilized Base Course, 2-Soil for In-Place Cement Stabilized
Base Course, 3-Soil for In-Place Cement Treated Base Course (Recycled Soil Cement Base),
γd- Dry unit weight of the compacted sample, *Based on standard Proctor tests on raw soils,
**Based on modified Proctor tests on aggregate materials.
19
Figure 4
Particle size gradations of tested specimens
Figure 5
Standard Proctor compaction curves for raw soils
20
Figure 6
Modified Proctor compaction curves for aggregates
Unconfined Compressive Strength Results

Figure 7 shows the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) results for the cement stabilized
soils. The UCS results were used to establish a cement curve from which the minimum
percentage of cement required to achieve 7-day strengths of 300 psi for each material was
noted. A-2-4 required 6% cement by weight, A-4 required 6% cement by weight, and A-6
required 8% cement by weight. All samples related to the testing scope of the project were
produced with the aforementioned percentage of cement by weight.
Figure 8 shows the moisture-density curves of the stabilized base course materials.
Compared to the moisture-density curves of the raw soils in Figure 5, the addition of cement
caused an increase in optimum moisture content and a decrease in maximum dry density due
to the fact that additional moisture is needed for cement hydration. Figure 9 shows the UCS
results used to establish a strength curve to determine the effect of molding moisture content
on unconfined compressive strength. At optimum moisture content, all three materials
reached the required 300 psi UCS at 7-day curing. For all three materials, a variation in
molding moisture content affected the UCS. At molding moisture content two percent above
optimum, only A-4 was able to reach the target UCS of 300 psi at 7-day curing. At molding
moisture content 2% below optimum, all three materials reached the target UCS of 300 psi at
7-day curing. Figure 10 shows the moisture-density curves for the field samples where in-
21
place cement stabilized base course samples were produced with 10% cement by volume and
in-place cement treated (recycled soil cement base) base course samples were produced with
6% cement by volume. For field samples, the percentage of cement to be used was
determined in accordance with DOTD TR 432 from materials sampled in-place on the
project. Figure 11 shows the UCS results for the field samples. For in-place cement treated
base course, the required UCS of 150 psi at 7-day curing was achieved. For in-place cement
stabilized base course, the required UCS of 300 psi at 7-day curing was achieved.
Figure 7
7-Day Cement curves for cement stabilized soils
22
Figure 8
Standard Proctor compaction curves for cement stabilized soils
Figure 9
Strength variations with change in moisture content
23
Figure 10
Standard Proctor compaction curves for field samples
Figure 11
Unconfined compressive strength results for field samples
24
Resilient Modulus of Cement Stabilized Base Course
Figure 12 shows the resilient moduli of cement stabilized base course (A-2-4) cured for 7-
and 28-day periods at three molded moisture contents (optimum, two percent above
optimum, and two percent below optimum) and prepared with 6% cement. As expected,
higher confining stresses resulted in higher resilient moduli for all tested materials. Also,
each material’s resilient modulus increased with curing time and each material generally
behaved as a stress-hardening material (i.e., an increase in deviator stress caused an increase
in resilient modulus). The effect of molding moisture content caused a decrease in resilient
moduli for samples molded at two percent above optimum and two percent below optimum
as compared to samples molded at optimum moisture content. Cement stabilized base
courses (A-4 and A-6) prepared with 6% and 8% cement respectively, and in-place cement
stabilized base course (A-4), prepared with 10% cement, followed these same trends and
their results are presented in the Appendix. The effect of variation in field moisture content
on resilient moduli could not be investigated for the in-place cement stabilized base course
material because samples were only tested at optimum moisture content.
Resilient Modulus of In-Place Cement Treated Base Course

Figure 13 shows the resilient moduli of in-place cement treated base course (recycled soil
cement base) cured for 7- and 28-day periods at field moisture content (optimum) and
prepared with 6% cement. As expected, higher confining stresses resulted in higher resilient
moduli for the in-place cement treated base course material. Also, the material’s resilient
modulus increased with curing time and each material generally behaved as a stress-softening
material (i.e., an increase in deviator stress caused a decrease in resilient modulus.) The
effect of variation in field moisture content on resilient moduli could not be investigated for
the in-place cement treated base course material because samples were only tested at
optimum moisture content.
25
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
Resilient Modulus (Ksi)
CP=3 psi (7)

300.0 CP=5 psi (7)
CP=10psi (7)
250.0
CP=15 psi (7)
200.0 CP=20 psi (7)

CP=3 psi (28)
150.0 CP=5 psi (28)
CP=10 psi (28)
100.0
CP=15 psi (28)
50.0 CP=20 psi (28)
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Deviator stress (psi)
(a) 7-day and 28-day Curing
400.0
Deviator Stress (4.6 psi)
Resilient Modulus (ksi)
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
-2% Optimum +2%
Molding Moisture Content
(b) 5 psi Confining Pressure (28-day Curing)
Figure 12
Resilient moduli of cement stabilized base course (A-2-4)
26
500.0
CP=3 psi (7) CP=5 psi (7) CP=10psi (7) CP=15 psi (7)
CP=20 psi (7) CP=3 psi (28) CP=5 psi (28) CP=10 psi (28)
450.0 CP=15 psi (28) CP=20 psi (28)
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
7-day and 28-day Curing
Figure 13
Resilient moduli of in-place cement treated base course (recycled soil cement base)
27
Resilient Modulus of Unbound Materials
The resilient moduli for Mexican limestone samples at optimum testing moisture content,
two percent above optimum moisture content, and two percent below optimum moisture
content are shown in Figure 14. As expected, the resilient moduli increased with increase in
confining pressure. The effect of deviatoric stress on resilient moduli was well defined as an
increase in deviatoric stress generally produced an increase in resilient moduli. An increase
in testing moisture content (two percent above optimum) produced a decrease in resilient
moduli while a decrease in testing moisture content (two percent below optimum) produced
an increase in resilient moduli as compared to samples at optimum testing moisture content.
The resilient moduli for Recycled PCC (crushed) samples at optimum testing moisture
content, two percent above optimum moisture content, and two percent below optimum
moisture content are shown in Figure 15. As expected, the resilient moduli increased with
increase confining pressure. The effect of deviatoric stress on resilient moduli was well
defined as an increase in deviatoric stress produced an increase in resilient moduli. An
increase in testing moisture content (two percent above optimum) produced a decrease in
resilient moduli as compared to samples molded at optimum moisture content. A decrease in
testing moisture content (two percent below optimum) produced a minimal decrease in
resilient moduli as compared to samples at optimum testing moisture content.
28
80
70
60
50
CP=3 psi
40 CP=5 psi
CP=10psi
30 CP=15 psi
CP=20 psi
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Optimum Moisture Content
(b) 5 psi Confining Pressure
Figure 14
Resilient moduli of Mexican limestone samples
29
80
70
60
50
CP=3 psi
40 CP=5 psi
CP=10psi
30 CP=15 psi
CP=20 psi
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Optimum Moisture Content
(b) 5 psi Confining Pressure
Figure 15
Resilient moduli of Recycled PCC (crushed) samples
30
Recommended Resilient Modulus Design Values
Table 6 shows the recommended resilient moduli design values, at the anticipated working
stress in pavements (i.e., 5 psi confining pressure and 9 psi deviator stress), for the materials
evaluated for this study. For soil cement materials, resilient moduli values are reported at
three molding moisture contents (optimum, two percent above optimum, and two percent
below optimum), which represent the range of acceptance in the field. The highest resilient
moduli values typically occurred at optimum molding moisture content and the lowest
resilient moduli value typically occurred at molding moisture content two percent above
optimum except for A-6, where the lowest resilient moduli value occurred at molding
moisture content two percent below optimum. For the field materials, the resilient moduli
values are reported at optimum field moisture content. At 28-day curing, there was a
significant increase in resilient moduli. For unbound materials such as Mexican Limestone
and Recycled PCC (crushed), resilient moduli values are reported at three testing moisture
contents (optimum, two percent above optimum, and two percent below optimum), which
represent the range of acceptance in the field. The highest resilient moduli values occurred at
optimum testing moisture content while the lowest resilient moduli values occurred at testing
moisture content two percent above optimum for both materials. For all materials, resilient
modulus design values will be recommended at optimum moisture content.
In order to investigate the anticipated working stress in a pavement, KENPAVE which is a

finite element analysis software developed by Huang [13] was used in this study. This
software analyzes pavements based on the finite-element method, in which the slab is divided
into rectangular finite elements. To analyze pavements using KENPAVE software, the
inputs required are section geometry, material properties and wheel load. The stresses and
deflections of the slab, design life and cracking index are obtained as outputs. The typical
sections evaluated are presented in Figure 16. For evaluation, the simulated load is 18,000
lbs applied by a tire with a contact radius of 4.8 inches with a contact pressure of 120 psi.
The material properties required as inputs for each layer are elastic modulus and Poisson’s
ratio. For superpave asphaltic concrete, both wearing and binder course, the elastic modulus
was 400,000 psi and the Poisson’s ratio was 0.35. For the in-place cement treated base
course, the elastic modulus was 80,000 psi and the Poisson’s ratio was 0.20. For the soil
cement base course, the elastic modulus was 100,000 psi and the Poisson’s ratio was 0.20.
For the stone base course, the elastic modulus was 27,000 psi and the Poisson’s ratio was
0.30. The stress outputs were determined to be a confining pressure of 5 psi and a deviatoric
stress of 10.5 psi. The working stress in the pavement will be taken as a confining pressure
of 5 psi and a deviatoric stress of 9 psi.
31
Table 6
Recommended resilient modulus design values
Variation in Resilient
Curing Design Resilient
Material Parameters Modulus (psi)
Period Modulus (psi)
Opt. +2% -2%
Cement 7-day 130,000 100,000 110,000 130,000
Stabilized
Base Course
28-day 180,000 140,000 140,000 180,000
(A-2-4)
Cement
7-day 95,000 90,000 100,000 95,000
Stabilized
Base Course
28-day 130,000 120,000 130,000 130,000
(A-4)
Cement 7-day 85,000 84,000 85,000 85,000
Stabilized
Base Course
28-day 110,000 110,000 100,000 110,000
(A-6)
In-Place 100,000 (Field Optimum
Cement 7-day 100,000
σ3=5 psi1 Moisture)
Stabilized
σd=9 psi2 140,000 (Field Optimum
Base Course 28-day 140,000
(A-4) Moisture)
In-Place 80,000 (Field Optimum
Cement 7-day 80,000
Moisture)
Treated Base
Course 135,000 (Field Optimum
28-day 135,000
(RSCB) Moisture)
Mexican
N/A 20,000 15,000 20,000 20,000
Limestone
Recycled PCC
N/A 25,000 20,000 20,000 25,000
(Crushed)
Note: Anticipated working stress in pavement: 1(depth), 2 (loading)
32
2” Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (Wearing Course)
2” Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (Binder Course)

Type E Interlayer Asphaltic Treatment (2 Applications)
12” In-Place Cement Treated Base Course (150 psi design

strength)
(a) Cement Treated Base Course
2” Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (Wearing Course)
3” Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (Binder Course)
4” Stone Base Course
8” Soil Cement Base Course (300 psi design strength)
(b) Cement Stabilized Base Course
Figure 16
Typical Sections
Results of Regression Analysis

Table 7 shows an example of the input tables for Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC
(crushed) containing the input parameters that were used as inputs in regression analysis to
determine regression constants (k1, k2, and k3). The remaining input parameter tables are
available in the Appendices D-E. Table 8 summarizes the regression constants (k1, k2, and
k3) for the Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed) materials at each test condition
(i.e., testing moisture content). All three models performed well in predicting resilient
modulus with very high correlations, Pseudo-R2 values greater than 0.95, for both Mexican
Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed). The authors acknowledge that the Pseudo-R2 values
are high and typically rarely seen in regression analysis and this could be attributed to the
fact that the laboratory calculated resilient modulus was averaged to generate one set of
values for each material at each test condition.
33
Verification of Regression Analysis Coefficients
To verify the models and their corresponding coefficients, independent resilient modulus
values were used. The resilient modulus values from No. 57 limestone tested by the
University of Kentucky Transportation Center (UKTC) [14] according to AASHTO T307-99
were used to verify the Mexican Limestone models and their corresponding coefficients. The
resilient modulus values of recycled interstate rigid pavement tested by the Mississippi
Department of Transportation (MSDOT) [15] according to Strategic Highway Research
Program (SHRP) Protocol P46 were used to verify the Recycled PCC (crushed) models and
their corresponding coefficients. The testing sequences and resilient modulus values of the
independent measurements are available in Appendices D and E. Figure 17 shows the model
verification for Mexican Limestone at optimum moisture content using the independent
measurements. All three models performed well with R2 values ranging from 0.90-0.93. The
remaining model verification graphs are available in Appendix D. Figure 18 shows the
model verification for Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content using the
independent measurements. All three models performed will with R2 values ranging from
0.90-0.92. The remaining model verification graphs are available in Appendix E. No model
performed significantly better than the others in predicting resilient modulus. Model 1 will
be recommended for use since it is the general model adopted by AASHTO in the
mechanistic design guide.
34
Table 7
Regression analysis input parameter tables
Sequence
Number
σd (psi) σ3 (psi) θ (psi) τoct (psi) Mr (psi)
1 2.7 3 11.7 1.2728 17,100
2 5.3 3 14.3 2.5142 16,833
3 8.0 3 17.0 3.7869 17,633
4 4.5 5 19.5 2.1213 21,533
5 8.9 5 23.9 4.2112 23,467
6 13.4 5 28.4 6.3168 24,300
7 8.9 10 38.9 4.2112 34,933
8 17.9 10 47.9 8.4224 36,667
9 26.9 10 56.9 12.6651 36,767
10 8.9 15 53.9 4.2112 41,900
11 13.4 15 58.4 6.3168 42,167
12 26.9 15 71.9 12.6651 46,233
13 13.4 20 73.4 6.3325 50,833
14 17.9 20 77.9 8.4224 52,633
15 35.2 20 95.2 16.5934 58,567
(a) Mexican Limestone (Opt.)
Sequence
Number
1 2.7 3 11.7 1.2728 14,400
2 5.3 3 14.3 2.4984 17,133
3 8.0 3 17.0 3.7712 20,200
4 4.5 5 19.5 2.1213 22,700
5 8.9 5 23.9 4.1955 27,067
6 13.4 5 28.4 6.3168 30,833
7 8.9 10 38.9 4.1955 41,500
8 17.9 10 47.9 8.4381 44,900
9 26.8 10 56.8 12.6336 48,533
10 8.9 15 53.9 4.1955 51,100
11 13.4 15 58.4 6.3168 52,400
12 26.8 15 71.8 12.6336 59,300
13 13.4 20 73.4 6.3168 65,500
14 17.9 20 77.9 8.4381 66,967
15 35.2 20 95.2 16.6092 75,933
(b) Recycled PCC (crushed) (Opt.)
35
Table 8
Regression analysis coefficients
Moisture Model 1 Coefficients Model 2 Coefficients Model 3 Coefficients

Material
Content k1 k2 k3 *R2 k1 k2 k3 *R2 k1 k2 k3 *R2
Recycled (Opt.) 1,263.0 0.8240 -0.1992 1.00 14,824.7 1.4676 0.3392 0.98 16,829.2 0.8354 -0.0745 1.00
PCC (+2%) 1,007.9 0.8276 -0.2139 1.00 11,885.8 1.4662 0.3321 0.97 13,352.4 0.8388 -0.0789 1.00
(Crushed) (-2%) 1,207.5 0.8532 -0.2224 1.00 14,247.1 1.4956 0.3453 0.96 15,991.5 0.8619 -0.0791 1.00
(Opt.) 1,190.0 0.7253 -0.2569 0.99 14,001.4 1.3440 0.2387 0.99 15,043.1 0.7594 -0.1155 0.99
Mexican
(+2%) 766.3 0.7361 0.0262 0.99 8,994.7 1.3356 0.4321 0.99 11,269.3 0.7447 -0.0009 0.99
Limestone
(-2%) 1,226.1 0.6940 -0.2796 1.00 14,502.7 1.2873 0.2129 0.99 15,477.3 0.7214 -0.1141 1.00
*
Pseudo-R2
36
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
(c) Model 3
Figure 17
Model verification of Mexican Limestone at optimum moisture content
37
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
(c) Model 3
Figure 18
Model verification of Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content
38
CONCLUSIONS
A laboratory testing program was conducted to determine resilient modulus design values for
typical base course materials, as allowed by DOTD specifications and to evaluate generalized
constitutive models for resilient modulus based on k1, k2, and k3 parameters for use in
predicting resilient modulus of unbound base course materials. Based on the results of this
study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
 For soil cement at 7-day curing, moisture content has an effect on resilient moduli as
an increase (two percent above optimum) or a decrease (two percent below optimum)
in molded moisture content caused a decrease in resilient moduli which can be
attributed to the fact that a material will have higher resilient modulus at its maximum
dry density.
 For soil cement at 28-day curing, there was a significant increase in resilient moduli
as compared to samples at 7-day curing. Resilient moduli design values ranged from
100,000-180,000 psi for the soil cement materials tested in this study. Resilient
moduli values varied with molding moisture content for each material and the
minimum value was selected.
 For soil cement, the cement content of a base course will enhance its strength
characteristics and thus affect its response to loading as observed below:
1) In-place cement treated base course (recycled soil cement base) generally behaved as
a stress-softening material (i.e., an increase in deviator stress caused a decrease in
resilient moduli).
2) Cement stabilized base course and in-place cement stabilized base course generally
behaved as stress-hardening materials (i.e., an increase in deviator stress caused an
increase in resilient moduli).
 For unbound materials such as Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed),
moisture content has an effect on resilient moduli as an increase (two percent above
optimum) or a decrease (two percent below optimum) in testing moisture content
caused a decrease in resilient moduli which can be attributed to the fact that a
material will have higher resilient modulus at its maximum dry density. Resilient
moduli design values ranged from 15,000-25,000 psi for the Mexican Limestone and
Recycled PCC (crushed) tested in this study. Resilient moduli values varied with
testing moisture content for each material and the minimum value was selected.
39
 The NCHRP Model, UKTC Model, and Uzan Model all performed well in predicting
resilient moduli of the Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed) tested in this
study with the material coefficients (k1, k2, and k3) provided in Table 8.
40
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions drawn from this study, the following initiatives are recommended
in order to facilitate the implementation of this study:
1) For cement stabilized base course (300 psi design strength), as specified by Sections
302 and 303 of the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges (2006
edition), the following resilient modulus design values are recommended for use as
design inputs:
a. A-2-4 (Cement Stabilized): 180,000 psi
b. A-4 (Cement Stabilized): 130,000 psi
c. A-6 (Cement Stabilized): 110,000 psi
d. A-4 (In-Place Cement Stabilized): 140,000 psi
2) For cement treated base course (150 psi design strength), as specified by Section 308
of the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges (2006 edition), the
following resilient modulus design value is recommended for use as a design input:
a. In-Place Cement Treated (RSCB): 135,000 psi
3) For cement treated base courses (150 psi design strength), which are typically
constructed for low volume roads, design personnel may consider utilizing a cement
stabilized base course (300 psi design strength) when the low volume roads are
subject to overweight vehicles since cement treated base courses generally behave as
a stress-softening material.
4) For Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed), as specified by Section 302 of
the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges (2006 edition), the
following resilient modulus design values are recommended for use as design inputs:
a. Mexican Limestone: 20,000 psi
b. Recycled PCC (crushed): 25,000 psi
41
5) Model 1 (NCHRP Model) is recommended for use and the material coefficients (k1,
k2, and k3) for predicting the resilient moduli of Mexican Limestone and Recycled
PCC (crushed) are as follows:
k1 k2 k3
a. Mexican Limestone: 1,190.0 0.7253 -0.2569
b. Recycled PCC (crushed): 1,263.0 0.8240 -0.1992
42
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials
DV dielectric value
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
ft. foot (feet)
in. inch(es)
DOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
LTRC Louisiana Transportation Research Center
lb. pound(s)
m meter(s)
MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
PCC Portland cement concrete
RLT repeated loaded triaxial
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
UKTC University of Kentucky Transportation Center
43
REFERENCES
1. Hopkins, T., Beckham, T., and Sun C. Resilient Modulus of Compacted Crushed
Stone Aggregate Bases. University of Kentucky Transportation Center, 2007.
2. Petry, T., Richardson, D., Ge, L., Han, Y., and Lusher, S. Resilient Moduli of Typical
Missouri Soils and Unbound Granular Base Materials. Missouri University of Science and
Technology, 2008.
3. Nichol, K. Mechanistic Characterization of Soils and Aggregates. Brigham Young
University.
4. Horhota, D. Base Course Resilient Modulus for the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide. University of Florida, Gainesville.
5. Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, 2006 Edition. State of
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
6. AASHTO T-307 Determining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate
Materials. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling
and Testing, 29th Edition, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2009.
7. Halin, J.P. Harmonized Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Resilient
Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design. Project 1-28A. NCHRP, 2003.
8. Halin, J.P. and ERES Consultants, Inc. Development of the 2002 Guide for Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures: Phase II. Project 1-37A. NCHRP, 2004.
9. Hopkins, T., Beckham, T., Sun, L., and Ni, B. Resilient Modulus of Kentucky Soils.
University of Kentucky Transportation Center, 2002.
10. Uzan, J. Characterization of Granular Materials. In Transportation Research Record
1022. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.
11. SAS Software, Release 9.2, 2002-2008 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
12. Schabenberger, Oliver. Nonlinear Regression Analysis in SAS, undated.
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/library/sasnlin_os.htm. Accessed March 6, 2012.
13. KENPAVE Software, 2003 developed by Dr. Yang H. Huang, University of
Kentucky.
14. Hopkins, T., Beckham, T., and Sun, C. Resilient Modulus of Compacted Crushed
Stone Aggregate Bases. University of Kentucky Transportation Center, 2007.
15. Cooley Jr, L. and Hornsby, H. Evaluation of Crushed Concrete Base Strength.
Mississippi Department of Transportation, 2012.
45
APPENDICES
Appendix A A-2-4 Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
Appendix B A-4 Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
Appendix C A-6 Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
Appendix D Mexican Limestone Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
Appendix E Recycled PCC (Crushed) Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
47

APPENDIX A
A-2-4 Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
49
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 19
A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing graphs
50
Table 9
A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing data
A-2-4 (Opt.) 7-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
σ3 (psi) σd (psi) Average
Mr (ksi) Deviation Variation
(%)
2.8 77.7 91.4 78.3 82.5 7.74 9.39
3 5.8 93.9 95.8 101.7 97.1 4.07 4.19
8.3 108.9 115.2 129.6 117.9 10.61 9.00
4.6 96.9 110.8 100.3 102.7 7.25 7.06
5 9.2 121.2 150.2 147.1 139.5 15.92 11.41
13.8 152.4 175.6 169.4 165.8 12.01 7.24
9.2 180.8 201.0 173.9 185.2 14.08 7.60
10 18.4 258.4 251.0 269.4 259.6 9.26 3.57
27.4 262.2 285.2 318.5 288.6 28.31 9.81
9.2 243.0 281.5 228.5 251.0 27.39 10.91
15 13.8 304.5 303.3 280.8 296.2 13.35 4.51
27.5 383.2 398.3 376.3 385.9 11.25 2.92
19.8 421.4 490.6 419.6 443.9 40.48 9.12
20 24.4 404.2 438.9 417.6 420.2 17.50 4.16
42.8 384.4 412.5 415.2 404.0 17.06 4.22
51
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 20
A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs
52
Table 10
A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing data
A-2-4 (+2%) 7-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 66.9 59.9 66.9 64.6 4.04 6.26
3 5.8 60.3 72.8 76.5 69.9 8.49 12.15
8.3 58.9 87.8 88.8 78.5 16.98 21.63
4.6 90.0 90.3 86.2 88.8 2.29 2.57
5 9.2 95.5 119.4 97.5 104.1 13.26 12.73
13.8 103.2 132.2 121.2 118.9 14.64 12.32
9.2 169.0 140.0 140.0 149.7 16.74 11.19
10 18.4 169.0 190.4 202.8 187.4 17.10 9.12
27.4 198.5 236.2 259.2 231.3 30.65 13.25
9.2 204.4 195.9 210.0 203.4 7.10 3.49
15 13.8 254.8 244.2 257.4 252.1 6.99 2.77
27.5 284.5 287.5 346.0 306.0 34.67 11.33
19.8 394.8 310.8 328.0 344.5 44.37 12.88
20 24.4 329.6 301.3 341.0 324.0 20.44 6.31
42.8 299.6 308.0 358.4 322.0 31.80 9.88
53
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 21
A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs
54
Table 11
A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing data
A-2-4 (-2%) 7-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 65.4 83.6 61.8 70.3 11.69 16.63
3 5.8 75.8 89.2 71.0 78.7 9.43 11.99
8.3 92.6 97.8 83.4 91.3 7.29 7.99
4.6 95.6 104.2 83.8 94.5 10.24 10.83
5 9.2 110.6 118.0 105.8 111.5 6.15 5.51
13.8 122.6 143.2 125.4 130.4 11.17 8.57
9.2 199.5 174.5 212.4 195.5 19.27 9.86
10 18.4 237.0 206.6 268.8 237.5 31.10 13.10
27.4 282.3 242.0 327.9 284.1 42.98 15.13
9.2 228.2 254.7 239.9 240.9 13.28 5.51
15 13.8 282.8 293.5 311.4 295.9 14.45 4.88
27.5 335.0 309.4 345.9 330.1 18.74 5.68
19.8 406.2 396.8 390.3 397.8 7.99 2.01
20 24.4 351.8 371.3 374.1 365.7 12.15 3.32
42.8 328.4 358.6 314.7 333.9 22.46 6.73
55
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 22
A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing graphs
56
Table 12
A-2-4 at optimum moisture content and 28-day curing data
A-2-4 (Opt.) 28-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 83.0 89.6 99.6 90.7 8.36 9.21
3 5.8 104.0 116.4 126.0 115.5 11.03 9.55
8.3 129.0 145.2 155.4 143.2 13.31 9.30
4.6 121.2 148.0 132.6 133.9 13.45 10.04
5 9.2 177.6 196.8 184.8 186.4 9.70 5.20
13.8 241.2 264.9 252.6 252.9 11.85 4.69
9.2 207.6 219.8 218.4 215.3 6.68 3.10
10 18.4 281.6 294.2 303.5 293.1 10.99 3.75
27.4 342.0 347.6 369.5 353.0 14.53 4.12
9.2 211.2 251.0 223.8 228.7 20.34 8.90
15 13.8 267.6 290.1 305.4 287.7 19.01 6.61
27.5 357.2 381.4 404.1 380.9 23.45 6.16
19.8 371.6 429.7 459.4 420.5 44.66 10.63
20 24.4 397.2 446.2 432.2 425.2 25.24 5.94
42.8 442.1 481.3 490.8 471.4 25.82 5.48
57
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 23
A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs
58
Table 13
A-2-4 at +2% moisture content and 28-day curing data
A-2-4 (+2%) 28-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 80.5 96.6 79.5 85.5 9.60 11.22
3 5.8 107.0 126.7 100.0 111.2 13.84 12.45
8.3 133.0 152.6 125.0 136.9 14.20 10.38
4.6 100.1 126.2 100.4 108.9 14.98 13.76
5 9.2 144.2 165.2 136.4 148.6 14.90 10.02
13.8 186.2 198.9 177.6 187.6 10.72 5.71
9.2 198.9 219.6 215.6 211.4 10.98 5.19
10 18.4 278.3 305.3 293.4 292.3 13.53 4.63
27.4 305.9 329.4 342.3 325.9 18.46 5.66
9.2 296.8 331.8 312.5 313.7 17.53 5.59
15 13.8 361.4 393.6 371.0 375.3 16.53 4.40
27.5 382.4 412.3 391.4 395.4 15.34 3.88
19.8 380.4 370.2 419.3 390.0 25.91 6.64
20 24.4 393.2 414.5 406.0 404.6 10.72 2.65
42.8 417.9 468.4 398.1 428.1 36.25 8.47
59
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 24
A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing graphs
60
Table 14
A-2-4 at -2% moisture content and 28-day curing data
A-2-4 (-2%) 28-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 73.2 89.6 81.5 81.4 8.20 10.07
3 5.8 103.6 112.4 100.3 105.4 6.25 5.93
8.3 128.8 126.4 120.3 125.2 4.38 3.50
4.6 110.7 120.6 115.8 115.7 4.95 4.28
5 9.2 136.8 132.9 150.3 140.0 9.13 6.52
13.8 163.5 144.6 174.3 160.8 15.03 9.35
9.2 266.0 220.4 229.5 238.6 24.13 10.11
10 18.4 330.4 299.0 285.5 305.0 23.04 7.55
27.4 398.8 320.5 304.9 341.4 50.32 14.74
9.2 356.8 320.0 328.5 335.1 19.27 5.75
15 13.8 389.6 329.0 353.2 357.3 30.50 8.54
27.5 441.7 356.4 389.9 396.0 42.98 10.85
19.8 490.7 467.3 437.8 465.3 26.51 5.70
20 24.4 474.8 433.7 391.0 433.2 41.90 9.67
42.8 431.7 414.8 352.6 399.7 41.66 10.42
61
62
APPENDIX B
A-4 Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
63
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 25
A-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing graphs
64
Table 15
A-4 at optimum moisture content and 7-day curing data
A-4 (Opt.) 7-day Curing

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 57.3 48.0 58.5 54.6 5.75 10.53
3 5.8 71.4 59.7 69.0 66.7 6.18 9.27
8.3 85.5 74.4 84.3 81.4 6.09 7.48
4.6 74.4 65.4 78.6 72.8 6.74 9.26
5 9.2 102.6 90.6 104.4 99.2 7.50 7.56
13.8 128.1 116.1 132.3 125.5 8.41 6.70
9.2 158.8 152.0 168.4 159.7 8.24 5.16
10 18.4 230.8 232.4 232.7 232.0 1.02 0.44
27.4 284.8 304.8 288.1 292.6 10.72 3.66
9.2 200.5 212.5 211.2 208.1 6.59 3.16
15 13.8 253.0 272.0 253.6 259.5 10.80 4.16
27.5 309.5 331.0 367.6 336.0 29.38 8.74
19.8 327.8 370.1 341.4 346.4 21.59 6.23
20 24.4 321.6 352.5 331.8 335.3 15.74 4.70
42.8 344.6 351.5 330.2 342.1 10.87 3.18
65
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 26
A-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs
66
Table 16
A-4 at +2% moisture content and 7-day curing data
A-4 (+2%) 7-day Curing

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 42.5 44.8 42.4 43.2 1.36 3.14
3 5.8 57.0 60.9 52.6 56.8 4.15 7.31
8.3 74.0 79.8 62.0 71.9 9.08 12.62
4.6 61.8 60.4 70.0 64.1 5.19 8.09
5 9.2 96.0 94.4 92.0 94.1 2.01 2.14
13.8 134.4 130.0 112.0 125.5 11.87 9.46
9.2 117.6 122.5 124.5 121.5 3.55 2.92
10 18.4 210.0 214.5 174.0 199.5 22.20 11.13
27.4 297.5 286.5 216.9 267.0 43.71 16.37
9.2 189.2 200.7 195.8 195.2 5.77 2.96
15 13.8 257.4 288.0 243.0 262.8 22.98 8.74
27.5 327.6 341.6 296.5 321.9 23.08 7.17
19.8 279.0 340.7 336.6 318.8 34.50 10.82
20 24.4 345.0 345.3 331.4 340.6 7.94 2.33
42.8 385.1 356.7 332.6 358.1 26.28 7.34
67
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 27
A-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing graphs
68
Table 17
A-4 at -2% moisture content and 7-day curing data
A-4 (-2%) 7-day Curing

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 50.1 48.6 52.2 50.3 1.81 3.60
3 5.8 58.0 63.6 66.0 62.5 4.11 6.56
8.3 72.6 82.8 80.4 78.6 5.33 6.78
4.6 62.4 71.4 86.4 73.4 12.12 16.52
5 9.2 93.0 108.5 107.7 103.1 8.73 8.47
13.8 126.0 151.2 134.1 137.1 12.87 9.38
9.2 172.2 180.4 185.1 179.2 6.53 3.64
10 18.4 257.4 224.5 226.8 236.2 18.37 7.77
27.4 308.3 244.4 266.7 273.1 32.43 11.87
9.2 200.4 196.8 247.8 215.0 28.46 13.24
15 13.8 267.6 271.2 266.1 268.3 2.62 0.98
27.5 347.2 312.4 321.9 327.2 17.99 5.50
19.8 333.6 337.2 337.5 336.1 2.17 0.65
20 24.4 363.2 362.4 327.6 351.1 20.33 5.79
42.8 393.1 381.1 290.4 354.9 56.15 15.82
69
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 28
70
Table 18

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 70.6 79.4 68.1 72.7 5.94 8.16
3 5.8 94.0 89.0 77.0 86.7 8.74 10.08
8.3 105.6 114.0 107.6 109.1 4.39 4.02
4.6 118.9 119.0 115.1 117.7 2.22 1.89
5 9.2 143.2 146.6 134.9 141.6 6.02 4.25
13.8 172.1 158.2 149.0 159.8 11.63 7.28
9.2 177.3 197.5 188.8 187.9 10.13 5.39
10 18.4 271.6 279.5 261.1 270.7 9.23 3.41
27.4 320.1 335.6 301.3 319.0 17.18 5.38
9.2 244.6 253.4 264.1 254.0 9.77 3.84
15 13.8 320.1 336.5 301.3 319.3 17.61 5.52
27.5 372.1 359.2 389.1 373.5 15.00 4.02
19.8 372.1 387.1 359.1 372.8 14.01 3.76
20 24.4 409.2 429.7 398.3 412.4 15.94 3.87
42.8 449.5 487.4 451.3 462.7 21.38 4.62
71
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 29
72
Table 19
A-4 (+2%) 28-day

Curing
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 66.0 68.7 60.4 65.0 4.23 6.51
3 5.8 88.1 89.7 80.6 86.1 4.86 5.64
8.3 99.1 97.1 88.3 94.8 5.75 6.06
4.6 106.8 94.8 90.3 97.3 8.53 8.77
5 9.2 131.6 120.5 140.6 130.9 10.07 7.69
13.8 157.6 169.8 150.1 159.2 9.94 6.25
9.2 150.4 167.0 178.3 165.2 14.03 8.49
10 18.4 221.5 234.7 250.1 235.4 14.31 6.08
27.4 308.2 290.7 328.7 309.2 19.02 6.15
9.2 281.0 260.2 245.8 262.3 17.70 6.75
15 13.8 325.5 301.5 316.0 314.3 12.09 3.85
27.5 385.1 356.7 332.6 358.1 26.28 7.34
19.8 360.0 332.0 347.6 346.5 14.03 4.05
20 24.4 410.6 433.9 400.2 414.9 17.26 4.16
42.8 446.8 461.5 485.4 464.6 19.48 4.19
73
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 30
74
Table 20

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 73.4 74.0 68.6 72.0 2.96 4.11
3 5.8 84.2 80.7 78.9 81.3 2.70 3.32
8.3 92.6 102.8 88.4 94.6 7.41 7.83
4.6 106.8 94.8 97.3 99.6 6.33 6.35
5 9.2 131.7 137.4 143.7 137.6 6.00 4.36
13.8 169.4 170.5 177.4 172.4 4.34 2.51
9.2 221.5 234.7 240.1 232.1 9.57 4.12
10 18.4 281.1 267.2 245.8 264.7 17.78 6.72
27.4 325.5 311.5 316.6 317.9 7.09 2.23
9.2 287.8 275.1 294.1 285.7 9.68 3.39
15 13.8 332.2 349.5 338.3 340.0 8.77 2.58
27.5 380.0 390.1 366.4 378.8 11.89 3.14
19.8 368.3 392.1 382.4 380.9 11.97 3.14
20 24.4 421.5 449.7 432.7 434.6 14.20 3.27
42.8 449.5 487.4 458.4 465.1 19.82 4.26
75
76
APPENDIX C
A-6 Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
77
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 31
78
Table 21

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 40.0 43.8 46.6 43.5 3.31 7.62
3 5.8 44.8 53.4 47.7 48.6 4.38 9.00
8.3 52.4 65.4 55.2 57.7 6.84 11.86
4.6 64.8 60.0 69.1 64.6 4.55 7.04
5 9.2 83.4 80.7 88.1 84.1 3.74 4.45
13.8 101.4 104.1 115.4 107.0 7.43 6.94
9.2 114.4 139.6 126.3 126.8 12.61 9.94
10 18.4 174.4 214.0 185.2 191.2 20.47 10.71
27.4 239.2 286.8 212.4 246.1 37.68 15.31
9.2 143.0 160.4 178.5 160.6 17.75 11.05
15 13.8 181.0 202.8 221.4 201.7 20.22 10.02
27.5 231.0 275.5 253.2 253.2 22.25 8.79
19.8 251.2 303.8 318.5 291.2 35.38 12.15
20 24.4 264.8 303.4 325.2 297.8 30.59 10.27
42.8 346.4 340.8 359.2 348.8 9.43 2.70
79
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 32
80
Table 22

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 37.2 38.8 31.8 35.9 3.67 10.21
3 5.8 43.2 46.0 37.2 42.1 4.50 10.67
8.3 50.7 54.6 43.2 49.5 5.79 11.70
4.6 62.8 68.7 61.9 64.5 3.69 5.73
5 9.2 81.2 85.5 88.7 85.1 3.76 4.42
13.8 101.2 105.1 100.5 102.3 2.48 2.42
9.2 125.0 121.2 122.0 122.7 2.00 1.63
10 18.4 182.0 174.4 181.5 179.3 4.25 2.37
27.4 225.0 219.6 234.5 226.4 7.54 3.33
9.2 154.2 138.5 150.6 147.8 8.22 5.57
15 13.8 190.8 177.5 186.6 185.0 6.80 3.68
27.5 246.9 257.2 268.0 257.4 10.55 4.10
19.8 271.7 249.2 285.2 268.7 18.19 6.77
20 24.4 272.5 241.0 279.1 264.2 20.36 7.71
42.8 309.7 247.6 293.7 283.7 32.24 11.37
81
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0 σ₃=3 psi
300.0
250.0 σ₃=5 psi
200.0
150.0 σ₃=10psi
100.0 σ₃=15 psi
50.0
0.0 σ₃=20 psi
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
(c) Sample 3
Figure 33
82
Table 23

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 40.0 43.0 36.6 39.9 3.20 8.03
3 5.8 47.0 56.0 44.7 49.2 5.97 12.13
8.3 53.8 68.0 49.5 57.1 9.68 16.96
4.6 66.0 62.7 67.1 65.3 2.29 3.51
5 9.2 80.3 93.9 80.1 84.8 7.91 9.33
13.8 99.5 115.2 95.9 103.5 10.26 9.91
9.2 131.7 141.6 129.5 134.3 6.45 4.80
10 18.4 184.0 203.2 192.5 193.2 9.62 4.98
27.4 240.8 262.4 255.5 252.9 11.03 4.36
9.2 177.5 150.0 142.1 156.5 18.58 11.87
15 13.8 205.1 189.2 172.9 189.1 16.10 8.52
27.5 269.1 279.6 270.9 273.2 5.62 2.06
19.8 283.2 309.2 278.6 290.3 16.50 5.68
20 24.4 264.6 300.0 289.8 284.8 18.22 6.40
42.8 250.4 318.4 332.5 300.4 43.90 14.61
83
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 34
84
Table 24

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 59.1 54.3 45.6 53.0 6.84 12.91
3 5.8 85.5 75.0 78.3 79.6 5.37 6.75
8.3 107.1 93.9 100.2 100.4 6.60 6.58
4.6 93.3 79.5 65.7 79.5 13.80 17.36
5 9.2 132.0 111.9 110.1 118.0 12.16 10.30
13.8 168.3 144.9 144.0 152.4 13.78 9.04
9.2 150.0 133.5 117.6 133.7 16.20 12.12
10 18.4 229.8 205.2 191.7 208.9 19.32 9.25
27.4 288.9 269.7 248.7 269.1 20.11 7.47
9.2 206.8 194.0 202.0 200.9 6.47 3.22
15 13.8 266.4 245.6 273.5 261.8 14.50 5.54
27.5 313.8 295.5 306.6 305.3 9.22 3.02
19.8 373.4 321.2 331.6 342.1 27.63 8.08
20 24.4 368.7 316.2 321.6 335.5 28.88 8.61
42.8 365.3 315.5 350.2 343.7 25.53 7.43
85
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 35
86
Table 25

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 68.5 56.2 62.3 62.3 6.15 9.87
3 5.8 74.1 73.4 78.5 75.3 2.76 3.67
8.3 84.8 85.7 91.4 87.3 3.58 4.10
4.6 85.4 83.4 82.2 83.7 1.62 1.93
5 9.2 119.2 107.6 119.4 115.4 6.76 5.85
13.8 162.7 141.7 156.9 153.8 10.84 7.05
9.2 178.3 161.7 169.5 169.8 8.31 4.89
10 18.4 206.4 212.8 223.1 214.1 8.43 3.94
27.4 257.3 263.7 275.3 265.4 9.12 3.44
9.2 178.5 184.8 187.6 183.6 4.66 2.54
15 13.8 211.1 229.4 203.1 214.5 13.48 6.28
27.5 296.8 274.2 258.2 276.4 19.39 7.02
19.8 321.6 308.3 285.2 305.0 18.42 6.04
20 24.4 310.8 341.6 331.1 327.8 15.66 4.78
42.8 308.2 363.9 353.4 341.8 29.60 8.66
87
500

450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Sample 1
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Sample 2
500
450
400
350 σ₃=3 psi
300
250 σ₃=5 psi
200
150 σ₃=10psi
100 σ₃=15 psi
50
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Sample 3
Figure 36
88
Table 26

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 49.2 49.6 47.7 48.8 1.00 2.05
3 5.8 63.6 58.4 66.9 63.0 4.29 6.81
8.3 82.8 72.8 84.6 80.1 6.36 7.94
4.6 76.8 70.0 73.8 73.5 3.41 4.63
5 9.2 116.0 97.0 101.4 104.8 9.95 9.49
13.8 160.0 124.0 132.6 138.9 18.80 13.54
9.2 144.0 158.4 168.4 156.9 12.27 7.82
10 18.4 236.2 247.2 257.6 247.0 10.70 4.33
27.4 298.3 306.3 287.7 297.4 9.33 3.14
9.2 205.8 217.8 220.0 214.5 7.64 3.56
15 13.8 285.6 277.2 293.8 285.5 8.30 2.91
27.5 324.8 302.4 318.2 315.1 11.51 3.65
19.8 363.6 353.6 347.1 354.8 8.31 2.34
20 24.4 384.8 361.6 360.5 369.0 13.72 3.72
42.8 403.6 432.8 393.5 410.0 20.41 4.98
89
90
APPENDIX D
Mexican Limestone Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
91
80

70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deviator Stress (psi)
(a) Sample 1
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) Sample 2
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) Sample 3
Figure 37
Mexican limestone at optimum moisture content graphs
92
Table 27
Mexican limestone at optimum moisture content data
Mexican Limestone
(Opt.)
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 16.6 15.3 19.4 17.1 2.10 12.25
3 5.8 16.7 14.4 19.4 16.8 2.50 14.87
8.3 17.5 14.6 20.8 17.6 3.10 17.59
4.6 22.3 18.6 23.7 21.5 2.64 12.24
5 9.2 23.7 20.2 26.5 23.5 3.16 13.45
13.8 23.6 20.9 28.4 24.3 3.80 15.63
9.2 36.3 31.5 37.0 34.9 2.99 8.57
10 18.4 37.4 32.4 40.2 36.7 3.95 10.78
27.4 37.8 33.4 39.1 36.8 2.99 8.12
9.2 45.0 38.1 42.6 41.9 3.50 8.36
15 13.8 44.3 39.5 42.7 42.2 2.44 5.80
27.5 47.1 43.8 47.8 46.2 2.14 4.62
13.4 54.9 46.7 50.9 50.8 4.10 8.07
20 17.9 56.4 48.2 53.3 52.6 4.14 7.87
35.2 61.0 55.1 59.6 58.6 3.08 5.26
93
80

70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Sample 1
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) Sample 2
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
(c) Sample 3
Figure 38
Mexican limestone at +2% moisture content graphs
94
Table 28
Mexican limestone at +2% moisture content data
Mexican Limestone
(+2%)
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 11.2 5.9 8.7 8.6 2.65 30.83
3 5.8 13.4 8.3 13.8 11.8 3.07 25.91
8.3 15.3 10.4 17.6 14.4 3.68 25.48
4.6 16.4 10.7 18.1 15.1 3.88 25.73
5 9.2 18.8 13.0 19.0 16.9 3.41 20.13
13.8 19.5 14.9 20.6 18.3 3.02 16.49
9.2 27.2 19.0 23.7 23.3 4.11 17.66
10 18.4 30.6 22.3 26.3 26.4 4.15 15.72
27.4 31.9 24.4 31.1 29.1 4.12 14.14
9.2 32.6 23.9 30.7 29.1 4.57 15.74
15 13.8 33.2 24.3 32.1 29.9 4.85 16.25
27.5 39.2 30.3 36.8 35.4 4.60 13.00
13.4 41.6 31.9 39.8 37.8 5.16 13.66
20 17.9 43.4 34.1 41.9 39.8 4.99 12.55
35.2 51.7 39.9 50.2 47.3 6.42 13.59
95
80

70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Sample 1
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) Sample 2
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) Sample 3
Figure 39
Mexican limestone at -2% moisture content graphs
96
Table 29
Mexican limestone at -2% moisture content data
Mexican Limestone
(-2%)
Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 11.6 22.6 14.8 16.3 5.66 34.64
3 5.8 13.0 21.1 16.9 17.0 4.05 23.83
8.3 14.0 22.4 20.1 18.8 4.34 23.05
4.6 16.3 27.4 23.4 22.4 5.62 25.13
5 9.2 17.7 28.9 24.7 23.8 5.66 23.81
13.8 19.4 30.2 27.1 25.6 5.56 21.75
9.2 25.7 39.6 32.0 32.4 6.96 21.46
10 18.4 29.1 41.6 34.2 35.0 6.29 17.97
27.4 32.3 39.6 38.4 36.8 3.91 10.65
9.2 34.2 47.4 42.3 41.3 6.66 16.12
15 13.8 34.2 46.3 44.6 41.7 6.55 15.71
27.5 40.8 49.0 47.2 45.7 4.31 9.44
13.4 45.0 54.5 50.4 50.0 4.76 9.54
20 17.9 44.9 56.5 52.1 51.2 5.86 11.45
35.2 52.7 56.0 55.4 54.7 1.76 3.21
97
Table 30
Sequence
Number
1 2.7 3 11.7 1.2728 6,600
2 5.3 3 14.3 2.5142 11,833
3 8.0 3 17.0 3.7869 14,433
4 4.5 5 19.5 2.1056 15,067
5 8.9 5 23.9 4.2112 16,933
6 13.4 5 28.4 6.3011 18,333
7 8.9 10 38.9 4.2112 23,300
8 17.9 10 47.9 8.4381 26,400
9 26.9 10 56.9 12.6651 29,133
10 8.9 15 53.9 4.2112 29,067
11 13.4 15 58.4 6.3325 29,867
12 26.9 15 71.9 12.6651 35,433
13 13.4 20 73.4 6.3325 37,767
14 17.9 20 77.9 8.4381 39,800
15 35.1 20 95.1 16.5620 47,267
(a) Mexican Limestone (+2%)
Sequence
Number
1 2.7 3 11.7 1.2728 16,333
2 5.3 3 14.3 2.4984 17,000
3 8.0 3 17.0 3.7712 18,833
4 4.5 5 19.5 2.1213 22,367
5 8.9 5 23.9 4.1955 23,767
6 13.4 5 28.4 6.3168 25,567
7 8.9 10 38.9 4.1955 32,433
8 17.9 10 47.9 8.4224 34,967
9 26.8 10 56.8 12.6336 36,767
10 8.9 15 53.9 4.1955 41,300
11 13.4 15 58.4 6.3168 41,700
12 26.8 15 71.8 12.6336 45,667
13 13.4 20 73.4 6.3168 49,967
14 17.8 20 77.9 8.4067 51,167
15 35.1 20 95.1 16.5620 54,700
(b) Mexican Limestone (-2%)
98
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
(c) Model 3
Figure 40
Model verification of Mexican Limestone at +2% moisture content
99
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
(c) Model 3
Figure 41
Model verification of Mexican Limestone at -2% moisture content
100
Table 31
AASHTO T 307 Testing Sequences
Major Sum of
Confining Deviator Number
Sequence Principle Principle
Pressure (psi) Stress (psi) of Cycles
Stress (psi) Stresses (psi)
0 15.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 200
1 3.0 3.0 6.0 12.0 100
2 3.0 6.0 9.0 15.0 100
3 3.0 9.0 12.0 18.0 100
4 5.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 100
5 5.0 10.0 15.0 25.0 100
6 5.0 15.0 20.0 30.0 100
7 10.0 10.0 20.0 40.0 100
8 10.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 100
9 10.0 30.0 40.0 60.0 100
10 15.0 10.0 25.0 55.0 100
11 15.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 100
12 15.0 30.0 45.0 75.0 100
13 20.0 15.0 35.0 75.0 100
14 20.0 20.0 40.0 80.0 100
15 20.0 40.0 60.0 100.0 100
Table 32
University of Kentucky Transportation Center Resilient Moduli Values
Sequence Sample 1 (psi) Sample 2 (psi) Sample 3 (psi) Average (psi)

1 21,447 21,023 24,391 22,287
2 22,440 20,391 23,562 22,131
3 24,795 20,573 24,496 23,288
4 30,097 29,734 34,476 31,436
5 31,419 26,900 31,631 29,983
6 33,149 27,840 31,510 30,833
7 47,134 42,705 46,383 45,407
8 44,008 38,672 43,203 41,961
9 42,674 39,121 42,538 41,444
10 57,205 55,112 60,956 57,758
11 53,932 51,119 56,518 53,856
12 51,928 49,697 52,912 51,512
13 63,729 59,712 65,045 62,829
14 58,304 58,684 61,553 59,514
15 63,524 59,177 58,141 60,281
101
102
APPENDIX E
Recycled PCC (Crushed) Resilient Modulus Graphs/Data
103
80

70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Sample 1
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) Sample 2
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) Sample 3
Figure 42
Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content graphs
104
Table 33
Recycled PCC (crushed) at optimum moisture content data
Recycled PCC (Opt.)

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 10.8 15.6 16.8 14.4 3.17 22.05
3 5.8 13.6 18.6 19.2 17.1 3.07 17.95
8.3 16.3 21.5 22.8 20.2 3.44 17.03
4.6 18.0 25.8 24.3 22.7 4.14 18.23
5 9.2 21.6 29.8 29.8 27.1 4.73 17.49
13.8 25.0 32.3 35.2 30.8 5.26 17.05
9.2 35.1 45.5 43.9 41.5 5.60 13.49
10 18.4 39.4 48.1 47.2 44.9 4.78 10.66
27.4 43.9 51.0 50.7 48.5 4.02 8.27
9.2 46.6 52.9 53.8 51.1 3.92 7.68
15 13.8 46.9 54.6 55.7 52.4 4.79 9.15
27.5 53.9 61.6 62.4 59.3 4.69 7.92
13.4 61.2 68.8 66.5 65.5 3.90 5.95
20 17.9 62.4 70.7 67.8 67.0 4.21 6.29
35.2 72.7 78.6 76.5 75.9 2.99 3.94
105
80

70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Sample 1
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) Sample 2
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) Sample 3
Figure 43
Recycled PCC (crushed) at +2% moisture content graphs
106
Table 34
Recycled PCC (crushed) at +2% moisture content data
Recycled PCC (+2%)

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 12.1 10.3 12.8 11.7 1.29 10.99
3 5.8 14.2 12.6 15.8 14.2 1.60 11.27
8.3 16.8 15.1 17.2 16.4 1.125 6.81
4.6 18.4 17.4 18.8 18.2 0.72 3.96
5 9.2 21.3 20.6 20.9 20.9 0.35 1.68
13.8 24.8 23.9 22.8 23.8 1.00 4.20
9.2 32.8 30.3 31.2 31.4 1.27 4.03
10 18.4 36.4 34.2 33.5 34.7 1.51 4.36
27.4 40.9 38.9 37.7 39.2 1.62 4.13
9.2 42.8 40.6 41.0 41.5 1.17 2.83
15 13.8 44.0 42.6 42.6 43.1 0.81 1.88
27.5 50.6 48.3 49.9 49.6 1.18 2.38
13.4 53.7 50.8 51.2 51.9 1.57 3.03
20 17.9 54.3 51.9 53.0 53.1 1.20 2.26
35.2 60.2 57.4 59.3 59.0 1.43 2.42
107
80

70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) Sample 1
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deviator Sress (psi)
(b) Sample 2
80
70
60
σ₃=3 psi
50
40 σ₃=5 psi
30 σ₃=10 psi
20
10 σ₃=15 psi
0 σ₃=20 psi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) Sample 3
Figure 44
Recycled PCC (crushed) at -2% moisture content graphs
108
Table 35
Recycled PCC (crushed) at -2% moisture content data
Recycled PCC (-2%)

Sample Number
1 2 3 Coefficient
Standard of
(%)
2.8 13.6 13.1 13.8 13.5 0.36 2.67
3 5.8 15.5 16.2 15.9 15.9 0.35 2.21
8.3 18.1 18.4 18.8 18.4 0.35 1.91
4.6 20.1 23.5 22.5 22.0 1.75 7.93
5 9.2 23.7 25.7 24.2 24.5 1.04 4.24
13.8 27.4 28.6 29.2 28.4 0.92 3.23
9.2 39.7 41.7 42.5 41.3 1.44 3.49
10 18.4 43.4 46.2 46.7 45.4 1.78 3.91
27.4 48.0 49.0 50.3 49.1 1.15 2.35
9.2 50.8 49.5 52.2 50.8 1.35 2.66
15 13.8 51.9 51.1 54.1 52.4 1.55 2.97
27.5 60.5 58.3 62.3 60.4 2.00 3.32
13.4 65.1 61.2 66.8 64.4 2.87 4.46
20 17.9 66.7 62.8 67.9 65.8 2.67 4.05
35.2 73.9 71.0 75.8 73.6 2.42 3.29
109
Table 36
Sequence
Number
1 2.7 3 11.7 1.2728 11,733
2 5.3 3 14.3 2.5142 14,200
3 8.0 3 17.0 3.7712 16,367
4 4.5 5 19.5 2.1213 18,200
5 8.9 5 23.9 4.1955 20,933
6 13.4 5 28.4 6.3168 23,833
7 8.9 10 38.9 4.1955 31,433
8 17.9 10 47.9 8.4381 34,700
9 26.8 10 56.8 12.6336 39,167
10 8.9 15 53.9 4.1955 41,467
11 13.4 15 58.4 6.3168 43,067
12 26.8 15 71.8 12.6336 49,600
13 13.4 20 73.4 6.3168 51,900
14 17.9 20 77.9 8.4381 53,067
15 35.2 20 95.2 16.5777 58,967
(a) Recycled PCC (crushed) (+2%)
Sequence
Number
1 2.7 3 11.7 1.2728 13,500
2 5.3 3 14.3 2.5142 15,867
3 8.0 3 17.0 3.7712 18,433
4 4.5 5 19.5 2.1213 22,033
5 8.9 5 23.9 4.1955 24,533
6 13.4 5 28.4 6.3168 28,400
7 8.9 10 38.9 4.1955 41,300
8 17.9 10 47.9 8.4381 45,433
9 26.8 10 56.8 12.6336 49,100
10 8.9 15 53.9 4.1955 50,833
11 13.4 15 58.4 6.3168 52,367
12 26.8 15 71.8 12.6336 60,367
13 13.4 20 73.4 6.3168 64,367
14 17.9 20 77.9 8.4381 65,800
15 35.2 20 95.2 16.5777 73,567
(b) Recycled PCC (crushed) (-2%)
110
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
(c) Model 3
Figure 45
Model verification of Recycled PCC (crushed) at +2% moisture content
111
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
(c) Model 3
Figure 46
Model verification of Recycled PCC (crushed) at -2% moisture content
112
Table 37
SHRP Protocol P46 Testing Sequences
Confining Contact Cyclic Stress Maximum Number

Sequence
Pressure (psi) Stress (psi) (psi) Stress (psi) of Cycles
0 15.0 3.0 30.0 33.0 1000
1 3.0 0.6 1.5 2.1 100
2 6.0 1.2 3.0 4.2 100
3 10.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 100
4 15.0 3.0 7.5 10.5 100
5 20.0 4.0 10.0 14.0 100
6 3.0 0.6 3.0 3.6 100
7 6.0 1.2 6.0 7.2 100
8 10.0 2.0 10.0 12.0 100
9 15.0 3.0 15.0 18.0 100
10 20.0 4.0 20.0 24.0 100
11 3.0 0.6 6.0 6.6 100
12 6.0 1.2 12.0 13.2 100
13 10.0 2.0 20.0 22.0 100
14 15.0 3.0 30.0 33.0 100
15 20.0 4.0 40.0 44.0 100
16 3.0 0.6 9.0 9.6 100
17 6.0 1.2 18.0 19.2 100
18 10.0 2.0 30.0 32.0 100
19 15.0 3.0 45.0 48.0 100
20 20.0 4.0 60.0 64.0 100
21 3.0 0.6 15.0 15.6 100
22 6.0 1.2 30.0 31.2 100
23 10.0 2.0 50.0 52.0 100
24 15.0 3.0 75.0 78.0 100
25 20.0 4.0 100.0 104.0 100
26 3.0 0.6 21.0 21.6 100
27 6.0 1.2 42.0 43.2 100
28 10.0 2.0 70.0 72.0 100
29 15.0 3.0 105.0 108.0 100
30 20.0 4.0 140.0 144.0 100
113
Table 38
Mississippi Department of Transportation resilient moduli values
Sequence Sample 1 (psi) Sample 2 (psi) Sample 3 (psi) Average (psi)

1 14,393 14,302 14,342 14,346
2 21,573 22,144 23,839 22,519
3 31,598 33,530 36,368 33,832
4 45,971 48,115 52,947 49,011
5 62,681 64,257 71,176 66,038
6 15,081 14,815 15,516 15,137
7 23,447 23,771 25,883 24,367
8 34,740 36,382 39,797 36,973
9 50,951 52,784 58,048 53,928
10 67,842 68,818 75,409 70,690
11 16,893 16,591 17,723 17,069
12 26,997 27,816 30,302 28,372
13 40,632 42,593 46,406 43,210
14 57,802 59,288 64,549 60,546
15 69,420 69,992 75,955 71,789
16 18,275 18,035 19,334 18,548
17 29,441 30,141 32,777 30,786
18 43,210 45,295 48,456 45,654
19 58,240 59,811 63,596 60,549
20 68,837 69,526 73,895 70,753
21 20,321 20,816 21,465 20,867
22 32,494 34,043 35,435 33,991
23 45,543 47,698 49,691 47,644
24 59,347 62,021 64,150 61,839
25 73,618 75,220 78,468 75,769
26 20,748 22,050 22,033 21,610
27 34,450 36,653 37,166 36,090
28 48,487 51,445 52,227 50,720
29 63,956 66,311 0 0
30 0 0 0 0
114

FR 521

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FR 521

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FR 521

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE

`1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.

Louisiana Transportation Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Directorate Implementation Sponsor

Khalil Hanifa, E.I.

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

LTRC Project No. 10-3GT

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) new

This research project is funded by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Table 1 Soil classification test procedures ............................................................................... 7

Figure 1 Bound material specimen preparation ..................................................................... 10

The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) new

Physical Properties Tests

Test DOTD Testing Procedure

Atterberg Limits TR 428-67

Sieve/Hydrometer Analysis TR 407-99

Sieve Analysis (Aggregates) TR 113-11

Classification of Soils TR 423-99

Moisture-Density Relationship (Standard TR 418-98 Method B (Soils)

Moisture-Density Relationship (Modified TR-418-98 Method G (Aggregates)

Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) Resilient Modulus Tests

Unbound Materials. Samples of aggregate base materials were compacted in a split

(c) Compacted Sample (d) Sample Being Tested

+2% 3 samples 3 samples

+2% 3 samples 3 samples

+2% 3 samples 3 samples

(c) Compacted Sample (d) Sample Being Tested

Where σd = deviatoric stress; and εr = recoverable axial strain.

Review of Generalized Constitutive Models for Resilient Modulus

UKTC (Ni, Hopkins, and Sun, =

σ2 = intermediate principal stress,

σ3 = minor principal stress/confining pressure,

τoct = √ = octahedral shear stress,

k1, k2, k3 = material constants.

The University of Kentucky Transportation Center (UKTC) resilient modulus model

σd= deviator stress.

Physical Properties of Raw Materials

Unconfined Compressive Strength Results

Resilient Modulus of In-Place Cement Treated Base Course

CP=3 psi (7)

200.0 CP=20 psi (7)

(a) 7-day and 28-day Curing

(b) 5 psi Confining Pressure (28-day Curing)

7-day and 28-day Curing

(a) Optimum Moisture Content

(b) 5 psi Confining Pressure

(a) Optimum Moisture Content

(b) 5 psi Confining Pressure

In order to investigate the anticipated working stress in a pavement, KENPAVE which is a

Note: Anticipated working stress in pavement: 1(depth), 2 (loading)

2” Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (Binder Course)

12” In-Place Cement Treated Base Course (150 psi design

(a) Cement Treated Base Course

2” Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (Wearing Course)