You are on page 1of 106

LIME STABILIZATION ON EXPANSIVE SOILS FOR PAVEMENTS

A THESIS
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
by
VIGNESWARAN R
(CE08M174)






BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MADRAS.
MAY 2010


ii
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled LIME STABILIZATION ON EXPANSIVE
SOILS FOR PAVEMENTS submitted by VIGNESWARAN R, CE08M174, to Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award
of the degree of Master of Technology in CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND
MANAGEMENT, is a bonafide record of work carried out by his under our supervision.
The content of this thesis, in full or in parts, have not been submitted to any other institute
or University for the award of any degree or diploma.
Chennai 600 036
Date: 03-05-2010


Dr. R. G. Robinson
Associate Professor and Guide
Geotech division
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras
Dr. T. Thyagaraj
Assistant Professor and Co-guide
Geotech division
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras



Dr.K.Rajagopal
Professor & Head
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras


iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my sincere thanks to my guides Dr. R. G. Robinson and Dr. T.
Thyagaraj for sparing their valuable time and guidance that has rendered throughout the
course of my project work. The knowledge and the values that I have learnt from them
would continue to guide me through the course of my entire lifetime. I also thank them for
giving me a lot of freedom during the course of project work that has led to improve my
creativity and self confidence.
I am also highly grateful to Prof. Koshy Varghese, Coordinator, UOP Program,
Department of Civil Engineering not only for providing necessary support for my project
work but also for providing guidance, direction and valuable feedback regarding my
performance. He has been a constant source of motivation for completing the project on
time.
I feel highly indebted to my L&T ECC guide Mr. S. N Rajan, (Manager, R&D) for
providing necessary support for my project work.
I would also like to thank Ms. Bhuvaneshwari, Research scholar, Geotechnical
Engineering Division, her invaluable suggestions, encouragement and support throughout
the project duration which helped me to complete my project in time. I am also very
grateful to my friends and lab colleagues in geotechnical department for their advice and
support. I also thank the lab staffs for their assistant and needful help during experiments.
I also take this opportunity to thank all my friends in CTAM XI batch and Tamiraparani
Hostel for making my stay in IIT Madras a memorable one.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Management of Larsen
& Toubro Limited ECC Division for providing me the opportunity to undergo the


iv
course Construction Technology and Management at Indian Institute of Technology
Madras.
I also thank my parents for having tremendous faith in me and for being highly
supportive and encouraging.
Last but not the least, I express my humble gratitude to the Almighty for His constant
presence at every juncture of my life till date.


R.Vigneswaran
April 27, 2010




v
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: Expansive soil, Lime Stabilization, Pavements, Resilient Modulus (M
R
),
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCC), Cost Economics, Kenlayer.
Expansive soils are widespread all over the world. They are highly problematic due to
their swell-shrink behaviour caused by the seasonal fluctuation in moisture content. They
cause severe distress to lightly loaded structures founded on them, such as the single-
storey dwellings, pavements, canal linings and railway tracks. The volume change
problems posed by these soils can be mitigated by adopting numerous stabilization
techniques. Chemical alteration, specifically lime stabilization is the most viable choice
adopted globally for treating expansive soils. Lime addition renders the soil non plastic
and gradually imparts strength and stiffness to the soil due to immediate flocculation
reactions and long term pozzolonic reactions.
This study mainly focuses on the suitability of the lime treated soil for pavement subgrade
stabilization. Four problematic soils were selected for this study, from the places Siruseri,
Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin situated in southern part of the TamilNadu state. The
basic tests carried out to characterize these soils revealed high expansivity. Eades and
Grim test was used to find the optimum lime content required for stabilization. The lime
treated soils were tested for three moisture content levels-dry, wet and optimum states for
different curing periods -3, 14 and 28 days. UCC, CBR, Suction tests and resilient
modulus test based on the AASHTO T-307 protocol were carried out. Main focus was
made to study the resilient behavior of the treated soil under cyclic loading conditions
which simulates the traffic loading in the real pavements.


vi
The permanent strains sufficiently reduced and resilient modulus radically increased for
the treated soils. Model studies to simulate the stress dependent behavior of the resilient
modulus values and correlation between the UCC, suction and resilient modulus were also
attempted.
With increase in the subgrade strength due to lime stabilization the thickness of the upper
layer in the flexible pavements can be reduced considerably. Further lime stabilization also
increases the pavement life to a much greater extent. KENLAYER is used for the analysis
purpose. Cost economics was done for different methods such as ordinary design, buffer
layer, blanket course and increased thickness usually carried out for expansive soils. Of
all these methods lime stabilization incurred minimum cost thereby saving 40% of the
cost.












vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Certificate ii
Acknowledgement iii
Abstract v
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xiii
Abbreviations xv

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Historical Background..... 1
1.2. Overview.... 3
1.3. Objective of the Study.... 4
1.4. Scope of the Project.... 4
1.5 Methodology... 4
1.5. Thesis Organization........ 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction.... 7
2.2. Expansive Soils...... 7
2.3. Identification of Expansive soils.... 8
2.2.1. Surface Examination..... 8
2.2.2. Subsurface Examination........ 8
2.4. Classification of Expansive Soils... 9
2.5. Solutions for the Problems in Expansive Soil........ 10
2.5.1. Removal and Replacement........ 11


viii
2.5.2. Remoulding and Compaction........... 11
2.2.3. Surcharge Loading........ 11
2.5.4. Prewetting...... 11
2.5.5. Sand Cushion..... 12
2.5.6Cohesive Non-Swelling Soil Cushion..... 12
2.5.7. Moisture Control....... 12
2.5.8. Chemical Admixture..... 13
2.5.9. Under Reamed Piles...... 13
2.5.10 Granular Piles...... 13
2.6. Lime Stabilization.. 13
2.6.1. Stabilization Mechanism....... 14
2.7. Resilient Modulus...... 15
2.7.1. Permanent Strain.. 16
2.7.2. Resilient Modulus of Lime Treated Soil.. 17
2.7.1. Regression Models.... 17
2.8. Suction... 20
2.8.1. Matric Suction....... 21
2.8.2. Osmotic Suction.... 21
2.8.3. Dewpoint Potentiameter.... 22
2.9. Review of Literature... 23

3. SOIL PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction........ 24
3.2. Soil Characteristics .... 24
3.2.1. Micro Scale Factors............... 24
3.2.2. Macro Scale Factors...... 24
3.3. Sampling Location.. 25
3.4. Soil Properties....... 25


ix
3.4.1. Atterberg Limits... 26
3.4.2. Particle Size Distribution......... 26
3.4.3 Diffrential Free Swell Index.......... 26
3.4.4. X-Ray Diffraction............................................................. 27
3.4.5. Initial Consumption of Lime 27
3.4.6. OMC and Mdd... 28
3.5. Summary of Basic Properties......... 34
3.6. Sample Preperation........ 35
3.6.1. Testing Conditions........ 35
3.5.2 Soaked Sample Preparation .......... 36
3.7. Unconfined Compressive Strength........ 36
3.8. California Bearing Ratio............ 37
3.9 Resilient Modulus 38
3.9.1. Resilient Modulus Equipment...... 38
3.9.2. Test Procedure ...... 40
3.9.3. Sample Preperation ...... 42
3.9.4. Regression Analysis.......... 43
3.8. Total Suction.......... 39

4. TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Introduction.... 45
4.2. Unconfined Compressive Strength. 45
4.2.1. Untreated Samples.. 45
4.2.2. Treated Samples.... 46
4.2.3. Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin Soil................ 49
4.2.4. Effect of Soaking....... 50
4.3. California Bearing Ratio..... 51
4.4. Resilient Modulus... 52


x
4.4.1. Effect of Confining Pressure..... 53
4.4.2. Effect of curing.. 54
4.4.3. Effect of Moisture Content....... 54
4.4.4. Effect of Soaking .. 55
4.4.5. Effect of Permanent Strain with Curing.... 55
4.4.6. M
R
for Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin Soils...... 56
4.4.7. Regression Model.......... 57
4.4.8. Comparison of Model Study....... 62
4.5. Total Suction...... 62
4.5.1. Effect of Suction with Curing....... 62
4.5.2. Correlation of Suction with UCC and M
R
.... 63
4.5.3. Correlation of UCC with M
R
.... 64

5 COST ECONOMICS AND OPTIMIZATION
5.1. Introduction.... 66
5.2. Pavement on Expansive Soil.. 66
5.2.1. Buffer Layer...... 66
5.2.2. Blanket Course...... 66
5.2.3. Increased Thickness for BC and DBM.. 66
5.2.4. Lime Stabilization..... 66
5.3. Distress Model in Pavement... 67
5.3.1. Vertical Compressive Strain . 67
5.3.2. Critical Tensile Strain... 67
5.4. Distress Model in KENPAVE.... 68
5.4.1. Application of KENPAVE.... 68
5.4.2. Input Parameters in KENPAVE........ 69
5.4.3. Design Parameters..... 69
5.5. Cost Economics.. 72


xi
5.6. Results.... 74

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
6.1. Summary. 75
6.2. Conclusion.. 76

7 REFERENCE
7.1. Reference 77

APPENDIX A KENPAVE RESULTS
A1 Lime Stabilization..... 82
A2 Natural Subgrade .. 85
A3 Natural Subgrade Increased Thickness.. 88












xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table. No. Title Page
2.1 Degree of Expansiveness and Free Swell 10
3.1 Physical Properties of Soil.. 29
3.2 Sequence of Testing.... 40
4.1 UCC strength for untreated soil... 46
4.2 UCC strength for different moisture content and curing days................... 48
4.3 UCC strength for all soils with % of fines.. 50
4.4 CBR Values. 52
4.5 M
R
strength for all soil with % of fines... 57
4.6 Regression coefficients for K- Model...... 57
4.7 Regression coefficients for Power Model... 58
4.8 Regression coefficients for Octahedral Stress Model..... 59
4.9 Regression coefficients for Uzan Model..... 59
4.10 Regression coefficients for Pezo Model...... 60
4.11 M
R
prediction from Thompson equation. 64
5.1 Subgrade Modulus in Different Period.... 70
5.2 Lime Stabilized Subgrade.... 73
5.3 Natural Subgrade..... 73
5.4 Buffer Layer.... 73
5.5 Blanket Course.... 74
5.6 Increased BC and DBM...... 74




xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. No. Title Page
1.1 Expansive soil problems in pavements 2
2.1 Chart for potential expansiveness of soil . 9
2.2 Plasticity Vs clay content.. 10
2.3 Solubility of SiO
2
and Al
2
O
3
with pH.. 15
2.4 Dewpoint potentiameter 23
3.1 Soil source 25
3.2 Eades and Grim pH test.... 28
3.3 Mini compaction mould 28
3.4 Xrd for Siruseri treated and untreated samples 30
3.5 Xrd for Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin samples 31
3.6 Lime fixation point for all soil samples... 32
3.7 OMC and Mdd curves of all soil samples 33
3.8 Different testing condition for Siruseri soil.. 35
3.9 Soaked sample preparation... 36
3.10 UCC sample preparation... 37
3.11 CBR testing... 37
3.12 Loading setup 39
3.13 Experimental set up.. 39
3.14 Haversine loading form 41
3.14 Load pulse in computer 41
3.15 Resilient modulus setting. 42


xiv
3.16 Sample preparation... 42
3.17 Samples covered with cling film.. 43
3.18 Dewpoint potentiameter suction measurement..... 43
4.1 UCC test results for untreated Siruseri soil ..... 45
4.2
UCC test results for treated soil at different curing period at optimum
moisture content
46
4.3
UCC test results for treated soil at different curing period at dry side
moisture content
47
4.4
UCC test results for treated soil at different curing period at wet side
moisture content
47
4.5
UCC strength for Siruseri soil with curing days at different
moisture content .....
48
4.6 UCC test results for treated and untreated Karaikudi soil sample...... 49
4.7 UCC test results for treated and untreated Paramakudi soil sample... 49
4.8 UCC test results for treated and untreated Tuticorin soil sample... 50
4.9 UCC for all soils with curing... 51
4.10 CBR versus penetration curve for untreated soil 51
4.11 CBR versus penetration curve for treated soil 52
4.12 M
R
for untreated Siruseri sample.. 53
4.13 M
R
for 28 days treated Siruseri samples...... 53
4.14 Effect of M
R
with curing... 54
4.15 Effect of curing with M
R
for different placement condition.. 54
4.16 Effect of M
R
with soaking.... 55
4.17 Effect of permanent strain with curing. 56
4.18 Mr for all soil samples.. 56
4.19 Octahedral model.. 61


xv
4.20 Uzan model... 61
4.21 Pezo model 61
4.22 Power model. 61
4.23 K-theta model... 62
4.24 Total suction with curing.. 63
4.25 UCC Vs total suction 63
4.26 M
R
Vs total suction...... 63
4.27 Actual M
R
versus predicted M
R
.... 65
5.1 Pavement composition.. 67
5.2 Pavement failure... 68
5.3 Kenpave software package... 69
5.4 Cross section used in analysis... 70
5.5 General information of layers... 70
5.6 Layer thickness and Poissons ratio. 71
5.7 Layer modulus for each period. 71
5.8 Damage analysis... 71
5.9 Damage analysis graph. 72







xvi
ABBREVIATIONS
OMC Optimal Moisture Content
Mdd Maximum Dry Density
XRD X-Ray Diffraction
M
R
Resilient Modulus
UCC UnConfined Compressive Strength
CBR California Bearing Ratio
BC Bituminous Macadam
DBM Dense Bituminous Macadam

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Soil is one of the natures most abundant construction material. Almost all constructions are built
with or upon soil. When unsuitable construction condition are encountered, a constructor has
four options:
1. Find a new construction site
2. Redesign the structure so it can be constructed on the poor soil
3. Remove the poor soil and replace it with good soil
4. Improve the engineering properties of the in-situ soil
In general, options 1 and 2 tend to be impractical today, while in the past, option 3 has been the
most commonly used method. However, due to improvement in technology coupled with
increased transportation costs, option 4 is being used more often today and is expected to
dramatically increase in future.
Expansive soils are soils that swell enough to cause pavement problems and generally fall into
the AASHTO A-6 or A-7 group. Expansive soils swell on absorption of water during wet season
and shrink during dry season. Expansive soils can expand to as much as 10 times its original
size, thus causing severe damage. If the moisture content and or soil type differs at various
locations under the foundation, localized or non-uniform movement may occur in the structure.
This isolated movement of sections can cause damage to the foundation and pavement. Due to
their expansive potential to provide non-uniform support at the base of a pavement structure,
expansive soils must be properly addressed during the design and construction phase, to support
the pavement and traffic loads. Fig. 1.1 shows the failure of pavement in expansive soils.
2


Fig. 1.1 Expansive Soil Problems in Pavements
(Ref. Texas Department of Transportation)
Improving an on-site soils engineering properties is referred to as either Soil modification or
Soil stabilization. The term stabilization means that the engineering properties of the soil have
been changed enough to allow field construction to take place.
There are two primary methods of soil stabilization used today:
1. Mechanical stabilization and
2. Chemical or additive stabilization
Nearly every road construction project will utilize one or both of these stabilization techniques.
The most common form of mechanical soil stabilization is compaction of the soil, while the
addition of cement, lime, bituminous or other agents is referred to as a chemical method of soil
stabilization. There are two types of additives used during chemical soil stabilization: mechanical
additives and chemical additives.
Mechanical additives, such as soil, cement mechanically alter the soil by adding a quantity of a
material that has engineering characteristics to upgrade the load-bearing capacity of the existing
soil.
Chemical additives, such as lime chemically alter the soil itself, thereby improving the load-
bearing capacity of the soil. There are the two primary mechanisms by which chemicals alter the
soil into a stable subgrade:
3

1. General increase in particle size by cementation, reduction in plasticity index,
hydraulic conductivity, and shrink/swell potential.
2. Absorption and chemical binding of moisture that will facilitate compaction.
Essentially soil stabilization allows engineers to distribute a larger load with less material over a
longer life cycle. Soil stabilization is used in roads, parking lots, airport runways, building sites,
and landfills.
When selecting a stabilizer additive, the following factors must be considered
1. Type of soil to be stabilized,
2. Type of soil quality improvement desired,
3. Required strength and durability of the stabilized layer and
4. Cost and environmental conditions.

1.2 OVERVIEW
The performance of any construction project depends on the soundness of the underlying soils.
Unstable soils can create significant problems for pavements or structures. Expansive soil is fine-
grained clay which occurs naturally and is generally found in areas that historically were a flood
plain or lake area and highly unstable. The swelling and shrinkage potential of expansive soil
vary in proportion to the amount of clay minerals present in the soil.
Large areas of our country are covered with expansive soils such as black cotton soil. These
clays have caused persistent difficulties in road construction. Specific problem associated with
road construction over expansive soils is commonly the seasonal volumetric change rather than
its low bearing strength. Expansive soils shrink and crack when they dry out and swell when they
get wet. The cracks allow water to penetrate deep into the soil, hence causing considerable
expansion. This results in deformation of road surfaces, since the expansion and the subsequent
heave are never uniform. Excessive drying and wetting of the soil will progressively deteriorate
the pavement over the years.
To mitigate expansive soil problems several alternative solutions can be applied and stabilization
is one among them. Soil stabilization significantly changes the characteristics of a soil to produce
4

long-term permanent strength and stability. There are various types of soil stabilization and lime
is one among them. Lime is extensively used to stabilize expansive soils.
Resilient modulus is a dynamic test response defined as the ratio of repeated axial load to the
recoverable deformation. Resilient modulus (M
R
) has become a well-known parameter to
characterize unbound pavement materials because the elastic (resilient) pavement deflection
possesses a better correlation to field performance than the total pavement deflection. Resilient
modulus is more realistic to characterize moving wheel loads.
Soils are typically considered to be either dry, or a fully saturated mixture of soil and water. But
in real world they exist in the form of partially saturated soil. These soils exert a potential
negative pressure over moisture in its vicinity. This is known as suction, and it is responsible for
drawing water into a soils structure. As suction increases, the possibility of substantial volume
change increases. This can be reduced by addition of lime to soil. However, information about
Resilience modulus and suction properties of lime stabilized soils are scarce in the literature.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The main objective of the project is to study the effect of lime stabilizer on expansive soil
through various tests such as resilient modulus, UCC, CBR and suction characteristics and to
find the suitability of the soil for pavement subgrade stabilization.
1.4 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
The scope of the project is limited to use of lime as a stabilizing material
1. Identification of different expansive soils through basic properties.
2. Resilient Modulus of natural and lime treated stabilized soil.
3. Develop an empirical correlation for determining resilient modulus.
4. Cost economics of lime stabilized soil.
1.5 METHODOLOGY
The methodology followed in the project is represented in the flowchart shown in Fig. 1.2

5






















Expansive Soil
Identification of Expansive
soil
Other Soil types Detailed study
Tuticorin Paramakudi Karaikudi Siruseri
1. Index Properties (LL, PL, Sl)
2. Diffrential Free swell Index
3. OMC & MDD for Untreated Soil
4. Lime Requirement based on Eades & Grimm pH
Test
5. Treated OMC & MDD
6. X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
7. Unconfined Compression Strength ( 0, 14 Days)Soaked
& Unsoaked
8. Resilient Modulus (0,14, Days) Soaked & Unsoaked

1. Index Properties
2. Diffrential Free swell
3. OMC & MDD
4. Lime Requirement
5. Treated OMC & MDD
6. X-Ray Diffraction
7. Unconfined Compression Strength
( 0,3,7,14,28 Days)
8. Resilient Modulus (0, 3,14,28
Days)
9. California Bearing Ratio (Soaked
& Unsoaked)
10. Suction Characteristics

Regression Model & Correlation development
Economics and Cost analysis
Lime Stabilization
METHODOLOGY:
6

1.6 THESIS ORGANISATION
The thesis is organized into six chapters. Chapter one gives the brief description of historical
background, outline, and objective of the project, scope and methodology adopted.
Chapter two gives the summary of identification, Classification and problems in expansive soil,
Lime stabilization and stabilization mechanisms, resilient modulus and its various models and
the suction characteristics.
Chapter three provides the soil characteristics in micro and macro scale level, sampling location
and its basic properties. It also presents the sample preparation and laboratory procedure of UCC,
CBR, Resilient Modulus, and total suction.
Chapter four presents the test results and analysis, done with the various tests is explained in the
form of tables and graphs. Also the correlation with the different tests is also stated.
Chapter five deals with the cost economics of natural and lime treated subgrade soil and its
influence on above layers such as sub-base, base and asphalt layer. Cost economics of different
methods such as buffer layer, blanket course, increased thickness and lime stabilized subgrade is
discussed with the help of Kenpave.
Chapter Six provides the summary, findings and conclusion of the project.




7

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils are present throughout the world. Every year they cause billions of dollars in
damage. Even though expansive soils cause enormous amounts of damage most people have
never heard of them. This is because their damage is done slowly and cannot be attributed to a
specific event. The damage done by expansive soils is then attributed to poor construction
practices or a misconception that all buildings experience this type of damage as they age.

2.2 EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soil is a term used for soils which exhibit moderate to high plasticity, low to moderate
strength, and high swell and shrinkage characteristics (Holtz and Gibbs 1956). They show
evidence of large volume changes under varying moisture conditions from seasonal changes
(Nelson and Miller 1992). Such soils are commonly found in many arid and semi-arid areas of
the world such as Australia, Canada, China, India, Israel, Italy, South Africa, UK, and USA.
Expansive soils cover nearly 20% of the land area in India and include almost the entire Deccan
plateau, Western Madhya Pradesh, parts of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka,
and Maharashtra (Ranjan and Rao 1991). In our country the typical example of expansive soils
are black cotton soil, mar and kabar.
Three factors play important role in the heave and swell properties of soils: (i) soil properties
such as compaction, natural moisture content variation, dry density, and plasticity index (ii)
environmental conditions, which include temperature and humidity and (iii) natural overburden
pressure and foundation loading conditions. The degree of saturation in a typical expansive soil
increases in stages from 40% to 100%, when the soil starts to heave due to soaking and wetting
conditions. Hence, it can be inferred that swell magnitudes depend on the natural and compacted
moisture content. Swelling characteristics are associated with the wetting of soil particle surface
area and the void distribution between them.
8

2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
A major concern in geotechnical engineering is identification of expansive soils and estimation
of their swelling magnitudes when subjected to changes in environment (Rao and Satyadas 1987;
Day 1994; Al-Homoud et al. 1995).
The field study is used to determine the presence, extent, and nature of expansive soil and ground
water conditions. The two major phases of field exploration are surface examination and
subsurface exploration. The surface examination is conducted first since the results help to
determine the extent of the subsurface exploration. In situ tests may also be helpful, particularly
if a deep foundation, such as drilled shafts, is to be used.
2.3.1 SURFACE EXAMINATION
A study of the site history may reveal considerable qualitative data on the probable future
behaviour of the foundation soils. Maps of the proposed construction site should be examined to
obtain information on wooded areas, ponds and depressions, water-courses, and existence of
earlier buildings. Surface features, such as wooded areas, bushes, and other deep-rooted
vegetation in expansive soil areas, indicate potential heave from accumulation of moisture
following elimination of these sources of evapo-transpiration.
A thorough visual examination of the site by the geotechnical engineer is necessary. The
appearance of cracking in nearby structures should be especially noted. The surface soil at the
site should be examined. Local experience is very helpful in indicating possible design and
construction problems and soil and groundwater conditions at the site.
2.3.2 SUBSURFACE EXAMINATION
Subsurface exploration provides representative samples for visual classification and laboratory
tests. Classification tests are used to determine the lateral and vertical distribution and types of
foundation soils. Soil swell, consolidation, and strength tests are needed to evaluate the
load/displacement behaviour and bearing capacity of the foundation in swelling soil.



9

2.4 CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
The swell pressure of a soil is the external pressure that needs to be placed over a swelling soil to
prevent volume increase, while the swell potential of an expansive soil is the magnitude of heave
of a soil for a given final moisture content and loading condition. These expansive soil
parameters can be directly estimated in the laboratory from special oedometer tests or indirectly
from the index properties of the soils and the differential free swell test.
Besides direct quantification of swell potentials from the oedometer tests, it is also possible to
indirectly estimate the degree of expansivity of clay soils from their index properties or from the
differential free swell test. The Atterberg limits and swell potentials of clays depend on the
quantity of water that clay can imbibe. The higher the plasticity index, the greater the quantum of
water that can be imbibed by the soil and hence greater would be its swell potential. The colloid
content (<1 m) constitutes the most active part of the soil contributing to swelling and a high
colloid content naturally means a greater possibility of expansion (Rao 2006).

Fig. 2.1 Chart for potential Expansiveness of soil
(Ref. Dakshnamoorthy and Raman 1973)
10


Fig. 2.2 Plasticity Vs Clay content (Ref. Williams 1957)
Table 2.1 Degree of Expansiveness and Free Swell
(Ref. Seed et.al. 1962)
Degree of Expansiveness DFS (%)
Low <20
Moderate 20 35
High 35 - 50
Very High >50

2.5 SOLUTIONS FOR THE PROBLEMS IN EXPANSIVE SOILS
The various solutions for the problem in expansive soil suitable for any construction activity is
listed below (Nelson and Miller 1991)
1. Removal and Replacement
2. Remoulding and Compaction
3. Surcharge loading
4. Prewetting
5. Sand cushion
6. Cohesive non-swelling soil cushion
7. Moisture Control
8. Chemical Admixtures Lime Stabilization
9. Under reamed piles
10. Granular pile anchor
11

2.5.1 REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
Removal of expansive soils and replacement with non expansive soils is one method to provide
stable foundation material. In some cases the expansive strata may be entirely removed.
Generally, the expansive layer extends to a depth too great to economically allow complete
removal and replacement. One mechanism by which the removal and replacement method
mitigates expansive potential is by the control of the moisture content in the underlying clay
layer. The pertinent requirements concerning soil replacement are the type of replacement
material, the depth of replacement, and the extent of replacement.

2.5.2 REMOULDING AND COMPACTION
The swell potential of expansive soils can be reduced by decreasing the dry density. Compaction
at low densities and at water contents above the optimum water content, as determined by
standard proctor test, produces less expansion potential than compaction at high densities and
low water contents.

2.5.3 SURCHARGE LOADING
Swell can be prevented if expansive clays can be loaded with a surcharge large enough to
counteract the expected swell pressures. This method is most effective when swell pressures are
low and some heaving can be tolerated in the construction project, such as in secondary highway
system. However, many soils exhibit swell pressure too high to be controlled by normal
surcharge loads alone.

2.5.4 PREWETTING
Prewetting or ponding is based on the theory that increasing the moisture content in the
expansive foundation soils will cause heave to occur prior to construction and there by eliminate
problems afterward. It is assumed that if the high moisture content is maintained, there will be no
appreciable increase in soil volume to damage the structure. This procedure may have serious
drawbacks that limit its application. Expansive soils typically exhibit low hydraulic conductivity
and the time required for adequate wetting can be up to several years. Furthermore, after the
water has been applied for long periods of time serious loss of soil strength can result causing
reductions in bearing capacity and slope stability.
12

2.5.5 SAND CUSHION
One of the oldest practices used, is the sand cushion technique (Satyanarayana 1969). In this
technique, either the entire depth of the expansive soil stratum or a part of it may be removed and
replaced with a sand cushion compacted to a low density. The cushion is placed directly beneath
the footing. The principle of sand cushion is that while the expansive clay bed swells due to the
percolation of water during monsoon, the sand cushion settles. During summer, as the expansive
soil shrinks, the sand undergoes bulking due to partial saturation. As a result, there will be
minimum volume change in the soil system beneath the footing. It is difficult to arrive at the
exact thickness and the density of the sand cushion. Foundation engineers often suggest some
arbitrary thickness without considering the depth of the active zone, which is the zone within
which potential volume changes occur. If the thickness is inadequate, the problem aggravates as
the high permeability of sand facilitates easy ingress of moisture from the surface run-off and the
swelling process accelerates. This is the main drawback of the sand cushion.

2.5.6 COHESIVE NON-SWELLING SOIL CUSHION
From large-scale laboratory studies and field investigations (Katti 1979) it was found that, in an
expansive soil stratum, development of cohesive bonds takes place upon saturation which helps
to inhibit heave in the soil below a depth of 1.0 m to 1.2 m. However, the soil in the top 1.0 m to
1.2 m does swell. It was felt that if an environment similar to the one which exists over this
thickness is produced and the soil is not allowed to swell, it should be possible to arrest heave in
the expansive soil. By replacing the soil in the top 1.0 1.2 m with a cohesive non-swelling soil
(CNS), this kind of environment can be produced. The specifications for CNS material,
placement conditions and thickness requirements have been standardized by the Bureau of Indian
Standards. However, later studies (Rao 2000) revealed that the swell-shrink behaviour of a CNS
cushioned expansive clay is effective only in the first cycle and that it becomes less effective
during subsequent cycles.

2.5.7 MOISTURE CONTROL
Soil expansion problems are primarily the result of fluctuations in water content. Non uniform
heave will result from either non uniform water content changes, non-uniform soil conditions, or
13

both. If fluctuations in water content over time can be minimized and if the water content in the
subsoil can be made uniform, a major part of the expansion problem can be mitigated.

2.5.8 CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
Soil stabilization has been long recognized as the art of improving the behaviour of foundation
materials through careful selection of moisture control and compaction. Various organic and
inorganic fractions of different soil types undergo modification when a catalyst agent is
introduced into the soil. In turn, the chemical reaction converts inferior and formerly
unsuitable materials to highly satisfactory roadbed materials.

2.5.9 UNDER REAMED PILES
Under-reamed piles are piles which are provided with enlarged bulbs near the bottom. The bulbs
provide larger resistance to the pile both in compression and uplift. These are very popular in
India. However, when the piles are to be anchored in sand underlying the expansive clay bed,
this is not useful because formation of bulb in sandy soils is difficult as sands cannot take
negative slope.

2.5.10 GRANULAR PILE ANCHOR
Based on the investigations carried out on large-scale laboratory models (Srirama et al. 2007), it
was found that heave of expansive clay beds can be reduced significantly by reinforcing them
with granular pile-anchors, which are granular columns with an anchor rod placed centrally in it
connecting the foundation at the top and an anchor plate at the bottom. The frictional resistance
at the interface between the granular pile and the soil is instrumental in inhibiting the upward
movement of the soil (heave) up to some distance around the granular pile.

2.6 LIME STABILIZATION
Stabilization as applied to highway construction can be defined as a means of permanently
consolidating soils and base materials by markedly increasing their strength and bearing capacity
and decreasing their water sensitivity and volume change during wet/dry cycles. To achieve
stability an additive can be incorporated with the soil. This additive is particularly effective with
14

clay-bearing soils and aggregates, with which it reacts both chemically and physically to yield
quality road building materials.

2.6.1 STABILIZATION MECHANISM
Laboratory testing indicates that lime reacts with medium, moderately fine, and fine-grained
soils to produce decreased plasticity, increased workability, and increased strength (Little 1995).
Strength gain is primarily due to the chemical reactions that occur between the lime and soil
particles. These chemical reactions occur in two phases, with both immediate and long-term
benefits.
The first phase of the chemical reaction involves immediate changes in soil texture and soil
properties caused by cation exchange. The free calcium of the lime exchanges with the adsorbed
cations of the clay mineral, resulting in reduction in size of the diffused water layer surrounding
the clay particles. This reduction in the diffused water layer allows the clay particles to come into
closer contact with one another, causing flocculation/agglomeration of the clay particles, which
transforms the clay into a more silt-like or sand-like material. Overall, the flocculation and
agglomeration phase of lime stabilization results in a soil that is more readily mixable, workable,
and, ultimately, compactable. According to Eades and Grim 1960 practically all 4 fine-grained
soils undergo this rapid cation exchange and flocculation/agglomeration reactions when treated
with lime in the presence of water.
The second phase of the chemical reaction involves pozzolanic reactions within the lime-soil
mixture, resulting in strength gain over time. When lime is mixed with clay soil, the pH of the
pore water increases. When the pH reaches 12.4, the silica and alumina from the clay become
soluble and are released from the clay mineral. In turn, the released silica and alumina react with
the calcium from the lime to form cement, which strengthens in a gradual process that continues
for several years (Eades and Grim 1960). As long as there is sufficient calcium from the lime to
combine with the soluble silica and alumina, the pozzolanic reaction will continue as long as the
pH remains high enough to maintain the solubility of the silica and alumina (Little 1995).
Strength gain also largely depends on the amount of silica and alumina available from the clay
15

itself thus it has been found that lime stabilization is more effective for montmorillonitic soils
than for kaolinitic soils (Lees et. al.1982).


Fig. 2.3 Solubility of SiO
2
and Al
2
O
3
with pH
(Ref. Berger 2005)
In addition to pozzolanic reactions, carbonation can also lead to long-term strength increases for
soils stabilized with lime. Carbonation occurs when lime reacts with carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere to produce a relatively insoluble calcium carbonate. This can be advantageous since
after mixing, the slow process of carbonation and formation of cementitious products can lead to
long-term strength increases (Arman and Munfakh 1970).

2.7 RESILIENT MODULUS
Over many past decades, the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) has been used for the
characterization of subgrade soils. The CBR value is similar to the undrained shear strength of
soil which is independent of confining stress conditions, and is different from the stiffness of
soil.
In a road structure subjected to repeated traffic loadings, subgrade soils play an important role in
supporting the asphalt and base layers and traffic loadings. Due to this important role, the
subgrade should have enough bearing capacity to perform its function appropriately. If the
16

subgrade soils respond primarily in an elastic mode, the rutting problem typical in weak
subgrades will not occur.
However, rutting problems are observed in many roads, resulting in expensive rehabilitation
efforts. Therefore, the assumption that subgrade soils are purely elastic is not consistent with
most observation mode in practice. It is more realistic to treat the subgrade soils as elasto-plastic
materials (Kim 2006). In reality, subgrade soils subjected to repeated traffic loadings exhibit
nonlinear resilient and permanent behaviour even at small strains, before reaching their yield
strengths.
M
R
is a dynamic response of materials defined as the ratio of the repeated axial deviator stress to
the recoverable axial strain. M
R
could be determined in the laboratory by means of a cyclic
triaxial test at different confining and deviator stresses. The magnitude and sequence of these
stresses are different depending on whether the material is granular or fine-grained soil.
AASHTO T-307 test classifies soil as type I and type II for granular and fine-grained soils,
respectively.
2.7.1 PERMANENT STRAIN
The major function of subgrade soils is to provide support to pavement structures. Under heavy
traffic loads, subgrade soils may deform and contribute to distress in the overlying pavement
structure. In asphalt pavements this distress normally takes the form of cracking and rutting. It
has been well documented that the subgrade soil plays a critical role in the initiation and
propagation of permanent deformation of pavement structures and directly influences pavement
performance (Huang 1993).
Deformation of subgrade soils can be divided into two parts: recoverable elastic deformation that
is a measure of the resilient behaviour and non-recoverable plastic deformation that indicates the
absorbing behaviour. Current pavement design procedures consider soil support characteristics in
terms of its resilient behaviour. These procedures ignore permanent deformation behaviour even
though it may be a very important component in pavement performance.


17

2.7.2 RESILIENT MODULUS OF LIME TREATED SOIL
Puppala et al carried out resilient modulus tests on lime treated soils for establishing the
percentage of lime required to increase the plastic limit and the influence of moisture contents on
the treated soil. Further empirical correlations were also carried out to predict the resilient
modulus from moisture content, dry density, CBR and UCC. Cohesive silty clay was adopted for
the purpose.
The resilient modulus testing indicated a 20 to 50% increase of M
R
values and there was a
decrease in plastic deformation. The Mr values correlated well with the CBR or UCS, moisture
content,dry density and degree of compaction for a particular confining pressure.
Fall et al (2007) carried out resilient modulus investigations on treated gravelly lateritic soils.
Their main adjective was to find the effect of compacity on the Mr of lateritic soils and to find
the influence of percentage cement added to stabilize the soil. The Andrei and Uzan-Witczak
universal model were analysed and developed in this paper.
The lateritic soils exhibited an increase in resilient modulus with deviatoric stress or the bulk
stress. Similar trend was observed for cement treated soils, ranging from 300 to 1800 kPa for 1%
cement and 500 to 2500 for 2% cement. They concluded that 3% of cement exhibited the highest
resilient modulus values. Among the four models they adopted (Uzan-Witczak universal model,
Andrei, k theta and power model). The universal model and Andrei model correlated well with
the experimental results.

2.7.3 REGRESSION MODELS
The resilient Modulus tests are conducted under a combination of deviatoric stresses and
confining pressure simulating the real traffic conditions. The past few decades have witnessed
the development and use of several constitutive equations that model M
R
behaviour. These
models provide powerful tools for research and design engineers to conduct pavement analysis in
a more realistic manner (Al-Suhaibani 2006). The constitutive model should correctly describe
the actual behaviour of material that has been used in the analysis.
18

The M
r
values are stress dependent and strongly rely on the material tested. Fine grained soils
and granular soils differ in their response to the stress conditions. AASHTO test method
recommends the use of bulk stress model for mathematical modelling of granular soil. There are
several other universal models that can be used for both the soils.
The lime treated soil differs from the typical soil types, due to the cementitious reactions
developed during curing which eventually hardens the material, and hence the model
characterising this composite material should be able to incorporate the hardening behaviour as
well. Various models are compared based on their ability to replicate the experimental M
r
results.
The resilient modulus of granular soils increases with increasing confining stresses (Witczak and
Uzan 1988). Several relationships have been used to describe the non-linear stress- strain
behaviour of granular materials. AASHTO 294-92I test method uses bulk stress (q) to model M
R

as follows:
2
1
K
R
M Ku =
(1)

Where, K
1
, K
2
are model constants and is the bulk stress (
1
+
2
+
3
)
Another form of this equation is used by most pavement engineers (Hicks and Monismith 1971;
Shook et al. 1982; Santha 1994) and can be obtained by dividing both bulk stress and resilient
modulus by the atmospheric pressure to make the resulting regression constants dimensionless.
The equation is as follows:
2
1
K
R
atm atm
M
K
u
o o
| |
=
|
\ .
(2)
Where,
atm
is atmospheric pressure, in units same as those for M
R
and is the bulk stress.
The main disadvantage of the bulk stress is that it does not account for shear stresses and shear
strains developed during loading (Louay et al. 1999; Uzan 1985; Witczak and Uzan 1988). This
model does not properly handle volumetric strains of soils (Brown and Pappin 1981). Moreover,
it cannot adequately explain the non-linear behaviour of granular soils (Uzan 1985).
19

The most basic model used in conjunction with the M
R
testing of fine-grained soils is a power
model:
( )
R d
n
M K o = (3)
Where K, n = model constants
However, the power model cannot represent the bilinear relationship between the resilient
modulus and deviatoric stress. The power model can be extended by dividing it by atmospheric
pressure. The modified equation is given as

2
1
K
d R
atm atm
M
K
o
o o
| |
=
|
\ .
(4)
Another model using octahedral stress was proposed by Louay et al. (1999). The model can be
used for various soil types without altering model attributes, octahedral normal and shear
stresses. It gives results in octahedral stress environments, which are assumed to represent
realistic stress states occurring in the field (Houston et al. 1992). They stated that octahedral
normal and shear stresses, on which M
R
properties depend, provide a better explanation for stress
states of a material in which stresses change during loading. The octahedral model is as follows:

2 3
1
K K
oct oct R
atm atm atm
M
K
o t
o o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
(5)
Where
atm
is atmospheric pressure, K
1
, K
2
, K
3
are regression constants

oct
= octahedral normal stress ( ) ( )
1 3 3
1 1
2 3
3 3
d
o o o o = + = +

oct
t = octahedral shear stress ( )
1 1
2 2
1 3
2 2
3 3
d
t t t
| | | |
= =
| |
\ . \ .


d
o = deviatoric stress
A universal model as proposed in 1985 by Uzan takes the following form after modification by
dividing M
R
and stresses by the standard atmospheric pressure:

2 3
1
K K
d R
atm atm atm
M
K
o u
o o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
(6)
20

Rafael Pezo (1993) suggested a pavement engineer-oriented model that contains separate terms
for both deviator stress and confining stress. It is a general model that suits both granular and
fine-grained soils. The suggested model was as follows:
3 2
1 3
K K
R d
M Ko o = (7)

The model can be modified by dividing M
R
,
d
and
3
by the standard atmospheric pressure,
atm
,
which equals 101.3 kPa. In this form of the model the resulting constants will be dimensionless,
especially, K1. The modified model takes the following form:

2 3
3
1
K K
d R
atm atm atm
M
K
o o
o o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .

(8)

2.8 SUCTION
Soils are three phase system consisting of water, air and soil solids. For many situations, soils are
considered to be fully saturated. While this is a convenient model for many purposes, it does not
accurately represent the real condition in the field.
Clays, and other soils in a natural state, commonly display a water table that has dropped below
the grounds surface. If this soil pore-water was only under the influence of gravity, the soil
above the water table level would be dry. However, physical forces act on the boundary between
soil and water, causing the water to be drawn into and held inside the empty pores in the soil
fabric. The pore-water pressure in the ground above the water table level becomes negative with
respect to atmospheric pressure this being referred to as suction. De-saturation of a soil can be
caused either by environmental changes, or by physical changes such as compaction.
As suction increases, the possibility of substantial volume change increases. This process can be
retarded by the addition of lime, due to reactions occurring at different scales within the clay
fabric.


21

2.8.1 MATRIC SUCTION
At the air-water interface of an unsaturated soil, the pore-air pressure (u
a
) is greater than the
pore-water pressure (u
w
). The difference (u
a
- u
w
) is referred to as the soil matric suction
(Rahardjo et al. 1995).
Matric suction can be defined as a measure of the energy required to remove a water molecule
from the soil matrix without the water changing state. Matric suction is the result of two
mechanisms, capillarity and adsorption. In terms of the capillarity, the suction is governed by the
size of the soils pores: The smaller the void, the harder it is to remove water from the soil.
Hence, suction will increase as water content decreases, as initially, water is easily removed from
the larger pores.
2.8.2 OSMOTIC SUCTION
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) defined osmotic potential as a measure of the additional stress
necessary to remove a water molecule from the water phase, due to the presence of dissolved
salts. An increasing level of dissolved salts in the pore-water will lead to a lower relative
humidity at the air-water interface. The effect of this is to reduce the osmotic potential aiding the
transfer of water molecules. This will seemingly raise the value of suction above that provided
by the soil matrix. The combination of matric suction and osmotic suction is referred to as total
suction.
The resilient modulus of cohesive soils is not a constant stiffness property, but highly dependent
upon factors such as the state of stress, soil structure, and water content (George 2004). The
resilient modulus values changes with respect to parameters such as confining stress, bulk stress,
deviator stress, soil physical properties and moisture content.
The importance of the water content in affecting the resilient modulus of soils has been well
documented by past researchers. For example, Drumm et al. (1997) showed a significant
reduction of resilient modulus of A-4, A-6, and A-7 soils as the moisture content was increased
above the optimum moisture content. Pezo et al. (1992) have observed significant influences
22

exerted by the water content on the measured resilient modulus of cohesive soils. The moisture
content of the subgrade soils underneath the pavement is usually varied over time.
According to Uzan (1998), the clayey soils underneath the pavement exhibit an increase in
moisture content to about 2030% higher than the plastic limit of the soil. This occurs during the
first 35 years of pavement service. Similarly, Elfino and Davidson (1989), Thadkamalla and
George (1995), and Uzan (1998) indicated that the moisture content of the subgrade soils would
vary with season until reaching an equilibrium moisture content. The various methods for
measuring suction are
1. Filter paper method
2. Pressure plate apparatus
3. Tensiometer
4. Dewpoint potentiameter

2.8.3 DEWPOINT POTENTIAMETER
WP4 uses the chilled-mirror dewpoint technique to measure the water potential of a sample
(Leong et al. 2003). The sample is equilibrated with the headspace of a sealed chamber that
contains a mirror and a means of detecting condensation on the mirror. At equilibrium, the water
potential of the air in the chamber is the same as the water potential of the sample. In the WP4,
the mirror temperature is precisely controlled by a thermoelectric cooler. Detection of the exact
point at which condensation first appears on the mirror is observed with a photoelectric cell. A
beam of light is directed onto the mirror and reflected into a photodetector cell. The
photodetector senses the change in reflectance when condensation occurs on the mirror. A
thermocouple attached to the mirror then records the temperature at which condensation occurs.
WP4 then signals the user by flashing a green LED and/or beeping. The final water potential and
temperature of the sample is then displayed (Fig. 2.4).
WP4 uses an internal fan that circulates the air within the sample chamber to reduce time to
equilibrium. Since both dewpoint and sample surface temperatures are simultaneously measured,
23

the need for complete thermal equilibrium is eliminated, which reduces measurement times to
less than five minutes.

Fig. 2.4 Dew point potentiameter


2.9 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE
1. Expansive soil causes a lot of problems to pavements and other structures and it can be
identified by simple tests.
2. Expansive soil can be classified as very high, high, moderate and low according to its
differential free swell index.
3. Solutions for expansive soil include remoulding, surcharge loading, prewetting, sand
cushion, cohesive non-swelling cushion, piles etc. Of these lime stabilization is best
suited for pavements.
4. A pH of 12.4 is required in the sample for the pozzolanic reaction to occur and to gain the
required strength. Lime treatment will result in increase in W
p
and decrease in W
L
and PI.
5. Resilient modulus simulates the site condition and it is extensively used in modern
pavement design.
6. The various regression models provide a powerful tools to conduct pavement analysis in
a more realistic manner
7. Suction characteristics will be a useful in understanding the stabilization effect on
expansive soils.
24

CHAPTER 3
SOIL PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils are found in arid and semi-arid regions. Tamilnadu is one of the places in India,
where large areas are covered by expansive soil. For the present study four types of expansive
soils are collected from different regions of Tamilnadu. The sources and the initial properties are
presented in this chapter.

3.2 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil characteristics may be considered either as microscale or macroscale factors. Microscale
factors include the mineralogical and chemical properties of the soil. Macroscale factors include
the engineering properties of the soil, which in turn are dictated by the microscale factors.

3.2.1 MICROSCALE FACTORS
Microstructure is more important in understanding the soil behaviour. The microstructure of clay
is the complete geological history of that deposit, including both the stress changes and
environmental conditions during deposition. These geological imprints tend to affect the
engineering response of the clay very considerably.
Clay minerals of different types typically exhibit different swelling potentials because of
variations in the electrical field associated with each mineral. The swelling capacity of an entire
soil mass depends on the amount and type of clay minerals in the soil, the arrangement and
specific surface area of the clay particles, and the chemistry of the soil water surrounding those
particles.
3.2.2 MACROSCALE FACTORS
Macrostructure of fine-grained soil has an important influence on soil behaviour in engineering
practice. Macroscale soil properties reflect the microscale nature of the soil. Because they are
more conveniently measured in engineering work than microscale factors, macroscale
25

characteristics are primary indicators of swelling behaviour. Commonly determined properties
such as soil plasticity and density can provide a great deal of insight regarding the expansive
potential of soils.

3.3 SAMPLING LOCATION
The soil for testing is collected from four different areas. They are listed below
1. Siruseri in Chennai
2. Karaikudi
3. Paramakudi
4. Tuticorin
These samples are selected because they are fundamentally posing a lot of problems to the
structures and pavements in that area.


Fig. 3.1 Soil Source (Ref. Tamilnadu-online website)

3.4 SOIL PROPERTIES
Lime stabilization is most suitable for use in clayey soil. The basic soil properties of all soils are
tested according to Indian Standards. A brief procedure of the tests is given below.

Siruseri, Chennai
Karaikudi
Paramakudi
Tuticorin
26

3.4.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS
The atterberg tests such as Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and Shrinkage Limit (SL) are
useful in understanding the basic properties of the soils. These tests are carried according to
Indian Standards code of practice.
The liquid limit of fine-grained soil is the water content at which soil behaves practically like a
liquid. The test is done according to IS: 2720 (Part 5). Casagrandes apparatus is used for this.
The plastic limit of fine-grained soil is the water content of the soil below which it ceases to be
plastic. It begins to crumble when rolled into threads of 3 mm dia. The test is done according to
IS: 2720 (Part 5). The shrinkage limit of fine grained soil is the moisture content of a soil below
which a decrease in moisture content will not cause a decrease in volume, but above which an
increase in moisture will cause an increase in volume.

3.4.2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Wet sieve analysis is carried out for the sail by taking 500gram of air dried sample and passing
through a set of sieves. The amount of soil retained in each sieve is weighed separately. A graph
is drawn between the samples retained in each sieve to the cumulative passing.
The samples passed through 75 micron sieve were subjected to hydrometer analysis. In this
approximately 50 grams of dry soil was treated with a dispersing agent for 18 hours. A
hydrometer analysis was then performed to measure the amount of silt and clay size particles.
Grain size distribution curve is drawn for the sample size and percentage passing. Fig. 3.3 shows
the Grain size distribution (GSD) for all the samples.

3.4.3 DIFFERENTIAL FREE SWELL INDEX
The differential free swell index is done according to IS: 2720 (Part XL). Samples passing
through 425 micron sieve are taken and 10 g of oven dried sample is placed into a 100 ml jar.
One jar is filled with water and the other with kerosene. After 48 hours the swell in the 100 ml
27

jar with water and kerosene are noted and used to find the free swell index. The free swell index
is defined as
*100
d k
k
V V
DFS
V

=


V
d
and V
k
are the reading in the jar containing water and kerosene respectively.

3.4.4 X-RAY DIFFRACTION
Mineralogical analysis of each soil consisted of X-ray diffraction (XRD) on the clay fraction (<2
m). X-ray diffraction test were done on the samples passing 75 micron and the top clay portion
is collected after sedimentation. It is then dried in oven. A glass plate of standard size is taken
and silicon grease is applied on the top. The oven dried sample is crushed and placed on the glass
plate. The glass plate along with sample is tested and the graph is plotted with the values.
The peak in the graph indicates the clay minerals present in the soil. The XRD graph for all the
samples are shown in Fig.3.6 It is from the graph it is clearly visible that the main minerals
present on the soils are Quartz, Topaz, illinite, Montmorillonite and kaol.

3.4.5 INITIAL CONSUMPTION OF LIME
The lime requirement of a particular soil is given by Eades and Grim pH test. The basic concept
is that sufficient lime is to be added to the soil to obtain a pH of 12.4 so that the strength gaining
pozzolanic reaction can start. The test is done according to ASTM C-977-03 standard. The soil is
mixed with various percentage of lime and vigorously shaken for a period of 1 hour. At the end
the pH is measured and the minimum percentage of lime which gives a pH of 12.4 is taken as the
lime required for stabilization. The variation of pH with percentage lime for all the soil samples
are shown in Fig. 3.3. The percentages obtained from these tests are used for further analysis.

28








Fig. 3.2 Eades and Grim pH test
3.4.6 OMC AND MDD
Mini compaction test was performed on all the untreated and treated samples according to
Sridharan and Sivapullaiah (2005). For treated samples the percentage of lime is added to the soil
and mixed thoroughly before the experiment is done. The maximum dry density and the
optimum moisture are got from the curves and it is used for sample preparation and compaction.
The compaction curves for all the soil samples are plotted in Fig.3.4. The values of optimum
moisture content and maximum dry density are given in Table 3.1.

Fig.3.3 Mini compaction mould
29

Table 3.1 Physical properties of soils
Physical Soil Properties of the samples
S.No. Soil Property Karaikudi Paramakudi Tuticorin Siruseri
1 % passing 75 micron Sieve 82.84 64.15 64.96 93.5
2 % Gravel 4.5 3.0 4.5 0.5
3 % Sand 15.5 32.0 30.5 7.0
4 % Silt 22.0 23.0 29.0 24.0
5 % Clay 58.0 42.0 36.0 69.0
6 Liquid limit, w
L
(%) 76 78 60 78
7 Plastic limit, w
P
(%) 37 37 35 30
8 Plasticity index, ip (%) 39 41 25 48
9 Shrinkage limit, w
S
(%) 8 7 9 9
10 Shrinkage ratio 2.09 2.06 2.15 2
11 Differential free swell index (%) 144 211 100 100
12 Optimal Moisture Content (%) 24 27 24 28
13
Lime Requirement, Initial
consumption of lime (%)
3 4 3 4
14
Optimal Moisture Content of
treated soil (%)
27 32 26 31
15 Maximum Dry Density, (g/cc) 1.51 1.53 1.56 1.45
116
Maximum Dry Density of Lime
Treated Soil, (g/cc)
1.45 1.43 1.44 1.33

30



Fig. 3.4 XRD for Siruseri treated and untreated samples
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
XRD for treated and Untreated Siruseri Soil
Siruseri
Siruseri Treated 28 Days
31



Fig.3.5 XRD for Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin soil samples
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
XRD for Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin Samples
Karaikudi
Paramakudi
Tuticorin
32

Lime Fixation point


Fig.3.6 Lime fixation point for all soil samples

10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
1 2 3 4 5
p
H
Lime Content (%)
Siruseri
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
1 2 3 4 5
p
H
Lime Content (%)
Karaikudi
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
1 2 3 4 5
p
H
Lime Content (%)
Paramakudi
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
1 2 3 4 5
p
H
Lime Content (%)
Tuticorin
33

OMC and M
dd
Curves


Fig. 3.7 OMC and MDD curves for all soil samples
1.26
1.31
1.36
1.41
1.46
15 20 25 30 35 40
D
r
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
c
)
Water content (%)
Siruseri
Untreated Soil
Treated 4% lime
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
15 20 25 30 35
D
r
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
c
)
Water Content (%)
Karaikudi
Untreated
Treated
1.34
1.39
1.44
1.49
1.54
15 20 25 30 35
D
r
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
c
)
Water Content (%)
Paramakudi
Untreated
Treated
1.42
1.47
1.52
1.57
15 20 25 30 35
D
r
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
c
)
Water content (%)
Tuticorin Untreated
Treated
34

3.5 SUMMARY OF BASIC PROPERTIES
1. All the soils show a liquid limit of greater than 60 and plasticity index greater than 25.
The shrinkage limit of the soil is less than 9 for all samples.
2. The differential free swell index of all the soil is greater than 100%.
3. Based on the previous literature on the classification of expansive soil it is visible that the
four soils are highly expansive.
4. Some of the minerals present in these expansive soils were Quartz, kaolinite, feldspar,
Montmorillonite, Chlorite Vermiculite etc.,
5. Eades and Grim test shows the percentage of lime required varies from 3 to 4%.
6. The addition of lime brings about identical changes in the XRD patterns. The treated soil
does not cause any disappearance of the existing mineral peaks present, rather causes
only some suppression of the mineral peaks, specifically the quartz peak.
7. The maximum dry density of the lime treated soil is less than the untreated soil, but the
optimal moisture content increases with treatment.


35

3.6 SAMPLE PREPERATION
The samples were prepared by static compaction. The amount of sample required for the
particular test is found from the volume of the mould and the dry density of the soil. The required
sample is taken and mixed with the lime thoroughly. After through mixing the water is sprayed
uniformly and mixed to achieve the required moisture content. The compacted sample is then
wrapped with cling film and kept in the moisture control room for curing.

3.6.1 TESTING CONDITIONS
The samples are tested in both treated and untreated condition. To check the effect of moisture
content in the curing and subsequent strength the testing is done in all three condition dry,
optimum and wet condition. Also the testing is done at various curing period such as 0, 3, 7, 14
and 28 days (Fig. 3.). For optimum the maximum Mdd is selected. For dry side and wet side 95%
of the optimum is taken for untreated soil and 98% of the maximum Mdd for treated soil.


Fig. 3.8 Different testing condition for Siruseri Soil


1.37
1.38
1.43
1.45
1.40
1.38
1.30
1.30
1.32
1.33
1.32
1.29
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
15 20 25 30 35 40
D
r
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
c
)

Water Content (%)
Siruseri Soil
Untreated
Treated 4% Lime
36

3.6.2 SOAKED SAMPLE PREPERATION
To check the effect of soaking on the strength the 14 days cured samples were soaked in a sand
bath for a period of 24 hours. Before soaking the treated samples were first rolled with filter
paper and then covered with cloth (Fig. 3.9). This prevents loss of fines from the sample. Soaked
samples were prepared for both the UCC and M
R
test.


Fig. 3.9 Soaked sample preparation

3.7 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The unconfined compression test is a special form of a triaxial test in which the confining pressure is
zero. The test can be conducted only on clayey soils which can withstand without confinement. The
test is generally performed on intact, saturated clay specimens. The test is used to find the
unconfined strength of the soil. It is also used to find the shear strength of the soil. The test is
done according to IS 2720 part 10.
The test is done on all three moisture condition and curing days. The sample is prepared as
stipulated in IS code and covered with cling film to avoid any moisture loss. The covered sample
is kept in desiccators. The tests were carried at deformation of 0.5mm/min.
Also the testing is done at various curing periods such as 0, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days (Fig. 3.10).
37


Fig. 3.10 UCC sample preparation
3.8 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
The California bearing ratio test is penetration test meant for the evaluation of subgrade strength
of roads and pavements. These results obtained by these tests are used with the empirical curves
to determine the thickness of pavement and its component layers. This is the most widely used
method for the design of flexible pavement. Soaked CBR was performed for the treated and
untreated sample to study the effect of soaking.
The test is done according to IS 2720(part 16)-1979. The schematic diagram of the setup is
shown in Fig. 3.11.

Fig. 3.11 CBR Testing
38

t
s
P
CBR
P
= (10)
Where,
Pt is load corresponding to chosen penetration of 2.5mm or 5mm.
Ps is the standard load for corresponding penetration.
3.9 RESILIENT MODULS
From 1986, AASHTO required the use of the subgrade resilient modulus for the design of
flexible pavements. Resilient modulus is an important material property, similar in concept to the
modulus of elasticity. It differs from the modulus of elasticity in that it is obtained by a repeated-
load triaxial test and is based only on the recoverable strains. Resilient modulus is defined as:

d
R
r
M
o
c
= (11)

Where M
R
is the resilient modulus;
d
is the repeated deviator stress; and
r
is the recoverable
axial strain.
The current standard test method to determine the resilient modulus is described by AASHTO T
307-99 which has recently been upgraded from AASHTO T 294-94 and AASHTO T 274. In
AASHTO T 307-99, traffic conditions are simulated by applying a series of repeated deviator
stresses, separated by rest periods and field conditions are simulated by conditioning and post
conditioning.

3.9.1 RESILIENT MODULUS EQUIPMENT
The equipment for resilient modulus consists of a triaxial cell, an actuator, two sensitive LVDT
(Linear Variable Differential Transducers), a CDAS (Continuous Data Acquisition System) and a
computer.
The apparatus used for resilient modulus testing is shown in Fig. 3.12. Fig.3.13 shows the whole
equipment; in this the confining pressure used is air which is supplied by a compressor.
39


Fig. 3.12 Loading setup


Fig. 3.13 Experimental set up
40

3.9.2 TEST PROCEDURE
AASHTO T-307 is followed for finding the resilient modulus of subgrade soil. The confining
pressure and axial stress is applied according to the following sequence.
Table 3.2 Sequence of testing

Sequence # Confining
Pressure (kPa)
Maximum Stress
(kPa)
No. of cycles
0 41.4 27.6 500
1 41.4 13.8 100
2 41.4 27.6 100
3 41.4 41.4 100
4 41.4 55.2 100
5 41.4 68.9 100
6 27.6 13.8 100
7 27.6 27.6 100
8 27.6 41.4 100
9 27.6 55.2 100
10 27.6 68.9 100
11 13.8 13.8 100
12 13.8 27.6 100
13 13.8 41.4 100
14 13.8 55.2 100
15 13.8 68.9 100

41

The first sequence is a conditioning cycle. Haversine load pulse is used for loading. In this load is
applied for a period of 0.1 s and rest is given for 0.9 s. A contact load of 10% of the cyclic load is
maintained throughout the testing condition (Fig. 3.14)


Fig. 3.14 Haversine loading form
The entire test is visible in the screen and the resilient modulus values along with resilient strain,
permanent strain are visible in the screen. In addition to this shear test can also be performed on
the samples with zero confining pressure. The screenshot of the screen is shown in the Fig. 3.15
and Fig. 3.16.



Fig.3.15 Load pulse in computer
42


Fig. 3.16 Resilient modulus setting

3.9.3 SAMPLE PREPERATION
The sample is prepared for all the three moisture condition. The required amount of soil is taken
and it is mixed with lime. Water is then added to the mixture to attain the moisture content
needed for the test. The mould for the test is fully cleaned and oiled (3.17).


Fig. 3.17 Sample preperation
43

The sample is separated into five equal parts and it is placed into the mould one above the other.
After each part of soil is placed it is lightly compacted with hammer and the top portion is
scratched. Similarly all the layers are placed into the mould. The mould is now covered with the
top and bottom plates and compacted using static compaction to achieve uniform density
throughout the sample. The compacted specimen is covered with cling film and placed in a mist
room for curing (Fig.3.18).

Fig. 3.18 Samples covered with cling film

3.9.4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS
There are several models that were developed for the estimation of resilient modulus of subgrade
soils and base/sub base materials. In this the power model, K-u model, Octahedral stress model,
Uzan model and Rafael pezo model are intensively used to find the best suitable model for
finding the relationship between resilient modulus and stress level for the experiments carried out
in this investigation.

3.10 TOTAL SUCTION
The dew point potentiameter (WP4) measures total suction in the range of 0 to 300MPa. WP4
employs chilled mirror technique (Leong et al., 2003) and relative humidity principle for
measuring wide range of suction .
The time taken for measuring the sample is about 5 minutes and the temperature can be varied
between 15 to 50 degree Celsius.
The samples are made in the same manner as UCC and MR. The sample for measuring total
suction is cut from the UCC sample or from the M
R
. The sample is placed in the measuring cup
and the lid is closed (Fig.3.19). The variation in temperature between the sample and the
44

instrument is maintained below one degree Celsius to get accurate readings. The WP4 waits until
temperature becomes constant. Then it gives the values for total suction in MPa.

Fig. 3.19 Dewpoint potentiameter suction measurement





















CHAPTER 4
45

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The following section presents the results of laboratory tests performed for the four soils that
have caused extensive problems to foundations and pavements. This section presents the results
of Unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, Resilient modulus and Total
suction measurement. The strength gain with curing is discussed and it is compared with
untreated soil for the Siruseri. Also the relationships between various tests were explored.

4.2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The laboratory results of unconfined compression test on the Siruseri soil was carried out for
three moisture content levels. The conditions were chosen on the dry side, optimum content and
wet side respectively as discussed in the previous chapter. Further the effect of different curing
period for the above moisture content levels were also investigated.

4.2.1 UNTREATED SAMPLES
Fig. 4.1 shows the UCC test results of the untreated Siruseri soil for different moisture
conditions. The stress strain behaviour shows the typical softening behaviour, characteristic of
clay soils. The sample at optimum moisture content shows higher strength compared to the dry
side and wet side. The soil sample gives UCC strength of 200 kPa, 140 and 135 kPa for the
optimum, dry side and wet respectively (Table 4.1). The failure strains are more than 10%.

Fig 4.1 UCC test results of untreated Siruseri soil
Table 4.1 UCC strength for untreated soil
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
A
x
i
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Axial Strain (%)
Dry side
Opt side
Wet side
46

Natural Untreated
Dry side Optimum Wet side
138.64 kPa 191.41 kPa 131.35 kPa


4.2.2 TREATED SAMPLES
For the treated soil the UCC tests were carried out for the three moisture conditions at 0, 3, 7, 14
and 28 days curing period. The stress strain characteristics of lime treated soil are completely
different from that of the untreated soil. The treated samples gradually become brittle with
increase in curing period. Fig. 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 shows that the samples exhibit increased strength
and fails at lesser strain level compared to the untreated soil.


Fig. 4.2 UCC test results of lime treated Siruseri sample at different curing period at optimal
moisture content
The strength development in the lime treated soil depends on the moulding moisture content
levels, adopted to compact the soil. For all the three moisture content levels the strength at zero
days curing period is around 150 kPa but the failure strain levels differs. The samples compacted
at dry side shows strength of 150 kPa at zero days curing and increases to 270 kPa at 28 days of
curing.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
A
x
i
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)

Axial Strain (%)
0 Days 3 Days
7 Days 14 Days
28 Days
47


Fig. 4.3 UCC test results of lime treated Siruseri sample at different curing period at dry moisture
content

Fig. 4.4 UCC test results of lime treated Siruseri sample at different curing period at wet
moisture content

The strength development in the lime treated soil depends on the moulding moisture content
levels, adopted to compact the soil. For all the three moisture content levels the strength at zero
days curing period is around 150 kPa but the failure strain levels differs. The samples compacted
at dry side shows strength of 150 kPa at zero days curing and increases to 270 kPa at 28 days of
curing (Table 4.2). The failure strain also reduces from 6% at zero days curing to 2.5% at 28
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
A
x
i
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Axial Strain (%)
0 Days
3 Days
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 2 4 6 8 10
A
x
i
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Axial Strain (%)
0 Days
3 Days
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
48

days. Conversely the samples compacted at optimum moisture content depicts a radical increase
in strength of 600 kPa at 28 days curing. Whereas the samples compacted at wet side shows a
ductile behaviour with no prominent failure points at zero days but eventually the behaviour
changes to brittle and the strength escalates to 750 kPa at a failure strain of 3%. The higher
strength at wet side compacted samples is due to the availability of sufficient moisture content
for the progress of the lime reaction during the curing period and the decreased strength in dry
side is due to the under developed pozzolanic reaction at lesser water content. Fig.4.5 shows the
UCC strength increase with curing days.

Table 4.2 UCC strength for different moisture content and curing days

Condition Dry Opt Wet
0 Days 157.45 149.83 141.1
3 Days 184.35 255.92 379.55
7 Days 230.04 417.48 479.0018
14 Days 248.38 557.13 615.4528
28 Days 261.8223 590.3724 766.5896



Fig. 4.5 UCC strength for Siruseri soil with curing days at different moisture content


0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 6 12 18 24 30
U
C
C

(
k
P
a
)
Curing Days
Dry side Opt side
Wet side
49

4.2.3 KARAIKUDI, PARAMAKUDI AND TUTICORIN SOIL SAMPLE
The UCC test results carried out for the other three soils are given in the Fig. 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.
Similar results were observed. Increased UCC strength of 800, 700 and 1300 kPa at 14 days
curing, were observed for the treated karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin soil samples,
respectively. Typical brittle behaviour and failure at lesser strain of around 2.5% were observed.
All the four soils including the siruseri sample have fines content greater than 70% and a liquid
limit more than 75%. The stabilizing effect of lime is fully utilized by these soils due to the
highly compressible and expansive nature. Table 4.3 shows the UCC values for treated and
untreated samples.

Fig. 4.6 UCC test results for treated and untreated Karaikudi soil sample
.
Fig. 4.7 UCC test results for treated and untreated Paramakudi soil sample
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n

(
k
P
a
)
Strain (%)
0 Days
14 Days
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Strain (%)
Paramakudi
0 Days 14 Days
50



Fig. 4.8 UCC test results for treated and untreated Tuticorin soil sample
Table 4.3 UCC strength for all soils with % of fines
Soil
Lime Content
%
UCC untreated
kPa
UCC treated
kPa
Clay % Silt %
Siruseri 4% 191.41 557.13 69 24
Karaikudi 3% 395.73 731.46 58 22
Paramakudi 3% 283.67 822.33 42 23
Tuticorin 4% 358.97 1311.87 36 29

4.2.4 EFFECT OF SOAKING
The UCC tests also were performed on these compacted samples after subjecting to sand bath
soaking for a period of 24 hrs. Fig. 4.9 compares the effect of soaking on the treated samples
subjected to 14 days of curing. The soaking effect reduces the UCC strength of the soil around 5
-20% depending upon the soil and the water content of the soaked sample increases from 31% to
40%. The soaking of Tuticorin samples does not show any decrease in strength due to high silt
and low clay content in the soil sample.
Testing for untreated soaked UCC samples were not performed, because the sample swells and
disintegrates before testing.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Strain (%)
Tuticorin
0 Days
14 Days
51


Fig. 4.9 UCC for all soils with curing
4.3 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
California bearing ratio tests were conducted for both treated and untreated samples of Siruseri
samples. The load versus penetration curve for both the untreated and treated soil samples are
shown in Fig. 4.10 and 4.11, respectively. The CBR values are tabulated in Table 4.4.


Fig. 4.10 CBR versus penetration curve for untreated soil
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Siruseri Karaikudi Paramakudi Tuticorin
U
C
C

(
k
P
a
)
Soil Source
UCC for all Soils with Curing
Untreated
14 Days
14 Days Soaked
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
L
o
a
d

k
g
Peneteration (mm)
Soaked unsoaked
52


Fig. 4.11 CBR versus penetration curve for untreated soil

The untreated soaked samples have a much lesser CBR value, which shows that the sample
losses strength drastically when immersed in water. This is due to the swelling of the soil. The
CBR values for treated samples were much higher than the untreated samples. The soaked treated
samples does not show much variation from unsoaked case, showing that the strength of the
subgrade remains same in the first cycle. Further, the failure of these samples occurs at much less
penetration than the untreated soil. This is because the sample becomes brittle with treatment.

Table 4.4 CBR Values (%)
Condition Unsoaked Soaked
Untreated 8.5 1
14 days treated 61 55

4.4 RESILIENT MODULUS
The resilient modulus result consists of resilient modulus, resilient strain, permanent strain,
deformation and load values for different deviatoric stress and confining pressure. For calculation
and design purpose the resilient modulus value corresponding to 41.4 kPa confining pressure and
68.9 kPa axial stresses was taken as the resilient modulus of the sample (AASHTO T-307 2006).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 2 4 6 8
L
o
a
d

k
g
Peneteration (mm)
CBR for Treated Soil 14 days
Soaked Unsoaked
53


4.4.1 EFFECT OF CONFINING PRESSURE
Fig. 4.12 shows the behaviour of untreated Siruseri soil. With increasing confining pressure the
resilient modulus of the soil increases. But with increasing deviatoric stress the material softens
and shows a decreasing trend.
The behaviour of lime treated Siruseri soil shows an increasing trend with both deviatoric and
confining pressure. This depicts the hardening behaviour of the treated soil (Fig. 4.13).

Fig. 4.12 M
R
for untreated Siruseri soil

Fig. 4.13 M
R
for 28 days treated Siruseri soil

100
150
200
250
0 25 50 75 100
M
R
(
M
P
a
)
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
41.4 kPa
27.6 kPa
13.8 kPa
60
70
80
90
0 20 40 60 80
M
R
(
M
P
a
)
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
41.4 kPa
27.6 kPa
13.8 kPa
54

4.4.2 EFFECT OF CURING
Fig. 4.14 shows the effect of resilient modulus with curing. As the curing period increases the
response of the soil-lime composites for the cyclic loading transforms to a more responsive trend.
The effect of deviatoric stress at zero curing is not much pronounced but as the curing period
increases the bonding effect and the cementitious compounds formed causes an increase in M
R

value with an increase in
d.

Fig. 4.14 Effect of M
R
with curing

4.4.3 EFFECT OF MOISTURE CONTENT
The moulding moisture content also affects the response of the resilient modulus value of the
soil.-lime composite. Fig. 4.15 depicts the response of 28 day cured soil lime composites
moulded at different moisture contents. As stated the samples compacted at dry side shows an
increased modulus value due to the comparatively higher density of the sample.

Fig. 4.15 Effect of curing with M
R
for different placement condition
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
0 20 40 60 80
M
R
(
M
P
a
)
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
3 Days
14 Days
28 Days
Untreated
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
0 20 40 60 80
M
r

(
M
P
a
)
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
Effect of Moisture
28 Days Dry side
28 Days Wet side
28 Days Opt side
55

4.4.4 EFFECT OF SOAKING
The effect of soaking reduces the modulus, because the samples compacted at optimum content
are able to absorb moisture content more than the wet side moisture content. The soaking reduces
the compaction density and loosens the bonding effect of soil-lime composites, which reduces
the modulus value to lesser magnitude. Fig. 4.16 shows the effect of soaking for the 14 days
treated sample.

Fig. 4.16 Effect of M
R
with soaking
The Siruseri soil undergoes large deterioration in M
R
value on soaking, compared to the
Paramakudi and Karaikudi which were more intact and unaffected by moisture ingression.
Conversely, the Tuticorin soil shows large increase in M
R
value on soaking (Fig. 4.18).

4.4.5 EFFECT OF CURING ON PERMANEANT STRAIN
The resilient modulus and cumulative permanent strain of subgrade soils under anticipated repeated
loading are important considerations for the design of a pavement against fatigue and rutting failures. The
axial strain was defined as the sum of plastic strain and resilient strain. Permanent strain shows
the deformation in subgrade during traffic flow. Excessive deformation leads to problems like
rutting in the pavement. Permanent strain has greater control in the failure of the pavement.
The permanent strain of untreated soil is high in the range of 0.5%. The 28 days treated lime
samples shows a permanent strain of 0.2%. The treated samples shows a decrease in strain value
with curing thereby, preventing the failure of pavement due to rutting.
40
90
140
190
240
0 20 40 60 80 100
M
R
(
M
p
a
)
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
14 Days
14 Days Soaked
56


Fig. 4.17 Effect of permanent strain with curing
4.4.6 M
R
FOR KARAIKUDI, PARAMAKUDI AND TUTICORIN SOILS
Fig. 4.14 shows the resilient modulus for the other three soils in addition to the Siruseri soil. The
other cohesive soils Karaikudi, Paramakudi and Tuticorin which were tested for the modulus
value moulded at optimum moisture content and cured for 14 days also depicts similar results as
the Siruseri soil, but the magnitude of increase in modulus value differs as shown in Fig. 4.18.
The resilient modulus of Karaikudi and Paramakudi depicts a value of 145 MPa compared to the
Siruseri and Tuticorin soils which shows a value of more than 180 kPa.


Fig. 4.18 M
R
for all soil samples
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
P
e
r
m
e
n
a
n
t

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
Sequence
Untreated 3 days
14 days 28 Days
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Siruseri Karaikudi Paramakudi Tuticorin
M
R
(
M
p
a
)
Soil Source
Untreated
14 Days
14 Days Soaked
57

Table 4.5 M
R
strength for all soils with % of fines
Soil
Lime
Content %
M
R
untreated
(MPa)
M
R
treated
(MPa)
M
R
treated
soaked (MPa)
Clay% Silt%
Siruseri 4 69.40 181.73 96.27 69 24
Karaikudi 3 79.54 112.70 139.56 58 22
Paramakudi 3 85.24 123.01 109.50 42 23
Tuticorin 4 101.26 191.17 298.29 36 29

Table 4.5 shows the M
R
values for all the soil with their silt and clay content. Though the four
cohesive soils depicts a similar composition of fines and liquid limit, their mineralogical origin
and inherent chemical composition, may results in higher moisture susceptibility of the lime-soil
composites. Tuticorin sample shows a higher soaked value due to the less clay and high silt
content.
4.4.7 REGRESSION MODEL
Of the various models available five models are selected for comparison of the results. They are
K- model, Power model, octahedral stress model, Universal Uzan model and Rafael pezo
model. Regression analysis was done with the resilient modulus values and the correlation is
checked. Table 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 shows the regression coefficients of all the five models,
respectively.

4.4.7.1 K- MODEL
2
1
K
R
atm atm
M
K
u
o o
| |
=
|
\ .

Table 4.6 Regression co-efficient for K- model
Condition logK
1
K
2
R
2

Untreated Dry
2.643569 -0.05122 -0.0198
Untreated Opt
2.872925 -0.03674 -0.04531
Untreated Wet
2.752072 -0.12702 0.080303
Treated 3 Days Dry
3.050681 0.161128 -0.02149
Treated 3 Days Opt
3.088238 0.303404 0.905385
58

Treated 3 Days Wet
2.950599 -0.02277 -0.07596
Treated 14 Days Dry
2.993331 0.386725 0.757182
Treated 14 Days Opt
3.183456 0.17027 0.559881
Treated 14 Days Wet
2.989247 0.143444 -0.05336
Treated 28 Days Dry
3.155166 0.31183 0.351865
Treated 28 Days Opt
3.257374 0.354651 0.469423
Treated 28 Days Wet
3.249083 0.271264 0.297303
14 Days Soaked
2.836953 0.203914 0.023729

4.4.7.2 POWER MODEL
2
1
K
d R
atm atm
M
K
o
o o
| |
=
|
\ .

Table 4.7 Regression co-efficient for power model
Condition logK
1
K
2
R
2

Untreated Dry 2.589917 -0.11175 0.658198
Untreated Opt 2.821585 -0.10866 0.670804
Untreated Wet 2.665542 -0.17401 0.720784
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.224394 0.362479 0.68155
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.138537 0.068978 0.060345
Treated 3 Days Wet 3.118594 0.375573 0.629731
Treated 14 Days Dry 3.075133 0.127133 0.166789
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.240846 0.103352 0.557403
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.236794 0.528622 0.788084
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.30022 0.277835 0.843362
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.435811 0.376445 0.758103
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.415137 0.36318 0.680512
14 Days Soaked 3.01679 0.370059 0.819298

The correlation for these models is very low because it does not consider the bulk shear stress
and shear strain during loading.
59

4.4.7.3 OCTAHEDRAL STRESS MODEL
2 3
1
K K
oct oct R
atm atm atm
M
K
o t
o o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .

Table 4.8 Regression values for octahedral stress model
Codition logK
1
K
2
K
3
R
2

Untreated Dry 2.595698 0.053757 -0.12805 0.680934
Untreated Opt 2.831586 0.069657 -0.12978 0.735898
Untreated Wet 2.657599 0.020804 -0.18032 0.700949
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.214177 -0.18105 0.417379 0.711983
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.228597 0.328524 -0.03064 0.91955
Treated 3 Days Wet 3.045276 -0.44007 0.509016 0.890986
Treated 14 Days Dry 3.182145 0.375961 0.013129 0.739063
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.280703 0.11384 0.068832 0.752235
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.190567 -0.38585 0.645624 0.909184
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.355135 0.111865 0.243914 0.875227
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.475347 0.164172 0.232343 0.941271
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.428599 0.076071 0.238093 0.873228
14 Days Soaked 3.019324 -0.13238 0.4102 0.838768

4.4.7.4 UNIVERSAL UZAN MODEL
2 3
1
K K
d R
atm atm atm
M
K
o u
o o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .

Table 4.9 Regression values for Uzan model

Condition log k1 k
2
K
3
R
2

Untreated Dry 2.579165 0.053757 -0.12805 0.680934
Untreated Opt 2.579165 0.053757 -0.12805 0.735898
Untreated Wet 2.579165 0.053757 -0.12805 0.700949
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.260607 -0.18105 0.417379 0.711983
60

Treated 3 Days Opt 3.072827 0.328524 -0.03064 0.91955
Treated 3 Days Wet 3.206615 -0.44007 0.509016 0.890986
Treated 14 Days Dry 2.985435 0.379469 -0.01852 0.639343
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.218076 0.11384 0.068832 0.752235
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.313971 -0.38585 0.645624 0.909184
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.277845 0.111865 0.243914 0.875227
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.374234 0.164172 0.232343 0.941271
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.368835 0.076071 0.238093 0.873228
14 Days Soaked 3.043268 -0.13238 0.4102 0.838768

4.4.7.5 RAFAEL PEZO MODEL
2 3
3
1
K K
d R
atm atm atm
M
K
o o
o o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .

Table 4.10 Regression values for Rafael pezo model
Codition logK
1
K
2
K
3
R
2

Untreated Dry 2.617116 0.044775 -0.11175 0.711228
Untreated Opt 2.852938 0.051613 -0.10866 0.759907
Untreated Wet 2.677903 0.020349 -0.17401 0.705051
Treated 3 Days Dry 3.18319 0.362479 -0.06783 0.673357
Treated 3 Days Opt 3.27199 0.21969 0.068978 0.943784
Treated 3 Days Wet 2.940325 -0.29347 0.375573 0.896878
Treated 14 Days Dry 3.238593 0.269088 0.127133 0.851471
Treated 14 Days Opt 3.290518 0.081769 0.103352 0.794767
Treated 14 Days Wet 3.079169 0.528622 -0.25948 0.914382
Treated 28 Days Dry 3.354108 0.277835 0.088711 0.895112
Treated 28 Days Opt 3.478476 0.117546 0.282125 0.958047
Treated 28 Days Wet 3.41536 0.051542 0.26116 0.874501
14 Days Soaked 2.963185 -0.08824 0.370059 0.839439

61

The regression model developed is used to predict the resilient modulus values. This was done by
back calculation this is performed. Fig.4.16 Fig. 4.20 shows the plot between the predicted and
measured resilient modulus values for 28 days treated samples in all the five models.

Of all the models, the regression coefficients are high for octahedral stress model. The octahedral
linear trend line exactly falls on the measured values. So this model can be better used for further
studies.



Fig. 4.19 Octahedral Model Fig. 4.20 Uzan Model

Fig. 4.21 Pezo Model Fig. 4.22 K-Theta Model

100
140
180
220
260
100 140 180 220 260
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M
R
Measured M
R
Octahedral Model
28 Days
14 days
3 days
100
140
180
220
260
100 140 180 220 260
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M
R
Measured M
R
Uzan Model
28 Days
14 days
3 days
100
140
180
220
260
100 140 180 220 260
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M
R
Measured M
R
Pezo Model
28 Days
14 days
3 days
100
140
180
220
260
100 140 180 220 260
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M
R
Measured M
R
K-Theta Model
28 Days
14 days
3 days
62


Fig. 4.23 K-Theta Model

4.4.8 COMPARISON OF MODEL STUDY
Of the five models adopted the Octahedral stress state model, Universal model Uzan
(1985), Rafael Pezo (1993) incorporates the shear effect in the equation.
The prediction based on these models is able to converge with the experimental results.
The shear sensitiveness in the form of softening and the hardening effect are captured in
the model. The k
3
value initially negative for the untreated soil gradually takes into the
effect of curing and changes to a positive magnitude.
The k-theta and power model basically used for the cohesionless soils and does not
consider the shear term, and it is not able to predict the behaviour of the lime treated soil
particularly the effect of curing.
From the results it is seen that model 3, 4, and 5 agrees well with the experimental results
compared to Model 1a and 1b.

4.4 TOTAL SUCTION
4.4.1 EFFECT OF SUCTION WITH CURING
Total suction increases with curing because of the free water in the sample were consumed for
the pozzolanic reaction to occur and becomes more difficult to extract. The suction increase is
high in first 14 days which shows evidently the pozzolanic reaction occurring in sample.
Moisture content of the sample plays a major role in suction measurement. The dry sample does
not have enough water thus making it difficult to extract water when compared to the wet sample
(Fig. 4.21).
100
140
180
220
260
100 140 180 220 260
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M
R
Measured M
R
Power Model
28 Days
14 days
3 days
63


Fig. 4.24 Total suction with curing

4.4.1 CORRELATION OF SUCTION WITH UCC AND M
R

A graph is plotted between the UCC, Resilient modulus values and total suction as shown in Fig.
4.25 and 4.26. The strength gain pattern with curing can be studied using the total suction (Fig
4.22 and 4.23). UCC strength shows a better correlation than the M
R
. A linear trend line is
drawn which depicts the relation between these Fig. 4.22 and Fig. 4.23.


Fig. 4.25 UCC Vs Total suction Fig. 4.26 M
R
Vs Total suction


0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
P
a
)
Curing in days
Dry side
Optimum
Wet side
y = 0.046x + 31.48
R = 0.696
0
100
200
300
1000 2000 3000 4000
U
C
C

(
k
P
a
)
Total suction (MPa)
UCC Vs Total Suction
y = 0.108x + 107.4
R = 0.355
0
200
400
600
800
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
Total suction (MPa)
Mr Vs Total Suction
64

4.4.2 CORRELATION OF UCC WITH M
R

The 2007 Interim M-E Pavement Design Guide and Mallela et al. (2004) indicates that the design
Mr for lime-stabilized subgrade can be approximated from the results of
UCS tests using Equation 1.

M
R
(ksi) = 0.124 UCS (psi) + 9.98 (1)

Based on the equation 1 the predicted and actual M
R
for the treated siruseri sample is shown in
Fig.4.27. The table 4.11 shows the value of the actual and predicted M
R
.

Table 4.11 M
R
predicton from Thompson equation


Days UCC (kPa) UCC (psi)
Predicted M
R

(ksi)
Predicted M
R

(Mpa)
Actual M
R

(Mpa)
Dry
Untreated 138.64 20.10 12.47 86.00 46.25
3 Days 184.35 26.73 13.29 91.66 117.39
14 Days 248.38 36.02 14.44 99.60 126.73
28 Days 261.82 37.97 14.68 101.27 194.16
Opt
Untreated 191.41 27.762 13.42 92.54 72.19
3 Days 255.92 37.11 14.58 100.54 140.66
14 Days 557.13 80.80 19.99 137.89 181.73
28 Days 590.37 85.62 20.59 142.01 249.08
Wet
Untreated 131.35 19.05 12.34 85.09 51.52
3 Days 379.55 55.04 16.80 115.87 113.08
14 Days 615.45 89.26 21.04 145.12 135.83
28 Days 766.58 111.18 23.76 163.86 240.04

65



Fig. 4.27 Actual M
R
versus predicted M
R

















y = 0.314x + 69.69
R = 0.614
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200 250
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M
R
(
M
P
a
)
Actual M
R
(MPa)
Thompson
Linear (Thompson)
66

CHAPTER 5
COST ECONOMICS AND OPTIMIZATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The benefits of subgrade stabilization are that they improve the strength, stiffness, and durability
of soft subgrade soils. Such improvement allows reduction in the required thickness of overlying
pavement courses and increases in pavement life. Quantifying the life-cycle cost benefits requires
performing pavement design studies based on anticipated traffic levels, desired serviceability,
etc. The preferred design method would be mechanistic design, which requires resilient modulus
values for the stabilized subgrade and other pavement layers.

5.2 PAVEMENT ON EXPANSIVE SOIL
Indian Road Congress code IRC: 37-2001, Guidelines for design of flexible pavements,
suggested the following in Appendix 4 for pavement on expansive soils.

5.2.1 BUFFER LAYER
Providing a non expansive layer of 0.6 to 1m thick prevents ingress of water into expansive soil
layer and counteracts swelling. It also reduces the harmful effects of heaving and reduces the
stress on expansive layer.

5.2.2 BLANKET COURSE
A blanket course of at least 225 mm thick composed of coarse\medium sand or non plastic
moorum with PI less than 6% shall be provided for full width of formation over expansive
subgrade.

5.2.3 INCREASING THE THICKNESS OF BITUMINOUS LAYERS
By increasing the thickness of BC and DBM layer the ingress of water in pavement can be
reduced thereby increasing the life of pavement.

5.2.4 LIME STABILIZATION
Instead of buffer layer or blanket course we can also use lime stabilization to strengthen the
subgrade.
67


Fig. 5.1 Pavement composition (Ref. IRC-37)

5.3 DISTRESS MODEL IN PAVEMENT
Flexible pavements are layered systems with better materials on top. Fig. 5.1 shows a typical
pavement with bituminous surface at top followed by base, sub-base and subgrade. About 90%
of the failure in flexible pavement is due to the problems in subgrade. Inadequate support in the
base and soil directly beneath the pavement can cause cracking and other pavement failures. The
response of the pavement such as stresses, strains and displacements depends on the properties of
the material. These responses are then used with failure criteria to predict failure period.

5.3.1 VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRAIN
The vertical stress on the top of subgrade is an important factor in pavement design. Fig. 5.2
shows the vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade. The function of pavement is to
reduce the vertical stress on the subgrade so that the pavement deformation will not occur. The
allowable vertical stress on a given subgrade depends on the strength or the modulus of subgrade.
To combine the effect of stress and strength, the vertical compressive strain been used for design
purpose.

5.3.2 CRITICAL TENSILE STRAIN
The tensile strains at the bottom of asphalt layer have been used as design criterion to prevent
fatigue cracking. Fig. 5.2 shows the critical tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous layer.

68


Fig. 5.2 Pavement failure (Ref. Huang 2004)

5.4 DISTRESS MODEL IN KENPAVE
Distress models in KENPAVE are cracking and rutting. Strains due to cracking and rutting have
been considered most critical for the design of asphalt pavements. Distress models can be used to
predict the life of new pavement assuming pavement configuration. If the reliability for a certain
distress is less than the minimum level required, the assumed pavement configuration should be
changed (Huang 2004).

5.4.1 APPLICATION OF KENPAVE
The KENPAVE computer program applies only to flexible pavements with no joints (Fig. 5.3).
The backbone of KENPAVE is the solution for an elastic multilayer system under a circular
loaded area. The solutions are superimposed for multiple wheels, applied iteratively for non-
linear layers, and collocated at various times for viscoelastic layers. As a result, KENPAVE can
be applied to layered systems under single, dual, dual-tandem, or dual-tridem wheels, with each
layer behaving differently: linear elastic, nonlinear elastic, or viscoelastic. Damage analysis can
be made by dividing each year into a maximum of 12 periods, each with a different set of
material properties. Each period can have a maximum of 12 load groups, either single or
multiple. The damage caused by fatigue cracking and permanent deformation in each period over
all load groups is summed up to evaluate the design life (Huang 2004).
69

5.4.2 INPUT PARAMETERS IN KENPAVE
There are so many input parameters in KENPAVE. The parameters can be inputted both in SI
and U.S. customary units. Some of the input parameters for linear elastic analysis are traffic load,
material properties, thickness of each layer, number of periods, number of load groups,
etc.(Fig.5.4).
Damage analysis is done for both the stabilized and natural subgrade. The resilient modulus
values changes with respect to the moisture content. This is taken care by adopting different
values for each period. The time of failure for fixed criteria such as traffic, load and for a
particular design is noted and the cost comparison is carried out for them.



Fig. 5.3 Kenpave software package
5.4.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS
For design purpose the layers are considered as elastic and damage analysis is done. Five layer
design is selected for a traffic of 10 million standard axles per year. The poissons ratio and
thickness for each layer is entered as shown in Fig. 5.5. The modulus for each period is entered
based on the moisture condition. Soaked M
R
value is used to replicate the subgrade in rainy
70

season.Table 5.1 shows the differnet modulus values used for subgrade. The base and subbase
values are calculated according to the subgrade modulus and used for design purpose.
Table 5.1 Subgrade Modulus in different period
Subgrade
Modulus MPa
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Untreated 40 60 15 50
Lime Treated 175 225 150 200


Fig. 5.4 Cross section used in analysis



71

Fig. 5. 5 General information of layers

Fig. 5.6 Layer thickness and Poissons ratio



Fig. 5.7 Layer Modulus for each period



72

Fig. 5.8 Damage analysis
The damage analysis was done at the bottom of asphalt layer and top of the subgrade. The
volume of traffic is taken as 10 MSA (Million Standard Axles) for year. The results of the
stabilized layer are given back in the form of notepad.


Fig. 5.9 Damage analysis graph

The detailed results of the analysis are given in Appendix A.


5.5 COST ECONOMICS
The lime stabilized layer is compared with other methods such as buffer layer, blanket course
and increased thickness. The cost comparison is given below. The pavement is designed for a
period of 20 years and the without stabilization the pavement fails in 3 years. The cost
comparison for various layers is given in Table 5.2- 5.6.


73


Table 5.2 Lime stabilized subgrade
Lime stabilized Thickness Cost/m
3
Volume Cost per m
BC 60 6500 0.42 2730
DBm 220 6000 1.54 9240
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Subgrade 500 250 3.5 875
Life 20 years Total Cost per m 15715
Cost per km for two lane 15,715,000.00

Table 5.3 Natural subgrade
No Stabilization Thickness Cost/m
3
Volume Cost per m
BC 60 6500 0.42 2730
DBm 220 6000 1.54 9240
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Subgrade 500 100 3.5 350
Life 3 years Total Cost per m 15190
Cost per km for two lane 15,190,000.00

Table 5.4 Buffer layer
Buffer Layer Thickness Cost/m
3
Volume Cost per m
BC 60 6500 0.42 2730
DBm 220 6000 1.54 9240
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Buffer layer 800 500 5.6 2800
Subgrade 500 100 3.5 350

Total Cost per m 17990
Cost per km for two lane 17,990,000.00

74

Table 5.5 Blanket course
Blanket Course Thickness Cost/m
3
Volume Cost per m
BC 60 6500 0.42 2730
DBm 220 6000 1.54 9240
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Blanket Course 225 700 1.575 1102.5
Subgrade 500 100 3.5 350

Total Cost per m 16292.5
Cost per km for two lane 16,292,500.00

Table 5.6 Increased BC and DBM
Increase BC & DBM Thickness Cost/m
3
Volume Cost per m
BC 90 6500 0.63 4095
DBM 300 6000 2.1 12600
Base 250 1000 1.75 1750
Subbase 200 800 1.4 1120
Subgrade 500 100 3.5 350
Life 19.6 years Total Cost per m 19915
Cost per km for two lane 19,915,000.00


5.6 RESULTS
1. The life of treated subgrade is much more than untreated subgrade.
2. Buffer layer or blanket course may be introduced before subgrade to prevent the swelling
behaviour but the design life is not got from Kenpave since its not an elastic layer.
3. The introduction of buffer or blanket course increases the cost of pavement much higher
than lime stabilization.
4. Increase in BC and DBM incurred maximum cost compared to all other methods.
5. A cost saving of 20% can be obtained by adopting lime stabilization

75

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
6.1 SUMMARY
The objective of the research is to examine the effect of lime stabilization on highly expansive
soil. Four types of soil were collected from different places across Tamilnadu and studied for
their expansive behaviour. After evaluating the initial soil properties the soils were classified as
highly expansive soil.
To reduce the effect of shrinkage and swelling and to increase the strength of the soil various
methods were studied. From these lime stabilization was selected, since it works well with
expansive soil. Eades and Grim pH test was used to find out the amount of lime required for each
soil and this percentage was used for further tests.
Compaction tests were carried out for both the treated and untreated soil. Unconfined
Compressive strength and resilient modulus were conducted on these samples for dry, optimum
and wet condition of the OMC curve. The samples were cured for a period of 3, 7, 14 and 28
days. Soaked UCC and M
R
were also performed for the samples by inserting the sample in a
water bath for a period of 24 hours. Regression models were developed to check the validity of
the results.
California bearing ratio test was done on Siruseri soil for 14 days cured on both soaked and
unsoaked condition. CBR test was also performed on untreated soil. Total suction was measured
for Siruseri soil on all the three condition for 0, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. The total suction values
were then correlated with the UCC and M
R
values to study the strength gain pattern with respect
to suction.
Cost economics was done between the stabilized and natural subgrade soil. The other options for
pavements on expansive soil such as introduction of buffer layer, Blanket course, and increased
thickness of wearing course are compared with the lime stabilized subgrade.



76

6.2 CONCLUSION
1. With curing the UCC strength, CBR and resilient modulus of the soil increases and the
strength of soaked samples of treated soil does not vary much with unsoaked showing the
treated sample can be used in high water content area without loss of strength.
2. The total suction of lime treated soil increases with curing because of non-availability of
free water.
3. Of the entire regression model used the octahedral stress model has better correlation than
the other models for the value of M
R
. This model can be used for better prediction of the
resilient modulus.
4. Damage analysis of the pavement is done with the help of Kenpave. By treating the
natural subgrade with lime the thickness of above layer can be reduced to a greater extent.
By stabilizing about 20% of cost of pavement can be reduced and the life of the pavement
is increased.
5. Among all the options on expansive soil such as buffer layer, blanket course, increased
thickness, lime stabilization is the one which cost minimum.














77

7.0 REFERENCE
AASHTO (2003). Determining the resilient modulus of soils and aggregate materials. T307
99, Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing,
Washington, D.C.
AASHTO T-307, Determining the Resilient Modulus of soils and aggregate materials.
Abdulrahman Al-Suhaibani., (2006). Modeling Resilient Modulus of Granular Subgrade soil.
Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
Al-Rawas. A.A., Mattheus F. A. Goosen., (2006). Expansive Soils Recent Advances in
Characterization and Treatment. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK.
Al-Homoud, A.S., Basma, Husein Malkavi, and Al-Bashabshah., (1995). Cyclic swelling
behaviour of clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 121, 582585.
Al-Rawas. A.A., Hago. A., Al-Sarmi. H., (2005). Effect of lime, cement and Sarooj (artificial
pozzolan) on the swelling potential of an expansive soil from Oman. Journal of Building and
Environment, 40:6817.
Arrman. and G.A. Munfak., (1972). Lime stabilization of organic soils, National Academy of
Science. Highway Research. USA, PP: 381.
Berger.E.A., (2005). Lime applications for site and infrastructure construction, International
Building Lime Symposium 2005, Orlando, Florida, March 9 -11.
Bell F. G., (1996). Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils. Journal of Engineering
Geology, Page 223-237.
Brown, S. and J. Pappin., (1981). Analysis of Pavements with Granular Bases Layered
Pavement Systems, TRR 810, TRB, Washington, D.C.
Day, R.W., (1994). Swell-shrink behaviour of compacted clay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 120, 618623.
Daehyeon Kim and Nayyar. Zia Siddiki., (2006). Simplification of Resilient Modulus Testing
78

for Subgrades FHWA/IN/JTRP-2005/23, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University.
Daksanamurthy, V., Raman, V., (1973), A simple method of identifying an expansive soil, Soil
and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 13 (1),
pp. 97104.
Eades, J. L., and R. E. Grim., (1966). A Quick Test to Determine Lime Requirements for Lime
Stabilization. In Highway Research Record 139, HRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1966.
Elfino, M. K., and J. L. Davidson., (1989). Modeling Field Moisture in Resilient. Moduli
Testing, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 24, ASCE, New. York.
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H., (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils, New York:
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Fredlund, D.G., (1997). An Introduction to Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Unsaturated Soil
Engineering Practice, and Geotechnical, Special Publication No. 68 (ed. Houston, S.L., and
Fredlund, D.G.), Reston: ASCE, pp. 1-37.
Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Reference Manual / Participant Workbook U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute.
Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-037.
Hicks, R. and C. Monismith., (1971) Factors Influencing the Resilient Response of Granular
Materials, Highway Research Record 345, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Houston, W., S. Houston., and T. Anderson., (1992) Stress State Considerations for Resilient
Modulus Testing of Pavement Subgrade, 71st Annual Meeting of Transportation Research
Board, Jan. 12-16, Washington, D.C.
Holtz, W.G., and Gibbs, H.J., (1956). Engineering properties of expansive clays. Transactions
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 121, 641663.
Jagannath Mallela., Harold Von Quintus., P.E. Kelly L. Smith, (2004) Consideration of Lime-
Stabilized Layers In Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design. National Lime Association.

79

Kate, J.M. and Katti, R.K., Effect of CNS layer on the behavior of underlying expansive soils
media: an experimental study, 1980, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 281-305.
Leong E.C., Tripathy S., Rahardjo H. (2003). Total suction measurement of unsaturated soils
with a device using the chilledmirror dew-point technique, Geotechnique, 53(2), 173182.
Lime Stabilization Practice. AustStab Technical Note. No.1E, June 2008
Little, D.L. (1987). Fundamentals of the Stabilization of Soil with Lime. (Bulletin 332), NLA,
Arlington, VA. (http://www.lime.org/publications.html).
Little, D.L. (1995). Stabilization of Pavement Subgrades and Base Courses with Lime, Published
by Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. (http://www.lime.org/publications.html).
Little, D.L. (1999). Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime Stabilized Soils and Aggregates,
Summary of Findings (Vol. 1), National Lime Association report.
(http://www.lime.org/SOIL.PDF)
Meissa Fal., Auckpath Sawangsuriya.,Craig H. Benson., et al., (2008) On the Investigations of
Resilient Modulus of Residual Tropical Gravel Lateritic Soils from Senegal. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 26:1335.
Nelson, J.D., Miller D.J., (1992). Expansive Soils Problems and Practices in Foundation and
Pavement Engineering. John Wiley, New York.
Pezo, Rafael F., (1993) A General Method of Reporting Resilient Modulus Tests of Soils. A
Pavement Engineers Point of View. Presented at the 72
nd
Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Puppala, A.J., Louay N. Mohammad, and Aaron Allen., (2000) Engineering Behavior of Lime-
Treated Louisiana Subgrade Soil Transportation Research Record 1546 page 24-31.
Puppala, A. J., L. N. Mohammad, and W. H. Temple., (2007). An Octahedral Stress State
Model and Correlations for Predicting Resilient Modulus of Soils. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE.
80

Puppala, A.J., Ramakrishna, A.M., and Hoyos, L.R. (2003). "Resilient moduli of treated clays
from repeated load triaxial test". Journal of the Transportation Research Board, TRB, TRR No.
1821, pp. 68-74.
Ranjan. and Rao., (2005). Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi.
Robnett, Q. L., and M. R. Thompson., (1976). Effect of Lime Treatment on the Resilient
Behavior of Fine Grained Soil. In Transportation Research Record 560, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
Sridharan A. and Sivapullaih P.V., (2005) Mini Compaction Test Apparatus for Fine Grained
Soils ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3
Sriram, A.Rao. and Rama, M.Rao., (2008), Swell - Shrink Behaviour of Expansive Soils Under
Stabilized Fly Ash CushionsThe 12th International Conference of International Association for
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October, 2008.Goa, India
Subba Rao, K.S. and Satyadas, G.C., (1987). Swelling potentials with cycles of swelling and
partial shrinkage. Proceedings 6th International Conference on Expansive Soils, vol. 1, New
Delhi, 137142.
Thadkamalla, G. B., and K. P. George., (1995) Characterization of Subgrade Soils ... TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 2127
Thomas, P.J., Baker. J.C., Zelazny. L.W., (2000). An Expansive Soil Index for predicting
Swell-Shrink Potential. Soil Science Society of American Journal, 64:268-274.
Tommy C. H., Tony I. B., et.al., Resilient Modulus of Kentucky Soil. Kentucky Transportation
Center, Kentucky.
Transportation Research Board, t987, "Lime Stabilization," State of the Art Report 5, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, DC
Uzan, J., (1985) Characterization of Granular Materials, TRR 1022, TRB, Washington, D.C.
Williams, A.A.B., (1957), Discussion on the Prediction of Total Heave from the Double
Oedometer Test, Symposium on Expansive Clays, South African Institution of Civil Engineer,
page 57.
81

Witczak, M. W., and Uzan, J., (1988). The universal airport pavement design system, Report I
of IV: Granular material characterization. University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Woojin Lee., N. C. Bohra., et al., (1997). Resilient Modulus of Cohesive soils. Journal of Geo-
Technical and Geo-Environmental Engineering, Feb 1997, Page 131-136.
Yang H. Huang. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. Pearson Prentice Hall Publication.
IS 2720 - part IV, V, VII, X, XVI for general properties of soil.
IS 4332 - part IV for durability of lime stabilized soil.
IRC 37- Flexible Pavement code.

82

APPENDIX A KENPAVE RESULTS
A.1 LIME STABILIZATION

INPUT FILE NAME -D:\Kenpave results\Lime
Stabilization.DAT TITLE -Lime Stabilization

MATL = 1 FOR LINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM

NDAMA=1, SO DAMAGE ANALYSIS WITH SUMMARY PRINTOUT WILL BE PERFORMED
NUMBER OF PERIODS PER YEAR (NPY) = 4

NUMBER OF LOAD GROUPS (NLG) = 1

TOLERANCE FOR INTEGRATION (DEL) -- = 0.001

NUMBER OF LAYERS (NL)------------- = 5

NUMBER OF Z COORDINATES (NZ)------ = 0

LIMIT OF INTEGRATION CYCLES (ICL)- = 80

COMPUTING CODE (NSTD)------------- = 9

SYSTEM OF UNITS (NUNIT)------------= 1

Length and displacement in cm, stress and modulus in kPa
unit weight in kN/m^3, and temperature in C

THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 6 22 25 20
POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.45

ALL INTERFACES ARE FULLY BONDED

FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.200E+05 4 3.800E+05 5 1.750E+05

FOR PERIOD NO. 2 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 5.400E+05 4 4.900E+05 5 2.250E+05

FOR PERIOD NO. 3 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 3.600E+05 4 3.250E+05 5 1.500E+05

FOR PERIOD NO. 4 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.800E+05 4 4.350E+05 5 2.000E+05


LOAD GROUP NO. 1 HAS 1 CONTACT AREA
83

CONTACT RADIUS (CR)--------------- = 12.5
CONTACT PRESSURE (CP)------------- = 483
RADIAL COORDINATES OF 1 POINT(S) (RC) ARE : 0

NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR BOTTOM TENSION (NLBT)---- = 1
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR TOP COMPRESSION (NLTC)--- = 1
LAYER NO. FOR BOTTOM TENSION (LNBT) ARE: 2
LAYER NO. FOR TOP COMPRESSION (LNTC) ARE: 5

LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 2 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 3 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 4 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000

DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 2 ARE: 0.414 3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 5 ARE: 1.365E-09 4.477

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 1 LOAD GROUP NO. 1

AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -5.075E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.870E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 1.337E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 5.327E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.853E+10 DAMAGE RATIO = 1.349E-04

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 2 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -4.491E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 2.798E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 8.935E-03
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 4.470E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 4.063E+10 DAMAGE RATIO = 6.153E-05

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 3 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -5.439E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.489E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 1.679E-02
84

AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 5.915E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.159E+10 DAMAGE RATIO = 2.157E-04

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 4 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -4.763E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 2.305E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 1.085E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 4.856E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 2.803E+10 DAMAGE RATIO = 8.918E-05


******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
******************************

AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 4.993E-
02 AT TOP OF LAYER 5 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 5.013E-04

MAXIMUM DAMAGE RATIO = 4.993E-02 DESIGN LIFE IN YEARS = 20.03
85

A.2 NATURAL SUBGRADE

INPUT FILE NAME -D:\\Kenpave results\Natural Subgrade.DAT TITLE -Natural
Subgrade
MATL = 1 FOR LINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM
NDAMA=1, SO DAMAGE ANALYSIS WITH SUMMARY PRINTOUT WILL BE PERFORMED
NUMBER OF PERIODS PER YEAR (NPY) = 4

NUMBER OF LOAD GROUPS (NLG) = 1

TOLERANCE FOR INTEGRATION (DEL) -- = 0.001

NUMBER OF LAYERS (NL)------------- = 5

NUMBER OF Z COORDINATES (NZ)------ = 0

LIMIT OF INTEGRATION CYCLES (ICL)- = 80

COMPUTING CODE (NSTD)------------- = 9

SYSTEM OF UNITS (NUNIT)------------ = 1

Length and displacement in cm, stress and modulus in kPa
unit weight in kN/m^3, and temperature in C

THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 6 22 25 20
POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.45

ALL INTERFACES ARE FULLY BONDED

FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.000E+05 4 9.000E+04 5 4.000E+04

FOR PERIOD NO. 2 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.450E+05 4 1.300E+05 5 6.000E+04

FOR PERIOD NO. 3 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.000E+04 4 3.500E+04 5 1.500E+04

FOR PERIOD NO. 4 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.200E+05 4 1.100E+05 5 5.000E+04


LOAD GROUP NO. 1 HAS 1 CONTACT AREA
CONTACT RADIUS (CR)--------------- = 12.5
CONTACT PRESSURE (CP)------------- = 483
RADIAL COORDINATES OF 1 POINT(S) (RC) ARE : 0
86


NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR BOTTOM TENSION (NLBT)---- = 1
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR TOP COMPRESSION (NLTC)--- = 1
LAYER NO. FOR BOTTOM TENSION (LNBT) ARE: 2
LAYER NO. FOR TOP COMPRESSION (LNTC) ARE: 5

LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 2 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 3 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 4 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000

DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 2 ARE: 0.414 3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 5 ARE: 1.365E-09 4.477


DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 1 LOAD GROUP NO. 1

AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -8.478E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.456E+07 DAMAGE RATIO = 7.233E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 1.319E-04
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.194E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 7.828E-03

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 2 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -7.598E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 4.957E+07 DAMAGE RATIO = 5.044E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 1.050E-04
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 8.863E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 2.821E-03

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 3 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -1.059E-04
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.665E+07 DAMAGE RATIO = 1.502E-01
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 2.167E-04
87

ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.463E+07 DAMAGE RATIO = 7.219E-02

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 4 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -8.027E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 4.138E+07 DAMAGE RATIO = 6.042E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 1.165E-04
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 5.575E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 4.484E-03

******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
******************************

AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 3.334E-
01 AT TOP OF LAYER 5 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 8.732E-02

MAXIMUM DAMAGE RATIO = 3.334E-01 DESIGN LIFE IN YEARS = 3.
88

A.3 NATURAL SUBGRADE INCREASED THICKNESS
INPUT FILE NAME -D:\\Kenpave results\Natural Subgrade Increased
Thickness.DAT
TITLE -Natural Subgrade Increased Thickness
MATL = 1 FOR LINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM
NDAMA=1, SO DAMAGE ANALYSIS WITH SUMMARY PRINTOUT WILL BE PERFORMED
NUMBER OF PERIODS PER YEAR (NPY) = 4

NUMBER OF LOAD GROUPS (NLG) = 1

TOLERANCE FOR INTEGRATION (DEL) -- = 0.001

NUMBER OF LAYERS (NL)------------- = 5

NUMBER OF Z COORDINATES (NZ)------ = 0

LIMIT OF INTEGRATION CYCLES (ICL)- = 80

COMPUTING CODE (NSTD)------------- = 9

SYSTEM OF UNITS (NUNIT)------------= 1

Length and displacement in cm, stress and modulus in kPa
unit weight in kN/m^3, and temperature in C

THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 9 30 25 20
POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.45

ALL INTERFACES ARE FULLY BONDED

FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.000E+05 4 9.000E+04 5 4.000E+04

FOR PERIOD NO. 2 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.450E+05 4 1.300E+05 5 6.000E+04

FOR PERIOD NO. 3 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 4.000E+04 4 3.500E+04 5 1.500E+04

FOR PERIOD NO. 4 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2 2.600E+06
3 1.200E+05 4 1.100E+05 5 5.000E+04


LOAD GROUP NO. 1 HAS 1 CONTACT AREA
CONTACT RADIUS (CR)--------------- = 12.5
CONTACT PRESSURE (CP)------------- = 483
RADIAL COORDINATES OF 1 POINT(S) (RC) ARE : 0
89


NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR BOTTOM TENSION (NLBT)---- = 1
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR TOP COMPRESSION (NLTC)--- = 1
LAYER NO. FOR BOTTOM TENSION (LNBT) ARE: 2
LAYER NO. FOR TOP COMPRESSION (LNTC) ARE: 5

LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 2 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 3 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 4 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE : 2500000

DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 2 ARE: 0.414 3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 5 ARE: 1.365E-09
4.477

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 1 LOAD GROUP NO. 1

AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -4.821E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 2.215E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 1.129E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 8.282E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 2.568E+09 DAMAGE RATIO = 9.734E-04

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 2 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -4.346E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.117E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 8.021E-03
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 6.771E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 6.330E+09 DAMAGE RATIO = 3.950E-04

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 3 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -5.925E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.124E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 2.224E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 1.268E-04
90

ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 3.820E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 6.545E-03

DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 4 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 TENSILE STRAIN = -4.576E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 2.631E+08 DAMAGE RATIO = 9.503E-03
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 7.415E-05
ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 4.213E+09 DAMAGE RATIO = 5.935E-04

******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
******************************

AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 2 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 5.105E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 5 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 8.507E-03

MAXIMUM DAMAGE RATIO = 5.105E-02 DESIGN LIFE IN YEARS = 19.59

You might also like