Table 10 (cont'd).
B. Unfrozen condition
Std.
lb/in.2)*
r2
Material
Equation (Mr in
error
n
Clay subgrade sample 1206 (565)
Mr = 1, 597, 000 f (S)-2.63 f (γ )14.42 f3 (σ)-0.257
Never Frozen
655
0.82
0.251
Clay subgrade sample 1232 (566)
Mr = 1.518 1030 f (S)-13.85 f3 (σ)-0.272
Never Frozen
451
0.95
0.328
Class 3 special "stockpile"
Mr = 283, 300 f (S)-1.003 f2 (σ)0.206
Thawed
408
0.86
0.520
Class 4 special (taxiway A subbase)
Mr = 8.946 108 f (S)-3.026 f2 (σ)0.292
Thawed
149
0.86
0.168
Class 5 special (dense graded stone)
Mr = 382, 400 f (S)-0.8759 f2 (σ)0.1640
Thawed
64
0.77
0.164
Class 6 special "stockpile"
Mr = 1, 391 f (S)-0.507 f (γ )4.04 f1(σ)0.608
Thawed
492
0.79
0.232
Mr = 5, 257 f (S)-0.486 f (γ )4.05 e 0.0193 f1 (σ)
Thawed
492
0.76
0.249
(lb/in.2 )
(kPa)
108
7 x 10 8
(lb/in.2 )
(kPa)
7 x 10 6
106
1206
1232
6
7 x 10 6
10
Class 5
7 x 10 5
105
Class 4
Class 6
104
Class 3
7 x 10 4
4
7 x 10 4
10
1206
1232
103
7 x 10 3
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
7 x 10 2
102
102
7 x 10 2
100
80
60
40
20
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Temperature (C)
Degree of Saturation (%)
a. Frozen condition.
b. Thawed condition.
Figure 7. Predicted moduli of Mn/ROAD materials.
of these equations is discussed in Berg et al. (1996).
occurred from negative stresses generated by the
Figure 7 shows the predicted moduli for the Mn/
model.
ROAD materials using mean values for stress and
It should also be noted that after the Phase 1
density, where applicable.
simulations were completed, we discovered that
It should be noted that the thawed modulus
resilient modulus tests on the 1206 subgrade in
equation used for class 6 special material is an
the unfrozen condition were probably in error due
exception to general form given in Table 2. In this
to a miscalibrated testing system. As a result, the
case, we used a semi-log form (eq 10), rather than
unfrozen subgrade moduli predicted in Phase 1
the log-log form, which eliminated problems that
modeling are likely to be substantially higher than
19
Previous Page
