Click for next page ( 408


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 407
APPENDIX H MULTI-LA13 VALIDATION STUDY . H-1

OCR for page 407
APPENDIX H: MULTI-LAB VALIDATION STI)DY INTRODUCTION A multi-laboratory validation study was conducted as a part of the NCHRP I-28 study. The primary purpose of the multi-lab validation program was to evaluate the proposed resilient modulus calibration and test methods, given in NCHRP Interim Report No. 2 [Ho-, for asphalt concrete, aggregate base and subgrade soils. Another benefit from the validation phase of the study was a preliminary examination of the variation in resilient moduli obtained between laboratories for similar materials. Because of tone and budget limitations, a full round-robin multi- laboratory investigation, as described In ASTM E691-92 [H-2], was not conducted. A full round- robin study would have involved 30 or more laboratories. Instead a more modest program was undertaken involving a total of 10 laboratories. ASPHALT CONCRETE Introduction The validation study for asphaltic mixtures was composed of (~) calibration of the testing system using Free synthetic specimens and (2) resilient modulus testing of laboratory compacted specimens provided by the reference laboratory. The two synthetic specimens had resilient moduli of 145,000 psi and 556,000 psi. Both the MTS loading device and the new measurement system developed in this study were used. The following is a summary of the results from the three laboratories participating In the study. These laboratories are designated as Lab I, Lab 2 and Lab 3. Lab ~ is considered as the reference lab since they had considerably more experience performing diametral tests than the other labs. Analysis of Results Figure H-! shows the graphical comparison of the mean values of resilient moduli determined from the three laboratories. MR! and MR2 were obtained using calculated and assumed Poisson's ratios, respectively. The use of the measured Poisson's ratio results in greater mean resilient moduli values than those calculated using an assumed Poisson's ratio. A statistical analysis was performed on the resilient modulus data, and Heir coefficient of variation are plotted in Figure H-2. As shown on these two figures, the moduli determined from the calculated Poisson's ratios show greater differences between the laboratories than those from the assumed Poisson's ratio. Also, when the calculated Poisson's ratios were used in the computation, the coefficients of variation from Lab 2 and Lab 3 are usually higher than those from Lab ~ (the reference laboratory). These observations suggest that although the recommended testing system and protocol yields better estimates of Poisson's ratio, the use of assumed Poisson's ratios gives more consistent moduli. Figures H-1 and H-2 also show that He difference in resilient moduli for calculated versus assumed Poisson's ratios is much smaller for the Lab ~ data than the Lab 2 and Lab 3 data. This trend is probably due to the fact that the Lab ~ operator is much more experienced In the resilient modulus testing of asphalt concrete using the proposed testing system. H-2

OCR for page 407
5.0E+06 ~4.0E+06 cn ~ _ o' ~ ~ 3.0E+06 Cal o 2.06~06 J In 1.0E+06 O.OE+OG 5.0E~6 - . ~4.0E+06 a, _ , 3.0E+06 o 2.0E+06 u, Al 1.0E+06 O.OE+OO BASED ON MEASURED POISONS RATIO _ _' _] D _ Lab 1 Lab2 Labs ~ 1 104 41 77 TEMPERATURE (F) BASED ON ASSUMED POISONS RATIO 41 Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3 h: , _: . 77 TEMPERATURE (F) 104 Figure H- 1. Comparl8On of Resilient ~o~lul1 for Different Labs ~-3

OCR for page 407
1.0 z 0.8 o - cr: ~S 0.6 IL a `, 0.4 u. 80.2 Q.0 1.0 Z 0.8 - ~ : a: ' ~ 0.6 o <, 0.4 IL O 0.2 0.0 _ . RESILIENT MODULUS BASED ON TESTED POISSONS RATIO Or .. . ~ .~ ~ ,,ss ...~s _~ ~ . ..... . . ... .: ' ''" , ~ Lab 1 _~ O_ Lab 2 Labs 41 77 TEIUPERATURE (F) 104 RESILIENT MODULUS BASED ON ASSUMED POISSONS RATIO Lab 1 rum Lab 2 1 - -] it_ - '1 Labs . I-..,'''-. 1 1 - t:C;Xi~R 104 41 77 TEMPERATURE (F) Figure H - 2. Comparison of Coofflcients of Variation for Different [08 H-4

OCR for page 407
Mean values of Poisson's ratio obtained from the three laboratories are given in Figure H-3. In addition, their coefficients of variation are also plotted in Figure H-3. Lab ~ has the smallest coefficient of variation among the three laboratories, again ProbablY due to the greater level of experience of the Lab ~ technician. r o Tables H-~(a), H-~(b) and H-~(c) provides a detailed summary of He resilient modulus and Poisson's ratio for each lab at the temperatures of 41F, 77F and 104F, respectively. Their mean values, standard deviations and coefficients of variation are all given. Table H-2 gives a summary of mean resilient modulus, Poisson's ratio and coefficient of variation for each lab at three temperatures. hn general, the data from Lab 2 and Lab 3 show greater variation than those from Lab 1. Regardless of the laboratory and the type of Poisson's ratio used, the coefficient of variation at 104F was the greatest, suggesting that greater caution has to be exercised when interpreting the MR values determined from the indirect tensile test at high temperatures. It is important to recognize in Table H-2 that the coefficient of variation in the Lab ~ data was not affected much by using the calculated Poisson's ratios instead of the assumed values. However, greater differences can be found with the Lab 2 and Lab 3 data. This finding suggests that an experienced operator can produce equally or even more consistent MR values using Poisson's ratios calculated from measured displacements. All the observations made earlier from the graphical comparison were supported by the statistical analysis. Standard deviation of the MR] values, based on calculated Possion's ratio values, was usually greater Han that of He MR2 values, based on assumed Poisson's ratios. Again suggesting the importance of the operator's experience on obtaining consistent resilient moduli values. Statistical Comparisons. The findings from the graphical comparison were further checked by performing the analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with generalized linear models. The ANOVA test procedure employs the F-value as the test static to test the null hypothesis that the resilient modulus values at different temperatures are the same. The level of significance (p-value) for this test is the probability of having F-value larger than the calculated F-vatue from a data set for the ~ . . .. . .. . ~ , . . . . . . . factor in question. A smaller value ot tills probablllty unpiles the heavier weight of the sample evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis, and thus, in this investigation, more likely that the resilient moduli are different. A typical criterion of using a critical p-value of 0.05 was employed in this study. Table H-3 summarizes the statistical results on the possible effect of operator-to-operator variation, as well as the effect of fresh and re-tested specimens. Specimens TI, T2,..., T6 were tested first In Lab I. Then, specimens TI, T2 and T3 were tested again at Lab 2, and specimens T4, T5, T6 at Lab 3. Table H-3(a) compares results obtained by Lab ~ with Lab 2 and Lab 3. For the same group of specimens, the p-values of resilient moduli obtained from the assumed Poisson's ratios are usually higher than those from the calculated Poisson's ratios, which indicates that the calculated Poisson's ratio signifies the lab-to-lab variation. Tables H-3(b) and H-3(c) compare the results between fresh specimens (i.e., TI, T2, .... T6 at Lab ~ vs. TI, T2, ..., T6 at Lab 2 and Lab 3, respectively. These tables, indicate that p- values are higher for fresh specimens than revested specimens. This implies possible damage of the re-tested specimens regardless of the variation between operators. Therefore, structural changes during the proposed MR tests are more significant than the lab-to-lab variation. The statistical analysis was performed on a very limited number of samples, making the interpretation of the statistical results less reliable. An extensive validation study is recommended to obtain better evaluations on sample-to-sample and lab-to-lab variations. H-S

OCR for page 407
1.5 o 1 a: In he o In o ~0.5 o - 1.0 0.8 o - - <0.6 o He ~0.4 - ~L 00.2 0.0 Labs labs Labs 1 _e_ 41 77 TEMPERATURE (F) 104 POISONS RATIO __ - Id:= ... '."'." : ~ . . ~ ,..2.',.:... ~ .'.2.,,:.'...2 ~ it: eel 1 i1 ~ 41 77 TEIYIPERATURE (F) Lab1 Lab 2 Cod Lab 3 104 Figure H - 3. Co~arison of poisson's Ratios for Different Lobe H-6

OCR for page 407
Table H-~. Comparison of Resilient Moduli and Poisson's Ratio for the Different Labs (a) 4IoF Spec~nen Tl T2 T3 T4 TS T6 Ul ~2 U3 U4 US U6 Avcragc Std. dev. Coef. Var. Speci~ er T1 -T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Ave~gc Std. dev. Coef. Var. Specimcn T1 T2 T3 T4 TS T6 Ul U2 . U3 . U4 US U6 Averagc Std. dcv. Coef. Var. Poi~n's Ratio (c) 1040 F , Poisson's Ratio Lab 1 ~ Lab 2 ~ Lab 3 Lab 1 0.72 0.18 2.94E+S . . 0.68 0.39 4.69E+5 . 0.56 0.28 2.43E+S 0.70 0.86 2.79E+S 0.56 1.02 392E+5 0.57 ~1.4S 2.28E+5 0.41 0.30 . . 0.37 1.29 1.11 1.15 0.63 1.15 0.32 3.18E+S 0.07 0.19 0.08 8.56E+4 . 0.11 O.t6 0.24 0.27 _ Resilient Modulus (~t') Lab 1 2.02E+6 2.13E+6 2.11E+6 2.00E+6 2.21E+6 2.25E+6 2.12E+6 9.08E+4 0.04 : (b) 770 F Lab2 4.26E+6 4.78E+6 2.61E+6 8.63E+6 2.68E+6 1.25E+6 4.04E+6 2.36E+6 0.58 Lab3 1.62E+6 1.13E+6 1.83E+6 . 1.39E+6 9.32E+S 1.19E+6 1.35E+6 3.03E+S 0.22 Resilicnt Modulus (M, ) Lab 2 . 1.31E+6 2.30E+6 1.26E+6 1.96~+6 1.23E+6 l.l9E+6 1.54E+6 4.30E+S 0.28 Lab3 6.22E+5 5.67E+S 5.64E+5 6.62E+5 5.28E+5 5.29E+S S.79E+S 4.88E+4 0.08 Resilient Modulus (~t') _ Lab 2 3.50E+S 8.07E+S 6.18E+S 5.26E+5 S.4SE+5 4.67E+5 S.52E+S 1.40E+S 0.25 . H-7 . Lab3 1.85E+5 5.03E+5 3.97E+S 2.58E+S 1.71E+S 1.63E+5 2.80E+S 1.28E+5 0.46 Lab I _ 1.44E+6 1.55E+6 1.42E+6 1.57E+6 I.85E+6 1.59E+6 1.57E+6 1.40E+S 0.09 - ~;~ Lab 2 | Lab 3 1 1 l.41E+6 1 1 1.45E+6 T l.25E+6 1 1.94E+6 1 . _- 1 - 1.64E+6 1.S4E+6 | ~3iE~ 11 1.13E+6 ~ 1 1.23E+6 1.93E+6 1.65E+6 1 - 1 1 2.09E+6 1 1 1.BOE+6 1 1.31E+6 1 1 1 2.00E+S 1 1.13E+5 1 011 1 o.og Rcsil~ent Modulus OM`~) | Lab I I Lab2 I Lab3 1 1 1 1 8.17E+5 1 1 6.71 E+S 1 1 1 ~ ~.1 IE+S~ 7.95E+S 1 T 5.8BE+~ 7.15E+5 1 5.20E+S 1 1 1 1 . ~ 8.91E+5 1 9.70E+5 1 1 ~1 -~ 8.47E+S 1 5.21 E+S 1 | 1 6.17E+S I 1 5.48E+5 1 1 5.84E+5 1 ~ - 1 6.08E+S ~1 5.30E+5 T | S.80E+S 1 1 8.23E+5 1 6.21 E+S 1 6.20E+S ~1 1 5~82E+4 1 1.59E+S I 5.53E+4 1 1 1 L 007 1 026 1 o.og Resilient Modulus (M' ) Labl 2.32E+5 3.83E+5 1 2.26E+5 2.21E+5 3.63E+5 2.09E+5 l l 2.72E+S 7.17E+4 0.26 _ Lab 2__~ 1 1 2.40E+5 4.91F,+S 2.75E+5~ 1 1 2.60Eff 3.06E+5 2.54E+S 3.04E+5 8.60E+4 0.28 Lab3 | 3.16E+S 5.87E+S 5.60 1 l 2.61 E+S~ 1 2.33E+5 1 . ~ 1.96E+5 1 1 1 1 _3.64E+S - | 1.53E+S 0.42

OCR for page 407
:> 1 o o a] = cd o v ~ - - cO - D Ct 1 ._ - D 1;~4 hi. :~, _' .~ ~ _ ~ ~ , ~ O ~ ~ ~ of, O O O _ ~ _ oo _ O _ O by, _ ~" ~ O O 00 ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ m. O 00 00 0\ 1` . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O _ _ -, O O O O ~ ~ [_ ._ '5 ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~1 _ _ _ _ _ o .~ I: o U. o I: - ._ ~o., .o o - ~: ._ ~ o C~ 5 w C~ Ct H-S .o e o " o v ~ o, _ 0 0 _ ~ oo ~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ ~ - " o ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o ~ o o ~ oo ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ o - ~ - - ~ o o o o o o o o o - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + . ~ LO ~ -. ~ - ~ ~ o -. o ~ ~ - - oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - - - - - So k + + + + + + + + + -" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ x ~ o - o ~ o ~ ~ - ~ x ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ s o ~ o o o ~ ~ o =. - o - -- - - o --~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ -= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -t - ~ -- - 5ex5 ~ - a~ so oo o ~ ~ o o o o~ - - - - ~ ~ - 2 E ~ . o~ o -

OCR for page 407
UNSTABILIZED AGGREGATE BASE EXPERIMENT Introduction The aggregate base multi-laboratory resilient modulus validation testing program involved 4 different laboratories. A fifth laboratory was to have participated in the experiment, but their testing equipment could not be set up in time. The validation study consisted of two parts: (1) system calibration, including using aluminum and polymer specimens, and (2) the testing of 3 different aggregate base materials. The specimen preparation and testing procedures used in the experiment are given in NCHRP 1-28 Interim Report No. 2. The tentative test procedure required the use of two EVDTs mounted outside He biaxial cell to measure axial deformation. The testing procedures, except as noted, were reasonably similar to those given in the SHRP P46 (November, 1989 procedure). The resilient modulus mode} used in the multi-laboratory study is as follows: M =KI ~K2 oK3 R d where MR _ _ _ K1,K2,K3 = resilient modulus = bulk stress (~ 02 03) = deviator stress = model constants (H-1) Mode! constants were evaluated by multiple regression analysis techniques. The statistical analyses employed in this study were performed using the general techniques described in Chapter 2 for the aggregate base study. Materials and Notation Base Materials. The 3 different nonplastic aggregate materials tested in the multi-laboratory study are described as follow: Base Notation Description Base ~ B! Base 2 B2 Base 3 C4 Well graded, nonplastic fines, I.5 in. maximum size, subangular to angular crushed stone. Four percent fines. Specimen compacted to 100 percent T-~80 density. Well graded, nonplastic, 1.25 in. maximum size, subangular to angular crushed stone. Ten percent fines. Specimen compacted to 100 percent T-~80 density. Well graded, nonplastic Minnesota DOT Class 4 base material with partial crushing of faces. H-9

OCR for page 407
Representative samples of aggregate for specimen preparation were thoroughly mixed to a homogenous condition, and then split into the required quantities following accepted sampling practices. Sufficient material for two extra labs were prepared at the same time and held in reserve. The samples sent to each laboratory were selected using a random number procedures. The samples were placed in 5 gal. buckets, labeled, sealed and shipped to each laboratory. System Calibration. Preliminary system calibration consisted of evaluating the testing system alignment and extraneous deformation in the testing system. Extraneous system deformation was evaluated using an aluminum cylinder 12 in. high and 6 in. diameter which simulated a specimen of essentially rigid material. Preliminary calibration procedure used is given in Appendix D. Final calibration was achieved using a stiff and a soft synthetic polymer specimen. These reference specimens were shipped to each lab. The two synthetic specimens used have a known, nominal resilient modulus of 8,000 psi and 50,000 psi. These specimens are the same synthetic specimens as used in the laboratory base study described in Chapter 2 of this study. The specimen having a stiffness of 50,000 psi is representative of an unbound aggregate base subjected to a relatively high bulk stress (~) of about 45 to 55 psi. The soft specimen with a resilient modulus of 8,000 psi is representative of a typical unbound aggregate base subjected to a low bulk stress of about ~ to 10 psi. Steel top and bottom plates were epoxy glued to the ends of the 50,000 psi synthetic specimen to avoid cupping of the ends with use of the specimen. Cupping of the end of the synthetic Type ~ base specimens used in the SHRP program was a serious problem. Unfortunatelv. One steel end cap was knocked off the specimen as it was moved between labs. _ _ ,, Notation. The notation described here is used on the tables and figures given in subsequent sections. The four laboratories included in the study are indicated as Ll, L2, L3 and L4. Lab ~ was used as the reference laboratory since good agreement In resilient moduli values was obtained from axial displacement measurements made using external EVDTs and inside clamp supported EVDTs. The three bases tested, which are described above, are designated as BI, B2 and C4. The two replicate specimens of the same material prepared and tested by the same lab are indicated by A and B. Therefore, the notation "DEBRA" on a figure or table indicates (Base 2 (i.e., B2) which was tested by Lab 2 (i.e., L2) and the results are for the "A" specimen. The notation "~3BlAB" indicates lab 3 (i.e., L3) tested Base ~ (i.e., Bl) and the data for both the A and B specimens have been combined and the results presented. Resilient Modulus Test Results Within Lab Reproducibility of Test Results. To perform reliable resilient modulus tests, the test results for a specific laboratory (and a single test apparatus and operator) must be reproducible for replicate specimens of the same material and the same method of specimen preparation. Figures H-4 and H-5 illustrate the typical variability observed between replicate specimens of the same material prepared and tested by the same lab. As shown on the figures, 3 different values of deviator stress were applied in the resilient modulus test for each of the 5 values of confining pressure used. The 95 % upper (UL`) and lower (Lid) confidence intervals for the replicate pair of tests are shown on the figure in addition to the actual test points for each of the two tests. The consistency comparisons for replicate specimens given in Table HA are for a 90% confidence level and are based on a comparison of the individual model constants KI, K2 and K3. H-10

OCR for page 407
1oo go 80 ~0 60 ~0 ~0 30 20 10 o = _ LEGEb D A: L1 B2A + L1 B2B o LID ~ UL : = _ _ _ , +x ~ _+~. . LL = Lamer 95 ~6 Confidence Umits UL = Upper 95h Confidence Um~ts 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Bulk Stress, ~ (psi) Figure H4. Companson of Resilient Moduli for Replicate Specimens- Lab do 3S ._ tax ~ 26 - o c - 30 20 16 10 o LEGEND S L2B1A ~ L2BiB -O- LL - ~ UL B ~' 4'. I' : o ALL 1 1 ~ C pit $. I. O l iaA~ . ~ \,rO~.~ ,0-'~ ,#0' ' O' U = Lower 95 % Confidence Umits UL = Upper 95% Confidenoo Umits _ 0 20 40 60 Bulk Stress, 8. (psi) 80 100 Figure H-S. Compar~son of Resilient Moduti for Replicate Specimens- Lab H-11 A: a3 - 3 PSI B.: CT3 ~ S PSI C: ~3 2 10 PSI D: CS3 - IS PSI E: O3 ~ 20 PSI A: CS3 = 3 PS] B: CT3 3 S PSI C: O3 = 10 PSI D:~3= lSPSI E: a3 - 20 PSI

OCR for page 407
80 70 60 , 60 g 40 E 30 - o 20 10 0 20 lo Q LEGEb D ~ L282 O LL(L1 B2) - +U4L1Bz} D E ~: IAF LL - LaNot 95 * Confidenos Um~ UL = Upper 85% Confidence Limits - 1- ~ 1- 1 60 80 t 00 120 Bulk Stress, 8, (psi) A: CI3 ~ 3 PSI B.: O3 ~ S PSI C: O3 ~ 10 PSI D:~3~1SPSI E: O3 ~ 20 PSI Figure H-6. Compar~son of 95% Conf~dence L~mit Mode! Fit of Lab ~ MR Results with Lab 2: Base B2 120 ~o ~oo ^ 90 E 80 , 70 60 0 - ._ ~0 40 30 20 10 O 0 20 . . _ _ LEGEND ~ - - L4B2 O LL(L1 B2) O UL(L1 B2) l je: 1' 1 1 .11 . 1 1 _ r.,. ..,~ 1 ~ Lab L4 1 u Rcferencc Lab L1 LL = Lower BS % Confidence Limits 1 1 1 1 1 40 60 80 Bulk Stress, 8, (psI) 100 120 |A CI3 = 3 PSI B: O3=SPSI ;C:CS3 5IO PSI D: CT3 = IS PSI E: O3=20PS! Figure H-7. Companson of 95% Conf~dence L~mit Mode! Fit of Lab ~ MR Results with Lab 4: Base B2 H-18

OCR for page 407
80 70 ~ 60 x - ~ 50 - E 4o - ~ 30 - 20 10 o LEGEND - L3B2 LL(L1 El2) U4L1 B2) Reference L1 Lab B lAB L3 Ma LL = L DW" 95 % Confidence Limil s UL = Upper 85% Confidence Limits .! ~ ~ 0 20 40 60 Bulk Stress, 8, (psi) A: tS3 = 3 PSI B: C,3 - S PSI C: O3 = 10 PSI D:~3= Is PSI E: c53 = 20 PSI 80 100 120 Figure H-8. Comparison of 95% Confidence Limit Model Fit of Lab 1 MR Results with Lab3:BaseB2 H-19

OCR for page 407
Not all laboratories carefully follow calibration and/or testing procedures. This error in several instances In the multi-lab study lead to inaccurate resilient modulus test results. For the same operator and test equipment, reproducible resilient moduli for replicate specimens can be obtained using the aggregate base specimen preparation and testing procedures. When axial deformations are measured outside of the biaxial cell, equipment calibration becomes a dominating factor in obtaining reliable resilient modulus results. The required {eve! of equipment calibration is complicated and time consuming. The results of this multi-lab study, although admittedly of limited scope, cast serious doubt as to whether most production type labs (or even research labs) have the required expertise and are able to expend the necessary time and effort to achieve accurate resilient modulus results using externally mounted EVDTs. 5. REFERENCES The multi-laboratory study shows the need for measuring axial deformation, which is used to calculate the resilient modulus, directly on the specimen rather than outside of the biaxial cell. Measurement of axial deformation on the specimen makes the measured resilient modulus considerably less sensitive to sysem calibration than when externally mounted EVDTs are used. Hal. Barksdale, R. D., Alba, I., Khosla, P. N., Kim, R., Lambe, P. C., and Rahman, M. S., (1993), Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design, Interim Report No. 2, Prepared for NCHRP Project I-28, Georgia Tech Project E20-634, Atlanta, GA, 445p. H-2. ASTM, (1992), "Standard Practice for Conducting an InterIaboratory Study to Determine the Precision for Test", Designation E691-92, American Society for Testing and Materials. H-20

OCR for page 407
SUBGRADE COHESIVE SOIL EXPERIMENT Introduction The subgrade cohesive soil multi-laboratory validation resilient modulus testing program involves! 3 different laboratories. A fourth laboratory was to have participates] but the laboratory director resigned before the tests could be completed; without him the lab could not perform the tests. The participating laboratories measured cyclic deformations using LVDTs located inside the biaxial cell ant! therefore did not complete the detailed calibration program described in Appendix D. Each of the labs used the loading schedule proposed in Interim Report No. 1 for NCHRP I-28; they used their own specimen preparation procedure and equipment setup. Since eventually resilient modulus tests will be performed on unclisturbed samples, it was expected that experimenters could obtain He most consistent specimens by using their own well developed laboratory compaction procedures. Materials and Notation Cohesive Soils. Samples of two air dried North Carolina subgrade soils were supplied to the 3 laboratories in 5 gallon white plastic buckets at the end of summer, 1994. Figure H-9 shows the T-99 compaction curves along with the Atterberg limits for each of these soil samples. Sample No. 13 classifies as an A-5 and sample No. 14 classifies as an A-7-5. Based upon the T-99~curves the laboratories were directed to prepare specimens at the optimum water contents ant! maximum dry densities as shown in Table H-8; reported results indicate that the No.13 specimens dried by up to 1.3% and that the No. 14 specimens ciriecl by up to 4.3% cluring compaction. Table H-8. Specimens Tested Lab Specimen w SO ad, pcf Specified 13 18 ~96.9 L1 ~13A 17.4 98.2 13B 17.4 98.2 13C 17.4 98.2 L2 13 17.5 92.8 L3 13A 16.9 13B 16.7 Specified - 14 25 93.8 L1 14A 25.4 94.3 14B 25.5 95.6 14C 25.5 95.6 L2 14 24.2 92.3 L3 14A 20.7 _ 14B 23.5 H-21

OCR for page 407
Notation. The three laboratories are called Ll, L2, and L3 and the specimens are referenced by soil sample number and a following letter. For example Ll-13A represents the first test performed on soil sample No. 13 by laboratory L1. Laboratory Ll ran three tests on both soil samples No.13 and No. 14, laboratory L2 ran only one test on each soil sample and laboratory L3 ran two tests on each soil sample. In contrast to the aggregate base experiment, He laboratories participating in the subgrade soil experiment did not perform a calibration testing program. While requested to perform such testing He technicians were unprepared and when testing fell well behind schedule they completed just He requested tests. Resilient Modulus Test Results Figures M-IO, H-~! and H-12 portray the test results measured by the three laboratories plotted as resilient modulus in ksi versus deviator stress in psi. Each test involved 15 load sequences of 100 cycles at all the combinations of five different deviator stresses and three different confining stresses. Figure H-IOa shows that with the exception of a confining stress equal to 4 psi on specimen 13B confining stress had little influence on the measured resilient moduli for No. 13. Figure H-IOb also shows no dependence of resilient modulus on confining stress for No. 14 but has an unexpected rising resilient modulus with confining stress at ~ and 2 psi confining stress. The No. 14 specimens had much higher resilient moduli than the No. 13 specimens so the vertical scales had to be increaser! by a factor of S. Figure H-} ~ shows the test results for laboratory L2 with similar qualitative patterns but resilient moduli for No. 13 about 2 times larger than L1 and for No. 14 about 1/2 as large as Ll. Figure H-12 shows that L3 measured resilient moduli 10 to 20 times smaller than either Ll or L2. It appears L3 has some systematic error which should have been discovered during a calibration test program. Table H-9 summarizes the statistics for the subgracle testing program baser! upon the model: MR = K ~ by,] O These results suggest poor agreement Motif within each lab and for lab versus lab. Variability in tested specimens, and not just the testing procedure, contributed to the observed variability. An effective calibration program using synthetic specimens would help identify tl~e source of errors. General Findings Poor resilient modulus results were obtained while specifying soil compaction at the optimum water content which should produce the most consistent specimens. Problems getting the tests performed indicated that each of the three laboratories were experiencing significant trouble just getting the test equipment operational. The sophistication of the electronics and the difficulty to visually observe tile behavior mean tint a greater level of care is required to obtain meaningful values. Because the subgrade soil specimens are softer than tile other pavement materials, they can be damaged while setting up the specimen for testing. Before actually testing subgrade specimens, tile participating laboratories need to subunit to a well planned and supervised calibration program using synthetic specimens. In addition some of the equipment used by these laboratories does not uncork as advertised, an] their technicians have too little experience to identify the source of problems. H-22

OCR for page 407
Table H - 9. Summary of Statistics for Subgrade Soil Testing Lab Specimen K1 K2 K3 R2 s Avg. CV% . . L1 1 L1-13 1 1.737 ~.114 0.177 1 0.877 0.078 L1 -13B 0.725 -0.586 0.769 0.89S 0.134 L1 -13C 1.946 -0.293 0.162 0.874 0.082 Average 1.469 4.331 0.369 ~ 0.653 0.238 0.346 CV~ 44.442 72.054 93.666 70.0S4 L1 -14A 30.399 0.091 -0.009 0.378 0.09 L1-14B 39.615 -0.084 0.011 0.241 0.09 L1 -1 4C 30.122 0~085 ~OeO01 0.289 0.089 Average 33.379 0.031 0.000 ~ 5~403 0.099 0.010 CV% 16e 186 322~868 5076~662 1 80S.239 LZ 4 1 1~448 -0~241 0~483 T 0~928 0~058 1 ~ 1 30~517 -0~269 0~002 1 0.791 ~ 0.11 1 ~ . L3 L3-13A 0~307 -0~456 -0.112 0~911 0.1 31 L3-t 3B 0~288 -0~446 -0~089 0~866 0.159 Average 0.297 ~.451 -0.100 ~ 0~013 0~006 0~016 CV% 4~474 1~427 15~870 7~257 0~790 -0~017 0~105 1 0~133 0~118 | L3-1 4B 0~576 -0~249 0~459 0~612 0.163 Average 0.683 -0. 133 0.282 ~ 0.151 0.164 0.250 CV% 22e 147 123~239 88~611 77~999 H-23

OCR for page 407
Sam le LL -#40, % -#200, % G #13 45 5 87 44 2.77 #14 58 25 82 63 2.67 'T~ At- ~ ------ ~ - ~ ' 1 - 1 " 1 \\ 1 G = 2 72 ;=Sample#~] ~ p 90 1 ~ ~ | ~ it Sample#14 ~ ~ l 1 ''-''-'''''''---1-'''-''''-':'--- ''- - ''''1''''- '''-''' /' 1'''''---'' -'-'-'-' ''--1'''''--'-' ' ''-' -'' 1 ''''\\'~"''-'- ' 1 '- '-'''''"'''''---''''''-- -'1 '--'''''-''-''-'-' '-"'''-''''''-"1 "--'--''''/ i''''-''' '' '1'-'' ''-''' -:---'2'' '"'"'''' ' '1"' ' ' ' '''' ' -'''' '''1' '''' '\'''' '' -'-'' 1 ' ' ' -'''' - ----' - '-1 '"' " '''--I ''--- ''"'-'-'I 1 1 ~ - 1 ~' ' '1' ' ' - '"' -~''i' ""----'''' '- 1 . . I ., : 85 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 35 Water Content, oh Figure H - 9. Cohesive Soil Samples used for Subgrade Tests H-24

OCR for page 407
6- ~ ~ - cO 4- in o3 - 2 _ a) a: 1 o 50 40 . co x in ~5 30 _ O ID 20- e_ co ~ 10 - ~0 ~ 0~ - - O o , . . . . . * , O 4 psi (A) ~ 2 psi (A) 0 1 PA (A) 4 psi (B) 2 pal (B) 1 psi (B) x 4 psi (C) + 2 psi (C) * 1 psi (C) _ ~I l I ~ I ~ r I T I I 1 0 5 10 15 Deviator Stress (psi) (a) Results for L1-13 0 4 psi (A) ~ 2 pSi (A) 0 1 PA (A) 4 psi (B) 2 pSi (B) 1 psi (B) 4 psi (C) 2 pSi (C) * l 5 . 10 15 Deviator Stress (psi) (b) Results for L1-14 Figure H - 10. Subgrade Soil Test Results for Lab 1 H-25

OCR for page 407
6 5- .^ ye _, AL _ an ~ ~3 a) ._ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ a) a: 1 O 50 40 ._ . _ an ~5 30 0 20 t a) _ ._ tar: 10 O O ~O O 4 psi ~ 2 psi 0 1 psi O O 0 A O ~ r I I I T I - 1 1-- 1 - 0 5 10 15 Deviator Stress (psi) (a) Results for L2-13 - O 4 psi ~ 2 psi 0 1 pad 1~ 10 15 - O- o 5 Deviator Stress (psi) (b) Results for L2-14 Figure H - 1 1. Subgrade Soil Test Results for Lab 2 H-26

OCR for page 407
0.6 - l 0.5 _` in . ,,, 0.4 0.3 :-0.2 ~n A: 0.1 O- , o to 18 I\ A IF ~- O 4 psi (A) 2 psi (A) 1 psi (A) 4 psi (B) 2 psi (B) 1 psi (B) . ~ 5 10 15 Deviator Stress (psi) (a) Results for L3-13 4 _ _' in :,3 O ~ ~ 2 a) ._ ._ In tr: 1- . o _ _ ~ ~ -e - ,- l l l o r I I 1 O 4 psi (A) ~ 2 psi (A) 0 1 psi (A) 4 psi (B) 2 psi (B) 1 psi (B) 1 1 1 () 5 10 15 Deviator Stress (psi) (b) Results for L3-14 Figure H - i2. Subgrade Soil Test Results for Lab 3 H-27

OCR for page 407