Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
21 FIGURE 24 Reasons for not being satisfied (unbound bases). Summary tests. Other responses show that some agencies determine MR using various methods, including laboratory and field This chapter describes details from two Web-based sur- studies as well as correlations. The overall satisfaction of veys conducted from DOT engineers in Materials/Geo- the respondents in the use of MR for pavement design is technical and Pavement Design groups. The intent of these low and several reasons, such as constant modification of surveys is to learn the state of practice from these groups test procedures, measurement difficulties, design-related with respect to resilient modulus property determination issues and others, are attributed to the low level of satis- of both bases and subgrades from various methods, includ- faction. In the Pavement group survey responses, similar ing laboratory and field methods. The overall response to issues are discussed along with the need to develop simple the surveys is impressive (more than 80% responded for procedures to determine resilient property. Overall, both both surveys). In the Geotechnical/Materials group sur- surveys provided valuable information that aided in the vey responses, several respondents noted that they do not syntheses that summarize the various methods used to use or measure resilient moduli of soils from laboratory determine resilient property.