Effect of Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight on the

Resilient Modulus of Sub grade Soils Predicted by Geogauge

By
M.Ramesh varma, M.Tech,
Dr.C.S.R.K Prasad, Asst professor,
Head of Transportation Division, Civil Engineering Department, NIT Warangal
Abstract
Subgrade soil characterization in tems of Resilient Modulus (MR) has become crucial for
pavement design. For anew design, MR values are generally obtained by conducting repeated
load triaxial tests on rcconstituted/undisturbed cylindrical specimens. Becausc thc tcst is
Complex and time-consuming, the non destructive in-situ tests such as geogauge are uscd for
icting resilient modulus from correlation cquations.

The present study focuses on to estimate resilient modulus of subgrade soils from non
destructive insitu test geo gauge and to investigate the effect of moisture content and dry unit
weight on the resilient characteristics of subgrade soil predicted by the geo gauge. Three soil
types (BC soil, sand and morrum) and three levels of moisture contents - dry sidc, optimum,
and wet side - were sclected for these testings. A sensitivity analysis was performcd o
evaluate the effect of the change in resilient modulus, due to variations in dry unit weight
and moisture content, on the overlay thickness

1.0 Introduction
The AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures recommends the use of the resilient
medulus for charactcrization of base and subgrade soil and for design of flexible
pavcmcnts.
The subgrade soil characterization, based on the resilient modulus, is a rcalistic way to
analyze the moving vehicle loads on a pavement. The resilient modulus represents the
dynamic stiffness of pavement materials under the repeated loads of vehicles. Resilient
modulus is a measure or estimate of the elastic modulus of the material at a givcn strcss.
Mathematically it is cxprcsscd as the ratio of applied deviator stress to recoverable strain.
M =0d/Er
Where od = Applied deviator stress
Er = Resilient strain.

- 165 -
For anew design, Mg values are generally obtained by conducting repcated load triaxial lesls
on reconstituled/undisturbcd cylindrical specimens. Because the test is complcx and ime
consuming, the non-destructive in-situ device such as Geogauge can be used as effective tool
in the assessment of subsurface conditions and in evaluating the resilient modulus of
pavement materials and embankment. The present study focuses on to estimate resilient
modulus of subgrade soils and to investigate the effect of moisture content and dry unit
weight on the resilient characteristics of subgrade soil predicted by the geo gauge. A
sensitivity analysis was performed to study the cffect of resilient modulus on overlay
thickness in pavements.
2.0 Need for the study
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASIHTO) guide
for design of pavement structures stipulates that dtermination of the resilient modulus of
subgrade soils during different seasons of the year be necessary to account for the variations
of the moisture content. The year is usually divided into different time intervals during which
the seasonal resilient modulus values are determined. The minimum time interval shall not be
less than one-half month for any season. In this procedure, the scasonal resilient modulus
values are assigncd in their corresponding time periods. Then the seasonal resilient mod1lus
values are converted to the effective design resilient modulus values. For rigid pavements,
the resilient modulus of subgrade is used to determine the effective modulus of subgrade
reaction (k-value). In the field, subgrade soils encounter wetting and drying cyclcs. The
subgrade resilicnt modulus increascs as soil dries out. The resilient modulus is cxpcctcd to
decrease in awet period. Therefore, the laboratory resilient modulus test using geogauge
should be perfoned in wet conditions and dry conditions since they change the subgrade soil
resilient modulus.
3.0 Literature review
Resilicnt modulus is influcnced by many faclors. Many investigators observed an incrcasc in
resilient modulus of granular materials with increase in confining pressure. (Rada et al -1989,
kamal et al -1993, Mohammad et al 1994). This is due to the facts that increase in stifmess
and decrease in dilational properties of granular soil.

166 -
 The resilient modulus of cohesive soil
decreases as deviator stress increases (l'redlund et al
1977). The same observations were made by
several researchers for cohesive soils
(Mohammad ct al -1999). These observations confirm the stress and
dilational propcrty
dependent naturc of thc resilicnt modulus of subgrade soil. Many
the effect of moisture content on resilient
rescarchers have studicd
modulus of soil (Drumm et al-1997, Mohammad et
al -1989,1995, 2000). They reported that
resilient modulus of cohesive soil decreases the
as
moisture content incrcascs. Thc rcsilient modulus can be
influenced by the scasonal variation
of moisture in soil, such as repeated
freeze-thaw cycle. Several investigators reportcd that the
resilient modulus can also be influenced by dry unit weight, size of the
specimen, stress pulse
shape, duration, frequency and sequence of stress levels, testing
equipment, and specimen
preparation as well as conditioning methods (Nataatmadja - 1989, Mohammad ct al -1994)
4.0 Geo gauge
The geogauge, also known as the stiffness gauge, is a portable device
capable of performing
simple and robust measurements of the in situ stiffness and elastic modulus of soils. It
is
manufactured by the Humboldt Manufacturing Company (Norridge, Ill.) and weighs
approximately 10 kg (22 lb). It has a compact size of 28 cm (11 in) in diameter by 25.4 cm
(10 in) in height (Fig. 1).

Flg. 1. Humboldt geogange/stiffness gauge

The device rests on the soilsurface via a ring-shaped foot, which has an outside diameter of
114 mm (4.50in.) and an inside diameter of 89 mm (3.50 in). The foot bears directly on the
soil and supports the weight of the Geogauge via several rubber isolators (Fig. 2)

- 167
 Riyl Tioot with anatar ring
Rigld cylindtal slorve,
Clmped leaible ate
Ekrtro-meshenical shuker
Upper veloctly tmsur
Lawer vovel1y ktnsm
External cINt
Vibmtinn solalion onts
Electroni
Couol &lluply
Power uply

Soil

Fig 2: Principle of operation

A mechanical shaker, which is attached to thc foot, shakes the gcogaugc from 100 to 196 Hz
in 4 Hz increments. producing 25 different frequcncics and generating a forcc of 9 N. Thc
Geogauge has sensors that measure the force (F) and the deflection (S) of the foot. The
magnitude of the vertical displacement induced at the soil-ring interface is typically less than
1.27X10-6 m(0.00005 in). It is measured using velocity sensors.
deflection) lor each
A microprocessor computes the stiffhess HSG (the layer's resistance to
of the 25 frequencies, and the average value of the 25 measuremnents is displaycd along wilh
elastic modulus
a standard variation. The geogauge stiffness can then be converted to the soil
(EG) using the following equation (1)

E -HsG (1- v2)/1.77R (1)

Wherc E,=soil's clastic modulus (MPa); HSG=geogauge reading (MN/m); v =Poisson's

). For a Poisson's ratio of
ralio; and R = radius of the geogauge foot (57.15 mm or 2.25 in.
to an elastic
0.35, a factor of 8.67 can be used to convert the Geogauge stiffiness (MN/m)
modulus (MPa)
4.1. Correlation between geogauge and resilient modulus
to Geogaugc
Wu ct al (16)correlated the back-calculated resilient modulus from FWD
modulus and proposed the following equation.
Mp-22,69 e0.12HSG

Where MR = resilient modulus determined from FWD (MPa)

Kse stiffness detcrmined from the Geogauge (MN/m)

- 168 -
 5.0 Experimental work:
5.1. Materials:
The materials used in the experiments included
the typical Warangal soils clay,
Sand and
morun, which are conmonly used as sub grade and
embankment
sunimarizes the basic physical properties and classification of these soils. materials. Table 1
soil W lp % % % Yd
gravel sand silt clay Wopt (%) Cu Cc
BCsoil 64 34
max*(g/cc) classification
0 12 19 69 1.72 19
Morrum 38 14 8 54 8 30
CI
1.96 11.8 SC
Sand 26 84.65 12.75 1.76 12.89 8.0 4.9
"Maximum dry unit weight according to the standard Proctor test. SP

°Optimum water content.

5.2 Preparation and testing of
Allexperiments were conducted samples
at the centre for transportation
in NIT
engineering (CTE) laboratory
VWarangal. The conmpactcd soils were prepared and tested inside test
box that mcasurc
50 cm long x 33 cm wide x 45 cmn deep as
shown in fig 3. A 0.10 m (4 in) sub gradc clay
layer was first prepared at optimum water content and
compacted at the bottom of test box.
as subgrade layer. Then the
specific soil/base layer (Tables 1) was compacted into two
m (6 in) thick lifts.In order to
0.15
achieve the desired water content of the test layer, the clay
and
clayey silt soils were first dried in the oven. Then
the dry soil was crushed, pulverized and
mixed by hand with the desired amount of
water to ensure homogeneous water
within the soil. A drop hanmer of weight 8 kg distribution
and height of fall of 20cm was useu to
conipact the soils and base layers inside the box. Then
geogauge measurements (Hs(, E)are
noted in the compacted soils for each soil at three
water contents. The dry density values
computed based weight and volume of soil contained in the box.

5.3 Test results and analysis

Thegcogaugc mcasurcmcnts arc summarized in Table 2, which lists the average Ec and

169 -
HsG values at various water contents and dry densities for different types soils. Then resilient
modulus values are predicted using the equation 2 and presented in table 2.
MR-22.69 0 12HSG ..2

Table 2: Geogauge measurements of different subgrade soils at various water contents

Soil type W (%) Ya (g/cc) HsG (Mn/m) Ec(Mpa) Mp(Mpu)
1.6 7.04 60.99 52.781
Block cotton Dry 14
19 1.72 7.56 65.54 56.212
soil Optimum
Wet 24 1.49 3.56 34.78 34.781

Dry 1.57 8.01 69.44 59.321

Sand 1.76 8.56 74.22 63.378
Optimum 12.89
wet 17 1.63 5.15 42 42.12
9 1.7 11.33 98.22 88.36
Dry
11.8 1.96 11.76 101.89 93.049
Morrom Optimum
wct 15 1.6 9.21 79.84 68.51

5.4 0Effect of moisture content on the resilient modulus

65
60 63 378

56.212
55 60

59.321
50 52.781
55

45
50
40

C 45
35 34.781
42 12

30 40

14 -19 24 12.89 17

water content(%) water content(%)

Fig 4: Block cotton soil Fig 5: sand

170
 95
93,049
Resiliert
modulus(Mpa)
90

85 8B,36

80

75

70
68\51
65
9 11.8 15
wator contont(%)

Fig 6: Morrum

In block cotton soil, the change in the resilient modulus between the dry and wct sidcs was
about 18 Mpa for change in moisture content of about 10 percent. In sandy soil, the change in
the resilient modulus between the dry and wet sides was about 17 Mpa for
change in
moisture content of about 8 percent. In morrum, the change in the resilient modulus bctwccn
the dry and wet sides was about 20 Mpa for change in moisture content of
about 6 pcrccnt.
igures 4,5 and 6 depict the variation in the resilient modulus with moisture content. In the
wet side, as the moisture content increases effective deviator stress
decreases and hence the
resilient modulus decrcases. In the wet side, soil fabric is dispersed whereas, in the dry sidc,
scil is flocculated. Strength of the dispersed soil is less than that of
flocculatcd soil. The
resilient modulus is related to the strength of soil.
5.5 Effect of moisture content and dry unitweight on the
resilient Modulus
60 -
56 212 Resilient
modulus(Mpa)
65 63.378

55 -
60
52.781 59 321
50 -

45 +

50
40 -

34 71
45
35 -

40 42.12
) 91 0.089
0 114 0 137 0.172
yd(glcc)lw(%)
Yd(glcc)/w(%)
Fig 7: Block cotton soil
Fig 8: Morrum

171
 95 -93.049
rodius(Mpa)
resiliert
90
B8.36

B5

B0

75

Ga.5)
70

65
0.100 0,166 0.192

yd(g/cc)/w(%)
Fig 9: Sand

Fig 7, 8 and 9 show the variation of resilient modulus with dry unit weight and moisture
content. From the dry side to optimum, as the dry unit weight increases soil stiffens and
hence the resilient modulus increases. From optimum to wet side the rcsilicnt modulus
decreases with the increasing moisture content. It was observed that a combined effect of
both moisture content and dry unit weight on the resilient modulus of soil exists. The
maximum resilicnt modulus of each soil was observed at the optimum. The resilicnt modulus
of dry side of cach soilwas greater than that of wet side at the same dry unit wcight
5.6 Effect of resilient moduluson overlay thickness
The effect of change in the subgrade soilresilient modulus on the AASHTO Mexible
pavement design equation is analyzed. The AASHTO design equation

log,, W", =2,S, -9 36log,,(SN+1)

PSI
log,l 42-15
020 -+ 232log,o M, -8.07
1094
)40+
(SV +1"

Wherc WI8- prcdicted number of 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL),ZR - standard
deviation, SN- structural number, reliability, So- combined standard eror of the traffic
prediction and performance prediction, Mr- effective resilient modulus of subgrade soil.
and,DPSI- differcncc bctwcen the initial design serviccability index and the design termina
scrviccability indcx

-172 -
The AASHTO design equation is iteratively evaluated for a typical pavement section, by
varying the value of the overlay thickness while keeping the design ESAL constant. The
design variablcs are as follows. WI8- 5,000,000ESALs, R=95 %, So= 0.35, DPSI- 19,and
design Mr- 34.5 MPa. This results in SN = 5. Layer coefficients are assumed as al=
0.01654/mm (0.42/in.), a2= 0.0063/mm (0.16/in.) and a3=0.0040/mm (0.10/in.) for the,
D2-241
Surlace course, base, and sub base respectively. The thicknesses are Dl=102 mm,
mm, and D3-457 mm for the surface course, base, and sub base respectively.
150
Typical pavement section
Hot mix asphalt
mmi D,=102 mm a-0.0165>n1m
100
Base couse
thickness D,=241 1nn a,-0.0063/nn
Sublase
S0 D-457 am,a;-).0040'mn
overlay Stubgrade soil

n 30 40 50 60 70
DitferaC 30 -20 -10 10 20
Change in M, (MPa)
-50
000, 000 ESALs
R=95e
APSI=1.9
-100 S-0.35
Des1gn M345 MPa
Des1gn SN=5
-150
-4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Change in M, (psi)
Fig 10:The effect of resilient modulus of subgrade soils on overlay thickness

Figure 10 shows the effect of the resilient modulus value on the thickness of the asphalt

Surface layer. Inspcction of this figure demonstrates that reliable determination of the
resilient modulus is important to avoid over-design or under-design of pavcmcnt laycrs. Thc
change in the resilient modulus has a significant effect on the overlay thickness of a

pavement.

6.0 Conclusions:

Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn.

- 173
 Theresilicnt modulus increases with the moisture content up to theoptimum and then
It decrcases. Therc is a combincd cffect fromn the moisturc content and unit wcight on

the resilient modulus of soil. The maximum resilient modulus and tip resistance
occurred at the optimum.
wet side, as the
Strength of the soil on wet side is less than of dry side. . In the
decreases and hencc thc resilicnt
moisturC content increases cffective deviator stress
the wet side, soil fabric is dispersed whereas, in
the dry sidc,
modulus decrcascs. In
flocculatcd. Strength of the dispersed soil is less than that of flocculatcd soil.
soil is
The resilient modulus is related to the strength of soil.
both moisture content and dry unit weight
It was observed that a combined effect of
modulus of soil exists. The maximum resilient modulus of each soil
on the resilient
was
observed at the optimum. The resilient modulus of dry side of cach soil
was
weight
greater than that of wet side at the same dry unit
evaluate the effect of the change in the
A sensitivity analysis was performed to
weight and moisture content, on the
resilient modulus, due to variations in dry unit
overlay thickness.
results in a significant change in the
The change in the subgrade resilient modulus
of the resilient modulus is
pavement overlay thickness. Reliable determination
pavement layers
important to avoid over-design or under-design of

References
American Association of State
1 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures,
Highway and Transportation Officials, 1993and 2002.
W.D. "Sub grade Resilicnt
2. Drunmm, E.C.; Recves, J.S., Madgett, M.R., and Trolinger,
Geotechnical and
Modulus Corrcction for Saturation Effects." Journal of
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123, No.7, July 1997, pp. 663-670
Resilient Modulus
3. Fredlund, D.G.; Bergan, A.T.; and Wong, P.K., "Relation between
Research
and Strcss Conditions for Cohesive Subgrade Soils." Transportation
Record, No. 642, 1977, pp.73-81.
4. GeoGaugeTM "Soil Compaction Process Control via ln-Place Engineering
Properties - Stifness & Modulus"

- 174
5 lumboldt SiTlncss Guugo User's Guide, 1998,
Noridge, IL. Ilumboldt Manufacturirng C0.,
Kanal, M. A., Dawson, A.R.; Farouki, 0.T, Hughes,
D.A.B., and Sha'at, A.A."}icld
and Laboratory valuation of the
Mechanical Behavior of Unbound Granular .
Materials in Pavenients." Trnsportation Research Record, No. 1406,
97. 1993, pp. 88
1. Mohammad, L.N., Huang, B.; Puppala, A., and Alen, A. "A RegrCSsion Modcl for
Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils," 78 Annual Meeting of the
Research Board, Wushington D.C., 1999.
Transportation
R. Mohammad, L. N., Puppala, A. J. and
Alavilli, P. "Influence of Testing Procedure
and LVDT Location on Resilient Modulus of
Soils." Transportation Research
Record, No. 1462, 1994, pp. 91 101.
9 Mohammad, L. N., Puppala, A., and
Alavilli, P. "Effect of Strain Measurements on
Resilient Modulus of Granular Soils." Dynamic
Geotechnical Testing, Second
Volume, ASTM STP 1213, ASTM, 1994, pp. 202-221.
I0 Mohammad, L. N., and Puppala, A.
"Resilient Propertics of Laboratory Compactcd
Subgrade Soils." National Academy of Science,
Transportation Research Record,
No.I504, 1995, pp. 87-102.
1 Mohammad, L.N.; Titi, H.H., and
Herath A. "Intrusion Technology: An InnovativC
Approach to Evaluate Resilient Modulus of Subgrade
Soil." Application of
Geotcchnical Principles in Pavement Engineering, Amnerican
Society of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication Number 85, Geo
Congress'98, Boston,
Massachusctts, Oct.1998, pp. 39-58.
12. Mohammad, L.N.; Titi, H.H., and
Herath A. "Investigation of the
Intrusion Technology to Estimate the Resilient Modulus of Applicabil1ty of
Subgrade Soil." Final
Report, Louisiana Transportation Research Center project No.
98-6GT, April 2000
13. Monisith, C.J. "M testing-
Interpretation of Laboratory Rcsults for Design
Purposcs." Workshop on Resilicnt Modulus Testing, Oregon Slatc
Corvallis, 1989
University,
M Nataatmadja, A.; and Parkin, A.
"Characterization of Granular Materials for
Pavements. " Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.26, No.4,
1989, pp. 725 730.

175
15. Rada, G., and Witczak, M.W.
"Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory Resilient
Modul1 Results for Granular Material." Transportation Research
Record, No. 810,
1981, pp. 23 33.
16. Wu, W.,Arellano,M,chcn.D-H Using astiffeness gauge as an alternativc quality
control device in pavement construction Texas department of

transportation,Austin,TX.

- 176