(kPa) (lb/in.2 )
107
7
7 x10
a
Calculated
106
7 x 106
105
7 x 105
104
4
7 x 10
Calculated
103
3
wu/w t
7 x 10
wu-g
wu-v
1206 Subgrade
102
2
7 x 10
0 100
80
60
40
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Temperature (C)
Degree of Saturation (%)
2
(kPa) (lb/in. )
7
7 x107 10
b
Calculated
6
6
10
7 x 10
5
5
10
7 x 10
104
7 x 104
Calculated
3
wu/w t
3
10
7 x 10
wu-g
wu-v
1232 Subgrade
2
2
10
7 x 10
90
70
0 100
80
60
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Temperature (C)
Degree of Saturation (%)
(kPa) (lb/in.2 )
8
10
8
7 x10
c
Calculated
107
7 x 107
106
7 x 106
105
7 x 105
Calculated
4
10
wu/w t
7 x 104
wu-g
wu-v
Class 3 Subbase
103
7 x 103
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 100
80
60
40
20
Temperature (C)
Degree of Saturation (%)
Figure 14. Frozen and unfrozen modulus data compared with calculated moduli from
predictive equations.
We also analyzed the data from the class 6 base
the degree of saturation and the dry density (eq
material in the thawed condition using an equa-
12). In this case, the stress parameter, f(σ) was
tion in the semilog form:
the normalized bulk stress, J1. This form of the
Mr = K1 e K2 [ f (σ)]
equation was able to accommodate negative
(13)
stress values that were generated in the layered
As before, K1 was considered to be a function of
elastic analysis portion of the predictive model.
23
Previous Page
