Optimize Unbound Aggregate Bases Through Laboratory Tests

Mingjiang Tao, Ph.D., P.E. Murad Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

February 2007

Acknowledgment
The project is financially supported by the Louisiana Transportation Research Center and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD). LTRC Project No. 04-4GT .

Outline
Background Objective Laboratory Tests Test Results

Preliminary Conclusions

Detrimental Effects of Water

Stripping in HMA Reduction of Granular Layer Stiffness & Strength Loss of Subgrade Support Debond between Pavement Layers Reduction in Pavement Service Life

Detrimental Effects of Water

Source of Free Water

pavement

Compacted subgrade From edge Vapor movement From edge

From water table

Upward movement of water table

Water table

Subsurface Drainage Pavement

Asphaltic or PCC Pavement

Permeable Base Granular or Geotextile Separator Layer

0.9m Geotextile Subgrade Edgedrain

Typical Permeable Bases

Cement-treated open graded base; Asphalt-treated open graded base; Unbound aggregate base

Objective
An optimal gradation Adequate drainability Structural stability

Drainage Path

Factors Affecting Drainability

Infiltration Rate Width of Pavement (No. of Lanes) Cross & longitudinal slopes Ks of base layer Thickness of base Degree of drainage required

Criteria of Drainage Quality

AASHTO Guide (50% Drainage)
Quality of Drainage Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Time to Drain 2 hours 1 day 7 days 1 month Does Not Drain

Criteria of Drainage Quality

Pavement Rehabilitation Manual (85% Saturation)
Quality of Drainage Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Time to Drain < 2 hours 2~5 hours 5~10 hours > 10 hours >> 10 hours

Permeable Base
Permeability Requirement Ks= 1000 ft/day (FHWA);

Ks=2690 ft/day (Excellent drain condition)

q qi Wc kH S H 2L

Permeable Base
Structural stability: (?) CBR (50~100%) DCP (3~5 mm/blow) Geogauge stiffness Repeated load triaxial tests

Mr
Permanent deformation

Unbound Aggregate Base

100
New Jersey NSOG

90 80

New Jersey NSOG LA Class II LA Class II Wisconsin Upper Wisconsin lower AASHTO No. 57-Upper AASHTO No. 57-Lower

Percent Finer (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 10

Decreasing Ks Increasing stability Increasing Ks Decreasing stability

1 0.1 0.01

Particle Diameter (mm)

Mexican Limestone (ML)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
LA Class II-Coarse LA Class II-Fine New Jersey gradation-Coarse New Jersey gradation-Fine Modified gradation-Coarse Modified gradation-Fine Unstable gradation

Percent finer

Particle diameter (mm)

Generating New Gradations

Sieve through the following sieves: 1', ', ', 3/8', No.4, No. 40, and No. 200 1'

3/4'

Divide into different size groups

1/2'

Original Material
3/8'

New Gradation

No. 4

No. 40 Remixing these groups together according to certain ratios

No. 200

ML-Compaction Curves
140 130 120
Dry density (pcf)

110 100 90 80 70 60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

ML-LA Class II-Coarse ML-LA Class II-Fine ML-LA Class II-New Jersey-Mean ML-Modified gradation-Coarse ML-Modified gradation-Fine

Moisture content (%)

Lab Permeability Tests

Constant head water tank

h1-h2

Sample

Ks vs i
300

Flow rate,q/t (ft/day)

250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 1.5

F ie ld hydraulic g radie nt

Hydraulic gradient (i)

Permeability Test Set-Up

Large water tank Manometer tubes Constant head tank

Permeameter

RLT (Repeated Load Triaxial) Tests

Air pressure

LVDTs

Sample

RLT Tests

RLT Typical Results

Deviatoric stress

0.1 s

0.9 s

Time (sec)

Deviatoric stress

a pe
Axial strain

Axial strain

a pe
Time (sec)

RLT Data Reduction

r_N r

L0 1

p N 1

p _ total p

L0 1

p N 1

Mr

d r

Test Results
3500 3000

Permeability (ft/day)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 114 116 118 120 122 124
ML-LA-Coarse gradation

Dry density (pcf)

Test Results
Gradation Dry density (pcf) LA-Class II-Coarse LA-Class II-Fine New Jersey-Mean Modified-Coarse Modified-Fine 116 129 104 107.6 124 Ks (ft/day) 2278 151 2837 3369 2277

1-h/1-yr Precipitation

(After Cedergren et al. 1973)

Comparison of Drain Quality

Infiltration method: i=2.4 in/hr; C=0.33-0.50
q=1.992 ft3/day/ft

24 ft 0.015 ft/ft

10 ft

AC Permeable base (6') Subgrade

DRIP Calculation

DRIP Results
Base material Ks (ft/day) T50 (hour) 2.59 27.1 2.67 1.75 Quality of drain *

LA Class II-Coarse LA Class II-Fine New Jersey-Mean Modified-Coarse

2278 151 2837 3369

Good Fair Good Excellent

Modified-Fine
* Based on 50% drainage

2277

2.11

Good

RLT Results (Mr)

45000 40000

Resilient modulus (psi)

35000 30000 25000 20000

ML-LA Class II-Coarse ML-New Jersey ML-Modified-Coarse

15000
ML-LA Class II-Fine

10000
ML-Modified-Fine

5000 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Number of loading cycles

RLT Results ( p)
60
ML-LA Class II-Coarse ML-New Jersey

Permanent vertical strain (10 -3)

50 40

ML-LA Class II-Fine ML-Modified-Coarse ML-Modified-Fine

30 20 10 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Number of loading cycles

RLT Results
Permanent vertical strain (10 -3)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Permanent vertical strain rate (10 -3/cycle)

1
ML-LA Class II-Coarse ML-New Jersey ML-LA Class II-Fine

0.1

ML-Modified-Coarse ML-Modified-Fine

0.01

0.001

Conclusions & Recommendations

A large variation of base behavior will be expected with LA Class II gradation. LA Class II coarse gradation will perform better. Permanent deformation shall provide a better indicator to structural stability.

Conclusions & Recommendations

A modified gradation was determined; Constructability of the modified gradation should be examined; Worthwhile of considering drainability under unsaturated conditions; Costs of modified gradations should be considered.

Questions