!etd

Incorporating Chemical Stabilization of the Subgrade in Pavement Design and
Construction Practices
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Anwer K. Al-Jhayyish
August 2014
© 2014 Anwer K. Al-Jhayyish. All Rights Reserved.

2
This thesis titled
by
ANWER K. AL-JHAYYISH
has been approved for
the Department of Civil Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
Shad M. Sargand.
Russ Professor of Civil Engineering
Dennis Irwin
Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

3
ABSTRACT
AL-JHAYYISH, ANWER K., M.S., August 2014, Civil Engineering
Director of Thesis: Shad M. Sargand
Roadbeds are considered one of the most problematic components in pavement
design and construction. Its engineering properties differ significantly in terms of soil
composition, gradation, and strength parameters. Soil stabilization techniques have been
widely used to improve the engineering properties of roadbed soils. Therefore, in order to
study the effects of the stabilization of subgrade layers for pavement structures,
theoretical and experimental work was carried out to study pavement responses
constructed over stabilized subgrade with lime and cement. The theoretical study
involved creating finite element models to study the nature of stresses and strains in the
subgrade and asphalt layers when stabilized layer is used in the pavement structure. To
study the durability and long term performance of chemically stabilized subgrade, FWD
and DCP tests were performed on several pavement sections constructed with stabilized
layer. The results from the theoretical study showed that the subgrade could be protected
from being overstressed during construction by providing a suitable stabilized layer.
Results from field testing showed that the stiffness of chemically stabilized layers
increases significantly over time. It also showed that it provides structural stability to the
pavement constructed over stabilized subgrades. Based on these results, input parameters
were recommended to MEPDG of flexible pavements.

4
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my family and friends for their continuous support throughout my
study and life.

5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Prof, Shad Sargand for
the continuous support of my thesis study and research, for his motivation and immense
knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I
also would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Dr. Deb S McAvoy, Dr.
Kenneth K Walsh, Dr. Eric P Steinberg and Dr. Gaurav Sinha, for their encouragement,
insightful comments. I also would like to thank Mr. Roger Green for his assistance in
interpreting some of my results and writing. I also would like to express my appreciation
to my colleague Mr. Jayson Grey for his assistance on DCP data. The assistance provided
by Mr. Jungqing Zhu on MEPDG software is appreciated. Without their help, this thesis
could not be completed.

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 9
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 16
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 16
1.2 Research Objectives .......................................................................................... 17
1.3 Site Selections ................................................................................................... 20
1.4 Thesis Organization .......................................................................................... 21
Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................. 23
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 23
2.2 Background ....................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Early Age Strength Gain of Stabilized Subgrade Soils .................................... 24
2.4 Resilient Modulus (MR) and Unconfined Compressive Strength (USC)
Relationships ................................................................................................................. 26
2.5 Finite Element Simulation of Flexible Pavements............................................ 28
2.6 Backcalculation ................................................................................................. 32
2.7 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) .............................................................. 32
2.8 Backcalculation Software ................................................................................. 33
2.9 Software Selection ............................................................................................ 34
2.10 MOUDLUS ....................................................................................................... 35
2.11 Long-Term Performance of Pavements with Stabilized Subgrade ................... 35
Chapter 3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 38
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 38
3.2 Finite Element Model of the Stabilized Subgrade ............................................ 38
3.2.1 Description .................................................................................................... 38
3.2.2 Materials Properties ...................................................................................... 40
3.2.3 Loading and Boundary Conditions ............................................................... 41
7
3.2.4 Model Mesh and Element Type .................................................................... 44

3.3 FWD Validation Finite Element Model ............................................................ 45
3.3.1 Description .................................................................................................... 45
3.3.2 Material Properties ........................................................................................ 46
3.4 Tensile Strain FE Model ................................................................................... 49
3.4.1 Description .................................................................................................... 49
3.4.2 Material Properties ........................................................................................ 51
3.5 Backcalculation Methodology .......................................................................... 53
Chapter 4 Results and Discussions ................................................................................... 54
4.1 First Model Results ........................................................................................... 54
4.2 Criterion ............................................................................................................ 59
4.3 Backcalculation Analysis Results ..................................................................... 63
4.4 Backcalculation Results Comparisons .............................................................. 67
4.5 Resilient Modulus under PCC and AC Pavement ............................................ 69
4.6 Backcalculation Validation Model ................................................................... 71
Chapter 5 Long Term Performance of Flexible Pavement with Stabilized Subgrade... 73
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 73
5.2 Effective Structural Numbers ........................................................................... 73
5.3 Structural Coefficients ...................................................................................... 77
5.4 Resilient Modulus of the Stabilized Subgrade .................................................. 81
Chapter 6 Incorporating the Benefits of Subgrade Stabilization into Pavement Design .. 84
6.1 Existing Design Procedure of Flexible Pavement ............................................ 84
6.2 Design Thickness of the Flexible Pavement ..................................................... 85
6.3 Considering the Stabilized Subgrade Layers as a Subbase Layer .................... 88
6.4 Design Example Using MEPDG ...................................................................... 88
6.5 Recommended Design Input for MEPDG ........................................................ 92
6.6 Incorporating Subgrade Stabilization into AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design . 93
8
6.7 Design Example using Chou’s Procedure......................................................... 94

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................. 97
7.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 97
7.1.1 Finite Element Analysis ................................................................................ 97
7.1.2 Backcalculation Analysis .............................................................................. 99
7.1.3 Backcalculation Results Validation .............................................................. 99
7.1.4 Structural Number and Structural Coefficients............................................. 99
7.1.5 Flexible Pavement Design .......................................................................... 100
7.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 101
References ....................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Backcalculation of Pavement Modulus ..................................................... 111
Appendix B: Granular Base Comparison ....................................................................... 145
Appendix C: Backcalculation Validation ....................................................................... 154
Appendix D: Modulus 6.0 Backcalculation Software .................................................... 157
9
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1: Cement stabilized sites ..................................................................................20
Table 1.2: Lime stabilized sites ......................................................................................21
Table 2.1: Summery of correlations between the unconfined compressive strength and
modulus ...........................................................................................................................27
Table 2.2: Existing baclcalculation software (William, 1999) .......................................34
Table 3.1: Elastic materials properties of the selected soils obtained from Chou et al
(2004) ..............................................................................................................................41
Table 4.1: The minimum thicknesses of stabilized layer required to satisfy the allowable
vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer to prevent pavement damage due
to rutting for each number of load repetitions and stabilization percent of lime and cement
stabilizers ........................................................................................................................61
Table 4.2: Backcalculation results obtained from FWD test data using MODULUS 6.0
software from some tested sites ......................................................................................63
Table 4.3: Resilient moduli values of the stabilized subgrade and granular base layers
calculated based on the FWD and DCP tests ..................................................................69
Table 5.1: The calculated effective structural number for each sites .............................76
Table 5.2: Pavement layers thicknesses with the structural number used to calculate the
structural coefficients ......................................................................................................79
Table 5.3: structural coefficient calculated by solving the SN equation for all sites
simultaneously ................................................................................................................80
10
Table 5.4: Resilient modulus of stabilized subgrade after several year of construction
.........................................................................................................................................82
Table 6.1: Input parameters for the two trails in MEPDG software ...............................89
Table A1: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for FAY71 site .......................111
Table A2: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for CLE-133 site ....................113
Table A3: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for PIC-SR56 site...................115
Table A4: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for SUM-224 site ...................117
Table A5: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for WAR-SR48 site ...............119
Table A6: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for DEF247.96 site ................121
Table A7: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for DEF24.10.73 site .............123
Table A8: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for DEL-23 site ......................125
Table A9: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for LUC2.0 site ......................128
Table A10: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for POR43 site .....................130
Table A11: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for SUM80.13A site ............132
Table A12: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for ATB90 site .....................134
Table A13: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for CLE-275 site ..................136
Table A14: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for MOT-70 site ...................138
Table A15: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for PAU-24 site ....................140
Table A16: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for BUT-75 site ....................142
Table A17: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for ERI2-CEMENT site .......143
Table A18: Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for ERI2-LIME site .............144
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Strength gain of lime stabilized subgrade at 7 days and after (Little et
al,1995) ...........................................................................................................................26
Figure 2.2: FWD testing device retrieved from (ASTM, 2000) .....................................33
Figure 3.1: Axisymmetric model geometry of the stabilized subgrade..........................39
Figure 3.2: Contact area of the dual tires on the flexible pavement Huang (2004) .......42
Figure 3.3: Boundary conditions and model mesh .........................................................44
Figure 3.4: General model geometry ..............................................................................46
Figure 3.5: The boundary conditions and model mesh ..................................................48
Figure 3.6: Model layout, mesh, and boundary conditions ............................................50
Figure 3.7: Equivalent contact area for a dual tires (Huang 1993) ................................52
Figure 4.1: Vertical compressive strains on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement..................................................55
Figure 4.2: Vertical compressive strains on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime ....................................................55
Figure 4.3: Vertical compressive stress on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement..................................................56
Figure 4.4: Vertical compressive stresses on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime ....................................................56
Figure 4.5: Vertical displacement of the natural subgrade versus stabilized subgrade
thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement .................................................................57

12
Figure 4.6: Vertical displacement of the natural subgrade versus stabilized subgrade
thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime ...................................................................57
Figure 4.7: Decreasing percentage of the vertical strain with different stabilized
thicknesses ......................................................................................................................58
Figure 4.8: Vertical compressive strains at the top of the subgrade layer under stabilized
layer stabilized with lime and cement .............................................................................58
Figure 4.9: Minimum thicknesses of stabilized layer stabilized with lime and cement
required to satisfy allowable vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer
corresponding to the expected construction traffic .........................................................60
Figure 4.10: Back-calculated moduli data spread of the base and stabilized subgrade
layer from all sections around the upper and lower bounds ...........................................65
Figure 4.11: Data points spread of CLE-SR133-019.10 site obtained from the
backcalculation ...............................................................................................................66
Figure 4.12: Data points spread of SUM-US224-011.24 site obtained from the
backcalculation analysis..................................................................................................67
Figure 4.13: Stabilized Subgrade moduli from both FWD and DCP tests.....................68
Figure 4.14: Granular base moduli from both FWD and DCP tests ..............................68
Figure 4.15: The average stiffness of stabilized subgrade and base layer under AC and
PCC pavements based on DCP test ................................................................................70
Figure 4.16: Comparison between the measured and finite element calculated deflection
basins for different pavement sections ............................................................................72
Figure 5.1: Effective structural numbers for each site with different ages ....................77
13
Figure 5.2: Resilient modulus of the stabilized subgrade with age for each site ...........82
Figure 6.1: Effect of the stabilization of subgrade on the tensile strain at bottom of AC
layer in the traffic direction.............................................................................................86
Figure 6.2: Effect of the stabilization of the subgrade on the tensile strain at the bottom of
AC layer transverse to the traffic direction .....................................................................87
Figure 6.3: Predicted AC bottom-up damage when the stabilized layer is not included
.........................................................................................................................................90
Figure 6.4: Predicted AC bottom-up damage when the stabilized layer is included .....90
Figure 6.5: Permanent deformations when the stabilized layer is not included .............91
Figure 6.6: Permanent deformations when the stabilized layer is included ...................91
Figure B1: The average backcalculated moduli spread for all sites .............................145
Figure B2: Backcalculated moduli spread of FAY-IR71-000.00 site obtained from the
backcalculation .............................................................................................................145
Figure B3: Backcalculated moduli spread of PIC-SR56-026.45site obtained from the
Figure B4: Backcalculated moduli spread of SUM-US224-011.24site obtained from the
Figure B5: Backcalculated moduli spread of WAR-SR48-021.74 site obtained from the
Figure B6: Backcalculated moduli spread of DEF-US24-007.96 site obtained from the
14
Figure B7: Backcalculated moduli spread of ATB-IR90-003.70 site obtained from the
Figure B8: Backcalculated moduli spread of CLE-IR275-013.79 site obtained from the
Figure B9: Backcalculated moduli spread of MOT-IR70-017.04 site obtained from the
Figure B10: Backcalculated moduli spread of PAU-US24-012.30 site obtained from the
Figure B11: Backcalculated moduli spread of LUC-SR2-011.77 site obtained from the
Figure B12: Backcalculated moduli spread of POR-SR43-023.59 site obtained from the
Figure B13: Backcalculated moduli spread of SUM-SR8-013.30 site obtained from the
Figure B14: Backcalculated moduli spread of DEL-US23-020.08 site obtained from the
Figure B15: Backcalculated moduli spread of all sites obtained from the backcalculation
.......................................................................................................................................152
Figure B16: Backcalculated moduli spread of cement stabilized sites obtained from the
Figure B17: Backcalculated moduli spread of lime stabilized sites obtained from the
15
Figure C1: Comparison between the measured and finite element calculated deflection
Basins for different pavement sections ........................................................................156
Figure D1: Main window of Modulus 6.0 (Liu and Scullion, 2001) ...........................158
Figure D2: Comment file window (Liu and Scullion, 2001) .......................................160
Figure D3: Importing non-standard data (Liu and Scullion, 2001) ..............................160
Figure D4: Backcalculation routine window (Liu and Scullion, 2001) .......................161
Figure D5: Temperature data extracted from FWD file by MODULUS (Liu and Scullion,
2001) .............................................................................................................................163
Figure D6: Graphical results after running backcalculation routine (Liu and Scullion,
2001) .............................................................................................................................163
Figure D7: Backcalculation results in a tabular form (Liu and Scullion, 2001) ..........164
16
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Roadbeds are considered the most problematic components in pavement design and
construction. Their engineering properties differ significantly in terms of soil
composition, gradation, and strength parameters. Soil stabilization techniques have been
widely used to improve the engineering properties of roadbed soils. Stabilized soil with
lime or portland cement provides a strong roadbed that can carry traffic loads and reduce
pavement failure. The use of lime and cement has been increased recently in the United
States to modify subgrade and base materials due to the lack of high quality aggregate in
many areas as well as for economic purposes. Generally, during the construction period,
construction vehicles are run over the bare subgrade layers to provide construction sites
with the necessary supplies. Such practices can harm the roadbed by causing an excessive
deformation on the bare subgrade layers which later can be a major cause of the whole
pavement rutting. The level of stresses applied to the subgrade by construction vehicles is
likely to be higher than the level of stresses that the subgrade layer might experience after
construction. However, subgrade layers can be protected before constructing the whole
pavement by providing a suitable stabilized subgrade thickness to reduce these
deformations. Soil stabilization of subgrade not only provides a strong platform to the
flexible pavement but also improves pavement performances under traffic loading and
increases service life. Therefore, in this thesis, theoretical and experimental practices are
17
provided to show the effect of the stabilization of subgrade on flexible pavement
performance and design.
1.2 Research Objectives
Soil stabilization techniques have been widely used in the United States to
improve soil engineering properties for construction and design purposes. Therefore, it is
desirable to study the benefits of the subgrade stabilization and the amount of structural
support that the stabilized subgrade soils offer to the pavement structure. Therefore, the
first primary objective of this research shall be to evaluate the longevity and durability of
chemically stabilized subgrade soils. In order to do so, a comprehensive field
investigation should be carried out on different in-service pavement structures
constructed with stabilized subgrade.
The natural subgrade experiences high stress and strain levels during construction
under construction vehicles which can damage the subgrade by causing excessive
deformation. This deformation increases the potential of pavement rutting later.
Pavement rutting is one of the most problematic phenomena in the flexible pavement
which is primarily caused by the vertical compressive strain at the top of the natural
subgrade. However, soil stabilization is one of the effective solutions that can be utilized
to reduce the amount of compressive strain in the subgrade. Very limited information is
available in literature regarding this matter. Therefore, the second objective in this
research is to study the level and nature of stresses and strains on untreated subgrade
under the stabilized subgrade layer. In order to meet this objective, a finite element
analysis will be conducted using the commercial software ABAQUS. Also the results
18
obtained from this theoretical analysis will be used to determine what thicknesses and
minimum strength of chemically stabilized layer is necessary for construction and
pavement design purposes.
Soil stabilization is a chemical and physical change in the soil engineering
properties that can enhance the structural strength of the soil by increasing its shear
strength and stiffness over time. Therefore, the main focus of this thesis is to incorporate
the benefits of subgrade stabilization into the flexible pavement design. Most federal
agencies do not take into account the structural strength of chemically stabilized
subgrade.
In order to meet these objectives, several tasks shall be conducted. The first task
involves conducting a literature review about previous related work and appropriate finite
element modeling techniques of flexible pavements. The second primary task in this
research is the development of a finite element model that simulates two-layer system
subjected to a construction load to study the level and nature of the stresses and strained
induced in the natural subgrade under stabilized layer. Also the results obtained from the
second task will be utilized to determine the minimum thicknesses of stabilized layer
necessary to protect the subgrade during construction. The third task will be identifying
field sites within Ohio for the testing program. The sites should be constructed with
stabilized subgrade, stabilized with lime and cement. A minimum of 20 sites with various
characterizations and ages shall be located. The forth task shall involve conducting FWD
and DCP field testing on the selected sites. The data collected from these nondestructive
field tests shall be utilized to back-calculate the resilient moduli of the pavement layers.
19
The back-calculated resilient moduli will be utilized to study the pavement structural
stability and long term performance of the flexible pavement constructed over chemically
stabilized subgrade soils. Additionally, the field data will be used to determine the
effective structure numbers and the structural coefficients of the tested sites for
evaluation and design purposes. The final primary research task shall be conducting
pavement analysis to evaluate the structural contribution of the subgrade chemical
stabilization. The analysis will involve creating a finite element model of the pavement
structure to study the effect of including subgrade stabilization in the pavement structure
on the pavement performance. Finally, the results obtained from both field testing and
finite element analysis shall be used to recommend design parameters for the
mechanistic-empirical design guide and the AASHTO 1993 design procedure.
Additionally, the recommended AASTHO 1993 design procedure will be compared with
one proposed by Chou et al (2004).
The outcomes of this research shall provide a better understanding of the benefits
of subgrade chemical stabilization in pavement design and construction. A lot of money
and effort could be saved by using the soil stabilization techniques since it is a vital
solution to protect the natural subgrade soils from being over stressed by construction
traffic. Also it eliminates the need of excavations and replacing the original soils. The
state and federal agencies shall be able to design economic long lasting pavements since
the subgrade stabilization holds great potential for reducing the pavement thickness
which is considered a cost-effective.

20
1.3 Site Selections
Flexible pavements are widely used in the state of Ohio. Most of the roads are
constructed over stabilized subgrades, which are stabilized with different stabilizing
agents. However, only sites stabilized with lime and cement were considered in this
report. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 list the selected sites for testing program.
Table 1.1 Cement stabilized sites
Pavement Stabilized
Project County-Route- Average
PID Length Pavement Thickness Thickness
Number Section % Mix
(in) (in)
ATB‐IR90‐
50108 24591 003.70 3.86 PCC 13 12 6.49
FAY‐IR71‐
30134 6225 000.00 9.45 AC 14.75 12 6.32
MOT‐IR70‐
50465 22935 017.04 6.95 PCC 14 12 5.77
76191 FRA‐I270‐2.60 7.02 PCC 13.5 12 6
SUM‐US224‐
40233 8577 011.24 2.03 AC 12 16 6.54
DEL‐US23‐
20528 25628 020.08 0.54 AC 12.75 16 7.3
LUC‐SR2‐
60116 12776 011.77 2.01 AC 9.75 16 6.59
LUC‐SR2‐
60131 23572 032.78 1.07 AC 11.25 16 8.07
SAN‐SR53‐
50106 9443 010.15 2.75 AC 12.25 12 8.11
SUM‐SR8‐
80581 24507 013.30 2.3 AC 9.25 12 4.3
TRU‐SR82‐
30511 11044 025.24 0.53 AC 9.25 12 7.26
PIC‐SR56‐
60018 25693 026.45 0.61 AC 7 12 5.02
CLE‐SR133‐
60469 14252 019.10 0.41 AC 8.25 12 5.7
WAR‐SR48‐
40542 22351 021.74 0.2 AC 7 16 6.08
21
Table 1.2 Lime stabilized sites
Pavement Stabilized
Project County-Route- Average %
PID Length Pavement Thickness Thickness
Number Section Mix
(in) (in)
BUT-IR75-
80246 75971 005.91 15.08 AC 12.25 12 5.26
CLE-IR275-
50007 25523 013.79 22.6 PCC 12 9 5.01
DEF-US24-
60087 24337 007.96 2.92 AC 14 16 7
DEF-US24-
80214 82497 010.73 1.3 AC 14.5 16 5.29
PAU-US24-
70078 24336 012.30 10.4 PCC 12.5 16 5.28
DEF-SR66-
101000 25098 007.37 0.31 PCC 8 14 7.42
POR-SR43-
91054 78243 023.59 2.15 AC 9 14 4.73
3% lime &
11376 ERI-SR2-12.58 8.26 AC 14.5 12 3% cement
No
11377 ERI-SR2-12.59 9.26 AC 14.5 12 stabilization
11378 ERI-SR2-12.60 10.26 AC 14.5 12 6% cement
11379 ERI-SR2-12.61 11.26 AC 14.5 12 5% lime
FRA-CR3-
70081 14537 24.51 1.93 AC 14.25 12 4.94
1.4 Thesis Organization
Chapter one in this study includes an introduction about the benefits of subgrade
stabilization in pavement design and construction to provide a strong foundation to
support the flexible pavement to carry traffic loading in addition to the objectives and
sites selection. Chapter two in this thesis gives a review of the literature of related topics
and supporting sources. Chapter three essentially deals with the methodology followed to
meet the report objectives. Chapter four is the core chapter of this thesis where all results
from both theoretical and experimental investigation are presented and discussed.
Chapter five addresses the durability and long term performance of chemically stabilized
22
subgrade layers. Flexible pavement design procedures are reviewed and a new design
procedure is proposed in chapter six. Finally, conclusions are drawn and
recommendations are suggested in chapter seven. In addition, appendices are provided to
include all the results that are not presented in chapter five due to the large amount.
23
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a review of literature was done to have some sense of how the
previous related work has been conducted. Procedures and preliminary data were also
studied and obtained to help meet the thesis objectives.
2.2 Background
Clayey, silty and sandy fine-grained soils exist locally in the state of Ohio. Such
soils become extremely weak when they are exposed to a high percent of moisture. Soil
stabilization techniques have been proven to modify such soils and improve their
engineering properties. Chemically stabilized soils are able to provide a strong foundation
to the pavement structure to carry traffic loading of the construction vehicles during and
after construction with small deformations (Chou et al, 2004). Strength improvement of
stabilized soils comes as a result of the chemical reaction between soils and the stabilizer,
such as cement and lime. Generally, cement stabilizer is found to best react with sandy
and course-grained soils, while lime reacts effectively with clayed and silty soils.
However, this chemical reaction varies depending on the soil type and whether or not the
treated soil is responsive to such stabilizer (Chou et al, 2004). The ODOT Construction
Inspection Design Manual (2002) recommends cement stabilization for A-3-a, A-4-a, A-
4-b, A-6-a, and A-6-b soils while lime stabilization is recommended for the fine-grained
soils classified as A-7-6 or A-6-b.
A laboratory and an experimental investigation were carried out by Chou and his
colleagues (2004) to study the structural benefits of soil stabilization. The laboratory
24
results showed that strength characteristics of chemically stabilized soils exhibit higher
strength at early age than the non-stabilized soils in terms of resilient modulus,
unconfined compressive strength, and the California bearing ratio. Also the experimental
results obtained from Dynamic Cone Pentrometer (DCP) showed that the field strength of
the stabilized soils is still higher than the non-stabilized soils after several years of
service. However, most transportation agencies do not take into account the benefits of
stabilization in the flexible pavement design.
2.3 Early Age Strength Gain of Stabilized Subgrade Soils
Soil stabilization with lime and cement has been effectively used to improve the
engineering properties of fine-grained subgrade soils and provide a strong platform to
carry construction traffic at early age. Chou et al (2004) investigated the early strength
gain for fine-grained soils that are considered the weakest in the Ohio region through
laboratory testing. The results showed that the resilient modulus, California bearing ratio
and unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized subgrade soils with lime and
cement are in all cases higher than the un-stabilized soils. They also concluded that
subgrade soils stabilized with cement have higher strength gain at an early age (after 7
days curing) than lime-stabilized soils. However, lime-stabilized soils have higher
strength gain than cement after several years due to the pozzolanic reaction. Little et al
(1995) evaluated the structural benefits of chemically stabilized subgrade and base soils
through laboratory and field testing. They noticed lime stabilized soils are influenced
mainly by the pozzolanic reactivity between the lime and soil. A sufficient amount of
lime is necessary to develop this reaction. Although the pozzolanic reaction is slow in
25
nature and depends on soil reactivity to the stabilizer, strength gain at early age is still
higher than the non-stabilized soils, and it increases dramatically over time as shown in
Figure 2.1. He also concluded that this increasing in soil’s strength and stiffness due to
lime stabilization provides a good protection layer over the natural subgrade from the
high stress level induced in the subgrade by traffic loading, which may result in a severe
rutting in the pavement. In addition, the strong stabilized layer not only protects the
underlying layer but also provides a good support to the overlaying layers such as the
base and HMA layers. On the other hand, early strength gains in cement stabilized
subgrades are more rapid than lime stabilized subgrade. The unconfined compressive
strength (USC) of the cement stabilized subgrade during the first 7 days is more than
50% of the USC at the age of 28 days. Also the strength gain in subgrade soils stabilized
with Portland cement continues over time; however, a significant strength can be
achieved at the age of 28 days with curing. Cement stabilized subgrade soils should be
treated as a structural slab due to its considerable strength or stiffness (Little et al, 1995).
Therefore, cement stabilized layers can be utilized as a protection layer over the untreated
subgrade in order to reduce the severity of stress induced in the subgrade under
construction vehicles. Also it provides a better foundation or support to the overlying
layers during and after construction of pavements.

26
Figure 2.1 Strength gain of lime stabilized subgrade at 7 days and after (Little et al,1995)
2.4 Resilient Modulus (MR) and Unconfined Compressive Strength (USC)
Relationships
The resilient modulus test data of chemically stabilized subgrade soils in Ohio is
very limited in literature due to the complexity of the test and the time it requires to
properly perform it, making it uncommon. However, the unconfined compressive
strength (USC) test is more common and easier than the resilient modulus test. Thus, its
data is readily available in literature which is essentially used for construction purposes
of pavement layers’ materials (Rao et al, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the
resilient modulus of the chemically stabilized materials based on the unconfined
compressive strength data. Reviewing the literature about the correlations between the
27
UCS and MR, it was found that there is a wide range of correlations that correlate MR and
UCS. However, the most appropriate ones are summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Summery of correlations between the unconfined compressive strength and
modulus
Correlation Source of the Best for

Correlation
500 American Coal Lime-cement-flyash
Ash Pavement stabilized soils
Manual (1990)
1200 Barenberg (1977) Cement stabilized
coarse-grained sandy
soils
440 Barenberg (1977) Cement stabilized
0.28 fine-grained soils
0.124 9.98 Thompson (1966) Lime stabilized soils

0.25 McClelland Lime-cement-flyash
Engineers mixtures
(unpublished)
.
2240 1100 Australian Road
Research
Laboratory (1998)
Where UCS = unconfined compressive strength
Little et al (2002) investigated the MR-UCS correlations. The investigation
demonstrated that the correlations proposed by Barenberg (1977) are in good agreement
with laboratory testing of the resilient modulus. It was also noticed that Barenberg’s
correlations produce resilient modulus that is very close to the average values of all other
correlations. For this reason, the Barenberg correlation of the cement stabilized fine-
grained soils was adopted in this study to estimate to resilient modulus of cement
stabilized subgrade at early age based on UCS. Little et al (2002) also found that the
28
adopted correlation produces very reasonable resilient modulus values when the
unconfined compressive strength of the treated soil lies within the range of 100 to 1500
psi. For lime stabilized subgrade soils, Thompson’s (1966) correlation can be used to
estimate the resilient modulus based on the unconfined compressive strength (AASHTO,
2008, Mallela et al, 2004). Toohey et al (2013) studied Thompson’s correlation through
laboratory testing on lime stabilized soil samples. They concluded that Thompson’s
correlation produces a lower-bound estimate for the resilient modulus from UCS.
However, it would be reasonable to use it in this study since the early age strength gain of
the lime stabilized soils is somewhat slow. Thus, Barenberg’s (1977) correlation and
Thompson’s (1966) correlation were chosen in this study to estimate the resilient
modulus of cement and lime stabilized subgrade from UCS data. Chou et al (2004)
investigated the early age strength of chemically stabilized subgrade with lime and
cement at different percentages (6, 9, 12 % cement &5, 10, 15 % lime) through
laboratory testing such as CBR and UCS. His results of UCS along with selected Mr-
UCS correlation will be used to calculate the resilient modulus of the stabilized subgrade
at early age. Then the calculated modulus will be used later as a material property in the
ABAQUS software to define the elastic properties of the stabilized layers.
2.5 Finite Element Simulation of Flexible Pavements
Finite element modeling of flexible pavement has been used by many researchers
during the past years to simulate pavement responses and investigate materials’ behavior
to different forms of traffic loading. Duncan (1968) was the first researcher who applied
finite element modeling to flexible pavement, which was essentially based on the elastic
29
theory. His approach was later adopted to develop computer programs such as ILLI-
PAVE (Raad et.al 1980), MICHI-PAVE (Harichandran et.al 1989), and FLEXPASS
(Lytton. et.al 1990). All these FE-based programs were developed based on the elastic
theory to simulate elastic response of the flexible pavement. One of the disadvantages of
these FE programs is the inability to change or update material properties, load
configurations and boundary conditions, which are sometimes necessary to accurately
analyze and understand pavement responses (Wu.et al 2011). On the other hand,
commercial software such as ANSYS and ABAQUS provide users optimum flexibility to
manipulate a variety of FE models with sophisticated geometry and boundary conditions
(Wu et al 2011). These commercial softwres were used by many researchers to model
flexible pavement to investigate not only the elastic response for pavement materials, but
also plastic responses in different environmental conditions (Al-Qadi et al 2005, White
1998, Huang et al 2001).
Generally, there are three kinds of FE models that could be utilized to simulate
the flexible pavement: axisymmetric, plain strain (2-D), and three-dimensional (3-D).
However, the two- dimensional plain strain model will not be addressed since it is not
adopted for this study. A 3D model is capable of simulating complex isotropic and
anisotropic material behavior and various load configurations which best mimic the
actual conditions of the pavement structure. However, it requires a lot of input parameters
and computational times (Howard et al, 2009). Particularly, it is the best model when it
comes to predicting micro cracking and fractures’ responses of the pavement (Desai,
2007). Many researchers have adopted this modeling approach to simulate flexible
30
pavement due to its ability to produce reasonable results (Desai 2002, White 1989,
Erkens et al 2002, Saad et al 2005, Wu et al 2011, and William 1999). On the other hand,
the axisymmetric model can also be used to simulate the flexible pavement, which is
basically a 2D structure pivoting around a central axis by assuming a constant radial
stress. The load in axisymmetric model is applied over a circular area with a diameter
typically of 12 inches. A 3D model structure can usually be converted to a 2D model and
analyzed by using an axisymmetric model structure with cylindrical coordinates
especially when the user is not interested in the stresses and strains in the horizontal or
radial direction (Wu et al 2011). Axisymmetric FE model usually are used to predict
permanent deformation of the subgrade layer in the flexible pavement which is caused by
the vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade layer. Wu et al (2011)
constructed an axisymmetric model to investigate the permanent deformation of the base
and subgrade layers. Hornych and EI Abd (2004) also created an axisymmetric model to
simulate the permanent deformation of granular layers in the road pavements. Helwany et
al (1998) created an axisymmetric finite element model to simulate the response of a
three-layer pavement system subjected to different types of load configurations. Howard
and Warren (2009) also developed an axisymmetric finite element model to investigate
flexible pavement responses under mechanistic loading conditions for empirical design
purposes.
Several researchers have investigated the difference in the results obtained from
both 2-D axisymmetric models and 3-D models. Desai (2007) compared the results
obtained from 2-D and 3-D finite element models of the flexible pavement and reported
31
that the estimated stresses and strains from the two models were not significantly
different. On the other hand, Cho et al (1996) compared the results obtained from
axisymmetric and 3-D models in pavement analysis and concluded that axisymmetric
models provide appropriate results for the traffic loading analysis. Carvalho et al (2006)
conducted a study to select a suitable dimensionality for a finite element response model
in MEPDG design software. It was found that the finite element response model did not
significantly affect the accuracy of the responses unlike other input design parameters.
Therefore, the axisymmetric model was chosen and incorporated into MEPDG due to its
ability to perform the analysis much faster than the 3-D model.
Based on the previous literature review, both axisymmetric and 3D finite element
models will be utilized to simulate flexible pavement structures for different analysis
purposes. The axisymmetric model will be utilized to study the effect of subgrade
stabilization on the stress and strain induced on the top of the natural subgrade layer
during the construction period by heavy construction vehicles which are run over the
subgrade layers to provide the project with the necessary supplements. Also it will be
used to simulate the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test in order to validate the
results obtained from the backcalculation process. On the other hand, the 3D finite
element model will be adopted to study the effect of the stabilization on the tensile strain
at the bottom of the surface layer under traffic loading, which is known to be the major
cause of the flexible pavement cracking.

32
2.6 Backcalculation
An analysis performed to estimate the elastic modulus of pavement layers based
on measured deflections at a specific load. Several methods could be used to implement
this analysis. These methods are iteration, searching the database, two-layered pavement
systems solution (closed form), and predictive equations (regression equations). The
database search technique is adopted for this report since computer software can readily
perform it in a matter of seconds. The database search process is basically done by
searching the previously calculated modulus values from different pavement structures
and finds the modulus values that best match the ones estimated from the measured
deflection basins (ASTM D, 2006).
2.7 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
This device is one of the most commonly used nondestructive testing devices to
evaluate and test the structural characteristics of pavement layers for rehabilitation and
performance studies. This testing device can mimic the load exerted on the pavement
surface layer by a single heavy moving wheel in terms of magnitude and duration.
Pavement responses to that dynamic load are then read by deflections underneath each
geophone of this device. The deflection basin formed by individual deflections along
with pavement layers’ thickness can be utilized to estimate elastic moduli of pavement
layers in addition to the bearing capacity and the service life remaining in the tested
pavement structure (Scullion, 2006).

33
Figure 2.2 FWD testing device retrieved from (ASTM, 2000)
2.8 Backcalculation Software
Reviewing the literature about backcalculation programs, it appeared there are
more than sixteen backcalculation programs available and valid in the market as
summarized in Table 2.2. A comprehensive study was conducted by the Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP) in 1993 to evaluate the available backcalculation
programs in terms of reasonability of the results, amount of error between measured and
calculated deflection basins, and feasibility. MODULUS was found to best estimate
moduli values with a reasonable match between measured and calculated deflection;
however, one flaw was found in this software, which is the need of measuring the
deflection at specific geophone locations (SHRP, 1991). A researcher from West Virginia
University compared the baclcalculated moduli obtained from MOUDLUS and three
other baclcalculation softwares that were used to evaluate layer moduli for three different
34
pavement structures (flexible, rigid and composite). This researcher concluded that
MODULUS software provides persistently reasonable subgrade layers moduli which
were quite close to the moduli values obtained from the laboratory (William, 1999).
Table 2.2 Existing baclcalculation software (William, 1999)
Software Name Developed by Theoretical Analysis Subroutine Method of

Method Used for the Backcalculaton
Analysis
MODULUS Texas Multilayer elastic WESLEA Data Base
Transportation
Institute
EVERCALC J. Mahoney Multilayer elastic CHEVRON Iterative
EMOD PCS/LAW Multilayer elastic CHEVRON Iterative
COMDEF M. Anderson Multilayer elastic BISAR Data Base
BISDEF USACE-WES Multilayer elastic BISAR Iterative
CHEVDEF USACE-WES Multilayer elastic CHEVRON Iterative
CLEVERCALC Royal Institute of Multilayer elastic CHEVRON Iterative
Technology,
Sweden
ELSDEF Texas A&M Multilayer elastic ELSYM5 Iterative
University,
USACE-WES
FPEDDI W. Uddin Multilayer elastic BASINPT Iterative
MICHBACK Michigan State Multilayer elastic CHEVRON Iterative
University
WESDEF USACE-WES Multilayer elastic WESLEA Iterative
PADAL S.F.Brown el al. Multilayer elastic PADAL Iterative
ILLI-CALC University of Nonlinear elasto- ILLIPAVE Iterative
Illinois static finite element
modeling
ILLIBACK University of Plate on elastic ILLIBACK Closed form
Illinois foundation theory solution
ISSEM4 R.Stubstad Multilayer elastic ELSYM5 Iterative
2.9 Software Selection
After reviewing the available literature about the best backcalculation software
program to be used in estimating elastic modulus of the pavement layers, it was found
35
that MODULUS is capable of producing reliable results especially for stabilized and non-
stabilized subgrade layers, which are essentially utilized in pavement performance
evaluation studies on both long and short terms under traffic loading (SHRP, 1991,
William, 1999). Therefore, MODULUS 6.0 was chosen throughout this thesis to
investigate pavement behavior with stabilized subgrade layers after being in service for
more than two years.
2.10 MOUDLUS
The Texas Transportation Institute has developed and used MODULUS since
1990 to evaluate and calculate modulus values for pavement structural design and
performance evaluations. The program was first designed to be run on a DOS system and
then improved to the Windows computer platform which makes the program user
friendly (Liu and Scullion, 2001). The most recent version, MODULUS 6.0 utilizes
WESLEA subroutine for forward modulus calculations. This subroutine program is
essentially based on multilayer linear elasto-static theory, which is conventionally
adopted for flexible pavement analysis. Basically, it is used to generate a database of
previously calculated deflection basins for several pavement structures and then search in
this database to find the layers’ modulus values that best match the ones estimated from
the measured deflection basins (William, 1999).
2.11 Long-Term Performance of Pavements with Stabilized Subgrade
Subgrade stabilization with cement, lime and other additives has been
investigated by many researchers in order to evaluate the long term performance of such
layers under traffic loading. Little (2000) studied the long term performance of lime
36
stabilized subgrade. He used the AASHTO T 294 procedure to back calculate the resilient
modulus of the stabilized subgrade from falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing
performed on both stabilized and non-stabilized soils, and he reported that the resilient
modulus of lime stabilized soils was 1000 percent higher than the untreated soils.
Hopkins et al (2002) conducted in situ and laboratory tests on several roads with
both stabilized and non-stabilized subgrade layers in order to investigate the long-term
performance and the advantages of stabilization for poor subgrade layers. The field and
laboratory tests performed on these roads were CBR, FWD, resilient modulus, and index
tests. These tests were performed on both stabilized and non-stabilized subgrade layers.
Results showed that roads with stabilized subgrade had in situ CBR value approximately
12-30 times greater than the non-stabilized ones. It was also observed from back
calculations of FWD data that stabilized subgrade layers showed an elastic modulus
roughly twice as high as the non-stabilized ones. Also, resilient moduli of the untreated
subgrade were lower than the treated ones.
Parsons and Milburn (2003) performed a series of laboratory tests such as
modulus, freeze-thaw, dry-wet, swell and USC to investigate the effect of stabilization on
the structural performance of different kinds of weak soils. These soils were classified as
ML, CH, SM and CL based on the USCS classification system and were stabilized with
cement, lime, enzymatic stabilizer and CFA. The results showed that soils stabilized with
lime and cement exhibit superior performance for different kinds of soils.
Snethen et al (2008) studied the influence of stabilization on the strength and
structural improvement of stabilized subgrade- stabilized with lime, cement and other
37
additives- by conducting several laboratory and field tests. Unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) and Resilient Modulus tests (laboratory and field) were conducted on
stabilized and non-stabilized soil samples at different times during the construction. Also,
they conducted a series of field tests such as FWD, DCP and others at five sites
constructed on both stabilized and non-stabilized subgrade soils with time. They
concluded that both laboratory and field tests’ results exhibit a gradual increase of
strength and the structural improvement with time. They also concluded FWD and DCP
test results produce a very good measure of the long term performance of the stabilized
subgrade.
A similar approach of studying the long term performance of chemically
stabilized subgrade will be followed in this study. Field tests, namely FWD and DCP,
will be conducted on more than 20 roads constructed several years ago over cement and
lime stabilized subgrade soils. The resilient moduli obtained from such field tests for
these sites will be compared with resilient moduli collected during the construction
period.
38
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, three finite element models are presented and described. The first
FE model was created to study the effect of subgrade stabilization on the nature and
behavior of stresses and strains on the top of the natural subgrade. The second model was
developed to simulate the Falling Weight Defelctometer (FWD) Test which was used
later to validate the results obtained from the backcalculation of the resilient modulus of
the pavement layers. The last model was developed to study the effect of the subgrade
stabilization on the tensile strain at the bottom of the surface layer. All these models were
developed using the commercial software ABAQUS which is considered to be best FE
program in terms of efficiency of analysis and economy (Ameri et al, 2012, White et al,
2002, Salgado & Kim, 2002, and Seelam et al, 2005).
3.2 Finite Element Model of the Stabilized Subgrade
3.2.1 Description
This model essentially is an axisymmetric FE model developed to simulate a two-
layered system of the pavement structure. The first layer is basically the natural subgrade
and the second layer is a stabilized subgrade. The stabilized layer essentially consists of
the same natural subgrade material in addition to some kind of stabilizer such as lime or
cement. Typically, the stabilized subgrade is located directly over the natural subgrade. In
this model, the thickness of the natural subgrade layer is kept constant at a specific depth,
while, the stabilized layer thickness was changed during the analysis over a range of (3-
45) inches for each soil type. The model

39
geometry is basically of 30 inches in radius, and the total depth varied based on the
stabilized thickness chosen for the analysis, as shown in Figure 3.1. Similar model
dimensions, particularly radius, were used by Novak et al (2003) and Park et al (2012).
The natural subgrade depth is actually infinite in the distal end; however, for the analysis
purpose and boundary condition, it was assumed to be 50 inches. This assumption was
made based on the fact that there is no deformation after specific depth in the subgrade
(Abed and Al-Azzawi, 2012). In order to preserve continuity in the layer interface a tied
interface between subgrade and stabilized subgrade was used.
Axis of Symmetry
3-45 in Stabilized subgrade
Natural Subgrade
50 in
Radial Axis 30
Figure 3.1 Axisymmetric model geometry of the stabilized subgrade

40
3.2.2 Materials Properties
Although subgrade materials are known to exhibit a non-linear behavior (Allou et
al, 2007, White et al, 2002, Zaghloul and White, 1993), it was assumed in this model to
be homogenous isotropic linear elastic materials for simplicity (Ameri et al, 2012,
Holanda et al, 2006, Novak, 2003, De Beer et al, 1997, and Salehabadi, 2012). Nonlinear
behavior requires a lot of input parameters and computational time. Therefore, the
stabilized subgrade and natural subgrade materials were modeled in terms of the elastic
modulus and Poisson’s ratios. Elastic material properties of the stabilized and natural
subgrades were obtained from laboratory tests conducted by Chou et al (2004) to
examine the engineering properties of stabilized subgrade soils at early age (7 days
curing) in the state of Ohio for pavement design purposes. Two types of soil were used in
this study. These soils exist locally in Loren and Erie counties within Ohio. These soils
were classified as A-6a, A-6b, A-2-4, A-4a, and A-4b based on the ODOT classification
system. Each soil sample was treated with 5%, 10%, and15% lime and 6%, 9%, and 12%
cement and cured for 7 days. Such problematic soils exist generally in the Ohio region
(Lucht et al, 1985). Soils properties and input parameters for the soils are presented in the
following table 3.1. This data was utilized to define the material properties of the model’s
layers in ABAQUS.
41
Table 3.1 Elastic materials’ properties of the selected soils obtained from Chou et al
(2004)
Soil Type Stabilization Resilient Poisson’s Ratio

Modulus (psi)
Loren Raw 0% 10000.0 0.40
CL Lime 5% 14927.6 0.35
A-6a
10% 23334.8 0.35
15% 18250.8 0.35
Cement 6% 54230.1 0.35
9% 100865.6 0.35
12% 126974.5 0.35
Erie Raw 0% 10000.0 0.40
CL-ML Lime 5% 19069.2 0.35
A4b-4a, A-6a Cement 6% 53028.4 0.35
3.2.3 Loading and Boundary Conditions
In reality, the pavement is subjected to a moving load; however, several
researchers have used static traffic load in their analysis rather than dynamic load because
of the theoretical and practical difficulties involved in the analysis when using a dynamic
traffic load (Kim, 2002). Wu et al (2011) stated that the maximum stress at a specific
point in the pavement occurs when the wheel load is directly above it, while the stress
can be assumed zero when the load is quite far from that point. Therefore, it is reasonable
to consider a static loading in this model since loaded trucks sometimes need to be
stopped for a while during the construction of the road to provide the site with the
required construction materials and tools. A standard equivalent single axel load (18000
lb.) with dual tires has been considered in this model. The load was applied and
uniformly distributed over an equivalent circular area of the dual tires. Huang (2004) has
42
found that reasonable stress and deflection results can be obtained if the circle, on which
the load is applied, includes the contact area of the duals and the area between the duals;
otherwise the stress and deflection will be considerably large as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Contact area of the dual tires on the flexible pavement Huang (2004)
Let Pt is the load on one tire and Q is the contact pressure then the area of one tire is
0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5227

0.5227
Therefore, the equivalent area is equal to
2 0.5227 0.6 0.4454
This equation can be written in the following form after substituting L from the above
equation
43
0.8521
0.5227
And then the radius of the equivalent contact circular area is
0.8521

0.5227
Hu et al (2011) studied the effect of different spacing between dual tires on
fatigue damage of the asphalt pavements. An accelerated pavement testing was carried
out on the pavement with different dual spacing. The results showed that the difference in
the dual spacing was not actually significant when applying the load once; however, the
difference is significant when applying 200 million times of the repeated load. In our
analysis, the trucks are run over the stabilized subgrade during the construction period, so
it is impossible to reach 200 million times during that period of construction. Therefore,
the analysis is not significantly affected by the dual spacing used. Typically, the wheel
spacing of the single axle dual tires used by most researchers for pavement analysis is
13.5 inches, which is the spacing between the tires of a heavy truck (Chou, 1992, Alam et
all, 2012, and Abed and Al-Azzawi, 2012).Therefore, a 13.5 inches of distance between
the duals was used with a tire contact pressure of 80 psi. Plugging these values in the
above equation yields a contact area of 7.74 inches radius. The boundary conditions used
in this model were basically applied by restraining the horizontal and vertical movements
at the bottom of the subgrade since there is no deformation after a specific depth in the
subgrade layer. On the vertical sides of both layers, rollers were applied where no
horizontal movement is allowed. Figure 3.3 shows the boundary condition of the model.
44
Stabilized Subgrade
Natural Subgrade
Figure 3.3 Boundary conditions and model mesh
3.2.4 Model Mesh and Element Type
In order to obtain a desirable result with an acceptable degree of accuracy, care
should be taken when working on a mesh of geometry using FE software. It is known in
the finite element analysis that the smaller element is being used, the more accurate the
results obtained will be. Also it is prudent to use smaller elements at the area of interest in
a model. The model was run several times with different mesh configurations in order to
select an appropriate mesh with suitable element size. Therefore, a fine mesh was applied
45
at the center of the axisymmetric model where the load is concentrated and the data of
interest is located for both layers, and larger mesh was used as going away from the
center in order to reduce the number of integration and the time of analysis as shown in
Figure 3.3. The element type used in this model was CAX8R, an 8-node biquadratic
axisymmetric quadrilateral with reduced integration for more accurate result and shorter
run time.
3.3 FWD Validation Finite Element Model
3.3.1 Description
An axisymmetric finite element model also will be utilized to simulate this testing
device. This model will be constructed based on the multilayered system of flexible
pavement due to the softness of the asphalt materials and its response to the FWD load
(William, 1999). The model consists of four layers which are: asphalt concrete, base,
stabilized subgrade, and natural subgrade layer. The model dimensions were chosen to
cover the span of the seven sensors of this testing device which are separated by a
constant distance of 12 inches. Therefore the radius of the axisymmetric model is 72
inches. The depth of the model is varied based on the pavement layer thicknesses of the
studied sites. To preserve the continuity of the model in the vertical direction, suitable
interfaces between pavement layers should be considered. Therefore, a tied interface
between the base and stabilized subgrade and between the stabilized subgrade and natural
subgrade were assumed, while a frictional interface between the base and asphalt layer
with coefficient of friction of 0.9 was assumed. Figure 3.4 shows the general model
46
geometry. Due to the symmetry of model around the central axis in the vertical direction
only half of the structure was modeled.
Figure 3.4 General model geometry
3.3.2 Material Properties
The nature of the stresses induced in the pavement layers due to the standard
equivalent single axel load (18,000 lb), which is typically produced by the FWD testing
device, do not usually exceed the elastic limits of pavement materials (Mallela & George,
47
1994). Therefore, linear elastic materials for each layer are appropriate to be used to
simulate pavement behavior under FWD loading (William, 1999). Thus, linear elastic
pavement materials were assumed in this model. The material properties of each
pavement layer were modeled in terms of its elastic modulus, poisons’ ratio, and density,
which were obtained initially from the backcalculation results. These layer
characterizations are subject to change in case acceptable agreement between the
measured and estimated (from this model) deflection basins does not hold.
Practically, the FWD test device applies an impulsive load to the pavement
structure at specific frequency and time duration; therefore, a finite element modeling of
the traffic load may need to be developed by means to meet this dynamic characterization
of the FWD load (William, 1999). However, dynamic representation of FWD in some
cases shows considerable uncertainties in the obtained results, which makes it not an
optimum method (Hadidi & Gucunski, 2010). On the other hand, static representation of
the FWD load using finite element modeling has been widely used due to its simplicity
and its ability of producing a reasonable agreement between the measured and finite
element calculated deflection basins (Islam et al, 2010, and Al-Khateeb et al, 2011).
Therefore, in this model a static 9000 lb. single axel load distributed over a circular area,
the radius of which is 5.91 inches, was applied to simulate FWD loading. The boundary
conditions used in this model were fixed at the bottom of the subgrade layer due to the
assumption that there is no deflection beyond a specific depth, and rollers were used
along the model’s sides where no horizontal movement is allowed.

48
Similar to the previous model, a fine mesh was used under the plate load, and
courser mesh was used as moving away from the center of loading area for all layers.
This mesh configuration was chosen after running the model multiple times in order to
select the best mesh in terms of accuracy of the result and computational time. The
element type used in this model was CAX8R, an 8-node biquadratic axisymmetric
quadrilateral with reduced integration as shown in Figure.3.5.
HMA
Base
Stabilized subgrade
Subgrad
Figure 3.5 The boundary conditions and model mesh

49
3.4 Tensile Strain FE Model
3.4.1 Description
3-D finite element models have been extensively used to better understand
pavement responses under a variety of traffic load configurations (Saad et al, 2006,
Wang, 2001, Allou & Hornych, 2007, and William, 1999). It is able to estimate the micro
cracking and fracture responses, which are mainly caused by the tensile strain at the
bottom of asphalt layer (William, 1999). Therefore, this approach was used in this
research to study the nature of tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layers when
using stabilized subgrade. Model geometry basically consists of 144 inches length and
width, and the depth varies based on the pavement layers. This model dimension was
chosen to avoid any edge errors. Model loading was considered to be in the center of the
horizontal plane. Due to the double symmetry of the geometry around X and Y axes, only
one quarter of the geometry was modeled as shown in Figure. 3.6. Interfaces between
pavement layers significantly affect the stresses and strains produced by the model;
therefore, they should be presented properly in the model in order to avoid any
inaccuracies that may encounter strain and stress calculations (William, 1999). Thus, a
tied interface was assigned between the subgrade and base, and sliding interface was used
between the surface layer and the base with 0.9 friction coefficient due to the differences
in the material properties of these two layers (William, 1999).

50
Figure 3.6 Model layout, mesh, and boundary conditions

51
3.4.2 Material Properties
Material properties of all layers were considered homogenous linear elastic in this
model, and all layers were characterized by their elastic moduli and Poisson’s ratios (Cho
et al, 1996, Chen et al, 1990, Helwany et al, 1998, and Blab & John, 2000). Assuming the
pavement materials behave elastically is appropriate for short-timed studies since non-
elastic material behavior requires many input parameters that are not readily available
and might be assumed. Assumed parameters will not accurately produce reliable results
(William, 1999). Therefore, elastic properties of pavement materials were appropriate for
this model and this investigation.
One of the advantages of using 3-D FE modeling of the flexible pavement is the
ability to simulate a rectangular footprint of the contact area over which the tire loading is
distributed rather than a circle contact area which is usually assumed for the 2-D and
axisymmetric models (Saad et al,2006). Therefore, a single axel load of 18,000 lb., which
is legally used in most states (Yoder and Witczak, 1075), with dual tires was used.
However, only one set of the dual tires of 9,000 lb was modeled due to the symmetry of
the model geometry. The load was assumed to be transferred to the pavement over a
rectangular contact area having a length of (0.8712L) and width of (0.6L). These
dimensions were derived by assuming that the rectangular area is an equivalent of two
semicircles of 0.6L diameter at the end and a central rectangle (Yoder and Witczak,
1075). The contact area shape and derivations are shown in Figure.3.7. Contact pressure
was assumed to be equal to the tire pressure which is typically taken as 80 psi. Static
52
analysis was adopted for this model (Dondi, 1994). The boundary condition used in this
3D model were the conventional ones which are basically rollers along the sides of the
model where no horizontal movement is allowed and fixed at the bottom of the subgrade
layer where no deflection existed beyond a specific depth (Saad et al,2006).
In order to keep the size of the problem manageable in terms of analysis time and
storage capacity (Saad et al, 2006), a fine mesh was used only at the center of the model
over which the axel load is distributed. On the other hand, larger mesh was used
gradually as moving away from the center of the model. The 20-node quadratic brick
with reduced integration was employed for this model since quadratic elements produce
more accurate results than linear elements (Kuo et al 1995).
Figure 3.7 Equivalent contact area for a dual tires (Huang 1993)
53
3.5 Backcalculation Methodology
The backcalculation for the tested pavement section was done using the
backcalculation software MODULUS 6.0. The measured deflection basins were first
normalized (to 9000 lb.) and imported to the software. Then the thicknesses of pavement
layers were entered, and moduli ranges for all pavement layers were provided. Some of
the AC moduli were set fixed because it was obtained from the seismic field testing
which was utilized to calculate the surface layer moduli. Finally, the analysis was carried
out for each pavement structure and moduli values were obtained for each section.
54
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 First Model Results
The first FE model in this thesis was employed to study the effect of the stabilized
subgrade thickness on the vertical compressive strain and stress at the top of the natural
subgrade layer under truck loads during the construction periods when the AC layer and
base layer had not yet been paved. It can be seen from Figure 4.1 and 4.2 that the vertical
strain at the top of subgrade layer decreases with increasing the thickness of stabilized
layer. However, the vertical strain does not decrease significantly after approximately 18
inches for the cement stabilized layer and about 22 inches for lime stabilized layer. Also
the beginning compressive strain decreases as the percentages of additives increase due
the strength increase in the soil as the additive percent increases. This is obvious when
looking at the vertical displacement curve in Figure 4.5 and 4.6. The curve tends to be
almost linear, indicating no effect of increasing the thickness of stabilized layer any
further. Similarly, the vertical compressive stress at the top of the natural subgrade layer
decreases with stabilized layer thickness increasing (Figure 4.3&4.4). The relationship
between the vertical compressive strain at the top of the untreated subgrade decreases
percentages and the stabilized subgrade thickness was also investigated. It appeared that
the decreasing percentage of the vertical strain decreases with increasing the stabilized
subgrade thickness for both lime and cement stabilized layer as shown in Figure 4.7.
However, the decreasing percentages of cement stabilized layer are higher than the lime
treated layer at first thickness values. This is essentially because the early age strength of
cement stabilized soils is higher than the lime stabilized soils. Initially, the vertical strain
55
at the top of the subgrade layer for the cement stabilized soils is less than the lime
stabilized layer as is clear in Figure 4.8.
1200
THE TOP OF NATURAL SUBGRADE , µƐ
VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRAIN AT
1000
CEMENT 6%
800
CEMENT 9%
600
CEMENT 12%
400
200
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
STABILIZED LAYER THICKNESS, IN

Figure 4.1 Vertical compressive strains on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement
2000
THE TOP OF NATURAL SUBGRADE , με
VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRAIN AT
1800
1600
1400 LIME 5%
1200
LIME 10%
1000
800 LIME 15%
600
400
200
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 4.2 Vertical compressive strains on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime
56
16
THE TOP OF NATRUAL SUBGRADE, PSI
VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT 14
12 CEMENT 6%
10 CEMENT 9%
8 CEMENT 12%
6
4
2
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 4.3 Vertical compressive stress on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement
25
THE TOP OF NATRUAL SUBGRADE, PSI
VERTICAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS AT
20
LIME 5%
15
LIME 10%
10 LIME 15%
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 4.4 Vertical compressive stresses on the top of natural subgrade versus stabilized
subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime
57
16
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE TOP
14
OF NATRUAL SUBGRADE, MIL 12 CEMENT 6%
10 CEMENT 9%
8 CEMENT 12%
6
4
2
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 4.5 Vertical displacement of the natural subgrade versus stabilized subgrade
thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement
25
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE
TOP OF NATRUAL SUBGRADE, MIL
20
LIME 5%
15 LIME 10%
10 LIME 15%
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 4.6 Vertical displacement of the natural subgrade versus stabilized subgrade
thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime.
58
Figure 4.7 Decreasing percentage of the vertical strain with different stabilized
thicknesses
Figure 4.8 Vertical compressive strains at the top of the subgrade layer under stabilized
layer stabilized with lime and cement
59
4.2 Criterion
As a matter of selecting damage criterion to set on specific thickness values, the
model proposed by Heukelom and Klomp (1962) to estimate the allowable vertical
compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer was used. Based on their model, the
allowable vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade can be calculated by basically
knowing the expected actual number of load repetitions as follows:
. .
10 (1)
Where;
ε allowable vertical compressive strain
at the top of subgrade
N expected traffic ESAL
This approach has also been used by Ekwulo and Eme (2009) as a failure criterion
to prevent rutting damage of the flexible pavement. Since the allowable vertical
compressive strain at the top of the subgrade depends on the actual load repetitions
expected on a road, several number of load repetitions were used to calculate the
allowable vertical compressive strain. For each number of load repetitions and allowable
vertical compressive strain, a minimum thickness of stabilized layer required to satisfy
the permissible strain proposed by Heukelom and Klomp (1962) was obtained for each
soil with different cement and lime percentages as shown in Figure 4.9 and Table 4.1.
These thicknesses are required to prevent pavement damage due to excessive rutting
caused by the vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade layer under
construction traffic loadin

60
LIME 5% LIME 10% LIME 15% CEMENT 6% CEMENT 9% CEMENT 12%
16.00
MINIMUM STABILIZED THICKNESS REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE
14.00
ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRAIN, IN
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, LOAD REPETETIONS
Figure 4.9 Minimum thicknesses of stabilized layer stabilized with lime and cement required to satisfy allowable vertical compressive
strain at the top of subgrade layer corresponding to the expected construction traffic
61
Table 4.1 The minimum thicknesses of stabilized layer required to satisfy the allowable
vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer to prevent pavement damage due
to rutting for each number of load repetitions and stabilization percent of lime and cement
stabilizers
Soil Expected Allowable Minimum Thickness of Stabilized Layer Required

Type Construction Vertical to Satisfy the Allowable Vertical Compressive
Traffic Compressive Strain at the Top of Subgrade (in)
Strain(με) Lime Lime Lime Cement Cement Cement
5% 10% 15% 6% 9% 12%
200 1853.60 8.61 7.63 8.17 5.64 4.33 3.85
500 1629.24 10.27 9.08 9.73 6.72 5.22 4.71
800 1524.91 11.10 9.81 10.52 7.26 5.68 5.14
1100 1458.05 11.65 10.30 11.04 7.63 5.98 5.43
1400 1409.37 12.06 10.67 11.43 7.91 6.21 5.64
1700 1371.36 12.39 10.96 11.74 8.13 6.39 5.82
LOREN
2000 1340.34 12.67 11.20 12.00 8.32 6.54 5.96

2300 1314.22 12.90 11.41 12.23 8.48 6.67 6.09
2600 1291.73 13.10 11.59 12.42 8.61 6.79 6.19
2900 1272.02 13.28 11.75 12.59 8.74 6.89 6.29
3200 1254.51 13.45 11.90 12.75 8.85 6.98 6.38
3500 1238.78 13.59 12.03 12.89 8.95 7.07 6.46
3800 1224.52 13.73 12.15 13.02 9.04 7.14 6.53
4100 1211.49 13.85 12.26 13.14 9.13 7.21 6.60
4400 1199.50 13.97 12.36 13.24 9.21 7.28 6.66
200 1853.60 8.07 **** **** 5.60 **** ****
500 1629.24 9.62 **** **** 6.64 **** ****
800 1524.91 10.39 **** **** 7.16 **** ****
1100 1458.05 10.91 **** **** 7.52 **** ****
1400 1409.37 11.29 **** **** 7.78 **** ****
1700 1371.36 11.60 **** **** 8.00 **** ****
2000 1340.34 11.86 **** **** 8.18 **** ****
ERIE
2300 1314.22 12.08 **** **** 8.33 **** ****

2600 1291.73 12.27 **** **** 8.47 **** ****
2900 1272.02 12.44 **** **** 8.58 **** ****
3200 1254.51 12.59 **** **** 8.69 **** ****
3500 1238.78 12.73 **** **** 8.79 **** ****
3800 1224.52 12.86 **** **** 8.88 **** ****
4100 1211.49 12.98 **** **** 8.96 **** ****
4400 1199.50 13.09 **** **** 9.04 **** ****
**** Not available
62
Figure 4.9 demonstrates the relationships between the minimum stabilized layer
thicknesses necessary to prevent rutting damage caused by the vertical compressive strain
at the subgrade and the percentages of cement added and between the minimum
thicknesses and expected numbers of load repetitions. It can be seen that the minimum
thickness decreases with increasing the percent of the cement added to the soil; this
relationship basically differs for different soils depending on its responsiveness to the
stabilizer. It is also obvious to see that the minimum thickness increases with increasing
the number of load repetitions to which a road is usually subjected during construction.
Figure 4.9 also views similar relationships to the previous ones; however, the
additive used this time is lime. Same kinds of relationships can be seen in these figures
for the soils stabilized with 5% and 10% of lime. On the other hand, the soils stabilized
with 15% lime exhibit different behavior in terms of stabilized soil strength. It is
expected that by increasing the percent of stabilizing agent to a soil, the stiffness of that
soil and its engineering properties increase. This is true for soils stabilized with 5 and
10% lime. However, increasing lime percent added to the soil up to more than 10% will
not increase the soil strength properties as significant, and that in fact depends on soil
responsiveness to the lime. Haston and Wohlgemuth (1985) stated that an increase in
lime beyond 5% results in lower strength properties. Thus, the minimum effective
stabilized thickness required to satisfy the allowable vertical compressive strain at the top
of subgrade layer after 10% lime stabilization will be greater than those stabilized with
more than 10% lime. Osinub and Nwaiwu (2006) gave an explanation for that behavior,
and they stated that excess lime behaves as low strength filler. This explains why the
63
curves of minimum stabilized thickness stabilized with 15% percent come above those
stabilized with 5% and 10% where it is supposed to be below them as the case for
cement.
4.3 Backcalculation Analysis Results
Table 4.2 presents the backcalculation results of several sites based on FWD test
using MODULUS 6.0 software.
Table 4.2 Backcalculation results obtained from FWD test data using MODULUS 6.0
software for the tested sites
County-Route-Section Back-Calculated Resilient Modulus (Ksi) Stabilization Pavement

Type
Subgrade Stabilized Base Surface Percent Agent
Subgrade (%)
SUM‐US224‐011.24 20.70 125.50 170.80 833.40 6.54 Cement AC

PIC‐SR56‐026.45 6.70 126.20 137.70 1800.00 5.00 Cement AC
WAR‐SR48‐021.74 6.00 154.00 181.10 1765.70 6.00 Cement AC
DEF‐US24‐010.73 6.20 78.30 128.90 569.00 5.29 Lime AC
FAY‐IR71‐000.00 11.30 85.60 160.50 936.90 6.32 Cement AC
BUT‐IR75‐005.91 48.70 129.70 353.60 1120.00 5.26 Lime AC
DEF‐US24‐007.96 10.00 87.50 134.30 737.80 7.00 Lime AC
ERI‐SR2‐12.58 35.30 128.00 249.10 548.40 3.00 Cement AC
ERI‐SR2‐12.58 48.30 154.90 333.20 571.40 3.00 Lime AC
CLE‐SR133‐019.10 11.20 56.10 162.90 1769.00 5.70 Cement AC
DEL‐US23‐020.08 35.70 97.70 155.40 1743.30 7.26 Cement AC
LUC‐SR2‐011.77 4.90 149.20 137.30 1609.70 6.59 Cement AC
SUM‐SR8‐013.30 8.30 104.20 130.40 1799.60 4.30 Cement AC
POR‐SR43‐023.59 5.30 96.00 131.70 1770.60 4.73 Lime AC
CLE‐IR275‐013.79 46.80 79.60 159.90 2052.90 5.01 Lime PCC
ATB‐IR90‐003.70 26.50 115.80 162.50 2287.50 6.49 Cement PCC
MOT‐IR70‐017.04 3.80 160.80 256.80 2380.00 5.77 Cement PCC
PAU‐US24‐012.30 3.10 42.70 84.00 2363.40 5.28 Lime PCC
64
Clearly, the moduli of stabilized subgrade are significantly greater than the natural
subgrade. That in fact proves the strength and stiffness of the pavement’s bed has
improved after stabilization. The base layer as shown in the table above exhibits
increased stiffness and that in fact is due to stabilization of the subgrade. The reason
behind this is that the elastic modulus of granular materials such as base and subbase
layers depends not only on the inherent properties of these materials and stress level at
which they function but also on the support provided from the underlying layer materials
such as subgrade or stabilized subgrade layer. Thus, the modulus of the pavement
materials under vertical loading decreases with depth to an extent affected by the
modulus of subgrade (Austroad, 2013). Heukelom and Klomp (1962) conducted an in
situ pavement testing, and they concluded the elastic modulus of the granular base is
influenced by the elastic modulus of the underlying layer. They also noticed the ratio of
the base layer’s elastic modulus to the elastic modulus of the underlying subgrade layer
ranged from 1.5 to 4 and, it is a function of the thickness of the granular base layer. Using
this concept on the backcalculated resilient modulus of the base and stabilized subgrade
layer, it was found the average ratio between the base and stabilized subgrade moduli of
the all data points from all sites is equal to 2,4 which basically lies within the ratio range
observed by Heukelom and Klomp (1962). The ratio of backcalculated data points for
lime and cement stabilized section were also investigated individually. For cement
stabilized section, the ratio was found to be 2.2, and for lime stabilized section the ration
was equal to 3.0. This actually indicates that lime stabilized subgrades exhibit higher
stiffness than the cement stabilized subgrade in the long term. It also provides a greater
65
support to the overlaying granular layer. The backcalculated results for base and
stabilized subgrade layers for all data points from each section were also plotted along
with ratio range provided by Heukelom and Klomp (1962), which was considered to be a
lower and upper bounds of estimating the base modulus from the stabilized subgrade as it
shown in Figure 4.10. Obviously, most of the data obtained from the lime stabilized
section spreads within and above the lower and the upper bounds. However, for cement
stabilized sections about one third of the data spread near and below the lower bound.
600000
Upper limit
Lower limit
500000
LIME
CEMENT
400000
Base Modulus (psi)
300000
200000
100000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Stabilized Subgrade Modulus (psi)
Figure 4.10 Back-calculated moduli data spread of the base and stabilized subgrade layer
from all sections around the upper and lower bounds.
The backcalculation procedure using MODULUS6.0 software involves analyzing
30 data points for each section and calculating moduli values for each point. Thus, the
66
final moduli values for a specific section are the average of these 30 points. Therefore, in
order to see the spread of these values for each site around with upper and lower bounds
presented earlier, the moduli values of the base and stabilized subgrade layers for some
sites were plotted along with bounds as shown in the Figures 4.11 and 4.1.
450000
Upper limit Lower limit CLE‐SR133‐019.10
400000
Granular Base Modulus (psi)
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Figure 4.11 Data point spread of CLE-SR133-019.10 site obtained from the
backcalculation
67
Upper limit Lower limit SUM‐US224‐011.24

400000
350000
300000
Base Modulus (psi)
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Figure 4.12 Data point spread of SUM-US224-011.24 site obtained from the
backcalculation analysis.
Obviously, most of the data points for CLE-SR133 site lie within and above the
limits set by Heukelom and Klomp (1962). However, some of the data points of SUM-
US224 lie below the lower limits due to the high moduli values of stabilized subgrade
which basically happens because of the stabilization effect. Therefore, the relationship
between the granular base modulus and stabilized subgrade modulus obtained from the
FWD test is generally in a good agreement with model proposed by Heukelom and
Klomp (1962).
4.4 Backcalculation Results Comparisons
Jayson Gray, a graduate student at Ohio University, conducted a backcalculation
analysis on the same studied sections based on the DCP data. He backcalculated the
modulus values of the stabilized subgrade and granular base layers. His results were
68
compared with backcalculated modulus values of the same layers obtained from FWD
data. Modulus values of both layers from both tests were in a good agreement as shown
in the Figures 4.13 & 4.14 and Table 4.3.
250
200
Subgrade Modulus , ksi
150
FWD
DCP
100
50
Figure 4.13 Stabilized Subgrade moduli from both FWD and DCP tests
400
350
300
Base Modulus , ksi
250
FWD
200
DCP
150
100
50
Figure 4.14 Granular base moduli from both FWD and DCP tests
69
Table 4.3 Resilient moduli values of the stabilized subgrade and granular base layers
calculated based on the FWD and DCP tests
Back-calculated Resilient Modulus (ksi) Stabilization

FWD DCP
Subgrade Base Subgrade Base Percent Pavement
County-Route-Section Layer Layer Layer Layer (%) Agent Type
SUM-US224-011.24 125.50 170.80 170.20 180.90 6.54 Cement AC
PIC-SR56-026.45 126.20 137.70 137.20 159.30 5.00 Cement AC
WAR-SR48-021.74 154.00 181.10 **** 190.00 6.00 Cement AC
DEF-US24-010.73 78.30 128.90 73.10 112.50 5.29 Lime AC
FAY-IR71-000.00 85.60 160.50 179.80 192.70 6.32 Cement AC
BUT-IR75-005.91 129.70 353.60 139.80 187.60 5.26 Lime AC
DEF-US24-007.96 87.50 134.30 148.00 138.20 7.00 Lime AC
ERI-SR2-12.58 128.00 249.10 66.80 180.00 3.00 Cement AC
ERI-SR2-12.58 154.90 333.20 90.00 155.50 3.00 Lime AC
CLE-SR133-019.10 56.10 162.90 181.00 154.90 5.70 Cement AC
DEL-US23-020.08 97.70 155.40 163.9653 167.06 7.26 Cement AC
LUC-SR2-011.77 149.20 137.30 234.5 159.3 6.59 Cement AC
SUM-SR8-013.30 104.20 130.40 **** **** 4.30 Cement AC
POR-SR43-023.59 96.00 131.70 130.7 138.04 4.73 Lime AC
CLE-IR275-013.79 79.60 159.90 105.478 163.1 5.01 Lime PCC
ATB-IR90-003.70 115.80 162.50 118.5644 162.26 6.49 Cement PCC
MOT-IR70-017.04 160.80 256.80 189.616 193.43 5.77 Cement PCC
PAU-US24-012.30 42.70 84.00 37.0 79.89 5.28 Lime PCC
4.5 Resilient Modulus under PCC and AC Pavement
Investigating the stiffness of subgrade and base layers under concrete and flexible
pavement from the DCP test, it was found that the stiffness of stabilized subgrade and
base layers under flexible pavement are higher than those under concrete pavement. That
in fact happens due to the effect of compaction. During construction, the surface layer of
the flexible pavement is compacted after being paved, while surface layer of concrete
pavement is not compacted as it is being casted in the field. The surface layer compaction
of flexible pavement causes an increase in the base layer stiffness and underlying layer,
70
consequently. Heukelom and Klomp (1962), reported that a good compaction of the
granular layer would cause a significant increase in the underlying layer stiffness such as
subbase, stabilized subgrade, and similar soils. They also reported that increasing the
compaction efforts leads to an increase in the stiffness of the compacted layer and
underlying layers. Therefore, the compaction of the surface layer of the flexible pavement
will increase the compaction efforts in the whole pavement structure, thus causing the
stiffness of the base and underlying layers to increase.
180
160
140
120
Resilient Modulus, ksi
100
AC
80 PCC
60
40
20
0
Stabilized Subgrade Base
Figure 4.15 The average stiffness of stabilized subgrade and base layer under AC and
PCC pavements based on DCP test
71
4.6 Backcalculation Validation Model
An axisymmetric finite element model of pavement structure was constructed
using ABAQUS software in order to validate the backcalculation results of different
pavement sections. The backcalculated modulus values of the pavement layers were
entered first as initial values into the model material properties of pavement layers. Then,
the analysis was run and a deflection data was obtained. The calculated deflection basins
from the model were compared to the measured deflection basins obtained from the FWD
test. If the difference between the FE-calculated deflection basins and the measured ones
is small, the modulus values will be accepted. Otherwise, the entered modulus values will
be changed and the analysis will be run until a reasonable match between the calculated
and measured deflection basins is reached. After several times of modifying the layers
moduli, a good match between the measured and FE calculated deflection basins was
reached. The measured and final FE deflection basins were plotted together as shown in
Figure 4.16. Generally, for all studied sections, the calculated deflection basins came
close to those measured in the field.

72
A. FAY-IR71 B. CLE-SR133
C. SUM-US224 D. PIC-SR56
Figure 4.16 Comparison between the measured and finite element calculated deflection
basins for different pavement sections
73
CHAPTER 5 LONG TERM PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT WITH
STABILIZED SUBGRADE
5.1 Introduction
Short term performance of stabilized subgrade has been extensively studied
throughout laboratory tests, and it has been proven to provide a good platform for the
flexible pavement during and after construction (Hopkins et al, 2002, Chou et al, 2004).
However, stabilized subgrade should not only provide strong platform for the flexible
pavement during construction and shortly after construction but also should serve as a
strong foundation for flexible pavements in the long term which prevents flexible
pavement failures with time. Therefore, an experimental test, using the FWD testing
device was carried out on several sites to evaluate the structural characterizations of the
flexible pavements after several years of construction. Data from FWD test were used to
evaluate pavement performance over time by calculating the effective structural number
of existing pavement structures, structural coefficients of pavement layers, and the
resilient modulus of stabilized subgrade layers.
5.2 Effective Structural Numbers
AASHTO Guide for design of pavement structures 1993 provides steps for
calculating the effective structural numbers of existing pavement based on FWD field
testing. The steps involve back-calculating the subgrade’s resilient modulus from the
deflection basin that is far enough from the center of the loading plate using the following
equation.
.
0.33 (2)
74
Where:
MR = subgrade modulus, psi
P = applied load, lb.
r = distance at which the deflection basin measured, in
dr = deflection basin at distance r from the load center, in
To better estimate the modulus of subgrade, the deflection basin utilized in the
backcalculation ought to be far enough from center of loading plate. A minimum distance
as recommended by AASHTO 1993 may be calculated from the following equations:
0.7 (3)
(4)
Where; ae= Radius of stress bulb at the subgrade- pavement interface, inches
Then, the effective modulus of the pavement structure can be obtained in terms of the
backcalculated subgrade modulus and the total thickness of all pavement layers above the
natural subgrade layer from the following equation
1.5 (5)
Where:
d0 = measured deflection at the center of load, in

75
P = pressure of FWD load plate, psi
D = total thickness of plavement layers above subgrade, in
a = FWD load plate radius, in
EP = effective modulus of pavement layers, psi
MR = back-calculated subgrade modulus, psi
Once the effective modulus of all pavement layers is obtained, the effective
structural number of the whole pavement structure can be calculated as follow.
0.0045 (6)
This procedure was applied on the data obtained from FWD test conducted on the
studied sites to calculate the effective structural number for each site as shown in Table
5.1
76
Table 5.1 The calculated effective structural number for each site
Subgrad Effective Deflection Total Effective

Construction
Site Modulus Modulus at load Thickness Structural Stabilization
Year
Mr, psi Ep , psi Center, mil D, in Number
FAY71 19164.11 1601234.13 2.87 29.75 15.05 2002 CEMENT
CLE133 18333.98 669827.63 4.25 26.25 10.26 2006 CEMENT
PIC56 12221.8 741775.76 4.5 25 10.15 2005 CEMENT
SUM224 14893.03 616937.95 3.47 34 12.99 2003 CEMENT
WAR48 12991.71 857084.06 3.76 29 12.28 2004 CEMENT
ERI-2-12.58C 15320.24 858902.16 2.73 37.25 15.92 1999 CEMENT
ERI-2-12.58L 15684.75 825514.07 2.73 37.25 15.7 1999 LIME
BUT75 14320.25 1964544.41 2.29 30.5 16.94 2007 LIME
DEF247.96 13168.03 586867.89 3.73 36 13.47 2005 LIME
DEF2410.73 11475.25 473829.79 4.34 36.5 12.77 2008 LIME
DEL23 13738.04 1131750.99 2.44 38.75 18.16 2002 CEMENT
SUM8 14811.49 1485179.42 2.4 31.75 16.27 2008 CEMENT
POR 9581.12 882027.93 4.3 29 12.37 2009 LIME
LUC2 11659.02 1116301.45 2.9 34.75 16.2 2005 CEMENT
As can be seen from the above table, flexible pavement constructed over
stabilized subgrades exhibit high effective structural number after several years of
construction. That in fact happens due to the stabilization of the subgrade layers with
lime and cement. The structural number for each site was also plotted along with age in
order to observe how its value with different ages as shown in Figure 5.1. It appeared that
values were still high even after about 14 years of service as it clear in the figure for Erie
site. That definitely happens because of the stabilized subgrade is gaining more strength
with time especially with sites stabilized with lime due to the pozzolanic reaction of such
stabilizer which continues for many years (Chou et al, 2004).

77
Figure 5.1 Effective structural numbers for each site with different ages
5.3 Structural Coefficients
There is no standard procedure for how to calculate structural coefficients of
flexible pavement layers out of the FWD data. Therefore, the procedure used in this study
was basically calculating the effective structural number first for each site as it was
illustrated in the previous section. Then the structural number equation proposed by
AASTO 1993 was used to calculate the structural coefficients of pavement layers by
solving the equations of all sites simultaneously since there is one equation that
represents each site. The equations were categorized based on the stabilizing agent. The
equations that represent sites stabilized with lime were solved separately than the ones
stabilized with cement. The AASHTO equation of the structural number is a combination
of the thicknesses and structural coefficients of pavement layers as follows.

78
(7)
Where
a1, a2, a3, and a4 = structural coefficients of surface, asphalt base, granular base, and
stabilized subgrade respectively
D1, D2, D3, and D4 = thicknesses of surface, asphalt base, granular base, and stabilized
subgrade respectively
Table 5.2 was used in conjunction with above equation to calculate the structural
coefficients of pavement layers. All possible combinations of the four equations which
are required to calculate the four structure coefficients were considered.

79
Table 5.2 Pavement layers thicknesses with the structural number used to calculate the
structural coefficients
Site Thicknesses (in)

LAYER AC+INTM Acbase Base StabiSub SN Type
FAY71 3.75 11 6 16 15.05 Cement
CLE133 3.25 5 6 12 10.26 Cement
PIC56 3 4 6 12 10.15 Cement
SUM224 3 9 6 16 12.99 Cement
WAR48 3 4 6 16 12.28 Cement
ERI-2-12.58C 3.25 12 10 12 15.92 Cement
DEL23 3.25 9.5 10 16 18.16 Cement
SUM8 3.25 10.5 6 12 16.27 Cement
LUC2 2.25 9.5 6 16 16.2 Cement
LUC2 2.25 9.5 6 16 16.2 Cement
ERI-2-12.58L 3.25 12 10 12 15.7 Lime
BUT75 3.25 9 6 12 16.94 Lime
DEF247.96 3 11 6 16 13.47 Lime
DEF2410.73 3 11.5 6 16 12.77 Lime
POR 3 6 6 14 12.37 Lime
The structural coefficients of pavement structures constructed with stabilized
subgrade are significantly high after several years of service due to the stabilization. The
structural layer coefficients for cement stabilized subgrade ranged from 0.12 to 1.07, and
for granular base, the range was from 0.18 to 2.9.

80
Table 5.3 Structural coefficient calculated by solving the SN equation for all sites
simultaneously
a1 a2 a3 a4 a1 a2 a3 a4
*** 0.61 1.22 0.53 *** 0.14 1.17 0.48
*** 0.44 0.65 0.70 *** 0.14 1.35 0.46
*** 0.48 0.77 0.67 *** *** 1.39 0.57
*** 0.40 0.53 0.74 0.77 1.09 1.11 ***
2.37 0.14 *** 0.69 *** 0.62 0.33 0.62
1.10 0.62 0.33 0.13 *** 1.09 0.04 0.70
0.35 0.90 1.16 *** *** 0.54 0.80 0.56
*** 0.48 0.58 0.58 *** 0.29 0.91 0.74
*** 0.53 0.82 0.56 0.75 1.09 *** 0.44
*** 0.54 0.85 0.56 *** 1.09 0.55 0.19
*** 0.40 0.71 0.81 *** 0.14 1.25 0.53
*** 0.45 0.63 0.68 *** 0.14 1.38 0.53
*** 0.52 0.81 0.58 1.60 0.88 1.08 ***
2.37 0.14 *** 0.53 0.90 0.91 *** 0.53
1.48 0.47 0.40 0.12 0.53 0.78 *** 0.53
0.85 0.71 1.15 *** *** 0.96 0.18 0.53
*** 0.45 0.58 0.53 *** 0.58 0.74 0.53
*** 0.51 0.83 0.53 1.31 0.89 *** 0.53
*** 0.54 0.92 0.53 *** 0.29 0.97 0.74
*** 0.43 0.70 0.83 1.10 0.90 *** 0.48
*** 0.44 0.64 0.68 0.20 0.93 0.44 0.27
2.26 0.85 1.38 *** *** 0.14 1.43 0.65
*** 0.50 0.81 0.59 *** 0.14 1.75 0.86
*** 1.01 2.33 *** 4.51 0.14 0.99 ***
2.37 0.14 1.13 *** *** 0.33 1.19 0.77
2.37 0.14 2.42 *** 1.15 0.87 *** 0.49
*** 0.81 0.60 1.07 0.59 0.79 0.34 0.33
*** 0.54 0.58 0.66 2.50 0.12 *** 0.64
*** 0.54 0.82 0.57 *** 0.42 0.97 0.53
*** 0.54 2.90 *** *** 1.09 1.86 0.53
*** 0.14 0.60 0.53 *** 0.50 1.07 0.53
*** 0.24 0.99 0.40 *** 0.58 0.40 0.92
*** 0.33 1.31 0.30 *** 0.43 0.67 0.69
*** 0.33 0.84 0.53 *** 0.46 0.84 0.62
*** No solution
81
On the other hand, the average structural layer coefficient for lime stabilized
subgrade was found to be 0.26, and the structural coefficient of granular layer was 0.74.
Apparently, structural layer coefficients for all cement and lime stabilized sites were high
due to the stabilization. That in fact happened because the stiffness of chemically
stabilized layers has increased over time. Increasing the resilient modulus of chemically
stabilized subgrade will in turn increase the resilient modulus of granular base, causing
the structural layer coefficients of such layers to be significantly high. Hopkins et al
(2002) have found that increasing the stiffness of the stabilized subgrade and base layers
over time will also increase the structural coefficients of these layers. Based on structural
layer coefficient values, all the tested sections were considered to have performed well
after several year of service, ranging from 4 to 14 years, due to the stabilization effect on
these sections.
5.4 Resilient Modulus of the Stabilized Subgrade
One of the most important components in evaluating the long term performance
of the flexible pavement is the resilient modulus of the stabilized subgrade layer after
several years of construction. The backcalculated stabilized subgrade modulus from the
FWD test performed on the studied sites was plotted along with age of each site as shown
in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.4. All sites exhibit high modulus values after several years of
construction. Obviously, even the older sites possess higher values than the newer ones as
the case for Erie. That happens due to the stabilization of such layers, and the fact that
stabilized subgrade modulus is a time dependent variable that gains strength over time
due to the behavior of stabilizing agents.

82
Figure 5.2 Resilient modulus of the stabilized subgrade with age for each site
Table 5.4 Resilient modulus of stabilized subgrade after several year of construction
Stabilized Subgrade Modulus , Year of Age,

Site ksi Construction year Stabilization
ERI-C 128 1999 14 Cement
ERI-L 154.9 1999 14 Lime
FAY71 85.6 2002 11 Cement
DEL23 97.7 2002 11 Cement
SUM224 125.5 2003 10 Cement
WAR48 154 2004 9 Cement
PIC56 126.2 2005 8 Cement
DEF247.96 87.9 2005 8 Lime
LUC2 149.2 2005 8 Cement
CLE133 56.1 2006 7 Cement
BUT75 129.7 2007 6 Lime
DEF2410.73 78.3 2008 5 Lime
SUM8 104.2 2008 5 Cement
POR 96 2009 4 LIME
83
The long term performance of flexible pavement constructed with chemically
stabilized subgrade has been investigated based on three important components in the
evaluation pavement structures. These components are: the resilient modulus of stabilized
subgrade, the effective structural number, and the structural layer coefficients. All these
components have proved that all the sections that include subgrade stabilization in their
structures have performed well after several years of service. The values of the resilient
moduli of the stabilized subgrade, structural numbers, and structural layer coefficients for
all tested section were reasonably high

84
CHAPTER 6 INCORPORATING THE BENEFITS OF SUBGRADE STABILIZATION
INTO PAVEMENT DESIGN
6.1 Existing Design Procedure of Flexible Pavement
It is known that there are two approaches utilized by most agencies in designing
the flexible pavement, which are the mechanistic-empirical design method and the
AASHTO 1993 Guide which is essentially based on the structural number of the flexible
pavement. However, in this thesis, the mechanistic-empirical method is mainly
considered to study the effect of the stabilization of subgrade layers and how to
incorporate the benefit of subgrade stabilization on flexible pavement designs. Reviewing
the literature about agencies such as DOTs in the United States of America that
incorporate the chemically stabilized subgrades into the design procedures of flexible
pavements, it is clear that some of them do not take into account the benefits of
stabilization in their procedures while the others include it conservatively by limiting the
strength of such layers. The earlier version of the AASTO Guide (ARA 2004)
recommends a typical value of chemically stabilized subgrade to be 15,000 psi. The
Texas Pavement Design Manual (Texas DOT 2011) recommends that the design modulus
of lime-stabilized soils should be taken between 30,000 to 45,000 psi. The Florida DOT
has not adopted the mechanical- empirical design method yet. They use the AASHTO
design Guide which utilizes the structural number approach; however, they assigned
12,000 psi to be the design modulus of lime-stabilized subgrades (FDOT 2008). The
Illinois DOT (IDOT 2011) does not provide any specifications about including the
stabilized subgrade into the design procedure of flexible pavement. In Australia, most
85
agencies incorporate the stabilized subgrade into their mechanistic and empirical design
procedures. They also provide specific elastic characterizations for the stabilized soils.
These characterizations required the stabilized subgrade to be sub-layered into five equi-
thickness sub layers, the modulus of the top sublayer is limited to specific values
depending on the agency, and the modulus of each sublayer depends on the modulus of
the underlying layers starting from the natural subgrade (TMR, 2012, VicRoads 2002,
VicRoads, 2012, and Austroad, 2006).
In accordance with the literature cited above, most agencies around the world
limit the strength provided by stabilized subgrade, and they incorporate only a small part
of the stabilized strength into pavement design. Recent research casts a doubt about
limiting this strength (Austroad 2006). Therefore, the strength provided by the chemically
stabilized subgrade should be fully utilized since backcalculated stabilized subgrade
modulus from FWD and DCP exhibit significantly high values even with time.
6.2 Design Thickness of the Flexible Pavement
Asphalt layer thickness in the mechanistic-empirical design method is designed
based on the failure criterion of flexible pavement which is controlled by the tensile strain
at the bottom of the asphalt layer. In the designing of the perpetual pavement, the tensile
strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer is limited to be less than 70με. Incorporating
stabilized subgrade into a pavement structure as subbase layer can reduce the thickness of
the asphalt layer required to keep the tensile strain below the desired limit. The three-
dimensional finite element model was constructed to study the effect of stabilized
subgrade presence on the tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer. The model was run
86
several times on a stabilized section by changing the asphalt layer thickness. Same
analysis was carried out again without including the stabilized layer. The results showed
that flexible pavement constructed with a stabilized layer produces lower tensile strain
than the flexible pavement constructed without a stabilized layer as shown in Figure 6.1
& 6.2.
Figure 6.1 Effect of the stabilization of subgrade on the tensile strain at bottom of AC
layer in the traffic direction
87
Figure 6.2 Effect of the stabilization of the subgrade on the tensile strain at the bottom of
AC layer transverse to the traffic direction
It is obvious that the stabilization of the subgrade layer does not significantly affect
the tensile strain when the asphalt layer thickness is more than 15 inches. On the other
hand, tensile strain reduction is significant when the AC layer thickness is less than 15
inches. Tensile strain at the bottom of the AC layer can either be controlled by increasing
the AC layer thickness, which is not economic, or by chemical stabilization of the
subgrade layer. Our goal is to see how including the stabilized subgrade into pavement
design can reduce pavement thickness and then reduce the cost since the AC layer is most
expensive. Now suppose that it is required to design a flexible pavement with AC
thickness that limits the tensile strain to 70με. Based on Figure 6.2, it requires about 11.0
inches AC thickness to limit the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer to 70με
88
without including the stabilized subgrade layer, while it requires only 9.0 inches AC
thickness to limit the tensile strain to70με with including the stabilized layer. Hence,
there is about 2.0 inches reduction in the asphalt layer thickness when stabilized subgrade
layer is utilized. Therefore, incorporating the stabilized thickness into pavement design
can effectively reduce the flexible pavement thickness without compromising its
structural strength.
6.3 Considering the Stabilized Subgrade Layers as a Subbase Layer
Stabilized subgrade is regarded in some instances as an improved subbase layer.
Metcalf (1972) used stabilized subgrade as alternative subbase materials to provide
sufficient construction depth. VicRoad considered the contribution of its design
procedure and used lime-stabilized subgrade as a lower subbase granular material. SHRP
in its procedure for pavement structure modeling in backcalculation analysis, treated
subgrade stabilized with lime, asphalt and cement as a subbase layer. Therefore, the
stabilized subgrade can be considered as a subbase layer as long as its engineering
properties are similar to the conventional subbase layer.
6.4 Design Example Using MEPDG
MEPDG is actually not a design tool. It is more like an analysis tool. Its
procedure involves assuming an initial pavement structure with certain material
characteristics under specific loading and climatic conditions. Then the responses to these
loading and climatic conditions in terms of stresses, strains, and deflections are observed
over the design period. These responses are then related to the pavement performance in
terms of distresses such as cracking and rutting. If the accumulated distresses are within
89
the tolerable limits, the pavement structure is regarded as appropriate. If not, another
pavement structure is assumed and the analysis is run again. In order to investigate how
including the stabilized subgrade layer as a subbase layer into pavement structure will
help reduce the pavement thickness, the structure and material properties of one of the
tested sections was entered into the MEPDG software. Two trials were considered. The
first trial was done by excluding the stabilized layer from the pavement structure. The
second trial was done by including the stabilized layer and the surface layer thickness
was reduced by 2.0 inches as shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Input parameters for the two trails in MEPDG software
Trial Layer Thickness (in) Modulus (psi) Poisson’s Ratio

AC 8.3 SPG 0.38
First Base 6.0 81450.0 0.35
Subgrade Semi-infinite 11200.0 0.4
AC 6.3 SPG 0.38
Base 6.0 162900.0 0.35
Second
Stabilized Subgrade 12 56100.0 0.35
Subgrade Semi-infinite 11200.0 0.4
SPG=Superpave Performance Grade
The analysis was carried out for the two trials after setting the design life to 50
years and the results were obtained. Two major components in the outputs were
investigated. The first one is AC bottom-up cracking which is basically caused by the
tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer. The second is the permanent deformation
which is caused by the vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade as shown in
Figures 6.3 -6.6.

90
Figure 6.3 Predicted AC bottom-up damage when the stabilized layer is not included
Figure 6.4 Predicted AC bottom-up damage when the stabilized layer is included
91
Figure 6.5 Permanent deformations when the stabilized layer is not included
Figure 6.6 Permanent deformations when the stabilized layer is included

92
Obviously, the bottom up damage for the pavement structure with no stabilized
layer is greater than the pavement structure when the stabilized layer was included even
though the surface layer thickness was reduced by 2 inches. Similarly, subgrade rutting
for the pavement structure with stabilized layer is much smaller than the one when the
stabilized layer is not included. Also the base layer rutting is smaller when the stabilized
layer was included even after reducing the surface layer thickness. This example in fact
proves that incorporating the stabilized subgrade layer into pavement design will reduce
the pavement thickness without compromising the pavement service life and
performance.
6.5 Recommended Design Input for MEPDG
Based on FWD and DCP tests, it was observed that stiffness or resilient modulus
of chemically stabilized subgrade is significantly high due to the stabilization for all
tested sections, ranging from 56 to 160 ksi. Similarly, the base modulus was also high not
only because of material properties of such layers but also because of the support
provided by the underlying stabilized subgrade layer , ranging from 128 to 300 ksi.
Also it was observed that the resilient modulus of the base layer depends on the modulus
of stabilized subgrade and is approximately twice the modulus of the stabilized layer.
Therefore, it is recommended to assign a modulus of (50- 75) ksi for the chemically
stabilized subgrade stabilized with lime or cement as a design modulus in the MEPDG.
For the bases constructed over stabilized subgrade, a design modulus of (100-150) ksi is
recommended. The recommended moduli for both base and stabilized subgrade may be
93
used for soils stabilized with (5-6) % of lime or cement since the majority of tested
sections were stabilized with similar percentages of cement and lime.
6.6 Incorporating Subgrade Stabilization into AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design
As mentioned earlier in the introduction, the benefits of stabilization are not
accounted into pavement design by most agencies. However, some researchers proposed
procedures to incorporate the stabilization of subgrade into pavement design. Chou et al
(2004) proposed a design procedure to take into account the effect of subgrade
stabilization into AASHTO 1993 pavement design method. In his design procedure, he
incorporates the effect of subgrade stabilization through the ratio of the overall subgrade
modulus (B). He found form the backcalculation of the subgrade modulus that the overall
subgrade resilient modulus increases due to soil stabilization. He also found that this ratio
of overall subgrade modulus (B) is a function of asphalt layer thickness (D1), stabilized
layer thickness (D3), and the ratio of stabilized layer modulus to the natural subgrade
modulus (A). The ratio A is obtained from the laboratory testing of resilient modulus.
The ratio B may be estimated from the following equation

.
. . .
1 1 1 (8)
Where:
D1 & D3 are the thicknesses of asphalt and stabilized layers
A is the ratio of stabilized layer modulus and non-stabilized layer modulus

94
The value of A ranges from 1.23 to 2.8 for cement stabilized soils and 1.5 to 3 for lime
stabilized soils. It may be conservatively taken as 1.5, if no laboratory testing is
performed to verify the actual increase.
Instead of using the natural subgrade modulus as design modulus in the AASTO
1993 design method, Chou utilized the overall subgrade modulus as a design modulus in
the AASTO design equation, which is simply calculated by multiplying the natural
subgrade modulus by the ratio B. the value of B could be either calculated from the
backcalculation if the initial modulus is known or from the above equation.
6.7 Design Example using Chou’s Procedure
 Design Traffic: 9 million (9x109) ESAL

 Reliability (R): 95%
 Subgrade modulus (Mr): 10000 psi
 6 inches granular material (a2=0.14)
 Asphalt Layer, structural coefficient, a1, equal to 0.43
Plugging these parameters into AASHTO design equation results in a structural number
of 4.595
4.595 0.43 0.14 ∗ 6 → 8.73 That is without including stabilized layer
Now considering the use of stabilized layer of D3=16 in and D1= 8.73 in. Assuming the
increase of subgrade mechanical characteristics is 50%. That is A= 1.5. Plugging these
values in the following equation

.
. . .
1 1 1
That gives B= 1.37
Therefore,
95
The equivalent subgrade modulus = B* Mr = 1.37 * 10,000=13700 psi.
Plugging this value into AASHTO equation instead of 10,000 psi results in structural
number of 4.105
4.105 0.43 0.14 ∗ 6 → 7.6
Pavement thickness reduction = 8.73-7.6 = 1.13 in when including the stabilized layer
Although there is a reduction in the pavement thickness using Chou’s procedure,
he does not incorporate the increase in the granular base layer modulus due to the
stabilization of subgrade. From the backcalculation analysis performed on FWD and DCP
test data, it was observed that the increase in the subgrade stiffness due to stabilization
will lead to an increase in the stiffness of the base layer. This increase in the base
stiffness will also cause increasing in the structural coefficient of this layer since the
structural coefficient is a function of the layer modulus as follows.
0.249 0.977 (9)
Let’s E2= 50,000 psi this is on the conservative side since the backcalculated granular
base modulus was significantly high
0.249 log 50,000 0.977 → 0.19
4.105 0.43 0.19 ∗ 6 → 6.8
Pavement thickness reduction = 8.73-6.8 = 1.93 in
Pavement thickness can be reduced even more when including the effect of
stabilization on the subgrade layer as well as for the granular base. Therefore, Chou’s
96
procedure of pavement design can be modified by taking into account the effect of
stabilization on the granular base.

97
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
Chemical stabilization has been successfully used in the past few years to treat
weak subgrade soils by permanently changing their physical and chemical properties
such as reducing their plasticity and increasing stiffness and load bearing capacity so that
they can serve as a construction platform during constructions and long term structural
stability. Theoretical and experimental works were carried out through this thesis to
investigate the effect of stabilization on pavement design and construction practices. The
theoretical study was done by creating finite element models using ABAQUS to study the
responses of the subgrade under stabilized layer and the responses of flexible pavement
when constructed with stabilized subgrade. The experimental work was done by
conducting several field tests to investigate the stiffness and the performance of the
flexible pavement layers in the long term.
7.1.1 Finite Element Analysis
Based on the finite element analysis of chemically stabilized subgrade, it was
found that the compressive vertical strain at the top of the subgrade layer decreases with
increasing the stabilized layer thickness; however it does not decrease significantly after a
certain stabilized layer thickness (18in for cement and 22in for lime stabilized soils),
indicating that there is no need to increase the stabilized layer thickness beyond this
thickness as it becomes uneconomic. Also the vertical compressive strain in the subgrade
is lower for cement than for lime at an early age for any proposed thickness of stabilized
98
layer due to the high strength gain for the cement stabilized layer at early age (7 days),
approximately more than 50% of the strength at 28 days.
In order to protect the natural subgrade from being over stressed and provide a
suitable construction platform, a minimum thickness of stabilized layer was provided to
control the level of compressive strain that the natural subgrade might experience during
construction. The minimum required thickness was found to be significantly influenced
by the number of the expected load repetitions during construction and the percentage of
the stabilizer used to treat the soil. As the number of load repetitions increases, the
desired minimum thickness increases. On the other hand, it decreases as the stabilization
percent increases for cement; however, for lime, this statement does not hold for more
than 10% stabilization, as the excess lime content in soil does not improve the strength
significantly. Nevertheless, both lime and cement subgrade stabilization was found to
serve as a strong platform to protect the natural subgrade soils from the severe stress level
the subgrade might experience during construction under construction traffic.
Furthermore, strong platform can reduce the potential pavement rutting caused by the
vertical compressive strain in the subgrade, as long as it could be reduced by providing a
sufficient stabilized thickness. Subgrade stabilization does not only reduce the level of
vertical compressive strain in subgrade but also reduces the tensile strain at bottom of
asphalt layer. It was found from the finite element analysis that including the stabilized
subgrade into pavement structure significantly reduces the tensile strain at the bottom of
the asphalt layer which is a major cause of pavement cracking.

99
7.1.2 Backcalculation Analysis
The backcalculation analysis was performed on FWD and DCP data that was
collected by running these non-destructive tests on several in-service sites to evaluate the
longevity and durability of the chemically stabilized subgrade. It was found that the
resilient modulus of chemically stabilized subgrade is considerably higher than the
modulus of natural subgrade for all the tested sections after several years of construction.
Also the back-calculated base modulus was found to be affected by the modulus of the
underlying stabilized subgrade. The granular base modulus exhibits significantly high
values due to the support provided by underlying stabilized layer. The average ratio of
the base modulus to the stabilized subgrade modulus was found to be 2.4, indicating that
increasing the stabilized subgrade modulus will result in an increase in the base modulus.
Therefore, the granular base modulus not only depends on the layer characteristics but
also on the support provided by the stabilized subgrade.
7.1.3 Backcalculation Results Validation
A Finite Element model was created to simulate the FWD test in order to validate
the backcalculated resilient modulus of the pavement layers. Based on results obtained
from this FE analysis, it was found that FE-calculated deflections were in a good match
to those measured in the filed for all the tested sections.
7.1.4 Structural Number and Structural Coefficients
Considering the age of the tested sites, which ranges from 4 to 14 years, the
resilient modulus of stabilized subgrade of all sites were found to be significantly
increased over time. The increased stiffness of stabilized subgrade causes the structural
100
coefficient of this layer to increase since the structural coefficient is a function of layer
modulus. The structural coefficients of cement stabilized subgrade ranged from 0.12 to
1.07. Similarly, the structural coefficients of the granular base were also found to increase
as the granular base stiffness increased due to the subgrade stabilization. The structural
coefficients of granular base ranged from 0.18 to 2.9. Subsequently, the overall effective
structure numbers of all tested sites increased over time as it is a function of the structural
coefficients and thicknesses. Based on the above conclusions, it can be concluded that all
the tested sites have performed well in the long term.
7.1.5 Flexible Pavement Design
Incorporating subgrade stabilization benefits in the mechanistic-empirical design
guide and in the AASHTO 1993 deign procedure of flexible pavement, was found to
effectively reduce the thickness of the pavement without compromising pavement
performance and service life in the long term. In the mechanistic-empirical design guide
of the pavement design, a higher modulus value could be used for both base and
stabilized subgrade due to the high stiffness provided by stabilization. For stabilized
subgrade a modulus of (50- 75) ksi is recommended, and for granular layer (base) a
modulus of (100- 150) ksi is recommended. In the AASHTO 1993 design of flexible
pavement, the pavement thickness can be reduced if the benefits of subgrade stabilization
are accounted for. Based on Chou’s procedure of incorporating the subgrade stabilization
into AASHTO 1993 design method, it was found that the pavement thickness can be
further reduced if the subgrade stabilization effect on granular base is considered as he

101
did not take into account the increased stiffness of granular base due to subgrade
stabilization in his procedure.
7.2 Recommendations
If the cement is an appropriate stabilizer to the soil that needs to be protected, then
it would be the best option given the fact that its early strength is high. Also since the
strength gain of the stabilized layer is time dependent, it is recommended to assign
enough time during construction to the stabilization process in order to allow the
stabilizer to react with the soil so that the strength gain begins to develop in the mixture.
This time generally depends on the stabilizer used to treat to the soil. Cement stabilizer
needs less time than lime since lime reacts slowly with soil due to the pozzolanic reaction
which is slow in nature. Finally, there is a need to consider a variety of stabilization
percentages for both lime and cement and for different soil types. Lower percentages
need to be studied in the laboratory and experimentally at different ages.

102
REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2008). Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide, interim edition: A

manual of practice, Washington, DC.
Abed, A. H., & Al-Azzawi, A. A. (2012). Evaluation of Rutting Depth in Flexible

Pavements by Using Finite Element Analysis and Local Empirical
Model. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(2), 163-169.
Alam, A., Haselbach, L., & Cofer, W. F. (2012). Finite Element Analysis of Porosity and
Stress in Pervious Concrete Pavement Systems. National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association. Washington State University, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Oct 2012.
Al-Khateeb, L. A, Saoud,A, & Al-Msouti, M.F. (2011). Rutting Prediction of Flexible

Pavements Using Finite Element Modeling. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering,
Volume 5, No. 2, 2011.
Allou, F., Chazallon, C., & Hornych, P. (2007). A numerical model for flexible
pavements rut depth evolution with time. International journal for numerical and
analytical methods in geomechanics, 31(1), 1-22.
Al-Qadi, I.L., P.J. Yoo, M.A. Elseifi, & I. Janajreh. (2005). Effects of Tire
Configurations on Pavement Damage, Journal of the Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists, Vol. 74, p. 921-962.
Ameri, M., Salehabadi, E.S., Nejad, F.M., & Rostami, T. (2012). Assessment of
Analytical Techniques of Flexible Pavements by Final Element Method and
Theory of Multi-Layer System. Journal of basic and applied Scientific Research,
2090-4304.
American Coal Ash Association (1990), Flexible Pavement Manual, Alexandria,

Virginia.
ASTM D4694 (Deflections with a Falling Weight Type Impulse Load Device); LTPP
Manual for Falling Weight Deflectometer Measurement: Operational Field
Guidelines (August 2000).
103
ASTM D5858-96e1 Standard, 2003 (2006), “Guide for Calculating in Situ Equivalent
Elastic Moduli of Pavement Materials Using Layered Elastic Theory," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, DOI: 10.1520/D5858-96E01,
www.astm.org
Australian Road Research Laboratory (1998), unpublished correlations between

compressive strength and modulus, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Blab, Ronald, John T., & Harvey. (2000), "Modeling Measured 3D Tire Contact Stresses
in a Viscoelastic FE Pavement Model", Preproceedings of the Second
International Symposium on 3D Finite Element for Pavement Analysis, Design,
and Research, October 11-13,2000, pp123-148.
Carvalho, R. L., & Schwartz, C. W. (2006). Comparisons of flexible pavement designs:

AASHTO Empirical versus NCHRP Project 1-37A Mechanistic-
Empirical. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1947(1), 167-174.
Chen, Hsien H., Kurt M. Marshek., Chhote, L., & Sara, F. (1990), "Effects of Truck Tire
Contact Pressure Distribution on the Design of Flexible Pavements: A Three-
Dimensional Finite Element Approach", Transportation Research Record, No.
1095 pp. 72-78.
Cho, Y. H., McCullough, B. F., & Weissmann, J. (1996). Considerations on finite-

element method application in pavement structural analysis.Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1539(1), 96-
101.
Chou, E., Fournier, L., Luo, Z., & Wielinski, J. (2004). Structural Support of Lime or
Cement Stabilized Subgrade Used with Flexible Pavements (No. FHWA/OH-
2004/017,).
Chou, Y. T. (1992). Development of failure criteria of flexible pavement thickness

requirements for military roads and streets, elastic layered method (No.
WES/MP/GL-92-1). ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT
STATION VICKSBURG MS GEOTECHNICAL LAB.
104
Claessen, A. I. M., & Ditmarsch, R. (1977). Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design--
The Shell Method. In Volume I of proceedings of 4th International Conference on
Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 22-26,
1977. (No. Proceeding).
Davies, T. G., & Mamlouk, M. S. (1985). Theoretical response of multilayer pavement

systems to dynamic nondestructive testing. Transportation Research Record,
(1022).
De Beer, M., Fisher, C., & Jooste, F. J. (1997, August). Determination of pneumatic
tyre/pavement interface contact stresses under moving loads and some effects on
pavements with thin asphalt surfacing layers. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Asphalt Pavements (Vol. 1, pp. 10-14).
Deen, R. C., Southgate, H. F., & Havens, J. H. (1971). Structural Analysis of Bituminous
Concrete Pavements. Kentucky Department of Highways.
Desai, C. S. (2007). Unified DSC constitutive model for pavement materials with
numerical implementation. International Journal of Geomechanics, 7(2), 83-101.
Desai, C.S. (2002). Mechanistic Pavement Analysis and Design Using Unified Material
and Computer Models. 3rd International Symposium on 3D Finite Elements for
Pavement Analysis, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2002, pp. 1-63.
Duncan, J. M., Monismith, C. L., & Wilson, E. L. (1968). Finite element analyses of
pavements. Highway Research Record.
Ekwulo, E. O., & Eme, D. B. (2009). Fatigue and rutting strain analysis of flexible
pavements designed using CBR methods. African Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology, 3(12).
Ellis, T. (2008). A comparison of nondestructive testing backcalculation techniques for

rigid and flexible pavements (Doctoral dissertation).
Erkens, S. M. J. G., Liu, X., & Scarpas, A. (2002). 3D finite element model for asphalt
concrete response simulation. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2(3), 305-
330.
105
Hadidi, R., & Gucunski, N. (2010). Comparative study of static and dynamic falling
weight deflectometer back-calculations using probabilistic approach.Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 136(3), 196-204.
Harichandran, R. S., Buch, N., & Baladi, G. Y. (2001). Flexible pavement design in
michigan: transition from empirical to mechanistic methods.Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1778(1), 100-
106.
Helwany, S., Dyer, J., & Leidy, J. (1998). Finite-element analyses of flexible
pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 124(5), 491-499.
Heukelom, W., & Klomp, AJG. (1962). Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling
Pavements During and After Construction. Proceedings of the Int. Conference on
the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavement, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
Holanda, Á. S. D., Parente Junior, E., Araújo, T. D. P. D., Melo, L. T. B. D., Evangelista
Junior, F., & Soares, J. B. (2006). Finite element modeling of flexible pavements.
Iberian Latin American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering.
Hopkins, T., Beckham, T., Sun, L., Ni, B., & Butcher, B. (2002). Long-Term Benefits of
Stabilizing Soil Subgrades. Lexington, Kentucky. Retrieved from
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=643264
Hornych, P., & El Abd, A. (2004). Selection and evaluation of models for prediction of
permanent deformations of unbound granular materials in road
pavements. Sustainable and Advanced Materials for Road Infrastructure, Work
Package 5 Performance-based specifications.
Howard, I. L., & Warren, K. A. (2009). Finite-element modeling of instrumented flexible

pavements under stationary transient loading. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 135(2), 53-61.
Hu, P., Yang, Y., & Pan, X. (2011) Influence on Asphalt Pavement Fatigue Damage of
Different Distance between Dual Tires. ICCTP 2011: pp. 3510-3516. doi:
10.1061/41186(421)348.
106
Huang, B., Mohammad, L. N., & Rasoulian, M. (2001). Three-dimensional numerical

simulation of asphalt pavement at Louisiana accelerated loading
facility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1764(1), 44-58.
Huang¸ Y.H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2st Edition¸Prentice Hall ¸
Englewood Cliffs¸ NJ.
Islam, M. R., Ahmed, M. U., & Tarefder, R. A. (2010). Evaluation of the FWD Moduli of
a Flexible Pavement Using Finite Element Model. JOURNAL OF
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010.
Kim, D. (2002). Effects of Super-Single Tire Loading on Subgrade. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Kuo, C. M., HALL, K. T., & DARTER, M. I. (1995). Three-dimensional finite element
model for analysis of concrete pavement support. Transportation Research
Record, (1505), 119-127.
Leiva-Villacorta, F., & Timm, D. (2013). Falling Weight Deflectometer Loading Pulse
Duration and Its Effect on Predicted Pavement Responses. InTransportation
Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting (No. 13-2171).
Little, D. N., Scullion, T., Kota, P. B. V. S., & Bhuiyan, J. (1995). Identification of the
structural benefits of base and subgrade stabilization (No. FHWA/TX-94/1287-
2,).
Little, D., Snead, B., Godiwalla, A., Oshiro, P., & Tang, P. (2002). Characterization of
Design Properties (Compressive Strength and Resilient Modulus) Of Lime,
Cement, Fly Ash Stabilized Structural Recycled Concrete Base As A Function Of
Curing Time. In Presentada en The 2002 Federal Aviation Administration Airport
Technology Transfer Conference (pp. 5-17).
Little, D.L. (2000). Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime Stabilized Soils and
Aggregates. Mixture Design and Testing Protocol for Lime Stabilized Soils, 3,
National Lime Association report, (http://www.lime.org/SOIL3.PDF).
107
Liu, W., & Scullion, T. (2001). Modulus 6.0 for Windows: User's manual (No.
FHWA/TX-05/0-1869-2). Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University
System.
Lucht, T. E., Brown, D. L., & Martin, N. H. (1985). Soil survey of Athens County, Ohio.
Majidzadeh, K., & Ilves, G. J. (1983). Evaluation of rigid pavement overlay design
procedure, development of the OAR procedure (No. FHWA-RD-83-090 Final
Rpt.).
Mallela, J., & George, K. P. (1994). Three-dimensional dynamic response model for rigid
pavements. Transportation Research Record, (1448).
Mallela, J., VonQuintus, H., & Smith, K. L. (2004). “Consideration of lime-stabilized

layers in mechanistic-empirical pavement design.” Reprepared for The National
Lime Association, National Lime Association, Arlington VA.
Mamlouk, M. S., & Davies, T. G. (1984). Elasto-dynamic analysis of pavement

deflections. Journal of transportation engineering, 110(6), 536-550.
McClelland Engineering (1986), unpublished correlations between compressive strength

and modulus for LCF material on Runway 9-27, Intercontinental Airport,
Houston, Texas.
Novak, M., Birgisson, B., & Roque, R. (2003). Near-surface stress states in flexible
pavements using measured radial tire contact stresses and ADINA.Computers &
structures, 81(8), 859-870.
Park, Y. J., Gabr, M. A., Robinson, B. R., & Borden, R. H. (2012). Subgrade Undercut
Criteria Based on Modeling of Rutting and Pumping Response.Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(10), 1175-1184.
Parsons, R. L., & Milburn, J. P. (2003). Engineering behavior of Stabilized Soils.

Transportation Research Record, 1837, 20 – 29.
Raad, L., & Figueroa, J. L. (1980). Load response of transportation support

systems. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 106(1).
108
Saad, B., Mitri, H., & Poorooshasb, H. (2005). Three-dimensional dynamic analysis of
flexible conventional pavement foundation. Journal of transportation
engineering, 131(6), 460-469.
Saad, B., Mitri, H., & Poorooshasb, H. (2006). 3D FE analysis of flexible pavement with
geosynthetic reinforcement. Journal of transportation Engineering, 132(5), 402-
415.
Salehabadi, E. G. (2012). The Linear Elastic Analysis of Flexible Pavement by the Finite
Element Method and Theory of Multiple-Layers System.NATIONALPARK-
FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ (Switzerland Research Park Journal), 101(9).
Salgado, R., & Kim, D. (2002). Effects of Heavier Truck Loadings and Super-Single
Tires on Subgrades. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/20. Joint Transportation
Research Progra, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, 2002. doi: 10.5703/1288284313199.
Scullion, T., Uzan, J., Hilbrich, S., & Chen, P. (2006). Thickness design systems for
pavements containing soil cement bases. PCA R&D Serial, (2863).
Sebaaly, B. E., Mamlouk, M. S., & Davies, T. G. (1986). Dynamic Analysis of Falling
Weight Deflectometer Data (No. 1070).
Seelam, S., Osegueda, R. A., & Nazarian, S. (2005). Modeling Permanent Deformation
of Flexible Pavements Due to Overload with Finite Element Method. Center for
Highway Materials Research, University of Texas at El Paso.
SHRP. “SHRP’s Layer Moduli Backcalculation Procedure: Software Selection”. Contract

No. SHRP-90-P-001B, Prepared by PCS/Law Engineering for SHRP, 1991.
Solanki, P., Khoury, N. N., Zaman, M., Jeff Dean, P. E., & Scott Seiter, P. E.
(2009). Engineering Properties of Stabilized Subgrade Soils for Implementation
of the AASHTO 2002 Pavement Design Guide (No. FHWA-OK-08-10). School of
Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma.
Thompson, M. R. (1966). “Shear strength and elastic properties of lime soil mixtures.”
Highway Research Board, Univ. of Illinois, Champaign, IL.
109
Toohey, N. M., Mooney, M. A., & Bearce, R. G. (2013). Relationship between Resilient
Modulus and Unconfined Compressive Strength for Lime-Stabilized
Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(11),
1982-1985.
Tseng, K. H., & Lytton, R. L. (1990). Fatigue damage properties of asphaltic concrete
pavements. Transportation Research Record, (1286).
Von Quintus, H., & Killingsworth, B. (1997). Design pamphlet for the backcalculation of
pavement layer moduli in support of the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures (No. FHWA-RD-97-076).
Wang, J. (2001). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of flexible

pavements (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Maine).
White, T. D (1998). Application of Finite Element Analysis to Pavement Problems.

Finite Element for Pavement Analysis and Design, Proceedings of the First
National Symposium on 3D Finite Element Modeling for Pavement Analysis &
Design, Charlston, W. Virginia, November 8-10, 1998.
White, T. D., Haddock, J. E., Hand, A. J. T., & Fang, H. (2002). NCHRP Report 468:
Contributions of Pavement Structural Layers to Rutting of Hot Mix Asphalt
Pavements.
William, G. W. (1999). Backcalculation of pavement layers moduli using 3D nonlinear

explicit finite element analysis (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University).
Wu, Z., Chen, X., & Yang, X. (2011). Finite Element Simulation of Structural
Performance on Flexible Pavements with Stabilized Base/Treated Subbase
Materials under Accelerated Loading (No. FHWA/LA. 10/452). Louisiana
Transportation Research Center.
Zaghloul, S. M., White, T. D., & Kuczek, T. (1994). Evaluation of Heavy Load Damage
Effect on Concrete Pavements Using Three-Dimensional, Dynamic Nonlinear
Analysis. Transportation Research Record, 1449, 123-133.
110
Zaghloul, S., & White, T. (1993). Use of a three-dimensional, dynamic finite element
program for analysis of flexible pavement. Transportation Research Record,
(1388).
Zaghloul, S., White, T., Drnevich, V., & Coree, B. (1994). Dynamic analysis of FWD
loading and pavement response using a three-dimensional dynamic finite-element
program. ASTM SPECIAL TECHNICAL PUBLICATION, 1198, 125-125.
111
APPENDIX A: BACKCALCULATION OF PAVEMENT MODULUS
Table A1. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for FAY71 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
Thickness(in) Minimum Maximum Poisson Ratio
District: Pavement: 14.75 340,000 1,040,000 0.38
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.3
Highway/Road: Fay71 Subbase: 9 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 18.64(by DB) 15,000 0.4
Measured Deflection (mils) Calculated Moduli Values (ksi) Absolute Dpth to
Station Load (lbs) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 SURF(E1) BASE(E2) SUBB(E3) SUBG(E4) ERR/Sens Bedrock
1 8,999 10.56 4.98 3.29 1.92 1.26 0.88 0.07 340 10 10 6.7 14.85 96.9
2 8,999 10.18 5.01 3.33 1.9 1.27 0.85 0.07 340 10 10 6.8 13.38 87.5
3 8,999 9.83 5.14 3.48 2.08 1.33 0.92 0.07 340 10 10 6.2 11.84 95.2
4 8,999 3.18 2.13 1.72 1.25 0.95 0.68 0.07 925.3 183.1 34.2 6.1 3.87 50.8
5 8,999 3.05 2.15 1.73 1.25 0.96 0.7 0.07 1023.5 176.9 31.9 5.9 3.12 50.9
6 8,999 3.09 2.21 1.8 1.3 1.01 0.74 0.07 1040 73.7 27.1 6.3 5.59 51.1
7 8,999 1.69 1.2 1.01 0.79 0.65 0.51 0.07 1040 300 250 10 15.6 47
8 8,999 1.58 1.24 1.05 0.83 0.67 0.53 0.07 1040 137.6 26.4 26.4 33.1 47
9 8,999 1.6 1.28 1.08 0.86 0.7 0.56 0.07 1040 137.6 25.6 25.6 33.2 46.9
10 8,999 1.5 0.96 0.72 0.49 0.33 0.26 0.07 1040 300 125.6 23 15.27 81.8
11 8,999 1.36 0.94 0.75 0.52 0.37 0.25 0.07 1040 137.6 53 53 36.16 49.5
12 8,999 1.36 0.97 0.76 0.53 0.39 0.27 0.07 1040 137.6 51.9 50.9 36.55 49.1
13 8,999 1.86 1.32 1.08 0.85 0.64 0.5 0.07 1040 300 50 12.5 16.29 47.3
14 8,999 1.82 1.34 1.12 0.87 0.67 0.51 0.07 1040 300 79.3 10.5 14.96 47.7
15 8,999 1.79 1.37 1.15 0.9 0.7 0.54 0.07 1040 300 77.8 10.3 16.54 47.6
16 8,999 2.16 1.68 1.37 1.07 0.79 0.57 0.07 1040 19.8 250 10.5 17.76 48.5
17 8,999 2.23 1.73 1.44 1.14 0.85 0.61 0.07 1040 160 72.5 7.2 10.53 48.4
112
18 8,999 2.24 1.79 1.47 1.11 0.87 0.65 0.07 1040 174.4 146 5.8 6.33 49.3
19 8,999 1.92 1.62 1.4 1.18 0.92 0.68 0.07 1040 191.1 189.7 6.4 15.56 46.6
20 8,999 2.08 1.65 1.43 1.13 0.91 0.72 0.07 1040 218.1 31.5 9.6 19.75 48.2
21 8,999 2.1 1.72 1.5 1.21 0.98 0.77 0.07 1040 218.1 50 7.8 18.81 47.9
22 8,999 2.1 1.88 1.59 1.2 0.99 0.78 0.07 1040 218.1 50 7.3 17.01 49.6
23 8,999 2.26 1.86 1.59 1.24 0.99 0.79 0.07 1040 218.1 50 7.3 16.03 48.9
24 8,999 2.24 1.91 1.65 1.31 1.06 0.84 0.07 1040 21.8 37.6 9.5 22.23 48.7
25 8,999 1.87 1.62 1.32 1.05 0.89 0.75 0.07 1040 137.6 89.1 9.3 22.04 47.5
26 8,999 1.97 1.59 1.33 1.07 0.9 0.77 0.07 1040 190.9 189.9 6.4 14.59 47.3
27 8,999 1.96 1.62 1.39 1.14 0.95 0.8 0.07 1040 137.6 125.6 7 18.75 47.1
28 8,999 1.86 1.48 1.23 0.98 0.79 0.65 0.07 1040 168 125.6 8.9 18.2 47.3
29 8,999 1.97 1.5 1.26 0.99 0.8 0.66 0.07 1040 175.9 150.8 7.7 14.51 47.7
30 8,999 1.95 1.54 1.29 1.02 0.83 0.68 0.07 1040 254.6 50 8.5 16.32 47.7
31 8,999 4.95 1.58 1.36 1.1 0.92 0.73 0.07 340 230.9 230.9 7.7 20.17 47.4
32 8,999 4.85 1.61 1.4 1.14 0.93 0.75 0.07 340 221.6 196.6 7.4 19.82 47.4
33 8,999 4.77 1.69 1.44 1.14 0.92 0.76 0.07 340 211.3 192.4 7 17.38 48.1
34 8,999 1.81 1.54 1.3 0.98 0.76 0.57 0.07 1040 218.1 18.2 15.3 22 48.9
35 8,999 2.04 1.63 1.33 1 0.79 0.6 0.07 1040 121.1 101.4 8.6 14.3 48.9
36 8,999 2.03 1.7 1.42 1.08 0.85 0.65 0.07 1040 137.6 65.3 8.7 16.86 49
37 8,999 2.56 2.3 1.96 1.56 1.2 0.92 0.07 1040 54.8 95.2 4.9 13.2 49.5
38 8,999 2.77 2.33 2.02 1.59 1.25 0.97 0.07 1040 21.8 19.9 7 16.08 49.9
39 8,999 2.79 2.42 2.1 1.67 1.33 1.02 0.07 1040 47 64.8 4.7 13.06 49.9
40 8,999 2.1 1.82 1.55 1.23 0.99 0.78 0.07 1040 218.1 50 7.4 17.75 48.4
41 8,999 2.16 1.83 1.57 1.25 1 0.79 0.07 1040 218.1 50 7.3 17.24 48.4
Mean: 2.87 1.9 1.53 1.15 0.89 0.69 0.07 936.9 160.5 85.6 11.3 17.36 48.4
Std. Dev: 2.22 0.95 0.6 0.34 0.23 0.17 0 247.3 89.2 69 10.4 7.27 7
Var Coeff(%): 77.37 49.91 39.04 29.48 26.11 25.44 0 26.4 55.6 80.7 92.1 41.88 14.4
113
Table A2. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for CLE-133 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
District: Pavement: 7.35 1,300,000 1,800,000 0.38
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.3
Highway/Road: CLE133 Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 29.31(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.25 2.37 1.85 1.34 0.98 0.75 0.02 1800 177.2 59.2 14.9 22.71 52
2 8,999 3.35 2.44 1.77 1.26 0.99 0.79 0.02 1800 177.2 59 14.8 20.64 51.8
3 8,999 3.17 2.43 1.84 1.35 1.05 0.82 0.02 1800 250 33.2 17.7 25.5 51.5
4 8,999 4.74 3.94 2.9 1.97 1.4 1.05 0.02 1800 116.6 61.6 6.2 6.59 56
5 8,999 4.81 3.91 2.91 1.99 1.42 1.04 0.02 1800 73.2 38.7 8.3 13.68 56
6 8,999 4.79 4 2.98 2.06 1.49 1.1 0.02 1800 71.7 37.9 8.1 14.67 56
7 8,999 6.43 5.3 4 2.65 1.82 1.26 0.02 1691.9 78.4 46.5 4.6 2.57 59.1
8 8,999 6.59 5.28 4.03 2.74 1.89 1.3 0.02 1800 85.4 28.5 4.7 5.38 58.8
9 8,999 6.81 5.51 4.22 2.88 2.01 1.41 0.02 1800 81.6 27.2 4.3 6.17 59.1
10 8,999 4.04 3.27 2.5 1.73 1.24 0.87 0.02 1800 136.6 45.5 9.5 14.04 54.9
11 8,999 4.16 3.27 2.52 1.75 1.26 0.92 0.02 1800 134.4 44.8 9.3 14.16 54.9
12 8,999 4.26 3.37 2.62 1.82 1.33 0.99 0.02 1800 205.7 43.3 6.9 11.82 55.2
13 8,999 3.77 2.84 2.12 1.32 1.07 0.88 0.02 1800 247.9 70.9 9.3 11.09 108.9
14 8,999 3.87 2.84 2.13 1.36 1.09 0.88 0.02 1800 244.4 69.9 9.2 10.75 130.4
15 8,999 4.01 2.96 2.24 1.48 1.18 0.94 0.02 1800 170.7 77.3 8.7 10.93 191.8
16 8,999 3.78 2.93 2.17 1.5 1.1 0.82 0.02 1800 240.5 50.6 8 14.56 53.8
17 8,999 3.88 2.97 2.21 1.56 1.14 0.84 0.02 1800 234.8 49.4 7.8 13.99 53.5
114
18 8,999 3.94 3.07 2.32 1.63 1.2 0.89 0.02 1800 90.3 47.7 12 21.24 54
19 8,999 5.92 5.17 4.14 3.24 2.48 1.91 0.02 1800 123.3 32.5 4.3 12.21 55.7
20 8,999 6.09 5.21 4.23 3.33 2.57 2 0.02 1800 119.9 32.3 4.1 12.36 55.8
21 8,999 6.28 5.4 4.39 3.45 2.67 2.06 0.02 1800 83.5 33.2 4 13.09 56.1
22 8,999 3.22 2.46 1.79 1.15 0.75 0.5 0.02 1800 174.2 69.3 14.4 11.69 53.6
23 8,999 3.25 2.48 1.81 1.16 0.79 0.53 0.02 1800 171.5 68.3 14.2 12.59 53.7
24 8,999 3.34 2.56 1.9 1.25 0.86 0.58 0.02 1800 163.8 65.2 13.6 14.23 53.7
25 8,999 2.69 1.78 1.08 0.57 0.29 0.18 0.02 1800 176.4 52.6 37.1 13.85 52.2
26 8,999 2.74 1.74 1.08 0.56 0.3 0.18 0.02 1324.2 250 110 27.5 6.65 54.8
27 8,999 2.74 1.76 1.11 0.6 0.34 0.2 0.02 1453 250 110 25.5 5.52 58
28 8,999 3.85 2.88 2.14 1.44 0.98 0.67 0.02 1800 227.8 57.2 9.1 8.34 54.2
29 8,999 3.87 2.89 2.16 1.48 1.02 0.69 0.02 1800 154.1 81.4 8.1 8.51 54
30 8,999 3.91 2.96 2.22 1.53 1.06 0.74 0.02 1800 175.1 79.3 8.9 5.99 54.1

Mean: 4.25 3.33 2.51 1.74 1.26 0.93 0.02 1769 162.9 56.1 11.2 12.18 54.7
Std. Dev: 1.21 1.15 0.96 0.77 0.6 0.47 0 106.6 61.5 21.5 7.5 5.34 10.8
Var Coeff(%): 28.35 34.48 38.38 44.4 47.58 50.31 0 6 37.8 38.3 67.3 43.83 19.6
115
Table A3. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for PIC-SR56 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
District: Pavement: 7 1,300,000 1,800,000 0.38
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.3
Highway/Road: PIC-SR56 Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 31.07(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 6.19 5.5 4.56 3.35 2.43 1.72 0.08 1800 250 30.7 3.9 4.27 58.9
2 8,999 6.43 5.61 4.66 3.44 2.5 1.78 0.08 1800 250 29.8 3.8 4.01 59
3 8,999 6.51 5.7 4.76 3.51 2.55 1.81 0.08 1800 237.5 39.9 3.3 1.95 59.2
4 8,999 3.99 3.15 2.19 1.6 1.18 0.85 0.08 1800 89 79.2 8.9 14.76 53
5 8,999 3.98 3.21 2.31 1.68 1.22 0.87 0.08 1800 159.5 169.8 6.5 1.3 53.6
6 8,999 4.12 3.29 2.41 1.76 1.29 0.92 0.08 1800 154.8 167.4 6.1 0.87 53.9
7 8,999 4.72 3.72 2.76 1.84 1.26 0.87 0.08 1800 58.4 175.3 6.2 1.67 56.9
8 8,999 4.69 3.76 2.8 1.87 1.3 0.92 0.08 1800 59.8 179.4 6 2.24 56.9
9 8,999 4.81 3.87 2.91 1.96 1.39 1.01 0.08 1800 133.8 99.2 6 2.73 57
10 8,999 3.9 2.98 2.21 1.41 0.97 0.68 0.08 1800 37.6 79.2 12.5 18.29 56.2
11 8,999 3.87 3.01 2.24 1.46 1.02 0.72 0.08 1800 104.7 194.6 7.7 2.66 55.9
12 8,999 3.94 3.1 2.3 1.54 1.09 0.8 0.08 1800 108.2 201.3 7.1 2.85 55.5
13 8,999 4.08 3.47 2.57 1.79 1.21 0.89 0.08 1800 250 74.3 7.4 3.88 92.1
14 8,999 4.26 3.47 2.67 1.84 1.28 0.91 0.08 1800 250 72.1 7.2 3.6 56.1
15 8,999 4.31 3.56 2.75 1.91 1.34 0.95 0.08 1800 79.2 34 11.3 21.89 56.1
16 8,999 3.3 2.84 1.69 1.43 0.88 0.88 0.08 1800 105.5 79.2 10.6 20.75 300
116
17 8,999 3.43 2.79 2.06 1.48 1.05 0.77 0.08 1800 225.7 192 7.3 2.27 53.3
18 8,999 3.52 2.88 2.17 1.55 1.11 0.8 0.08 1800 201.2 201.2 6.8 2.65 53.8
19 8,999 4.29 3.53 2.74 1.91 1.36 0.98 0.08 1800 79.2 34 11.3 22.51 56
20 8,999 4.36 3.55 2.78 1.98 1.42 1.02 0.08 1800 125.6 149.5 5.6 2.16 55.7
21 8,999 4.43 3.69 2.91 2.04 1.49 1.08 0.08 1800 154.1 137.3 5.2 2.22 56.4
22 8,999 4.1 3.28 2.43 1.61 1.13 0.81 0.08 1800 68.7 206 6.9 3.35 56
23 8,999 4.17 3.31 2.46 1.65 1.18 0.85 0.08 1800 67.4 202.1 6.7 3.4 55.9
24 8,999 4.21 3.37 2.54 1.73 1.24 0.91 0.08 1800 250 74.4 7.4 4.55 55.8
25 8,999 4.64 3.96 3.22 2.36 1.73 1.26 0.08 1800 68.5 205.4 4.3 5.07 56.2
26 8,999 4.73 4 3.26 2.39 1.75 1.29 0.08 1800 67.5 202.5 4.3 5.03 56.3
27 8,999 4.84 4.11 3.36 2.48 1.83 1.34 0.08 1800 65.5 196.4 4.1 5.53 56.4
28 8,999 4.97 3.96 3.03 2.1 1.49 1.08 0.08 1800 129.7 101.8 5.5 1.96 56.8
29 8,999 5.04 4.06 3.13 2.13 1.5 1.08 0.08 1800 184.4 61.5 6.1 3.37 57.5
30 8,999 5.03 4.12 3.2 2.24 1.6 1.18 0.08 1800 114.3 116.2 4.9 2.17 57
Mean: 4.5 3.7 2.84 2 1.43 1.03 0.08 1800 137.7 126.2 6.7 5.8 56.1
Std. Dev: 0.78 0.76 0.73 0.56 0.43 0.3 0 0 71.4 64.9 2.3 6.5 9.5
Var Coeff(%): 17.41 20.44 25.91 28.18 29.92 28.69 0 0 51.9 51.5 34.6 112.13 16.9
117
Table A4. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for SUM-224 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
District: Pavement: 12 340,000 1,206,929 0.38
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.3
Highway/Road: SUM224 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 84.61(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.15 2.02 1.41 1.01 0.85 0.69 0.02 642.1 127.2 250 22.6 3.49 300
2 8,999 3.23 2.04 1.32 0.98 0.89 0.77 0.02 552.6 191.2 250 22.1 7.28 300
3 8,999 3.24 2.11 1.54 1.13 0.95 0.75 0.02 662.7 120 250 19.4 2.22 300
4 8,999 3.16 1.97 1.53 1.08 0.88 0.67 0.02 645.5 180.2 192.8 22.5 1.94 300
5 8,999 3.36 2.05 1.55 1.13 0.92 0.72 0.02 565.2 157.9 238.3 20.4 1.43 300
6 8,999 3.38 2.13 1.62 1.18 0.96 0.76 0.02 611.1 121.9 250 18.9 1.46 300
7 8,999 3.13 2.62 1.83 1.19 0.96 0.84 0.02 1206.9 250.6 26 26 9.13 168.4
8 8,999 3.27 2.54 1.84 1.25 0.98 0.96 0.02 929.2 50 250 16.4 7.27 300
9 8,999 3.32 2.45 1.88 1.31 1.09 0.88 0.02 1206.9 250.6 25 25 6 300
10 8,999 3.21 2.3 1.69 1.23 0.97 0.74 0.02 909.6 53.1 232.7 19.2 1.24 49.6
11 8,999 3.27 2.37 1.76 1.26 1.02 0.77 0.02 919.6 52.2 218.1 18.4 1.75 300
12 8,999 3.4 2.51 1.85 1.34 1.12 0.85 0.02 889.5 50 243.6 16 2.14 300
13 8,999 3.38 2.43 1.92 1.38 1.14 0.81 0.02 1206.9 250.6 24.6 24.6 4.57 300
14 8,999 3.56 2.53 1.95 1.45 1.16 0.88 0.02 782.7 140.9 109.8 17.1 1.06 50.1
15 8,999 3.73 2.69 2.08 1.55 1.26 0.95 0.02 815.7 64.4 170.9 14.4 1.03 50.4
16 8,999 4.03 2.93 2.22 1.46 1.1 0.78 0.02 833.5 50.6 58.2 22 2.07 203.1
17 8,999 4.37 3.05 2.29 1.53 1.16 0.83 0.02 664.4 63.3 68 19.9 1.81 300
18 8,999 4.49 3.2 2.46 1.63 1.25 0.89 0.02 700.4 61.9 56.9 18.8 2.15 230
118
19 8,999 3.24 2.44 1.9 1.32 1.03 0.77 0.02 1206.9 250.6 25.5 25.5 3.44 51
20 8,999 3.43 2.49 1.98 1.36 1.08 0.79 0.02 912.5 158.3 68 20.8 2.11 300
21 8,999 3.6 2.61 2.1 1.48 1.16 0.86 0.02 822.7 301.4 47.2 19.9 1.77 51.4
22 8,999 3.28 2.45 1.93 1.36 1.07 0.8 0.02 1206.9 250.6 25 25 3.21 50.9
23 8,999 3.46 2.5 1.97 1.42 1.07 0.82 0.02 817 337.3 49.4 21.3 1.88 50.7
24 8,999 3.58 2.63 2.09 1.51 1.15 0.87 0.02 842 350.2 38.6 20.6 1.65 51
25 8,999 3.35 2.34 1.86 1.26 1.06 0.79 0.02 862.2 72.6 172.9 18.3 2.78 300
26 8,999 3.46 2.4 1.89 1.32 1.06 0.79 0.02 763.2 186.3 91 20.2 1.96 300
27 8,999 3.58 2.52 2.01 1.4 1.14 0.85 0.02 781.6 149.6 94.3 18.3 2.14 300
28 8,999 3.3 2.2 1.77 1.2 0.93 0.7 0.02 738.2 272.9 80.3 24.1 2.59 300
29 8,999 3.53 2.32 1.81 1.26 0.97 0.73 0.02 640.2 276.3 81.8 23 1.94 50.7
30 8,999 3.6 2.4 1.94 1.34 1.05 0.78 0.02 665.7 282.3 75.2 21.2 2.1 300
Mean: 3.47 2.44 1.87 1.31 1.05 0.8 0.02 833.4 170.8 125.5 20.7 2.85 118.6
Std. Dev: 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.16 0.11 0.07 0 200.3 96.1 88.6 2.9 2.01 104.5
Var Coeff(%): 9.37 11.81 13.41 12.1 10.16 8.87 0 24 56.3 70.6 14.2 70.51 88.1
119
Table A5. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for WAR-SR48 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: WAR-SR48 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 27.57(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.37 2.73 2.03 1.46 1.11 0.8 0.22 1800 281.5 130 6.4 1.88 55.3
2 8,999 3.47 2.77 2.1 1.51 1.15 0.85 0.22 1800 186.9 163 5.6 2.01 55.4
3 8,999 3.71 2.95 2.27 1.63 1.24 0.93 0.22 1800 328.2 86.4 6.4 3.88 55.8
4 8,999 3.43 2.72 1.99 1.38 1.01 0.75 0.22 1800 152.9 166.6 6.6 2.52 56.2
5 8,999 3.47 2.76 2.06 1.44 1.06 0.8 0.22 1800 167.6 167.6 6.1 2.56 56.1
6 8,999 3.69 2.93 2.2 1.56 1.15 0.86 0.22 1800 141.5 163.1 5.6 1.97 56
7 8,999 3.89 3.1 2.36 1.71 1.26 0.9 0.22 1800 112.1 97 6.1 6.61 56
8 8,999 3.96 3.15 2.45 1.78 1.32 0.94 0.22 1800 112.1 94.3 5.9 6.66 56.2
9 8,999 4.1 3.33 2.62 1.93 1.43 1.04 0.22 1800 21.3 79.2 7.1 22.79 56.1
10 8,999 3.34 2.84 2.31 1.81 1.44 1.14 0.22 1800 259.4 195.5 4.1 4.28 53.3
11 8,999 3.44 2.87 2.37 1.85 1.48 1.16 0.22 1800 253.7 191.2 4 3.88 53.7
12 8,999 3.58 3.05 2.53 1.98 1.57 1.23 0.22 1800 364.4 169.8 3.6 2.35 53.9
13 8,999 2.96 2.27 1.63 1.16 0.89 0.73 0.22 1800 212.2 219.5 7.3 3.39 300
14 8,999 3.07 2.3 1.68 1.2 0.93 0.74 0.22 1800 176.1 250 6.6 2.37 54.4
15 8,999 3.21 2.44 1.78 1.27 0.99 0.79 0.22 1800 195.1 198.5 6.6 2.54 54.5
16 8,999 3.5 2.82 2.27 1.64 1.34 1.14 0.22 1800 100.2 107.7 7.8 18.54 300
17 8,999 3.5 2.8 2.21 1.7 1.37 1.12 0.22 1800 99.6 125.6 6.9 16.12 53.5
18 8,999 3.68 2.96 2.35 1.8 1.44 1.16 0.22 1800 95.1 92.4 7 17.18 54
120
19 8,999 2.51 1.93 1.39 0.97 0.73 0.59 0.22 1800 399.5 79.3 13.3 15.72 300
20 8,999 2.56 1.97 1.47 1.03 0.78 0.59 0.22 1800 366.4 227.3 8.4 2.69 55.2
21 8,999 2.68 2.09 1.58 1.13 0.85 0.65 0.22 1800 325.7 225 7.5 2.53 54.7
22 8,999 3.44 2.74 1.94 1.25 0.89 0.68 0.22 1800 71.4 214.1 7.1 4.49 118
23 8,999 3.56 2.71 1.97 1.34 0.96 0.72 0.22 1800 69.3 207.8 6.9 3.34 56.7
24 8,999 3.65 2.87 2.11 1.43 1.04 0.79 0.22 1800 240.2 105.2 7 3.2 56.9
25 8,999 5.66 4.43 3.23 2.24 1.61 1.18 0.22 1636 38.3 125.9 4.1 1.26 58.4
26 8,999 5.87 4.5 3.32 2.33 1.68 1.22 0.22 1333.3 69.2 94 4.1 1.13 58.4
27 8,999 6.17 4.79 3.56 2.47 1.82 1.34 0.22 1403.3 48 105.3 3.6 1.4 59
28 8,999 4.38 3.68 3.2 2.6 2.09 1.65 0.22 1800 133.3 133.3 3 8.33 54.3
29 8,999 4.41 3.68 3.2 2.6 2.09 1.65 0.22 1800 210.9 207.5 2.2 2.66 54.3
30 8,999 4.59 3.86 3.38 2.74 2.2 1.73 0.22 1800 201 197.3 2.1 2.92 54.7
Mean: 3.76 3 2.32 1.7 1.3 1 0.22 1765.7 181.1 154 6 5.71 56.6
Std. Dev: 0.87 0.7 0.59 0.49 0.39 0.31 0 112.5 105.3 52.7 2.2 5.94 16.2
Var Coeff(%): 23.24 23.34 25.52 28.72 30.42 31.23 0 6.4 58.1 34.2 36.8 104.09 28.6
121
Table A6. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for DEF247.96 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
District: Pavement: 14 390,000 1,120,000 0.38
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: DEF24.7.96 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 39.31(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.1 2.34 1.79 1.39 1.15 0.85 0.1 971 97.5 129.8 7.8 1.71 49.9
2 8,999 3.22 2.33 1.83 1.43 1.19 0.89 0.1 796 268 107 7.6 1.37 49.9
3 8,999 3.18 2.35 1.88 1.46 1.27 0.93 0.1 849.6 329.5 96.4 7.1 2.02 300
4 8,999 3.67 2.51 1.96 1.42 1.13 0.85 0.1 668.9 77.2 147.9 8.1 1.33 51.8
5 8,999 3.79 2.55 2.02 1.48 1.19 0.9 0.1 635.1 63 199.2 7 1.28 51.7
6 8,999 3.82 2.62 2.08 1.53 1.23 0.93 0.1 659.9 59.9 183.8 6.8 1.21 51.8
7 8,999 3.34 2.35 1.83 1.35 1.08 0.84 0.1 776.1 64 206.2 7.7 1.31 51.1
8 8,999 3.4 2.41 1.89 1.39 1.12 0.87 0.1 780.1 61.2 200.9 7.4 1.39 51.3
9 8,999 3.43 2.47 1.95 1.44 1.17 0.91 0.1 817.4 44.7 250 6.7 1.37 51.3
10 8,999 3.02 2.12 1.9 1.33 1.07 0.86 0.1 910.6 305.3 92.2 8.5 3.57 300
11 8,999 3.1 2.4 1.65 1.38 1.01 0.85 0.1 907.9 48.9 250 7.6 4.02 125.8
12 8,999 3.16 2.32 1.86 1.41 1.16 0.9 0.1 868.2 211.9 107.7 7.7 1.48 50.6
13 8,999 3 2.18 1.73 1.32 1.11 0.9 0.1 899.2 90.2 250 6.5 1.58 50
14 8,999 3.09 2.22 1.76 1.34 1.09 0.87 0.1 888.2 68.2 250 6.9 1.05 50.2
15 8,999 3.12 2.26 1.85 1.41 1.17 0.89 0.1 867.5 273.4 102.3 7.7 1.22 50.5
16 8,999 3.66 2.4 1.79 1.25 1.02 0.77 0.1 593.6 56.2 250 8.6 2.27 300
17 8,999 3.77 2.41 1.81 1.26 1.01 0.79 0.1 551 60 250 8.5 2.3 300
18 8,999 3.84 2.48 1.88 1.32 1.07 0.81 0.1 556.4 56 250 8.1 1.93 300
122
19 8,999 3.47 2.46 1.93 1.34 1.08 0.81 0.1 773.5 54.2 160.3 8.6 2.22 300
20 8,999 3.61 2.49 1.96 1.39 1.12 0.85 0.1 692.8 69.4 159.9 8 1.8 300
21 8,999 3.66 2.57 2.01 1.45 1.16 0.9 0.1 714.6 49.3 204 7.2 1.61 51.9
22 8,999 3.45 2.46 1.91 1.41 1.13 0.88 0.1 771 60.2 191.2 7.4 1.42 51.2
23 8,999 3.56 2.48 1.98 1.43 1.2 0.93 0.1 705.2 67.6 216.8 6.6 1.93 300
24 8,999 3.61 2.55 2.04 1.5 1.24 0.97 0.1 724.1 62.3 212.7 6.2 1.54 300
25 8,999 4.33 2.99 2.25 1.62 1.28 0.94 0.1 577 35.3 190.7 7 1.38 52.5
26 8,999 4.41 2.97 2.3 1.64 1.3 0.97 0.1 551.3 36.1 212.3 6.6 1.39 52.8
27 8,999 4.44 3.04 2.37 1.69 1.33 0.99 0.1 569.7 39.6 161 6.7 1.37 53
28 8,999 5.5 4.11 3.17 2.01 1.62 1.13 0.1 557.5 20 54.6 7.4 4.04 169.3
29 8,999 5.56 4.2 3.18 2.14 1.61 1.18 0.1 567.1 20.5 47.5 7.3 3.18 55.4
30 8,999 5.71 4.3 3.32 2.15 1.67 1.19 0.1 557.7 20 41.6 7.3 3.46 210.2
Mean: 3.73 2.64 2.06 1.49 1.2 0.91 0.1 725.3 92.3 172.5 7.4 1.92 75.3
Std. Dev: 0.74 0.57 0.42 0.23 0.17 0.1 0 133.3 87.7 66.1 0.7 0.86 43.1
Var Coeff(%): 19.78 21.56 20.59 15.51 14.05 11.09 0 18.4 95 38.3 8.9 44.68 57.2
123
Table A7. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for DEF24.10.73 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: DEF24.10.73 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 31.41((by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.98 2.5 1.88 1.28 1.06 0.82 0.13 492.3 55.4 250 6.4 2.8 300
2 8,999 3.99 2.54 1.87 1.31 1.02 0.83 0.13 498.4 50.9 250 6.5 2.95 52.5
3 8,999 4.03 2.55 1.95 1.36 1.12 0.86 0.13 500.2 54 250 5.9 2.16 300
4 8,999 4.26 2.67 2.05 1.45 1.14 0.85 0.13 475.3 57.4 181.8 6.2 1.47 53
5 8,999 4.2 2.75 2.09 1.49 1.18 0.88 0.13 519 46.5 188.9 5.9 1.41 52.9
6 8,999 4.34 2.8 2.15 1.53 1.21 0.91 0.13 492.9 49.8 178.3 5.8 1.46 53
7 8,999 4.58 3.07 2.36 1.65 1.28 0.95 0.13 506.2 54.9 99.6 6.1 1.69 53.8
8 8,999 4.7 3.08 2.39 1.67 1.3 0.95 0.13 463.5 88.7 81.1 6.3 1.66 53.9
9 8,999 4.74 3.19 2.48 1.74 1.34 0.99 0.13 496.8 57.6 87 5.9 1.56 54
10 8,999 4.25 2.8 2.23 1.57 1.24 0.91 0.13 547.4 47.8 149.1 5.8 1.74 53.5
11 8,999 4.45 2.92 2.27 1.62 1.27 0.96 0.13 499.2 49.4 154.8 5.5 1.38 53.2
12 8,999 4.46 3 2.35 1.68 1.32 0.99 0.13 531.6 44.3 141.8 5.4 1.38 53.4
13 8,999 4.55 3.1 2.33 1.65 1.34 0.95 0.13 524.9 31.5 169.7 5.5 1.78 300
14 8,999 4.65 3.11 2.33 1.68 1.32 0.96 0.13 488.5 44.6 130.6 5.7 1.28 53.1
15 8,999 4.72 3.17 2.45 1.74 1.35 0.99 0.13 480.6 94.6 72.1 6.1 1.55 53.7
16 8,999 3.83 2.68 2.25 1.6 1.31 0.98 0.13 674.1 194.3 68.9 6 2.24 300
17 8,999 4.1 2.88 2.18 1.6 1.25 0.98 0.13 608.1 38.5 185.7 5.4 1.79 52.4
18 8,999 4.08 2.86 2.27 1.62 1.29 0.97 0.13 634.5 68.2 96.4 5.9 1.71 53.2
124
19 8,999 3.94 3.04 2.54 1.88 1.58 1.22 0.13 875.6 116.2 64 4.7 2 300
20 8,999 4.25 3 2.57 1.87 1.62 1.19 0.13 638.9 152 82.9 4.5 2.78 300
21 8,999 4.32 3.16 2.54 1.95 1.58 1.25 0.13 645 103.7 93.8 4.3 1.27 52.1
22 8,999 3.9 3.11 2.44 1.98 1.53 1.17 0.13 956.2 102.8 47.7 5.2 1 50.6
23 8,999 4.14 3.03 2.55 1.83 1.58 1.26 0.13 696 77 131.6 4 2.57 300
24 8,999 4.33 3.23 2.61 1.99 1.6 1.25 0.13 693.4 103.1 73.1 4.5 1.29 52.4
25 8,999 4.33 3.46 2.71 2.06 1.56 1.38 0.13 800.4 20 209.3 3.8 3.8 300
26 8,999 4.63 3.37 2.75 2.03 1.66 1.21 0.13 632.4 87.2 62.9 4.8 1.54 53.5
27 8,999 4.64 3.52 2.8 2.07 1.61 1.27 0.13 710.7 26 101.4 4.5 2 53.4
28 8,999 4.42 3.31 2.74 2.07 1.69 1.32 0.13 702.9 111 68.8 4.3 1.34 52.9
29 8,999 4.59 3.35 2.72 2.08 1.69 1.3 0.13 623.8 98.6 78.4 4.2 1.02 52.6
30 8,999 4.76 3.5 2.86 2.17 1.76 1.35 0.13 607.2 118.2 63.4 4.2 1.16 53
Mean: 4.34 3.03 2.39 1.74 1.39 1.06 0.13 600.5 74.8 127.1 5.3 1.79 67.9
Std. Dev: 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.18 0 124.5 39.2 61.9 0.8 0.64 31.7
Var Coeff(%): 6.42 9.35 11.35 14.19 14.95 16.65 0 20.7 52.4 48.7 15.4 35.8 46.7
125
Table A8. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for DEL-23 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 10 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: DEL23 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 261.25(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 2.57 2.27 2.11 1.98 1.78 1.53 1.13 1840 69.3 96.1 31.4 2.51 300
2 8,999 2.22 2.02 1.82 1.72 1.58 1.31 0.9 1840 45.6 112.1 44.1 5.06 300
3 8,999 2.62 2.26 2.18 2.03 1.87 1.61 1.13 1840 191.2 191.2 19.1 0.91 300
4 8,999 2.23 1.87 1.72 1.6 1.43 1.17 0.66 1840 141.8 68.2 43.1 1.43 121.8
5 8,999 2.33 1.93 1.78 1.64 1.5 1.22 0.78 1840 150.9 62.5 41.2 1.39 300
6 8,999 2.69 2.28 2.15 1.98 1.86 1.55 1.08 1840 77.3 108.9 28.4 1.91 300
7 8,999 2.39 2.05 1.92 1.74 1.6 1.33 0.87 1840 94.4 106.5 34.9 1.51 300
8 8,999 2.41 1.95 1.81 1.68 1.53 1.27 0.87 1840 54.5 52.4 51.5 3.62 300
9 8,999 2.71 2.27 2.09 1.94 1.76 1.51 1.03 1335.8 209.5 195.3 22.3 0.4 300
10 8,999 2.47 1.98 1.8 1.64 1.49 1.21 0.82 1189.4 400 48.2 39.4 0.38 300
11 8,999 2.25 1.92 1.77 1.59 1.49 1.19 0.76 1840 141.8 67 42.3 1.5 300
12 8,999 2.51 2.17 2.02 1.9 1.74 1.47 1.04 1840 83.8 96.1 32.3 2.76 300
13 8,999 2.55 2.17 2.02 1.88 1.74 1.44 0.96 1840 99.5 106.5 30.3 1.5 300
14 8,999 2.6 2.17 1.97 1.79 1.63 1.3 0.82 1312.8 288.6 38.3 38.3 0.56 300
15 8,999 2 1.76 1.6 1.45 1.32 1.07 0.64 1840 198.9 110.8 41.4 1.13 145.1
16 8,999 2.09 1.75 1.6 1.45 1.32 1.07 0.68 1739 268.2 77.5 43.2 0.3 300
17 8,999 2.16 1.76 1.61 1.45 1.3 1.07 0.68 1463 315.2 81.4 42.9 0.22 300
18 8,999 2.83 2.49 2.31 2.15 2 1.7 1.2 1840 62.2 207.3 20.7 2.74 300
126
19 8,999 2.18 1.87 1.67 1.52 1.39 1.18 0.78 1840 141.8 69.7 44 2.7 300
20 8,999 2.19 1.79 1.65 1.49 1.37 1.12 0.71 1840 141.8 71.1 44.9 2.47 300
21 8,999 2.6 2.21 2.05 1.89 1.74 1.45 1 1840 81.5 99.5 31.5 1.36 300
22 8,999 2.31 2.05 1.93 1.77 1.64 1.36 0.9 1840 44 106.5 41.7 4.44 300
23 8,999 2.62 2.29 2.18 2.02 1.89 1.6 1.11 1840 190.7 190.7 19.3 0.72 300
24 8,999 2.37 1.99 1.86 1.72 1.57 1.3 0.86 1840 118.3 110.2 34.3 1.38 300
25 8,999 2.58 2.26 2.14 1.99 1.83 1.55 1.07 1840 102.2 215 22.6 1.14 300
26 8,999 2.7 2.27 2.12 1.97 1.8 1.52 0.99 1840 82.7 101.2 29 1.44 300
27 8,999 2.35 1.94 1.82 1.67 1.52 1.25 0.81 1840 54.5 53.8 52 3.53 300
28 8,999 2.14 1.76 1.62 1.48 1.34 1.08 0.68 1631.9 310.9 66 43.4 0.51 300
29 8,999 2.36 1.96 1.8 1.64 1.52 1.23 0.8 1499.5 290.5 86.4 34.4 0.55 300
30 8,999 2.24 1.88 1.73 1.58 1.46 1.21 0.79 1840 56.4 56.2 56.2 4.3 300
31 8,999 2.31 1.88 1.75 1.61 1.47 1.2 0.77 1840 141.8 66.9 42.2 1.77 300
32 8,999 2.6 2.22 2.07 1.9 1.75 1.47 0.99 1840 69.9 110.8 31.6 1.59 300
33 8,999 2.74 2.3 2.17 2.01 1.86 1.58 1.12 1451 307 106 22.8 0.43 300
34 8,999 2.08 1.8 1.65 1.53 1.38 1.1 0.67 1840 173.2 106.5 40.3 1.29 300
35 8,999 2.52 2.18 2.03 1.88 1.75 1.46 0.97 1840 94.4 91.4 31.7 2.13 300
36 8,999 2.63 2.23 2.09 1.93 1.79 1.49 0.98 1840 69.4 100.6 31.4 1.96 300
37 8,999 2.47 2.02 1.88 1.71 1.56 1.27 0.85 1380 378.1 38.9 38.3 0.37 300
38 8,999 2.66 2.18 2.02 1.84 1.67 1.35 0.85 1289.4 315 36.7 36.5 0.43 300
39 8,999 2.47 2.09 1.94 1.77 1.64 1.35 0.89 1840 116.1 105.3 32.2 0.99 300
40 8,999 2.86 2.48 2.31 2.16 2.02 1.72 1.2 1840 154.3 92.5 22.1 0.88 300
41 8,999 2.15 1.78 1.65 1.5 1.36 1.1 0.7 1840 141.8 71.6 45.2 2.3 300
42 8,999 2.17 1.79 1.67 1.51 1.37 1.11 0.71 1840 141.8 71 44.8 2.08 300
43 8,999 2.29 2.04 1.84 1.76 1.61 1.35 0.9 1840 105.9 110.2 34.6 3.3 300
44 8,999 2.4 2.01 1.88 1.76 1.6 1.31 0.85 1840 107.7 108.9 34.1 1.69 300
45 8,999 2.6 2.3 2.16 2.02 1.88 1.61 1.09 1840 191.2 191.2 19.1 0.73 300
127
46 8,999 2.3 1.9 1.78 1.63 1.48 1.23 0.8 1840 56.4 55 54 3.78 300
47 8,999 2.36 1.96 1.83 1.69 1.54 1.24 0.8 1840 134.7 62.2 40.6 1.43 300
48 8,999 2.1 1.82 1.67 1.53 1.39 1.13 0.7 1840 171.3 106.5 39.8 1.19 300
49 8,999 2.61 2.27 2.14 2 1.84 1.56 1.07 1840 96.6 225 22.4 1.17 300
50 8,999 2.68 2.26 2.12 1.97 1.81 1.51 1.02 1840 82.9 101.2 29.1 1.37 300
51 8,999 2.51 2.19 2.04 1.91 1.77 1.48 0.99 1840 92.1 101.2 30.7 2.55 300
52 8,999 2.2 1.79 1.68 1.52 1.4 1.12 0.72 1840 141.8 70.4 44.4 1.9 300
53 8,999 2.62 2.25 2.11 1.94 1.79 1.5 0.99 1840 69.5 96.1 31.5 1.9 300
54 8,999 2.36 1.97 1.82 1.66 1.52 1.25 0.81 1840 142 61.1 40.5 1.34 300
55 8,999 2.74 2.3 2.16 2.01 1.86 1.58 1.08 1419.3 316.3 113.5 22.4 0.49 300
56 8,999 2.5 2.12 1.94 1.75 1.62 1.37 0.91 1456.2 277.9 100.6 29.3 0.61 300
57 8,999 2.28 1.89 1.76 1.6 1.47 1.23 0.82 1840 69.3 55.5 50.1 4.3 300
58 8,999 2.19 1.8 1.66 1.51 1.4 1.12 0.71 1840 141.8 70.6 44.6 2.15 300
59 8,999 2.62 2.23 2.09 1.93 1.8 1.5 1 1840 69.7 101.2 31.5 2.16 300
60 8,999 2.21 1.82 1.68 1.52 1.39 1.13 0.71 1840 141.8 70.1 44.2 1.89 300
61 8,999 2.85 2.48 2.32 2.16 2.03 1.74 1.21 1649.6 183.6 187.1 17.7 0.35 300
62 8,999 2.47 2.01 1.85 1.66 1.53 1.25 0.84 1280.4 312.8 82.9 34.4 0.32 300
63 8,999 2.64 2.21 2.04 1.85 1.69 1.37 0.85 1408.2 275.8 36.4 36.3 0.2 300
Mean: 2.44 2.06 1.92 1.76 1.62 1.34 0.89 1743.3 155.4 97.7 35.7 1.67 300
Std. Dev: 0.22 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.15 188.5 91.8 45.4 9.4 1.16 64.8
Var Coeff(%): 8.88 9.88 10.58 11.38 12.03 13.73 17.38 10.8 59 46.4 26.2 69.57 21.6
128
Table A9. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for LUC2.0 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: LUC2.0 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 31.18((by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.63 2.98 2.51 2.03 1.72 1.34 0.58 1800 141.8 42.5 4.3 2.22 58.9
2 8,999 3.66 3.01 2.6 2.07 1.77 1.4 0.58 1388.3 150.2 96 3.4 1.15 59
3 8,999 3.63 3.05 2.62 2.11 1.8 1.41 0.58 1800 34.4 43.1 4.6 4.5 58.6
4 8,999 3.18 2.61 2.25 1.84 1.57 1.24 0.58 1503 292.1 103.9 3.8 0.95 59.2
5 8,999 3.02 2.61 2.19 1.82 1.57 1.24 0.58 1800 141.8 112.1 3.4 5.98 58.3
6 8,999 3.1 2.62 2.26 1.86 1.59 1.26 0.58 1800 99.1 63.8 4.8 4.69 58.7
7 8,999 2.95 2.66 2 1.66 1.37 1.19 0.58 1800 150.9 79.3 4.9 4.57 58.4
8 8,999 2.95 2.48 2.06 1.66 1.42 1.14 0.58 1731.9 140.5 135.5 4.1 1.14 61.2
9 8,999 3.04 2.51 2.15 1.73 1.49 1.18 0.58 1678.1 157.9 133.3 3.9 1.06 60.7
10 8,999 2.79 2.43 2.14 1.73 1.47 1.14 0.58 1800 165.3 160.3 3.6 2.51 61.5
11 8,999 2.99 2.48 2.14 1.74 1.47 1.15 0.58 1800 99.1 67.2 5.4 4.41 61
12 8,999 3.05 2.55 2.22 1.8 1.53 1.18 0.58 1800 94.1 67.2 4.9 4.2 60.7
13 8,999 2.77 2.15 1.86 1.4 1.17 0.88 0.58 1644 68.4 193.1 5.5 2.17 300
14 8,999 2.81 2.29 1.73 1.35 1.11 1 0.58 1300 103 250 5 4.3 300
15 8,999 2.87 2.25 1.85 1.41 1.16 0.97 0.58 1363.1 82.1 250 4.9 2 69.1
16 8,999 2.82 2.43 1.91 1.55 1.22 1.04 0.58 1800 66.2 167.6 4.8 2.58 300
17 8,999 2.95 2.37 1.94 1.51 1.24 0.97 0.58 1524.3 68.4 179.5 5.1 0.92 68.8
129
18 8,999 2.95 2.39 2 1.54 1.28 0.98 0.58 1800 181.4 60.5 6 1.64 69
19 8,999 2.66 2.11 1.75 1.37 1.16 0.93 0.58 1491.5 170.5 191.7 5.1 1.24 70.4
20 8,999 2.69 2.09 1.8 1.38 1.17 0.92 0.58 1483.5 186.5 171.3 5.3 1.53 72.5
21 8,999 2.79 2.17 1.85 1.44 1.22 0.95 0.58 1431.6 176.9 168.3 5 1.43 69.8
22 8,999 2.49 2.07 1.69 1.32 1.11 0.9 0.58 1800 154.7 160 5.6 1.77 72.7
23 8,999 2.59 2.05 1.73 1.32 1.13 0.89 0.58 1599.9 169.9 172.6 5.5 1.55 300
24 8,999 2.7 2.14 1.79 1.39 1.17 0.92 0.58 1527.6 159.7 166.7 5.3 1.13 71.8
25 8,999 2.71 2.23 1.86 1.44 1.21 0.97 0.58 1762.2 129.2 142.4 5.2 1.46 68.6
26 8,999 2.86 2.24 1.87 1.45 1.22 0.98 0.58 1347.3 171.5 170.4 5 1.25 68
27 8,999 2.84 2.32 1.94 1.51 1.26 0.98 0.58 1700.3 115.7 127.1 5.2 1.08 68.3
28 8,999 2.81 2.02 1.83 1.36 1.13 0.88 0.58 1800 76.4 108.3 6.7 4.37 300
29 8,999 2.92 2.14 1.75 1.34 1.11 0.88 0.58 1300 76.2 250 5.5 1.87 76.3
30 8,999 2.99 2.21 1.81 1.38 1.15 0.89 0.58 1300 64.6 250 5.4 1.85 75.7
31 8,999 2.46 1.9 1.6 1.25 1.06 0.86 0.58 1469.6 238 222.1 5.5 1.18 76.8
32 8,999 2.52 1.96 1.6 1.28 1.08 0.86 0.58 1427.2 208.4 221.8 5.4 0.88 75.5
33 8,999 2.56 1.99 1.7 1.33 1.13 0.89 0.58 1548.1 197.6 195.3 5.3 1.33 73.9

Mean: 2.9 2.35 1.97 1.56 1.31 1.04 0.58 1609.7 137.3 149.2 4.9 2.27 65.9
Std. Dev: 0.3 0.3 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.17 0 185.2 56.4 62.7 0.7 1.44 22
Var Coeff(%): 10.21 12.7 13.6 15.6 16.44 15.93 0 11.5 41.1 42 14.9 63.62 33.3
130
Table A10. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for POR43 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: POR43 Subbase: 14 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 34.66(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 5.08 4.34 3.54 2.45 1.9 1.28 0.55 1800 93.2 35.1 5.6 2.59 66.1
2 8,999 5.14 4.38 3.57 2.46 1.95 1.33 0.55 1800 84.5 28.2 6 4.49 300
3 8,999 5.3 4.53 3.72 2.62 2.07 1.41 0.55 1800 111.6 37.1 4.9 2.11 300
4 8,999 5.15 4.44 3.73 2.69 2.06 1.37 0.55 1800 51.7 32.8 5.7 5.35 64.3
5 8,999 5.14 4.44 3.77 2.74 2.11 1.41 0.55 1800 45.3 52 4.9 4.1 63.7
6 8,999 5.34 4.59 3.92 2.85 2.21 1.49 0.55 1800 52.8 49.4 4.5 3.14 63.2
7 8,999 5.25 4.72 3.94 2.92 2.29 1.6 0.55 1800 50.2 67.2 3.8 2.94 61.7
8 8,999 5.48 4.76 4.01 2.96 2.34 1.64 0.55 1800 35.1 52 4.3 4.57 61.7
9 8,999 5.64 4.96 4.2 3.13 2.46 1.72 0.55 1800 33.3 44.6 4.2 5.14 61.3
10 8,999 3.85 3.45 2.73 2.24 1.76 1.37 0.55 1800 256.4 127.7 4.1 1.69 57.6
11 8,999 3.95 3.37 2.78 2.18 1.77 1.36 0.55 1800 218.7 129.2 4.1 1.18 59.5
12 8,999 4.04 3.44 2.91 2.24 1.87 1.42 0.55 1800 132.6 112.1 4 5.9 59.8
13 8,999 4 3.47 2.93 2.21 1.76 1.32 0.55 1800 132.6 112.1 4 7.51 61.7
14 8,999 4.08 3.4 2.91 2.21 1.81 1.35 0.55 1800 204.3 117.7 4.2 1.9 61.1
15 8,999 4.15 3.51 3.03 2.31 1.89 1.4 0.55 1800 132.6 112.1 3.9 5.21 60.7
16 8,999 4.52 3.78 3.06 2.18 1.69 1.16 0.55 1800 151.3 52.7 5.8 1.63 66.4
17 8,999 4.62 3.72 3.06 2.2 1.74 1.15 0.55 1374.2 337.6 42 5.9 2.26 66.5
131
18 8,999 4.72 3.83 3.15 2.27 1.77 1.27 0.55 1496 184.9 63 5.2 1.5 64.2
19 8,999 3.39 2.81 2.37 1.75 1.41 1.09 0.55 1800 245 139.7 5.6 2.23 65.1
20 8,999 3.52 2.8 2.36 1.75 1.45 1.08 0.55 1648.9 281.3 146.2 5.4 1.87 300
21 8,999 3.6 2.91 2.43 1.82 1.5 1.14 0.55 1800 132.6 96.7 6.1 7.38 63.5
22 8,999 4.1 3.43 2.76 1.89 1.41 0.9 0.55 1800 133.6 39.4 8.3 3.22 79.4
23 8,999 4.44 3.53 2.86 1.96 1.47 0.98 0.55 1800 33.3 119.9 6.3 2.17 73.7
24 8,999 4.58 3.73 3.05 2.13 1.63 1.05 0.55 1800 62.4 62.4 6.2 2.86 70.5
25 8,999 3.6 3.02 2.53 1.98 1.66 1.29 0.55 1800 58.2 112.1 5.8 11.9 59.7
26 8,999 3.56 3.01 2.53 2.01 1.66 1.33 0.55 1800 58.1 112.1 5.8 12.38 58.8
27 8,999 3.7 3.1 2.63 2.07 1.73 1.37 0.55 1800 56.1 112.1 5.6 11.52 58.9
28 8,999 2.88 2.52 2.01 1.52 1.22 0.94 0.55 1800 257.9 175.9 6.7 3.53 68.9
29 8,999 3.05 2.43 2.05 1.52 1.26 0.98 0.55 1800 189.7 247.2 5.7 2.37 300
30 8,999 3.1 2.52 2.11 1.59 1.31 1.02 0.55 1800 132.6 250 5.6 3.44 65.7
Mean: 4.3 3.63 3.02 2.23 1.77 1.27 0.55 1770.6 131.7 96 5.3 4.27 63.7
Std. Dev: 0.79 0.73 0.62 0.43 0.32 0.21 0 96.6 85 58 1 3.08 19.6
Var Coeff(%): 18.47 20.15 20.45 19.23 18.09 16.4 0 5.5 64.5 60.4 19.6 72.23 30.8
132
Table A11. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for SUM80.13A site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: SUM80.13A Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 31.53(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 2.12 1.69 1.32 1.07 0.84 0.63 0.43 1800 37.8 112.1 12.6 7.61 73.6
2 8,999 2.05 1.71 1.39 1.09 0.87 0.65 0.43 1800 41.2 101.2 12.4 8.15 72.6
3 8,999 2.15 1.72 1.47 1.1 0.9 0.69 0.43 1800 36.1 112.1 11.6 8.04 70.1
4 8,999 2.38 1.85 1.47 1.12 0.91 0.64 0.43 1800 95.8 55.7 10.9 3.24 76.2
5 8,999 2.38 1.93 1.61 1.2 0.98 0.74 0.43 1800 29.6 101.2 9.9 5.23 66.8
6 8,999 2.48 1.99 1.65 1.22 1 0.74 0.43 1800 20.2 82.4 10.7 5.18 67.3
7 8,999 2.33 2.06 1.64 1.27 1.07 0.78 0.43 1800 56.4 89.7 8.9 5.23 63.2
8 8,999 2.32 2.11 1.66 1.37 1.04 0.87 0.43 1800 20 70.7 10.2 8.49 300
9 8,999 2.42 2.16 1.72 1.42 1.17 0.98 0.43 1800 141.8 108.3 6.4 4.51 55.5
10 8,999 2.48 1.98 1.66 1.24 1.02 0.77 0.43 1800 23.3 82.4 10.2 5.61 65.1
11 8,999 2.51 2.03 1.72 1.31 1.07 0.82 0.43 1800 63.4 190.1 6.3 1.94 62.5
12 8,999 2.53 2.05 1.72 1.3 1.06 0.78 0.43 1800 121.4 89.7 7.5 1.35 64.6
13 8,999 2.42 1.95 1.67 1.28 1.09 0.82 0.43 1800 112.1 191.6 6.3 1.83 300
14 8,999 2.36 1.97 1.69 1.32 1.11 0.86 0.43 1800 202.8 142.4 6.3 2.18 60.1
15 8,999 2.49 2.05 1.75 1.35 1.14 0.86 0.43 1800 322.7 67.9 6.8 1.88 60.8
16 8,999 2.18 1.62 1.35 1.01 0.83 0.66 0.43 1800 89.4 70.7 12.6 6.98 72.8
17 8,999 2.28 1.67 1.38 1.02 0.83 0.66 0.43 1800 85 67.2 12.1 6.01 73.5
133
18 8,999 2.36 1.74 1.44 1.07 0.88 0.66 0.43 1800 56.4 70.7 11.8 5.52 73.8
19 8,999 2.43 2.12 1.73 1.4 1.16 0.92 0.43 1800 176.1 42.4 8 5.57 57.4
20 8,999 2.35 2.08 1.72 1.36 1.13 0.88 0.43 1800 99.1 63.8 8.2 5.77 59.2
21 8,999 2.5 2.13 1.81 1.44 1.21 0.96 0.43 1800 141.8 112.1 5.9 3.03 57.5
22 8,999 2.47 2.07 1.79 1.41 1.18 0.91 0.43 1800 141.8 108.3 6.4 3.21 58.9
23 8,999 2.57 2.07 1.82 1.42 1.21 0.94 0.43 1787.5 230.8 134.3 5.4 1.59 58.7
24 8,999 2.64 2.17 1.89 1.48 1.25 0.99 0.43 1800 141.8 88.9 5.6 3.76 57.8
25 8,999 2.32 1.87 1.62 1.29 1.09 0.86 0.43 1800 224.7 156.8 6.2 2.34 59.2
26 8,999 2.28 1.88 1.6 1.29 1.1 0.88 0.43 1800 218.4 243 5.4 1.53 58
27 8,999 2.32 1.88 1.63 1.29 1.1 0.87 0.43 1800 248.9 150.9 6.3 2.58 59.1
28 8,999 2.61 2.09 1.84 1.44 1.26 0.93 0.43 1800 141.8 91.1 5.8 5.01 300
29 8,999 2.51 2.07 1.75 1.37 1.13 0.84 0.43 1800 320.4 67.4 6.8 1.46 61
30 8,999 2.65 2.19 1.86 1.45 1.22 0.93 0.43 1800 271.6 60.1 6.3 1.66 59
Mean: 2.4 1.96 1.65 1.28 1.06 0.82 0.43 1799.6 130.4 104.2 8.3 4.22 63.3
Std. Dev: 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0 2.3 90 45.8 2.5 2.27 17.4
Var Coeff(%): 6.21 8.4 9.53 10.82 12.24 13.59 0 0.1 69 43.9 30.5 53.75 27.4
134
Table A12. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for ATB90 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: ATB90 Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 85.44((by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 1.37 1.3 1.12 1.01 0.89 0.76 0.65 2287.5 122.8 112.1 38 21.18 300
2 8,999 1.39 1.29 1.16 1 0.89 0.78 0.65 2287.5 122.8 112.1 37.7 21.51 127.4
3 8,999 1.44 1.32 1.22 1.04 0.91 0.78 0.65 2287.5 122.8 112.1 36.1 21.14 132.3
4 8,999 1.52 1.33 1.1 0.98 0.8 0.74 0.65 2287.5 300 250 25.7 9.58 300
5 8,999 1.5 1.4 1.15 1.03 0.84 0.73 0.65 2287.5 166.9 93.5 31.2 15.12 300
6 8,999 1.65 1.42 1.2 1.07 0.85 0.75 0.65 2287.5 300 130.7 26.8 9.9 300
7 8,999 1.73 1.5 1.31 1.13 0.97 0.78 0.65 2287.5 166.3 157.7 23.8 10.2 131.9
8 8,999 1.66 1.51 1.33 1.15 0.99 0.81 0.65 2287.5 300 44.6 30.4 14.32 107.5
9 8,999 1.76 1.5 1.4 1.18 1.03 0.83 0.65 2287.5 122.8 216.9 21.7 11.78 102
10 8,999 1.93 1.8 1.44 1.25 1.25 1.02 0.65 2287.5 48.9 44.6 28.2 16.98 300
11 8,999 1.92 1.77 1.54 1.33 1.19 0.99 0.65 2287.5 48.9 44.6 28 16.23 67.8
12 8,999 1.98 1.81 1.58 1.37 1.16 1.04 0.65 2287.5 48.9 44.6 27.4 15.6 300
13 8,999 2.83 2.38 2.07 1.68 1.41 1.1 0.65 2287.5 73.6 67.2 14.4 2.03 67.2
14 8,999 2.63 2.32 2.01 1.66 1.43 1.14 0.65 2287.5 178.7 147.2 11.3 1.43 64.2
15 8,999 2.66 2.34 1.98 1.66 1.41 1.13 0.65 2287.5 31.5 70.7 16.1 5.73 63.7
16 8,999 1.91 1.71 1.47 1.27 1.11 0.92 0.65 2287.5 122.8 139.1 20.9 10.32 75.2
17 8,999 1.84 1.77 1.53 1.32 1.15 0.94 0.65 2287.5 194.6 28.2 26.5 14.28 73
135
18 8,999 1.94 1.75 1.57 1.36 1.19 0.97 0.65 2287.5 77.5 70.7 23.3 14.04 69.7
19 8,999 1.69 1.41 1.23 1.06 0.93 0.79 0.65 2287.5 119.4 70.7 33.5 15.77 120.3
20 8,999 1.63 1.46 1.33 1.15 1.05 0.86 0.65 2287.5 300 241.4 20 11.71 86.4
21 8,999 1.73 1.47 1.34 1.17 1.08 0.89 0.65 2287.5 300 250 18.5 10.11 78.3
22 8,999 1.6 1.31 1.12 0.94 0.8 0.63 0.65 2287.5 122.8 99.5 37 12.87 2.2
23 8,999 1.6 1.43 1.26 1.06 0.94 0.76 0.65 2287.5 300 99.5 26.2 11.68 300
24 8,999 1.69 1.48 1.32 1.11 1 0.79 0.65 2287.5 122.8 250 22.6 11.18 128.2
25 8,999 1.47 1.25 1.16 1 0.87 0.72 0.65 2287.5 122.8 112.1 37.8 19.92 300
26 8,999 1.52 1.31 1.21 1.03 0.91 0.74 0.65 2287.5 226.9 152.3 26.8 13.42 300
27 8,999 1.57 1.43 1.25 1.08 0.92 0.75 0.65 2287.5 166.9 43.9 37.7 17.36 300
28 8,999 1.99 1.59 1.41 1.18 0.98 0.82 0.65 2287.5 122.8 112.1 23.9 8.32 108.4
29 8,999 2.03 1.72 1.55 1.28 1.08 0.88 0.65 2287.5 300 112.1 18.5 5.33 88.2
30 8,999 2.1 1.79 1.59 1.29 1.12 0.86 0.65 2287.5 122.8 44.6 24.2 8.79 96.5
Mean: 1.81 1.6 1.4 1.19 1.04 0.86 0.65 2287.5 162.5 115.8 26.5 12.59 116.4
Std. Dev: 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.2 0.18 0.13 0 0 88.4 67.6 7.3 5.17 399.5
Var Coeff(%): 20.11 19.38 18.55 16.79 17.01 15.38 0 0 54.4 58.4 27.7 41.06 343.1
136
Table A13. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for CLE-275 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: CLE-275 Subbase: 9 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 21.37(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 1.83 1.55 1.39 1.08 0.87 0.61 0.27 1798.1 61.5 52 18 30.07 56.1
2 8,999 1.88 1.66 1.42 1.13 0.9 0.66 0.27 1597.3 61.4 49.9 16 29.73 54.3
3 8,999 1.78 1.56 1.36 1.08 0.85 0.62 0.27 1651.4 323.5 20 16.5 24.28 55
4 8,999 1.45 1.27 1.14 0.93 0.76 0.59 0.27 2200 132.6 20 25.4 30.53 53.9
5 8,999 1.54 1.36 1.22 1.01 0.81 0.64 0.27 1628.5 204 67.8 16.3 31.83 52.6
6 8,999 1.42 1.29 1.16 0.96 0.79 0.62 0.27 2200 132.6 20 25.2 31.9 52.7
7 8,999 1.02 0.88 0.74 0.59 0.42 0.32 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 24.3 28.35 94.5
8 8,999 1.11 0.93 0.79 0.61 0.47 0.34 0.27 2200 333.1 207.1 22 24.17 83
9 8,999 1.07 0.91 0.78 0.61 0.47 0.34 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 23.1 27.96 82.1
10 8,999 1.73 1.66 1.49 1.32 1.17 1.03 0.27 1941.8 83.7 32.8 19.4 38.74 47.5
11 8,999 1.83 1.71 1.57 1.39 1.23 1.09 0.27 1444.3 280.2 20 14.4 34.64 47.6
12 8,999 1.74 1.61 1.5 1.32 1.17 1.04 0.27 1727.2 82.6 29.4 17.3 37.72 47.8
13 8,999 1.28 1.11 0.95 0.75 0.6 0.45 0.27 1875.9 188.6 159.4 18.8 27.99 61.5
14 8,999 1.32 1.17 1.02 0.81 0.64 0.48 0.27 2200 132.6 28.2 28.4 31.27 59.2
15 8,999 1.3 1.14 1 0.79 0.63 0.47 0.27 1723.8 245.5 172.4 17.2 27.99 60
16 8,999 0.89 0.63 0.52 0.35 0.24 0.12 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 90.7 39.21 31.9
17 8,999 0.85 0.68 0.54 0.37 0.26 0.15 0.27 2200 220.8 112.1 41.3 25.31 29.6
137
18 8,999 0.86 0.68 0.55 0.38 0.27 0.16 0.27 2200 108.7 51.7 108.7 40.14 28.6
19 8,999 1.33 1.15 1 0.81 0.66 0.5 0.27 2200 132.6 28.2 28.4 31.66 57
20 8,999 1.38 1.22 1.06 0.86 0.7 0.53 0.27 2200 132.6 20 24.3 28.17 55.7
21 8,999 1.33 1.16 1.02 0.83 0.67 0.52 0.27 2200 132.6 20 27.9 30.13 55.9
22 8,999 0.86 0.64 0.5 0.34 0.22 0.13 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 92.5 38.85 31.1
23 8,999 0.89 0.67 0.52 0.35 0.23 0.13 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 87.3 37.58 31.2
24 8,999 0.93 0.7 0.54 0.36 0.24 0.14 0.27 2200 132.6 44.6 85.5 31.01 30.6
25 8,999 0.79 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.42 0.37 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 74.5 49.18 300
26 8,999 0.84 0.71 0.64 0.53 0.45 0.37 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 70.2 47.91 72.3
27 8,999 0.82 0.7 0.63 0.53 0.44 0.36 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 71.4 48.49 75.6
28 8,999 0.65 0.49 0.41 0.32 0.24 0.18 0.27 2200 350 112.1 105.1 47.23 25.2
29 8,999 0.66 0.53 0.44 0.35 0.27 0.21 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 98.3 50.26 20.3
30 8,999 0.66 0.53 0.45 0.36 0.28 0.21 0.27 2200 132.6 112.1 97.2 50.93 20.3
Mean: 1.2 1.03 0.9 0.72 0.58 0.45 0.27 2052.9 159.9 79.6 46.8 35.11 48.4
Std. Dev: 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.33 0.3 0.27 0 241.9 76 52.2 34.1 8.29 23.3
Var Coeff(%): 32.76 37.98 41.13 46.11 52.09 60.71 0 11.8 47.5 65.6 72.7 23.62 48.1
138
Table A14. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for MOT-70 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: MOT70 Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 12.00(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 1.42 1.19 1.09 0.91 0.79 0.64 0.68 2380 333.1 250 3.5 7.15 5.6
2 8,999 1.45 1.29 1.16 0.98 0.86 0.71 0.68 2380 210.2 177.6 3.9 11.62 300
3 8,999 1.43 1.33 1.16 1 0.87 0.72 0.68 2380 210.2 177.6 3.8 11.81 300
4 8,999 1.48 1.3 1.08 0.99 0.97 0.89 0.68 2380 210.2 177.6 3.7 16.02 300
5 8,999 1.51 1.35 1.17 1.06 1.03 0.92 0.68 2380 132.6 112.1 4.2 18.57 300
6 8,999 1.49 1.36 1.19 1.08 1.06 0.96 0.68 2380 132.6 112.1 4.1 19.46 300
7 8,999 1.6 1.36 1.19 1.19 1.06 0.98 0.68 2380 210.2 250 2.5 15 300
8 8,999 1.63 1.45 1.3 1.24 1.1 0.99 0.68 2380 210.2 177.6 2.7 14.45 59.4
9 8,999 1.66 1.5 1.39 1.26 1.12 0.98 0.68 2380 300.2 20.7 4.3 17.31 67.9
10 8,999 1.34 1.13 1.02 0.86 0.75 0.62 0.68 2380 350 250 3.7 8.48 9.3
11 8,999 1.32 1.19 1.06 0.9 0.78 0.66 0.68 2380 333.1 207.1 3.6 10.25 2
12 8,999 1.39 1.23 1.11 0.94 0.83 0.68 0.68 2380 285.7 241.4 3.5 9.13 300
13 8,999 1.43 1.32 1.02 0.83 0.82 0.71 0.68 2380 333.1 250 3.5 9.92 300
14 8,999 1.4 1.27 1.06 0.85 0.83 0.77 0.68 2380 333.1 250 3.4 10.88 300
15 8,999 1.47 1.35 1.12 0.89 0.88 0.81 0.68 2380 245 196.8 3.6 11.43 300
16 8,999 1.74 1.72 1.45 1.4 1.25 1.21 0.68 2380 245 20 3.9 18.84 300
17 8,999 1.75 1.66 1.56 1.45 1.37 1.24 0.68 2380 245 20 3.8 20.59 53.5
139
18 8,999 1.81 1.73 1.59 1.49 1.4 1.29 0.68 2380 245 20 3.5 19.26 51.8
19 8,999 1.34 1.19 1.03 0.88 0.77 0.65 0.68 2380 350 250 3.6 8.5 3.8
20 8,999 1.37 1.23 1.09 0.93 0.82 0.69 0.68 2380 285.7 241.4 3.5 9.64 300
21 8,999 1.42 1.27 1.14 0.97 0.85 0.71 0.68 2380 210.2 130.7 3.9 12.58 300
22 8,999 1.55 1.45 1.27 1.17 1.06 0.9 0.68 2380 245 207.1 2.9 12.54 76.8
23 8,999 1.65 1.52 1.38 1.25 1.14 0.98 0.68 2380 300.2 20.7 4.3 17.42 67.8
24 8,999 1.72 1.58 1.46 1.31 1.2 1.03 0.68 2380 132.6 70.7 3.4 16.74 64.8
25 8,999 1.55 1.34 1.18 1.01 0.88 0.72 0.68 2380 146.4 44.6 5.6 15.61 300
26 8,999 1.61 1.4 1.28 1.09 0.97 0.8 0.68 2380 210.2 250 2.7 8.1 300
27 8,999 1.66 1.46 1.33 1.13 1 0.83 0.68 2380 350 20.7 4.6 13.06 123.3
28 8,999 1.22 1.09 0.97 0.81 0.7 0.57 0.68 2380 210.2 177.6 6 16.48 16.6
29 8,999 1.31 1.15 1.01 0.86 0.74 0.61 0.68 2380 350 250 3.7 8.24 10.9
30 8,999 1.37 1.2 1.09 0.91 0.8 0.66 0.68 2380 350 250 3.5 8.36 2
Mean: 1.5 1.35 1.2 1.05 0.96 0.83 0.68 2380 256.8 160.8 3.8 13.25 32.1
Std. Dev: 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 0 0 71.6 90.4 0.7 4.09 66.7
Var Coeff(%): 10.06 12.43 13.98 18.35 19.57 23.35 0 0 27.9 56.2 19.2 30.88 208
140
Table A15. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for PAU-24 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 300,000 0.35
Highway/Road: PAU24 Subbase: 16 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 11.79(by DB) 15,000 0.4

1 8,999 3.18 2.91 2.78 2.44 2.22 1.84 0.09 1673.4 167.3 41.2 1.7 14.4 5.6
2 8,999 3.12 2.95 2.72 2.45 2.21 1.88 0.09 1680.8 168.1 41.4 1.7 14.53 300
3 8,999 3.07 2.84 2.71 2.38 2.16 1.81 0.09 2005.2 147.5 24.1 2 15.61 300
4 8,999 2.24 2.12 1.83 1.67 1.47 1.28 0.09 2446.5 119.4 20 3.3 16.54 300
5 8,999 2.27 2.09 1.93 1.7 1.55 1.3 0.09 2446.5 48.9 28.2 3.2 17.52 300
6 8,999 2.3 2.14 1.94 1.72 1.54 1.31 0.09 2446.5 48.9 28.2 3.2 16.88 300
7 8,999 2.72 2.69 2.16 2.03 1.75 1.46 0.09 2157.3 139.1 35.9 2.2 11.59 300
8 8,999 2.57 2.44 2.19 1.98 1.76 1.48 0.09 2446.5 44.5 20 2.8 15.66 59.4
9 8,999 2.6 2.49 2.19 1.98 1.75 1.46 0.09 2446.5 44.3 20 2.8 14.82 67.9
10 8,999 2.42 2.17 1.93 1.67 1.46 1.21 0.09 2446.5 122.8 38.3 2.7 11.11 9.3
11 8,999 2.42 2.19 2 1.7 1.5 1.22 0.09 2332.3 115.9 66.8 2.3 10.7 2
12 8,999 2.46 2.24 2.04 1.74 1.52 1.24 0.09 2336.2 107.4 59.8 2.3 10.71 300
13 8,999 2.66 2.62 2.15 1.97 1.75 1.61 0.09 2446.5 43.4 20 2.7 14.75 300
14 8,999 2.66 2.59 2.13 2.09 1.93 1.69 0.09 2446.5 20 20 2.7 18.25 300
15 8,999 2.75 2.58 2.31 2.11 1.92 1.65 0.09 2446.5 59.6 24.1 2.4 15.39 300
16 8,999 2.06 1.8 1.56 1.31 1.14 0.94 0.09 2446.5 48.9 70.7 3.7 12.72 300
17 8,999 2.02 1.82 1.59 1.33 1.17 0.97 0.09 2446.5 48.9 44.6 3.9 14.74 53.5
141
18 8,999 2.03 1.79 1.61 1.35 1.18 0.96 0.09 2446.5 48.9 44.6 3.9 14.95 51.8
19 8,999 1.93 1.9 1.43 1.32 1.17 1 0.09 2446.5 77.5 70.7 3.6 14.81 3.8
20 8,999 1.92 1.79 1.52 1.33 1.19 0.98 0.09 2446.5 77.5 70.7 3.6 14.98 300
21 8,999 1.95 1.75 1.59 1.36 1.21 1.01 0.09 2446.5 77.5 70.7 3.5 15.75 300
22 8,999 1.87 1.69 1.5 1.33 1.23 1.03 0.09 2446.5 122.8 44.6 4 18.6 76.8
23 8,999 1.86 1.75 1.53 1.37 1.19 1.06 0.09 2446.5 122.8 44.6 4 18.01 67.8
24 8,999 1.89 1.75 1.55 1.37 1.16 1.08 0.09 2446.5 77.5 70.7 3.6 16.56 64.8
25 8,999 1.91 1.72 1.54 1.36 1.2 1.03 0.09 2446.5 77.5 70.7 3.6 16.6 300
26 8,999 1.97 1.76 1.6 1.4 1.23 1.09 0.09 2446.5 48.9 44.6 3.8 18.53 300
27 8,999 1.95 1.74 1.59 1.38 1.23 1.06 0.09 2446.5 77.5 70.7 3.5 16.7 123.3
28 8,999 2.27 2.08 1.96 1.73 1.62 1.36 0.09 2446.5 119.4 20 3.2 17.88 16.6
29 8,999 2.29 2.11 1.94 1.73 1.57 1.34 0.09 2446.5 48.9 28.2 3.2 17.81 10.9
30 8,999 2.27 2.17 1.92 1.78 1.55 1.35 0.09 2446.5 48.9 28.2 3.2 17.98 2
Mean: 2.32 2.16 1.91 1.7 1.52 1.29 0.09 2363.4 84 42.7 3.1 15.5 46.3
Std. Dev: 0.39 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.28 0 210.1 41.2 19.5 0.7 2.3 66.7
Var Coeff(%): 16.84 18.38 19.76 21.02 22.04 22.07 0 8.9 49.1 45.7 22.1 14.86 208
142
Table A16. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for BUT-75 site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
County Base: 6 10,000 500,000 0.35
Highway/Road: BUT75 Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 269.75(by DB) 15,000 0.4

0 9,179 2.63 2.11 2.17 1.91 1.57 1.34 1.1 1120 270.8 112.1 34.7 8.4 300
120 9,135 3.03 2.53 2.29 2.14 1.64 1.42 1.1 1120 153.1 112.1 30.3 6.05 300
240 9,223 2.8 2.1 2.11 1.72 1.35 1.14 0.92 1120 362.5 108.8 35.8 1.39 300
360 9,091 2.65 2.09 1.87 1.52 1.38 1.04 0.84 1120 500 116.8 36.6 3.98 300
480 9,080 2.12 1.43 1.45 1.16 0.98 0.81 0.67 1120 492.5 106.5 61.4 6.12 300
600 9,036 2.23 1.58 1.6 1.34 1.11 0.93 0.75 1120 397.2 250 41.2 3.12 300
720 9,102 1.96 1.47 1.48 1.26 1.02 0.86 0.72 1120 397.2 250 45.3 5.47 300
840 9,069 2.02 1.55 1.67 0.98 1.17 0.89 0.81 1120 315.5 112.1 61.4 14.41 300
960 8,861 2.02 1.52 1.49 1.23 1.03 0.83 0.81 1120 250.6 77.4 66.4 11.24 300
1080 9,113 1.94 1.44 1.46 1.26 1.09 0.94 0.79 1120 500 69 67.7 13.87 300
1200 9,102 2.05 1.5 1.46 1.27 1.22 0.95 0.83 1120 250.6 112.1 55.2 14.88 300
Mean: 2.31 1.76 1.73 1.44 1.23 1.01 0.85 1120 353.6 129.7 48.7 8.08 300
Std. Dev: 0.39 0.38 0.32 0.35 0.22 0.2 0.14 0 116.5 61.4 14 4.8 0
Var Coeff(%): 16.82 21.58 18.59 24.46 18.23 20.19 16.51 0 32.9 47.4 28.7 59.41 0
143
Table A17. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for ERI2-CEMENT site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
District: Pavement: 15.25 340,000 548,379 0.38
County Base: 10 10,000 500,000 0.35
Highway/Road: ERI2CEMENT Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 130.84(by DB) 15,000 0.4

0 9,146 2.85 1.67 1.7 1.41 1.18 1.05 0.88 548.4 158.5 112.1 40 12.1 300
300 9,124 2.88 1.82 1.85 1.54 1.24 1.07 0.85 548.4 158.5 108.8 36.3 10.51 148.1
600 9,036 2.96 1.92 1.96 1.65 1.4 1.21 0.99 548.4 158.5 112.1 30.3 10.96 300
900 8,993 2.77 1.53 1.61 1.18 1.15 1.04 0.85 548.4 158.5 112.1 43.9 13.37 300
1200 9,004 2.76 1.54 1.71 1.29 1.06 0.95 0.87 548.4 330.4 112.1 33 5.8 300
1500 9,014 2.87 1.69 1.67 1.44 1.19 1.04 0.9 548.4 158.5 112.1 27.4 16.07 300
1800 8,993 2.66 1.65 1.67 1.37 1.13 0.96 0.75 548.4 158.5 250 34.4 9.49 124.3
2100 8,982 2.59 1.54 1.6 1.26 0.98 0.78 0.59 548.4 209.3 112.1 44 7.35 109
2400 9,036 2.38 1.35 1.33 1.04 0.89 0.73 0.57 548.4 500 177.6 40 4.24 108.6
2700 9,004 3.08 2.01 2.07 1.66 1.34 1.09 0.81 548.4 500 70.9 23.6 1.92 103.7
Mean: 2.78 1.67 1.72 1.38 1.16 0.99 0.81 548.4 249.1 128 35.3 9.18 168.1
Std. Dev: 0.2 0.2 0.21 0.2 0.15 0.14 0.13 0 142.7 50 6.9 4.35 76.8
Var Coeff(%): 7.16 11.91 11.98 14.44 13.33 14.55 16.63 0 57.3 39.1 19.5 47.42 45.7
144
Table A18. Back-calculated moduli based on FWD test for ERI2-LIME site
MODULI RANGE(psi)
District: Pavement: 15.25 130,000 641,517 0.38
County Base: 10 10,000 500,000 0.35
Highway/Road: ERI2LIME Subbase: 12 10,000 250,000 0.35
Subgrade: 262.75(by DB) 15,000 0.4

0 9,398 3.17 1.87 1.77 1.28 1.18 0.91 0.8 489.7 471.3 63.1 45.1 3.25 300
50 9,277 2.98 1.8 1.78 1.33 1.1 1.04 0.81 564.1 297.6 250 35.9 3.41 300
100 9,245 2.96 1.71 1.72 1.28 0.99 0.95 0.85 547 237.9 250 40.8 3.31 300
150 9,146 2.61 1.56 1.63 1.29 0.98 0.9 0.77 641.5 246.9 112.1 50.2 4.33 300
200 9,201 2.8 1.57 1.55 1.29 1.01 0.86 0.69 641.5 158.5 72.5 60.1 7.76 300
250 9,190 2.5 1.49 1.52 1.16 0.93 0.91 0.73 641.5 261.9 112.1 55.1 5.27 300
300 9,223 2.56 1.44 1.37 1.29 1.06 0.83 0.81 641.5 158.5 77.4 69.9 14.67 300
350 9,135 2.82 1.65 1.68 1.39 1.15 1.02 0.87 626.7 500 112.1 38.1 2.19 300
400 9,080 2.94 1.39 1.47 1.18 1.01 0.9 0.75 455.4 500 250 42 3.76 300
450 9,069 2.8 1.27 1.62 0.95 1.03 0.83 0.69 465.1 500 250 45.3 9.81 300
Mean: 2.81 1.58 1.61 1.24 1.04 0.92 0.78 571.4 333.2 154.9 48.3 5.78 300
Std. Dev: 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.06 78 143.9 83.6 10.7 3.9 0
Var Coeff(%): 7.46 11.87 8.3 9.85 7.53 7.8 8 13.7 43.2 54 22.1 67.46 0
145
APPENDIX B: GRANULAR BASE COMPARISON
510000
460000
410000
360000
310000
Base (psi)
260000 Upper limit
Lower limit
210000
Backcalculation
160000
110000
60000
10000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B1The average backcalculated moduli spread for all sites
500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
Base (psi)
250000 Upper limit
Lower limit
200000
Fay 71
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B2 Backcalculated moduli spread of FAY‐IR71‐000.00 site obtained from the

backcalculation
146
1000000
900000
800000
700000
Upper limit
600000
Base (psi)
Lower limit
500000 PIC56
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B3 Backcalculated moduli spread of PIC-SR56-026.45site obtained from the

backcalculation
Upper limit Lower limit SUM‐US224‐011.24

400000
350000
300000
Base Modulus (psi)
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Figure B4 Backcalculated moduli spread of SUM-US224-011.24site obtained from the

backcalculation
147
400000
350000
300000 Upper
limit
Lower
250000 limit
Base (psi)
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B5 Backcalculated moduli spread of WAR-SR48-021.74 site obtained from the

backcalculation
400000
350000
300000
250000
Base (psi)
200000 Upper limit
Lower limit
150000 DEF24ou(7.96)
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B6 Backcalculated moduli spread of DEF-US24-007.96 site obtained from the

backcalculation.
148
400000
350000
300000
250000
Base (psi)
Upper limit
200000 Lower limit
ATB90
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B7 Backcalculated moduli spread of ATB‐IR90‐003.70 site obtained from the

backcalculation
400000
350000
300000
250000
Base (psi)
200000 Upper limit
Lower limit
150000 CLE275
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B8 Backcalculated moduli spread of CLE‐IR275‐013.79 site obtained from the

backcalculation
149
400000
350000
300000
250000
Base (psi)
200000 Upper limit
Lower limit
150000 MOT70
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B9 Backcalculated moduli spread of MOT‐IR70‐017.04 site obtained from the

backcalculation
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
Base (psi)
100000 Upper limit
80000 Lower limit
PAU24
60000
40000
20000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B10 Backcalculated moduli spread of PAU‐US24‐012.30 site obtained from the

backcalculation
150
400000
350000
300000
250000
Base (psi)
200000
Upper limit
150000 Lower limit
LUC
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B11 Backcalculated moduli spread of LUC‐SR2‐011.77 site obtained from the

backcalculation
400000
350000
300000
250000
Upper limit
Base (psi)
Lower limit
200000
POR
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B12 Backcalculated moduli spread of POR‐SR43‐023.59 site obtained from the

backcalculation
151
400000
350000
300000
250000
Base (psi)
200000 Upper limit
Lower limit
150000
SUM8
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B13 Backcalculated moduli spread of SUM‐SR8‐013.30 site obtained from the

backcalculation
400000
350000
300000
250000 Upper limit
Base (psi)
Lower limit
200000 DEL23
150000
100000
50000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Subgrade (psi)
Figure B14 Backcalculated moduli spread of DEL‐US23‐020.08 site obtained from the

backcalculation
152
600000
Upper limit
Lower limit
500000 Backcalculation
Base Modulus (psi)
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
‐2000 48000 98000 148000 198000 248000
Figure B15 Backcalculated moduli spread of all sites obtained from the backcalculation
600000
Upper limit
Lower limit
500000 CEMENT
400000
Base Modulus (psi)
300000
200000
100000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Figure B16 Backcalculated moduli spread of cement stabilized sites obtained from the

backcalculation
153
600000
Upper limit
Lower limit
500000
LIME
400000
Base Modulus (psi)
300000
200000
100000
0
‐2000 48000 98000 148000 198000 248000
Figure B17 backcalculated moduli spread of lime stabilized sites obtained from the

backcalculation
154
APPENDIX C: BACKCALCULATION VALIDATION
Distance from the center of loading Distance from the center of loading
plate (in) plate (in)
0 12 24 36 48 60 0 12 24 36 48 60
0 0
Vertical deflection (mil)

1
1
2
3 Measured Measured
2
4 Finite Element Finite Element
5 3
WAR48 BUT-75
Distance from the center of loading Distance from the center of loading plate
plate (in) (in)
0 12 24 36 48 60 0 12 24 36 48 60
0 0
1 1
2
2
Measured 3 Measured
3
Finite Element 4
Finite Element
4 5
DEF24-7.96 DEF24-10.73
155
0 12 24 36 48 60 0 12 24 36 48 60
0 0

1
1
2
2
3 Measured
Measured
4 3
Finite
Element Finite Element
5 4
POR 43 LUC2
0 12 24 36 48 60 0 12 24 36 48 60
0 0
1 1
2 Measured 2 Measured
Finite Element Finite Element
3 3
SUM-8 DEL-23
156
0 12 24 36 48 60 0 12 24 36 48 60
0 0

1
1
2 Measured Measured
Finite Element Finite Element
3 2
ATB 90 CLE-275
0 12 24 36 48 60 0 12 24 36 48 60
0 0
Measured 2 Measured
Finite Element Finite
Element
2 3
MOT 70 PAU 24
Figure C1 Comparison between the measured and finite element calculated deflection
basins for different pavement sections
157
APPENDIX D: MODULUS 6.0 BACKCALCULATION SOFTWARE
MOUDLUS
Texas Transportation Institute has developed and used this software program
since 1990 to evaluate and calculate moduli values for pavement structural design and
performance evaluations. The program was first designed to be run on a DOS system and
then improved to the Windows computer platform which makes the program user
friendly (Liu and Scullion, 2001).
MODULUS 6.0 utilizes WESLEA subroutine for forward moduli calculations.
This subroutine programs is essentially based on multilayer linear elasto-static theory
which is conventionally adopted for flexible pavement analysis. Basically, it is used to
generate a database of previously calculated deflection basins for several pavement
structures and then search in this database to find the layers moduli values that best match
the ones estimated from the measured deflection basins (William, 1999)
MODULUS 6.0 Environment
The main window of the MODULUS has six subroutine programs for different
analysis purposes located at the top as shown in Figure.D1. Three of them are essential
for the backcalculation analysis which will be briefly described (Liu and Scullion, 2001).
158
Figure D1 Main window of Modulus 6.0 (Liu and Scullion, 2001)
Read FWd data
This routine program allows users to read Dynatest FWD files of format R80,
R32, F9, F10 and F20, which can be obtained directly from the FWD test device. It also
allows users to read raw FWD files that contain dynamic time history which is not used
in the backcalculation analysis. However, only deflection data is extracted and processed
through the analysis. After the program reads FWD files, it will display a comment
window. This comment widow shows information about testing time, sensor location,
load, deflection, etc, as shown in Figure D2. The files obtained directly from the testing
device are known to be standard data formats; nevertheless, in some instances, it is

159
necessary to use deflection data, the format of which is different than standard ones,
especially if the normalization approach is adopted in the analysis. Therefore,
MODULUS6.0 has the ability to read non-standard data by using the same routine
program, as shown in Figure D3. One important thing when using non-standared files is
that the data files should be space-delimited otherwise the program cannot read them (Liu
and Scullion, 2001).
Drop Selection Routine
This routine program is optional; it can be avoided during the analysis. This
program enables the user to review the raw FWD deflection data before the analysis.
Also it permits the user to select which load level to be processed during the analysis,
since the FWD testing device is capable of applying load at different load levels as
needed. Even if the user does not select the load level, the program will automatically
choose the load level that is closer to 9000 lb which is usually typical to all DOT
agencies for design and analysis purposes (Liu and Scullion, 2001).
160
Figure D2 Comment file window (Liu and Scullion, 2001)
Figure D3 Importing non-standard data (Liu and Scullion, 2001)

161
Modulus Backcalculation Routine
This routine program allows users to input information such as sensor distances,
layer thicknesses, modulus ranges, and poisson’s ratio for each layer. Users can enter
these parameters up to four layers as shown in Figure D4. Also it gives users the option to
use either semi-infinite subgrade layer or to the depth of the bedrock, which is known as
the stiff layer. The program will calculate the depth to the stiff layer automatically if the
thickness of the AC layer is entered. Moduli ranges and poissons’ ratios for AC, base and
subbase layers can be assigned by the user either by entering the desired values or by
selecting material type. If the latter is followed, the program will automatically specify
ranges based on selected material types (Liu and Scullion, 2001).Moduli ranges and
poisson’s ratio for each layer can be obtained usually from laboratory tests. If the
laboratory data is not available, typical values of muduli and possion’s ratio provided by
ASTM D5858 can be used for the analysis (Von Quintus et al, 1997).
Figure D4 Backcalculation routine window (Liu and Scullion, 2001

162
Table D1 Typical seed modulus and poisson’s ratio for different material types (Von
Quintus et al, 1997).
Material Seed Modulus (psi) Poisson’ Ratio

Asphalt concrete 500,000 0.25 to 0.40
Portland cement concrete 5,000,000 0.10 to 0.20
Cement-treated bases 600,000 0.25 to 0.40
Unbound granular bases 30,000 0.15 to 0.25
Unbound granular subbases 15,000 0.20 to 0.40
Cohesive soil 7,000 0.30 to 0.45
Cement-stabilized soil 50,000 0.15 to 0.30
Lime-stabilized soil 20,000 0.20 to 0.35
For the temperature-dependent layers, such as AC in flexible pavement,
MODULUS will automatically assign reasonable ranges for this layer computed from an
equation built into it, estimated from the relationship between elastic modulus versus
temperature. This equation calculates AC modulus range if AC layer has a thickness
greater than 3 inches, otherwise the modulus range will be fixed at a specific value for
both minimum and maximum. Temperature data is usually obtained from raw FWD data
during the test. MODULUS can automatically compute the average pavement
temperature and put it in the asphalt temperature box as shown in figure B5. Based on
this average temperature, the AC modulus range will be changed. After entering all
required data and running the backcalculation analysis, the program will display the
results graphically and in standard tabular from as shown in Figures D6 & D7

163
Figure D5 Temperature data extracted from FWD file by MODULUS (Liu and Scullion,
2001)
Figure D6 Graphical results after running backcalculation routine (Liu and Scullion,
2001)
164
Figure D7 Backcalculation results in a tabular form (Liu and Scullion, 2001)

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services

!etd

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

!etd

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Incorporating Chemical Stabilization of the Subgrade in Pavement Design and

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

of the requirements for the degree

© 2014 Anwer K. Al-Jhayyish. All Rights Reserved.

This thesis titled

Incorporating Chemical Stabilization of the Subgrade in Pavement Design and

has been approved for

the Department of Civil Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Russ Professor of Civil Engineering

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

AL-JHAYYISH, ANWER K., M.S., August 2014, Civil Engineering

Incorporating Chemical Stabilization of the Subgrade in Pavement Design and

Director of Thesis: Shad M. Sargand

Roadbeds are considered one of the most problematic components in pavement

from being overstressed during construction by providing a suitable stabilized layer.

were recommended to MEPDG of flexible pavements.

study and life.

could not be completed.

3.2.4 Model Mesh and Element Type .................................................................... 44

6.7 Design Example using Chou’s Procedure......................................................... 94

Table 1.1: Cement stabilized sites ..................................................................................20

Table 1.2: Lime stabilized sites ......................................................................................21

Table 2.2: Existing baclcalculation software (William, 1999) .......................................34

software from some tested sites ......................................................................................63

calculated based on the FWD and DCP tests ..................................................................69

structural coefficients ......................................................................................................79

Figure 3.1: Axisymmetric model geometry of the stabilized subgrade..........................39

Figure 3.3: Boundary conditions and model mesh .........................................................44

Figure 3.4: General model geometry ..............................................................................46

Figure 3.5: The boundary conditions and model mesh ..................................................48

Figure 3.6: Model layout, mesh, and boundary conditions ............................................50

subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement..................................................55

subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime ....................................................55

subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement..................................................56

subgrade thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime ....................................................56

thicknesses stabilized with 6, 9, 12% cement .................................................................57

thicknesses stabilized with 5, 10, 15% lime ...................................................................57

layer stabilized with lime and cement .............................................................................58

corresponding to the expected construction traffic .........................................................60

PCC pavements based on DCP test ................................................................................70

basins for different pavement sections ............................................................................72

layer in the traffic direction.............................................................................................86

AC layer transverse to the traffic direction .....................................................................87

Figure B3: Backcalculated moduli spread of PIC-SR56-026.45site obtained from the

Figure B4: Backcalculated moduli spread of SUM-US224-011.24site obtained from the

Basins for different pavement sections ........................................................................156

construction. Their engineering properties differ significantly in terms of soil

pavement by providing a suitable stabilized subgrade thickness to reduce these

provided to show the effect of the stabilization of subgrade on flexible pavement

performance and design.

1.2 Research Objectives

chemically stabilized subgrade soils. In order to do so, a comprehensive field

investigation should be carried out on different in-service pavement structures

constructed with stabilized subgrade.

deformation. This deformation increases the potential of pavement rutting later.

minimum strength of chemically stabilized layer is necessary for construction and

pavement design purposes.

Soil stabilization is a chemical and physical change in the soil engineering

pavement analysis to evaluate the structural contribution of the subgrade chemical

mechanistic-empirical design guide and the AASHTO 1993 design procedure.

one proposed by Chou et al (2004).

of subgrade chemical stabilization in pavement design and construction. A lot of money