NCHRP

NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM

SYNTHESIS 445

Practices for Unbound Aggregate

Pavement Layers

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2013 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

OFFICERS
Chair: Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA
Vice Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

MEMBERS
VICTORIA A. ARROYO, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center,
Washington, DC
SCOTT E. BENNETT, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
WILLIAM A. V. CLARK, Professor of Geography (emeritus) and Professor of Statistics (emeritus), Department of Geography, University
of California, Los Angeles
JAMES M. CRITES, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, TX
MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
JOHN S. HALIKOWSKI, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
MICHAEL W. HANCOCK, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort
SUSAN HANSON, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
STEVE HEMINGER, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
JEFFREY D. HOLT, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission,
Huntsville, UT
GARY P. LaGRANGE, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, LA
MICHAEL P. LEWIS, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence
JOAN McDONALD, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany
DONALD A. OSTERBERG, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, WI
STEVE PALMER, Vice President of Transportation, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Mooresville, NC
SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Director, Innovation in Infrastructure, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC
HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies;
University of California, Davis
GARY C. THOMAS, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
PAUL TROMBINO III, Director, Iowa DOT, Ames
PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON, General Manager, Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Marietta, GA
ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
JOHN T. GRAY II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
PAUL N. JAENICHEN, SR., Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
LUCY PHILLIPS PRIDDY, Research Civil Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, and Chair, TRB Young Members
Council, Washington, DC
CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
CRAIG A. RUTLAND, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
POLLY TROTTENBERG, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. DOT
ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC
BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
GREGORY D. WINFREE, Acting Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. DOT
FREDERICK G. (BUD) WRIGHT, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC

*Membership as of September 2013.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 445

Practices for Unbound Aggregate
Pavement Layers

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Consultant
Erol Tutumluer
University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois

S ubscriber C ategories
Geotechnology • Highways • Materials

Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2013
www.TRB.org
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 445

Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 20-05, Topic 43-03
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0547-5570
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-27085-4
Library of Congress Control Number 2013936323
interest and can best be studied by highway departments
individually or in cooperation with their state universities and © 2013 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation
develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to
highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
coordinated program of cooperative research. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be
member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit
and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or
Department of Transportation. practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document
for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
was requested by the Association to administer the research material, request permission from CRP.
program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and
understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely
suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee
structure from which authorities on any highway transportation NOTICE
subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation
universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National
Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time Research Council.
research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and
matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with
a position to use them. regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical
panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established
The program is developed on the basis of research needs
and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the
identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation Governing Board of the National Research Council.
departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those
areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those
to the National Research Council and the Board by the American of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. program sponsors.
Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and
qualified research agencies are selected from those that have
submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National
contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway
and the Transportation Research Board. Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
The needs for highway research are many, and the National manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant essential to the object of the report.
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program,
however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or
duplicate other highway research programs.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from:

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the
Washington, DC 20001
National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual and can be ordered through the Internet at:
states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear
herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-
ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni-
cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The
mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and
progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci-
plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and
other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation
departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org
TOPIC PANEL 43-03
JUDITH B. CORLEY-LAY, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh
ERVIN L. DUKATZ, JR., Mathy Construction, Onalaska, WI
GEORGENE M. GEARY, Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park
AMIR N. HANNA, Transportation Research Board
G.P. JAYAPRAKASH, Transportation Research Board
MIKE POLODNA, Washington State Department of Transportation, Tumwater
DANESH SAJEDI, Maryland State Highway Administration, Hanover
NANCY M. WHITING, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
RICHARD C. MEININGER, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)
FRANK M. RICH, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)

SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
NANDA SRINIVASAN, Senior Program Officer
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications

nchrp COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 20-05

CHAIR
CATHERINE NELSON, Oregon DOT

MEMBERS
KATHLEEN S. AMES, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
STUART D. ANDERSON, Texas A&M University
BRIAN A. BLANCHARD, Florida DOT
CYNTHIA J. BURBANK, PB Americas
LISA FREESE, Scott County (MN) Community Services Division
MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Virginia DOT
RICHARD D. LAND, California DOT
JOHN M. MASON, JR., Auburn University
ROGER C. OLSON, Minnesota DOT
ROBERT L. SACK, New York State DOT
FRANCINE SHAW-WHITSON, Federal Highway Administration
LARRY VELASQUEZ, JAVEL Engineering, Inc.

FAA LIAISONS
JACK JERNIGAN
MARY LYNN TISCHER

TRB LIAISON
STEPHEN F. MAHER

Cover figure: Work is conducted on a pavement test study at the Advanced Transportation Research and
Engineering Laboratory of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Photo by the Illinois Center
for Transportation, Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign.
 FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating
the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and
engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with
problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and
evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway commu-
nity, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through
the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized
the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP
Project 20-5, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and
synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series,
Synthesis of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE Properly designed and constructed unbound aggregate layers have the potential to improve
By Jon M. Williams pavement performance and longevity. This study gathers information on the current
Program Director state of practice and research on unbound aggregate. The study finds that no common prac-
Transportation tice exists among state transportation agencies. Accordingly, the report summarizes important
Research Board aspects and effective practices related to material selection, design, and construction of
unbound aggregate layers. Prevalent agency practices are summarized and key lessons
learned from research studies are highlighted.
Information for this study was acquired through a literature review and surveys of state
and Canadian transportation agencies.
Erol Tutumluer, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, collected and synthesized
the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged
on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the
practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time
of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will
be added to that now at hand.
CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

3 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION
Introduction and Background, 3
Synthesis Objectives and Study Approach, 4
Transportation Agency Use of Unbound Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers, 5
Outline of Chapters, 7
References, 8

9 CHAPTER TWO  AGGREGATE TYPES AND MATERIAL SELECTION

Introduction, 9
Aggregate Types and Sources, 9
Stone Deposits, 9
Sand and Gravel Deposits, 10
Supply and Demand for Aggregates in the United States, 10
Aggregate Properties Affecting Unbound Aggregate Layer Behavior, 11
Mineralogy, 11
Particle Size Distribution and Fines Content, 12
Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Angularity, 12
Degree of Compaction, 14
Moisture Content, 14
Tests to Check Aggregate Quality for Pavement Applications, 16
Background, 16
Current Practices on Tests to Check the Quality of Aggregate Sources, 17
Sustainable Production and Utilization of Aggregates, 23
Unbound Pavement Applications, 24
Best Value Granular Material Concept, 28
Recycling Aggregates and Recycled Granular Materials, 29
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, 30
Recycled Concrete Aggregate, 30
Potential Environmental Impacts from Using Recycled Materials, 32
Recycling of Unbound Aggregate Material from Existing Pavements, 33
Commonly Used Recycled Materials in Unbound Aggregate Base
and Subbase Layers, 33
Current State of the Practice Regarding Testing of Recycled Materials, 33
Summary, 35
References, 35

40 CHAPTER THREE  GRANULAR BASE AND SUBBASE CONSTRUCTION

Practices
Introduction, 40
Importance of Standardized Construction Specifications, 40
Aggregate Storage and Construction Practices Affecting Constructed Layer
Performance, 40
Aggregate Stockpiling as a Source of Segregation, 40
Construction Practices as a Source of Segregation, 41
 Aggregate Degradation and Possible Sources, 43
Construction Lift Thickness and Its Effect on Compactability, 43
Background, 43
Optimum Construction Lift Thickness, 44
Documented Aggregate Base and Subbase Layer Construction Practices, 45
Inverted Pavements, 45
Conceptual Background, 45
Response Mechanism, 46
Material Specifications and Construction Procedure, 47
Previous Findings on the Benefits of Inverted Pavements, 48
Current State of Practice on Alternative Base Course Construction, 52
Summary, 52
References, 53

55 CHAPTER FOUR  UNBOUND AGGREGATE BASE CHARACTERIZATION

FOR DESIGN
Introduction, 55
Load Transfer in Granular Materials, 55
Unbound Granular Material Behavior Under Repeated Loading, 55
Resilient Response of Unbound Aggregate Layers, 56
Stress States in Unbound Aggregate Layers Under Loading, 56
Compaction-Induced Residual Stresses, 58
Concept of Cross-Anisotropy, 58
Methods to Characterize Unbound Aggregate Layer Behavior, 59
California Bearing Ratio, 59
Static Triaxial Testing, 60
Repeated Load Triaxial Testing, 61
Innovative Devices for Advanced Triaxial Characterization
of Unbound Aggregates, 64
Interpretation of Repeated Load Triaxial Test Data, 68
Current Resilient Modulus Models, 68
Current Permanent Deformation Models, 69
Historical Development in Unbound Aggregate Characterization for Pavement Design, 69
1961 Interim Pavement Design Guide, 69
1972 Interim Pavement Design Guide, 69
1986 Pavement Design Guide, 69
1993 Pavement Design Guide, 69
NCHRP 1-37A Pavement Design Guide, 69
DARWin-ME, 70
State of the Practice in Unbound Aggregate Characterization and Design, 70
Background, 70
Conclusions from Survey of Transportation Agencies, 73
State-of-the-Art Methods for Unbound Aggregate Layer Characterization and Design, 74
Stress Path Testing, 74
Directional (Anisotropic) Modulus Testing, 75
Field Validations, 79
Anisotropy as Aggregate Quality Indicator, 81
Consideration of Drainage in Unbound Aggregate Layer Design, 82
Moisture-Related Deterioration, 83
State of the Practice Regarding the Consideration of Drainage and Climatic Effects on
Unbound Aggregate Base/Subbase Layers, 86
Effects of Aggregate Material Properties on Layer Permeability, 89
Permeable Base Designs, 89
Consideration of Climatic Conditions in Unbound Aggregate Base Design, 91
Freeze-Thaw and Frost Penetration, 95
References, 95
101 CHAPTER FIVE  COMPACTION, QUALITY CONTROL,
AND FIELD PERFORMANCE
Introduction, 101
Compaction and Quality Control, 101
Theory and Objectives of Compaction, 101
Establishing the Target Density for Field Compaction Control, 101
Compaction Variables and Equipment Types, 103
Measuring In-Place Density of Constructed Unbound Aggregate Layers, 105
Current State of the Practice, 106
In-Place Modulus Measurement of Constructed Aggregate Layers, 108
Modulus-Based Compaction Control, 110
Need for Modulus-Based Compaction Control, 110
Desired Characteristics of a Modulus-Based Compaction Control System, 110
Continuous Compaction Control and Intelligent Compaction, 110
Need for Intelligent Compaction, 111
Synthesis of Past Research and Agency Experience with IC Systems, 112
Quality Assurance Specifications Based on Continuous Compaction Control, 114
Consideration of Suction Effects in Layer Modulus Estimation, 116
Background, 116
Methods for Measuring Soil Suction, 116
References, 117

119 CHAPTER SIX  SUMMARY OF CURRENT PRACTICE

AND EFFECTIVE PRACTICES
Objectives of Synthesis Study, 119
Research Framework, 119
Aggregate Types and Material Selection, 119
Granular Base/Subbase Construction Practices, 119
Unbound Aggregate Base Characterization for Design, 120
Compaction, Quality Control, and Field Performance, 120
Summary of State Practices, 120
Use of Unbound Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers, 120
Material Selection and Construction Practices, 120
Unbound Aggregate Base Characterization for Design, 121
Compaction, Quality Control, and Field Performance, 121
Recycling Aggregates and Recycled Granular Materials, 121
Climatic Effects and Drainage, 122
Future Research and Implementation, 122
Use of Locally Available Marginal and Out-of-Specification Materials, 122
Use of Modulus-Based Construction Quality Control, 122
Use of Intelligent Compaction Techniques, 122
Alternative Base Course Applications Such as Inverted Pavements, 123
Key Lessons and Effective Practices, 123
Material Selection and Quality Testing, 123
Granular Base and Subbase Construction Practices, 123
Unbound Aggregate Base Characterization for Design, 123
Compaction, Quality Control, and Field Performance, 124

125 ACRONYMS

127 APPENDIX A Questionnaire

142 APPENDIX B Respondent Information

144 APPENDIX C Survey Responses

172 APPENDIX D Review of Current Resilient Modulus Models

176 APPENDIX E Review of Current Permanent Deformation Models

179 APPENDIX F Follow-up Survey on Resilient Modulus Testing

Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from
color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at
www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
 PRACTICES FOR UNBOUND AGGREGATE
PAVEMENT LAYERS

sUMMARY Properly designed and constructed unbound aggregate layers have the potential to improve
pavement performance and longevity while also addressing today’s issues of the costs of other
pavement materials, the need to save energy, and the desire to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with the construction and reconstruction of pavements. Pavement proj-
ects using granular layers will have to be sustainable and cost-effective by (1) making more
effective use of locally available materials through beneficiation and use of marginal aggre-
gate materials, (2) increasing effective use of recycled aggregate products such as recycled
crushed concrete (RCA) and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), and (3) targeting long life
and improvement in pavement performance.

North American transportation agencies have diverse specifications and construction prac-
tices for unbound aggregate base (UAB) and subbase layers. Sharing experiences and
effective practices for unbound aggregate layers among transportation agencies would lead to
the design and construction of better-performing, more economical, and sustainable pavement
systems. The primary objective of this synthesis was to gather information on the current state
of practice and the state-of-the-art research findings on the following topics:

1. Materials characterization and quality of natural aggregate and common recycled ­materials
that relate to performance;
2. Properties of unbound aggregate layers that are used in the design of pavements and
how they are determined;
3. Influence of gradation and other aggregate properties on permeability;
4. Current practices and innovations in construction, compaction, and quality assurance
procedures [such as compaction in thicker layers, use of intelligent compaction (IC)
systems, and the use of tests other than density in evaluating in-place modulus, stiffness,
and quality];
5. Performances of different base types, such as the concept of a granular base over a stiff,
often cement-treated subbase layer used in inverted pavements, in research pavement
sections;
6. Potential to save energy and hauling costs by better utilizing local aggregates and
recycled materials;
7. State specifications that lead to how contractors manage storage, transport, and place-
ment of materials to minimize degradation of material properties and performance:
lessons learned;
8. How states address climatic, subgrade, and drainage considerations in design of aggre-
gate base layers.

Relevant information was gathered through a literature review, survey of U.S. state and
Canadian provincial transportation agencies, industry input, and selected interviews. A total
of 46 transportation agencies (including four Canadian provinces) responded to the survey
questionnaire. Review of survey responses and subsequent interviews with agency personnel
indicated that no common practice exists across agencies as far as the design and construction
of unbound aggregate pavement layers is concerned. Most agencies do not have a defined pro-
tocol to introduce new and recycled materials into pavement construction. Although n­ umerous
2

research and implementation projects over the years have recommended optimum design and
construction practices for unbound aggregate pavement layers, there appears to be a signifi-
cant delay before such recommendations are adopted into agency practice. Accordingly, this
report summarizes important aspects and effective practices related to ­material selection,
design, and construction of unbound aggregate pavement layers. Prevalent agency practices
are summarized, and key lessons learned from research studies focusing on unbound aggre-
gate pavement layers are highlighted. This information can be used to establish the need for
and initiate the development of harmonized protocols for optimum design and construction of
better performing, cost-effective unbound aggregate pavement layers.
 3

chapter one

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The availability and cost of asphalt cement is directly related
to the supply of petroleum and refining. Portland cement and
As defined by the ASTM International in ASTM D 8-11, steel require high fuel input for manufacturing, so use of
an aggregate is “a granular material of mineral composition asphalt contributes significantly to carbon dioxide emissions.
such as sand, gravel, shell, slag, or crushed stone, used with Chehovits and Galehouse (2010) presented data from Chappat
a cementing medium to form mortars or concrete, or alone and Bilal (2003) to emphasize the significantly lower energy
as in base courses, railroad ballasts, etc.” According to the usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA), aggregate production compared with other construction
nearly two billion metric tons of natural aggregate were pro- materials. From the data provided by Chappat and Bilal
duced from sand and gravel pits and stone quarries in 2010
(2003), the energy consumption for aggregate production (per
at a value of approximately $17 billion, contributing $40 bil-
ton) ranges from 25,850 to 34,470 BTU/t (30 to 40 MJ/t),
lion to the gross domestic product of the United States (http://
compared with 4.2 MBTU/t (4,900 MJ/t) for asphalt binder
nssga.org/ssgReview/index.cfm). Large quantities of produced
production. Similarly, the GHG emissions for aggregate pro-
sand, gravel, crushed stone, and, increasingly, industrial
duction range from 5 to 20 lb. CO2/t (2.5 to 10 kg CO2/t)
by-products and reclaimed construction materials go into the
compared with 442 lb. CO2/t (221 kg CO2/t) for asphalt binder
construction of transportation infrastructure for building road
production. Given the higher cost of the cementitious portions
base, riprap, cement concrete, and asphalt concrete to pro-
of pavement layers and the subsequent adverse impact on nat-
vide bulk, strength, durability, and wear resistance in these
ural resources, land use, and the environment, more effective
applications. According to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
reports, production and use of aggregates in the United States and widespread use of unbound aggregate layers in pavement
declined during the economic downturn in the years 2008 construction should result in significant conservation of energy
to 2010. The demand for all types and uses of aggregates and increased service life of transportation infrastructure.
in 2007 and 2008 was on the order of 2.5 to 3 billion tons
(2.2 to 2.7 billion metric tons) per year, and Meininger and An international scanning program sponsored by FHWA,
Stokowski (2011) have predicted the demand might return to AASHTO, and NCHRP in 2002 observed pavement design
such usage levels when construction volumes return. and construction practices in France, South Africa, and
Australia and subsequently recommended the initiation of
According to NCHRP Report 598 (Saeed 2008), unbound demonstration projects with deep subbase and deep base
aggregate layers in flexible and rigid pavements generally designs as cost-effective and sustainable pavement alterna-
serve to provide (1) a working platform, (2) structural layers tives (Beatty et al. 2002). Properly designed and constructed
for the pavement system, (3) drainage layers, (4) frost-free unbound aggregate layers have the potential to improve pave-
layers, and (5) “select fill” material (sometimes as part ment performance and longevity while also addressing today’s
of the working platform). As a working platform, unbound issues of the costs of other pavement materials, the need to
aggregate layers often are constructed on soft, unstable sub- save energy and reduce GHG associated with the construction
grade soils or base to provide sufficient stability and ade- and reconstruction of pavements. Pavement projects using
quate immediate support for equipment mobility and paving granular layers need to be sustainable and cost-effective by
operations without excessive rutting. In flexible pavements, (1) making more effective use of locally available materials
dense-graded unbound aggregate base (UAB) and subbase through beneficiation and use of marginal aggregate materials
layers serve as major structural components of the pavement (aggregates that do not satisfy all material quality control (QC)
system to provide load distribution (that is, dissipation of high requirements but may become allowable upon slight adjust-
wheel load stresses with depth) and ensure adequate support ment in material quality threshold parameters); (2) increasing
and stability for the asphalt surfacing. In contrast, open-graded effective use of recycled aggregate products, such as recycled
granular layers commonly are constructed in both rigid and concrete aggregate (RCA) and reclaimed asphalt pavement
flexible pavements primarily for drainage and frost-protection (RAP), in pavement construction; and (3) targeting long life
purposes. Note that UAB/subbase layers used in rigid pave- and improvement in pavement performance.
ment structures primarily provide uniform support conditions
to the concrete slabs; the structural contribution of such layers North American transportation agencies have diverse
often is not the primary design aspect. specifications and construction practices for aggregate base
4

and subbase layers. Sharing experiences and effective prac- (different methods used by transportation agencies to
tices for unbound aggregate layers among transportation agen- design UAB/subbase layers is first determined);
cies would lead to better design and construction practices. For • Aggregate properties that influence construction, com-
example, in flexible pavements, and especially for the most paction and performance;
common applications of thinly surfaced low- to moderate- • Current practices and innovations in construction, com-
volume roads, it is critical that the unbound aggregates compo- paction, and QC and quality assurance (QA) procedures
nent of these transportation facilities is properly characterized (such as compaction in thicker layers, use of IC systems,
by incorporating recent advances into solutions for a more measuring and ensuring in situ drainage characteristics,
accurate pavement analysis and improved field performance. and the use of tests other than just density in evaluat-
Important new findings from major research studies [for exam- ing in-place modulus, stiffness, and quality, as well
ple, from the International Center for Aggregates Research as measurements to ensure adequate in situ drainage
(ICAR)] provide proposed improvements in the design mod- characteristics);
els and the compaction of unbound aggregate lifts in thicker • Performance trends of in-service pavements and experi-
layers (Allen et al. 1998; Adu-Osei et al. 2001; Tutumluer mental test sections, such as the Long-Term Pavement
et al. 2001; Ashtiani and Little 2009). Furthermore, recent suc- Performance (LTPP) and the Minnesota Department of
cessful demonstration projects promoting more widespread Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) MnRoad, with different
use of intelligent compaction (IC) systems and the use of field unbound base/subbase types, and climatic, subgrade,
tests other than just density in evaluating in-place stiffness and drainage considerations in design of aggregate
and quality have received much attention through national base;
and pooled fund studies (www.intelligentcompaction.com). • Role of unbound aggregates in sustainability and the
Future use of modulus-based continuous compaction control potential to save energy and material hauling costs by
approaches is being studied through an ongoing NCHRP study better using local and marginal aggregates and recycled
(NCHRP 10-84: Modulus-Based Construction Specification materials;
for Compaction of Earthwork and Unbound Aggregate) to • How states manage storage, transport, and placement of
potentially provide guidelines for standards and construction aggregates to minimize segregation and degradation of
specifications for improved pavement construction and utili- material properties and maximize performance: lessons
zation practices with unbound aggregate layers. learned.

Interest has also developed in domestic and foreign innova- Significant benefits in consistency of UAB properties or
tive construction practices, such as the “inverted pavement” performance could be derived from broader application and
concept of a granular base over a stiff, often cement-treated, implementation of major findings from this synthesis. This
subbase layer at depth. Such innovative practices fully empha- type of work can also result in internal reviews within state
size the importance of unbound aggregates in terms of their transportation agencies of their processes and lead to imple-
functional usage and address potential and economic benefits mentation of new and improved construction practices, such
from use in the construction of sustainable pavement infra- as thicker lift aggregate bases, inverted pavement construc-
structure. In addition to such well-documented practices high- tion, IC, and innovative QC approaches, such as the “Percent
lighted through international technology scanning programs, Within Limits” (PWL) method, defined by the FHWA as: “the
several test sections have been built, in Georgia, Louisiana, percentage of the lot falling above the lower specification limit
and Virginia, that apply the “inverted pavement” concept (LSL), beneath the upper specification limit (USL), or between
(Metcalf et al. 1998; Beatty et al. 2002; Titi et al. 2003; Lewis the USL and LSL” (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pwl/).
Such advances can bring sustainability and offer economical
et al. 2012; Weingart 2012).
and environment friendly green alternatives for road construc-
tion. This synthesis presents an extensive overview of the cur-
This important synthesis topic—“Practices for Unbound
rent states of practices concerning the design and construction
Aggregate Pavement Layers”—has consistently generated
of UAB/subbase layers, along with latest research findings in
top priority rankings in recent ICAR/FHWA Technical Work-
the corresponding areas. Suggestions for “effective practices”
ing Group meetings, clearly highlighting the need to organize
are provided for areas in which significant gaps between
and compress available information from current practices
research findings and current practices are observed.
and recent advances in this field. Thus, this synthesis report
concerns the full range of aggregate base and subbase issues
for both flexible and rigid pavement systems in the following SYNTHESIS OBJECTIVES AND STUDY APPROACH
areas:
This study was initiated to gather and summarize informa-
• Materials characterization and quality of natural aggre- tion on existing practices for the design and construction
gates and common recycled materials that relate to of unbound aggregate pavement layers around the United
performance; States and Canada. The main objective of this synthesis study
• Properties of unbound aggregate layers that are used in was to summarize the state of the art in design and state of
the design of pavements and how they are determined the practice in construction of unbound aggregate pavement
 5

layers, as used by different transportation agencies. Agency In addition, summaries of agency documents and research
surveys and reviews of research publications have been publications have been obtained as examples of current effec-
conducted to identify effective practices in characterization, tive practices and recent advances and innovative techniques for
design, placement, compaction, QC, and performance for improving pavement performance with UAB/subbase layers.
unbound aggregate layers; the results have been compiled into Gaps in knowledge and current practices have been identified
this synthesis report. Therefore, this synthesis report primar- along with research needs to address these gaps. As a result,
ily concerns the full range of UAB and subbase issues for this synthesis report also provides information for poten-
asphalt, concrete, and rehabilitated pavements only and does tial harmonization of specifications (particularly on a regional
not include unbound aggregate layer applications in unsurfaced basis) to ultimately benefit both North American transporta-
pavements and gravel roads. In addition, other broader topics tion agencies and material producers without adverse impacts
in the areas of chemical admixture (such as lime, cement, fly on pavement performance. Figure 1 shows a map of the United
ash, or bitumen) and/or mechanical additive (geosynthetic, States with all the surveyed states highlighted. Note that four
fiber, and so forth) stabilization of aggregates are excluded Canadian provincial agencies (Alberta, Newfoundland and
from the scope because such aggregate stabilization topics Labrador, Ontario, and Saskatchewan) also responded to the
are subjects of separate synthesis studies. For example, the survey questionnaire. Accordingly, information gathered from
ongoing NCHRP 4-36 research study “Characterization of a total of 46 North American transportation agencies has been
Cementitiously Stabilized Layers for Use in Pavement Design summarized in this synthesis.
and Analysis” aims to recommend performance-related pro-
cedures for characterizing cementitiously stabilized pave-
ment layers for use in pavement design and analysis and Transportation Agency Use of Unbound
incorporation in the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers
Guide (MEPDG) (http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProject
The comprehensive synthesis survey questionnaire (see Appen-
Display.asp?ProjectID=2494). Similarly, NCHRP Synthe-
dix A) on Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement Layers
sis 435 (Topic 40-01) “Recycled Materials and Byproducts
was sent to all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
in Highway Applications” aims to provide guidelines to
states for revising their specifications to incorporate the use Rico, and nine Canadian provincial transportation agencies. A
of recycled materials and other industrial by-products for total of 46 agencies responded to the survey in a timely manner
pavement construction applications. and answered the first question in the general category, indicat-
ing that it was common practice for their agency to incorporate
Information has been gathered through literature review unbound aggregate layers into the design and construction
on state, local, and international practices concerning design of asphalt, concrete, and composite pavement structures, not
and construction of unbound aggregate pavement layers as including unbound aggregate layer applications in unsurfaced
well as through a comprehensive survey of the members of the pavements and gravel roads in the survey focus. In accordance,
AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials (including Figure 2 shows in percentages the types of unbound aggregate
Canadian provinces), and selected interviews. The survey ques- layers commonly constructed by the responding transporta-
tionnaire and a list of respondents are provided in the appen- tion agencies. A great majority of the responses included con-
dices of this synthesis report. The survey questionnaire had struction of both the UAB (96%) and subbase (65%) courses
separate parts, which together were relevant to agencies with in pavement layers. Nearly half of the responding agencies
different experiences and needs regarding different designs and indicated they commonly built working platforms, and about
construction practices for unbound aggregate pavement layers. one-fourth of all respondents often constructed open-graded
The information was requested to encompass all engineering drainage layers in their pavements. Note that the “others” cate­
aspects highlighted in the Summary of this synthesis report, gory in the survey summary plots presented in this synthesis
primarily in the following categories: comprise “miscellaneous” responses reported by the surveyed
agencies in lieu of the alternatives included in the question-
1. Use of UAB and subbase layers; naire. A summary of all agency responses to the questionnaire
2. Material selection and construction practices; is provided in Appendix C of this report.
3. Characterization of UAB for design;
4. Compaction, QC, and field performance; Figure 3 shows in percentages the types of pavement struc-
5. Recycling aggregates and recycled granular materials; tures incorporating unbound aggregate layers commonly
and designed and constructed by responding transportation agen-
6. Climatic effects and drainage. cies. All responding agencies routinely build flexible pave-
ments with UABs. About 70% of the respondents construct
Information was also gathered regarding possible special rigid pavements with a granular base or subbase (note that it
provisions governing the use of recycled materials in unbound is unclear from the survey how many of the remaining 30%
aggregate layer applications. The questionnaire was purposely of the respondents construct rigid pavements on a regular
designed to be comprehensive and at the same time brief in an basis; some agencies may construct rigid pavements on sta-
attempt to increase the response rate. bilized bases/subbases only). Accordingly, when it comes to
6

FIGURE 1  Map of the United States and Canada showing all surveyed agencies. Note the map does not show Alaska (response
received), Puerto Rico (no response received), or Newfoundland and Labrador (response received).

rehabilitated pavements, the number of overlaid pavements agencies, as many as 94%, build dense-graded base courses
using unbound aggregate layers in the rehabilitation process as primary structural layers (only Virginia, Rhode Island, and
is only 30%. Interestingly, about one-fifth of all respond- Pennsylvania reported not using dense-graded base courses
ing agencies also construct other types of pavements, such as as primary structural layers). Consistently with Figure 2,
composite and inverted, that have granular base and/or sub- 24% of those agencies construct open-graded aggregate lay-
base layer(s). ers under rigid pavements for uniform support and to pro-
vide drainage. This demonstrates that untreated open-graded
Figure 4 shows in percentages the primary functionalities drainage layers are not considered for flexible pavements by
of unbound aggregate layers designed and constructed in any agency. Furthermore, similar to the findings highlighted
pavement systems. Nearly all of the responding transportation in Figure 2, about half of the responding agencies (52%)

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Pavement working
platforms for subgrade 46% (21)
stability applications
46 survey respondents
Open graded drainage
24% (11)
layer

Subbase course 65% (30)

Base course 96% (44)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 2  Types of unbound aggregate layers commonly constructed by

transportation agencies.
 7

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Others such as composite pavements, inverted

22% (10)
pavements, etc.
46 survey respondents
Rehabilitated pavements (asphalt overlay over
30% (14)
concrete, etc.)

Rigid pavements (comprising Portland / hydraulic

70% (32)
cement concrete slabs)

Flexible pavements (comprising hot mix or warm

100% (46)
mix asphalt surface layer)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 3  Types of pavement structures incorporating unbound aggregate

layers commonly designed and constructed by transportation agencies.

build pavement construction platforms to protect weak sub- OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS

grade layers from excessive rutting under heavy construc-
tion equipment loading. The pavement working platform, This synthesis contains six chapters. Chapter two provides a
which is often referred to as the aggregate cover or subgrade brief overview of different types of aggregate materials and
replacement owing to its permanent foundation use in pave- their important properties and quality aspects that relate
ment construction, is clearly the second most common use of to agency acceptance criteria for good performance in pave-
unbound aggregate layers after the structural base and sub- ment applications. Sustainable aggregate utilization practices
base course application. in pavement construction are also highlighted, with special
emphasis on how to make best use of local, marginal, and
recycled aggregate materials in granular layers and how agen-
cies could test and characterize recycled materials for unbound
Key Lessons granular base/subbase acceptance and design. Chapter three
summarizes aspects such as storage, transportation, material
• The use of UAB/subbase layers is a common prac- handling, placement methods, and lift thickness of aggregate
tice across all transportation agencies in the United
materials adopted by transportation agencies to minimize
States and Canada.
• A synthesis summarizing the current state of the
segregation, degradation of material properties, and maxi-
art and state of the practice concerning unbound mize performance through improved structural load-carrying
aggregate pavement layers will help significantly in ability and superior drainage characteristics. Applications of
identifying desirable practices for the design and con- unconventional pavement types using unbound aggregate
struction of better-performing sustainable pavement layers and related construction practices, such as the inverted
systems. pavement concept of a granular layer over a stiff layer at
depth, are also described in chapter three. Gaps in knowledge

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Others 9% (4)

46 survey respondents
Pavement construction platforms to protect weak
subgrade layers from excessive rutting under 52% (24)
heavy construction equipment loading

Open graded layers under rigid pavements for

24% (11)
uniform support and providing drainage

Dense graded base courses as primary structural

94% (43)
layers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents
FIGURE 4  Primary functionalities of unbound aggregate layers intended
to serve in pavement systems designed and constructed by transportation
agencies.
8

concerning the “effective practices” for UAB and subbase Allen, J.J., J.L. Bueno, M.E. Kalinski, M.L. Myers, and K.H.
layer construction, along with research needs to address these Stokoe II, Increased Single-Lift Thicknesses for Unbound
gaps, are described. Aggregate Base Courses, ICAR Report No. 501-5, Inter-
national Center for Aggregate Research, The University of
Chapter four reviews UAB/subbase structural pavement Texas at Austin, 1998.
layer requirements by first defining typical load-transfer Ashtiani, R.S. and D.N. Little, Methodology for Designing
mechanisms and describing the related aggregate tests and Aggregate Mixtures for Base Courses, ICAR Report
characterization models for strength, modulus, and perma- No. 501-5, International Center for Aggregate Research,
nent deformation behavior; it is hoped this information will Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M Univer-
facilitate better designs of pavement systems and ultimately sity System, College Station, 2009, 336 pp.
ensure adequate performance under traffic loading. Agency Beatty, T.L., et al., Pavement Preservation Technology in
specifications and design approaches in use are reviewed, as France, South Africa, and Australia, Office of International
are the new characterization tools and improved models (such Programs, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Depart-
as stress-dependent and anisotropic modulus, ICAR model, ment of Transportation, and the American Association of
and so forth) developed for aggregate base/subbase layers State Highway and Transportation Officials, Alexandria,
through comparisons of the predicted and field-measured Va., 2002.
values in constructed unbound aggregate layer applications. Chappat, M. and J. Bilal, The Environmental Road of the Future:
Chapter four also reviews significant climatic effects, mois- Life Cycle Analysis, Energy Consumption and Greenhouse
ture or pavement drainage and temperature, and their signifi- Gas Emissions, Colas Group, 2003 [Online]. Available:
cance on the design and performance of pavement systems http://www.colas.co.uk/about-colas-detail.asp?pageId=14.
with unbound aggregate layers. Chehovits, J. and L. Galehouse, “Energy Usage and Green-
house Gas Emissions of Pavement Preservation Processes
Chapter five presents detailed findings from the literature for Asphalt Concrete Pavements,” In Proceedings of the
review and extensive survey results on different approaches First International Conference on Pavement Preservation,
used by transportation agencies for compaction testing on lab- Newport Beach, Calif., Apr. 13–15, 2010, pp. 27–42.
oratory samples, field compaction, QC/QA, and field perfor- Lewis, D.E., K. Ledford, T. Georges, and D.M. Jared, “Con-
mance evaluations of constructed UAB/subbase layers. Finally, struction and Performance of Inverted Pavements in Geor-
chapter six provides a summary of the key findings of the syn- gia,” Paper No. 12-1872, Poster Presentation in Session
thesis report, including the state of the practice for unbound 639, 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
aggregate material selection and sustainable utilization, charac- Board, Jan. 22–26, 2012, Washington, D.C.
terization, design, construction, compaction and QC, as well as Meininger, R.C. and S.J. Stokowski, “Wherefore Art Thou
performance evaluations. Chapter six also provides a summary Aggregate Resources for Highways,” FHWA-HRT-11-006,
of opportunities for additional research needs. Public Roads, Vol. 75, No. 2, Sep./Oct. 2011 [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/
There are six appendices of this synthesis report. Appendix 11septoct/06.cfm.
A presents the complete survey questionnaire that was sent to Metcalf, J.M., S. Romanoschi, L. Yongqi, and M. Rasoulian,
highway agencies in the United States and Canada. Appendix B Construction and Comparison of Louisiana’s Conventional
lists the complete survey respondent information. Appen- and Alternative Base Courses under Accelerated Load-
dix C provides a detailed compilation of the survey responses. ing, Interim Report 1, Phase 1, Louisiana Transportation
Appendices D and E present reviews of current unbound aggre- Research Center, Baton Rouge, 1998.
gate material resilient modulus and permanent deformation Saeed, A., NCHRP Report 598: Performance-Related Tests of
models, respectively. Finally, Appendix F provides additional Recycled Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pavement Lay-
information gathered from 14 state highway agencies through ers, Project 4-31, Transportation Research Board of the
a follow-up survey on resilient modulus testing. National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 53 pp.
Titi, H., M. Rasoulian, M. Martinez, B. Becnel and G. Keel,
Note that the terms “unbound” and “bound” have been
“Long-Term Performance of Stone Interlayer Pavement,”
used interchangeably in this synthesis report to highlight the
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 2,
particulate nature of aggregate base and subbase layers when
2003, pp. 118–126.
constructed without the application of any binding or stabiliz-
Tutumluer, E., A. Adu-Osei, D.N. Little, and R.L. Lytton,
ing agent.
Field Validation of the Cross-Anisotropic Behavior of
Unbound Aggregate Bases, International Center for Aggre-
REFERENCES gates Research (ICAR) Report 502-2, Texas Transporta-
tion Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College
Adu-Osei, A., D.N. Little, and R.L. Lytton, Structural Char- Station, 2001.
acteristics of Unbound Aggregate Bases to Meet AASHTO Weingart, R., “Inverted Base: The Virginia Experience,” 2012
2002 Design Requirements, International Center for Aggre- Transportation Research Board Mineral Aggregates Com-
gates Research (ICAR) Report 502-1, Texas Transportation mittee (AFP 70) Meeting Presentation, 91st Annual Meet-
Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College ing of the Transportation Research Board, Jan. 22–26, 2012,
Station, 2001. Washington, D.C.
 9

chapter two

aGGREGATE TYPES AND MATERIAL SELECTION

INTRODUCTION Industrial by-product materials, such as slags, have also been

specified and used in granular base and subbase applications
Continuous removal of available natural resources and in some states.
increased material hauling and transportation costs have put
an emphasis on finding “acceptable” materials to be used in
pavement construction. The performance of any constructed Stone Deposits
pavement system largely depends on the quality of materi-
als used in different layers. To ensure adequate performance Stone deposits can be broadly classified into the following
of pavements under loading, transportation agencies have three categories: (1) sedimentary rocks, (2) igneous rocks,
developed specifications that address certain minimum prop- and (3) metamorphic rocks. A brief discussion of the mech-
erties or qualities of construction materials. Performance of anism of formation for these three rock types is presented
aggregates used in unbound pavement layers under loading here, along with examples of each rock type. These three
is also influenced by such material properties of individual rock types usually are obtained from quarries through a blast-
ing process and are processed through a series of crushers,
particles and the particle arrangement within the aggregate
pulverizers, and screening units to obtain aggregate materials
matrix as a bulk material.
for pavement and other construction applications. Note that
depending on the processing methods, crushed aggregates
This chapter provides a brief overview of the different
produced by a crusher operation may be dry or wet immedi-
types of aggregate materials available as natural resources
ately after production.
and mined from sand and gravel pits and crushed stone quarry
operations throughout the United States. Important aggre-
1. Sedimentary Rocks: These rock types are formed by
gate properties and quality aspects, which enable aggregate
chemical precipitates and the settlement of sediments
material to meet agency specifications for pavement granular
or organic matter at or near the earth’s surface and usu-
base/subbase use, are summarized to establish guidelines for
ally within bodies of water. Examples of sedimentary
aggregate source selection. Next, the concept of best value
rocks include limestone, dolomite or dolostone, shale,
granular material use is introduced for pavement projects with
and sandstone.
the potential to save energy and material hauling costs through
The generic name “limestone” is used for com-
examples of recent sustainable construction practices, high-
monly found carbonate rocks, including limestone,
lighting how local natural aggregates and recycled materials
dolomite, and marble (Langer 2011). Limestone and
could be better used in granular base/subbase applications.
dolomite usually form as a result of the consolida-
The increasing trend to use recycled granular materials in base
tion and sedimentation of the shells of marine ani-
and subbase layers is discussed in detail. Important issues are
mals and/or plants. They may also form as a result of
reviewed to shed light onto what tests are used by agencies
the precipitation of fine carbonate mud from marine
to characterize recycled materials for unbound granular base/
waters. Limestone and dolomite constitute approxi-
subbase acceptance and design.
mately 70% of crushed stone production in the United
States (Willett 2011).
AGGREGATE TYPES AND SOURCES 2. Igneous Rocks: These rock types are formed by the
cooling and solidification of magma or lava. The pro-
According to the ASTM, aggregates are defined as “granu- cess of magma solidification can occur below or on
lar materials of mineral composition such as sand, gravel, the earth’s surface. Accordingly, igneous rocks formed
shell, slag, or crushed stone, used with a cementing medium below the earth’s surface are called intrusive or pluto­
to form mortars or concrete, or alone as in base courses, rail- nic rocks, whereas those formed on the earth’s surface
road ballasts, etc.” Based on the nature of their extraction are called extrusive or volcanic rocks. As a result of
from natural resources, aggregates used in pavement appli- the longer duration associated with cooling of magma
cations can be divided into two broad categories: (1) stone in the formation of intrusive igneous rocks, the indi-
deposits and (2) sand and gravel deposits (Barksdale 1991). vidual minerals have a chance to grow large enough
10

to see with a naked eye, and the rock has a coarse- and small boulders (particles larger than 305 mm or 12 in.)
grained texture, but extrusive igneous rocks, which in gravel deposits are also crushed.
cool rapidly from magma at or near the earth’s surface,
are too fine-grained to distinguish individual miner- Apart from the above two types of natural sources, other
als. Igneous rocks often have high amounts of silica. sources of aggregates include recycled materials and indus-
Examples of igneous rocks used in pavement appli- trial by-products. A detailed discussion on different recycled
cations include granite (intrusive), basalt (extrusive), materials and industrial by-products used in the construction
and rhyolite (extrusive). of UAB and subbase layers is presented later in this chapter.
The generic classification “granite” sometimes
includes coarse-grained igneous or metamorphic rocks
SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR AGGREGATES
such as true granite, syenite, gneiss, and dark-colored IN THE UNITED STATES
gabbro (Langer 2011). Granites account for approxi-
mately 16% of crushed stone production in the United According to the USGS, the demand for all types and uses
States (9% of total aggregate production). Although the of aggregates in 2007 and 2008 was on the order of 2.5 to
hardness of individual particles leads to granite usually 3.0 billion tons (2.2 to 2.7 billion metric tons) (Meininger
being classified as excellent crushed stone, some gra- and Stokowski 2011). These aggregates are obtained from
nitic type aggregates are weak and brittle because of natural resources or from recycled materials and/or industrial
their poorly bonded mineral grains, usually caused by by-products. To improve and maintain the present condi-
weathering. tions of the nation’s infrastructure at an acceptable level,
Fine-grained igneous rocks are also called “trap the demand for aggregates is presumed to increase with time.
rocks.” Trap rocks include dark-colored, fine-grained, However, the supply of available natural aggregates is limited
volcanic rocks and make up about 9% of the crushed and undergoes gradual depletion with continual extraction
stone production (5% of the total aggregate produc- and usage. Moreover, the availability of natural aggregate
tion) (Willett 2008). Examples of trap rock are basalt resources is constrained by geologic formations, encroach-
and diabase. Excellent resistance to chemical reac- ing land development, and the resource’s proximity to the
tions and ability to withstand high mechanical stresses intended place of usage. Therefore, although some regions in
led to the classification of trap rock as an excellent the country may have abundance of available natural aggre-
crushed stone material. gate supply, natural aggregate supplies are scarce in most
3. Metamorphic Rocks: These rocks are formed by the regions of the country.
transformation of existing rocks (may be sedimen-
tary or igneous) under heat and pressure. Examples of Figure 5 shows the relative locations of aggregate resources
meta­morphic rocks include quartzite, marble, slate, and in the conterminous United States (Langer 2011). As indi-
gneiss. Metamorphic rocks as an aggregate can have cated, there is a limited supply of natural aggregates in the
widely variable characteristics. Many quartzites and Coastal Plain and Mississippi embayment, Colorado Plateau
gneiss can have properties similar to those of granite, and Wyoming Basin, glaciated Midwest, High Plains, and the
whereas shale can be slabby and schist can be soft nonglaciated Northern Plains. Thus, construction projects in
and flaky because of its high mica content. these regions often require transportation of natural aggre-
gates from other sources. Moreover, the limestone found in
several regions of the country does not meet the hardness
Sand and Gravel Deposits and durability requirements for use in pavement base and
subbase layer applications. These conditions often demand
Aggregates are also extracted from sand and gravel pits, the transportation of “good quality” natural aggregates from
where the parent material has been transported from another nearby sources to be used in pavement applications.
location by fluvial, glacial, or alluvial processes to form
loose deposits of natural sand and gravel. They are usually According to a 1998 USGS report, 27% of the crushed
found in existing or historic river valleys or older, consoli- stone produced annually in the United States was used in
dated bedrock, glacial deposition, and mountain alluvial pavement base construction (Wilburn and Goonan 1998).
fans. Sand and gravel make up approximately 42% of the Similarly, 43% of the cement concrete debris produced was
total aggregate production in the United States (Langer used for road base construction. On the other hand, 23%
2011). Depending on agency specifications and the nature of of the total sand and gravel production was used for road
the deposits, aggregates obtained from gravel and sand pits base construction, with portland cement concrete (PCC)
may or may not be processed through a series of crushers production accounting for the highest proportion (45%) of
before being used for pavement applications. Coarser sand use. According to the 2010 Minerals Yearbook published
and gravel materials are better for this purpose because the by the USGS, approximately 58.7 million metric tons of
coarse particles can be crushed to smaller sizes. Note that in crushed stone was used in the United States for graded
some cases, cobbles (particles larger than 75 mm or 3 in.) road base or sub­base applications (Willett 2011). Similarly,
 11

FIGURE 5  Generalized locations of aggregate resources in the conterminous United States

(Langer 2011).

approximately 83 million metric tons of construction sand Extensive review of technical literature was conducted to
and gravel were used for road base and subgrade coverings identify the most important physical properties affecting aggre-
(Bolen 2012). gate strength, modulus, and deformation behavior in unbound
and bound pavement layers. A summary of the findings on
important physical properties from the literature review is pre-
AGGREGATE PROPERTIES AFFECTING sented here.
UNBOUND AGGREGATE LAYER BEHAVIOR

Physical characteristics of the rocks that govern load- Mineralogy

dissipating and particle-interlocking aspects differentiate
“good” and “poor” quality aggregates with respect to the Mineral composition of aggregates has a significant effect on
suitability for application in pavement unbound base/subbase the physical and chemical characteristics that ultimately gov-
courses. Moreover, chemical properties of the aggregates ern the performance of UAB/subbase layers under loading.
governing their durability and soundness are critical to ensur- This is particularly true as far as degradation and polishing of
ing long-lasting pavement structures. NCHRP Project 4-23, aggregates resulting from interparticle friction is concerned.
NCHRP Report 453: Performance-Related Tests of Aggre- For example, calcareous aggregates, such as limestone and
gates for Use in Unbound Pavement Layers, summarizes the dolomite, show significantly lower resistance to particle
most important tests that relate to the performance of aggre- degradation and polishing. Therefore, UAB/subbase layers
gates in unbound pavement layers (Saeed et al. 2001). Among constructed using these aggregates are likely to undergo
the tests highlighted, the screening tests (sieve analysis, Atter- significant changes in gradation during compaction and sub­
berg limits, moisture–density relationship, flat and elongated sequently under traffic loading. Note that not many research
particles, uncompacted voids), durability test (sodium and studies have evaluated directly the effects of aggregate min-
magnesium sulfate soundness), shear strength tests [triaxial eralogy on UAB/subbase performance. On the other hand,
tests conducted on wet and dry samples and California bear- research studies have generally focused on evaluating the
ing ratio (CBR) test], stiffness test (resilient modulus con- effects of aggregate physical characteristics influenced by
ducted on wet and dry samples), toughness and abrasion mineralogy on performance. Woolf (1952) presented exten-
resistance tests (Los Angeles Abrasion and Micro-Deval), and sive data on the results from physical tests on road building
frost susceptibility test (tube suction) are the most relevant aggregates. From his data, the effects of aggregate miner-
for unbound aggregate pavement layers. alogy on physical characteristics are clearly apparent. For
12

example, the average reported loss by abrasion for granite of the mixture displaces the coarse particles and the proper-
was 4.3%, whereas the corresponding values for limestone ties of the fines dominates (Jorenby and Hicks 1986; Kamal
and dolomite were 5.7% and 5.5%, respectively. et al. 1993; Lekarp et al. 2000a). Barksdale and Itani (1989)
found a dramatic 60% reduction in the resilient modulus
when the fines content was increased from 0% to 10%. Thom
Particle Size Distribution and Fines Content and Brown (1988) found that the effect of grading varied with
the compaction level; when uncompacted, specimens with
One of the primary variables in any laboratory testing of uniform grading accumulated the least permanent deforma-
aggregate materials is the grain size distribution. Differences tion, whereas the resistance to permanent deformation was
in aggregate gradations can often lead to significantly differ- similar for all gradations when the specimens were heavily
ent behavior for the same aggregate type. This is the result compacted. Kamal et al. (1993) and Dawson et al. (1996)
of the different packing order and void distributions that play found the effect of grading to be more significant than the
a crucial role in load carrying through particle-to-particle degree of compaction (DOC), with the densest mix having
contact in an aggregate matrix. To control the gradation of the highest permanent deformation resistance. Brown and
an individual aggregate sample, sieving and size separation Chan (1996) successfully reduced rutting in granular base
of the aggregate materials need to be undertaken based on layers by selecting an optimum aggregate material grad-
washed sieve analysis. Gradation itself is a key factor influ- ing that maximized compacted density. These performance
encing not only the mechanical response behavior charac- characteristics were demonstrated through experiments with
terized by resilient modulus, shear strength, and permanent two types of wheel tracking and the use of repeated load
deformation, but also permeability, frost susceptibility, ero- triaxial tests at the University of Nottingham in the United
sion susceptibility, and so forth (Bilodeau et al. 2007, 2008). Kingdom.

Note that sieve shakers used to separate aggregate sizes Increasing the amount of fines in a mix reduces the perma-
based on dry sieving of the aggregate stockpiles can give nent deformation resistance (Barksdale 1972, 1991; Thom
erroneous size distributions. In a recent study, wet sieving and Brown 1988). Moreover, the type of fines (nonplastic or
results showed that the actual fines content (note that unless plastic fines) in an aggregate layer has been found to affect
otherwise specified, “fines” in this synthesis refers to material the performance significantly. The results of a recent Illinois
finer than 0.075 mm or passing No. 200 sieve) of an aggre- Department of Transportation (DOT) field study, Experi-
gate sample was always higher than the target fines content mental Feature IL 03-01, indicate that increased aggregate
during a blending operation (Tutumluer et al. 2009). This dif- fines had a significant effect on their performance in working
ference in achieved versus target fines content was attributed platform applications (IDOT 2005).
to the significant amount of fines that remained stuck to the
surfaces of larger particles during dry sieving and contrib- Bilodeau et al. (2009) identified, from a laboratory study
uted to changing the performance of the aggregate layer as conducted on the performance of unbound granular materials
a whole. For example, aggregate samples blended with tar- with six gradations and three aggregate sources commonly used
geted 0% fines (material passing sieve No. 200 or 0.075 mm) in Canada, one fines-related volumetric parameter (termed
contained 4.4% fines for a limestone and 2.9% fines for an fine fraction porosity, represented as a ratio between the total
uncrushed gravel material (Tutumluer et al. 2009). There- amount of voids in aggregate matrix to the total amount of
fore, these fines had to be accounted for appropriately during voids if the entire matrix comprised coarse particles only) that
study of the effects of fines on aggregate strength and defor- described satisfactorily not only the mechanical performance
mation behavior. but also the environmental stresses sensitivity of materials
tested. Also identified from their study were the adapted (or
Gradation and fines content are interconnected in their optimized) gradation zones that ensured adequate overall per-
effects on strength and resilient and permanent deformation formance of those three aggregate sources.
characteristics. For a dense-graded crushed aggregate base
material having a 25-mm (1-in.) top size, Gray’s (1962) pio-
neering work indicated that maximum strength was achieved Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Angularity
at a fines content of about 8%. As the maximum aggregate
size increased, the optimum amount of fines that gave the The gradation, shape, and hardness have a great influence on
maximum strength typically decreased. Using a directional the mechanical behavior and the strength properties of aggre-
modulus approach by changing the pulsing direction in gate particles in contact. In general, it is preferable to have
repeated load triaxial tests, Tutumluer and Seyhan (2000) somewhat equidimensional (cubical) and angular particles
also determined an optimum fines content of 7% for a dense- rather than flat, thin, or elongated particles (Barksdale et al.
graded crushed limestone aggregate base material. 1992). Aggregate gradation is also critical for achieving good
packing and minimal porosity in an aggregate mix. The maxi-
Well-graded aggregates have been found to have higher mum size of aggregates, the size distribution, and the shape
resilient modulus values to the point at which the fines content of the particles determine the packing density that can be
 13

derived with an aggregate sample, assuming sufficient com- Rao et al. (2002) studied the impact of imaging-based
paction is provided. Angularity, a measure of crushed faces aggregate angularity index variations on the friction angle of
and sharpness of edges in an aggregate, is important because different aggregate types and reported an increase in aggre-
it determines the level of internal shear resistance that can gate performance when the percentage of crushed particles
be developed in the particulate medium. Round, uncrushed was increased. An increase in crushed materials beyond 50%
aggregates such as gravel, particularly with a smooth surface significantly increased the friction angle obtained from rapid
texture, tend to “roll” out from under traffic loads with low shear triaxial tests, indicating a higher resistance to perma-
rutting resistance. nent deformation accumulation. Coarse aggregate angularity
provides rutting resistance in flexible pavements as a result
Increasing particle angularity and roughness increase of improved shear strength of the UAB. The interlocking of
the resilient modulus while decreasing the Poisson’s ratio angular particles results in a strong aggregate skeleton under
(Hicks and Monismith 1971; Allen and Thompson 1974; applied loads; whereas, round particles tend to slide by or roll
Thom 1988; Thom and Brown 1988; Barksdale and Itani past each other, resulting in an unsuitable and weaker struc-
1989). The reported research indicates that aggregates made ture. Later, Pan et al. (2006) prepared unbound specimens by
with uncrushed or partially crushed gravel particles have a blending six aggregate materials with uncrushed gravel and
lower resilient modulus than do those with angular crushed tested for resilient moduli. The modulus values of the aggre-
particles. This effect has been attributed to the higher num- gate specimens blended in different percentages were linked
ber of contact points in crushed aggregates, which distrib- to the imaging-based shape indices. As the aggregate angu-
ute loads better and create more friction between particles larity and surface roughness increased, the resilient moduli
(Lekarp et al. 2000a). were considerably improved, which was primarily because
of the increased shear strength, with better aggregate inter-
Allen (1973) and Barksdale and Itani (1989) investigated lock and frictional properties and the increased confinement
the effects of the particle surface characteristics of unbound levels expressed by higher bulk stresses.
aggregates and found that angular materials resisted perma-
nent deformation better than did rounded particles because The NCHRP 4-30A project, Test Methods for Charac-
of the improved particle interlock and higher angle of shear terizing Aggregate Shape, Texture, and Angularity (NCHRP
resistance between particles. Similarly, Thom and Brown Report 555), recommended the Aggregate Image Measure-
(1988) observed that permanent deformation was primar- ment System (AIMS) and the University of Illinois Aggre-
ily affected by visible roughness of particles. Barksdale and gate Image Analyzer (UIAIA) as viable imaging systems for
Itani (1989) also concluded that blade-shaped crushed par- analyzing aggregate morphology and quantifying aggregate
ticles are slightly more susceptible to rutting than are other morphologic effects to influence strength and permanent
types of crushed aggregate and that cube-shaped, rounded deformation behavior of unbound aggregate materials (Masad
river gravel with smooth surfaces is more susceptible than is et al. 2007). Using the UIAIA system, Uthus et al. (2007)
crushed aggregate. studied the aggregate morphologic property changes resulting
from the rounding of aggregate particles in a ball mill drum.
In the base courses, although compaction is important For cubical aggregates, the changes in angularity and surface
from a shear resistance and strength viewpoint, the size, texture appeared to have a significant effect on the elastic and
shape, angularity, and texture of coarse aggregates are as plastic aggregate shakedown threshold limits, which will be
important in providing stability (Barksdale 1991). Field tests discussed in more detail in chapter four. Tutumluer and Pan
of conventional asphalt pavement sections with two different (2008) reported that aggregate blends comprising angular,
base thicknesses and three different base gradations showed rough particles consistently showed lower permanent defor-
that crushed-stone bases gave excellent stability because of mation accumulations when studied using the UIAIA system.
a uniform, high degree of density and little or no segregation The angularity property was found to contribute mainly to the
(Barksdale 1984). Rounded river gravel with smooth sur- strength and stability of aggregate structure through confine-
faces was found to be twice as susceptible to rutting as was ment, whereas the surface texture property tended to mitigate
crushed stone (Barksdale et al. 1989). the dilation effects through increasing friction between indi-
vidual aggregate particles.
Based on a review of several studies, Janoo (1998) con-
cluded that shape, angularity, and roughness have significant A recent study (Gates et al. 2011) sponsored by the
effect on base performance and there could be as much as FHWA conducted an interlaboratory study using the recently
50% change in resilient modulus of base materials owing improved Aggregate Image Measurement System 2 (AIMS2)
to geometric irregularities of coarse and fine aggregate par- device. Analyzing results obtained across 32 laboratories,
ticles. Saeed et al. (2001) showed a linkage between aggre- the study concluded that aggregate size and shape proper-
gate properties and unbound layer performance. That study ties determined using the AIMS2 device showed reason-
showed that aggregate particle angularity and surface texture able coefficients of variation for all aggregate particle sizes
mostly affected shear strength and stiffness. greater than 0.075 mm. Findings from the study have led to
14

increased use of the AIMS2 device as an automated device Density is used in pavement construction as a QC measure
capable of providing objective and reproducible shape char- to help determine the compaction level of the constructed lay-
acterization of aggregates. ers. Holubec (1969) found that increased density improves
properties of unbound aggregates with angular particles more
than for aggregates with rounded particles, provided there
Degree of Compaction is no increase in the pore pressure during repetitive load-
ing. Generally, increasing the density of a granular ma­terial
Before the aggregate samples are tested for strength, mod- makes the aggregate layer stiffer and reduces the magni-
ulus, and deformation behavior, the first task is to compact tude of the resilient and permanent deformation response
them at the corresponding gradation to determine their to both static and dynamic loads (Seyhan and Tutumluer
moisture–density relationships. Because pavement layers in 2002). Although some have found the research on density to
the field often are compacted to predetermined percentages be ambiguous with regard to the resilient behavior of soils
of the maximum dry density (MDD) values, it is important to causing little change in the resilient modulus (Knutson and
establish the values of MDD and optimum moisture content Thompson 1977; Elliott and Thornton 1988; Lekarp et al.
(OMC) for each aggregate gradation. Thus, the objective of 2000), others have found that there is a general increase in
compaction is to improve the engineering properties of the the resilient modulus with increasing density (Rowshanzamir
soil mass. Through compaction, strength can be increased, 1995; Tutumluer and Seyhan 1998).
deformation tendency can be reduced in the field, bearing
capacity of the granular layer can be improved, and undesir- The impact of density appears to be larger on the permanent
able volume changes (such as those caused by frost action, deformation behavior of aggregates. Decreased density, as
swelling, and shrinkage) may be controlled (Holtz 1990). measured by DOC, substantially increases permanent defor-
mation. Barksdale (1972) found that decreasing the DOC from
Compaction methods applied on aggregate samples have 100% to 95% of maximum dry density increased permanent
a considerable effect on the moisture–density relationship axial strain by 185% (on average). Increasing density from
for determining MDD and OMC. Commonly, an impact the standard Proctor to the modified Proctor maximum density
type compaction effort (similar to Proctor compaction) is decreased permanent deformation 80% for crushed limestone
applied on aggregate samples using the methods specified in and 22% for gravel (Allen 1973). The DOC was reported as
the AASHTO T 99 Standard and AASHTO T 180 Modified the most important factor controlling permanent deformation
test procedures (also ASTM D 698 and D 1557). The MDD development by Van Niekerk (2002), who observed that 50%
values obtained from impact-hammer based methods, such to 70% higher axial stresses were needed to cause similar mag-
as the AASHTO T 99 and AASHTO T 180, are subsequently nitude of permanent deformation when the DOC increased
corrected, as per AASHTO T 224, to compensate for par­ from 97% to 103% for the investigated gradations (see Fig-
ure 6). Note that in Figure 6, “UL,” “LL,” and “AL” refer to
ticles larger than 19.0 mm (¾ in.). Note that other laboratory
the finest allowable grading, the coarsest allowable grading,
compaction procedures, such as the vibratory and gyratory
and the average of upper and lower limits, respectively.
compaction techniques, have been shown to be more realistic
for providing adequate modulus and strength in laboratory-
compacted samples and simulating properly field loading
Moisture Content
and applied stress conditions under vibratory rollers (Adu-
Osei et al. 2000). Although the use of vibratory compaction
Moisture has been widely recognized to adversely affect
for establishing the compaction characteristics of granular
the performance of unbound aggregate layers in pavement
soils is covered under ASTM D 7382, no such specification structures and can affect aggregates in three different ways:
is provided by AASHTO. Kaya et al. (2012) compared the (1) make them stronger with capillary suction, (2) make them
effects of two different compaction methods (impact com- weaker by causing lubrication between the particles, and
paction and vibratory compaction) on the mechanical behav- (3) reduce the effective stress between particle contact points
ior of UAB materials. Comparing the gradation of aggregate resulting from increasing pore water pressure, thus decreas-
specimens before and after compaction, Kaya et al. observed ing the strength.
that impact compaction caused a change in aggregate grada-
tion through crushing and particle breakage. This ultimately Holubec (1969) conducted repeated load triaxial tests on
resulted in an increase in the OMC value. No such particle crushed aggregates and gravel sands over a range of moisture
crushing and resulting change in gradation were observed for contents. He reported an increase in permanent deformation
specimens prepared using the vibratory compaction method. by 300% for crushed aggregates and 200% for gravel sands
Although the vibratory compaction method resulted in higher when the moisture content was increased by 2.8% and 3.6%,
CBR values, the resilient modulus (MR) values for specimens respectively. Thompson and Robnett (1979) and Dempsey
prepared using impact compaction were consistently higher, (1982) found that open-graded aggregates did not develop
except for one aggregate type. pore pressures upon loading, but uniformly graded dense
 15

UL-upper limit AL-average limit LL-lower limit

400
effect of grading for UL-AL-LL
350 effect of DOC

300

σ1 [kPa] 250

200

150

100

50

0 UL-97% UL-100% UL-103% AL-97% AL-100% AL-103% AL-105% LL-97% LL-100% LL-103%
1%-N=1000000 171 257 130 194 180 276 125 151 234
5%-N=1000000 184 270 155 205 202 299 162 190 247
10%-N=50000 198 317 172 261 238 323 201 264 266
Degree of compaction [%] and grading (UL-AL-LL)

FIGURE 6  Stress (s1) levels at which ep = 1%, 5%, and 10% at N = 106, 106, and 50,000,
respectively, at DOC 97%, 100%, 103%, and 105% (Van Niekerk 2002).

aggregates with higher fines contents did develop pore pres- tents in excess of optimum. For example, resilient modulus of
sures that resulted in a reduction in resilient modulus val- a silt loam soil may decrease approximately 1,500 psi for a 1%
ues. Thom and Brown (1987) found that no noticeable pore increase in moisture content (Thompson and Robnett 1979).
water pressures developed below 85% saturation and that
most of the reduction in resilient moduli was the result of Wetting up from a shallow groundwater table (GWT) by
the lubricating effect of the water. It can also be assumed capillarity or by increase in the GWT level reduces suction
that increasing the water content in a soil reduces the capil- and may cause a constructed unbound pavement layer to
lary suction between particles, thus decreasing the effective deform permanently. Moisture sensitivity varies depending
stress and the resilient moduli. Therefore, moisture can have on specified gradations and the amount and plasticity index
a positive effect on unbound granular materials as long as (PI) of the fines: that is, percent passing No. 200 sieve (P200).
the moisture increases the capillary suction between parti- Tutumluer et al. (2009) compared relative impacts of mold-
cles. Once the saturation reaches a point at which it reduces ing (as-compacted) moisture content and plasticity of fines on
the capillary suction, the moisture becomes a detriment to the permanent deformation behavior of crushed (dolomite)
preventing residual deformation and can cause a lubricating and uncrushed (gravel) aggregate materials with P200 = 12%
effect. At even higher saturation levels, where excess pore (see Figure 7). A drastic reduction in aggregate performance
water pressure can develop and reduce the effective stress, can be seen when plastic fines are combined with increased
the rutting resistance can decrease dramatically, resulting in molding moisture: that is, compare permanent deformation
deeper ruts (Thom and Brown 1987). Maree et al. (1982) of gravel at 110% of the optimum moisture content (wopt)
conducted Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) tests on pave- with plastic and nonplastic fines in Figure 7b. Accordingly,
ments with untreated granular bases and reported higher the specification limits for compaction moisture content
permanent deformation for layers with higher moisture con- are best based on accumulated permanent deformation.
tents. Moreover, he observed that “unstable”’ conditions in
unbound aggregates were triggered at lower values of stress
ratio (defined as the ratio of applied stress to aggregate shear
strength) when the degree of saturation was increased.
Key Lesson
Degree of saturation is a factor that reflects the combined The following factors have been identified as primarily
effect of density and moisture content. The resilient modulus affecting UAB/subbase layer performance under load-
is strongly correlated with degree of saturation (Thompson ing: (1) aggregate mineralogy, (2) gradation, (3) fines
and Robnett 1979). Based on the comprehensive subgrade content (material passing No. 200 sieve), (4) type of
soil resilient modulus testing study, Thompson and LaGrow fines (plastic or nonplastic), (5) particle shape, texture
(1988) proposed using the following “moisture adjustment” and angularity, (6) DOC, and (7) moisture content.
factors to adjust resilient modulus values for moisture con-
16

(a)

(b)
FIGURE 7  Relative effects of varying moisture content and plasticity of fines on permanent
deformation behavior of crushed dolomite and uncrushed gravel aggregates (Tutumluer
et al. 2009).

TESTS TO CHECK AGGREGATE QUALITY Based on their underlying philosophy, material speci-
FOR PAVEMENT APPLICATIONS fications can be divided into the following four general
Background
categories: (1) methods or “recipe” specifications, (2) pro-
prietary product specifications, (3) performance specifica-
An extensive review of published literature indicates the pre- tions, and (4) end result specification-statistically based.
viously discussed properties are critical in governing the per- Among these different specification categories, end result
formance of UAB and subbase layers in pavement systems. specifications commonly are employed for aggregate usage
Accordingly, agency specifications for aggregate usage in in pavement base/subbase layer applications. Discussions
pavement base/subbase applications often include require- on the other specification types are presented elsewhere
ments related to gradation (particle size distribution), degree (Barksdale 1991).
of crushing (100% crushed, 100% uncrushed, number of
fractured faces), plasticity (liquid limit and plasticity index), AASHTO specification M 147-65, Materials for Aggre-
durability, and soundness (Barksdale 1991). Commonly used gate and Soil-Aggregate Subbase, Base, and Surface Courses,
specifications include those developed by ASTM, AASHTO, suggests several tests for sampling and testing of aggre-
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and individual gates before their use in pavement applications. Differ-
state and provincial transportation agencies. ent tests recommended by AASHTO for material quality
 17

testing, selection, and control testing of aggregates are • ASTM D 4792: Standard Test Method for Potential
listed here: Expansion of Aggregates from Hydration Reactions

• AASHTO T 2: Standard Method of Test for Sampling The following test methods have been used by agen-
of Aggregates cies for characterizing the toughness/abrasion resistance of
• AASHTO T 11: Standard Method of Test for Materials aggregates:
Finer than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggre-
gates by Washing • Los Angeles abrasion (AASHTO T 96)
• AASHTO T 19: Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate • Aggregate impact value (British)
• AASHTO T 27: Standard Method of Test for Sieve • Aggregate crushing value (British)
Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates • Micro-Deval abrasion (AASHTO T 327)—coarse and
• AASHTO T 84: Specific Gravity and Absorption of fine aggregates
Fine Aggregate • Degradation in the SHRP Superpave® Gyratory
• AASHTO T 85: Specific Gravity and Absorption of Compactor
Coarse Aggregate
• AASHTO T 88: Standard Method of Test for Particle Similarly, the following test methods are used to charac-
Size Analysis of Soils terize the soundness and durability of aggregates:
• AASHTO T 89: Standard Method of Test for Determin-
ing the Liquid Limit of Soils • Sodium and magnesium sulfate soundness tests
• AASHTO T 90: Standard Method of Test for Determin- (AASHTO T 104)
ing the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils • Freezing and thawing soundness (AASHTO T 103)
• AASHTO T 96: Standard Method of Test for Resis- • Aggregate durability index (AASHTO T 210)
tance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate • Canadian freeze-thaw test
by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine
• AASHTO T 104: Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Wu et al. (1998) evaluated different toughness/abrasion
Sodium or Magnesium Sulfate resistance as well as durability/soundness tests for character-
• AASHTO T 112: Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in izing aggregates used in asphalt concrete. Testing aggregates
Aggregate from sources with poor to good performance histories and
• AASHTO T 113: Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate correlating the laboratory test results with field performance,
• AASHTO T 146: Standard Method of Test for Wet they concluded that the Micro-Deval Abrasion and Magne-
sium Sulfate soundness tests provided the best correlation
Preparation of Disturbed Soil Samples for Test
with field performance. The survey of state and Canadian
• AASHTO T 176: Standard Method of Test for Plastic
provincial transportation agencies conducted under the scope
Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of the
of this synthesis study aimed to assess the state of practice
Sand Equivalent Test
in aggregate quality checking before their use in UAB and
• AASHTO R 58: Standard Practice for Dry Preparation
subbase layer construction.
of Disturbed Soil and Soil-Aggregate Samples for Test
• AASHTO T 210: Aggregate Durability Index
• AASHTO T 248: Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate Current Practices on Tests to Check
to Testing Size the Quality of Aggregate Sources
• AASHTO T 255: Total Moisture Content of Aggregate
by Drying Figure 8 shows the relative distributions of different test meth-
ods used by state transportation agencies to check the quality of
Similarly ASTM specification D 2940 Standard Specifi- virgin aggregates for use in UAB/subbase layers. Forty-three
cation for Graded Aggregate Material for Bases or Subbases of 46 respondents use sieve analysis as the primary method of
for Highways or Airports (ASTM D 2940 2009) specifies aggregate quality check for virgin aggregate sources. More-
the following test methods to evaluate the quality of aggre- over, sodium sulfate/magnesium sulfate (Na2SO4/MgSO4)
gates for use in pavement base and subbase layers: soundness test, some form of abrasion tests (Los Angeles abra-
sion or Micro-Deval), and percent deleterious materials were
• ASTM D 75: Standard Practice for Sampling Aggregates also found to be common practices among agencies. Some
• ASTM C 136: Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis transportation agencies also use tests, such as absorption and
of Fine and Coarse Aggregates specific gravity, Atterberg limits, and state-specific degrada-
• ASTM D 422: Grain-Size Analysis (Wet Sieving and tion tests for checking the quality of aggregate sources.
Determination of Subsieve Size Fractions, by Hydrom-
eter Analysis) Frequency of Checking Aggregate Sources
• ASTM D 4318: Standard Test Methods for Liquid for Quality
Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
• ASTM D 2419: Standard Test Method for Sand Equiva- The survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation
lent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate agencies also gathered information on the frequencies of
18

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other (Atterberg limits, etc.) 48% (22)

46 survey respondents
Percent Deleterious Materials 65% (30)

Sieve Analysis 94% (43)

Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test 85% (39)

Na2SO4 / MgSO4 Soundness Test 57% (26)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 8  Tests used by agencies for evaluating quality aspects of virgin

aggregate materials for pavement base and subbase applications
(46 respondents).

quality assurance tests on virgin aggregate materials. Results versity of Illinois (Mishra 2012) evaluated the effects of
from the survey are presented in Figure 9. particle shape and angularity on unsurfaced pavement per-
formance. Through laboratory testing and accelerated load-
Apart from the testing frequencies shown in Figure 9, ing of full-scale unsurfaced pavement test sections, the study
several other agencies also reported policies for aggregate highlighted the increased potential for internal shear failure
material quality testing based on the quantity of aggregate within uncrushed aggregate layers. It is therefore important
used in a particular project. For example, two states reported for transportation agencies to distinguish between crushed
requirements for conducting at least one quality assurance and uncrushed aggregates while developing material specifi-
check for every project per every 2,000 and 2,500 tons of cations for aggregates to be used in base and subbase layers.
aggregate used, respectively. Continued research on the quantification of aggregate par-
ticle shape, surface texture, and angularity indices through
imaging-based methods may lead to the establishment of an
Crushed versus Uncrushed Aggregates aggregate packing index representing the degree of particle
interlock in aggregate matrices. Such a packing index poten-
Particle shape and angularity, often expressed as “crushed” tially could highlight the differences between uncrushed and
or “uncrushed” particles, play an important role in govern- crushed particles as far as packing within in aggregate matrix
ing the behavior of unbound aggregate layers under loading. and load transfer mechanisms are concerned.
Aggregate layers with uncrushed particles undergo signifi-
cant particle reorientation under loading, thus accumulating An equal number of agencies (20 each of 46 respondents)
large amounts of permanent deformation, which ultimately replied “Yes” or “No” when asked whether uncrushed aggre-
may lead to internal shear failure. A recent study at the Uni- gates were allowed in UAB and subbase layers. The remain-

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other (production basis, etc.) 37% (17)

46 survey respondents
Less than once every year 7% (3)

Once every year 11% (5)

Twice every year 2% (1)

More than twice every year 4% (2)

Prior to the use on major construction projects 39% (18)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 9  Frequencies of aggregate acceptance checks by state

transportation agencies (46 respondents).
 19

25
21

Number of Agencies
20
15
11
10
4
5 2
1 1 1 1
0

Maximum Allowable Aggregate Particle Size

FIGURE 10  Base layer dense-graded unbound aggregate: maximum

aggregate particle size allowed by agencies.

ing six agencies require partially crushed particles for base mum aggregate particle size for dense-graded base courses
course applications (often by requiring at least one fractured to 1.0 or 1.5 in. Similarly, 20 agencies limit the maximum
face or by specifying a minimum proportion of fractured aggregate particle size in dense-graded subbase layers to
particles in the aggregate blend). Moreover, several agencies between 1.5 and 2.0 in. In general, larger top-size aggregates
allow the use of uncrushed aggregates in subbase layers but are allowed in dense-graded subbase layers compared with
prohibit their use in base courses. those in dense-graded base layers. No such clear trend was
observed from comparing the specifications for open-graded
drainage base and subbase layers.
Maximum Allowable Aggregate Particle Size

Particle size distribution or gradation has been found to be Type and Amount of Fines
the most important parameter affecting aggregate perfor-
mance in unbound and bound pavement layers. State and The type of fines, often indicated by the PI value (PI test
Canadian provincial transportation agencies were surveyed usually conducted on material finer than 0.425 mm or pass-
for the maximum aggregate particle sizes allowed in dif- ing No. 40 sieve), plays an important role in governing the
ferent types of aggregate base and subbase layers, and their shear strength, resilient modulus, and permanent deformation
responses are reported in Figures 10 to 13. behavior of unbound aggregate layers in pavement structures.
As mentioned, unless otherwise specified, the term “fines” in
As shown in Figures 10 to 13, no consistent practice exists the current synthesis refers to material finer than 0.075 mm
among transportation agencies regarding the maximum or passing the No. 200 sieve. Aggregate materials with high
aggregate particle size allowed in UAB and subbase layers. amounts of plastic fines exhibit higher moisture susceptibility
Nevertheless, most of the respondents reported similar max- and undergo significant reduction in the shear strength in the
imum aggregate particle size limits for dense-graded base presence of moisture when compared with aggregates with
and subbase layers. For example, 32 agencies limit the maxi- nonplastic fines. Recent research at the University of Illinois

14
Number of Agencies

12 11
10 8
8
6 5
4 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0

Maximum Allowable Aggregate Particle Size

FIGURE 11  Subbase layer dense-graded unbound aggregate: maximum

aggregate particle size allowed by agencies.
20

5
4
4

Number of Agencies
3
3
2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1
1

Maximum Allowable Aggregate Particle Size

FIGURE 12  Base layer open-graded drainage: maximum aggregate

particle size allowed by agencies.

(Mishra et al. 2010a, 2010b; Mishra and Tutumluer 2011; sampling, and transportation practices, contamination of the
Mishra 2012) has established the increased moisture suscep- stockpiles with natural soil and corresponding plastic fines
tibility of aggregates with high amounts of plastic fines, and can be controlled adequately. Therefore, aggregate materials
thus has emphasized the importance of specifying different used in construction of UAB/subbase courses may primarily
values for the maximum allowable fines contents for aggre- comprise nonplastic fines. Accordingly, the lack of differen-
gates with nonplastic and plastic fines. Accordingly, the cur- tiation between plastic and nonplastic fines in UAB/subbase
rent synthesis study gathered information on the state of the courses may not always indicate poor practice. Rather, it
practice regarding the maximum amounts of nonplastic and should be emphasized that in cases in which the aggregate
plastic fines allowed in an aggregate matrix. Only one agency material may comprise plastic fines, it is critical to control the
(Maryland) currently specifies different threshold limits for maximum amount of fines allowed in the aggregate matrix
the maximum amount of plastic and nonplastic fines allowed because plastic fines in the presence of moisture often lead to
in aggregates to be used in pavement construction. It is impor- significant deterioration in the aggregate shear strength.
tant to note that some agencies may not consider differentiat-
ing between plastic and nonplastic fines. This is because with As discussed, researchers and practitioners in the past
adequate production, storage, and construction practices the have established that unbound aggregate materials contain-
amount of plastic fines in an aggregate material usually can be ing the optimum amount of fines (material passing No. 200
controlled. For crushed stones produced from quarry opera- sieve or finer than 0.075 mm) perform the best as far as shear
tions, the fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) usually are strength, resilient modulus, and permanent deformation
nonplastic in nature although the nature of fines also depends characteristics are concerned. Insufficient fines in an aggre-
on the mineralogy of the parent rock. With proper storage, gate matrix results in unstable matrix behavior because of

5
4
4
Number of Agencies

3
3
2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1
1

Maximum Allowable Aggregate Particle Size

FIGURE 13  Subbase layer open-graded drainage: maximum aggregate

particle size allowed by agencies.
 21

12 11

Number of Agencies
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Maximum Allowable Fines Content (%)

FIGURE 14  Base layer dense-graded aggregate base: maximum

allowable fines content in aggregates used (44 respondents).

the excessive movement of the coarse particles with respect gate types (11% and 15% for silicate and carbonate rocks,
to each other. On the other hand, the presence of excessive respectively). Another agency is in the process of modifying
fines in an aggregate matrix compromises particle interlock its state specifications to impose a restriction on the maxi-
through lubricating action at the contact points. This leads to mum allowable fines content.
the aggregate material exhibiting lower shear strength and
resilient modulus values and accumulating large permanent Figures 17 and 18 show the maximum value of PI allowed
deformations. Thus, it is critical for transportation agencies by agencies for the fines fraction (P200) in dense-graded UAB
to control the amount of fines in aggregates used in pavement and subbase courses, respectively. As shown in the two fig-
applications. ures, PI = 6 is commonly used as the maximum PI value for
the fines fractions in UAB and subbase layers. Moreover, it
Figures 14 to 16 summarize the survey responses con- is important to note that three agencies do not impose any
cerning the maximum amount of fines allowed in different restrictions on the plasticity of fines in the aggregates used
UAB and subbase layer types. There is a wide variation in for constructing aggregate base and subbase layers. In addi-
the maximum allowable fines contents from one agency to tion, one transportation agency allows the use of aggregates
the other. Although 33 of 46 respondents restrict the amount with fines fraction PI as high as 15. Such high plastic fines,
of fines (P200) in dense-graded base courses to less than 12%, when present in large amounts in an aggregate matrix, may
five agencies reported allowing more than 15% fines. One render the aggregate highly moisture susceptible, thus sig-
agency (Georgia) currently specifies different limits for the nificantly reducing the aggregate shear strength in the pres-
maximum allowable fines (P200) contents for different aggre- ence of moisture.

8
7

6
6
Number of Agencies

4
4
3

2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1

0
6 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 18 20 25 34 Other
Maximum Allowable Fines Content (%)

FIGURE 15  Subbase layer dense-graded aggregate subbase: maximum

allowable fines content in aggregates used (35 respondents).
22

Number of Agencies
4 4
4

2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1

Maximum Allowable Fines Content (%)

FIGURE 16  Base/subbase open-graded drainage layers: maximum allowable

fines content in aggregates used (17 respondents).

20
18
Number of Agencies

16

12

8
5
4 3
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0

Maximum Allowable Plasticity Index (PI)

*Other: PI = 6 or graded aggregate base and Coquina base; PI = 9 for sand-clay base

FIGURE 17  Maximum value of PI allowed for the P200 fines fraction in
dense-graded UAB.

15

12
Number of Agencies

11

6 5

3 3
3
1 1 1 1 1

0
0 4 5 6 8 9 12 15 No
Spec
Maximum Allowable Plasticity Index (PI)

FIGURE 18  Maximum value of PI allowed for the P200 fines fraction in
dense-graded UAB.
 23

energy conservation and efficient use of aggregate resources.

Key Lessons Mineralogical properties of the parent rock and the type of
crusher greatly influence the amount of fines produced dur-
• No common practice exists among transportation
ing quarry operations. From a report published in the United
agencies as far as testing of aggregates for material
Kingdom, depending on the type of crusher, limestone quar-
quality before their use in unbound base/subbase
layers is concerned. rying may produce as much as 25% fines. Filler materials
• The use of 100% uncrushed aggregates in UABs/ that are less than 0.075 mm in size typically account for 10%
subbase layers is best done with caution, taking into to 20% of the total crushed rock aggregate fines produced
account their substandard strength properties and (Manning and Vetterlein 2004). A more recent review article
high rutting damage potentials. from Stone, Sand and Gravel Review on utilization of quarry
• No common practice exists concerning the maximum fines for sustainable construction cites a number of successful
aggregate particle size allowed in different unbound applications for alternative uses of quarry fines in construc-
aggregate pavement layers. To ensure ease of con- tion applications (Halmen and Kevern 2010). Among them,
struction and adequate compaction, the maximum the ones linked to pavement applications with the most poten-
particle size allowed in UAB, subbase, and drainage tial to utilize large amounts of quarry fines are listed in the
layers are best restricted to 1.5 in., 2 in., and 4 in.,
order of ranking as follows:
respectively.
• Excessive fines (P200) deteriorate aggregate layer
performance, especially in the presence of mois- 1. Pavement working platform, also known as aggregate
ture. The maximum amount of fines (P200) allowed subgrade/granular subbase construction;
in UAB/subbase layers are best restricted to 12% 2. Unbound aggregate for road base and as embankment
or less. material;
• The presence of plastic fines in an aggregate layer 3. Fine aggregate/filler for controlled low-strength materi­
needs to be limited. For instances in which the pres- als (aka flowable fill);
ence of plastic fines is unavoidable, different threshold
4. Filler material in hot mix asphalt (HMA) and slurry
limits are best set for the maximum allowable fines
seals for asphalt pavements;
content for nonplastic and plastic fines.
5. Fine aggregate/filler for PCC, such as use of manufac-
tured sand in PCC with higher fines content accord-
ing to the ongoing work at the ICAR by Fowler and
co-workers (http://aftre.nssga.org/Reports/Project-
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 102-1.pdf).
OF AGGREGATES
FHWA also published and updated user guidelines for
Aggregate crushed stone quarry processes such as blast-
use of by-products in pavement construction, in which they
ing, crushing, and screening of coarse aggregates produce
identified flowable fill as a possible application for the use of
by-product materials, at approximately 8% of the mined
quarry fines among many other applications (FHWA 2008).
aggregate, commonly known as quarry waste or quarry dust.
Quarry wastes typically are less than 0.25 in. (6 mm) in size
and consist of coarse, medium, and fine sand-sized particles Several studies in the literature report successful utiliza-
and a clay/silt-sized fraction, which is less than No. 200 sieve tion of quarry fines in road base/embankment and flowable
(0.075 mm) in size. Current economic conditions and an fill applications. Preliminary studies conducted at the Uni-
increased emphasis in the construction industry on sustain- versity of Texas indicated that quarry fines could be used
ability and recycling require production of aggregate gra- economically as flowable fill and in cement-treated pavement
dations with lower dust and smaller maximum sizes. These subbases (Kumar and Hudson 1992; Hudson et al. 1997).
new production limitations have “unbalanced” the aggregates Based on these findings, a recent ICAR research study tested
production stream, in part because of the demand for cleaner the acceptability of high fines content in aggregate pavement
aggregates with smaller top sizes in increased utilization of layers and reported that aggregate systems with higher fines
finer asphalt concrete mixes, resulting in excessive energy use benefited considerably from low percentages (1% to 2%) of
and increased waste fines. Owing to these increased energy cement stabilizer (Ashtiani and Little 2007). The study found
and disposal costs for the aggregate production, re­using and that with the proper design of fines content, cement content,
recycling of waste products (e.g., RAP, and RCA) may some- and moisture, the performance of the stabilized systems with
times exceed the potential economic benefits. If research can high fines content could perform equivalent to or better than
lead toward more beneficial use of the by-product quarry systems with standard fines content. Cement-treated quarry
wastes, making more effective use of locally available ma- fines also were used as a pavement base material on SH-360
terials through beneficiation and use of marginal aggregate in Arlington, Texas, as part of a research project (Puppala
materials and increasing effective use of recycled materials, et al. 2008). The study reported that the unconfined compres-
aggregate production can become more sustainable through sive strength of cement-treated quarry fines was adequate
24

and that field monitoring indicated low permanent deforma- physical classification systems is that they could possibly
tion during service. A recent Iowa DOT study also focused accept unsuitable materials in some cases and reject desir-
on road construction using admixture stabilized limestone able materials in other cases, as summarized by Cook and
fines and found that stabilized fines could perform satisfac- Gourley (2002). Under such a physical classification frame-
torily as a structural layer in road construction through visual work, naturally occurring materials could be excluded from
observations (Rupnow et al. 2010). Laboratory compaction, use, based on any combination of grading, plasticity, particle
unconfined compression, freezing and thawing, and wet-dry hardness, strength, and so forth lying outside the specification-
durability test results showed that cement kiln dust (CKD) demanded requirements, as outlined in Figure 19.
was not an acceptable stabilizer because of poor durability
performance; however, class C fly ash and CKD mixtures In many areas with a shortage of “standard” or traditional
were determined to be acceptable. aggregate materials that satisfy normal requirements for road
paving, nonstandard local aggregate sources have been suc-
Mishra and Tutumluer (2011) characterized the strength, cessfully applied in low volume road constructions; typical
stiffness, and deformation behavior of different types and qual- examples are documented in Table 1. In addition, an early
ities of aggregates commonly used in Illinois for subgrade field trial constructed by the Transportation Research Labo-
replacement and subbase. The project focus was on estab- ratory in 1978, in which three marls (local calcareous mate-
lishing aggregate cover thickness correlations with aggregate rials) outside the recommended gradation envelope were
material properties to modify and improve the current IDOT substituted for the crushed stone base, indicated that the use
Subgrade Stability Manual thickness requirements through of a much wider range of marls, if properly stabilized, is
laboratory and field testing. Thick layers of the uncrushed viable technically and economically, as justified by the low
gravel placed over a weak subgrade were observed to undergo values of rut depth and deflection and the high strength of
internal shear failure owing to high amount of fines and exces- the base (Woodbridge 1999). Bullen (2003) also showed that
sive movement of the aggregate particles. On the other hand, the use of local aggregate materials in Australia, with appro­
crushed aggregate layers showed significantly higher resis­ priate design, can not only provide the desired pavement
tance to internal shear deformation, and test sections con- performance, but also can promote sustainability in terms of
structed using crushed aggregates failed primarily as a result significant cost saving, natural resource conservation, and
of subgrade deformation. The influence of compactive effort even environment protection.
on aggregate layer performance was clearly apparent; higher
relative compaction exhibited better resistance to permanent In the United States, for instance, the taconite aggregate
deformation accumulation. resources in Minnesota, the industrial by-products from iron
ore mining, recently have been demonstrated in MnROAD
Prolonged exposure to moisture and freeze-thaw effects low-volume test section studies to be a promising supply of
was found to have a beneficial effect on the crushed dolomite high-quality, low-cost aggregates for roadway use (Clyne
with high amounts (12% to 13%) of nonplastic minus No. 200 et al. 2010). In Texas, locally available materials (mostly
Grade 4), sometimes even with high amount of fines, have
fines (Mishra and Tutumluer 2011). Interestingly, carbonate
been used (with or without stabilization) not only for low-
cementation within the fine fraction was identified as the most
volume roads but also for major roads in some districts.
probable mechanism contributing to “stiffening” of the aggre-
gate sections, which resulted in the aggregate layer sustaining
Despite all of the potential benefits and documented suc-
a significantly higher number of load applications without
cessful applications of local aggregate sources, one major
undergoing shear failure. Note that upon further loading, the
obstacle to their widespread use is the significant engineer-
aggregate sections demonstrated “punching” failure into the
ing uncertainty (or risk) inherent with their long-term per-
underlying subgrade (CBR = 3%) similar to the failure of
formance. Such uncertainties cannot be addressed by current
concrete slabs over weak support conditions.
physical classification systems to be later considered properly
in pavement design. Furthermore, several state transportation
Unbound Pavement Applications agencies are reluctant to relax the traditionally conservative
standard specifications.
Often different test methods are adopted by transportation
agencies to check the adequacy of aggregate materials for use Separate from the physical classification presented pre-
in unbound pavement applications. However, these “recipe- viously, the mechanistic classification discerns different
based” test methods are focused primarily on checking the qualities of unbound aggregates from mechanical properties
physical and chemical (if applicable) properties of aggre- that are required as input to the constitutive relationships
gates, which often are related to basic geologic origin, miner- incorporated into mechanistic-empirical pavement design
alogy, and other properties, such as hardness and durability, procedures, as illustrated in Figure 20. It is expected that
and they may not necessarily offer the best means to judge the such mechanistic classification systems, in combination with
mechanistic properties and performance of unbound aggre- certain levels of local experiences, have direct relevance or
gate layers. One major disadvantage associated with such even robust linkage to the actual performance of materials used
FIGURE 19  Nonstandard material groups and their likely problems (Cook and Gourley 2002).
26

TABLE 1
Examples of Using Nonstandard Materials in Low-Volume Sealed Roads

Source: Cook and Gourley (2002).

FIGURE 20  Physical (left) versus mechanical (right) classification for various unbound granular materials (Paute et al. 1994).
 27

in pavement layers. The mechanistic nature of the responses From a MEPDG perspective, determining the best use of
of unbound aggregate materials can be characterized by different qualities of locally available aggregate materials
resilient modulus (stiffness), whereas permanent deforma- in road bases/subbases may be a challenge. For example,
tion linked to shear strength often relates to rutting damage Lukanen (1980) found early on that certain MnDOT) Class 3
accumulation. aggregates were even stronger than Class 6 aggregates when
placed in pavement granular layers. This was a surpris-
Because both the resilient (recoverable) and permanent ing field evaluation considering that as MnDOT aggregate
deformation/strain components are to be considered simul- classes increase, usually better materials, such as a high-
taneously for mechanistic-empirical (M-E) evaluation of quality Class 6, are designated. During MnROAD study,
unbound aggregate behavior, the resistance to permanent similar contradictory trends were observed in backcalculated
deformation under repeated traffic loading relates to rutting base layer moduli from falling weight deflectometer (FWD)
damage accumulation in unbound aggregate materials. For testing of flexible pavements (Ovik et al. 2000). For both
thin (<15 cm) and thick (>15 cm) asphalt concrete surfac-
example, the Australian Road Association determines both
ing, the backcalculated base moduli of Class 3sp materials
resilient modulus and permanent deformation from repeated
often were found to be greater than those of higher material
load triaxial tests to characterize unbound aggregates and
classes (i.e., 4sp, 5sp, and 6sp) (Ovik et al. 2000). In light
marginal materials (Austroads 2003). Khogali and Mohamed
of these findings, several issues may need to be addressed,
(2007) developed a mechanistic aggregate classification sys-
such as how to specify material properties based on their
tem based on a test procedure for combined determination
end-use performances; where in pavements to place locally
of the resilient modulus and permanent deformation poten-
available materials (either natural or recycled) of marginal
tial involving both elastic and plastic responses. Recently,
quality; what type of pavements and critical traffic design
Tao et al. (2010) introduced a mechanistic-based design levels should be determined beyond which no satisfactory
approach to characterize and compare the behavior of tradi- pavement performance can be cost-effectively maintained
tional and recycled pavement base materials that employed by using marginal materials; and finally, what would be the
dissipated energy concept to explain different shakedown optimum combination of high- and marginal-quality aggre-
responses of materials obtained from laboratory repeated- gate uses considering certain design features and site factors
load triaxial tests and full-scaled accelerated loading tests. so that aggregate base and granular subbase materials can be
It was implied that permanent deformation characteristics of optimized for satisfactory pavement performance.
pavement materials provided a better measure for evaluating
recycled and marginal materials against traditional unbound
aggregates.

Shear strength is an important mechanistic property of Key Lessons

unbound aggregate materials. The shear resistance of the
• The use of quarry by-products and other marginal
material mainly contributes to developing a load resistance
aggregates in UAB/subbase layers can lead to sus-
quality that greatly reduces the stresses transmitted to the tainable pavement construction practices.
underlying layers (Garg and Thompson 1997). Saeed et al. • In addition to commonly used tests for evaluating
(2001) found under the NCHRP Project 4-23 study that shear the physical characteristics, the mechanical perfor-
strength of unbound aggregates under repeated loading had mance of such marginal aggregates needs to be
the most significant influence on pavement performance. carefully studied.
Seyhan and Tutumluer (2002) suggested that a limiting value • Currently used performance-based tests often fail to
of the shear stress ratio (the level of applied shear stress as adequately evaluate unbound aggregate materials
for application in pavement base/subbase layers.
a fraction of the shear strength of the material) controlled
Additional research is required toward the develop-
the permanent deformation behavior of aggregates and that ment of new and modification of existing performance-
“good” quality aggregates typically had low shear stress based tests.
ratios in the range of 0.2 to 0.5. • Marginal aggregates and quarry by-products may be
mixed with high-quality aggregates to develop mate-
To better assess performance and rank different sources rial blends with adequate physical, chemical, and
mechanical properties.
of aggregate materials, coupling mechanistic characteristics,
• It is not uncommon for a “weak” rock, such as lime-
including moduli, strength, and permanent strains, under
stone, to show very high resilient modulus values.
representative ranges of operating environmental conditions However, the permanent deformation behavior also
is of essential importance from the MEPDG perspective. is best evaluated before classifying the material as
Development of performance-based material specifications a “good quality” aggregate for use in unbound base/
is critical for optimized material use with reduced waste and subbase layers.
eventually better utilization of construction dollars.
28

Best Value Granular Material Concept materi­als was a significantly cost-effective alternative. How-
ever, for traffic volumes greater than 1.5 million equivalent
Continual depletion of available natural aggregate resources single-axle loads (ESALs), aggregate material quality was crit-
has led an increasing number of transportation agencies to ical in governing fatigue and rutting performances. Note that
haul aggregate material for use in pavement construction these findings may need to be verified in the field before being
from long distances. Such long distance hauling significantly implemented into pavement design and construction practices.
increases the material cost for aggregates. According to
NSSGA, transporting aggregates by truck over a distance of In addition, the study found that a change in the subbase
30 to 50 miles can double the material cost for the end user. material quality had a more significant impact on pavement
A 1998 USGS study indicated that for an assumed 56-km rutting performance than did a similar change in the base
(35-mile) transportation distance, the cost of transporting material quality. When the base quality was decreased from
aggregate materials for use in pavement base/subbase layers high to low, its effect on rutting performance was almost neg-
may exceed the estimated purchase price of the product at ligible for pavements with design traffic levels between 0.6
the source (Wilburn and Goonan 1998). Thus, more empha- and 6.0 million ESALs. However, a similar drop in subbase
sis is placed by transportation agencies on the utilization of material quality resulted in significant reduction in the rut-
locally available “best value” granular materials, which do ting life. Accordingly, based on the research findings, for a
not require hauling aggregates from sources farther away pavement structure comprising “good quality” aggregates in
from the project locality and incurring significant material the subbase, locally available “marginal” aggregates may be
hauling and transportation expenses. used in the base layer, while ensuring adequate pavement
performance. A high-quality, stiff subbase exhibits almost a
Best value granular materials are locally available aggre- bridging effect to better protect the subgrade and offset any
gate materials (natural or recycled) that can be used in pave- detrimental effects of low base stiffness, and as a result, the
ment construction through slight modification to the design quality of base materials becomes trivial. Note that this is
and/construction procedures. Various locally available aggre- the same concept as that used in the South-African “inverted
gate materials currently are classified as “out of specification” pavement” designs, which often use a cement-stabilized sub-
according to traditional “recipe-based” testing techniques and base over soft soils to effectively protect the subgrade while
specifications, but still there likely is significant opportunity providing a stiff underlying layer for the base to enable com-
for better value to be achieved. These materials may not sat- paction of granular base materials, often in excess of 100%
isfy all the requirements specified by transportation agencies of achieved Proctor densities.
for quality assurance of aggregates used in pavement appli-
cations. However, through slight modifications to the design Figure 21 presents the concept of best value granular
and/or construction procedures, these materials can be used materials illustrated as an implementation challenge of recent
in pavement applications and thus will significantly reduce research study findings (Xiao et al. 2011; Xiao and Tutumluer
the overall construction cost and energy expenditure. This is 2011). Three components were proposed for incorporation into
particularly true for low-volume road applications for which the MnDOT’s mechanistic–empirical pavement analysis and
the traffic volume is sufficiently low to allow the use of these design program MnPAVE to implement the best-value granular
“marginal quality” materials without significantly affecting material aggregate selection, utilization, and mechanistic-based
the pavement performance under loading. design concepts: (1) geographic-information system-based
aggregate source management component, (2) aggregate prop-
This “sustainable” alternative has garnered significant erty selection component for design, and (3) aggregate source
attention from different transportation agencies, and more selection/utilization component. To accomplish pavement
attention is being paid to better utilization of best value gran- designs, aggregate material source locations are identified
ular materials, the use of which reduces the cost and energy with certain aggregate properties to be linked to mechanis-
associated with material hauling. tic MnPAVE pavement analysis property inputs. The quality
aspects of the used aggregates are then assessed for cost-
A recently completed research study sponsored by MnDOT effectiveness and unbound aggregate layer design thickness
conducted mechanistic–empirical pavement analyses to evalu- requirements for a sustainable pavement performance.
ate the performances of pavement structures with base/subbase
layers constructed with locally available aggregate materials
(Xiao et al. 2011; Xiao and Tutumluer 2011). The primary
objective was to demonstrate that locally available aggregate
materials could be economically efficient in the implementa- Key Lesson
tion of available mechanistic-based design procedures. Find- The concept of best-value granular materials involves
ings from the study indicated that for low-volume roads, base the use of locally available aggregates (natural or re-
and subbase quality was not significant for achieving 20-year cycled) in pavement construction through slight modi-
fatigue and rutting performance lives. Thus, for low-volume fications to design/construction procedures.
roads, using locally available and somewhat “marginal”
 29

FIGURE 21  Best value granular material MnPAVE design implementation (Xiao and Tutumluer 2011).

RECYCLING AGGREGATES AND thesis study: (1) unbound aggregate materials recycled from
RECYCLED GRANULAR MATERIALS old pavement base/subbase layers, and recycled materials:
that is, (2) RAP and (3) RCA. Consideration was given in this
Fluctuating oil prices in recent years have magnified the
synthesis to the different test methods used by state transpor-
importance of building sustainable pavement systems with
tation agencies to check the adequacy of recycled materials
stronger and less moisture-susceptible unbound granular lay-
before allowing their use in the construction of UAB and
ers as the primary load-bearing structural components. High
subbase layers. Particular emphasis was given to whether
construction demands and accompanying geologic restric-
state transportation agencies impose additional requirements
tions imposed by urbanization and environmental concerns
for quality assurance of recycled aggregate materials com-
have resulted in a scarcity of good-quality aggregate sources
pared with those for virgin aggregates.
in many locations. As a result of this and sustainability issues,
increased amounts of recycled or reclaimed aggregates are used The following properties of recycled aggregates have been
to supplement virgin aggregate supplies. The FHWA lists the identified by NCHRP Report 598 as relevant to their use in
following recycled aggregate types as being used by different unbound pavement layers (Saeed 2008): (1) shear strength,
agencies in pavement granular base layer applications (http:// (2) CBR, (3) cohesion and angle of internal friction, (4) resil-
www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/ ient or compressive modulus, (5) density, (6) permeability,
pavements/97148/004.cfm): (1) blast furnace slag, (2) coal (7) frost resistance, (8) durability index, and (9) resistance to
bottom ash, (3) coal boiler slag, (4) mineral processing wastes, moisture damage.
(5) municipal solid waste combustor ash, (6) nonferrous
slags, (7) reclaimed asphalt pavement, (8) reclaimed concrete, AASHTO specification PP 56-06, Evaluating the Engi-
(9) steel slag, and (10) waste glass. According to the USGS, neering and Environmental Suitability of Recycled Materi-
the highway industry (American Concrete Pavement Associa- als, outlines a framework for assessing the feasibility to use
tion, Construction Materials Recycling Association, FHWA, recycled materials in the highway environment by consider-
and National Asphalt Pavement Association) has estimated ing issues such as (1) engineering and material properties;
the quantities of reclaimed and recycled asphalt and concrete (2) environmental, health, and safety properties; (3) imple-
materials used in construction at closer to 100 million tons mentation aspects; and (4) recycling aspects of the recycled
each in 2009; approximately 14 and 18 million tons were used materials. Although the specification recommends a general
as RCA and RAP aggregate materials, respectively. framework to be adopted before the use of recycled materials,
it also clearly recommends the evaluator consider local condi-
Of the previously mentioned material types, only the fol- tions before selecting different criteria and the corresponding
lowing three recycled materials were considered in this syn- threshold values.
30

In addition to the general evaluation framework listed in According to Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas
AASHTO PP 56-06, agencies may sometimes adopt the tox- (2013), when RAP is used as an aggregate in an unbound appli-
icity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) to chemically cation, the volume of asphalt in the RAP reduces the specific
evaluate the potential harmful effects of leaching through an gravity, and the presence of asphalt seals most of the surface
UAB/subbase layer constructed using recycled materials. area of the particles. These characteristics result in a lower unit
Designated as Method 1311 by the EPA (http://www.epa. weight and a reduced amount of water needed to achieve the
gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311.pdf), TCLP desired compaction level. A study by Taha et al. (1999) recom-
determines the mobility of both organic and inorganic haz- mends blending granular RAP with virgin aggregates to attain
ardous materials in recycled and waste materials. For exam- the proper bearing strengths because the RAP-bearing capacity
ple, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) lists usually is lower than that of conventional granular aggregate
the TCLP as a required “acceptance” test for recycled con- bases. As conventional granular aggregate content increased,
crete base aggregates for sources of RCA that are not from dry density and CBR values increased (Taha et al. 1999). There-
GDOT projects or GDOT pavements. fore, it is important to characterize and quantify the expected
range of RAP properties before application. Findings from the
The ongoing Transportation Pooled Fund Study TPF- ongoing Transportation Pooled Study TPF-5(129) have indi-
5(129), Recycled Unbound Pavement Materials (http://www. cated that although RAP materials may show high resilient
pooledfund.org/Details/Study/361), has the objective of mon- modulus values, aggregate layers constructed using 100% RAP
itoring the performance of several test cells at MnROAD con- materials often accumulate high permanent deformation values.
structed using recycled materials in the granular base layers,
including blended with virgin materials and 100% recycled The degree of expansion for the RAP materials is not well
asphalt and concrete pavement materials. Issues that are being known. Expansion of the RAP material is particularly critical
considered include variability in material properties, purity of when the RAP contains expansive components, such as steel
material, and how to identify and control material quality. The slag, which may not be commonly allowed in pavement base/
project findings will include laboratory studies, examination subbase layers. Note that steel slag aggregates often are used
of existing field sites, and evaluation of data from MnROAD in HMA surface courses where their high frictional charac-
test sections. Anticipated results from this project include a teristics are particularly useful. Therefore, any RAP material
suite of tests and/or protocols that may be used to identify obtained from these surface courses with steel slag aggregates
the critical characteristics of these recycled materials, as well potentially may lead to expansion and resulting pavement
as optimum design criteria and best construction practices heave when used in UAB/subbase courses. Recent experi-
needed for a durable base that meets the properties proposed ences with volume changes of 10% or more have been attrib-
for layer design. utable to hydration of the calcium and magnesium oxides in
the recycled steel slag aggregate when water was encountered
in the pavement base layer (Collins and Ciesielski 1994). The
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement free lime hydrates rapidly and can cause large volume changes
over a relatively short period of time (weeks), whereas magne-
Since a principal constituent of RAP is its mineral aggregates, sia hydrates much more slowly and contributes to long-term
the overall chemical composition of RAP is similar to that expansion that may take years to develop. The potential expan-
of the mineral aggregates. Asphalt cements constitute only a sion depends on the origin of the slag, grain size and gradation,
minor percentage of RAP. The principal elements in asphalt and the age of the stockpile (Rohde et al. 2003). Deniz et al.
cement molecules are carbon and hydrogen. Other materi- (2010) studied the expansive properties of 17 RAP materials,
als, such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, usually are pres- including recycled steel slag aggregates, with respect to those
ent in very small amounts. Asphalt cements are made up of of the virgin aggregates in the laboratory following the ASTM
asphaltenes, resins, and oils. Upon oxidation, the oils con- D4792 Potential Expansion of Aggregates from Hydration
vert to resins and asphaltenes, in which the resins convert to Reactions test method. The RAP materials had much lower
asphaltene-type molecules, resulting in age hardening and a tendencies to expand than did the virgin steel slag aggregates,
higher viscosity binder (Roberts et al. 1996). This change in most likely owing to an effective asphalt coating around the
the chemical composition would influence the unbound layer aggregate that prevents any significant ingress of water into
stiffness and shear strength and, consequently, its perfor- the aggregate. Depending upon the level of expansion and the
mance parameters, such as rutting and fatigue cracking. material gradation, dense-graded aggregate base applications
with steel slag under pavements and structures may have to
RAP can be used as granular base or subbase material in be avoided.
pavement structures (e.g., Garg and Thompson 1996; Maher
and Popp 1997; Bennert et al. 2000; Chini et al. 2001). Garg
and Thompson (1996) conducted a field testing research pro- Recycled Concrete Aggregate
gram to investigate the potential of using RAP as a pavement
base. This study demonstrated that the performance of the Kuo et al. (2001) investigated the feasibility of using RCA as a
RAP base was comparable to that of a crushed stone base. base course material in asphalt pavements. Through literature
 31

TABLE 2
Proposed Specifications for Use of RCA in Unbound
Aggregate Base Layers
Type of Test Proposed Specifications
Gradation test Gradation limits
Sieve No. (90% confidence interval)
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 98–100
19 mm 65–100
9.5 mm 40–83
#4 27–63
#10 20–49
#50 8–24
#200 2–6
Limerock bearing ratio Test Minimum 120
LA abrasion loss <48%
Sodium sulfate test <5%
Sand equivalent >70%
Heavy metals 5 ppm
Asbestos Free of asbestos
Optimum moisture content 10%–12%
Maximum dry unit weight 108–120 pcf
Permeability 0.10–1.40 (ft/day)
Impurities <2.0% by weight
Structural coefficient 0.30
Thickness requirement Minimum 8.0 in. (20.4 cm)
Thickness equivalency 1.0 in. (2.54 cm)
Source: Kuo et al. (2001).

review, laboratory testing, accelerated performance testing Recently, Ooi et al. (2011) recommended the following
and pavement distresses monitoring, FWD testing, and theo- practices when using RCA as a base course: (1) allow only
retical analysis of pavements, Kuo et al. developed the fol- uncrushed concrete that can be visually inspected to be used
lowing specifications for use of RCA in Florida (see Table 2). as RCA, (2) accept RCA only from suppliers who can guar-
antee the quality, (3) RCA from unknown sources should not
According to the American Concrete Pavement Association be accepted unless certified by a qualified engineer or sci-
(2008), RCA typically is highly angular and has a higher water entist as being free of deleterious materials (such as alumi-
absorption capacity, lower specific gravity, lower strength, num), (4) avoid using building demolition RCA, (5) require a
and lower abrasion resistance than do conventional construc- paper trail to document the RCA source, (6) use a nonferrous
tion aggregates. Recommendations provided for the design, metal detector to determine whether aluminum is present and
construction, and QC of RCA bases and subbases in pavement inspect the RCA visually before use.
applications were reviewed by Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-
Komas (2013). Pavement design needed to consider the stiffer
RCA layer properties compared with unstabilized base materi-
als, which was a function of the additional hydration associated
with the RCA materials. The stiffening effect was enhanced Key Lessons
when using dense gradations with high RCA fines (minus
4.75 mm size) contents. Properties that influenced the per- • Extensive testing of locally available natural and
recycled aggregates to characterize their shear
formance of RCA base materials for pavements included
strength, resilient modulus, and permanent defor-
aggregate toughness, frost susceptibility, shear strength,
mation behaviors will enable optimum use of these
and stiffness. Recommendations for QC/QA testing include materials and limit material hauling and transporta-
Micro-Deval (AASHTO T327), tube suction, static triaxial tion costs.
(AASHTO T234), repeated load testing, and resilient modulus. • RAP materials are best tested in the laboratory for
Unbound RCA bases might limit the fines (minus 4.75 mm resilient modulus and permanent deformation behav-
size) content to prevent clogging drainage features and might ior before being used in UAB/subbase layers. Sev-
be used below the drainage systems. Stabilizing the RCA could eral studies have reported high resilient modulus
bind excess fines.
32

they observe that the pH value exceeded the Minnesota stan-

values for RAP accompanied by significantly high dards, whereas the chromium content may have exceeded the
permanent deformation accumulations. standard sometimes. The polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
• The expansive properties of RAP materials contain- concentrations from the bituminous piles often were near or
ing expansive components such as steel slag are below detectable limits. Measured parameters, such as alka-
best carefully evaluated before their application in
linity, chloride, sodium, potassium, total solids contents, and
UAB/subbase layers.
• Recycled crushed concrete often can be adequately
the conductivity were, in general, higher for the concrete piles
used in UAB/subbase layers. than for the bituminous pile. They suggested that the potential
• Care is to be taken while blending two different recy- impact of stockpile runoff on groundwater can be controlled
cled aggregate types to ensure that the resulting with proper management of stockpile locations. A study by
blend possesses adequate physical, chemical, and Hill et al. (2001) has shown that the binder treatment may
mechanical properties. dilute or amend leachable levels, alter the pH, and reduce the
permeability. However, the addition of alkali binder could
introduce some contaminants, such as calcium. The study by
Hill et al. recommends determining optimum binder treatment
with regard to type of recycled materials, especially when there
is a lack of local moisture- and performance-related material
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FROM USING RECYCLED MATERIALS
properties. The environmental impacts to soils or groundwater
need to be evaluated when RAP is stockpiled or used as an
The potential environmental impact from using recycled unbound granular material.
materials in UAB and subbase layers remains a concern for
transportation agencies. Although the environmental con- Although RAP is usually free from damaging chemical
cerns regarding the use of RAP and RCA in unbound aggre- compounds, RAP obtained from milling pavements subjected
gate layers are not as pronounced as are those associated with to deicing salts may contain some hazardous chemicals.
the use of some other recycled materials, such as fly ash and Cosentino et al. (2003) analyzed RAP for heavy metal (silver,
silica, several transportation agencies require these materials cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium) concentrations and
to meet environmental quality requirements (Saeed 2008). concluded that the levels were well below the limits speci-
fied by the EPA. Cosentino et al. reported that the strength-
There is a concern that RAP and RCA used in unbound deformation characteristics of field sites constructed using
RAP improved over the 8-week study period, as reflected
aggregate pavement layers, when subjected to intermittent
from field CBR, FWD, Clegg impact hammer, and soil stiff-
wetting and drying, may leach contaminants into the ground-
ness gauge test results. Based on the results, the authors also
water. This is particularly true for RCA because it presents a
recommended permitting the use of RAP as a subbase below
potential for leaching of residual hydroxyl (OH-) ions from
rigid pavements.
the cement paste, thus raising the pH of groundwater. More-
over, concrete that already has been subjected to alkali-silica Snyder and Bruinsma (1996) conducted an extensive lit-
reaction and sulfate attacks may involve deleterious expan- erature review evaluating the effects of RCA usage in UAB
sion that adversely affects the performance of UAB and sub- layers on pavement drainage. Later, using thermodynamic
base layers (Rathje et al. 2002). techniques, Bruinsma et al. (1997) observed that the Port-
landite [Ca(OH)2] present in RCA can be dissolved in water
RAP also has certain environmental implications with and subsequently lead to the precipitation of calcite (CaCO3)
respect to the potential for contamination of ground and sur- upon coming in contact with atmospheric carbon dioxide
face water systems. The aromatic compound is an organic (CO2). Such precipitation often can lead to a reduction in
compound of asphalt cement that has become a great con- the permittivity of pavement subdrainage systems. They con-
cern because the levels of this aromatic hydrocarbon pres- curred with Muethel (1989) and Tamirisa (1993) in stating
ent in asphalt cement could exceed published soil clean-up that the calcite precipitation can be controlled by reducing
standards available in several states. Concerns about the use the amount of Portlandite [Ca(OH)2] readily available for
of RAP are also addressed in NCHRP Report 443: Primer dissolution, which may be accomplished through reduction
Environmental Impact of Construction and Repair Materi- in the amount of concrete cement fines.
als on Surface and Ground Waters, which was prepared from
NCHRP project 25-09. Most binder treatment, required for According to Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas
mechanical reasons, significantly modifies the leaching behav- (2013), crushing concrete reveals previously unexposed
ior of a recycled material. Sadecki et al. (1996) analyzed the surfaces that contain some calcium hydroxide and partially
leachate water from three experimental stockpiles made from unreacted cement grain and that react with air to form cal-
coarse concrete, fine concrete, and salvaged bituminous ma- cium carbonate precipitate. High levels of sodium chloride
terial obtained from pavement millings, respectively. Follow- have been found in RCA produced from pavements subjected
ing EPA-approved methods for analyzing the leachate quality, to deicing salts over years of service and may cause corro-
 33

sion concerns if used in new PCC with steel. The alkalinity Recycling of Unbound Aggregate Material
decreased rapidly when diluted with low pH water and expo- from Existing Pavements
sure of the dissolved calcium hydroxide with CO2. The runoff
The survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation
could also be highly alkaline because of leaching of calcium
agencies collected information on agency policies regarding
hydroxide from freshly crushed concrete. Precipitate could
recycling of unbound aggregate materials from base and sub-
clog drain pipes and filter fabrics, but washing the crushed
base layers of existing pavements. Twenty-four of 46 (52.2%)
concrete helped minimize some of these problems.
respondents indicated that recycling of unbound aggregate
materials from existing pavement base and subbase layers was
AASHTO specification M 319-02, Reclaimed Concrete
a common practice in their respective states. Moreover, seven
Aggregate for Unbound Soil-Aggregate Base Course, clearly responded that such recycling was done occasionally in their
identifies the high likelihood of increased pH values for water states. Twenty-one of 46 respondents indicated that the use of
percolating through UAB layers constructed using RCA. The recycled aggregates from existing base and subbase courses
AASHTO specification further recommends setting appro- was incorporated into their state specifications, whereas
priate limits on the proximity of such layers to ground­water 22 states did not allow the inclusion of such materials into
and surface waters. Moreover, such layers should not be specifications. Only two states allow contractors to use locally
used in the vicinity of metal culverts susceptible to corrosion available “marginal” or “out of specification” aggregates for
under such high-alkaline environments. Finally, precipita- UAB and subbase applications. Six states allow the use of
tion of soluble minerals from the water percolating through such “marginal” materials occasionally because of economic
base course layers containing RCA may lead to the clogging issues. Most agencies have a stricter material quality require-
of drainage layers or other pavement drainage features. Thus, ment for UAB layers than for subbase layers. Therefore, these
it is important to closely monitor and regulate the use of RCA agencies sometimes allow the use of marginal aggregates in
in close proximity to such components. subbase layers while prohibiting their use in base layers. Some
states also indicated that marginal materials occasionally were
In some instances, recycled aggregates may not satisfy blended with virgin aggregates to lower the cost associated
agency QC requirements for use as unbound aggregate pave- with material procurement and transportation.
ment layers. In such cases, slight adjustments may be made
to the QC specifications accompanied by design modifica-
Commonly Used Recycled Materials in
tions to allow the use of such “marginal” recycled materials.
Unbound Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers
However, in cases in which the recycled material properties
deviate significantly from agency specifications, the use of The survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation
those materials in unbound aggregate pavement layers is agencies indicated that RCA and RAP are the two most com-
best prohibited. The survey of state and Canadian provin- monly used recycled materials in UAB and subbase layers.
cial transportation agencies indicated the presence of envi- Some agencies also reported the use of less commonly avail-
ronmental concerns in several agencies regarding the use of able materials, such as air-cooled blast furnace slag (three
RAP and RCA in UAB and subbase layers. One respondent agencies), glass cullets (seven agencies), aggregates blended
(Indiana DOT) mentioned an experience with loss of vegeta- with oil field waste (one agency), and so forth. Figure 22
tion caused by leaching from an unbound aggregate layer shows the relative distribution of state transportation agen-
constructed using RCA. Indiana DOT has since prohibited cies using different recycled aggregate materials in UAB and
the use of recycled materials in UAB and subbase layers, subbase layer construction.
particularly for pavements with underdrain systems, because
precipitation of leachates potentially may lead to clogging of
Current State of the Practice Regarding
the underdrain system.
Testing of Recycled Materials

A recent report by FHWA summarized the experience In the survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation
of several state transportation agencies concerning the use agencies conducted under the scope of this synthesis study,
of RCA in transportation applications. Based on the experi- information was gathered on the current state of practice
ence of MnDOT, RCA could be used up to 100% as a filter/ regarding the testing of recycled materials for quality accep-
separation layer under a permeable aggregate base drainage tance. Agency responses indicated that sieve analysis, abra-
layer in accordance with the applicable drainage specifica- sion tests such as Los Angeles abrasion or Micro-Deval, and
tions. In the presence of drainage layers and/or perforated percent deleterious materials are the most commonly used
drainage pipes, a blend of RCA with new aggregate could be tests for evaluating recycled granular material quality (see Fig-
used as subgrade when at least 95% of the RCA was retained ure 23). Four agencies also indicated the use of Atterberg limit
on the 4.75-mm sieve. Alkaline effluent from RCA layer was tests on recycled granular materials. Note that soundness tests
not a significant issue when RCA was kept a sufficient dis- using sodium or magnesium sulfate may result in RCA being
tance from the drainage outlets. A blend of open-graded RCA susceptible to sulfate attack, therefore resulting in high loss
with new aggregate could be used for improved stability and values. Thus, AASHTO specification M 319-02 recommends
density (FHWA 2004). the use of soundness tests using sulfate solutions only when
34

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

None of the above 4% (2) 46 survey respondents

Other (please indicate) 22% (10)

Recycled Concrete
80% (37)
Aggregates (RCA)

Reclaimed Asphalt
67% (31)
Pavement (RAP)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 22  Use of different recycled aggregate materials by state

transportation agencies in unbound aggregate pavement base and
subbase applications (46 respondents).

local experience has found these methods to be satisfactory. In tamination of groundwater. For the agencies that did report
lieu of the sulfate soundness tests, agencies may opt to waive environmental concerns with recycled granular materials,
the soundness requirements or adopt one of the following alter- leaching and resulting change in the pH level of groundwater
native test methods: were reported to be the primary concerns. Sixty-four percent
of the responding agencies do not require any strength, defor-
• AASHTO T 103: Soundness of Aggregates by Freezing mation, or modulus characterization of recycled materials
and Thawing; such as RCA and RAP before their use in unbound aggregate
• New York State DOT Test Method NY 703-08: Resis- pavement layers. For the agencies that require such tests to be
tance of Coarse Aggregate to Freezing and Thawing; or conducted on recycled materials, the quality requirements are
• Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MOT), Test Method the same as those for virgin aggregates.
LS-614: Freezing and Thawing of Coarse Aggregate.

When asked about environmental concerns regarding the Key Lessons

use of recycled granular materials in pavement unbound aggre-
gate layers, 68% (17 of 25 respondents) indicated no such con- • Test recycled materials for potential environmental
cerns. This indicates a potential gap in knowledge concerning impacts before use in UAB/subbase layers.
phenomena such as leaching from RCA and the resulting con-

Number of Responses
0 5 10 15 20 25

Other (sand equivalent) 12% (3) 25 survey respondents

Percent Deleterious
44% (11)
Materials

Sieve Analysis 88% (22)

Los Angeles Abrasion

48% (12)
and/or Micro Deval Test

Na2SO4 / MgSO4
32% (8)
Soundness Test

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 23  Different tests used by agencies for evaluating the material
quality of recycled granular materials.
 35

2008 [Online]. Available: http://www.pavement.com/

• Evaluate the use of recycled materials in pavements Concrete_Pavement/Technical/Downloads/TSs.asp.
on a project basis, rather than by following generic Ashtiani, R.S. and D. Little, Acceptability Criteria for
guidelines. For example, the use of RCA in UAB/ High Fines Content Aggregate Pavement Layers, Report
subbase layers may or may not be allowed depend- No ICAR 401131, International Center for Aggregates
ing on whether the pavement has an underdrain Research (ICAR), College Station, Tex., 2007, 100 pp.
system or not. This is particularly important for RCA Austroads, Development of Performance-based Specifica-
obtained from sources that have not been tested pre- tions for Unbound Granular Materials. Part A: Issues
viously for material quality. Some of the quality test- and Recommendations, AP-T29/03, Sydney, Australia,
ing requirements may be relaxed for “properly tested 2003.
and documented” RCA sources. Barksdale, R.D., “Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base
Course Materials,” Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements,
1972, pp. 161–174.
SUMMARY Barksdale, R.D., “Crushed Stone Base Performance,” Trans-
portation Research Record 954, Transportation Research
This chapter presents an overview of different types of aggre-
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
gate materials available as natural resources in the United
1984, pp. 78–87.
States. Geologic phenomena responsible for the formation Barksdale, R.D. and S.Y. Itani, “Influence of Aggregate
of different rock types are discussed, and the distribution of Shape on Base Behavior,” Transportation Research
different rock types in the conterminous United States is pre- Record 1227, Transportation Research Board, National
sented. Important aggregate properties that affect the perfor- Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 173–182.
mance of UAB and subbase layers are discussed. Accordingly, Barksdale, R.D., S.F. Brown, and F. Chan, NCHRP Report
different test procedures commonly used by transportation 315: Potential Benefits of Geosynthetics in Flexible Pave-
agencies to check the quality of aggregates before including ments, Transportation Research Board, National Research
them in UAB and subbase layers are listed. At this stage, the Council, Washington, D.C., 1989.
state of the practice in aggregate material selection and qual- Barksdale, R.D., The Aggregate Handbook, National Stone
ity check is discussed by presenting the information gathered Association, Washington, D.C., 1991.
through survey of state and Canadian provincial transporta- Barksdale, R.D., C.O. Pollard, T. Siegel, and S. Moeller, Eval-
tion agencies. The concept of best value granular material uation of the Effect of Aggregate on Rutting and Fatigue
utilization was introduced for pavement projects with the of Asphalt, Technical Report FHWA-AG-92-8812, Geor-
potential to save energy and material hauling costs. The sus- gia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, 1992.
tainable production and use of aggregate and recycled granu- Bennert T., W.J. Papp, A. Maher, and N. Gucunski, “Utili-
lar materials in base and subbase layers are discussed, as are zation of Construction and Demolition Debris Under
different tests recommended by researchers to check the qual- Traffic-Type Loading in Base and Subbase Applications,”
ity of recycled aggregate materi­als in base and subbase layer Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
applications. portation Research Board, No. 1714, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2000, pp. 33–39.
REFERENCES Bilodeau, J.-P., G. Dore, and P. Pierre, “Erosion Susceptibil-
ity of Granular Pavement Materials,” International Jour-
Adu-Osei, A., D.N. Little, E. Tutumluer, and R.L. Lytton, nal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1, Mar. 2007,
“Effect of Compaction on Orthotropic Properties of pp. 55–66.
Aggregates,” In Proceedings of the European Work- Bilodeau, J.-P., G. Dore, and P. Pierre, “Gradation Influ-
shop on Compaction of Soils and Granular Materials, ence on Frost Susceptibility of Base Granular Materials,”
ISSMGE, Paris, France, May 19, 2000. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 9,
Allen, J., The Effect of Non-constant Lateral Pressures of the No. 6, Dec. 2008, pp. 397–411.
Resilient Response of Granular Materials, Ph.D. thesis, Bilodeau, J.-P., G. Dore, and P. Pierre, “Pavement Base
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, 1973. Unbound Granular Materials Gradation Optimization,”
Allen, J.J. and M.R. Thompson, “Resilient Response of In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the
Granular Materials Subjected to Time Dependent Lateral Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, Vol. 1,
Stresses,” Transportation Research Record 510, Trans- Taylor & Francis Group, London, U.K., 2009, pp. 145–154.
portation Research Board, National Research Council, Bolen, W.P., 2010 Minerals Yearbook: Sand and Gravel, Con-
Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 1–13. struction [advance release], U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), Recy- Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., June 2012.
cled Concrete in Subbases: A Sustainable Choice, Brown, S.F. and F.W.K. Chan, “Reduced Rutting in
Technical Series, TS204.9P, ACPA, Washington, D.C., Unbound Granular Pavement Layers through Improved
36

Grading Design,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Transportation
Engineers, Transport, Vol. 117, No. 1, 1996, pp. 40–49. Applications of Recycled Concrete Aggregate, FHWA
Bruinsma, J.E., K.R. Peterson, and M.B. Snyder, “Chemi- State of the Practice National Review, FHWA, Washing-
cal Approach to Formation of Calcite Precipitate from ton, D.C., Sep. 2004.
Recycled Concrete Aggregate Base Layers,” Transpor- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), User Guidelines
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation for By-product and Secondary Use Materials in Pave-
Research Board, No. 1577, Transportation Research ment Construction, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2008
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/
1997, pp. 10–17. pub_details.cfm?id=384.
Bullen F., “Design and Construction of Low-Cost, Low- Garg, N. and M.R. Thompson, “Lincoln Avenue Reclaimed
Volume Roads in Australia,” Paper No. LVR8-1116, TRR Asphalt Pavement Base Project,” Transportation Research
1819, School of Engineering, University of Tasmania, Record 1547, Transportation Research Board, National
Hobart, Australia, 2003. Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 89–95.
Chini, A., S. Kuo, J. Armaghani, and J. Duxbury, “Test for Garg, N. and M.R. Thompson, “Triaxial Characterization of
Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Accelerated Test Track,” Minnesota Road Research Project Granular Materials,”
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, Transportation Research Record 1577, Transportation
No. 6, 2001, pp. 486–492. Research Board, National Research Council, Washing-
Clyne, T.R., E.N. Johnson, and B.J. Worel, Use of Taconite ton, D.C., 1997.
Aggregates in Pavement Applications, Final Report MN/ Gates, L., E. Masad, R. Pyle, and D. Bushee, Aggregate
RC-2010-24, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Imaging System 2 (AIMS2): Final Report, Report FHWA-
St. Paul, June 2010. HIF-11-030, Highway for Life Program Office, Office
Collins, R.J. and S.K. Ciesielski, NCHRP Synthesis of High- of Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
way Practice 199: Recycling and Use of Waste Materials Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2011.
and By-Products in Highway Construction, Transporta- Gray, J.E., (1962). “Characteristics of Graded Base Course
tion Research Board, National Research Council, Wash- Aggregates Determined by Triaxial Tests,” Engineering
ington, D.C., 1994. Research Bulletin No. 12, National Crushed Stone Asso-
Cook, J.R. and C.S. Gourley, “A Framework for the Appropri- ciation, Alexandria, Va., 1962.
ate Use of Marginal Materials,” World Road Association Halmen, C.K. and J.T. Kevern, “Utilization of Quarry Fines
(PIARC), Technical Committee C12 Seminar, Mongolia, for Sustainable Construction,” Stone, Sand & Gravel
2002. Review, July/Aug. 2010, pp. 26–27 [Online]. Available:
Cosentino, P.J., et al., Developing Specifications for Using http://www.nssga.org/ssgReview/.
Recycled Asphalt Pavement as Base, Subbase or Gen- Hicks, R.G. and C.L. Monismith, “Factors Influencing the
eral Fill Materials, Phase II, Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/ Resilient Properties of Granular Materials,” Transpor-
06650-7754, Florida Department of Transportation, Tal- tation Research Record 345, Transportation Research
lahassee, 2003. Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
Dawson, A.R., N.H. Thom, and J.L. Paute, “Mechanical 1971, pp. 15–31.
Characteristics of Unbound Granular Materials as a Func- Hill, A.R., A.R. Dawson, and M. Mundy, “Utilization of
tion of Condition,” Flexible Pavements, Proceedings of Aggregate Materials in Road Construction and Bulk
European Symposium Euroflex 1993, A.G. Correia, ed., Fill,” Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 1996, pp. 35–44. Vol. 32, No. 3-4, July 2001, pp. 305–320.
Deniz, D., E. Tutumluer, and J.S. Popovics, “Evaluation Holtz, R.D., “Compaction Concepts,” Chapter 3, In Guide to
of the Expansive Characteristics of Reclaimed Asphalt Earthwork Compaction, State of the Art Report 8, Trans-
Pavement (RAP) and Virgin Aggregate Used As Base portation Research Board, National Research Council,
Materials,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of Washington, D.C., 1990.
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2167, Transpor- Holubec, I., Cyclic Creep of Granular Materials, Report
tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- No. RR147, Department of Highways, Ontario, Canada,
ington, D.C., 2010, pp. 10–17. 1969.
Dempsey, B.J., “Laboratory and Field Studies of Channel- Hudson, W.R., D. Little, A.M. Razmi, V. Anderson, and
ing and Pumping,” Transportation Research Record 849, A. Weismann, An Investigation of the Status of By-Product
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- Fines in the United States, Research Report 101-1, Inter-
cil, Washington, D.C., 1982. national Center for Aggregate Research, Austin, Tex.,
Elliott, R.P. and S.I. Thornton, “Resilient Modulus and Nov. 1997.
AASHTO Pavement Design,” Transportation Research Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), “Subgrade
Record 1196, Transportation Research Board, National Stability Manual,” Bureau of Bridges and Structures,
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 116–124. IDOT, Springfield, May 1, 2005, 27 pp. [Online]. Avail-
 37

able: http://www.dot.il.gov/bridges/pdf/subgrade stability Lekarp, F., U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson, “State of the Art. II:
manual.exe. Permanent Strain Response of Unbound Aggregates,”
Janoo, V.C., Quantification of Shape, Angularity, and Sur- Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1,
face Texture of Base Course Materials, U.S. Army Corps 2000b, pp. 76–83.1.
of Engineers Special Report 98-1, Cold Regions Research Lukanen, E.O., Application of AASHO Road Test Results to
& Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H., 1998. Design of Flexible Pavements in Minnesota, Final Report
Jorenby, B.N. and R.G. Hicks, “Base Course Contami­ FHWA/MN-80/09, Office of Materials and Research, Min-
nation Limits,” Transportation Research Record 1095, nesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, 1980, 83 pp.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- Maher, M.H. and W. Popp, Recycled Asphalt Pavement as
cil, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 86–101. a Base and Subbase Material, ASTM STP 1275, Ameri-
Kaya, Z., A. Cetin, B. Cetin, and A.H. Aydilek, “Effect of can Society of Testing and Materials, New Orleans, 1997,
Compaction Method on Mechanical Behavior of Graded pp. 42–53.
Aggregate Base Materials,” In Proceedings of the 2012 Manning, D. and J. Vetterlein, Exploitation and Use of
GeoCongress, Oakland, California, Mar. 25–29, 2012, Quarry Fines, Mineral Solutions, Ltd., Manchester, U.K.,
pp. 1486–1494. 2004, 55 p.
Kamal, M.A., A.R. Dawson, O.T. Farouki, D.A.B. Hughes, Maree, J.H., C.R. Freeme, N.J.W. van Zyl, and P.F.
and A.A. Sha’at, “Field and Laboratory Evaluation of the Savage, “The Permanent Deformation of Pavements with
Mechanical Behavior of Unbound Granular Materials Untreated Crushed-Stone Bases as Measured in Heavy
in Pavements,” Transportation Research Record 1095, Vehicle Simulator Tests,” Proceedings of the 11th Austra-
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- lian Road Research Board Conference, Melbourne, 1982.
cil, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 88–97. Masad, E., T. Al-Rousan, J. Button, D.N. Little, and E.
Khogali, W.E.I. and E.H.H. Mohamed, “Mechanistic Classi- Tutumluer, NCHRP Report 555: Test Methods for Char-
fication of Unbound Materials,” Transportation Research acterizing Aggregate Shape, Texture, and Angularity, Proj-
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
ect 4-30A, Transportation Research Board of the National
2016, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, 93 pp.
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 39–48.
Meininger, R.C. and S.J. Stokowski, “Wherefore Art Thou
Knutson, R.M. and M.R. Thompson, “Resilient Response of
Aggregate Resources for Highways,” FHWA-HRT-11-006,
Railway Ballast,” Transportation Research Record 651,
Public Roads, Vol. 75, No. 2, Sep./Oct. 2011 [Online].
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/public
cil, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 31–39.
roads/11septoct/06.cfm.
Kolisoja, P., T. Saarenketo, H. Peltoniemi, and N. Vuorimies,
Mishra, D., E. Tutumluer, and A.A. Butt, “Quantifying
“Laboratory Testing of Suction and Deformation Proper-
Effects of Particle Shape and Type and Amount of Fines
ties of Base Course Aggregates,” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, on Unbound Aggregate Performance Through Controlled
1787, Transportation Research Board of the National Gradation,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 83–89. the Transportation Research Board, No. 2167, Transpor-
Kumar, D.S. and W.R. Hudson, Use of Quarry Fines for tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-
Engineering and Environmental Applications, Special ington, D.C., 2010a, pp. 61–71.
Research Report for the National Stone Association, Mishra, D., E. Tutumluer, and Y. Xiao, “Particle Shape,
Center for Transportation Research, The University of Type and Amount of Fines, and Moisture Affecting
Texas-Austin, Oct. 1992, 130 pp. Resilient Modulus Behavior of Unbound Aggregates,”
Kuo, S.S., H.S. Mahgoub, and J.E. Ortega, Use of Recycled In ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 203, Pav-
Concrete Made with Florida Limestone Aggregate for a ing Materials and Pavement Analysis, Proceedings Book
Base Course in Flexible Pavement, Florida Department of the ASCE GeoShanghai 2010 International Confer-
of Transportation Final Report for Contract BC 409, State ence, B. Huang, E. Tutumluer, I.L. Al-Qadi, J. Prozzi,
Materials Office, Gainesville, 2001, 212 pp. and X. Shu, Eds., Shanghai, China, June 35, 2010, 2010b,
Langer, W.H., Aggregate Resource Availability in the pp. 279–287.
Conterminous United States, Including Suggestions for Mishra, D. and E. Tutumluer, “Field Performance Evalua-
Addressing Shortages, Quality, and Environmental Con- tions of Illinois Aggregates for Subgrade Replacement &
cerns, Open File Report 2011-1119, U.S. Geological Subbase—Phase II,” Draft Final Report, Illinois Center
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, for Transportation (ICT) R27-81 Project, University of
D.C., 2011. Illinois Urbana–Champaign, Nov. 2011, 62 pp.
Lekarp, F., U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson, “State of the Art. I: Mishra, D., Aggregate Characteristics Affecting Response
Resilient Response of Unbound Aggregates,” Journal and Performance of Unsurfaced Pavements on Weak Sub-
of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1, 2000a, grades, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–
pp. 66–75. Champaign, 2012.
38

Muethel, R.W., Calcium Carbonate Precipitate from Crushed Construction,” CD-ROM, Proceedings of 89th Annual
Concrete, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lan- Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Jan. 10–14,
sing, 1989. 2010, Washington, D.C.
Ooi, P.S.K., F. Rajabipour, A. Shafaatian, and S. Joo, “Foren- Sadecki, R.W., G.P. Busacker, K.L. Moxness, K.C. Faruq,
sic Investigation of Distressed Pavement Supported on a and L.G. Allen, An Investigation of Water Quality in Run-
Base Course Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate,” off from Stockpiles of Salvaged Concrete and Bituminous
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- Paving, Report No. MN/PR-96/31, Minnesota Depart-
portation Research Board, No. 2253, Transportation ment of Transportation, St. Paul, 1996.
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, Saeed, A., J.W. Hall, Jr., and W. Barker, NCHRP Report
D.C., 2011, pp. 22–31. 453: Performance-Related Tests of Aggregates for Use in
Ovik, J.M., B. Birgisson, and D.E. Newcomb, Characteriz- Unbound Pavement Layers, Transportation Research Board,
ing Seasonal Variations in Pavement Material Properties National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, 55 pp.
for Use in a Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedure, Saeed, A., NCHRP Report 598: Performance-Related Tests
Final Report MN-RC-2000-35, Minnesota Department of of Recycled Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pavement
Transportation, St. Paul, Dec. 2000, 191 pp. Layers, Transportation Research Board of the National
Pan, T., E. Tutumluer, and J. Anochie-Boateng, “Aggregate Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 53 pp.
Morphology Affecting Resilient Behavior of Unbound Seyhan, U. and E. Tutumluer, “Anisotropic Modular Ratios
Granular Materials,” Transportation Research Record: as Unbound Aggregate Performance Indicators,” Journal
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1952, of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2002,
Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- pp. 409–416.
emies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 12–20. Snyder, M.B. and J.E. Bruinsma, “Review of Studies Concern-
Paute, J.L., P. Hornych, and J.P. Benaben, “Comportement ing Effects of Unbound Crushed Concrete Bases on PCC
mécanique des graves non traitées,” Bulletin de Liai- Pavement Drainage,” Transportation Research Record
son des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées 190, 1994, 1519, Transportation Research Board, National Research
pp. 27–38. Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 51–58.
Puppala, A.J., S. Saride, S.K. Sirigiripet, and R. Williammee, Stroup-Gardiner, M. and T. Wattenberg-Komas, NCHRP
“Evaluation of Cemented Quarry Fines as a Pavement Synthesis 435: Recycled Materials and Byproducts in
Base Material,” ASCE Geotechnical Special Publica- Highway Applications, Volume 6: Reclaimed Asphalt
tion 177, Geo-Congress, New Orleans, La., Feb. 2008, Pavement, Recycled Concrete Aggregate, and Construc-
pp. 312–319. tion Demolition Waste, Transportation Research Board
Rao, C., E. Tutumluer, and I.T. Kim, “Quantification of of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Coarse Aggregate Angularity Based on Image Analy- Taha, R., G. Ali, A. Basma, and O. Al-Turk, “Evaluation of
sis,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate in Road Bases
Transportation Research Board, 1787, Transportation and Subbases,” Transportation Research Record 1652,
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
D.C., 2002, pp. 17–24. cil, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 264–269.
Rathje E.M., et al., Recycled Asphalt Pavement and Crushed Tamirisa, R., Study of Highway Base/Subbase Aggregates
Concrete Backfill: Results from Initial Durability and That Cause Depositions of Calcareous “Tufa” in Drains,
Geotechnical Tests, Center for Transportation Research Master’s thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
Report 4177-2, The University of Texas at Austin, 2002, versity of Toledo, Ohio, 1993.
70 pp. Tao, M., M.N. Louay, N.D. Munir, Z. Zhang, and Z. Wu,
Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.-Y. Lee, and T.W. “Application of Shakedown Theory in Characterizing Tra-
Kennedy, Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, ditional and Recycled Pavement Base Materials,” Jour-
and Construction, 2nd ed., NAPA Education Foundation, nal of Transportation Engineering, Mar. 2010, Vol. 136,
Maryland, 1996, pp. 102–114. No. 3, pp. 214–222.
Rohde, L., W.P. Nunez, and J.A.P. Ceratti, “Electric Arc Fur- Thom, N.H., Design of Road Foundations, Ph.D. Thesis,
nace Steel Slag Base Material for Low-Volume Roads,” University of Nottingham, Department of Civil Engineer-
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- ing, May 1988, 307 pp.
portation Research Board, 1819, Transportation Research Thom, N.H. and S.F. Brown, “Effect of Moisture on the
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Structural Performance of a Crushed-Limestone Road
2003, pp. 201–207. Base,” Transportation Research Record 1121, Trans-
Rowshanzamir, M.A., Resilient Cross-Anisotropic Behavior portation Research Board, National Research Council,
of Granular Base Materials Under Repetitive Loading, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 50–56.
Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Thom, N.H. and S.F. Brown, “The Effect of Grading and
New South Wales, Australia, 1995. Density on the Mechanical Properties of a Crushed Dolo-
Rupnow, T.D., V.R. Schaefer, and D.J. White, “An Investi- mitic Limestone,” Proceedings of the 14th ARRB Confer-
gation of the Use of Limestone Screenings in Roadway ence, Part 7, 1988, pp. 94–100.
 39

Thompson, M.R. and Q.L. Robnett, “Resilient Properties of Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Nether­
Subgrade Soils,” Transportation Engineering Journal, lands, 2002.
ASCE, Vol. 105, No. TE1, 1979. Willett, J.C., 2008 Stone (Crushed). U.S. Geological Survey
Thompson, M.R., and T. LaGrow, “A Proposed Conventional Mineral Commodity Summaries, pp. 158–159 [Online]
Flexible Pavement Thickness Design Procedure,” Trans- Available: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
portation Engineering Series No. 55, Civil Engineering commodity/stone_crushed/mcs-2008-stonc.pdf
Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 1988. [accessed Jan. 8, 2013].
Tutumluer, E. and U. Seyhan, “Neural Network Modeling Willett, J.C., 2010 Minerals Yearbook: Stone, Crushed
of Anisotropic Aggregate Behavior from Repeated Load [advance release], U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Depart-
Triaxial Tests,” Transportation Research Record 1615, ment of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2011.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- Wilburn, D.R. and T.G. Goonan, “Aggregates from Natural
cil, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 86–93. and Recycled Sources: Economic Assessments for Con-
Tutumluer, E. and U. Seyhan, “Effects of Fines Content on the struction Applications-A Materials Flow Analysis,” U.S.
Anisotropic Response and Characterization of Unbound Geological Survey Circular 1176, U.S. Department of the
Aggregate Bases,” Proceedings of the 5th International Interior, Washington, D.C., 1998.
on Unbound Aggregates in Roads (UNBAR5), Unbound Woodbridge, M.E., “Use of Soft Limestone for Road-Base
Aggregates in Road Construction, A.R. Dawson, Ed., Construction in Belize,” Seventh International Confer-
A.A. Balkema, University of Nottingham, U.K., 2000, ence on Low-Volume Roads, Baton Rouge, La., 1999.
pp. 153–161. Woolf, D.O., “Results of Physical Tests of Road Build-
Tutumluer, E. and T. Pan, “Aggregate Morphology Affect- ing Aggregates: To January 1951,” Physical Research
ing Strength and Permanent Deformation Behavior of Branch, Bureau of Public Roads, 1952.
Unbound Aggregate Materials,” Journal of Materials in Wu, Y., F. Parker, Jr., and K. Kandhal, Aggregate Tough-
Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20, No. 9, Sep. 2008, pp. ness/Abrasion Resistance and Durability/Soundness Tests
1–11. Related to Asphalt Concrete Performance in Pavements,
Tutumluer, E., D. Mishra, and A. Butt, Characterization of NCAT Report No. 98-4, National Center for Asphalt Tech-
Illinois Aggregates for Subgrade Replacement and Sub- nology, Auburn, Ala., 1998.
base, Final Report, Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT) Xiao, Y., E. Tutumluer, and J. Siekmeier, “Mechanistic-
R27-1 Project, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Empirical Evaluation of Aggregate Base and Granular
Sep. 2009, 90 pp. Subbase Quality Affecting Flexible Pavement Perfor-
Uthus, L., E. Tutumluer, I. Horvli, and I. Hoff, “Influence mance in Minnesota,” Transportation Research Record:
of Grain Shape and Surface Texture on the Deformation Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2227,
Properties of Unbound Aggregates in Pavements,” Inter- Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
national Journal of Pavements, Vol. 6, No. 1–3, Jan.–May– emies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 97–106.
Sep. 2007, pp. 75–88. Xiao, Y. and E. Tutumluer, Best Value Granular Material for
Van Niekerk, A.A., Mechanical Behavior and Performance Road Foundations, Final Report, Submitted to Minnesota
of Granular Bases and Sub-Bases in Pavements, Ph.D. Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Dec. 2011, 179 pp.
40

chapter three

GRANULAR BASE AND SUBBASE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

INTRODUCTION piling) of aggregate materials for base and subbase construc-

tion. Approximately 25 agencies reported not having any such
Aggregate storage, transportation, and construction practices guidelines, whereas the remaining four agencies indicated the
are critical to ensuring adequate performance of constructed presence of generic guidelines without specific instructions.
UAB and subbase layers under loading. Improper material
handling and construction procedures often lead to aggre-
gate segregation and/or degradation, ultimately resulting in a AGGREGATE STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION
poorly compacted aggregate layer. Because unbound aggre- PRACTICES AFFECTING CONSTRUCTED
gate layers function primarily through interparticle load trans- LAYER PERFORMANCE
mission at aggregate contact points, such poorly compacted
To fulfill the overall objectives of this synthesis study, it is
layers may undergo excessive shear deformation, leading to
important to first present a summary of material handling and
pavement failure.
construction practices that have been identified as adequate
or inadequate as far as ensuring the construction of good qual-
This chapter comprises an overview of common construc-
ity unbound aggregate pavement layers. Inadequate material
tion and material handling practices adopted by transportation
handling and construction practices may lead to aggregate seg-
agencies as far as UAB and subbase layers are concerned.
regation and/or degradation affecting the gradation or particle
Extensive review of published literature was conducted to
size distribution of the constructed aggregate layer. The fol-
identify different methods identified by researchers in the past
lowing sections discuss different material storage and con-
as being adequate or inadequate for aggregate base and sub-
base construction. A survey of U.S. state and Canadian pro- struction practices that may lead to the problems of aggregate
vincial agencies was conducted to gather information on the segregation and degradation.
state of the practice on this topic, and an analysis of the find-
ings presented to highlight areas where significant improve-
Aggregate Stockpiling as a Source of Segregation
ments are still needed. Moreover, applications of nonstandard
or unconventional pavement types using unbound aggregate The Aggregate Handbook defines aggregate segregation as
layers and related construction practices, such as the inverted the separation of one size of particles from a mass of par-
pavement concept of a granular layer over a stiff layer at ticles of different sizes, caused by the methods used to mix,
depth, are described in this chapter. The overall objective is transport, handle or store the aggregate in the plant under
to identify gaps in knowledge concerning the “effective prac- conditions favoring nonrandom distribution of the aggregate
tices” for UAB and subbase layer construction, along with sizes (Barksdale 1991). Certain practices magnify the segre-
research needs to address these gaps. gation problem and thus are best restricted by transportation
agencies. One possible source of segregation is during the
IMPORTANCE OF STANDARDIZED formation of conical stockpiles by dumping material using a
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS conveyor belt. As the aggregate is transported by a conveyor
belt, vibration and motion of the belt causes the fine particles
A “pocket-sized” handbook published by the NSSGA (1989) to settle to the bottom of the material stream, whereas coarse
contains important guidelines for UAB construction. Simi- particles remain at the top. These coarse particles have a
larly, different transportation agencies have adopted different higher velocity at the end of the conveyor, and are thrown a
guidelines to help the construction of “good quality” base and greater distance to the stockpile. In addition, the coarser par-
subbase layers. Apart from providing the contractors with a ticles hit the front face of the stockpile with a greater momen-
definite set of guidelines to be followed during construction, tum and roll down the outer edge of the pile, creating overrun
these guidelines help the field engineers with QA of con- (an accumulation of particles at the pile’s bottom edge or
structed pavement layers. However, the survey of state and toe). Fine particles, which have settled against the surface
Canadian provincial transportation agencies conducted under of the conveyor belt, tend to cling to the belt and drop to the
the scope of this synthesis study indicated that only 37% of back face of the pile. The resulting stockpile is segregated,
the responding agencies (17 of 46) currently have specific with coarse particles settled at the toes, and fine particles in
guidelines regarding the transportation and storage (stock­ the center portion of the pile.
 41

“Material overrun,” particles (regardless of size) moving Stockpiling Practices by Different Agencies
down the side of the stockpile, is another major source of seg-
regation in stockpiles. As the material moves down the side Different transportation agencies adopt different stockpiling
of the stockpile, larger particles tend to move down to the practices to minimize aggregate segregation. Specifications
bottom (owing to higher momentum), whereas finer materials are often provided to aggregate manufacturers and contractors
tend to settle into the side of the pile. Such spatial distribution mentioning the desired storage and stockpiling practices. For
of aggregate particles of different sizes at different portions example, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation
of the stockpile results in pronounced segregation. Figure 24 standard specifications on base courses (http://www.nh.gov/
shows the spatial distribution of different aggregate particle dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/specifications/
sizes in a segregated stockpile (Nohl and Domnick 2000). documents/2010_Division_300.pdf) include the following
requirements for aggregate stockpiling:
Materials with a large variation in particle size usually
Stockpiles shall be constructed in layers that minimize segrega-
undergo higher degrees of segregation as a result of improper tion. The desired optimum thickness of layers is 6 ft. (1.8 m)
stockpiling practices. Usually aggregate materials in which and in no instance shall the layer be more than 10 ft. (3 m).
the ratio of the largest to the smallest particle size exceeds 2:1 Each layer shall be completed before the next layer is started.
Construction of stockpiles by direct use of a fixed conveyor belt
are likely to experience segregation problems during stock­
system or by dumping over a bank will not be permitted.
piling (Nohl and Domnick 2000). From in-depth investigation
of aggregate stockpiling practices, Miller Warden Associates Similarly, stockpiling practices recommended by the Ala-
(1964) observed that flat-mixed piles formed by the use of a bama Department of Transportation (http://www.dot.state.
crane bucket was the only stockpiling method that resulted in al.us/mtweb/Testing/testing_manual/doc/pro/ALDOT175.
an insignificant amount of segregation. The most commonly pdf) include
used truck dumping method, although economical, was found
to cause significant segregation of aggregates. Majidzadeh • Stockpiles need to be placed on firm, well-drained ground
and Brahma (1969) studied different stages in the aggregate that is free of any material that could cause contamination.
handling process, such as (1) initial material fabrication, • Stockpiles should be built in layers of uniform thick-
(2) producer stockpile, (3) truck transportation, and (4) job- ness and not in cone-shaped piles that result in segrega-
site stockpile, to establish the severity of segregation problem tion of piles.
at these different stages and also observed that the segrega- • After the first layer of the stockpile is placed, it is impor-
tion problem increased as the material approached the job site tant that heavy transporting equipment not be allowed to
from the production plant. run on top of this layer because this tends to degrade the
aggregate by grinding the particles together, also con-
Creating stockpiles using the “windrow concept” is one of taminating the aggregate with mud and other deleterious
the alternatives available for storage of materials where segre- substances from the wheels or tracks of the vehicle.
gation is a likely problem. Involving the creation of “miniature • If the stockpile is to be constructed in more than one layer
stockpiles” in layers, windrow stockpiles can be built effec- in height, the aggregate should be dumped in a small pile
tively using a telescoping conveyor that can move laterally at the base of the stockpile and then moved over to the
as well as along the direction of the conveyor to create the stockpiled layer in place by a crane equipped with a clam-
stockpile in layers. Although individual “miniature stockpiles” shell, front-end loader or bulldozer equipped with large
in a windrow pile still undergo segregation, such stockpiles are pneumatic tires.
said to have better “segregation resolution” because the seg-
regation pattern repeats itself in smaller intervals. Figure 25 The standard operating procedures recommended by
shows schematics of (a) the configuration of a windrow pile the GDOT (http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/Materials/
formed using a telescoping conveyor and (b) segregation reso- Documents/StudyGuide9_22_04.pdf) provide graphical rep-
lution in a windrow pile (Nohl and Domnick 2000). resentations of the prohibited and recommended practices as
far as aggregate stockpiling and aggregate sampling from
different types of stockpiles are concerned (see Figure 26).

Construction Practices as a Source of Segregation

Different construction practices can contribute significantly

to aggregate segregation and therefore should be controlled
through the agency specifications. White et al. (2004) observed
that aggregate trimming operations are likely to contribute the
most to the segregation problem as they shake the aggregate,
FIGURE 24  Spatial distribution of particle causing fine particles to migrate to the bottom of the layer. Sub-
gradation in a stockpile (modified from Nohl sequent removal of the top aggregate by the trimmer leaves the
and Domnick 2000). fine aggregate behind, resulting in uneven spatial ­distribution
 (a)

(b)

FIGURE 25  (a) Windrow configuration and (b) segregation resolution in a windrow pile (Nohl and Domnick 2000).

FIGURE 26  Example specifications regarding aggregate stockpiling (Georgia DOT).

 43

of aggregate particle sizes in the constructed layer. They also

observed that low moisture in the aggregate mostly corre- Key Lessons
sponded to increased segregation as a result of poor adhesion
between finer and larger particles. • Aggregate segregation and deterioration can be
minimized through proper stockpiling and construc-
tion practices.
Through in situ testing of full-scale unbound aggregate test • Stockpiling of aggregates using the windrow concept
sections, they suggested changes to construction operations to has been proven to be the most efficient practice as
limit spatial variations in constructed layer properties. These far as minimizing segregation is concerned.
changes include (1) limiting movement of aggregate by pri-
marily transporting aggregate transversely, rather than longi-
tudinally, and (2) moistening the aggregate before trimming to
reduce fines migration. Williamson and Yoder (1967) studied
the achieved compaction levels in different rigid pavement CONSTRUCTION LIFT THICKNESS AND
subbase layer constructions in the state of Indiana and con- ITS EFFECT ON COMPACTABILITY
cluded that the lack of compaction could be attributed to non-
uniform aggregate gradations in the constructed layer, which Background
is an indicator of segregation during the construction process.
One of the primary factors affecting the performance of UAB
and subbase layers is the DOC. Aggregate materials received
Aggregate Degradation and Possible Sources from the source are placed on the prepared subgrade and com-
pacted to the design layer thicknesses. Generally, upon compac-
Aggregate degradation is defined as the breakdown of an tion an unbound aggregate layer loses approximately one-third
aggregate into smaller particles (Barksdale 1991). Aggregate of its loose placement depth (Barksdale 1991; Saunders 1997).
degradation can occur during the process of aggregate stock- Specifications require the compaction to be carried out imme-
piling or during the placement and compaction of aggregate diately after placement of the aggregate material while the
base and subbase layers. Formation of stockpiles by pushing of gradation and moisture content are still at the specified values
aggregates using dozers and handling of the aggregates during (NSSGA 1989). Maximum allowable lift thicknesses are usu-
different stages of construction both may result in degradation ally specified during the construction of unbound aggregate
of the larger particles into smaller fractions. Although the prob- layers to ensure adequate compaction, which is critical to
lem of degradation is not as severe for quarries excavating hard pavement layer performance under loading. Saunders (1997)
rock formations, the problem can be significant for operations reports that the maximum lift thicknesses specified by agen-
dealing with “softer” parent rocks. Some quarries compensate cies most likely were established in the early days of highway
for the potential degradation by producing aggregate sizes that construction, when only static rollers or limited vibratory roll-
are coarser than the target aggregate size. Moreover, different ers were available. Saunders also indicates that in view of the
agencies impose different restrictions on the type of construc- modern construction equipment, these maximum lift thickness
tion vehicle allowed to operate on aggregate stockpiles. thresholds most likely are on the conservative side. Wells and
Adams (1997) successfully constructed aggregate base courses
Compaction of constructed layers may impose heavy loads in single-lift depths of 10 and 12 in., which were greater than
that cause aggregate degradation. Aughenbaugh et al. (1963) the 8-in. maximum allowed by North Carolina Department of
indicated that degradation is dominant in the top lift of an Transportation (NCDOT) specifications. Similarly, Womack
aggregate layer. Thus, the height of a layer during compaction (1997) reports successful construction of aggregate base
may contribute toward nonuniform aggregate gradation result- courses in Virginia with 10-in. thick lifts, which were greater
ing from degradation of individual particles. This is particularly than the maximum construction lift thicknesses specified by the
critical for aggregate layers constructed with large lift thick- Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) at that time.
nesses. To ensure adequate compaction at greater depths, high
compactive energies need to be imparted on the layer surface. Researchers have since focused on evaluating the effective-
Such high compactive energies result in significant crushing ness of layer compaction when aggregate layers are constructed
of aggregate particles near the layer surface, changing the gra- with large lift thicknesses. Bueno et al. (1998) constructed test
dation and thus achieved density. Density-based compaction pads in Texas and Georgia using crushed limestone and crushed
control techniques may give erroneous indications of layer granite, respectively, with lift thicknesses ranging from 6 to
compaction in such cases because density measuring devices, 21 in. Three test strips were constructed in Georgia with differ-
such as the nuclear density gauge, can measure the compac- ent lift thicknesses. A “target test strip” was compacted in two
tion level for only the upper few inches (typically 12 in. for a lifts: one 178-mm (7-in.) compacted lift under a 152-mm (6-in.)
nuclear density gauge) and do not check the compaction levels compacted lift. Two other test sections (sections 1 and 2) were
for deeper sections in the layer. Thus, it is important to control both compacted in one single lift to a final compacted thick-
the amount of energy imparted to the aggregate layer during ness of 330 mm (13 in.). In-place density measurements indi-
the compaction process through adjusting the amplitude and cated compaction levels of 102.5%, 103.9%, and 103.3% for
frequency of impacts applied by vibratory rollers. the target Strip, Test Section 1, and Test Section 2, ­respectively,
44

i­ndicating that adequate compaction levels could be achieved Such studies will also help harmonize the construction prac-
even for higher construction lift thicknesses. tices throughout the United States and Canada.

Constructing test pads in Texas, Bueno et al. (1998 and From successful implementation of thick single-lift aggre-
1999) observed that higher densities could sometimes be gate base and subbase layer construction, Allen et al. (1998)
achieved for 457-mm (18-in.) and 584-mm (23-in.) lifts recommended the following changes to unbound aggregate
compared with those achieved for 305-mm (12-in.) lifts. In layer construction practices:
general, dry densities were found to increase with depth into
the compacted base, illustrating that the lower parts of the • Equipment: Mixing is to be accomplished by stationary
aggregate base course were being compacted even for greater plant, such as a pugmill, or by road mixing using a pug-
lift thicknesses. This trend was supported by the shear wave mill or rotary mixer. Mechanical spreaders should be used
velocity profiles obtained from Spectral analysis of surface to avoid segregation and achieve grade control. Suitable
waves (SASW) testing. From SASW data, they observed that vibratory compaction equipment should be employed.
stiffness of a graded aggregate base (GAB) course was sensi-
• Mixing and Transporting: The aggregates and water
tive to moisture variations and concluded this sensitivity likely
should be plant mixed (stationary or roadway) to the
was caused by changes of effective confining stress, which
range of optimum moisture plus 1% or minus 2% and
occur when the material is wetted or dried. Overall, findings
transported to the job site so as to avoid segregation and
from this study clearly indicate that thicker single lifts could
be compacted equally well or sometimes better than are the loss of moisture.
thinner aggregate layers commonly constructed by agencies. • Spreading: The material is to be placed at the specified
moisture content to the required thickness and cross sec-
Allen et al. (1998) conducted a survey of all state trans- tion by an approved mechanical spreader. At the engi-
portation agencies and found that 12 of 36 responding states neer’s discretion, the contractor may choose to construct
allowed a maximum lift thickness of 6 in. or less, one state a 500-ft long test section to demonstrate achieving ade-
allowed 7-in. lifts, and 16 states allowed 8-in. lifts. Only three quate compaction without particle degradation for lift
states allowed thicker lifts (Washington, 9-in.; North Carolina, thicknesses in excess of 13 in. The engineer may allow
10-in.; and Maine, 12-in.). The survey of state and Canadian thicker lifts on the basis of the test section results.
provincial agencies conducted under the scope of the cur-
rent synthesis study found that 11 of 46 responding agencies
allowed construction lift thicknesses of 8 in. The current lim- Optimum Construction Lift Thickness
its for construction lift thickness in North Carolina and Maine
were the same as those reported by Allen et al. (1998). Note that As observed from the survey results, no consensus exists among
as of 2012, 17 agencies still restricted the maximum lift thick- transportation agencies with regard to the maximum allowed
ness to 6 in. Figure 27 summarizes all the data collected from construction lift thickness for UAB/subbase layers. From exten-
the survey respondent states and Canadian provincial agencies. sive review of literature conducted under the scope of this syn-
From the figure it is evident that despite several research and thesis study, it was observed that most research studies and trial
trial studies demonstrating the effectiveness of aggregate layer implementation projects could successfully compact 12-in. thick
construction with larger lift thicknesses, the current practices in aggregate layers while achieving desired compaction levels.
state and Canadian provincial transportation agencies still use a Thus, it is suggested that 12-in. aggregate lifts be standardized
conservative approach in this regard. Thus, more research and as “optimum construction practice” for UAB/subbase layers.
demonstration projects need to focus on the advantages and Given adequate support conditions, ­construction of unbound
disadvantages (if any) of higher construction lift thicknesses. aggregate layers in such thick lifts could sufficiently expedite

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

No such restrictions 2% (1) 46 survey respondents

Other (please indicate) 15% (6)

12 in. 13% (6)

10 in. 9%(4)

8 in. 24% (11)

6 in. 37% (17)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 27  Maximum construction lift thickness allowed for unbound

aggregate layers.
 45

Number of Responses
Key Lessons 0 10 20

• No common practice exists among transportation Other 17% (4)

24 survey respondents
agencies as far as the maximum construction lift thick-
ness of UAB/subbase layers is concerned.
No 67% (16)
• Maximum construction lift thickness value for UAB/
subbase layers are best based on project “test-strip”
sections using the specific materials and equipment. Yes 17% (4)

• From extensive review of literature and state prac-

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
tices, this synthesis study suggests an optimum
construction lift thickness of 12 in. for UAB/subbase Percentage of Respondents
layers. Note that this suggestion is based on the
FIGURE 29  Agency responses to whether the two unbound
assumption that the UAB/subbase layer to be con- aggregate layers are separated by any kind of constructed
structed is at least 12-in. thick. Moreover, the DOC aggregate separation/filter layers.
achieved is contingent upon the use of adequate
equipment by the contractor.
indicates that 65.2% of the respondent agencies allow construc-
tion of unbound aggregate layers directly over or under pave-
ment layers stabilized or treated with lime, fly ash, cement, or
bitumen. Note that these findings have implications on some
the construction process while ensuring adequate compaction of the domestic and foreign innovative pavement construction
levels. For aggregate layers being constructed over “firm” pre- practices, such as the construction of “inverted pavements.”
pared subgrades (often represented by subgrade CBR > 8%),
the compaction of 12-in. thick layers may be possible. However,
reduced lift thicknesses may need to be adopted for “weaker” INVERTED PAVEMENTS
subgrade support conditions (subgrade CBR < 8%).
Sustainable application of unbound aggregate structural lay-
ers in pavements would improve the designs of low, medium,
DOCUMENTED AGGREGATE BASE AND and moderately high volume roads while reducing the depen-
SUBBASE LAYER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES dence on asphalt (and thus crude oil) for pavement construc-
tion. Such an alternative is offered by an inverted pavement
Figures 28 to 30 summarize agency responses to various cur- section that consists of an unstabilized crushed stone base or
rently adopted aggregate base and subbase layer construction GAB sandwiched between a lower cement-stabilized layer
practices. Figure 28 highlights that 52.2% of the respon- and a thin upper asphalt concrete surfacing.
dent agencies allow construction of two functionally differ-
ent aggregate layers on top of each other, such as an OGDL Conceptual Background
underlain by a dense-graded aggregate subbase, in pavements.
Furthermore, 66.7% of the respondent agencies do not sepa- Conventional pavement systems rely on a combination of
rate two unbound aggregate layers by any kind of constructed asphalt concrete or PCC and aggregate base components
aggregate separation or filter layers (see Figure 29). Figure 30 to transfer load to the subgrade. All three components use

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

46 survey respondents
Other 22% (10)

No 26% (12)

Yes 52% (24)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 28  Agency responses to whether multiple unbound aggregate

layers are allowed to be placed on top of each other.
46

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

46 survey respondents
Other 13% (6)

No 22% (10)

Yes 65% (30)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 30  Agency responses to whether the construction of

unbound aggregate layers is allowed over or under pavement
layers stabilized or treated with lime, fly ash, cement, or bitumen.

aggregates as their primary constituent. Classic pavement

design places higher modulus, more durable layers toward the
surface. Inverted pavement is a composite system composed
of asphalt top layer(s) and a well-compacted unbound crushed
stone base layer over a stiffer bound subbase that is usually
cement treated. Mechanistically, this configuration provides
a stronger reaction platform than unbound subgrades or sub- FIGURE 31  Layer configuration of a typical inverted
bases, allowing increased granular base compaction during pavement section.
construction, and it also has the potential to take advantage
of the compressive stresses induced in the granular aggregate Owing to the reduced thickness of the HMA surface ­layers,
base owing to the presence of the stiff underlying layer. This these pavement systems are cost-effective alternatives for high-
pavement design philosophy potentially offers economic performance pavement structures. The primary ­advantages of
advantages by requiring less asphalt concrete and placing the inverted pavements include (1) better compaction of unsta-
burden of strength and structural performance on relatively bilized materials placed over the stabilized layers; (2) opti-
less expensive underlying layers. mum use of unstabilized crushed stone; and (3) elimination
or ­significant reduction in reflective cracking in the pavement
Inverted pavements were first introduced in South Africa structures (Barksdale and Todres 1983).
and involved the construction of thick crushed stone base lay-
ers over stabilized subbase layers. The superior performing
crushed stone base layers used in South African inverted pave- Response Mechanism
ments are also known as “G1” base layers (Horne et al. 1997;
Jooste and Sampson 2005; De Beer 2012). These pavements The UAB is primarily a structural load-carrying component
are also called stone interlayer pavements, G1-base pavements, in inverted pavement sections. When properly compacted,
inverted base pavements, sandwich pavements, and upside the UAB causes lateral dissipation of traffic-induced stresses
down pavements (Lewis et al. 2012). Figure 31 shows the layer through interparticle contact points. The stiff UAB and the
configuration of a typical inverted pavement structure. cement-stabilized subbase combined result in a significant
reduction in the vertical compressive stress levels on top of
As shown in Figure 31, the HMA layers in inverted pave- the subgrade, thus eliminating chances of pavement fail-
ment sections often are very thin, so their contribution to the ure because of subgrade rutting. However, the UAB in an
structural capacity of the pavements often is not significant. inverted pavement structure is subjected to considerably
Primarily, these surface layers provide a smooth ride qual- higher stresses to make the base layer prone to rutting, a
ity and protect the underlying pavement layers from water potential failure mechanism for inverted pavement sections.
infiltration. The unbound aggregate layer is the primary load- Thus, construction procedures for inverted pavements aim to
bearing layer in inverted pavement structures. Summarizing eliminate rut accumulation within the UAB layers through
the construction practices and layer configurations of these innovative compaction procedures.
pavement systems, De Beer (2012) presented the following
definition for inverted pavements: The thin HMA surface typically considered in an inverted
pavement section induces considerably high stress states
A structural pavement system, where the static modulus of the within the aggregate base under wheel loading. Owing to the
unbound base layer is lower compared with the supporting (mainly stress-hardening nature of unbound aggregates, these high
lightly cementitious) subbase layers. Unbound base layer (crushed
rock) of extremely high bearing capacity is usually covered with stress states often lead to the aggregate layer developing
12 mm to 50 mm asphalt layer for sealing and functional properties. high elastic modulus values, often on the order of 689 MPa
 47

or 100 ksi (Maree et al. 1982a, 1982b; O’Neil et al. 1992). Table 3 lists the (a) particle size distribution and (b) other
Such high modulus levels achieved in the aggregate bases material quality specifications used in South Africa for use
of inverted pavement sections would help better dissipate in G1 base course applications (TRH 1985; Buchanan 2010).
the traffic-induced stresses with depth. Moreover, the pres-
ence of the stiffer subbase layer in an inverted pavement Note that the gradation requirements listed in Table 3a
section causes the neutral axis in bending to fall below are based on restricting the “n” values in the Fuller’s or
the aggregate base layer. This results in the surface layers Talbot’s equation (as defined in Equation 1) between 0.33
and the UAB layers performing mainly under compres- and 0.50. Note that in Equation 1, P is the percentage (%)
sion. Accordingly, the stiffness profile in inverted pave- of material by weight finer than the sieve size being con-
ment structures prevents the development of tensile stresses sidered; d is the sieve size being considered; D is the maxi-
in the UAB even if a linear model is used to represent it mum aggregate particle size in the current matrix; and n is
(Cortes 2010). The stiff aggregate base layer also leads a parameter that adjusts the gradation curve for fineness or
to a reduction in the tensile stresses at the aggregate base coarseness.
course-HMA surface interface, thus significantly reducing
the chances for reflective cracking occurring in these pave-
( Dd ) × 100
n
P= (1)
ment structures.

Material Specifications and Construction Procedure Construction Procedure

Material Specifications Compaction of the UAB layer in an inverted pavement struc-

ture is the most critical step during its construction to ensure
The aggregate material to be used in the base course of an that individual layers perform as desired. The UAB is con-
inverted pavement structure is obtained from crushing of structed on top of a stabilized subbase, which provides a
hard, sound, durable, and unweathered parent rock. All the solid construction platform for the placement and compac-
faces of the aggregate particles are required to be fractured. tion of the UAB layer and ensures that adequate density lev-
South African G1 base specifications allow the material gra- els can be achieved. The DOC achieved in the UAB layer is
dation to be adjusted only through the addition of fines pro- dependent on the energy applied, as well as the initial and
duced from the crushing of the original parent rock. final gradations of the aggregate material used.

TABLE 3
Recommended Particle Size Distribution Range for South African G1 Base
(a)
Sieve Size Sieve Size Percent Passing
(mm) (in.) G1, 37.5 NMS G1, 26.5 NMS
50 2.0
37.5 1.5 100
26.5 ~1.0 84–94 100
19.0 ¾ 71–84 85–95
13.2 ~1/2 59–75 74–84
4.75 #4 36–53 42–60
2.00 #10 23–40 27–45
0.425 #40 11–24 13–27
0.075 #200 4–12 5–12
(b)
Aggregate Material Property Specified Threshold Values
Minimum 10% FACTa 110
Maximum aggregate crushing valueb 29%
Liquid limit <25
Linear shrinkagec <2%
Plasticity index (PI) <4
a
10% FACT (fines aggregate crushing value) is the force in kilonewtons required to crush a sample of
aggregate passing the 13.2-mm and retained on the 9.5-mm sieve so that 10% of the total test sample
will pass a 2.36-mm sieve.
b
The aggregate crushing value (ACV) of an aggregate is the mass of material, expressed as a percentage
of the test sample that is crushed finer than a 2.36-mm sieve when a sample of aggregate passing the
13.2-mm and retained on the 9.50-mm sieve is subjected to crushing under a gradually applied
compressive load of 400 kN.
c
The linear shrinkage of a soil for the moisture content equivalent to the liquid limit is the decrease in
one dimension, expressed as a percentage of the original dimension of the soil mass, when the moisture
content is reduced from the liquid limit to an oven-dry state.
Sources: TRH 1985; Buchanan 2010.
48

The compaction of unbound aggregate layers in the South involved the overlaying of several badly broken concrete
African inverted pavement structures involves the following pavements with 152 mm (6 in.) of unstabilized granular base,
two phases: standard compaction phase and particle inter- and 51 mm (2 in.) of asphalt concrete. Johnson (1960) reported
locking or slushing phase. The standard compaction phase is that after six years of heavy traffic, no reflection cracking or
carried out using a combination of grid rollers, vibratory roll- significant rutting had developed in the test sections.
ers, and pneumatic tire rollers. Commonly two to three passes
of the grid roller are used to gently knead the aggregate layer Subsequently, two experimental roads were constructed
into shape. Subsequently, the vibratory roller is used to com- in New Mexico in about 1960, consisting of a 76-mm (3-in.)
pact the layer to 85% of apparent solid density. It is important asphalt concrete surfacing, 152-mm (6-in.) granular base, and
to note that the amplitude and frequency of vibration need a 152-mm (6-in.) granular subbase treated with 4% cement.
to be strictly monitored during this phase because too much
vibration can easily lead to “de-densification” of the aggre-
gate matrix. Moreover, extreme care is to be exercised to pre- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Experience
vent the breakage of individual aggregate particles under the
The U.S. Corps of Engineers studied the behavior of the
vibratory roller. The aggregate moisture content usually is
various layers in flexible pavement structures having lime-
maintained near the “optimum” conditions during this phase
stabilized and cement-stabilized subbases: that is, inverted
of compaction to aid the rearrangement of individual aggre-
base type structures (Ahlvin et al. 1971; Barker et al. 1973;
gate particles into a densely packed matrix. The fines fraction
Grau 1973). The objective of the study was to measure the
in the aggregate matrix plays a critical role during this phase
mechanical response of full-scale pavement structures and
by lubricating the aggregate contact points. Thus, it is impor-
compare the results against predictions from layered elastic
tant that the aggregate material used in the construction of
these superior performing base layers contain the adequate theory and other available constitutive models. Two inverted
amount of fines. A rule of thumb used in the construction base pavement structures were investigated, both composed
of South African G1 base course layers is that OMC values of a 90-mm asphalt concrete layer, a 150-mm crushed lime-
less than 4% are indicative of too few fines in the aggregate stone base, a 380-mm stabilized clay subbase, and a clay sub-
matrix, whereas OMC values higher than 6% are indicative grade (CBR of 4%). The structures were subjected to traffic
of too many fines (De Beer 2012). under controlled conditions while monitoring displacements
and stresses at key locations (Ahlvin et al. 1971; Barker et al.
The second phase of compaction involves consolidating 1973; Grau 1973). Linear elastic analyses failed to adequately
the material under saturated conditions by expelling or “slush- predict the measured stresses and strains in different layers
ing” out the excess fines material from the matrix, allowing and the plastic subgrade deformation. The performance of
the larger particles to interlock into a “superdense” matrix. the inverted pavement structures was found to be influenced
The fines serve as lubricants to ensure reorientation and by the stiffness and tensile strength of the cement-treated
interlocking of the larger particles into a superdense matrix. base. This study highlighted the importance of a compre-
This “washing out” of the fines, accompanied by compac- hensive material characterization and numerical implementa-
tion, is continued until the water draining from the pavement tion through appropriate constitutive models. Furthermore, it
becomes colorless and does not contain any trace of excess urged the development of laboratory tests capable of simulat-
fines (De Beer 2012). A pneumatic tire roller passing over ing field conditions and the introduction of nonlinear models
the aggregate layer without leaving any indentations is used in numerical simulations (Barker et al. 1973).
as an indicator of the achievement of adequate compaction.
South African specifications require achieved density to be
greater than 88% of solid particle density (assuming solid Barksdale and Todres
rock for the equal volume with no voids).
Barksdale and Todres (1983) constructed 12 laboratory-scale
It is usual to place the prime coat and HMA surfacing instrumented pavement structures and cyclically loaded them
layer immediately after compaction of the UAB layer. This to failure under controlled environmental conditions. Among
is primarily because the aggregate base layer is noncohe- conventional flexible pavement and full-depth asphalt pave-
sive in nature, and the aggregate matrix may get disturbed ment test sections, they also tested two inverted pavement test
upon exposure to direct application of traffic loads and sections made of 89-mm thick asphalt concrete layers over
weathering. 203-mm thick unbound aggregate layers (well-graded gra-
nitic gneiss), over a 150-mm thick cement-stabilized subbase,
over a micaceous nonplastic silty sand subgrade. One inverted
Previous Findings on the Benefits
of Inverted Pavements pavement section had a 152-mm (6-in.) thick cement stabilized
crushed stone subbase; the other had a 152-mm (6-in.) thick
The first application of inverted pavements in the United cement-treated, silty sand subbase. It was found that the cement-
States can be traced back to 1954 in New Mexico (Barksdale treated base facilitated compaction in inverted s­ tructures lead-
and Todres 1983). These initial inverted pavement sections ing to denser unbound aggregate layers (­Barksdale 1984).
 49

The pavement sections were subjected to a 28.9-kN cyclic ing Materials quarry near Madison, Georgia, in 2001. Both
load for the first 2 × 106 repetitions, followed by cyclic appli- test sections had a 200-mm (8-in.) thick cement-treated base
cation of a 33.4-kN load until failure. Monitoring the per- layer, a 150-mm (6-in.) thick GAB layer, and a 75-mm (3-in.)
formance of the test sections under loading, Barksdale and thick HMA layer. The only difference between the two
Todres observed that the two inverted pavement sections inverted pavement sections was in the construction of the
outperformed equivalent pavement structures in terms of GAB layer: the first section was constructed using the South
lower resilient surface displacements, reduced transferred African “slushing” technique, whereas the second section
compressive stress onto the subgrade, and less tensile radial was constructed using conventional construction methods.
strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layer (Barksdale
and Todres 1983; Avellandeda 2010). The superior mechani- Terrell et al. (2003a, b) conducted miniaturized versions
cal performance of the inverted pavement structures was of traditional cross-hole and downhole seismic tests to deter-
clearly reflected from the significantly higher number of load mine the stiffnesses of each base layer. Horizontally propagat-
cycles to failure (3.6 × 106 and 4.4 × 106) compared with ing compression and shear waves were measured under four
the best performing conventional flexible pavement section different loading conditions to determine Young’s moduli and
(Barksdale 1984; Tutumluer and Barksdale 1995). Poisson’s ratios of the base. An increase in stiffness with an
increase in load was measured. In addition, it was found that
the Georgia and South Africa sections had similar stiffnesses.
Tutumluer and Barksdale Surprisingly, the traditional section was found to be some-
what stiffer than the other sections. This higher stiffness was
Tutumluer and Barksdale (1995) conducted numerical mod- thought to be caused by a prolonged period of compaction
eling of the two full-scale instrumented inverted pavement before construction of the UAB layer, which essentially trans-
sections tested by Barksdale and Todres (1983), and made forms the traditional section (Terrell et al. 2003b).
the following observations:
Comparing the performances of the two inverted pave-
• Cement-stabilized inverted sections can successfully ment test sections with a conventional flexible pavement sec-
withstand large numbers of heavy loadings through tion subjected to the same loading, Lewis et al. (2012) made
– Lower vertical subgrade stresses owing to the “beam the following observations:
action” of the stiff base layer;
– Lower tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt • The two test sections performed remarkably well for
layer; and more than 10 years, without needing any maintenance
– Lower resilient surface deflections. or resurfacing;
• The upper portion of the cement-treated subbase and • No significant rut accumulation was observed in the
almost all of the unstabilized crushed stone base near inverted pavement test sections, whereas the conven-
the load were in horizontal compression. The bottom tional pavement section exhibited both “minor” and
half of the subbase and a thin layer on top of the sub- “major” rutting problems;
grade were in horizontal tension. • FWD testing conducted in 2007 indicated that the two
• Presence of the cement-stabilized layer beneath the inverted pavement sections had remaining service lives
aggregate base resulted in horizontal compressive of 99.34% (conventional compaction) and 94.61%
stresses of magnitudes ranging from 0 to 110 kPa (0 (compacted using the South African slushing method),
to 16 psi) in the unstabilized crushed stone base. This respectively, whereas the conventional pavement sec-
was probably a major factor contributing to the lower tion had a remaining service life of 67.92%.
permanent deformation and higher resilient moduli of
these base layers as observed from laboratory testing.
• From sensitivity analyses conducted using the GT- FHWA International Scanning Tour
PAVE finite element (FE) program, they observed that
the optimum and economical inverted pavement sec- A scanning study of France, South Africa, and Australia spon-
tion constructed over a weak subgrade would consist sored by FHWA, AASHTO, and NCHRP investigated innova-
of an unstabilized aggregate base 152 mm (6 in.) thick tive programs for pavement preservation (Beatty et al. 2002).
and a 152-mm to 203-mm (6-in. to 8-in.) thick cement- During the scanning tour, the team observed typical pave-
stabilized subbase. ment structures used by the countries visited to ensure longer-
lasting, better-performing pavement systems. Figures 32
and 33 show the typical pavement structures constructed by
Lafarge Quarry Access Road Australia and South Africa, respectively, as noted by Beatty
—Morgan County, Georgia et al. (2002). As can be seen from the figures, it is common
practice in Australia and South Africa to use thick aggregate
Two 122-m (400-ft.) long inverted pavement test sections layers in conjunction with relatively thin HMA surface lay-
were constructed on a new access road at the Lafarge Build- ers. The practice in Australia involves the use of multiple
50

FIGURE 32  Typical heavy-duty pavement configuration in Australia (Beatty et al. 2002).

unbound aggregate layers in conjunction with a thin HMA pavement types, Titi et al. (2003) made the following pri-
surface layer, whereas the South African practice involves the mary observations:
construction of inverted pavement sections.
• Both pavement types showed an increasing trend in crack
accumulation with time. However, the rate of crack accu-
Application of Stone Interlayer mulation was significantly lower for the stone interlayer
Pavements in Louisiana pavement sections.
Stone interlayer pavement designs were introduced in Loui- • The average International Roughness Index value for the
siana to reduce the problem of reflective cracking that is stone interlayer pavement was lower than that for the con-
often observed in flexible pavements constructed using soil- ventional flexible pavement after 10.2 years. This indi-
cement bases (Rasoulian et al. 2000, 2001). Titi et al. (2003) cated smooth surface conditions and better ride quality
compared the performances of stone interlayer pavements for the stone interlayer pavement. This was attributed to
(3.5-in. HMA surface layer; 4-in. crushed limestone inter- the lower amount of reflective cracking in the stone inter­
layer; 6-in. in-place cement-stabilized base course layer; and layer pavement.
12-in. lime-treated subgrade layer) with conventional flexible • The stone interlayer pavement could withstand about four
pavements with cement-treated bases (3.5-in. HMA surface times the number of load applications (1,294,800 ESALs)
layer, 8.5-in. in-place cement stabilized base course layer, under accelerated testing compared with the conven-
and 12-in. lime-treated subgrade layer) constructed on State tional flexible pavement section (314,500 ESALs) before
Highway LA-97 near Jennings, Louisiana. Both pavements undergoing failure.
were monitored for more than 10 years and were evaluated • From survival analyses of the two accelerated pave-
through pavement distress surveys, testing for roughness and ment sections, Metcalf et al. (1998) concluded that the
permanent deformation, as well as evaluation of pavement dominant mode of failure (88%) for the stone interlayer
structural capacity through dynamic nondestructive testing pavement was rutting, whereas that for the conven-
(NDT). The same two designs were also compared through tional pavement was cracking.
accelerated pavement testing at the Louisiana Transportation • Through regression analyses of the long-term perfor-
Research Center. Through analyses of the field monitoring mance data of the two test sections along LA-97, it was
and accelerated testing data, Titi et al. (2003) reported that concluded that the only mode that could lead to the fail-
the stone interlayer pavements performed significantly bet- ure of both of the modes was cracking. The regression
ter than did the conventional pavement designs with cement- analyses clearly established the superior performance
treated base. From comparing the performances of the two of stone interlayer pavement sections.

FIGURE 33  Typical pavement sections in South Africa constructed with

high-quality crushed aggregate base layers (Beatty et al. 2002).
 51

• The initial material cost for the stone interlay pavement TABLE 4
was approximately 20% higher than that for the conven- Life-Cycle Cost Comparison for Lagrange
Bypass Inverted Pavement Section with a Rigid
tional pavement. However, considering the significantly Pavement Section Designed to Sustain the Same
higher number (300% higher) of load applications until Traffic Level Over A 30-Year Period
failure, the stone interlayer pavement alternative indi- Cost ($/Lane-Mile)
cated considerable savings when life-cycle costs were Event
Inverted Pavement PCC Pavement
analyzed. Installation cost 342,000 584,000
10 years of maintenance 101,000
20 years of maintenance 123,000
20–30 years of maintenance 121,000
LaGrange Bypass Project, Troup County, Georgia
30-year life-cycle cost 566,000 705,000
Net savings 139,000
Encouraged by the positive results from the inverted pavement
test sections in Morgan County, Georgia, in 2009 GDOT con-
structed another inverted pavement test section on the South
LaGrange Loop in Troup County. The constructed inverted Avellandeda (2010) developed new field test methods to
pavement test sections had (1) 150-mm (6-in.) thick stabilized characterize the stress-dependent stiffness of UAB layers in
subgrade; (2) 250-mm (10-in.) thick cement-treated base; these inverted pavement test sections and found that inverted
(3) 150-mm (6-in.) thick GAB; (4) 50-mm (2-in.) thick Super- pavement sections could exceed the structural capacities of
pave binder course; and (5) 37-mm (1.5-in.) thick Superpave flexible pavement designs and result in savings to 40% of the
surface course (Lewis et al. 2012). The GAB was constructed initial construction costs.
using standard construction techniques at a moisture content of
100% to 120% of the OMC. Figure 34 shows a schematic of the Lewis et al. (2012) reported that the test sections showed
inverted pavement sections constructed as part of this project. excellent structural capacities and long remaining lives upon
FWD testing immediately after construction. Cortes (2010)
Buchanan (2010) compared the life-cycle costs for the conducted precompaction and postcompaction sieve analyses
LaGrange Bypass inverted pavement sections with a rigid of aggregate samples collected from the GAB and reported
pavement designed to carry the same amount of traffic (the inconclusive data about the extent of particle crushing. By
rigid pavement had a 9.5-in. thick PCC slab over a 10-in. thick digging trenches through the HMA layers to expose the GAB
GAB over a 6-in. thick prepared subgrade with a minimum soil and subsequently processing the grain skeleton photographs
support value of 5). Table 4 lists the comparative cost estimates through digital image analysis, Cortes found evidence of
over a 30-year life cycle as presented by Buchanan (2010). compaction-induced anisotropy in the GAB as the coarse
As can be seen from the table, the inverted pavement section
aggregate particles were found to preferentially align their
results in net savings of $139,000 over a 30-year period.
major axis parallel to the horizontal plane. Through FE analy­
ses of the test sections, Cortes observed that both vertical and
radial stresses in the UAB layer remained in compression
throughout the layer depth.

Luck Stone Bull Run Project, Virginia

An application in 2010 of inverted pavement in Virginia

involved a relocated road (Virginia Highway 659) b­ ypassing
the Luck Stone Bull Run Quarry. The project included collab-
oration between Luck Stone, Texas A&M University (ICAR),
FHWA Office of Infrastructure R&D, Virginia DOT, and the
Virginia Transportation Research Council. This section was
designed using the ICAR model, and the materials charac-
terization protocol was carried out at Texas A&M Univer-
sity and the Texas Transportation Institute and instrumented
heavily through FHWA sponsorship. Discussing the benefits
of this inverted pavement trial application, Weingart (2012)
reported a potential for 22.3% cost savings compared with the
construction of a conventional flexible pavement with equiv-
alent structural and functional capacities; the estimated cost
FIGURE 34  Schematic of inverted
for construction of the conventional flexible pavement section
pavement section constructed in LaGrange was $21,311 per 100 linear ft, whereas that for the inverted
Bypass Project, Troup County, Georgia. pavement section was $16,555 per 100 linear ft.
52

Summary of Past Experience

on Inverted Pavements Key Lessons

From extensive review of literature covering inverted pave- • Inverted pavements involve the construction of a
ment applications internationally as well as within the United “high quality” crushed stone base layer over a stabi-
lized subbase course.
States, it was observed that almost all applications of
• With the aggregate base layer functioning as the
inverted pavements have resulted in favorable performance
primary structural component, inverted pavements
compared with conventional pavement structures. In addi- offer a long-lasting, economical alternative to con-
tion to resulting in superior performance, inverted pavement ventional pavement construction.
sections often have led to significant cost savings over the life • Construction of inverted pavements and similar pave-
cycle of the pavement. Although the construction of pave- ments utilizing thick crushed aggregate base layers
ments using thick unbound aggregate layers appears to be is a common practice in countries such as South
a common practice in countries such as Australia and South Africa, Australia, and France.
Africa, projects involving such pavements have been con- • All inverted pavement applications in the United
fined primarily to trial studies in the United States. Moreover, States have resulted in equal or better performance
these trial projects have been confined to a limited number of compared with equivalent conventional pavement
states, with most other states showing resistance to the adop- sections.
• A conscious effort is required in the United States
tion of such innovative pavement construction practices.
and Canada to encourage the construction of alterna-
Possible explanations of why inverted pavements have not
tive pavement structures with thick UAB layers as the
been constructed in the United States include (1) traditional primary structural component.
pavement designs and construction practices using rather
thick asphalt or concrete surface courses were still afford-
able; (2) details of foreign technology related to UAB com­
paction, such as the South African slushing technique, were
not readily available; and (3) cement-treated subbase used Island DOT indicated that the agency used the “test strip”
in inverted pavements was considered a potential risk for method to determine the maximum achievable density value
pavement cracking, especially in northern climates. A con- for an UAB/subbase layer through repeated compaction of
scious effort needs to be made to encourage the construction the same spot until no noticeable increase in the density
of inverted pavements in the United States to fully study any was achieved. The DOC achieved during construction of
potential disadvantages, such as pavement distresses occur- UAB/subbase layers was then compared with the maximum
ring as a result of cracking of the cement-treated subbase, density values obtained from the test strips. No other state
perhaps as a result of shrinkage and exposure to freeze-thaw reported the use of innovative construction practices.
conditions. In addition, in colder climates further evaluation
of related pavement design considerations is needed. Accord-
SUMMARY
ing to the Portland Cement Association, it is possible to limit
the percent cement used in inverted subbases (such as to 2% This chapter presents an overview of current practices as far
to 3%) to potentially mitigate these cracking problems. The as material handling and construction practices for UAB and
successful construction, ongoing documentation, and tech- subbase layers are concerned. Extensive review of published
nology transfer of the superior performances of the inverted literature was conducted to gather information on differ-
pavement trials no doubt will have a positive impact on such ent procedures and practices identified by researchers to
sustainable alternatives to pavement design. be adequate/inadequate for pavement layer construction.
Aggregate segregation and degradation are identified as two
Current State of Practice on Alternative Base major concerns affecting aggregate gradation, and different
Course Construction practices that magnify these problems are listed. A survey
of state and Canadian provincial transportation agencies
One of the objectives of the current synthesis study was to indicated that only 37% of the responding agencies (46 total
gather information on the state of practice in the United States respondents) currently have specific guidelines governing
and Canada regarding the application of alternative UAB/ aggregate storage, transportation, and stockpiling practices.
subbase layers, such as inverted pavement sections. Accord-
ingly, the survey of state and Canadian provincial transpor- The current state of the practice regarding construction lift
tation agencies included questions regarding construction thicknesses indicates a significant gap between the knowl-
practices such as the South African slushing technique. Only edge gained through research and trial projects and current
two states (New Mexico and Rhode Island) reported the use agency specifications. Different research studies establishing
of alternative construction techniques. New Mexico DOT the effectiveness of greater lift thicknesses during construc-
reported an ongoing project involving the construction of tion are summarized in this chapter and the need for har-
inverted pavement sections that will use the South African monizing such practices among transportation agencies was
slushing technique for compaction of the UAB layer. Rhode established.
 53

Finally, this chapter discusses the concept of inverted Bueno, J.L., K.H. Stokoe II, J.J. Allen, and M.E. K
­ alinski, “Eval-
pavements as an alternative application of UAB layers. The uation of Constructing Increased Single-Lift Thicknesses of
concept behind this application was described, as were the Unbound Aggregate Bases Case Study in Georgia,” Trans-
response mechanism and construction procedures. Different portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
research studies emphasizing the effectiveness of inverted Research Board, No. 1673, 1999, pp. 95–102.
pavements are highlighted, and the need for further explo- Cortes, D.D., “Inverted Base Pavement Structures,” Ph.D.
ration in this area was established. The next chapter dis- Dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engi-
cusses the different methods used for the characterization of neering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2010.
unbound aggregate materials and layer design. De Beer, M., “South African G1 Base Course-Inverted Pave-
ment,” 2012 Transportation Research Board Mineral
Aggregates Committee (AFP70) Meeting Presentation,
REFERENCES
91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Ahlvin, R.G., W.J. Turnbull, J.P. Sale and A.A. Maxwell, Board, Jan. 22–26, 2012, Washington, D.C.
Multiple-Wheel Heavy Gear Load Pavement Tests, U.S. Grau, R.W., “Evaluation of Structural Layers of Flexible
Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss., 1971, 216 pp. Pavements,” Miscellaneous Paper, S-73-26, Waterways
Allen, J.J., J.L. Bueno, M.E. Kalinski, M.L. Myers, and K.H. Experiment Station, 1973.
Stokoe II, Increased Single-Lift Thicknesses for Unbound Horne, D., et al., South African Pavement and Other Highway
Aggregate Base Courses, ICAR Report No. 501-5, Inter- Technologies and Practices, Federal Highway Adminis-
national Center for Aggregate Research, The University tration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
of Texas at Austin, 1998. D.C., 1997.
Aughenbaugh, N.B., R.B. Johnson, and E.J. Yoder, Degrada- Johnson, V.W., “Comparative Studies of Combinations of
tion of Base Course Aggregates during Compaction, School Treated and Untreated Bases and Subbase for Flexible Pave-
of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, ments,” Bulletin 289, Highway Research Board, National
Ind., 1963. Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1960, pp. 44–61.
Avellandeda, D.D.C., Inverted Base Pavement Structures, Jooste, F.J., and L. Sampson, “The Economic Benefits of HVS
Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engi- Development Work on G1 Base Pavements,” Department
neering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2010. of Public Transport, Roads, and Works, 2005.
Barker, W.R., W.N. Brabston and F.C. Townsend, An Inves- Lewis, D.E., K. Ledford, T. Georges, and D.M. Jared, “Con-
tigation of the Structural Properties of Stabilized Layers struction and Performance of Inverted Pavements in Geor-
in Flexible Pavement Systems, U.S. Army Corps of Engi- gia,” Paper No. 12-1872, Poster Presentation in Session
neers, 165, Vicksburg, Miss., 1973. 639, 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Barksdale, R.D. and H.A. Todres, A Study of Factors Affecting Board, Jan. 22–26, 2012, Washington, D.C.
Crushed Stone Base Performance, School of Civil Engi- Majidzadeh, K. and C.S. Brahma, Statistical Analysis of
neering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1983. Aggregate Size Distribution, The Ohio State University
Barksdale, R.D., “Performance of Crushed Stone Base Department of Civil Engineering and Transportation
Courses,” Transportation Research Record 954, Trans- Research Center, 1969.
portation Research Board, National Research Council, Maree, J.H., N.J.W. van Zyl, and C.R. Freeme, “Effective
Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 78–87. Moduli and Stress Dependence of Pavement Materials
Barksdale, R.D., The Aggregate Handbook, National Stone as Measured in Some Heavy-Vehicle Simulator Tests,”
Association, Washington, D.C., 1991. Transportation Research Record 852, Transportation
Beatty, T.L., et al., Pavement Preservation Technology in Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
France, South Africa, and Australia, Office of International D.C., 1982a.
Programs, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Depart- Maree, J.H., C.R. Freeme, N.J.W. van Zyl, and P.F. Savage,
ment of Transportation, and the American Association of “The Permanent Deformation of Pavements with Untreated
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Alexandria, Crushed-Stone Bases as Measured in Heavy Vehicle Sim-
Va., 2002. ulator Tests,” Proceedings of the 11th Australian Road
Buchanan, S., Inverted Pavements-What, Why, and How? Research Board Conference, Melbourne, 1982b.
AFTRE Industry Education Webinar, Aggregates Foun- Metcalf, J.M., S. Romanoschi, L. Yongqi, and M. Rasoulian,
dation for Technology, Research, and Education, Alexan- Construction and Comparison of Louisiana’s Conven-
dria, Va., June 1, 2010. tional and Alternative Base Courses under Accelerated
Bueno, J.L., K.H. Stokoe, and J.J. Allen, “A Study on the Fea- Loading, Interim Rep. 1, Phase 1, Louisiana Transporta-
sibility of Compacting Unbound Graded Aggregate Base tion Research Center, Baton Rouge, 1998.
Courses in Thicker Lifts that Presently Allowed by State Miller Warden Associates, “Effects of Different Methods
Department of Transportation,” Report No. ICAR 501-2, of Stockpile Sampling Interim Report,” Proceedings of
International Center for Aggregates Research, University Highway Research Board, Highway Research Board,
of Texas at Austin, 1998. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1964.
54

National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA), Titi, H., M. Rasoulian, M. Martinez, B. Becnel, and G. Keel,
Stone Base Construction Handbook, NSSGA, Alexandria, “Long-Term Performance of Stone Interlayer Pavement,”
Va., 1989. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 2,
Nohl, J., and B. Domnick, “Stockpile Segregation,” Techni- 2003, pp. 118–126.
cal Paper T-551, Superior Industries, Morris, Minn., 2000. TRH, Guidelines for Road Construction Materials, Draft
O’Neil, D.J., J.P. Mahoney, and N.C. Jackson, An Evaluation Technical Recommendation for Highways (TRH) 14, Pre-
of Granular Overlays in Washington State, Final Techni- toria, South Africa, 1985.
cal Report, Report No. FHWA-SA-92-042, Washington Tutumluer, E. and R.D. Barksdale, “Inverted Pavement
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 1992. Response and Performance,” Transportation Research
Rasoulian, M., B. Becnel, and G. Keel, “Stone Interlayer Record 1482, Transportation Research Board, National
Pavement Design,” Transportation Research Record 1709, Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 102–110.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- Weingart, R., “Inverted Base: The Virginia Experience,”
cil, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 60–68. 2012 Transportation Research Board Mineral Aggregates
Rasoulian, M., H. Titi, M. Martinez, B. Becnel, and G. Keel, Committee (AFP 70) Meeting Presentation, 91st Annual
Long Term Performance of Stone Interlayer Pavement,
Meeting Transportation Research Board, Jan. 22–26,
Louisiana Transportation Research Center Report 29,
2012, Washington, D.C.
Baton Rouge, 2001.
Wells, G.E., and R.C. Adams, “Increased Single-Lift Depths
Saunders, C.H., “Increasing the Single Lift Thickness for
for Aggregate Base Course in Highway Construction: Sec-
Aggregate Base: Base Placement and Compaction of
Increased Lift Thickness of Aggregate Base on Test Proj- ondary Road 1117 Relocation, Richmond County, North
ects,” Paper Presented at the 5th Annual Symposium of the Carolina,” presented at the 5th Annual Symposium of the
International Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), 1997. International Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), 1997.
Terrell, R.G., B.R. Cox, F.Y.U.H. Menq, J.J. Allen, and K.H. White, D.J., P. Vennapusa, and C.T. Jahren, Determination of
Stokoe, II, “Stiffness of Unbound Aggregate Base Lay- the Optimum Base Characteristics for Pavements, Iowa
ers in Inverted Flexible Pavements,” International Cen- DOT Project TR-482, Center for Transportation Research
ter for Aggregates Research 11th Annual Symposium: and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, 2004.
­Aggregates–Asphalt Concrete, Bases and Fines, Austin, Williamson, T.G., and E.J. Yoder, An Investigation of Com-
Tex, Apr. 27–30, 2003a. paction Variability for Selected Highway Projects in Indi-
Terrell, R.G., B.R. Cox, K.H. Stokoe II, J.J. Allen, and D. ana, Publication FHWA/IN/JHRP-67/05, Joint Highway
Lewis, “Field Evaluation of the Stiffness of Unbound Research Project, Indiana Department of Transportation
Aggregate Base Layers in Inverted Flexible Pavements,” and Purdue University, West Lafayette, 1967.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- Womack, W.W., “Increasing the Lift Thickness for Aggregate
portation Research Board, No. 1837, Transportation Base: Virginia Department of Transportation Perspec-
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, tive,” presented at the 5th Annual Symposium of the Inter-
D.C., 2003b, pp. 50–60. national Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), 1997.
 55

chapter four

UNBOUND AGGREGATE BASE CHARACTERIZATION FOR DESIGN

INTRODUCTION ally. Forces across individual particle contacts were moni-

tored by counting the resulting interference fringes.
This chapter presents an overview of unbound aggregate mate-
rial characteristics and structural layer behavior as the primary Based on experimental studies, the stresses in particulate
structural component in flexible pavement systems, as well media are not transferred in a uniform manner but are con-
as subbase layers under concrete pavement slabs. A thorough centrated along continuous columns of particles. The parti-
review of different aggregate test procedures and character- cles in between the columns provide only lateral support but
ization methods commonly used to model granular pavement do not carry much load. At a critical load, a column will fail
layer responses and permanent deformation behavior is imper- and the internal structure will be rearranged. Formation of a
ative to facilitate better designs of pavement systems and ulti- new column takes place if particles in that region are favor-
mately ensure adequate performance under repeated loading. ably oriented. The deformation of a particulate mass under
increasing load is then mostly the continual collapse and
The main load transfer mechanism governing unbound generation of adjacent chains of load-carrying particles. The
aggregate structural layer behavior under loading is high- predominant orientation of particle contacts is in the direc-
lighted. Important aggregate physical properties affecting tion of the major principal stress.
granular layer strength, modulus, and permanent deforma-
tion behavior are discussed in detail in this chapter. Com- Similar results on the load transfer and deformation char-
monly used models to characterize the elastic or resilient, as acteristics of granular materials were obtained by Dobry et al.
well as permanent, deformation behavior of unbound aggre- (1989). Using the discrete element approach (Cundall and
gate materials are discussed with a review of typical pave- Strack 1979), Dobry et al. (1989) modeled granular soil as
ment stress states and initial loading conditions affecting the random arrays of 531 elastic, rough spheres of two different
primary features of aggregate repeated-load behavior. Both sizes. Numerical simulations of these arrays under monotonic
empirical and M-E methods developed for designing unbound and cyclic loading were compared with typical experimental
aggregate pavement systems are summarized with histori- results from triaxial compression tests on a medium-dense
cal perspective by listing their advantages and limitations. uniform quartz sand. From the numerical simulations, they
State-of-the-art approaches, including the stress-dependent observed that triaxial deviator stresses were clearly transmit-
and anisotropic models from the recent ICAR research find- ted by a limited number of “stiff chains” or irregular columns
ings, are described in detail for proper characterization of of grains aligned in generally the vertical direction.
unbound aggregate pavement layers. Accordingly, different
mechanisms contributing to the failure of pavement systems Therefore, according to the experimental and numerical
with unbound aggregate layers are reviewed to emphasize findings, the deformation pattern of an unbound aggregate
the importance of aggregate material quality governing layer is directly related to load transfer by shear in the col-
pavement performance. Finally, permeable and open-graded umns of particles supported under confinement. The orien-
aggregate layers are discussed to review and summarize the tation of such columns is primarily in the direction of the
most important climatic (that is, moisture and temperature) principal stresses and also is affected by the assembly of the
conditions influencing designs of unbound aggregate pave- grains and their shape.
ment systems.

UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIAL BEHAVIOR

LOAD TRANSFER IN GRANULAR MATERIALS UNDER REPEATED LOADING

The mechanism of load transfer in granular materials was Unbound aggregate layers in pavements are subjected to
first experimentally studied by Dantu (1957) with the help repeated load applications as a result of traffic. They undergo
of photoelastic models. From the experiments performed, it both elastic (commonly known as resilient for pavement
was concluded that the stresses in granular materials were applications) as well as plastic (permanent) deformations
not uniformly distributed but were concentrated along load- with every load repetition. Figure 35 presents a schematic of
carrying particle chains. Later Oda (1974) described other typical unbound aggregate behavior under repeated loading
experiments in which photoelastic rods were loaded biaxi- with the help of a stress-strain diagram. Note that the relative
56

FIGURE 36  Resilient modulus defined as the elastic

modulus of a deformed material.

under traffic loading. Figure 36 shows a schematic of typical

hysteretic response exhibited by unbound aggregate materi-
als under repeated loading. The most important input prop-
FIGURE 35  Strains in granular materials during one cycle of erty for characterizing repeated load behavior of unbound
load application. aggregate layer in pavement analysis has been the “resilient
modulus.” Defined as a secant modulus representing hyster-
­ agnitudes of elastic and plastic components of the total strain
m etic stress-strain behavior of materials, the resilient modulus
depend on several different factors, including traffic load lev- (MR) is a critical material property needed for M-E pavement
els and speed of operation, thickness and quality of overlying design methods (Puppala 2008).
pavement layers (if any), characteristics of aggregates used in
construction of the aggregate layer, and subgrade conditions. As shown in Figure 36, the resilient modulus (MR) of a
material is defined as the elastic modulus after the material
In a constructed granular layer, the accumulation of per- has accumulated a certain amount of permanent deformation.
manent deformation as a result of each load repetition gradu- The difference between elastic or Young’s modulus (E) and the
ally decreases with increased number of load applications. resilient modulus (MR) of a material is clearly highlighted in the
Once the layer has been well compacted to achieve a densely figure. Equation 2 can be used to determine the resilient modu-
packed matrix, all the subsequent load applications ideally lus of a material from repeated-load triaxial test results. Note
would result in deformations that are mostly elastic in nature. that in the equation, sd represents the deviator stress or repeated
The resilient and permanent deformations of an unbound
wheel load stress, and er represents the recoverable strain.
granular layer can be attributed to different mechanisms.
Werkmeister (2003) summarized the Hertz contact theory and σd
MR = (2)
suggested that resilient deformation in granular materials is εr
caused primarily by “temporary” deformation of individual
grains, whereas permanent deformation takes place because of
relative movement of the particles with respect to each other.
The initial rapid accumulation of permanent deformation Key Lessons
typically corresponds to the rearrangement of particles dur- • Particle-to-particle interlock is critical to the dissipa-
ing initial compaction and subsequent loading of the pavement tion of stresses in unbound aggregate layers under
layers. After adequate “shakedown” (that is, particle reorienta- loading.
tion and rearrangement into a dense matrix) of the material is • Constructed unbound aggregate layers are best
reached under this initial loading phase, the pavement layers compacted into a densely packed matrix to ensure
show predominantly resilient deformation provided that the all deformations under vehicle loading are primarily
load levels remain below permissible limits. resilient in nature and no significant permanent defor-
mation accumulation occurs.

Resilient Response of Unbound

Aggregate Layers
STRESS STATES IN UNBOUND AGGREGATE
Ideally, pavement layer response under traffic loading should LAYERS UNDER LOADING
be purely elastic, and thus no accumulation of permanent
deformation would occur during its service life. Accordingly, Pavement stresses are mainly composed of two parts: initial in
mechanistic-based pavement design approaches traditionally situ stresses and stresses resulting from moving wheel loads.
have focused on the elastic or resilient response of unbound The initial in situ stresses, static in nature, are the overburden
aggregate layers to predict the critical pavement responses and residual stresses. The initial stresses typically are lower
 57

Stresses
CL
v
v
Wheel A
h
h
x
x
Wheel Abscissa

: geo-element A

principal stress principal stress due to

z due to overburden wheel load + overburden CL

FIGURE 37  Stress states and rotation of principal stresses experienced by the
­aggregate layer beneath a rolling wheel load.

at shallow depths than at greater depths. Compaction-induced static (overburden) load. This is illustrated in Figure 37. The
residual stresses that are compressive in nature can often major principal stress caused by overburden is always aligned
exist in the unbound aggregate layers and contribute to the in the vertical direction, regardless of the location of a moving
static stress states (Uzan 1985; Barksdale et al. 1997). On the wheel. However, the incremental stresses imposed by a wheel
other hand, traffic loading resulting from moving wheel loads load are not co-axial with this system, and as a result, the total
induces much higher dynamic stresses than do the static ones. principal stresses rotate as the wheel load passes.
For example, the dynamic vertical stresses become the high-
est underneath the wheel where shear loading is nonexistent Figure 38 illustrates the concept of stress path loading
on a representative pavement element, but at some radial dis- related to stress path slope (m) and stress path length (L) on
tance away from the wheel, applied vertical stresses decrease a q-p diagram (Kim 2005). Static overburden stresses corre-
and the shear stresses reach their maximum values. In sum- spond to qmin and pmin, whereas dynamic traffic load reaches to
mary, a pavement element constantly experiences a combi- qmax and pmax following a constant stress path slope (m). Analy-
nation of varying magnitudes of static and dynamic vertical ses of test data often require defining geomaterial behavior in
(compressive) and shear stresses, depending on the depth in terms of these principal stresses considering a mean normal
the pavement layer and the radial offset from the wheel load. stress component (p) influencing volume change and the devi-
ator stress component (q) affecting shear behavior for shape
A known limitation of repeated-load triaxial tests is that change and distortion (Kim and Tutumluer 2005). In general,
the principal stress rotation and the constantly rotating fields the stress path slope (m = ∆q/∆p) for the standard constant con-
of stresses under moving wheel loads are not possible to sim- fining pressure (CCP) tests (characterized by the application
ulate in a continuous fashion. However, principal stress rota- of an all-around constant confining pressure while the vertical
tion may cause increased rates of shear and volumetric strains deviator stress is pulsed) takes a constant value of 3.0. For
during cyclic loading relative to equivalent stress paths with- variable confining pressure (VCP) tests characterized by puls-
out stress rotation. In the case of aggregate bases, the cyclic ing of the confining pressure in phase with the axial deviator
component of load imposes a change (increment) of stress stress, the stress slope varies generally from -1.5 to 3. VCP
state, which is not co-axial with the stress state under the tests offer the capability to apply a wide combination of stress

Stress Path Slope = m

1 2 3
Deviator Stress, q Stress Path Length = L p
3
q max
q 1 3
L
m
1
q min

pmin pmax
Mean Normal Stress, p,

FIGURE 38  Concept of stress path loading showing slope and length (Kim 2005).
58

paths by pulsing both cell pressure, s3, and vertical deviator as 2 to 5 psi in cohesionless granular materials. Barksdale and
stress, sd. Various stress paths cause different loading effects Alba (1993) also reported 3 psi horizontal residual stresses in
on pavement elements, which are not yet fully studied and the upper 6-in. (152-mm) portion of a 12-in. (305-mm) thick
understood to explain permanent deformation accumulation. granular base obtained from field measurements.

Based on experiments, Broms (1971), Ingold (1979) and

Key Lessons Uzan (1985) employed a limit equilibrium approach to predict
compaction-induced lateral stresses. The vertical stress under
• The directions of principal stresses imposed on an the compaction equipment was determined assuming a line
unbound aggregate pavement layer undergo con- loading (Holl 1941) and a semi-infinite homogeneous elas-
stant rotation under a moving wheel load. tic halfspace (Boussinesq 1885). The lateral stresses devel-
• Such rotation of the principal stress directions as well oped were limited to the maximum compaction loading and
as the associated loading patterns are best simulated unloading conditions applied to a pavement in accordance
during laboratory testing of aggregates to obtain real-
with the classic earth pressure theory for frictional materials:
istic estimates of unbound aggregate layer perfor-
mance under loading.
1. Under the loading of compaction equipment, horizon-
tal stresses start to increase according to the active
state when the limit equilibrium is reached and hori-
zontal compression develops in the granular layer:
COMPACTION-INDUCED RESIDUAL STRESSES
σ h = Kaσ v
In the initial stages of new pavement construction, heavy
loads are applied to granular layers causing large deforma- where sv and sh are the vertical and horizontal stresses,
tions by compaction equipment. These layers are subjected to and Ka is the coefficient of active lateral earth pres-
larger stresses during construction than they may ever experi- sure, which usually is expressed in terms of the friction
ence during the service life of the pavement structure. The angle  as:

( )
largest vertical and lateral stresses are caused in the upper-
most lift as compaction progresses. After the compaction is K a = tan 2 45 − φ 2
completed, field measurements indicate compressive residual
lateral stresses are locked in the granular bases (Barksdale 2. After the compaction is completed, during unloading,
and Alba 1993). These residual stresses developed as a result the vertical stresses decrease. When the limit equi-
of compaction of unbound aggregates should be considered in librium is reached, horizontal stresses also decrease
determining the initial stress state of granular bases. according to the passive state, and vertical stresses
finally reduce down to the overburden stresses:
Proper compaction of granular pavement layers is required σ h = K pσ v
to ensure adequate strength and stability of the layer. The par-
ticles, when subjected to compaction, rearrange themselves by where Kp is the coefficient of passive lateral earth pres-
translating and rotating to become locked in a final position. sure, which is usually expressed in terms of the friction
After the externally applied compaction stress is removed, angle  as:

( )
this final stage is not a stress-free state, but rather a residual
stress state. The residual stress state includes the effects of K p = tan 2 45 + φ 2 .
both confinement and aggregate interlock. Depending on the
pore size distribution in the aggregate matrix, as well as the Using the method of analysis, Uzan (1985) observed that
compaction moisture content, suction-induced negative pore a maximum vertical stress of 61 psi reached during compac-
pressures may exist in the newly constructed aggregate layer. tion yielded a horizontal residual stress of about 6 psi. This
residual stress may be higher depending on the friction angle
The initial stress states used in the analysis of pavements () and load intensity (Tutumluer and Thompson 1998). The
usually is determined only by geostatic stresses attributable importance of considering compaction-induced residual
to body weight and are ignored in most linear elastic pave- stresses in the analysis and design of unbound aggregate lay-
ment analyses. A comprehensive granular base model needs ers is discussed later in this chapter.
to include both overburden stresses and the horizontal residual
stresses. Several researchers have experimentally analyzed the CONCEPT OF CROSS-ANISOTROPY
residual stresses produced in granular bases (Stewart et al. 1985;
Uzan 1985; Selig 1987; Zeilmaker and Henny 1989; Barksdale The behavior of a granular medium at any point depends on the
and Alba 1993). According to the research performed by Uzan arrangement of particles, which usually is determined by aggre-
(1985), Stewart et al. (1985), and Zeilmaker and Henny (1989), gate characteristics, construction methods, and loading condi-
these horizontal residual stresses were measured to be as high tions. In the case of unbound aggregate pavement layers, an
 59

apparent anisotropy is induced during construction by aggregate nvh and nhv are the out-of-plane Poisson’s ratio; and
placement and then loading from the compaction equipment. nhh is the in-plane Poisson’s ratio.
Thus, the granular layer becomes stiffer in the vertical direction
than in the horizontal direction, even before the wheel load on The remaining parameters are not independent, as was
the pavement imposes further anisotropic loading. proven by Love (1944), and is shown in Equations 4 and 5.

Most geomaterials, such as naturally deposited soils, νhv ν vh

= (4)
exhibit a rotational symmetry about their vertical axes called E v Eh
the “axis of symmetry.” The material properties are then the
Eh
same in all directions on the plane perpendicular to the axis of Ghh = (5)
2 (1 + νhh )
symmetry. These materials are known as “cross-anisotropic”
materials. An isotropic material has the same material prop-
erties in all directions. A cross-anisotropic material has dif-
ferent properties in the horizontal and vertical directions. Key Lessons
The stress-strain conditions in such a material can be defined
using the following five material properties (as illustrated in • Compaction of unbound aggregate layers results in
Figure 39): (1) stiffness in the vertical direction MRz, (2) stiff- preferential orientation of individual aggregate par-
ness in the radial (horizontal) direction MRr, (3) shear modu- ticles, which ultimately leads to “cross-anisotropic”
lus in the vertical direction GRz, (4) Poisson’s ratio for strain behavior.
in the horizontal direction as a result of a vertical direct stress • Such compaction and stress-induced anisotropy is
nz, and (5) Poisson’s ratio for strain in any horizontal direc- best considered during the design and analysis of
tion as a result of a horizontal direct stress nr. pavement systems with UAB and subbase layers.

Equation 3 shows the constitutive relationship for an elas-

tic cross-anisotropic material in terms of the five independent
METHODS TO CHARACTERIZE UNBOUND
material parameters. AGGREGATE LAYER BEHAVIOR
1 ν vh ν vh
− − 0  The recent NCHRP Project 4-23, NCHRP Report 453: Per-
 Ev Eh Eh 
ε v   νhv 1 νhh
 σ v  formance-Related Tests of Aggregates for Use in Unbound
ε   − − 0   Pavement Layers, summarized the most important tests that
 h   Ev Eh Eh  σ h 
 =   (3) relate to the performance of aggregates in unbound pavement
ε h   − νhv ν
− hh
1 σ
0  h  layers (Saeed et al. 2001). Among the tests highlighted, the
 γ vh   Ev Eh Eh  τ vh  shear strength tests (triaxial tests conducted on wet and dry
     samples and CBR test) and stiffness test (resilient modulus
0 1 
0 0
 Gvh  conducted on wet and dry samples) are the most relevant for
characterizing the strength, modulus, and permanent defor-
where mation behavior of unbound aggregate pavement layers.
Eh is the modulus of elasticity in the horizontal direction;
Ev is the modulus of elasticity in the vertical direction;
Gvh is the shear modulus; California Bearing Ratio

The CBR test (AASHTO Test Method T-193; ASTM Test

Method ASTM D 1883) is an empirical test method. In this
test, the aggregate is compacted into a 6-in. diameter mold
to form a specimen 4.6 in. high. The maximum particle size
permitted is ¾ in. Specimen conditioning usually consists of a
96-hour soaking period to simulate wet pavement conditions.
Soaking is particularly important if a significant quantity of
fines (passing No. 200 sieve or less than 0.075 mm) material
is present. The specimen is then penetrated at a loading rate of
0.05 in./minute with a piston having an end area of 3 square
inches. The specimen remains in the mold throughout the
testing process. The CBR is calculated by dividing the piston
pressure at 0.1 or 0.2 in. penetration by standard reference
values of 1,000 psi for 0.1 in. penetration and 1,500 psi for
FIGURE 39  Stratified anisotropic material under 0.2 in., multiplied by 100 to give the CBR value expressed
axial symmetry. as a percent. These standard values represent the pressures
60

observed for a high-quality, well-graded, crushed stone ref- TABLE 5

erence material. Accordingly, high-quality, dense-graded Typical Field California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) Values
crushed stone commonly has CBR values in excess of 80, for Different Soil Classes
whereas well-graded gravel (AASHTO classification A-1-a;
Unified Soil Field CBR (%)
Unified Classification GW) may have CBR values ranging Classification
from 30 to 80. Note that testing of angular crushed stones in System (USCS)
the laboratory often results in CBR values significantly higher Soil Class
than 100. GW 60–80
GP 35–60
GM 40–80
Note that many base course aggregate specifications require GC 20–40
CBR values in excess of 80 and subbase specifications require SW 20–40
minimum CBR values in the range of 20% to 50%. CBR values SP 15–25
SM 20–40
often are presented together with moisture-density test results SC 10–20
to indicate the change in CBR behavior above and below the ML 5–15
OMC. Swell measurements if taken for the sample also pre- CL 5–15
cede the CBR testing. Figure 40 shows typical CBR and swell OL 4–8
MH 4–8
test results obtained from an unsoaked molded sample and
CH 3–5
a sample of the same material that was allowed to soak for
OH 3–5
96 hours. Note that unsoaked specimens are likely to give high
CBR values, often higher than 100, on the dry side of OMC. Source: Christopher et al. (2010).

CBR is not a fundamental material property and thus is Table 5 lists typical field CBR values for different Unified
unsuitable for direct use in mechanistic and M-E design pro-
Soil Classification System classifications as obtained from
cedures. However, it is a relatively easy and inexpensive test
Christopher et al. (2010) with reference to original work by
to perform, it has a long history in pavement design, and it is
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1953).
reasonably well correlated with more fundamental properties
such as resilient modulus. Consequently, it continues to be
used in practice. Static Triaxial Testing

Most CBR testing is laboratory-based; thus, the results will Strength is defined as the maximum level of stress that
be highly dependent on the representativeness of the samples material can sustain before it fails or excessively deforms.
tested. It is also important that the testing conditions be clearly Strength properties of a granular material can be best
stated: for example, CBR values measured from as-compacted determined from static triaxial testing with monotonically
samples at optimum moisture and density conditions can increasing loading. A cylindrical test specimen is prepared
be significantly greater than CBR values measured from sim- at a target density and moisture content and is then encased
ilar samples after soaking. For field measurement, care is to in a membrane. The specimen is subjected to a constant all-
be taken to make certain that the deflection dial is anchored around confining pressure (s3) and then loaded under an
well outside the loaded area. Field measurement is made at the increasing axial stress until failure. Because the axial stress
field moisture content, whereas laboratory testing typically is is in addition to the confining stress already on the speci-
performed for soaked conditions, so soil-specific correlations men, it is called the deviator stress: sd = s1 - s3. The total
between field and laboratory CBR values are often required. axial stress is called s1. Usually three triaxial tests are con-
ducted over a range of confining pressure levels representa-
tive of probable in-service conditions. Confining pressures
CBR AS used typically vary from 3 to 40 psi. Axial strain rates used
MOLDED
in triaxial testing are typically 1% to 2% strain per min-
ute. Triaxial test data are then interpreted to determine the
OMC cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (f) of the material
CBR AFTER
Swell (%)

tested. The parameters c and f define the shear strength of

CBR (%)

SOAKED
the material, which is given by the Mohr-Coulomb equation:
OMC + 3
SWELL
τ max = c + σ n tan φ (6)

where
tmax = Shear strength
Moisture Content (%) c = Cohesion
FIGURE 40  Presentation of CBR and swell mea- sn = Normal stress on specimen failure plane
surements in relation to specimen moisture content. f = Angle of internal friction.
 61

Considering vehicles usually move across a pavement

very quickly, triaxial shear tests at the University of Illinois
were performed at a rapid shearing rate, which is more repre-
sentative of usual loading conditions than is the conventional
slow triaxial shear test. Three different samples are tested
at confining pressures of 5, 10, and 15 psi to determine the
shear strength properties, friction angle, and cohesion of the
aggregate materials. In rapid shear tests, a high loading rate
of 1.5 in./s is applied, instantly causing 12.5% deformation
in a 12-in. high specimen; the loading rates in such tests are
higher than those in conventional triaxial shear tests. Fig-
ure 41 shows the deformed shape of an aggregate specimen
after completion of the test.

Because of the high loading rate, the University of Illinois

rapid shear strength test gives slightly higher peak stress results
than do the conventional shear strength tests (see Figure 42).
Although not conservative, the rapid shear tests are believed
to better simulate the conditions of the actual pavement layer
under the dynamic application of a moving wheel load.

Repeated Load Triaxial Testing

FIGURE 41  Deformed sample after completion of University of
Repeated load triaxial testing has received major emphasis as a Illinois Rapid Shear Monotonic Triaxial Strength Test.
means for evaluating in the laboratory the modulus–deformation
characteristics of granular materials and subgrade soils. Both ware package, modern equipment, a good technician, and
resilient modulus and permanent deformation accumulation careful equipment calibration. The equipment must be capa-
can be quantified based on the appropriate repeated-load test- ble of producing load pulse duration of approximately 25 to
ing data. Resilient modulus testing requires pneumatic or 150 ms. The load pulse is ­generally repeated 15 to 30 times
servohydraulic loading, a data acquisition system with feed- a minute. ­Specimen deformation over the entire length (or in
back control, a personal computer with an integrated soft- some cases a portion of the specimen) typically is measured

UI Rapid Shear:
300 12.5%/second
c= 19.2 max =c+ n *tan
61.7 Slow, monotonic
250 1%/minute

c= 6.8
57.6
200
Shear Stress, psi

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
6.9 kPa = 1 psi Normal Stress, psi

FIGURE 42  Conventional slow and rapid shear strength test results on a
crushed stone.
62

with “externally” or “internally” mounted linear variable dif-

ferential transformers (LVDTs).

The modulus and permanent deformation tests are per-

formed on a cylindrical shaped solid specimen subjected to
repeated axial compressive stresses. The specimen is subjected
to a constant or variable (pulsed) all-around confining pressure
to simulate the field stress condition. The cyclic application
of the deviator stress (sd = s1 - s3) distinguishes the modulus
and permanent deformation tests from the static triaxial tests.
Air or fluid is commonly used to provide the all-around con-
fining stress, and the vertical deviator stress is applied with a
servopneumatic or servohydraulic actuator onto a specimen FIGURE 44  Stresses applied on a cylindrical specimen in
placed between top and bottom platens (see Figure 43). repeated load triaxial testing.

The conventional repeated-load triaxial tests use a simple

and convenient arrangement to apply stresses in the vertical
and horizontal directions. Little friction between the loading applied on the specimen are according to the CCP condi-
system and specimen is generated during the test. The stress tions with cell pressure not pulsed in the triaxial chamber.
state in a sample remains fairly uniform, especially in the The VCP-type, repeated-load triaxial tests, on the other
middle one-third section. Most importantly, the simplicity hand, offer much wider loading possibilities by better simu-
and the lower cost are the reasons the conventional repeated- lating actual field conditions because in the pavement struc-
load triaxial test setup is widely used for aggregate character- ture the confining stress acting on the material is cyclic in
ization. Yet, in this type of a conventional triaxial test, only an nature. The inherent differences between the CCP and VCP
all-around CCP is applied while the vertical deviator stresses tests are such that in the VCP tests (1) the confining pres-
are pulsed. Special triaxial testing devices with the capabil- sure is also cycled in phase with the axial deviator stress
ity of pulsing confining stresses offer an advanced material and (2) the axial specimen deformations generally are larger
characterization by simulating various dynamic stress states owing to the lack of a constant all-around confinement on
under experienced moving wheel loads. Modulus and perma- the specimen.
nent deformation tests that consider the application of such
realistic stress states often are referred to as VCP tests. A Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) Testing
Protocol (P46—Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular
Figure 44 shows the principal stresses applied in a Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils) was developed
repeated load triaxial test apparatus. The typical stress states in the United States for conducting standard MR tests on
unbound aggregate materials. SHRP P46 was used in test-
ing the various granular material and subgrade soil samples
collected in support of the SHRP (FHWA) LTPP program.
A “round robin” type evaluation was conducted with the
SHRP P46 Protocol. The results were very helpful in a priori
M-E design activities. SHRP P46 was first approved as an
AASHTO Interim Method of Test (AASHTO T 294-92 I,
Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Base/Subbase
Materials and Subgrade Soils—SHRP Protocol P46), then
carried the designation T294-94 in the 1995 AASHTO speci-
fications. Another standard for resilient modulus (AASHTO
T 292), which was originally developed in 1991, was still
active until 2003. A new test standard (AASHTO T 307) was
introduced in 1999, leading to the existence of two resilient
modulus test specifications (AASHTO T 292 and AASHTO
T 307) until 2003. AASHTO T 292 was withdrawn in 2003,
and AASHTO T 307 became the only standard for resilient
modulus testing. AASHTO recommends the T307-99 (2003)
repeated load triaxial test as a standard test for resilient char-
acterization of pavement materials in the United States.

In general, CCP-type triaxial test conditions are used for

FIGURE 43  Repeated load triaxial testing apparatus. MR testing of granular materials in the United States accord-
 63

ing to the SHRP P46 and AASHTO T307-99 test protocols. Need for Permanent Deformation Testing
The test specimens are subjected to 15 stress states in which
the pulsed dynamic stresses (sd) range from 21 to 276 kPa Rutting or accumulation of permanent deformation is the pri-
in the axial direction, and the confining pressures (s3) range mary damage/distress mechanism of UAB/subbase layers in
from 21 to 136 kPa. All applied stress states are in ­general below pavements. Accordingly, rutting resistance is a major perfor-
the failure stress conditions and applied following a CCP test mance measure for designing pavements with granular base/
condition with a loading stress path slope of m = 3.0. subbase layers. Granular base/subbase permanent deforma-
tion may contribute significantly to the overall flexible pave-
The conditioning stage requires applying a confining pres- ment surface ruts. Low-strength granular materials generally
sure of 103.4 kPa and a minimum of 500 (up to 1,000) repeti- are more susceptible to higher permanent deformation accu-
tions of a load equivalent to a deviator (maximum axial) stress mulation. However, a properly compacted UAB/subbase
of 103.4 kPa. Considering that the conditioning test data are layer comprising crushed particles adequately prevents set-
often used for permanent deformation characterization, this tlement and any lateral movement in the layer through high
stress state, which only corresponds to a conditioning stress shearing resistance and contributes significantly to the dissi-
ratio (s1/s3) of 2, may not be high enough to properly shake pation of wheel load stresses. The NCHRP 4-23 study identi-
down granular materials before MR testing. The MR testing fied shear strength of unbound aggregates as one of the most
stage requires applying 100 repetitions of the corresponding significant mechanistic properties influencing pavement per-
cyclic stress using a haversine-shaped load pulse and record- formance (Saeed et al. 2001). Moreover, shear strength prop-
ing the average recovered vertical deformations for each erty, rather than “resilient modulus” (MR), always has been
LVDT separately for the last five cycles. shown to better correlate with unbound aggregate permanent
deformation behavior for predicting field rutting perfor-
mance (Thompson 1998; Tao et al. 2010; Xiao et al. 2012).
No doubt the findings from the NCHRP 1-28 project
(Barksdale et al. 1997), SHRP LTPP studies (LTPP Materials
Although the influence of stress state on unbound aggregate
Characterization: Resilient Modulus of Unbound Materials—
resilient modulus is relatively well understood, its influence
LTPP Protocol P46 Laboratory Startup and Quality
on the actual performance—rutting, cracking, roughness—
Control Procedures, FHWA-RD-96-176), and the recent
of flexible pavements is less clearly known in practice. The
NCHRP 1-28A study on “Harmonized Test Methods for
design domains in which the influence of stress state is sig-
Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible
nificant are also poorly defined. Note that it is not uncommon
Pavement Design” greatly helped in preparing and updat-
to have two different aggregate materials with very poor and
ing the current SHRP TP P46 and the AASHTO T307-99
excellent rutting characteristics possess similar high modulus
(2003) test protocols, which are adopted for routine use in
properties from laboratory MR testing (Mishra and Tutumluer
the MEPDG. It is also apparent that resilient testing proce- 2011). Accordingly, it is never possible to evaluate aggregate
dures for granular materials are still undergoing develop- base course rutting performances from just the MR tests con-
ment and refinement. ducted on aggregates for modulus characterization and mech-
anistic pavement analysis. This is because computed elastic
In Europe, the final draft European standard for MR test- responses, such as the vertical resilient strain (ev) within an
ing by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) is aggregate base/subbase layer, can never be properly corre-
the EN 13286-7 (2004), “Unbound and Hydraulically Bound lated with their permanent strain/deformation independent
Mixtures—Test Methods—Part 7: Cyclic Load Triaxial Test of the material’s shear strength. Furthermore, permanent defor-
for Unbound Mixtures. This European Standard specifies mation accumulation of a particular layer also depends signifi-
test procedures for determining the resilient and permanent cantly on the level of wheel load stress applied in relation to
behavior of unbound mixtures under conditions that simulate the aggregate material’s strength under confinement, which is
the physical conditions and stress states of these materials often represented by the stress/strength ratio (the percentage of
in pavement layers subjected to moving loads. These proce- strength that is reached upon loading at that same layer confine-
dures allow determining mechanical properties that can be ment) and closely linked to the material’s “shakedown” limits
used for performance ranking of materials and for calculat- (Werkmeister et al. 2004).
ing the structural responses of pavement structures. Testing
procedures similar to those of EN 13286-7 adopted in the Accordingly, repeated-load triaxial tests need to be con-
United Kingdom can be found in the British standard BS EN ducted on unbound aggregate materials to study the accu-
13286-7 (2004). Note that the European standard specifies mulation of permanent deformation under loading. Such
test methods to characterize both the resilient and perma- tests can be used for different purposes, such as ranking of
nent deformation behavior of unbound aggregates, whereas materials, evaluation of maximum allowable stress levels,
the AASHTO T 307 focuses only on evaluating the resilient and predicting permanent deformation accumulation in pave-
behavior. Moreover, the European standard incorporates ment layers (CEN 2004). The European Standard (CEN 2004)
both VCP (method A) and CCP (method B) loading condi- makes use of three different “shakedown zones,” as defined
tions, whereas AASHTO T 307 uses only CCP conditions. by ­Werkmeister (2003), to rank unbound aggregate m ­ aterials
64

based on the permanent deformation test results. These shake-

down zones correspond to certain load-deformation behavior
trends identified by significantly different permanent strain
accumulation rates under repeated loading. For a detailed
discussion on shakedown zones, the reader is directed to the
work by Werkmeister (2003). Note that none of the test pro-
cedures currently available in the United States (AASHTO
T 307 or NCHRP 1-28A) covers permanent deformation testing
and characterization of unbound aggregates.

Key Lessons (a) (b)

• The CBR test is a commonly used index test to esti- FIGURE 45  Stress conditions in a granular base to consider for
advanced aggregate characterization: (a) Rotation of principal
mate the shear strength of unbound aggregates.
stress directions. (b) Stresses in extension loading (Seyhan and
• Although triaxial tests for shear strength, resilient Tutumluer 1999).
modulus, and permanent deformation behavior give
more realistic estimates of unbound aggregate behav-
ior under loading, conducting such tests requires
and the vertical deviator stress. Such stress path loading tests
significant investments in equipment and personnel
better simulate actual field conditions because the confining
training.
pressures acting on a representative soil element in a pave-
• Test procedures for conducting resilient modulus
ment structure also are cyclic in nature (see Figure 45b). Typ-
tests on aggregates, AASHTO T 307 and NCHRP
ically, at a distance away from the centerline of loading, the
1-28A, have been available for more than a decade.
horizontal component of dynamic wheel load can become
These specifications can adequately capture the greater in magnitude than the vertical component. In that
stress-dependent nature of unbound aggregates event, an extension type of loading is more critical on top of
and are ready to be implemented in practice. the base. Advanced triaxial testing devices can simulate such
• Although permanent deformation behavior has been loading conditions because of their ability to apply confin-
established as a more direct indicator of pavement ing pressures (s3 for a cylindrical specimen) that are larger
performance compared with resilient modulus, no in magnitude that the vertical stresses (s1 for a cylindrical
standard test procedure is available in the United specimen).
States or Canada governing the testing of aggregates
for permanent deformation. Several researchers have found that the resilient strains
• New research efforts should be focused on developing measured from CCP tests are smaller than those from VCP
harmonized protocols for quantifying the permanent tests even under similar peak stress levels (Shackel 1974;
deformation behavior of aggregates. Allen and Thompson 1974). Allen and Thompson (1974)
also found that the Poisson’s ratio values obtained from CCP
tests were significantly higher than those obtained from VCP
tests. Brown and Hyde (1975) suggested that similar resil-
Innovative Devices for Advanced Triaxial ient moduli could be obtained from CCP and VCP tests by
Characterization of Unbound Aggregates ensuring that the confining stress in the CCP test was equal
to the mean value of stress used in the VCP test. However,
Traditional triaxial testing equipment, operating under CCP
Nataatmadja (1989) observed that the resilient moduli obtained
conditions, cannot simulate the rotation of principal stress from CCP tests were higher than those from VCP conditions,
directions experienced by a pavement element under moving even when the stress states followed a pattern similar to that
wheel loads. Such equipment is only capable of applying one proposed by Brown and Hyde (1975). Thus, it is apparent that
constant stress path representing the stress states immediately characterization of unbound granular materials under CCP
under the wheel loading. However, as discussed, because conditions may only overestimate the resilient moduli, thus
of the moving nature of the wheel load, the major principal leading to inadequate structural design of pavements.
stress often is not aligned in the vertical direction and rotates
in the direction of the applied load, as shown in Figure 45a. Similarly, repeated load triaxial testing of unbound aggre-
Thus, the total principal stress on a pavement element rotates gates incorporating stress path rotation usually results in
as the wheel passes. higher permanent deformation accumulations compared with
tests conducted under constant stress path loading. Acceler-
Advanced triaxial test devices operating under VCP con- ated loading tests carried out at the University of Nottingham
ditions offer the capability to apply different combinations in the United Kingdom showed that moving wheel loading
of stress paths by pulsing both the confining (cell) pressure or actual trafficking is more damaging to a pavement system
 65

than is running a repeated plate loading test on the same pave- From advanced triaxial testing incorporating loading of
ment system (Brown and Brodrick 1999). They also observed the aggregate specimen using multiple stress paths, they
that bidirectional loading causes more severe permanent observed that the specimen axial strains (e1) were consider-
deformation development when shear stress reversals owing ably lower in magnitude than the radial (e3) strains owing to
to oscillating wheel loads are considered. Similar findings the proper specimen compaction effort in the vertical direc-
were also reported from a full-scale pavement experiment tion and the VCP type multidirectional stress pulsing. They
undertaken in France to study the behavior and performances also observed that both the volumetric and deviatoric strains
of unbound granular materials as pavement granular layers obtained from the multiple stress path tests were consistently
(Hornych et al. 2000). The permanent strains accumulated in higher than the ones from the single path tests. The maxi-
the granular layers under moving wheel loading were about mum or peak values of all multiple stress path permanent
three times as large as those under cyclic plate loads. strains at the elevated load cycles were significantly higher
than those from the single path test procedure. Their findings
Tutumluer and Kim (2003) studied typical airport granu- suggested that moving wheel load effects should be properly
lar base/subbase course materials at various densities through accounted for in laboratory testing to better predict unbound
single and multiple stress path laboratory tests. They observed aggregate layer performance under typical highway and air-
that multiple stress path tests always resulted in much higher port pavement loads (Tutumluer and Kim 2003).
permanent volumetric and shear strains than those of the
single path tests. Thus, their findings indicate that actual traf- It is therefore important to use advanced triaxial testing
fic loading, simulated by the multiple path tests, can cause devices capable of incorporating variable confining pres-
greater permanent deformations or rutting damage, especially sure conditions to properly account for the effects of moving
in the loose base/subbase, than can dynamic plate loading or wheel loads on unbound aggregate behavior. However, such
a constant confining pressure-type laboratory test. Figure 46 test devices are usually very expensive, so their use has been
shows the stress states applied by Tutumluer and Kim (2003) limited. Some of the most well-known advanced triaxial test-
to evaluate the effects of multiple stress path tests on per- ing devices, developed through research, capable of better
manent deformation accumulation in unbound aggregate simulating the stress conditions in a pavement structure are
specimens. discussed here.

FIGURE 46  Concept map of multiple stress path tests compared to single path tests (Tutumluer and
Kim 2003).
66

K-Mould custom-designed system superior to the commercially avail-

able rapid triaxial tester equipment, RattCell, manufactured
Semmelink and De Beer (1995) introduced a sophisticated by the Australian Industrial Process Controls (IPC), Ltd.
laboratory test system, called the K-Mould device, for the company. With UI-FastCell, higher magnitudes of radial
rapid determination of the elastic and shear properties of stresses can be pulsed by the use of a triaxial chamber filled
pavement materials as developed by CSIR in South Africa. with hydraulic oil. The UI-FastCell was designed mainly for
In the K-Mould device, an axial load is applied to soil/ the purpose of determining in the laboratory the anisotropic
aggregate specimen contained in a segmented, thick-walled and dynamic properties of unbound aggregates through stress
cylinder (see Figure 47). The segments are held in place with path testing in VCP conditions. Because it is not possible to
springs whose stiffnesses are chosen to simulate typical lat- reorient the granular samples in the triaxial cell, applying and
eral stiffnesses of, for example, aggregates in granular bases. switching of the various stress states on the same specimen
Lateral stress is mobilized by an elastic support system with allowed for adequately determining the inherent and load-
a stiffness that can be varied between 15 and 60 MPa and induced anisotropy. The device is also suitable for simulating
designed to simulate in situ conditions. This provides a state field stress conditions in the laboratory and for studying the
somewhere between K0 (zero lateral strain) and unconfined. effects of principal stress rotation as a result of moving wheel
Thus, the lateral stress depends on the total lateral strain loads that involve a change in total shear stress direction.
mobilized by the applied vertical stress against the horizon-
tally mounted radial disc springs. It was shown that K-mold The UI-FastCell uses a fluid/air interface to minimize
was relatively rapid and cost-effective for determining the compressibility effects when conducting tests in which the
engineering properties, such as the modulus, friction angle horizontal stress on a specimen must be cycled. This is use-
f, and the cohesion intercept, c. Both elastic and permanent ful for investigating anisotropic effects and the response to
deformation properties of unbound granular materials and loading in which a 90° rotation of planes of principal stress is
soils were studied, including quantification of the stress sen- important. The cell also provides a capability for on-specimen
sitivity and anisotropic nature of these materials. displacement measurements, which eliminate problems asso-
ciated with compliance of the machine used to load the speci-
According to an assessment by the European COST men. When on-specimen vertical displacements are used as
Action 337 (2002) research program study, the K-Mould well, end effects are eliminated.
possibly may offer an alternative test to the cyclic/repeated
load triaxial test, but considerable developmental work is Figure 48a shows an unbound aggregate specimen (6-in.
required before this would be suitable for routine applica- diameter, 6-in. height) being prepared in a split mold for
tion. However, it has the potential to assess modulus and testing using the University of Illinois FastCell. Figure 48b
permanent deformation behavior characteristics, and sample shows the specimen setup under the loading ram of the UI-
preparation may be simpler. FastCell, with the confining chamber in a raised position.
Figure 48c shows a picture of the confinement cell lowered
down around the specimen for the testing position. An air
University of Illinois FastCell
actuator applies the axial pressure, and the confining pres-
An innovative laboratory cyclic/repeated load triaxial testing sures are cycled through a hydraulic fluid within the rubber
device, the University of Illinois FastCell (UI-FastCell), was membrane. The driving cylinders on the back of the confining
introduced by Tutumluer and Seyhan (1999) to have provi- cell (not shown in the picture) include an air-fluid interface
sions for applying static and dynamic stresses in both verti- that provides fast application and switching of the dynamic
cal and radial direction by the use of the two independently loading. Some of the advanced features of the UI-FastCell, as
controlled stress channels. This advanced triaxial setup was a discussed by Tutumluer and Seyhan (1999), are as follows:

• Measurement of on-specimen vertical and radial dis-

placements and axial force and displacement external
to cell;
• A bladder-type horizontal confinement chamber with a
built-in membrane that is inflated to apply variable con-
fining pressures during vertical cyclic loading;
• Ability to independently cycle either vertical or radial
loading/confining pressures in phase or out of phase, in
compression or extension type loading;
• Ability to reverse principal loading direction on the same
specimen with applied radial pulse stresses exceeding
the vertical ones.

FIGURE 47  Schematic of K-Mould testing equipment The UI-FastCell and the IPC RattCell advanced triaxial
(­Semmelink and De Beer 1995). devices are fundamental research tools when compared with
 67

FIGURE 48  University of Illinois—FastCell.

the conventional repeated load/cyclic triaxial testing equip- cubical sample of unbound aggregate material, of edge dimen-
ment. Using the UI-FastCell, the following important labo- sion 170 mm, to which a repeated load can be applied over the
ratory testing considerations can be addressed (Tutumluer full upper surface. One pair of the box sides is fully restrained,
and Seyhan 1999): (1) the aggregate specimen can be and the other is restrained through elastic springs, giving a wall
anisotropically consolidated (K0 condition in the field); stiffness of 10–20 kN per mm. The equipment enables a realistic
(2) various stress paths experienced under a rolling wheel load level of compaction to be applied to the test material by means
can be adequately applied; (3) anisotropic aggregate resilient of a vibrating hammer and also includes a facility to introduce
moduli can be conveniently obtained by pulsing vertical and water to the sample or drain water from its underside. Loading
radial stresses; and (4) different orientations of principal takes the form of repeated vertical load applications of controlled
stresses can be achieved by independently applying vertical magnitude at a frequency of at least 1 Hz and no greater than
and radial stresses (that is, major principal stress direction is 5 Hz. The load capacity is equivalent to a vertical stress of at least
not limited to only 0 or 90 degrees with the horizontal). 150 kPa. Measurements of both vertical and horizontal (spring
restrained) deflections can be made with two measurement trans-
Springbox ducers for each measure. In the case of vertical deflection mea-
surement, the equipment allows the transducers to make direct
The Springbox equipment (Edwards et al. 2005) is a suitable tool contact with the specimen through holes in the loading platen.
for testing unbound granular and some weak hydraulically bound The stiffness modulus of the material can be calculated from the
mixtures (see Figure 49). It consists of a steel box containing a averaged deflections measured over a series of loading patterns.

Spring Housing Plates

Inner Liner Loading
Locking Bolt Platen LVDT
Springbox
Spring Mould
Adjustable
Bolt
Specimen (170 by
170 mm in size)
Springbox
Mould

Inner Liner Detachable Inner Liner Low

Sides Base Friction
Bearing

FIGURE 49  Schematic of the Springbox testing equipment (Edwards

et al. 2005).
68

The Springbox device provides a relatively rapid and deformation under vehicle loading ideally would be recover-
economic test method for determining modulus behavior able in nature. The resilient modulus of a material is usually
of aggregate materials in an accelerated fashion, ranking calculated after all the particle reorientation has taken place.
materials susceptibility to permanent deformation, and assess-
ing materials durability and moisture sensitivity. The Spring- In the case of conventional triaxial tests (CCP conditions),
box test method is currently included in the first revision of the resilient modulus (MR) and the Poisson’s ratio (n) can be
the 2009 Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations obtained from the measured recoverable strains using axi-
(draft HD25) in the United Kingdom. symmetric stress-strain relations as follows:
σd
ε1 = (7)
MR
Key Lessons
σd
• Several researchers have developed innovative
ε3 = −ν (8)
MR
devices to simulate the actual stress conditions
induced in an unbound aggregate layer under mov- In the case of advanced triaxial tests conducted under
ing wheel loads. VCP conditions, both the vertical and horizontal stresses are
• Despite the ability of these devices to better predict pulsed. Thus, the resilient modulus (MR) and the Poisson’s
pavement behavior under loading, their use in prac- ratio (n) need to be obtained from the measured recoverable
tice is not feasible because of equipment cost and
strains using axisymmetric stress-strain relations as follows:
personnel training requirement concerns.
σ1d σ
ε1 = − 2 ν 3d (9)
MR MR
σ1d σ
Interpretation of Repeated Load Triaxial Test Data ε3 = −ν + (1 − ν ) 3d (10)
MR MR
Data collected during repeated load testing of unbound aggre-
gates can be analyzed to calculate the resilient modulus (MR) where s1d and s3d are the pulsed stresses in the vertical and
horizontal directions, respectively; and e1 and e3 are the recov-
and permanent deformation (dp) values as indicators of aggre-
erable strains in the axial and radial directions, respectively.
gate layer performance under loading. Figure 50 presents a
In using the earlier equations to obtain resilient parameters
schematic of typical deformation behavior of unbound granu-
as constants, an assumption is made that the material behaves
lar materials under repeated loading. As can be seen from the
linearly and elastically for any individual stress state.
figure, with increasing number of load applications, the mate-
rial rapidly accumulates permanent deformation under the first
In addition, interpretations of anisotropic moduli with
few cycles. This can be attributed to the rearrangement of indi-
both s1d and s3d are that the pulsed stresses require the con-
vidual particles in the aggregate matrix. However, as the num-
sideration of vertical modulus (MRV), horizontal modulus
ber of load applications increases, the rate of accumulation of (MRh), in-plane Poisson’s ratio (nh), and out-of-plane Pois-
permanent deformation gradually decreases, and all the defor- son’s ratio (nV) to be obtained from the measured recoverable
mation corresponding to each loading cycles is resilient (recov- strains using axisymmetric stress-strain relations as follows:
erable) in nature. The initial reorientation of particles often is
said to correspond to the compaction and construction phases σ1d σ
ε1 = − 2 νV 3dh (11)
in a pavement layer. Thus, for an in-service pavement, all the MVR MR

σ1d σ
ε3 = −νV + (1 − νh ) 3dh (12)
M RV MR

Current Resilient Modulus Models

Resilient moduli of granular materials increase with increas-

ing stress states (stress-hardening), especially with confining
pressure and/or bulk stress and slightly with deviator stress
(Lekarp et al. 2000a). Resilient behavior of unbound aggre-
gate materials can be reasonably characterized by using stress-
dependent models that express the modulus as nonlinear
functions of stress states. Such a characterization model must
include in the formulation the two triaxial stress conditions
FIGURE 50  Behavior of unbound granular materials (that is, the confining pressure s3 and the deviator stress sd
under repeated loading. or the applied mean pressure p and the deviator stress q) to
 69

account for the effects of both confinement and shear loading. based on a survey of state highway agencies regarding the val-
The model parameters traditionally are obtained from the mul- ues for the layer coefficients that they were using in design for
tiple regression analyses of the repeated load triaxial test data. various materials. For example, the recommended range of a2
Currently available models to predict the resilient modulus of values (for untreated base layers) was from 0.05 to 0.18. Sim-
granular materials are extensively discussed in Appendix D. ilarly, the structural layer coefficients for subbase (a3) could
range from 0.05 to 0.14. Each agency was recommended to
rely on past experience to establish appropriate layer coef-
Current Permanent Deformation Models ficient values. The 1972 Guide also introduced an empirical
soil support scale to account for the different environmental
Constitutive relationships often need to be developed to prop- conditions experienced based on geographical locations.
erly describe permanent deformation accumulation in unbound
granular materials with number of load applications. A sum-
mary of the different models proposed by many researchers 1986 Pavement Design Guide
to predict permanent strain as a function of load and material
property-related factors appears in Appendix E. The 1986 Pavement Design Guide introduced the concept
of resilient modulus in a rational attempt to better charac-
terize subgrade soil and unbound aggregate materials. The
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN UNBOUND structural layer coefficients for base (a2) and subbase (a3)
AGGREGATE CHARACTERIZATION FOR were estimated through correlations with resilient modulus.
PAVEMENT DESIGN However, these relations for the structural layer coefficients
were largely empirical and based primarily on engineering
More and more sophisticated geotechnical concepts have been judgment with only limited amounts of data.
introduced into AASHTO pavement design guides with the
release of each successive version. Christopher et al. (2010) Drainage coefficients were also introduced into the struc-
presented an extensive overview of the geotechnical inputs tural number (SN) expression to accommodate different
used in different AASHTO pavement design methods. The drainage conditions. Accordingly, the SN expression given
following sections present a summary of the discussion pre- in Equation 13 was modified to incorporate drainage coef-
sented by Christopher et al. (2010). ficients (mi), as given here:

SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 m2 + a3 D3m3 (13a)
1961 Interim Pavement Design Guide
where m2 and m3 are the drainage coefficients for the base
The AASHO 1961 Interim Design Guide used the concept and subbase layers, respectively. The empirical values for
of structural number (SN) to account for the contribution of mi, which are specified in terms of quality of drainage and
individual layers to pavement structural capacity. the estimated percentage of time the layer will be near satura-
tion, range from 0.4 to 1.4.
SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 + a3 D3 (13)

where D1, D2, and D3 are the thicknesses (inches) of the sur- Similarly, the rigid pavement design procedure in the
face, base, and subbase layers, respectively, and a1, a2, and a3 1986 Pavement Design Guide incorporated seasonal adjust-
are the corresponding layer coefficients. For the materials used ments to the effective modulus of subgrade reaction. This
in the AASHO road test, the values for the layer coefficients effective modulus of subgrade reaction was a function of sea-
were fixed at 0.44, 0.14, and 0.11, respectively. Because the sonally adjusted values for the subgrade and subbase resil-
parameters in the design equation were primarily based on the ient modulus. A drainage coefficient (Cd) was also introduced
materials used in the AASHO road test, there was no scope for to account for drainage conditions under rigid pavements.
geotechnical material input in the design procedure.
1993 Pavement Design Guide
1972 Interim Pavement Design Guide
The 1993 design guide was similar to the 1986 Pavement
The 1972 Interim Design Guide (AASHO 1972) attempted Design Guide as far as the design of new flexible and rigid
to extend findings from the AASHO Road Test to foundation, pavement structures were considered. The primary emphasis
material, and environmental conditions different from those of this design guide was on rehabilitation design.
at the test site. Several new features for the flexible and rigid
pavement design were introduced, along with a rudimentary NCHRP 1-37A Pavement Design Guide
overlay design procedure.
The MEPDG developed through NCHRP Project 1-37A
Guidelines were given for estimating the structural layer (2004) incorporated new models of material behavior with
coefficients a1, a2, and a3 for materials other than those used the recognition that all pavement materials are exposed to and
in the AASHTO road test. These guidelines were developed significantly affected by environmental, or climatic, factors.
70

Input Levels MEPDG Level 3 resilient modulus inputs for a new

design were obtained from soil property correlations and
A refinement in the MEPDG was the use of a hierarchical nomographs
design approach. Such an approach provided the designer
with several levels of “design efficacy” that could be related
to the class of highway under consideration or to the level of DARWin-ME
reliability of design desired. A chosen higher level of design
output implied that the inputs were also of a higher level. In The recent release of the DARWin-ME, the software package
keeping with the hierarchical approach, materials character- implementing the Mechanistic Empirical Design Procedure,
ization was comprised of three levels, with Level 1 indicative does not consider the stress dependence of unbound aggre-
of a design approach philosophy of the highest practically gate resilient modulus. The earlier implementation of the M-E
achievable reliability and Levels 2 and 3 of successively pavement design procedure in the public domain MEPDG
lower reliability. software explicitly included stress dependence of unbound
resilient moduli as Level 1 inputs, but this capability has been
The Level 1 analysis was a “first-class” or advanced design removed from the new DARWin-ME software implementa-
procedure to provide for the highest practically achievable tion. Instead, DARWin-ME uses empirical correlations cor-
level of reliability. For the unbound aggregate resilient mod- responding to Level 2 of the MEPDG to compute the layer
ulus (MR) characterization, the laboratory-determined inputs resilient modulus values. To ensure proper characterization
(k1, k2, and k3 parameters) also were of the highest practically of unbound aggregate layers and accurate prediction of pave-
achievable level and generally required site-specific data col- ment base/subbase layer performance under loading, stress
lection or testing. dependence of unbound aggregate modulus needs to be incor-
porated into future versions of DARWin-ME.
Level 2 inputs provided an intermediate level of accu-
racy and were closest to the typical procedures used with
earlier editions of the AASHTO Guide. This level was rec- Key Lessons
ommended when resources or testing equipment were not
available for tests required for Level 1. Level 2 inputs typi- • Resilient modulus of aggregates is used as a critical
cally were user-selected, possibly from an agency database, input in M-E pavement design methods.
could be derived from a limited testing program, or could • Current AASHTO pavement design methods do not
consider the stress-dependence of unbound aggre-
be estimated through empirical correlations, such as resilient
gate resilient modulus.
modulus and CBR relationships.
• It would be useful to incorporate the stress depen-
dence of unbound aggregate materials into future
Level 3 inputs provided the lowest level of accuracy. releases of DARWin-ME, the current AASHTO
This level was recommended for design where there were mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedure.
minimal consequences of early failure (e.g., lower-volume
roads). Inputs typically were user-selected values or typical
averages for the region. One example would be the use of
default unbound material resilient modulus values identified STATE OF THE PRACTICE IN UNBOUND
from aggregate material soil classification. AGGREGATE CHARACTERIZATION AND DESIGN

The MEPDG used resilient modulus (MR), obtained from Background

the NCHRP 1-28A and AASHTO T307, as the primary
material property for all unbound pavement layers and sub- The survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation
grade soils. Furthermore, the Level 1 inputs for the granular agencies conducted under the scope of this synthesis study
base, subbase, and subgrade required the characterization of aimed to assess the state of the practice in unbound aggre-
the nonlinear, stress-dependent MR behavior for these layers. gate material characterization for design of pavement layers.
Important findings from the survey are discussed in this
MEPDG Level 2 presented a correlation for determining section.
modulus as a function of the layer coefficient as follows:
MR (psi) = 30,000 (ai/0.14)3. A major disadvantage of this When asked about the personnel responsible for the testing/
equation was that the layer coefficient has to be determined characterization of unbound aggregate materials for use in
or estimated before estimating the resilient modulus. Other pavement base/subbase layers, 39 of 46 (~85%) respondents
empirical correlations used for Level 2 design were: indicated that the design was done by the agency geotechnical/
materials laboratory. Only one agency (Wisconsin) delegated
M R = 1155 + 555( R) psi (14) the characterization of such materials to a university labora-
tory under a research subcontract. Several agencies specify a
M R = 2555 (CBR )0.64 (15) constant modulus value and AASHTO 1993 layer coefficient
 71

Number of Responses

0 10 20 30 40

Other (pavement engineer, consultant, fixed value,

26% (12)
etc.)

Field Engineer 17% (8)

46 survey respondents
University laboratory (under research subcontract) 2% (1)

Geotechnical/Materials laboratory 85% (39)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 51  Personnel responsible for characterization and design of unbound

aggregate pavement layers in the surveyed transportation agencies.

for the aggregate materials irrespective of their source. For modulus characterization of in-service unbound aggregate
example, the practice in Oregon is to use a constant aggregate pavement layers; more than 65% of respondents reported its
layer modulus of 20,000 psi and a layer coefficient (AASHTO use (see Figure 53). Only one agency (Maryland) indicated the
1993) of 0.10. The Alberta (Canada) transportation agency also use of GeoGauge, whereas four states (Maryland, Louisiana,
reported a practice of specifying a constant layer coefficient Oklahoma, and Indiana) reported the use of light weight deflec-
for UAB/subbase layers irrespective of the aggregate sources. tometers (LWD). Seventeen (17) agencies reported not mea-
Figure 51 shows the distribution of personnel responsible for suring the strength, modulus, or deformation characteristics of
aggregate material characterization for design, in different in-service aggregate layers. Several agencies use density as the
agencies surveyed under the scope of this synthesis effort. only indicator of constructed aggregate layer quality.

Fourteen of 46 respondents reported the use of repeated- Twenty-seven of 46 respondents conduct laboratory/field
load triaxial tests for resilient modulus characterization. tests to characterize aggregate materials for use in granular
Twelve agencies do not conduct any test to characterize the base and subbase layers on a project-need basis (see Fig-
strength, modulus, and permanent deformation character- ure 54). Six agencies do not conduct any laboratory/field tests
istics of unbound aggregate materials. The use of strength on aggregates.
index tests such as CBR or Hveem stabilometer appears to
be a common practice among transportation agencies (41% When asked about the method used to design pavements
of respondents, as shown in Figure 52). with UAB/subbase layers, 28 agencies (~61%, see Figure 55)
reported using the AASHTO 1993 procedure. Four agen-
FWD testing appears to be the most common practice cies use the AASHTO 1972 design guide, whereas 14 have
among transportation agencies for strength, deformation, and adopted the MEPDG into their agency specifications.

Number of Responses
0 5 10 15 20 25

Other (FWD, standard layer coeff., etc)

48% (22)
Repeated load triaxial tests for permanent
0
deformation behavior

Repeated load triaxial tests for resilient

30% (14)
modulus (such as AASHTO T 307,…

Triaxial shear strength tests 13% (6)

Strength index tests (e.g. CBR, Hveem

41% (19)
stabilometer, etc.)

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 52  Different test methods conducted by transportation agencies for strength,
deformation, and modulus characterization of unbound aggregate materials used in base
and subbase course applications.
72

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 37% (17)

Soil Stiffness Gauge tests (GeoGauge, etc.) 2%(1) 46 survey respondents

Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) tests 9% (4)

Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests 65% (30)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests 26% (12)

Plate Load tests 0%(0)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 53  Field tests conducted by transportation agencies for strength,

deformation, and modulus characterization of in-service unbound ­aggregate
pavement layers.

Number of Responses
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other 24% (11)

At regular intervals on agency-approved
7% (3)
aggregate sources to establish a database
46 survey respondents
Once on all agency-approved aggregate
0 (0%)
sources
On a project-need basis 59% (27)

Once on limited aggregate types/materials

11% (5)
commonly used by the agency
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 54  Frequency of laboratory/field tests conducted to characterize aggregate

materials for use in granular base and subbase layers.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30

Other 22% (10)

Agency-Specific Empirical Procedure: 11% (5)

46 survey respondents
Agency-Specific Mechanistic Procedure: 11% (5)

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement… 30% (14)

1993 AASHTO Design Guide 61% (28)

1986 AASHTO Design Guide 2% (1)

1972 AASHTO Design Guide 9% (4)

0 50 100
Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 55  Different methods used by agencies to design pavements with UAB and
subbase layers.
 73

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 48% (22)

Resilient modulus 46% (21)

Shear strength properties (e.g. friction angle, 46 survey respondents

4% (2)
CBR, etc.)

Compaction characteristics, i.e., optimum

26% (12)
moisture content and maximum dry density

Particle shape and angularity (crushed or

20% (9)
uncrushed)

Percent passing sieve sizes (gradation) and/or

39% (18)
maximum aggregate particle size

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 56  Aggregate properties/characteristics used by agencies as

inputs for the design of pavements with UAB and subbase layers.

Resilient modulus appears to be the most commonly used parameters. Although the use of in-place modulus measure-
aggregate property (used by 21 of 46 respondents) serving ment using FWD and LWD appears to be fairly common
as an input for the design of pavement structures (see Fig- (used by 30% of the respondents, as shown in Figure 58),
ure 56). Only two agencies (Utah and Saskatchewan province several agencies do not test unbound aggregate materials for
in Canada) reported using aggregate shear strength as an input resilient modulus and adopt generic values during their pave-
for pavement design. Twenty-two agencies reported other ment design procedures.
practices, such as the use of AASHTO-specified layer coeffi-
cients for designing pavements with unbound aggregate lay-
Conclusions from Survey of
ers without using any material specific property. Twenty-six Transportation Agencies
of 46 respondents assign a single modulus value to the entire
aggregate layer without considering the stress-dependency The survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation
of aggregate materials (see Figure 57). Ten agencies do not agencies indicated that there is a wide variety in agency prac-
use modulus in the pavement design process, whereas only tices as far as unbound aggregate material characterization and
one agency (Oklahoma) incorporates the anisotropy of aggre- layer design is concerned. A significant gap appears to exist
gate layers into its pavement design procedure. between the state of the art and state of the practice concerning
unbound aggregate material characterization and pavement
Only 10 agencies conduct resilient modulus testing in the layer design procedures. Although it is widely recognized that
laboratory to determine the modulus of unbound aggregate aggregate shear strength, resilient modulus, and permanent
materials for use in granular base and subbase layers. Twenty- deformation characteristics affect the performance of base and
two use empirical correlations to predict the resilient modulus subbase layers in pavement systems, several agencies do not
from index properties such as CBR or aggregate gradation use these properties in their pavement design procedures.

Number of Responses
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other (default value, etc.) 20% (9)

Anisotropy (directional dependency-ICAR 46 Survey Respondents
2% (1)
models) of aggregate layer modulus is…
Stress-dependency of aggregate layer modulus
0% (0)
is considered
Single modulus is assigned to the entire layer 57% (26)

Modulus is not used in pavement design 22% (10)

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 57  Different approaches used by agencies for assigning resilient modulus values to
UAB and subbase layers.
74

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 33% (15)

46 survey respondents
In-place modulus measurement of constructed
layers by deflection-based methods such as 30% (14)
FWD, LWD, etc.

Empirical correlations with index properties

48% (22)
like CBR, gradation parameters, etc.

Resilient modulus testing in the laboratory 22% (10)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 58  Methods to determine the resilient modulus of unbound

­aggregate materials for use in granular base and subbase layers.

The initial survey of transportation agencies conducted

during this synthesis study reflected that 14 of the responding • Several agencies possess the required equipment
agencies conducted resilient modulus (MR) testing on unbound for conducting resilient modulus tests on aggregates.
aggregates before using them in pavement base/subbase layers. However, difficulties associated with specimen prep-
A follow-up survey of these agencies was conducted to gather aration, obtaining reliable “good quality” data, and
further information on the prevalent state of the practice as far personnel training have resulted in agencies often
as MR testing is concerned. Conversations with agency person- assigning constant modulus values to UAB/subbase
layers during pavement design.
nel indicated that although these agencies have the equipment
• Agencies would benefit from conducting resilient
to conduct MR testing on unbound aggregates, performing this
modulus testing on locally available aggregates for
test is not a common practice. Although some of these agen-
better consideration of unbound aggregate proper-
cies frequently conduct MR testing on subgrade soils, using a ties in pavement design.
constant modulus value for the base/subbase layer appears to
be the preferred alternative. Difficulties associated with speci-
men preparation, obtaining reliable data, and personnel train-
ing appeared to be the most common factors responsible for
STATE-OF-THE-ART METHODS FOR
the agencies not conducting MR tests of unbound aggregates. UNBOUND AGGREGATE LAYER
The agencies that do occasionally conduct MR tests on aggre- CHARACTERIZATION AND DESIGN
gates appeared to be unsure regarding making use of the test
data in their respective pavement design procedures. Detailed Proper consideration of compaction-induced residual stresses
findings from the follow-up survey of these 14 agencies are in granular materials would no doubt more appropriately
documented in Appendix F of this report. model the behavior of unbound aggregate layers in pave-
ments. The stress path approach by Uzan (1985) and experi-
A harmonized approach may need to be developed that ments performed by Selig (1987) and Zeilmaker and Henny
will recommend to state and provincial transportation agen- (1989) are useful for estimating the magnitudes of residual
cies appropriate laboratory tests and design methods for stresses existing in the granular layers because of compaction
unbound aggregate pavement layers. or preloading of the pavement layers. Knowing these residual
(locked-in) horizontal stresses is essential for determining
the most accurate initial stress state to evaluate correctly the
resilient modulus values used in any mechanistic pavement
Key Lessons analysis.

• A significant gap appears to exist between the state

of the art and the state of the practice concerning Stress Path Testing
unbound aggregate material characterization and
pavement layer design procedures. To better characterize unbound aggregate layer modulus and
• Resilient modulus testing of unbound aggregates is deformation behavior, it is important to properly simulate in
not a common practice among U.S. state and Cana- the laboratory actual field loading conditions. The pavement
dian provincial transportation agencies. in the field usually is loaded by moving wheel loads, which
at any time impose varying magnitudes of normal and shear
 75

Vertical pulsing only

q
Pulsed Dynamic Stresses: CCP
3d = 0
1d

3
1
Compression
VCP
3d m
3d
p
p0
p=( 1d +2 3d )/3
-3
q= 1d - 3d Extension 2

m= q/ p
= slope of stress path 1d = 0

CCP: Constant Confining Pressure Horizontal pulsing only

VCP: Variable Confining Pressure -q

FIGURE 59  Stress paths that can be studied in an advanced triaxial setup
such as UI-FastCell.

stresses in the aggregate layer, as reflected by the rotation of directions. Thus, for a cylindrical triaxial sample, a realistic
the principal stresses. This type of loading cannot be ideally assignment of in-plane and out-of-plane moduli is achieved
simulated in the laboratory by the CCP-type repeated-load under axial symmetry with the axial modulus increasing rela-
triaxial tests, such as the AASHTO T307-99. It is possible to tive to the radial one.
apply only one constant stress path (m = Dq/Dp = 3; see Fig-
ure 59) in the CCP tests. However, the VCP-type repeated-load Tutumluer and Seyhan (1999) considered the extreme
triaxial tests offer the capability to apply a wide combination stress conditions that may exist in the base layer of a flexible
of stress paths by pulsing both cell pressure and deviator stress pavement structure under a moving wheel load. Then, con-
(see Figure 59). Such stress path loading tests better simulate sidering these extreme compression and extension loading
actual field conditions because in the pavement structure the conditions, deviator stresses are pulsed either in the vertical
confining stresses acting on the material are cyclic in nature. or horizontal directions only (see Figure 43). If the tested
specimen is made up of a material that is truly isotropic in
Stress path tests can be performed by switching stress behavior, the moduli determined from the two-extreme load-
states from CCP to VCP, depending on the stress path slope ing conditions should be similar in magnitude. Accordingly,
that is subject to be studied. The VCP tests require pulsing the laboratory findings of Tutumluer and Seyhan (1999) from
of the stresses in both vertical and horizontal directions. For four aggregates tested using UI-FastCell indicated definite
example, to test a specimen with a stress path slope of m = 1.5, directional dependency (anisotropy) of aggregate moduli.
horizontal dynamic stresses should be one-fourth of the ver- The resilient moduli computed in the vertical and radial puls-
tical dynamic stresses in magnitude; that is, s1d = 4*s3d (see ing directions using a consistent set of isotropic stress-strain
Figure 43). Furthermore, extension stress states correspond equations varied pronouncedly with the applied stress states.
to conditions of an approaching or departing wheel load at The vertical moduli typically were higher than the horizontal
a distance with horizontal dynamic stresses exceeding the moduli for most aggregates tested, except for sandy gravel
vertical ones. Kim and Tutumluer (2005) showed that under having a significant amount of P200 fines.
a moving wheel load, an extension-compression-extension
stress cycling occurs to involve shear stress reversals. The research project 502 conducted at the ICAR focused
on determining structural issues of unbound aggregate lay-
ers for a proper representation in a mechanistic-based design
Directional (Anisotropic) Modulus Testing of flexible pavements (Adu-Osei et al. 2001; Tutumluer
et al. 2001). The research team developed models for the resil-
Unbound aggregate pavement layers exhibit higher stiffness ient and permanent deformation behavior from the results of
characteristics in the vertical wheel loading direction than advanced triaxial tests conducted at the Texas Transportation
in the horizontal direction. This directional dependency is a Institute (TTI) using the IPC RattCell and at the University
special type of anisotropy, known as cross-anisotropy, caused of Illinois using the UI-FastCell. The ICAR research team
by the preferred orientation of the aggregate to which both also developed a resilient modulus testing protocol, which
the shape characteristics of the aggregate and the compaction although significantly different from the AASHTO T307-99
and traffic loading contribute. A cross-anisotropic represen- protocol, is not more complicated. The studies mainly indi-
tation has different material properties (i.e., elastic modulus cated that the UAB material is to be modeled as nonlinear
and Poisson’s ratio) assigned in the horizontal and vertical and cross-anisotropic to account for stress sensitivity and
76

the significant differences between vertical and horizontal Karasahin et al. (1993) also reported results of a study in
moduli and Poisson’s ratios. With anisotropic modeling, a which the applicability of various resilient constitutive mod-
more realistic stress distribution could be achieved in UABs. els of granular material was investigated for use in unbound
base layers. An anisotropic volumetric-deviatoric model
A recent state-of-the-art paper summarized the most sig- by Elhannani (1991) was found to give the best results for
nificant work accomplished in the past 15 years in the area of modeling the resilient behavior for the following two load-
anisotropic and stress-dependent modulus behavior of UABs ing conditions: (1) only the deviator stress was cycled, and
used in flexible pavements (Tutumluer 2009). Findings of (2) both deviatoric and confining pressures were cycled in a
past research studies on both the laboratory and field valida- triaxial test.
tions of the anisotropic aggregate behavior were discussed
in detail. The most important result of properly accounting Early work in characterizing the anisotropic modulus prop-
for the anisotropic stiffnesses of compacted granular base/ erties of unbound aggregate layers used in flexible pavements
subbase layers is that critical pavement design parameters, was carried out at the Georgia Institute of Technology and
such as vertical deviator stress and strain on top of the base the University of Illinois (Tutumluer 1995; Tutumluer and
course and the subgrade, are predicted to be typically higher Thompson 1997a). Anisotropic modeling of a typical flexible
than those computed when traditional isotropic pavement pavement resulted in the magnitudes of both the horizontal
models are used. Note that these critical pavement responses and shear stiffnesses throughout the base being only small
are directly related to the degree and rate of permanent defor- fractions of the vertical stiffness (Tutumluer 1995; Tutumluer
mation in the base course and subgrade layers, and this is the and Thompson 1997a). Unlike the results of the isotropic-type
substantial proportion of the overall pavement rutting in low- analysis, the horizontal stiffnesses were found to be much
to medium-volume roads with thin asphalt surfaces. There- lower when compared with the vertical values. These stiff-
fore, traditional isotropic design approaches run the risk of nesses were not assumed in the base layer but predicted by
under-designing flexible pavements or over-estimating the the nonlinear stress-dependent models obtained directly from
number of design axle loads the pavement can withstand. the triaxial specimen behavior. Both the important effects of
load-induced directional stiffening and the dilative behav-
ior of granular materials under applied wheel loading were
Effect of Cross-Anisotropy successfully modeled using a cross-anisotropic approach
on Pavement Analysis and Design (Tutumluer 1995; Tutumluer and Thompson 1997a).

Traditional mechanistic pavement design methods use linear Tutumluer and Thompson (1997b) modeled conven-
elastic programs that consider only isotropic material proper- tional flexible pavements using the GT-PAVE FE program
ties in granular base layers to predict deflections, stresses, and and observed that, unlike the findings of isotropic analyses,
strains in the pavement structure. However, the assignment of a a certain set of aggregate types and properties used in the
single modulus to the entire layer does not correctly model base granular layer typically resulted in horizontal stiffnesses
stiffness owing to stress variations in both vertical and hori- varying between 3% and 21% of the vertical and the shear
zontal directions. This is one of the reasons the linear elastic stiffnesses between 18% and 35% of the vertical through-
programs predict significant tensile stresses at the bottom of the out the base. As shown in Figure 60, the horizontal stiffness
base layer in most cases. However, because unbound aggregate ratios (MRh/MRV) were low under the wheel load, 0.08 to 0.12
layers are not capable of withstanding tensile stresses, such pre- from the contour lines near the centerline, and increased
dicted stress states are not realistic representations of the actual radially away from the centerline to reach a value of 1 at
stress states in an unbound aggregate pavement layer. approximately 6 load radii, which corresponds to the isotro-
pic case. These stiffnesses were not assumed in the base layer
Barksdale et al. (1989) observed from instrumented test but predicted by the anisotropic, nonlinear stress-dependent
sections that a linear cross-anisotropic model of an UAB was models developed from triaxial test data. The effects of
at least equal to, and perhaps better for, predicting general compaction-induced residual stresses locked in granular
pavement response than the simplified contour model pro- bases also were of significance, especially when calculating
posed by Brown and Pappin (1981), which requires elaborate horizontal stiffnesses. Such stresses offset any low-magnitude
testing. Tutumluer and Barksdale (1995) modeled the same tensile stresses and provided adequate confinement radially
test sections employing cross-anisotropic resilient properties away from the wheel load (Tutumluer and Thompson 1997a,
in the base layer and using the nonlinear model proposed b; Garg et al. 1998). A procedure was also established for
by Uzan (1985) to represent resilient modulus. Considerably estimating cross-anisotropic properties from repeated load
lower horizontal tensile stresses were predicted in the gran- triaxial tests with only vertical deformation measurements
ular base when the horizontal resilient modulus was equal (Tutumluer and Thompson 1997a; Tutumluer 1998).
to 15% of the vertical resilient modulus. Using this aniso-
tropic modeling approach, reasonably good agreement was Using the UI-FastCell, a large stress excursion analy-
achieved with measured values of the resilient behavior for sis was conducted to characterize unbound aggregate layer
as many as eight response variables at the same time. behavior under various stress path loadings. Seyhan et al.
 77

FIGURE 60  Horizontal stiffness ratio (MRh/MRV ) distribution throughout the base
in the presence of 20.7 kPa horizontal residual stresses (after Tutumluer and
Thompson 1997b).

(2005) presented a new methodology for determining completely define the resilient granular material behavior in
cross-anisotropic aggregate base properties (i.e., directional vertical, horizontal, and shear planes, as follows:
dependency of moduli and Poisson’s ratios as inputs into KB KC
mechanistic pavement analysis considering effects of actual M R = K A pa  I1   τoct  (16)
traffic or moving wheel loading). The proposed materials  pa   pa 
characterization requires conducting constant stress path
triaxial tests and incrementally varying loading stress path where MR is the resilient modulus; I1 = σ1 + σ2 + σ3
slopes at similar stress states that are representative of vari- = θ = first stress invariant or bulk stress; τoct = 1/3
ous moving wheel loading conditions in the laboratory. In ( σ1 − σ 2 )2 + ( σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + ( σ 3 − σ1 )2 = octahedral shear
accordance, cross-anisotropic aggregate properties were stress; pa = atmospheric pressure (100 kPa or 14.7 psi); KA, KB,
determined by varying slightly the stress path slopes dur- and KC are material constants obtained from regression analyses
ing testing and then by employing an error minimization of repeated-load triaxial test data. The three cross-anisotropic
approach to interpret the test results. Crushed aggregate spec- moduli (MRV, MRh, and GR) were modeled using the same formu-
imens were prepared and tested to obtain cross-anisotropic lation, and the model parameters used were as follows:
properties at five different stress path slopes representative of
various moving wheel-load–induced compression and exten- Coefficient I1 Exponent toct Exponent
sion pavement stress states. Vertical resilient moduli were
commonly found to be larger than horizontal ones, and criti- Horizontal resilient K1 K2 K3
cally low vertical resilient moduli were obtained for some   modulus (MRh)
extension states (Seyhan et al. 2005). Vertical resilient
  modulus (MRv) K4 K5 K6
Resilient shear
  modulus (GR) K7 K8 K9
Simplified Procedure for Determining
Anisotropic Model Parameters
Therefore, the stiffness ratios, (MRh/MRv) and (GR/MRv), could
Based on the data presented by Hicks (1970), Allen (1973), be expressed in terms of the coefficients, (K1/K4) and (K7/K4),
and Crockford et al. (1990), Tutumluer and Thompson (1998) respectively. Tutumluer and Thompson (1998) observed that
established a procedure for estimating cross-anisotropic the constant terms in the stiffness ratio models (K1/K4 or K7/
properties from repeated load triaxial tests in which only ver- K4) were good approximations for the horizontal and shear
tical deformations were measured (the standard procedure, stiffness ratios (MRh/MRv and GR/MRv) predicted by the FE analy-
i.e., AASHTO T307-99). To characterize the typical varia- ses under the wheel load. Figure 61 shows the variations of
tions of horizontal and shear stiffness ratios, they analyzed the constant terms in the shear (K7/K4) and horizontal (K1/K4)
a conventional flexible pavement section with anisotropic stiffness ratio models obtained from tests performed on a vari-
stiffness models used in a 203-mm thick granular base. The ety of crushed and partially crushed aggregates and gravel.
models were obtained from the multiple regression analy- Although somewhat scattered, the data points plotted at vari-
ses of 50 triaxial test results on different aggregates obtained ous saturation levels clearly indicated an increasing trend of
from the works of Hicks (1970), Allen (1973), and Crockford K7/K4 (thus GR/MRv) with K1/K4 (thus MRh/MRv). The dotted lines
et al. (1990). Three stress-dependent MR models were used to plotted around the data define the lower and upper bounds for
78

FIGURE 61  Variation of constant ratios in horizontal and shear stiffness

ratio models (after Tutumluer and Thompson 1998). C = crushed; PC =
partially crushed.

a typical variation of K7/K4 with K1/K4 from triaxial test results Figure 62 shows for the 50 test results the deviator stress
for which the horizontal and shear stiffnesses proportionally exponents (K3-K6 or K9-K6) plotted with the bulk stress expo-
increase or decrease. Accordingly, a granular material with nents (K2-K5 or K8-K5) as obtained from the horizontal and
high shear and horizontal stiffnesses would have a reduced shear stiffness ratio models. In both plots, the data points
tendency to lateral spreading under wheel loads. are generally centered on the equality line, indicating that
they are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. Overall,
Figure 61 (Tutumluer and Thompson 1998) also shows a these plots indicate that when the deviator and bulk stresses
linear relationship found to exist between the constant shear take similar values, K1/K4 and K7/K4 primarily determine the
ratio K7/K4 and the constant horizontal ratio K1/K4 for a con- stiffness ratios.
sistent set of nine test results reported by Allen (1973). The
standard estimated error (SEE) in the equation (see Figure 61) According to the earlier outlined simplified procedure
was given as 0.00636 for K7/K4. To estimate horizontal and by Tutumluer and Thompson (1998), these steps can be fol-
shear model parameters, Tutumluer and Thompson (1998) lowed to estimate the shear and horizontal model parameters
proposed an additional equation relating the shear model when the experimentally determined vertical modulus mod-
constant parameter K7 with the vertical model parameters K4, els (i.e., K4, K5, and K6 are established from conventional
K5, and K6, as follows (1 psi = 6.89 kPa): repeated load triaxial test results) are known:
K 7 ( psi) = −90.92 + 0.27 K 4 + 305.34 K 5 + 158.22 K 6
1. Use Equation 17 to compute K7;
( R 2 = 0.94, SEE = 178 psi ) (17) 2. Compute the constant ratio K7/K4;

FIGURE 62  Variation of stress exponents in the horizontal and shear stiffness ratio models (after
Tutumluer and Thompson 1998).
 79

3. Use the upper and lower band as well as Allen’s linear Field Validations
fit indicated in Figure 62 to obtain the corresponding
K1/K4 constant ratio; As part of the ICAR 502 research project, field validation
4. From Figure 63, select values equal in magnitude but data were collected from two previous full-scale pavement
opposite in sign for the stress exponents K2-K5 and test studies: the TTI and Georgia Tech studies (Tutumluer
K3-K6 to be used in the horizontal stiffness ratio model et al. 2001). The validation of the nonlinear anisotropic behav-
(an approximate value of 2.5 has been used as sug- ior of UABs was accomplished by analyzing these full-scale
gested by Tutumluer and Thompson, 1998); and finally pavement test sections using TTI-PAVE and GT-PAVE FE
5. From Figure 63, select values equal in magnitude but analysis programs, predicting UAB responses and comparing
opposite in sign for the stress exponents K8-K5 and them with the measured ones.
K9-K6 to be used in the shear stiffness ratio model (an
approximate value of 0.2 has been used as suggested The TTI project dealt with two flexible pavement test sec-
by Tutumluer and Thompson 1998). Note that because tions, one with a thin and the other with a thick asphalt sur-
of the low to nonexistent horizontal compressive con- face layer, built at the TTI Research Annex. The base course
fining pressures under the wheel load, approximating in each pavement was a crushed Texas limestone meeting
these stress exponents does not have any significant the Texas DOT Grade 1, Item 248, aggregate base specifica-
effect in the overall anisotropic dilative behavior of tions. The test sections were instrumented with multidepth
granular bases. deflectometers (MDDs), and an FWD was positioned directly
over the MDDs and at several different positions away from
MDD and the pavement responses (deflections) collected.
Recent ICAR Procedure for Determining FWD data were used to backcalculate material properties of
Anisotropic Model Parameters the two pavement sections. For validation of the anisotropic
resilient behavior, the limestone was characterized in the lab-
Based on the ICAR test protocol established for determin- oratory according to the ICAR testing protocol. Based on the
ing stress-dependent anisotropic MR properties of unbound FWD surface deflections and MDD depth deflections, several
aggregate materials (Adu-Osei et al. 2001; Tutumluer et al. computer runs were made using the TTI-PAVE FE program.
2001), Ashtiani and Little (2009) developed a methodology The linear elastic analyses had much higher errors between
for designing aggregate mixtures for base courses. A com- the measured and the predicted when compared with those
prehensive aggregate database was developed to identify the obtained from the nonlinear isotropic and cross-anisotropic
contribution level of different aggregate materials and base analyses. The nonlinear cross-anisotropic material models
course features to the directional dependency of material used in the base layer predicted vertical deflections closest to
properties. Accordingly, to characterize the level of anisot- field deflections (Tutumluer et al. 2001).
ropy in unbound aggregate systems, the fitting parameters
in material models (k-values) were used as characterizers of The Georgia Tech full-scale pavement test study (Barksdale
the level of anisotropy, which can vary considerably depend- and Todres 1983) had provided the original field data for
ing on aggregate base properties such as gradation, satura- the anisotropic base modeling study conducted by Tutumluer
tion level, and the geometry (that is, shape properties of the (1995). The pavements studied consisted of three conventional
aggregate particles). Three aggregate sizes for each of the sections and two inverted sections, which had an UAB sand-
wiched between an upper asphalt concrete surfacing and a
10 aggregate sources were tested for angularity, form, and tex-
lower cement-stabilized subbase. A total of eight response
ture using Aggregate Image Measurement System (AIMS),
parameters, stresses, and strains at different locations in the
and the distributions were fitted to two parameter cumulative
test sections and surface deflections were measured in each
Weibull distributions. Three gradations (fine, intermediate,
test using strain gages, pressure cells, and LVDTs. After char-
and coarse) of the aggregate materials were used to determine
acterizing the crushed granitic gneiss used in the test sections
dry density and moisture states of aggregate systems used in for cross-anisotropic properties through advanced laboratory
the aggregate database to account for the effects of optimum, tests, Tutumluer et al. (2001, 2003) further analyzed the Geor-
dry of optimum, and wet of moisture conditions on directional gia Tech test sections using the GT-PAVE FE program at differ-
dependency of material properties. From anisotropic modulus ent locations in the test sections considering several methods
testing, the k model parameters were determined to capture of UAB characterization for comparison and field validation.
the stress sensitivity, nonlinearity, and anisotropic behavior These methods included (1) a linear e­ lastic, isotropic analysis;
of the aggregate systems studied in the laboratory. Among the (2) a linear elastic, cross-anisotropic analysis; (3) a nonlinear,
particle geometry features in the aggregate database, the ver- stress-sensitive isotropic analysis; (4) characterization of the
tical to horizontal modular ratio (Eh/Ev) was found to be most vertical resilient modulus as nonlinear stress sensitive accord-
sensitive to the degree of elongation of the aggregate particles ing to a model similar to that of Uzan (1985) and then assum-
or how cubical the aggregate particles were. In their study, ing that the horizontal modulus is some percentage of the
Ashtiani and Little (2009) also developed a new mechanistic vertical modulus (work done by Tutumluer 1995); (5) a non-
performance protocol based on plasticity theory to ensure the linear, stress-sensitive, cross-anisotropic analysis using modu-
stability of the pavement foundations under traffic loads. lus models developed following the laboratory SID approach
80

(Adu-Osei et al. 2001); and (6) a nonlinear, stress-sensitive, vertical compressive stresses. The measured values of stress
cross-anisotropic analysis with model parameters obtained and strain at the top of the subgrade were used to give an
from a simplified procedure that uses AASHTO T307-99 resil- indication of the stiffness. In an effort to match the measured
ient modulus test results and was adopted earlier by Tutumluer FWD deflections and the vertical strain profile in the pave-
and Thompson (1998). The accuracy of the overall modeling ment section with the FE predictions, a nonlinear anisotropic
of resilient behavior of both the conventional and inverted sec- modulus model with n = MRh/MRv as low as 0.15 had to be
tions was related to how well the measured response variables assigned in the granular layer.
were predicted at the same time. Only when a nonlinear cross-
anisotropic model was used in the UAB (either method 4 or Kwon et al. (2008) reported on the resilient response pre-
method 6), were the resilient behaviors of five pavement test dictions of instrumented full-scale pavement test sections, both
sections predicted reasonably accurately for as many as eight geogrid base reinforced and control sections, studied under
response variables (i.e., displacements, stresses, and strains) single and dual wheel loadings at the University of Illinois. A
from the same analysis. The resilient moduli computed in the mechanistic FE model, which considers the nonlinear, stress-
horizontal direction, typically in the range of 12% to 27% of dependent pavement foundation as well as the isotropic and
the vertical, were shown to correctly predict the horizontal and anisotropic layer stiffness behavior of the granular base/subbase
vertical measured strains in the UAB (Tutumluer et al. 2003). materials, was used to predict the field measured responses
needed for the FE model validation. The cross-anisotropic
More recent field validations of anisotropic UAB behav- modulus model parameters for the resilient moduli in vertical
ior have been reported by Masad et al. (2006), Steven et al. and horizontal directions (MRv and MRh) and shear modulus (GR)
(2007), and Kwon et al. (2008). Masad et al. (2006) success- were characterized from laboratory testing in accordance with
fully demonstrated the efficacy of using anisotropic aggregate the approach by Tutumluer and Thompson (1997a, 1997b).
properties to represent unbound layers by comparing AASHO Figure 63 shows for the unreinforced B1 test section (76-mm
road test pavement surface deflection measurements under asphalt concrete underlain by 305-mm UAB) comparisons of
wheel loads to FE predictions based on models that incor- the measured pavement responses and the initial response pre-
porated isotropic and anisotropic properties for the unbound dictions as a result of the different magnitudes of dual wheel
base and subbase layers. The surface deflections in the flexible loading with 689 kPa tire pressure. The cross-anisotropic base
pavements of the AASHO road test were selected for this com- characterization gave much better predictions for the vertical
parison because the AASHO road test is such a widely used LVDT displacements on top of subgrade and the radial LVDT
database and because of the tight control of traffic, pavement displacements at the bottom of base course (see Figure 64).
cross sections, and material quality at the road test (Masad
et al. 2006). The deflection predictions correlated best with the In the design of future full-scale pavement test studies, the
experimental measurements when the horizontal moduli were performance prediction parameters, such as deflection basin
about 30% of the vertical moduli in the UAB layers. shape and magnitude, degraded stiffnesses, rutting in the base
course and subgrade, and other manifestations of distress,
Steven et al. (2007) performed elastic nonlinear FE analy- should be monitored during accelerated testing for develop-
ses of a flexible pavement section, which was instrumented ing transfer functions (or distress models) to adequately relate
and tested in the New Zealand CAPTIF full-scale pavement pavement response variables to pavement performance. Masad
test facility subjected to varying FWD loads. An inductive et al. (2006) nicely pointed out that the performance models
coil soil strain system was installed in the test section to originally developed using isotropic material properties would
measure vertical compressive strains within the granular and require refinement and calibration for use with anisotropic
subgrade layers, and pressure cells were used to measure the material properties. Such a refinement would lead to smaller

1.4 0.7 0.5

Subgrade Vertical LVDT (mm)

1.2 0.6
Base Vertical LVDT (mm)

Base Radial LVDT (mm)

0.4 Measured
1 0.5

0.8 0.4 0.3 Prediction

(Anisotropic)
0.6 0.3 0.2 Prediction
0.4 0.2 (Isotropic)
0.1
0.2 0.1

0 0 0
26.7 35.6 44.5 53.4 62.3 26.7 35.6 44.5 53.4 62.3 26.7 35.6 44.5 53.4 62.3
Load (kN) Load (kN) Load (kN)

FIGURE 63  Comparisons of measured and initial pavement response predictions from B1 unreinforced section
(tire ­pressure of 689 kPa) (after Kwon et al. 2008).
 81

shift factors and calibration coefficients owing to the improved base-to-asphalt-concrete-pavement thickness ratios, and the
match between the actual anisotropic material behavior and applied surface loading.
the response mode. The periodic monitoring and testing of
pavement test sections also should help incorporate anisotropy An extension of the approach by Kim et al. (2005) was
and material nonlinearity in backcalculation methods to better adopted recently by Ashtiani et al. (2007), who evaluated
account for the behavior of flexible pavements with unbound the impact of increasing fines content on the performance of
granular layers and estimate remaining life and performance. unbound (unstabilized) and lightly cement-stabilized aggre-
gate systems. It was found that with the proper design of
Anisotropy as Aggregate Quality Indicator
fines content, cement content, and moisture, the performance
of the stabilized systems with high fines content could per-
Tutumluer and Seyhan (2000) evaluated the anisotropic resil- form in a manner equivalent to or even better than could the
ient properties of aggregate systems through advanced labo- systems with standard fines content. Ashtiani et al. (2007)
ratory tests and reported that the aggregate matrix showed also reported that by enhancing the resilient properties
significant softening behavior as the percentage of P200 fines (increase in stiffness and decrease in anisotropy), compres-
(materials smaller than 75 µm or passing the No. 200 sieve) sive strength and permanent deformation properties could be
exceeded 12%. Research by Kim et al. (2005) has shown improved in lightly cemented aggregate systems.
that aggregate type, gradation, and particle shape, texture
and angularity significantly affect the level of anisotropy: Recently, Ashtiani and Little (2009) developed a compre-
that is, the ratio of horizontal to vertical aggregate layer hensive aggregate database to identify the contribution level
moduli n = MRh/MRv. The anisotropy levels of aggregate base of different aggregate material types and properties as well
(the horizontal and shear moduli model parameters) could be as base course features to the directional dependency of non-
approximated from regression analyses based on the model linear, stress-dependent MR properties. Figure 64 demonstrates
parameters of the vertical resilient moduli (K4 to K6) and the impact of particle texture and aggregate angularity on the
some fitting parameters developed for aggregate physical level of anisotropy characterized by vertical-to-horizontal
properties, such as grain size distribution, form, angularity, modular ratios (i.e., Ex/Ey). Aggregate systems containing par-
and surface texture. Typically, higher values of moduli and ticles with rougher texture and more crushed surfaces (more
modulus ratios were obtained when aggregate particles were angular) result in much higher Ex/Ey (= Eh/Ev) ratios to more
well-graded, less elongated, and more angular with rougher efficiently distribute load with greater aggregate interlock and
surface texture. Later, Kim et al. (2007) successfully used a friction in the unbound aggregate layer and thus to become
similar anisotropy level assessment technique to estimate in less prone to plastic deformation under traffic (Ashtiani and
situ resilient modulus properties of sandy subgrade soils from Little 2009). Note that an isotropic system would correspond
FWD test results based on gradation properties, granular- to a modulus ratio (Ex/Ey) of 1.0.

FIGURE 64  Impact of aggregate angularity and texture on anisotropy level assessed using the
axial modulus ratio (Ex/Ey) (Ashtiani and Little 2009).
82

TABLE 6
Anisotropy as Aggregate Quality Indicator Affecting
Pavement Response and Performance
Bottom AC Top Subgrade
n = M Rh / M Rv
( ) SG ( ) d (kPa)
AC

0.15 Pavement 295 652 25.5

Anisotropy
Responses
Decreases 0.2 284 622 24.1
Decrease
0.3 268 565 22.0
Agg. Quality
0.4 Performance 253 518 20.7
Increases
0.5 Increases 227 478 18.6

Improving aggregate properties, such as by using well- CONSIDERATION OF DRAINAGE IN UNBOUND

graded cubical shaped and crushed aggregates with rough AGGREGATE LAYER DESIGN
surface texture and reducing the amount of fines decreases
As a factor well-known for significantly affecting strength and
the level of anisotropy while keeping MRv constant. Table 6
modulus characteristics of pavement base/subbase materials
illustrates the relationship between aggregate quality and the
and subgrade soils, excessive field moisture content is
level of anisotropy affecting pavement response and perfor-
among the primary causes of pavement deterioration and
mance from GT-PAVE FE analyses of a conventional flex-
premature failure. Among the primary challenges associated
ible pavement. The results given in Table 6 agree quite well
with maintaining pavement structures in adequate serviceable
with the known effective practices of the transportation
conditions, one aspect is to adequately cope with increasing
agencies that pay attention to aggregate properties for
moisture contents and minimize the effects of seasonal spring
building long-lasting pavements with deep UABs/subbases
thaw by removing all transient water from the pavement
(Beatty et al. 2002). Thus, properly accounting for stress
structure as rapidly as possible before excessive accumulation
sensitivity and modulus anisotropy of unbound aggregate (Birgisson and Roberson 2000). Such requirements imply the
structural layers will be essential to the optimized use of following two objectives of pavement foundation design:
available aggregate resources, building pavements with (1) proper selection/utilization of base/subbase materials
deep aggregate base/subbase courses, and accurately pre- retaining low average moisture contents and/or moisture sus-
dicting their expected field performances. Note that the MRh ceptibility, and (2) efficient subsurface drainage design. Many
and MRv values shown in Table 6 are similar in definition to field forensic studies have demonstrated that good drainage
the Ex and Ey values indicated in Figure 65; as for pavement and subsurface layer grading are essential for long-term satis-
design purposes, resilient modulus values often are used as factory performance (Khazanovich et al. 1998; Chen and Lin
the layer moduli. 2010). In this section, previous findings on the mechanisms of
moisture-related deterioration and corresponding mitigation
measures are reviewed.

NCHRP 4-23 project listed physical and mechanical

Key Lessons
properties of base/subbase materials in relation to major con-
• Several research studies and field validation projects crete pavement distresses for performance evaluation (Saeed
have highlighted the benefits of considering aggre- et al. 2001). In concrete pavements, subbase and subgrade
gate anisotropy in pavement design; traditional pave- are required to be stable under the application of traffic and
ment design methods based on the assumption that environmental loadings; however, mechanical properties of
the unbound aggregate layer is isotropic may under- unbound granular materials, such as resilient modulus (MR),
design flexible pavements and overestimate the pave- shear strength, and rutting resistance, have long been found to
ment design life. be affected significantly by moisture content of the materials.
• For adequately considering the behavior of UAB/ Saarenketo and Scullion (1996) reported the dielectric value
subbase pavement layers under loading, the cross-
and electrical conductivity related to both the strength and
anisotropic properties of such layers are best incor-
porated into pavement design. A simplified approach
deformation properties and frost-susceptibility of base course
(see Simplified Procedure for Determining Aniso­ aggregates. The substantial effect of saturation hysteresis
tropic Model Parameters) is available for agencies on base strength was also among important findings. Toros
to incorporate such cross-anisotropy of unbound and Hiltunen (2008) characterized time-dependent changes
aggregate layers into pavement design without the in strength and stiffness of Florida base materials. These are
need to conduct advanced triaxial tests. changes that can be explained with unsaturated soil mechan-
ics framework, such as changes in moisture or moisture dis-
 83

tribution as a result of changes in internal pore pressure to [for example, concrete slab curling and warping resulting
influence the effective confining pressure constraining the from temperature and moisture variations and decreasing
material. Such changes in moisture content anticipated in load transfer efficiency (LTE) along joints]. Both field and
the base/subbase during the service life of a pavement struc- laboratory observations have indicated that the combination
ture should be properly accounted for in a pavement design of traffic loading, trapped subsurface water, and erosion sus-
process. ceptible base/subbase materials is the primary cause of base/
subbase erosion and subsequent joint faulting.

Moisture-Related Deterioration According to Jung and Zollinger (2011), shear stress

along the slab-subbase interface resulting from a moving
Base/Subbase Erosion
load is the main contributor for the subbase erosion pro-
Erosion mechanism base/subbase layers below concrete cess. As shown in Figure 65, fines generated by such shear
pavements should be properly designed to provide a stable stress along the interface can be dislocated by pumping and
then deposited into the void beneath concrete slab created
construction platform, uniform slab support, and erosion
by pumping, which eventually results in further loss of joint
resistance. Different base/subbase materials below concrete
stiffness and joint faulting. As joint stiffness and the inter-
pavements have been applied over the years, including dense-
face bonding keep decreasing, the magnitude of the interface
and open-graded unbound materials, cement- and asphalt-
shear stress increases and the erosion process becomes exac-
treated bases, lean concrete bases, and the combinations of
erbated. Such hydraulic erosion was modeled by Jung and
such layers (sometimes with asphalt concrete interlayer for
Zollinger (2011) for predicting erosion depth and joint fault-
debonding). The degree of erosion resistance, called erod-
ing as a function of the number of wheel load applications.
ibility, depends on the type and nature of the base/subbase
materials. In general, base/subbase erodibility increases with
higher fines content and lower admixture stabilizer content Evaluation of Base/Subbase Erodibility
(cement or asphalt).
The need for a non-erodible subbase to maintain uniform sup-
Figure 65 illustrates the subbase erosion process with port under concrete pavements and thus ensure satisfactory
which the pavement deteriorates (Jung et al. 2009). Any service performance has long been recognized. The erosion
water infiltrated into pavement structure through joints/ resistance of materials beneath a concrete slab is an important
cracks becomes trapped if it cannot flow out on a timely performance-related property. As summarized in Table 7 by
basis. Water then is injected as pressurized water into the Jung et al. (2009), despite the existence of several empirical
pores between granular particles under dynamic moving and subjective test methods, no well-accepted laboratory test
wheel loads, causing the migration and accumulation of fine methods are available for characterizing the erosion resistance
materials at the top surface of base/subbase layers. As this of base/subbase materials using a mechanistic approach.
process evolves, distresses such as pumping and joint fault-
ing could be initiated and accelerated in combination with Tables 8 and 9 summarize existing erosion models and
other mutual effects responsible for pavement deterioration design procedures that take erosion into account (Jung

FIGURE 65  Subbase erosion and pavement deterioration processes (Jung et al. 2009).
TABLE 7
Summary of Existing Erosion Test Methods
Test Method Features Strengths Weaknesses
Stabilized test samples are eroded by No consideration of
application of hydraulic shear stress. crushing or compressive
Rotational Easy and precise to control
The critical shear stress is failure. Overestimation of
shear device shear stress
recommended as an index of erosion weight loss by coarse
resistance. aggregates loss.
Shear stress is not uniform
Pressurized water at an angle to the and inaccurate.
Jetting
upper surface of unstabilized samples Easy to test Overestimation of weight
device
generating weight loss over time. loss by coarse aggregates
loss.
Easy to test; consider
Rotational brush abrasions generate Long test time and
durability of wet and dry
Brush test fines. An erosion index, IE, is overestimation of weight
cycle; relative erodibility
device defined as the ratio of the weight loss loss by coarse aggregate
of each material is defined
to that of a reference material. loss.
using an erosion index, IE
Voiding of the subbase
Rolling Wheel movements over a friction pad
Simulate field conditions under concrete slab cannot
wheel on sample induce erosion. Measure
for flexible pavement; no be considered. Sample
erosion test average erosion depth after 5,000
coarse aggregate loss saw-cut can damage
device wheel load applications.
sample surface.
Source: Jung et al. (2009).

TABLE 8
Summary of Existing Erosion Prediction Models
Erosion Model Features Strengths Weaknesses
Include many erosion Rough categories for
Rauhut Empirical model using COPES data
related factors each material factor
Empirical model using AASHTO Consider more detail Subbase material
Markow
data: traffic, slab thickness, drainage drainage condition properties are ignored
Normalized pumping
No consideration about
Empirical model using AASHTO index to eliminate the
Larralde many erosion-related
data: traffic, slab thickness effect of slab length and
factors
reinforcement
Consider various erosion-
Fusion model of Rauhut and Larralde Rough categories for
Van Wijk related factors and four
models with more field data each material factor
types of climates
Application of the model
Portland
Mechanistic-empirical model using Significant advancement is limited to subbase
Cement
AASHO data in the mechanistic analysis types used in AASHO
Association
test
Predict erosion depth Calibration required
Jeong and Mechanistic model using theoretical
based on feasible through lab tests and
Zollinger hydraulic shear stress model
mechanistic equations field performances
Source: Jung et al. (2009).

TABLE 9
Summary of Current Subbase Design Practices and Guidelines
Design Guide Features Strengths Weaknesses
Consider erosion analysis Proposed composite design
Provide erosion factor as a
Portland in design procedures as k-values for treated bases
function of the slab thickness,
Cement the most critical distress are overestimated and need
composite k value, dowel, and
Association in rigid pavement discrimination for different
shoulder type
performance stabilization levels
Composite modulus of subgrade Accounting structural k-value obtained from the
1993 reaction considers the loss of degradation of support chart is overestimated and
AASHTO support (LS) caused by the caused by erosion using LS is insensitive to various
foundation erosion LS factor stabilized materials
Classified erodibility of subbase
Erodibility class is
materials is utilized in jointed Employed the erodibility
determined based on dry
NCHRP concrete pavement faulting class based on the type
brush test results and
1-37A prediction models as well as and level of stabilization
strength even though
MEPDG erosion width estimation of along with compressive
erosion occurs mostly under
continuously reinforced concrete strength
saturated condition
pavement
Select one from two types of
Texas Historical performances Costly excessive design
stabilized subbase and require
Department of and erosion resistance are regardless of subgrade and
minimum 7-day compressive
Transportation demonstrated as good environmental condition
strength
Source: Jung et al. (2009).
 85

et al. 2009). The first concrete pavement design procedure After reviewing previous erosion test methods and mod­
addressing erosion may be the Portland Cement Associa­ els, Jung et al. (2010) proposed a new test configuration
tion procedure, which relates subbase erosion with pave­ that uses a rapid triaxial test and a Hamburg wheel-tracking
ment deflection (at the slab corner) owing to axle loading. device for evaluating the erodibility of various base/subbase
The equations for estimating percent erosion damage, materials under dry and wet conditions, respectively. Fig­
together with the erosion criterion, were developed primar­ ure 66 shows the schematic diagrams of those test setups.
ily from the AASHO Road Test results. Note that only one During the rapid triaxial test, shear stresses of varying mag­
highly erodible subbase type was used during the AASHO nitudes result from different combinations of deviator, and
Road Test, so extending the application of these equations confining pressures are applied on the interface between
to other different subbase types for mechanistic analysis concrete and subbase samples. The erodibility of subbase
of pavement support conditions may be problematic. The materials is measured from the percent weight loss caused
AASHTO 1993 Guide relates foundation erosion to the by shear-induced interfacial abrasion. By integrating this
potential loss of support (LS), which is numerically cate­ new erosion test scheme with the theoretical hydraulic shear
gorized into four different contact conditions (i.e., LS = 0, stress model (Jung and Zollinger 2011), they also developed
1, 2, and 3). Each contact condition is associated with an a new laboratory-based M-E model for faulting in jointed
effective reduction of the modulus of subgrade reaction in concrete pavement and calibrated it using lab test results and
the thickness design procedure. An LS value of 0 represents LTPP field performance data.
the best contact condition when the concrete slab and the
foundation are in full contact, whereas the value of 3 rep­
resents the worst case when the concrete slab is completely
separated from the foundation. The major limitation of this
method, as pointed out by Jung et al. (2010), is that it is too Key Lessons
subjective to be sensitive to material factors causing ero­
sion, which may lead to inconsistency and limiting applica­ • Several pavement distresses may result from the
presence of excessive moisture in unbound aggre-
bility. The MEPDG recommends five different erodibility
gate layers.
classes (from 1 to 5) for assessing the erosion potential of
• Base/subbase erosion leads to pavement distress
treated and untreated base materials on the basis of material in the original PCC slab and in (repair) patches
type and stabilizer percent. The erodibility factor of base/ installed on the original slab. If initial pavement dis-
subbase materials is incorporated as an input parameter for tresses indicate the presence of pumping, base/
modeling maximum and minimum transverse joint faulting. subbase repairs are required to eliminate chances
Note that none of those widely used analysis and design of the (repair) patch failing by the same mechanism
procedures explicitly include base/subbase erosion in a as the original slab.
mechanistic approach.

(a) Rapid Triaxial Test for Erodibility of Dry Sample

(b) Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Test for Erodibility of Wet Sample

FIGURE 66  Schematic diagrams of the new erodibility tests by Jung and Zollinger (2011).
86

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 11% (5) 46 survey respondents

Open Graded Aggregate Drainage Layers are

41% (19)
Not Used

No 24% (11)

Yes 24% (11)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 67  Consideration of structural contribution of open-graded aggregate drainage layers

in pavement thickness design.

ered during the pavement design procedure (see Figure 67).

• Rapid removal of excessive moisture from unbound Eleven agencies reported not considering the structural con-
aggregate layers can be achieved through selection tribution of drainage layers, whereas 19 agencies do not use
of aggregate materials with low water-retaining ten- open-graded aggregate drainage layers in pavement systems.
dencies and design of suitable subsurface drainage
systems. Twenty-seven of 46 respondents do not consider the
• Aggregate materials are best tested for erosion poten- effects of climate changes on the performance of unbound
tial or “erodibility” before being used in unbound base/ aggregate pavement layers (see Figure 68). Only nine agen-
subbase layers.
cies consider the effects of climatic conditions on unbound
aggregate layer performance, whereas 10 respondents were
not certain about prevalent agency practices. Of the nine agen-
cies that do consider the effects of climate changes, seven do
so by adjusting the aggregate layer resilient modulus value.
STATE OF THE PRACTICE REGARDING
THE CONSIDERATION OF DRAINAGE Four agencies reported changing the layer structural coef-
AND CLIMATIC EFFECTS ON UNBOUND ficients, whereas only one agency (Virginia Department of
AGGREGATE BASE/SUBBASE LAYERS Transportation) reported adjusting the aggregate layer shear
strength, as shown in Figure 69. Note that Virginia DOT also
The survey of U.S. state and Canadian provincial transporta- reported adjustments to layer resilient modulus values and
tion agencies included questions regarding the state of the structural coefficients as common practice while considering
practice as far as the effects of climatic conditions and drain- the effects of climate change.
age on UAB and subbase layer design is concerned.
Only 19 agencies currently specify different gradations
Only 11 of 46 respondents indicated that the structural con- for drainable and low-permeability applications of unbound
tribution of open-graded aggregate drainage layers is consid- aggregate layers, and 24 agencies reported no such practice

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 22% (10) 46 survey respondents

No 59% (27)

Yes 20% (9)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 68  Agency response to whether the effects of climatic changes

on unbound aggregate layer performance are considered.
 87

Number of Responses

0 2 4 6 8

Other 22% (2) 9 survey respondents

Shear strength 11% (1)

Resilient
78% (7)
modulus

Layer structural
44% (4)
coefficients

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 69  Agency response to unbound aggregate layer properties that

are adjusted to account for climatic effects.

(see Figure 70). As shown in Figure 71, 23 agencies do not layers using open-graded aggregates, whereas nine agencies
consider drainage to be one of the primary functions of do not construct any extra layer for filtration purposes (see
flexible pavement UAB/subbase layers. Of the ones that Figure 73). Finally, as shown in Figure 74, construction sub-
do consider drainage to be one of the primary functions, surface drainage systems, such as edge drains, are frequently
17 facilitate the drainability of such layers by limiting the constructed by 12 agencies. Twenty-one others construct
maximum allowable percent fines (material passing No. 200 such subsurface drainage systems only for specific projects
sieve). Six agencies reported adjusting the material gradation when required by the design.
to construct a more open-graded layer.

As far as measuring the effectiveness of open-graded

aggregate drainage layers is concerned, eight agencies use Key Lessons
laboratory tests to measure the permeability of aggregate • Only nine of 46 responding agencies consider the
samples. Nine agencies use empirical correlations to esti- effects of climatic conditions on unbound aggregate
mate layer permeability from aggregate physical properties. pavement layer performance.
Only two agencies (Maryland and Utah) reported using in • Agencies that do consider the effects of climatic con-
situ permeability measurements, as shown in Figure 72. ditions on unbound aggregate layer performance do
so by adjusting the resilient modulus or layer struc-
Twelve agencies use a geosynthetic filter layer to prevent tural coefficient values.
OGDLs from clogging. Five agencies construct the filter

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 7% (3) 46 survey respondents

No 52% (24)

Yes 41% (19)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 70  Agency response to whether different gradations are specified for
unbound aggregate applications targeting drainable versus Low-permeability
layers.
88

Number of Responses
0 5 10 15 20 25
Drainage is NOT one of the primary functions of
50% (23)
flexible pavement unbound aggregate…
Other 17% (8)
Adjusting the constructed layer gradation
13% (6)
towards a more open-graded layer
Increasing the maximum aggregate size 4% (2)
Limiting the maximum allowable percent fines
37% (17)
(material passing sieve No. 200)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 71  Different approaches adopted by agencies to facilitate the drainage of dense-graded
base courses.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 20% (9)

Open-graded drainage layers are not used 50% (23)

Empirical correlations to estimate the permeability from

aggregate physical properties like gradation, dry density, 20% (9)
specific surface, and void ratio (or porosity)

Laboratory tests to measure the permeability of aggregate

samples 17% (8)

In-situ permeability measurements 4% (2) 46 survey respondents

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 72  Different methods used by agencies to measure the effectiveness of

open-graded aggregate drainage layers.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Open-graded drainage layers

are not used 48% (22)

46 survey respondents
No (no extra layer constructed
for filtration purposes) 20% (9)

Yes (geosynthetics commonly

used as the mode of filtration) 26% (12)

Yes (open graded aggregates

commonly used to construct 11% (5)
the filter layer)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 73  Agency response to whether filter layers are used to prevent the clogging of
open-graded drainage layers.
 89

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

46 survey respondents
No, not common at all 30% (14)

Yes, for specific projects

when required by the 46% (21)
design

Yes, very common 26% (12)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 74  Agency response to whether the construction of subsurface drainage

systems, such as edge drains, is a common practice.

from readily available material properties, such as gradation

• Nineteen of 46 responding agencies specify different and moisture and density conditions.
gradations for permeable versus low-permeability
unbound aggregate pavement layers. Two main permeable base materials are widely used:
• The permeability of drainage layers usually is esti- stabilized and unbound. For example, in Minnesota, grada-
mated from laboratory test results or empirical corre- tion specifications for an unstabilized base and a stabilized
lations. Only two agencies conduct in situ permeability
base are represented by the following percent passing values
tests on unbound aggregate drainage layers.
(Arika et al. 2009):

Unstabilized Base

EFFECTS OF AGGREGATE MATERIAL • 1 inch: 100%;

PROPERTIES ON LAYER PERMEABILITY • ¾ inch: 65% to 100%;
• ³⁄8 inch: 35% to 70%;
Permeable Base Designs • 4.75 mm (#4): 20% to 45%;
• 2 mm (#10): 8% to 25%;
The use of permeable bases, open-graded drainage layers • 0.425 mm (#40): 2% to 10%;
(OGDLs) and installation of edge drains are the primary • 0.075 mm (#200): 0% to 3%
options for restoring drainage efficiency. The hydraulic con-
ductivity k (or the coefficient of permeability) is an essential Stabilized Base
parameter needed for analysis and design of the subsurface
drainage systems, along with other engineering properties • 1½ inch: 100%;
of materials, such as the grain size distribution (gradation), • 1 inch: 95% to 100;
packing, degree of saturation, and frost susceptibility. Labo- • ½ inch: 25% to 60%;
ratory determination of the coefficient of permeability is very • 4.75 mm (#4): 0% to 10%;
important for permeable base/subbase designs, fill materials, • 2.38 mm (#8): 0% to 5%.
and other drainage layers, and test methods for this purpose
are quite mature. Obtaining in situ measurements of perme- With the addition of a stabilizer (asphalt or cement), the
ability for base/subbase layers is desired from the standpoint gradation of a stabilized granular material becomes much
of adequate engineering design. With the advent of portable coarser; however, unstabilized materials require consid-
gas permeameter test (GPT) devices, such as that introduced erable amounts of finer-size aggregates to achieve better
by White et al. (2010), this becomes possible and widely packing (low voids content) and stability through aggregate
used in QC/QA. In cases in which field measurement and interlock. Typical permeability values are 6,800 ft/day for
laboratory testing of permeability are not possible, empirical stabilized bases and 1,000 to approximately 3,000 ft/day for
approaches can be used with caution to estimate permeability unbound granular ones. Note that permeability values as low
90

as 1,000 ft/day are considered acceptable as far as pavement ing and deflections were analyzed and correlated with the
layer drainage requirements are concerned. Table 10 shows type of subbase and type of subsurface drainage system. The
the MnDOT guidelines for selecting permeable aggregate lime-stabilized soil mixture as subbase was reported to offer
base. In addition to maintaining adequate permeability, these the potential for reducing construction costs. The subsur-
layers are required to remain stable during construction and face drainage system with longitudinal underdrains placed
future rehabilitation activities over the design service life. at the edge of the stabilized subbase was the most efficient
in removing free water from beneath the pavement structure;
Hagen and Cochran (1995) described and evaluated in a the system was adopted by the Illinois DOT as the standard
study (MD-RD-95-28) the drainage characteristics and pave- treatment for interstate highways. Winkelman (2004) investi-
ment performance of four drainage systems under jointed gated OGDL performance in Illinois. The OGDL consisted of
concrete pavement: MnDOT standard dense-graded base, two a uniform size aggregate that may be bound together as a lean
dense-graded base sections incorporating transverse drains concrete mixture or low asphalt cement content bituminous
placed under the transverse joints, and permeable asphalt- mixture. Pavement performance was monitored in terms of
stabilized base reflecting the MnDOT drainable base concept FWD measurements, International Roughness Index values,
at that time. Moisture sensors were placed in the pavement visual distress surveys, and condition rating survey values.
to assist in evaluating the relative performance of the tradi- Despite the OGDL being more costly than a stabilized base,
tional and new drainage systems and their effects on pave- its use under a continuously reinforced concrete pavement
ment performance. Longitudinal edge drains were installed was not recommended according to the findings. This study
in all sections. Drainage flows, percent of rainfall drained, suggested that a geotextile fabric or dense-graded aggregate
time to drain, base and subgrade moisture content, and pave- filter be used under the OGDL to prevent the intrusion of
ment and joint durability were the variables studied. The fol- subgrade fines.
lowing important observations were reported: (1) although
all systems appeared capable of removing drainable water As compared with UABs, asphalt- or cement-treated bases
from the pavement base, the permeable asphalt-stabilized become more expensive solutions and thus less desirable
base commonly drained the most water within 2 hours after for some roadways, especially for low- to medium-volume
rainfall ended while providing the driest pavement founda- ones. In these situations, it is worth exploring if the use of a
tion with the least early pavement distress; (2) approximately properly graded unbound aggregate can maintain adequate
40% of the rain infiltrated into the concrete pavement; drainability and structural stability during construction and
(3) the open-graded and geocomposite systems removed the expected service lifetime after the roadway is open to
water most rapidly; (4) spring thaw flows were roughly traffic.
equivalent to a major rain event; and (5) all rain inflow
was reduced temporarily by sealing the longitudinal and In Louisiana, Tao and Abu-Farsakh (2008) studied typical
transverse joints but resumed after approximately 2 weeks, permeable base materials for their drainage benefits, includ-
despite the joint sealants appearing to be intact. ing asphalt- and cement-treated aggregates, open-graded
aggregates, and dense-graded unbound aggregates. The per-
In Illinois, Dhamrait and Schwartz (1979) evaluated four meability of unbound aggregate was quantified by its satu-
types of subbases (4-in. thick cement-aggregate mixture, rated hydraulic conductivity, whereas its structural stability
4-in. thick bituminous-aggregate mixture, 8-in. thick lime- was characterized by the results of various laboratory tests
stabilized soil mixture, and 4-in. thick granular materials) and for strength, stiffness, and permanent deformation of the
three types of subsurface drainage systems, such as shoulder material. A trade-off between structural stability and perme-
drainage. Pavement behaviors in terms of transverse crack- ability of unbound aggregates was observed; the increase of

TABLE 10
Minnesota Department of Transportation Concrete Pavement
Permeable Aggregate Base Application Guidelines
Subgrade Soil Plastic / Non-Granular Granular (D)
Traffic Level VH H M L VH M L
Interstate R R NA NA R R/AR NA NA
Non-Interstate R R R AR R R/AR NR NR

Legend: Traffic Level: 35-yr Design Lane CESALs

AR = As Recommended (A) VH = (Very High) > 30 million
NA = Not Applicable (B) H = (High) 9 – 30 million
NR = Not Recommended M = (Medium) 3 - million
R = Recommended L = (Low) < 3 million
R/AR = (C)
 91

FIGURE 75  Particle size distributions of aggregate types tested by Tao and Abu-Farsakh
(2008).

permeability was often at the cost of structural stability or CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
vice versa. Therefore, the criteria for selecting such an opti- IN UNBOUND AGGREGATE BASE DESIGN
mum gradation were: (1) an adequate permeability to drain
The life cycles of most pavements are significantly shorter
the infiltrated-water from the pavement as rapidly as pos-
than the time span over which climatic effects will have a
sible; and (2) a sufficient structural stability to support the
statistically significant effect on pavement performance
traffic loading. Laboratory tests were conducted on a Mexi-
(Dawson 2010). However, the effect of climate change
can limestone (commonly used in Louisiana highways) with
on UAB/subbase performance can be manifested primar-
different gradations, including constant-head permeability,
ily through changes in moisture content, effect of freeze-
CBR, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), tube suction test
thaw cycles, and depth of frost penetration. As discussed in
(TST), monotonic load triaxial tests, and repeated load tri­
chapter two, moisture often has been identified by research-
axial tests. The gradations under investigation included
ers and practitioners as one of the most important factors
coarse and fine branches of Louisiana class II gradation,
affecting unbound aggregate layer performance. Permanent
New Jersey gradation medium, and an optimum gradation deformation is more likely to occur in an unbound aggre-
(fine and coarse branches). As a result, Tao and Abu-Farsakh gate layer during wet spring months when the modulus
(2008) determined a proper/optimum gradation for perme- and strength properties are greatly reduced, especially in
able base materials. For a detailed discussion of the proposed the northern climates with wet freeze and thaw conditions.
proper/optimum gradation, the reader is directed to the origi- Unbound pavement layers are most likely to reach equilib-
nal publication (Tao and Abu-Farsakh, 2008). Figure 75 rium moisture contents, often on the wet side of compacted
shows the gradation curves of different aggregate materials optimum moisture conditions, and this can drastically
tested by Tao and Abu-Farsakh (2008). affect the long-term modulus and permanent deformation
behavior.

The seasonal variation in unbound pavement material

Key Lessons moduli is widely recognized as contributing to decreased
load-carrying capacity and pavement failure. Factors influ-
• Permeability values as low as 1,000 ft/day are con-
encing layer moduli are stress state, moisture, suction, den-
sidered acceptable as far as pavement layer drain-
age requirements are concerned. sity, and material characteristics. Climate factors such as
• Stable open-graded or gap-graded (a gradation with precipitation and temperature contribute to seasonal varia-
some intermediate-size particles missing) aggregates tion in layer moduli. These seasonal variations are mainly
with low fines contents (P200) are best selected for use the result of variations in moisture/suction. Depending
in unbound aggregate drainage layers. on the magnitude of the load or applied stress state in rela-
tion to the strength, modulus and permanent deformation
92

properties vary considerably with moisture/suction and tem- on the wet side of compacted optimum conditions (Zapata
perature, which in turn depend on the weather conditions. and Houston 2008). Figure 76a shows increased permanent
deformations in all of the subgrade, subbase, and base lay-
Through investigation of several pavements in Wash- ers during accelerated pavement testing at 330,000 cycles
ington State, Newcomb et al. (1989) observed that seasonal when the water table was raised to 30 cm below the top
variations in the moduli of the subgrade materials were of sand subgrade (Erlingsson and Ingason 2004). Such an
much less significant than those observed in granular base effect of wetting from the water table up is depicted in Fig-
materials. Uhlmeyer et al. (1996) reported that the effect of ure 76b, where the initial moisture contents are indicated at
seasonal variations on base layer performance were greater the compacted optimum moisture condition. This increase
than those for the subgrade. Moreover, they observed that the in moisture content in excess of initial compaction value,
seasonal effect on unbound aggregate layer performance was primarily as a result of capillary rise from the water table,
reduced significantly when the stress sensitivity of unbound was indicated to be more critical in the long term than was
aggregate materials was considered, rather than treating the the seasonal variation in layer moduli (AASHTO 2004,
layers as linearly elastic. Appendix DD).

Kolisoja et al. (2002) conducted cyclic-loading triaxial Approaches for predicting the seasonal variation in pave-
tests on base course aggregates to simulate seasonal condi- ment layer moduli have evolved from models that rely on
tions of dryness, moisture, and the period after a freeze-thaw regional adjustment factors that do not directly address sea-
cycle. From the test results they reported that even though the sonal variations in pavement structure to climate models
permanent deformation behavior of aggregates were signifi- that relate the changes in modulus to key factors affecting
cantly affected by freeze-thaw cycles, no significant changes those changes, such as suction (Larson and Dempsey 1997).
in the resilient modulus values were observed even during Explicit consideration of seasonal variation came with
the spring thaw phase. the introduction of mechanistically based design methods
(Richter 2006).
Werkmeister et al. (2003) observed that even a 1%
increase in moisture had a significant effect on the perma- The MEPDG approach produces a design section that
nent deformation behavior of unbound aggregates. Although includes required thicknesses and elastic moduli for UAB
the increase in moisture content did not result in significant and subbase for flexible and rigid pavements. The resil-
changes in the resilient modulus values (and thus the stress ient modulus (MR) of the unbound layer materials used in
levels), it was reflected through drastic changes in the perma- MEPDG may be specified by means of stress-dependent ki
nent deformation behavior. parameters determined from lab testing (Level 1 MEPDG)
or as a single average value determined per lab testing/field
Carrera et al. (2009) listed the following factors as sig- nondestructive FWD testing (Level 1 MEPDG), through
nificantly affecting the moisture sensitivity of unbound correlation (Level 2 MEPDG) or estimated with typical val-
aggregates: (1) compaction properties, (2) amount of deg- ues (Level 3 MEPDG). The parameters required to estimate
radation, (3) grain size composition, and (4) quality of P200 MR for Level 1 MEPDG by means of laboratory testing are
fines (plasticity and swelling index). Mishra (2012) studied derived from samples compacted at optimum moisture and
the effects of material quality on aggregate behavior using maximum dry unit weight (standard or modified Proctor).
aggregate specimens containing different amounts of non- For Level 2 MEPDG, MR is estimated by means of corre-
plastic and plastic P200 fines (material finer than 0.075 mm) lation from laboratory measured parameters such as CBR,
compacted to different moisture-density conditions. Con- Hveem stabilometer R-value, and so forth. For rehabilitation
ducting laboratory tests to characterize the shear strength, Level 1 MEPDG, MR is estimated through FWD backcal-
resilient modulus, and permanent deformation behavior, culation. Through the Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model
Mishra concluded that the effect of moisture content on (EICM), MEPDG seasonally adjusts the subgrade and
aggregate behavior was particularly severe for specimens unbound layer moduli when performing fatigue and perma-
containing high amounts of plastic fines. Moreover, the nent deformation analyses. The EICM provides MR seasonal
quality of fines (plastic or nonplastic) was significant only adjustment through suction model parameters and soil water
for specimens with intermediate to high fines contents characteristic curves (SWCCs).
(8% or higher for crushed aggregates, 6% or higher for
uncrushed gravel). The EICM used in the MEPDG takes into account unsatu-
rated soil mechanics concepts through the climatic-materials-
A shallow depth to GWT decreases suction and critically structure and two-dimensional-drainage-infiltration models
affects the long-term modulus and permanent deformation to calculate coupled heat-moisture flows in pavement struc-
behavior of aggregate base/subbase, especially in regions tures and predict pavement temperature (AASHTO 2004).
with a moisture surplus, as measured by the Thorntwaithe The model evaluates the expected changes in moisture
Moisture Index when equilibrium moisture contents are condition from the initial or reference condition (gener-
 93

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 76  Effect of shallow groundwater table on permanent deformation accumulation

(Erlingsson and Ingason 2004).

ally optimum moisture condition and maximum dry den- calculates the effects of freezing, thawing, and recovery
sity) as the unbound materials reach equilibrium moisture on MR, and uses the new MR values, corrected for envi-
condition. Seasonal variation in modulus is determined by ronmental conditions, for calculation of critical pavement
(1) computing the environmental effects such as layer mois- response parameters and damage at various points within
ture condition, (2) translating the computed layer moisture the pavement system. The effects of varying moisture,
into suction through the Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC, freezing, thawing, and recovery on MR are reflected in the
and (3) predicting a seasonal modulus value from a modulus- calculation of critical pavement responses and in the dam-
suction relationship. The model also evaluates the sea- age accumulation within the pavement system (AASHTO
sonal changes in moisture condition and consequently the 2004, Appendix GG). However, a major concern exists
changes in resilient modulus, MR. This often is done on a in the way permanent deformation damage is computed
biweekly basis for flexible pavements. The model also com- using the unbound base/subbase rutting model adopted;
putes moisture and temperature in the middle of sublayers the individual rutting amounts in the UAB/subbase layers
(established as finite difference node points in the EICM), are computed by incorporating only the changes in moisture
94

content and MR but no applied stress state in relation to the far as pavement subgrade performance was concerned (see
strength properties. Furthermore, the EICM does not per- Figure 77). Upon further investigation, a change in subgrade
mit the use of models other than that of Fredlund and Xing soil properties resulting from seasonal fluctuations was iden-
(1994) to predict SWCC. tified as the primary concern. In addition, nearly 79% of
the respondents indicated that the presence of fine-grained
The state of the practice in the United States regarding soils in areas susceptible to upward movement of the GWT
M-E design, field measurement of modulus, and its connec- was responsible for adverse climatic effects on pavement
tion to design modulus was summarized in NCHRP Synthe- performance.
sis 382 (Puppala 2008). Of the 41 states that responded to
NCHRP Synthesis 382, 24 used the 1993 AASHTO Design Thirty-nine of 46 responding agencies do not conduct any
Guide, seven states used the 1972 AASHTO Design Guide, testing to evaluate the aggregate materials selected for use in
five states (including California and Minnesota) used inter- granular base/subbase applications for effects of adverse cli-
nally developed mechanistic procedures, four states used matic conditions. Twenty-seven of 46 respondents indicated
internally developed empirical procedures, and one state that effects of climatic changes on unbound aggregate layer
used the 2002 AASHTO MEPDG. Regarding the use of sub- performance were not considered in the pavement design
grade and aggregate base design moduli, 22 of the 41 states procedure. Ten other agencies indicated that the approach
used MR in pavement design. Fourteen states determined MR adopted by the pavement design procedure to incorporate
through correlation to CBR, R-value, and so forth, and nine the effects of climatic changes on unbound aggregate layer
directly measured MR in the laboratory. Twenty states used performance was not clearly defined. Of the nine agencies
FWD-based backcalculation of subgrade and sometimes accounting for the effect of climatic conditions on unbound
base modulus for design of rehabilitation projects. In addi- aggregate layer performance, four adjusted the layer structural
tion, 12 states used FWD results to determine layer coeffi- coefficients, seven modified the resilient modulus of unbound
cients for the 1993 Design Guide. Twenty-two states took the aggregate layers under different climatic conditions, and one
seasonal variation of modulus into account during pavement adjusted the shear strength of the unbound aggregate layer.
design in a variety of ways. The majority of states, including Moreover, one agency indicated that the drainage coefficients
California, did not take seasonal variation into consideration. of unbound aggregate layers were changed under different
Arkansas chose the lowest modulus value from saturated lab climatic conditions. One more agency indicated that the mini-
testing, and Minnesota used internally developed charts. mum thickness requirements for unbound aggregate layers
were modified according to climatic conditions. Note that the
In the current synthesis study, 30 of 46 responding agen- survey results reported in this synthesis reflect state practices
cies indicated that climatic effects were a major concern as as of May 2012.

28 survey respondents
Number of Responses
0 5 10 15 20 25

Subgrade soils are primarily frost-susceptible (i.e. silty soils) 57% (16)

Spring thaw weakening and timing of spring load restrictions 61% (17)
More than 10 freeze-thaw cycles per year are experienced at the subgrade
level 68% (19)

Subgrades stay frozen for extended periods (one month or longer) 61% (17)

Seasonal fluctuations cause significant changes in subgrade soil properties 86% (24)
In-service pavement subgrades are often under "wet of optimum" moisture
conditions 46% (13)
Native soils primarily fine-grained (e.g. silts, clays, etc.) and may get wet of
optimum due to upward movement of moisture from the GWT 79% (22)
Ground water table (GWT) is often shallow (can be less than 5 ft. deep)
under the pavements 57% 16

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 77  Different factors identified by state and Canadian provincial transportation agencies as responsible for
affecting pavement performance under adverse climatic conditions.
 95

Freeze-Thaw and Frost Penetration water flow path; (7) using alternative insulation materials
(sawdust, sand/tire chips mix, extruded Styrofoam) for pre-
Frost susceptibility refers to the degree to which an unbound venting frost action; (8) using a peat layer above the sub-
aggregate layer is affected by the action of freeze-thaw in the grade soils; and (9) engineering a pavement structure with
presence of water. In many northern states and Canadian prov- reduced heat conductivity using lightweight aggregate, as
inces, the pavement, base, subbase, and subgrade materials proposed by Khan (2008).
experience one or more freeze-thaw cycles during each year,
leading to frost-associated pavement distresses. Pavement dis- According to Saeed (2008), the frost susceptibility of
tresses associated mainly with frost heaving and thaw weak- aggregates can be determined in terms of the USACE “F”
ening can be commonly encountered given the presence of categories and from the results of the TST (Saarenketo and
three factors: freezing temperatures, availability of moisture, Scullion 1996). The USACE method categorizes soils into
and presence of frost-susceptible soils. The pavement failure several categories based on their degree of susceptibility,
mechanism associated with freeze-thaw involves nonuniform from F1 (least susceptible) to F4 (most susceptible). The F
heave, which is destructive in terms of causing uneven sup- categories are based on general soil type and the amount of
port, whereas thaw weakening causes deformation in the base material finer than 0.02 mm. The TST measures the amount
or subgrade and eventually damages pavement surface. For of free water that exists within an aggregate sample. The
example, in Minnesota, frost depth typically ranges between asymptotic dielectric constant value (DCV) at the end of the
40 and 70 in., greatly exceeding the thicknesses of the nonfrost test can be used to characterize an aggregate as a poor (>16),
susceptible bases and subbases (anecdotal evidence suggests marginal (10 to 16), or good (<10) performer in terms of its
that frost depths to 96 in. have been measured in northern moisture susceptibility and frost resistance.
Minnesota). If base/subbase layers have low fines (passing
No. 200 sieve or smaller than 0.075 mm) content, treating
frost-susceptible subgrade soils is the emphasis of mitigat- Key Lessons
ing freeze-thaw damages; otherwise, both base/subbase and
subgrade may need to be properly addressed. • With proper consideration of the effects of climatic
conditions, such as frost penetration and freeze-thaw
cycles, on UAB/subbase layer performance, pre­
The existing methods of mitigating frost damage in flexible
mature pavement failures can be prevented.
pavements can be costly and sometimes cumbersome (Khan • TSTs are conducted to evaluate the frost susceptibil-
2008). Current MnDOT concrete pavement design practices ity of aggregates before their application in unbound
require that a certain thickness of nonfrost-susceptible or base/subbase layers in areas experiencing significant
frost-free materials be incorporated into pavement designs. frost penetration.
Frost-free materials may include aggregate base (MnDOT’s
Specification 3138, Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and select gran-
ular borrow (MnDOT’s Specification 3149.2B2) containing
less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm). The REFERENCES
minimum thickness of the frost-free materials is a function
of the 20-year design lane ESALs and varies between 30 American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO),
and 36 in. for most bituminous designs. To examine the ade- AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid and Flex-
quacy of existing design standards for frost protection, bet- ible Pavements, AASHO, Washington, D.C., 1961.
ter understanding of thermophysical properties of aggregate American Association of State Highway and Transportation
base/subbase materials and accurate modeling of pavement Officials (AASHTO), Pavement Design Guide, Section
temperature-depth profile are required. 2.0, Fundamental Design Parameters, AASHTO, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1998.
Other existing methods of preventing or minimizing frost American Association of State Highway and Transportation
damage are briefly reviewed as follows: (1) simply increasing Officials (AASHTO), Resilient Modulus of Unbound
the pavement thickness to account for the damage and loss of Granular Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils—
support caused by frost action as the AASHTO 1993 Guide SHRP Protocol P46, Standard Specifications for Trans-
implies; (2) reducing the depth of frost-impacted subgrade portation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
under the pavement (between the bottom of the pavement Testing, AASHTO T294-94, 17th ed., AASHTO, Wash-
structure and frost depth) by extending the pavement sec- ington, D.C., 1995.
tions well into the frost depth; (3) replacing the frost suscep- American Association of State Highway and Transportation
tible subgrade with nonfrost susceptible material; (4) using Officials (AASHTO), Standard Test Method for Deter-
an insulation layer between the pavement and subgrade; mining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate
(5) preventing free water from infiltrating into pavement Materials, AASHTO T307-99, AASHTO, Washington,
structures; (6) providing a capillary break in the subgrade D.C., 2003.
96

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Birgisson, B. and R. Roberson, “Drainage of Pavement
Officials (AASHTO), Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Base Material: Design and Construction Issues,” Trans-
Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, portation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
Appendix GG-1: Calibration of Permanent Deformation tion Research Board, No. 1709, Transportation Research
Models for Flexible Pavements, prepared for NCHRP by Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
ARA, Inc., AASHTO, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2004. 2000, pp. 11–18.
Adu-Osei, A., D.N. Little, and R.L. Lytton, Structural Char- Boussinesq, J., “Application des Potentiels a l’etude de
acteristics Of Unbound Aggregate Bases To Meet AAS- l’equilibre et du Mouvement des Solids Elastiques,”
HTO 2002 Design Requirements, International Center for Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1885.
Aggregates Research (ICAR) Report 502-1, Texas Trans- British Standard BS EN 13286-7, Unbound and Hydrauli-
portation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, cally Bound Mixtures. Cyclic Load Triaxial Test for
College Station, 2001. Unbound Mixtures, British-Adopted European Standard,
Allen, J.J., The Effects of Non-Constant Lateral Pressures on Feb. 2004, 40 pp.
The Resilient Response of Granular Materials, Ph.D. Dis- Broms, B., “Lateral Earth Pressure Due to Compaction of
sertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cohesionless Soils,” Proceedings, 4th Budapest Confer-
Illinois, Urbana, 1973. ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Allen, J.J. and M.R. Thompson, “Resilient Response of 1971, pp. 373–383.
Granular Materials Subjected to Time-Dependent Lateral Brown, S.F. and A.F.L. Hyde, “Significance of Cyclic Con-
Stresses,” Transportation Research Record 510, Trans- fining Stress in Repeated-Load Triaxial Testing of Gran-
portation Research Board, National Research Council, ular Material,” Transportation Research Record 537,
Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 1–13. Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
Arika, C.N., D.J. Canelon, and J.L. Nieber, Subsurface cil, Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 49–58.
Drainage Manual for Pavements in Minnesota, Final Brown, S.F. and J.W. Pappin, “Analysis of Pavements with
Report MN/RC 2009-17, Minnesota Department of Granular Bases,” Transportation Research Record 810,
Transportation, St. Paul, 2009. Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
Ashtiani, R.S. and D. Little, Acceptability Criteria for cil, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 17–23.
High Fines Content Aggregate Pavement Layers, Report Brown, S.F. and B.V. Brodrick, “25 Years’ Experience with
No ICAR 401131, International Center for Aggregates the Pilot-Scale Nottingham Pavement Test Facility,” Pro-
Research (ICAR), College Station, Tex., 2007, 100 pp. ceedings of the International Conference on Accelerated
Ashtiani, R.S. and D. Little, Methodology For Designing Pavement Testing, Reno, Nev., Oct. 18–20, 1999.
Aggregate Mixtures For Base Courses, Report No 508-1, Carrera, A., A. Dawson, and J. Steger, State of the Art Materials’
International Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR), Col- Sensitivity to Moisture Content Change: Report Nr. 2,
lege Station, Tex., 2009, 336 pp. P2R2C2, Pavement Performance and Remediation Require-
Barksdale, R.D. and H.A. Todres, A Study of Factors Affecting ments due to Climate Change, Road ERA Net, 2009.
Crushed Stone Base Performance, School of Civil Engi- CEN EN 13286-7, Unbound and Hydraulically Bound Mix-
neering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1983. tures—Test Methods—Part 7: Cyclic Load Triaxial Test
Barksdale, R.D., S.F. Brown, and F. Chan, NCHRP Report for Unbound Mixtures, CEN, European Committee for
315: Potential Benefits of Geosynthetics in Flexible Pave- Standardization, 2004.
ments, Transportation Research Board, National Research COST Action 337, Unbound Granular Materials for Road
Council, Washington, D.C., 1989. Pavements, Final Report, Chapter 8, European Commis-
Barksdale, R.D. and J.L. Alba, Laboratory Determina- sion, Directorate General for Research and Technological
tion of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design, Development, Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
Interim Report No. 2, prepared for NCHRP, Transportation Chen, D.H. and H.H. Lin, “Effect of Base Support and Load
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, Transfer Efficiency (LTE) on Portland Concrete Pave-
D.C., 1993. ment Performance,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
Barksdale, R.D., J. Alba, P.N. Khosla, R. Kim, P.C. Lambe, No. 38, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1–10.
and M.S. Rahman, NCHRP Web Document 14: Laboratory Christopher, B.R., C. Schwartz, and R. Boudreau, Geo­
Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement technical Aspects of Pavements, Report FHWA NHI-
Design, Transportation Research Board, National Research 10-092, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway
Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, 486 pp. Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Beatty, T.L., et al., Pavement Preservation Technology in Crockford, W.W., L.J. Bendana, W.S. Yang, S.K. Rhee,
France, South Africa, and Australia, Office of Interna- and S.P. Senadheera, Modeling Stress and Strain States
tional Programs, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. In Pavement Structures Incorporating Thick Granular
Department of Transportation, and the American Associa- Layers, Final Report, Contract F08635-87-C-0039, The
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Alex- Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University,
andria, Va., 2002. College Station, 1990.
 97

Cundall, P.A. and O.D.L. Strack, “A Discrete Numerical Hornych, P., A. Kazai, and A. Quibel, “Modeling a Full-
Model for Granular Assemblies,” Geotechnique, Vol. 29, Scale Experiment of Two Flexible Pavement Structures
1979, 47 pp. with Unbound Granular Bases,” Unbound Aggregates
Dantu, P., “Contribution a l’Etude Mechanique et Geometrique in Road Construction, A.R. Dawson, Ed., A.A. Balkema
des Milieux Pulverulents,” Proceedings, 4th International Publishers, Proceedings of the Unbound Aggregates in
Conference on Soil Mechanics, Vol. 1, London, U.K., 1957. Roads (UNBAR5) Symposium, University of Nottingham,
Dawson, A., “Pavement Performance and Remediation England, June 21–23, 2000, pp. 359–367.
Requirements Following Climate Change,” 2010 [Online]. Ingold, T.S., “The Effect of Compaction on Retaining Walls,”
Available: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~evzard/P2R2C2/ Geotechnique, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1979, pp. 265–283.
Brochure.pdf. Jung, Y.S., D.G. Zollinger, M. Won, and A.J. Wimsatt, Sub-
Dhamrait, J.S. and D.R. Schwartz, Effect of Subbase Type base and Subgrade Performance Investigation for Con-
and Subsurface Drainage on Behavior of CRC Pave- crete Pavement, Final Report FHWA/TX-09/0-6037-1,
ments, Interim Report IHR-36, Illinois Department of Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2009.
Transportation, Springfield, 1979, 70 pp.. Jung, Y.S., D.G. Zollinger, and A.J. Wimsatt, “Test Method
Dobry, R., T.T. Ng, and E. Petrakis, “Deformation Character- and Model Development of Subbase Erosion for Con-
istics of Granular Soil in the Light Of Particulate Mechan- crete Pavement Design,” Transportation Research
ics,” Proceedings, 14th Conference on Geotechnics, Italian Record; Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
Geotechnical Association, Torino, Nov. 28–30, 1989. No. 2154, Transportation Research Board of the National
Edwards, J.P., N.H. Thom, P.R. Fleming, and J. Williams, Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 22–31.
“Accelerated Laboratory Based Mechanistic Testing of Jung, Y.S. and D.G. Zollinger, “New Laboratory-Based
Unbound Materials within the Newly Developed NAT Mechanistic-Empirical Model for Faulting in Jointed
Springbox,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of Concrete Pavement,” Transportation Research Record;
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1913, Transpor- Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2226,
tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
ington, D.C., 2005. emies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 60–70.
Elhannani, M., Modelisation et Simulation Numerique des Karasahin, M., A.R. Dawson, and J.T. Holden, “Applicability
Chaussees Souples, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nantes, of Resilient Constitutive Models of Granular Material for
France, 1991. Unbound Base Layers,” Transportation Research Record
Erlingsson, S. and T. Ingason, “Performance of Two Thin 1406, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Pavement Structures during Accelerated Pavement Test- Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 98–107.
ing Using a Heavy Vehicle Simulator,” Proceedings of the Khan, A.A., Feasibility of Using Lightweight Aggregate to
Second International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Mitigating Frost Damage in Flexible Pavements, PhD
Testing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2004. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “Transportation New Brunswick, Canada, 2008.
Applications of Recycled Concrete Aggregate,” FHWA Khazanovich, L., M. Darter, R. Bartlett, and T. McPeak,
State of the Practice National Review, FHWA, Washing- Common Characteristics of Good and Poorly Performing
ton, D.C., Sep. 2004. PCC Pavements, Final Report FHWA-RD-97-131, Fed-
Fledlund, D.G. and A. Xing, “Equations for the Soil-Water eral Highway Administration, McLean, Va., 1998.
Characteristic Curve,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Kim, I.T. and E. Tutumluer, “Unbound Aggregate Rutting
Vol. 31, No. 4, 1994, pp. 533–546. Models for Stress Rotation and Effects of Moving Wheel
Garg, N., E. Tutumluer, and M.R. Thompson, “Structural Loads,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Modeling Concepts for the Design of Airport Pavements Transportation Research Board, No. 1913, Transportation
for Heavy Aircraft,” Proceedings, 5th International Con- Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
ference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, D.C., 2005, pp. 41–52.
Trondheim, Norway, July 1998, pp. 115–124. Kim, I.T., Permanent Deformation Behavior of Airport
Hagen, M.G. and G.R. Cochran, “Comparison of Pavement Flexible Pavement Base and Subbase Courses, PhD Dis-
Drainage Systems.” Transportation Research Record sertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
1519, Transportation Research Board, National Research Urbana, 2005.
Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 1–10. Kim, S.-H., D.N. Little, and E. Masad, “Simple Methods to
Hicks, R.G., Factors Influencing the Resilient Properties of Estimate Inherent and Stress-Induced Anisotropy of Aggre-
Granular Materials, PhD Dissertation, Institute of Trans- gate Base,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
portation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, the Transportation Research Board, No. 1913, Transporta-
Berkeley, 1970. tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washing-
Holl, D.L., “Plane Strain Distribution of Stress in Elastic ton, D.C., 2005, pp. 24–31.
Media,” Iowa Engineering Experimentation Station Bul- Kim, S.-H., E. Tutumluer, D.N. Little, and N. Kim, “Effect
letin, 1941, pp. 148–163. of Gradation on Nonlinear Stress-Dependent Behavior of
98

a Sandy Flexible Pavement Subgrade,” Journal of Trans- Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa, 1989,
portation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 10, Oct. 2007, pp. 470–486.
pp. 590–598. Oda, M., “A Mechanical and Statistical Model of Granular
Kolisoja, P., T. Saarenketo, H. Peltoniemi, and N. Vuorimies, Materials,” Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
“Laboratory Testing of Suction and Deformation Proper- Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 14, 1974.
ties of Base Course Aggregates,” Transportation Research Puppala, A.J., Synthesis of Highway Practice 382: Estimat-
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, ing Stiffness of Subgrade and Unbound Materials for
No. 1787, Transportation Research Board of the National Pavement Design, Transportation Research Board of the
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 83–89. National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
Kwon, J., E. Tutumluer, I.L. Al-Qadi, and S. Dessouky, Richter, C.A., Seasonal Variations in the Moduli of Unbound
“Mechanistic Model Response Predictions of Geogrid Pavement Layers, Report FHWA-HRT-04-079, Federal
Base Reinforced Flexible Pavements,” Proceedings, Geo- Highway Administration, McLean, Va., 2006.
Americas 2008, The First Pan American Geosynthetics Saarenketo, T. and T. Scullion, Using Electrical Properties to
Conference, Cancun, Mexico, Mar. 2–5, 2008. Classify the Strength Properties of Base Course Aggregates,
Larson, G. and B. Dempsey, Enhanced Integrated Climatic Final Report FHWA/TX-97/1341-2, Texas Department of
Model, Version 2.0, Report DTFA MN/DOT 72114, Transportation, Austin, 1996.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Saeed, A., J.W. Hall, Jr. and W. Barker, NCHRP Report
Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, 1997. 453: Performance-Related Tests of Aggregates for Use
Lekarp, F., U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson, “State of the Art. in Unbound Pavement Layers, Transportation Research
I: Resilient Response of Unbound Aggregates,” Journal Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1, 2000a, 2001, 55 pp.
pp. 66–75. Saeed, A., NCHRP Report 598: Performance-Related Tests
Lekarp, F., U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson, “State of the Art. of Recycled Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pavement
Layers, Transportation Research Board of the National
II: Permanent Strain Response of Unbound Aggregates,”
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 53 p.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1,
Selig, E.T., “Tensile Zone Effects on Performance of Lay-
2000b, pp. 76–83.
ered Systems,” Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1987,
Love, A.E.H., A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of
pp. 247–254.
Elasticity, 4th ed., Dover Publications, New York, N.Y.,
Semmelink, C.J. and M. de Beer, “Rapid Determination of
1944, 643 pp.
Elastic and Shear Properties of Road-Building Materials
Masad, S., D.N. Little, and E. Masad, “Analysis of Flexible
with the K-Mould,” Proceedings of the UNBAR4 Sym-
Pavement Response and Performance Using Isotropic
posium, A.R. Dawson and R.H. Jones, Eds., July 17–19,
and Anisotropic Material Properties,” Journal of Trans-
1995, Nottingham, U.K., pp. 151–162.
portation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 4, 2006, Seyhan, U. and E. Tutumluer, “Unbound Granular Mate-
pp. 342–349. rial Characterization from Stress Path Loading Tests,”
Mishra, D., Aggregate Characteristics Affecting Response Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) No. 89, Recent
and Performance of Unsurfaced Pavements on Weak Advances in the Characterization of Transportation Geo-
Subgrades, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana– materials, E. Tutumluer and A.T. Papagiannakis, Eds.,
Champaign, Urbana, 2012. 1999, pp. 49–60.
Mishra, D. and E. Tutumluer, “Aggregate Physical Proper- Seyhan, U., E. Tutumluer, and H. Yesilyurt, “Anisotropic
ties Affecting Modulus and Deformation Characteristics Aggregate Base Inputs for Mechanistic Pavement Analy-
of Unsurfaced Pavements,” Paper 11-3486, 90th Annual sis Considering Effects of Moving Wheel Loads,” ASCE
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Jan. 2011, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 5,
Washington, D.C., 16 pp. Oct. 2005, pp. 505–512.
Nataatmadja, A., Variability of Pavement Material Param- Shackel, B., “Repeated Loading of Soils–A Review,” Austra-
eters under Repeated Loading, PhD Dissertation, Monash lian Road Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1973, pp. 22–49.
University, Australia, 1989. Shackel, B., Some Effects of Repeated Triaxial Stresses on
NCHRP 1-37A, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Road Pavement Materials, PhD Thesis, The University of
Guide, Draft Report, Part 2, Design Inputs, Transporta- New South Wales, 1974.
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- Steven, B., D. Alabaster, and J. de Pont, “Elastic Nonlinear
ington, D.C., 2004. Finite Element Analysis of a Flexible Pavement Sub-
Newcomb, D.E., S.W. Lee, J.P. Mahoney, and N.C. Jackson, jected to Varying Falling Weight Deflectometer Loads,”
“The Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer Data in Moni- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
toring Flexible Pavement Systems,” Nondestructive Test- portation Research Board, No. 2016, Transportation
ing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, ASTM Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
STP 1026, A.J. Bush III and G.Y. Baladi, Eds., American D.C., 2007, pp. 31–38.
 99

Stewart, E.H., E.T. Selig, and G.H. Norman-Gregory, “Fail- Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
ure Criteria and Lateral Stresses in Track Foundations,” cil, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 13–21.
Transportation Research Record 1022, Transportation Tutumluer, E. and I.T. Kim, “Permanent Deformation Behav-
Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- ior of Airport Pavement Granular Layers,” Proceedings of
ton, D.C., 1985, pp. 59–64. the 3rd International Conference on Deformation Char-
Tao, M. and M.Y. Abu-Farsakh, Effect of Drainage in acteristics of Geomaterials (IS LYON 2003),” H. DiBene-
Unbound Aggregate Bases on Flexible Pavement Perfor- detto, T. Doanh, H. Geffroy, and C. Sauzeat, Eds., Lyon,
mance, Final Report FHWA/LA.07/429, Louisiana Trans- France, Sep. 22–24, 2003, A.A. Balkema Publishers, the
portation Research Center, Baton Rouge, 2008, 48 pp. Netherlands, pp. 345–352.
Tao, M., M.N. Louay, N.D. Munir, Z. Zhang, and Z. Wu, Tutumluer, E. and U. Seyhan, “Effects of Fines Content on the
“Application of Shakedown Theory in Characterizing Anisotropic Response and Characterization of Unbound
Traditional and Recycled Pavement Base Materials,” Aggregate Bases,” Proceedings, 5th International Con-
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 3, ference on Unbound Aggregates in Roads (UNBAR5),
2010, pp. 214–222. Nottingham, England, 2000, pp. 153–161.
Thompson, M.R., “State-of-the-Art: Unbound Base Per- Tutumluer, E., A. Adu-Osei, D.N. Little, and R.L. Lytton,
formance,” Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium Field Validation of the Cross-Anisotropic Behavior of
of International Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), Unbound Aggregate Bases, International Center for
Austin, Tex., 1998. Aggregates Research (ICAR) Report 502-2, Texas Trans-
Toros, U. and D.R. Hiltunen, “Effects of Moisture and Time portation Institute, The Texas A&M University System,
on Stiffness of Unbound Aggregate Base Course Mate- College Station, 2001.
rials,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Tutumluer, E., D.N. Little, and S.H. Kim, “Validated Model
Transportation Research Board, No. 2016, Transporta- for Predicting Field Performance of Aggregate Base
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- Courses,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
ington, D.C., 2008, pp. 41–51.
the Transportation research Board, No. 1837, Transpor-
Tutumluer, E., Predicting Behavior of Flexible Pavements
tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-
with Granular Bases, PhD Dissertation, School of Civil
ington, D.C., 2003, pp. 41–49.
and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Tutumluer, E., “State of the Art: Anisotropic Characterization
Technology, Atlanta, Ga., 1995.
of Unbound Aggregate Layers in Flexible Pavements,”
Tutumluer, E., “Anisotropic Behavior of Unbound Aggre-
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 184, Pave-
gate Bases—State of the Art Summary.” Invited Paper,
ments and Materials—Modeling, Testing and Performance,
Proceedings, 6th Annual Symposium of the International
Z. You, A.R. Abbas, and L. Wang, Eds., 2009, pp. 1–16.
Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), St. Louis, Mo.,
Uhlmeyer, J.S., J.P. Mahoney, G. Hanek, G. Wang, R.L. Cop-
Apr. 19–21, 1998, pp. 11–33.
Tutumluer, E. and R.D. Barksdale, “Behavior of Pavements stead, and D.J. Janssen, Estimation of Seasonal Effects for
with Granular Bases—Prediction and Performance.” Pavement Design and Performance—Volume 1, Report
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Unbound FHWA-FLP-95-006, Federal Highway Administration,
Aggregates in Roads (UNBAR4), Nottingham, U.K., Washington, D.C., 1996.
July 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “The Unified Soil Classifica-
Tutumluer, E. and M.R. Thompson, “Granular Base Mod- tion System,” Technical Memorandum 3-357, Waterways
uli for Mechanistic Pavement Design,” Proceedings, Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1953.
ASCE Airfield Pavement Conference, Seattle, Wash., Uzan, J., “Characterization of Granular Material,” Transpor-
Aug. 17–20, 1997a, pp. 33–47. tation Research Record 1022, Transportation Research
Tutumluer, E. and M.R. Thompson, “Anisotropic Modeling Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
of Granular Bases in Flexible Pavements,” Transporta- 1985, pp. 52–59.
tion Research Record 1577, Transportation Research Werkmeister, S., Permanent Deformation Behaviour of
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Unbound Granular Materials in Pavement Construc-
1997b, pp. 18–26. tions, PhD Thesis, Dresden University of Technology,
Tutumluer, E. and M.R. Thompson, Anisotropic Modeling Dresden, Germany, 2003.
of Granular Bases, Technical Research Report Submit- Werkmeister, S., R. Numrich, A.R. Dawson, and F. Well-
ted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Department ner, “Design of Granular Pavement Layers Considering
of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana– Climatic Conditions,” Transportation Research Record:
Champaign, Urbana, 1998. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1837,
Tutumluer, E. and U. Seyhan, “Laboratory Determination of Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
Anisotropic Aggregate Resilient Moduli Using An Inno- emies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 61–70.
vative Test Device,” Transportation Research Record: Werkmeister, S., A.R. Dawson, and F. Wellner, “Pavement
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1687, Design Model for Unbound Granular Materials,” Journal
100

of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 5, portation Research Board, No. 2267, Transportation
2004, pp. 665–674. Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
White, D.J., P.K.R. Vennapusa, D. Eichner, H. Gieselman, D.C., 2012, pp. 14–26.
L. Zhao, and C. Jahren, Rapid, Self-Contained In situ Zapata, C.E. and W.N. Houston, NCHRP Report 602:
Permeameter for Field QA/QC of Pavement Base/Subbase Calibration and Validation of the Enhanced Integrated
Materials, Final Report for Highway IDEA Project 130, Climate Model for Pavement Design, Transportation
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
Washington, D.C., 2010, 50 pp. D.C., 2008.
Winkelman, T.J., Open Graded Drainage Layer Perfor- Zeilmaker, J, and R.J. Henny, “The Measurement of Resid-
mance in Illinois, Final Report FHWA/IL/PRR 147, Illi- ual Stresses Due to Compaction in Granular Materials,”
nois Department of Transportation, Springfield, 2004. In Proceedings, International Symposium on Unbound
Xiao, Y., E. Tutumluer, Y. Qian, and J. Siekmeier, “Grada- Aggregates on Roads (UNBAR3), Unbound Aggregates
tion Effects Influencing Mechanical Properties of Aggre- in Roads, R.H. Jones and A.R. Dawson, Eds., Reed
gate Base and Granular Subbase Materials in Minnesota,” International Publishing, United Kingdom, Apr. 1989,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- pp. 159–168.
 101

chapter five

COMPACTION, QUALITY CONTROL, AND FIELD PERFORMANCE

INTRODUCTION excessive settlement); (2) increase the shear strength and thus
improve slope stability; (3) improve the bearing capacity of
This chapter presents detailed findings on different approaches pavement subgrades and granular subbase/base layers; and
used by transportation agencies for compaction testing on (4) control undesirable volume changes caused by frost action,
laboratory samples, field compaction, QC/QA, and field per- swelling, and shrinkage (Holtz 1990). Although most initial
formance evaluations of constructed UAB/subbase layers. research efforts focused on compaction were concerned with
Different aspects of compaction and QC of UAB and sub- the compaction of soils (Proctor 1933; Seed 1959), the com-
base construction are discussed by first introducing the theory paction of aggregates as geomaterials is equally important
of compaction along with the objectives behind compacting in the construction of pavement layers. As discussed, the pri-
unbound aggregate pavement layers. This is followed by a mary mechanism of load transfer within an aggregate layer is
review of different types of compactors commonly used for through particle-to-particle interlock. The process of compac-
compacting UAB and subbase layers in the field. The concept tion reorients the particles within a loose aggregate layer and
of QC is introduced, emphasizing that constructed layer den- creates a densely packed matrix. This densely packed aggre-
sity measurement is the most commonly used field evaluation gate matrix demonstrates significantly higher shear strength
tool for verifying the adequacy of UAB/subbase construc- and resilient modulus, as well as significantly lower suscep-
tion. However, laboratory testing is needed to establish the tibility to permanent deformation compared with a loose
target densities and acceptance criteria in field compaction of uncompacted layer of aggregates.
aggregate layers. Different field techniques used to measure
densities of constructed pavement layers are discussed, with Although the process of compaction invariably results in
particular emphasis on the widespread nuclear gauge-based higher densities achieved in the compacted layers, the achieve-
direct density measurement methods. ment of higher densities is not one of the primary objectives of
compaction. Rather, density is an indicator of achieved compac-
The concept of modulus-based compaction control is intro- tion levels and often can be linked to other mechanical properties
duced by highlighting its potential advantages, such as continu- of soils and aggregates, such as shear strength and susceptibility
ous compaction control for uniformity over the “spot checking” to permanent deformation accumulation. Inadequate compac-
compared with density-based compaction control approaches. tion of pavement subgrade, subbase, or base layers may result
Different IC approaches are also discussed through a review of in excessive rutting, leading to pavement shear failure.
equipment manufacturers. Furthermore, experiences of differ-
ent states in the United States for implementing IC approaches Marek and Jones (1974) highlight the difference between
are presented, along with their preliminary findings. “compaction” and “density,” emphasizing that two aggregate
base materials compacted to the same density may be at com-
Finally, this chapter discusses other portable devices used pletely different stages of compaction. They emphasize that
for measuring the in situ moduli of constructed pavement the state of compaction of an aggregate material is dependent
layers. Salient features of each device are discussed, and the on its gradation, so depending on the amount of fines in an
advantages and disadvantages of individual devices are high- aggregate matrix, higher density numbers may not always
lighted. Research studies and trial projects conducted by dif- correspond to “better” states of compaction. According to
ferent agencies through QC using these portable devices are Proctor (1933), the compactability of a soil or aggregate layer
listed and a summary of their important findings provided. depends on the following factors: (1) compactive energy,
(2) moisture content, and (3) soil/aggregate type.
COMPACTION AND QUALITY CONTROL
Establishing the Target Density
Theory and Objectives of Compaction for Field Compaction Control

Compaction is defined as the densification of soils and con- The primary method for measuring the compaction level in a
struction materials through the application of mechanical pavement layer is by comparing the achieved field densities
energy. Primary objectives of compaction are to (1) reduce/ with reference target values determined for the same material
prevent detrimental settlements (compaction leads to better in the laboratory. The in-place densities of constructed layers
packing of individual particles, thus reducing the potential for are subsequently expressed as percentages of these reference
102

TABLE 11
Comparison of ASTM and AASHTO Test Methods Governing the
Compaction of Soils and Aggregates Using Drop Hammer Method
ASTM AASHTO
Equipment/Test Parameter Standard Modified Standard Modified
(D 698) (D 1557) T 99 T 180
Method A: 101.6 mm
Method A: 101.6 mm
Method B: 152.4 mm
Mold diameter Method B: 101.6 mm
Method C: 101.6 mm
Method C: 152.4 mm
Method D: 152.4 mm
943.0 for 101.6-mm diameter mold
Mold volume (cm3)
2,124 for 152.4-mm diameter mold
Number of layers 3 5 3 5
25 for 101.6-mm diameter mold
Number of blows/layer
56 for 152.4-mm diameter mold
Method A: 4.75 mm
Material specifications Method A: 4.75 mm
Method B: 4.75 mm
[material finer than sieve Method B: 9.50 mm
Method C: 19.0 mm
opening size (%)] Method C: 19.0 mm
Method D: 19.0 mm

densities established in the laboratory. Construction specifi- ASTM D 1557, or AASHTO T 180. Note that the ASTM and
cations for pavement layers often require the achieved field AASHTO methods differ somewhat in the maximum size
densities to be higher than a certain specified percentage of of aggregate particles that can be tested. Moreover, owing to
this target density value. The applicability of relative com- the use of a heavier hammer and higher drop height, the modi-
paction values thus determined is dependent on the validity fied compaction procedure imparts much higher compaction
of the following two assumptions: (1) the material tested in energy to the aggregate specimen (4.5 times) than does the
the laboratory is identical to the field material in gradation standard compaction procedure. Table 11 lists the similarities
and specific gravity, and (2) similar compactive energies are and differences between the two compaction methods as spec-
imparted to the material in the field, as well as in the labora- ified by the ASTM and AASHTO standards. It is important to
tory. Upon the violation of one or both of these assumptions, note that several state and Canadian provincial agencies use
the calculated “percent compaction” becomes meaningless modified versions of the original ASTM and AASHTO spec-
(Marek and Jones 1974). Some of the commonly used meth- ifications as part of their agency guidelines. Although these
ods for establishing the “target density” values of unbound agency-specific guidelines are somewhat different from the
aggregate materials in the field are discussed here. ASTM and AASHTO standards, the basic procedures and
principles remain the same.
Compaction Using Drop Hammer Methods Figure 78 shows the typical compaction curves for a com-
monly used dense-graded crushed limestone material with
Drop hammer methods are the test methods most commonly
10% P200 fines. As shown in the figure, a higher compac-
used for establishing the compaction characteristics of soils
and aggregates in the laboratory. Originally proposed by
Proctor (1933), these methods involve the compaction of
a representative portion of the material into a standard size
mold using a rammer dropped from a fixed height. Depend-
ing on the weight of the rammer and the drop height, the
procedure is termed either a standard or modified compac-
tion procedure. It is important to note that the rammer blows
in Proctor’s method were specified as “firm strokes,” whereas
the test methods currently used involve free fall of the drop
hammer over a fixed height. Equipment specifications, test
methodology, and material to be tested using these methods are
described in standard specifications by ASTM and AASHTO.
The standard method involves compaction of a representative
portion of the aggregate material into a standard size mold
(101.6-mm or 152.4-mm diameter) with a 24.5-N (5.5-lbf)
rammer dropped from a height of 305 mm (12.0 in.). The
modified compaction method involves a 44.48-N (10.0-lbf)
hammer dropped from a height of 457.2 mm (18.0 in.). Spec-
ifications for the standard compaction procedure have been FIGURE 78  Typical compaction curves for a dense-graded
provided as ASTM D 698 or AASHTO T 99, and those for crushed limestone material with 10% P200 fines
the modified compaction procedure have been provided as (1 pcf = 16.02 kg/m3).
 103

tive energy leads to an increase in the maximum dry density represent the densest feasible state of compaction. A new “test
(MDD) value and a decrease in the OMC. strip” often is required when (1) a change in the source of material
is made; (2) a change in the material from the same source is
Note that drop-hammer–based compaction methods are observed; and/or (3) when 10 test sections are approved with-
commonly used by transportation agencies to establish refer- out a new control strip (Anday and Hughes 1967).
ence target densities, such as 95% to 100% of laboratory MDD
values, before the construction of UAB and subbase layers.
The survey of state and Canadian provincial transportation Solid Volume Density Method
agencies conducted under the scope of the current synthesis
Certain construction specifications can also be based on the
study indicated that 42 of 46 responding agencies use drop-
solid volume density of the aggregate as a reference. The solid
hammer–based methods to establish the compaction char-
volume density is obtained by multiplying the specific gravity of
acteristics of unbound aggregate materials in the laboratory.
the aggregate material with the unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m3
Only two agencies (the Kansas and Alabama DOTs) reported
or 62.4 pounds per cubic foot). The solid volume density
the use of vibratory compaction methods. One agency (Alberta
represents the density of a particular aggregate material in a
Transportation, Canada) does not require aggregate compac-
“void-less” matrix. Constructed layer densities are expressed
tion characteristics to be established in the laboratory.
as a percentage of the solid volume density, and the fraction
is termed relative solid density. One of the most common
It is important to note that drop-hammer–based compaction
examples of construction specifications using the solid volume
methods specified in AASHTO T 99 and T 180 were derived
density method can be seen in the construction of G1 base in
from the original methods proposed by Proctor (1933), which
South Africa. Note that for successful implementation of the
in turn were developed for fine-grained soils. Accordingly, the
solid volume density method, the correlation between achieved
use of impact compaction may not be adequate for establishing
densities in the field and the void-less density should be known.
the compaction characteristics of certain aggregate types, such For example, a relative solid density value of 86% typically
as open-graded materials with insufficient P200 fines. Absence corresponds to approximately 100% to 105% of the maximum
of sufficient P200 fines results in “shifting” of individual aggre- dry density value obtained using the modified compaction
gate particles under impact compaction, thus preventing the method as per AASHTO T 180 (Buchanan 2010). Note that this
formation of a densely packed matrix. Thus, vibratory com- correlation is just an example, and the exact correlation will
paction can be used to establish the compaction characteristics vary depending on the aggregate mineralogy, gradation, and
of such materials. Although ASTM method D 7382 (Standard particle shape and surface texture.
Test Methods for Determination of Maximum Dry Unit Weight
and Water Content Range for Effective Compaction of Granu-
lar Soils Using a Vibrating Hammer) provides such an alterna-
tive, no AASHTO method directs the compaction of unbound Key Lessons
aggregates using vibratory methods. Because the compaction
• Compaction characteristics of aggregates estab-
of UAB/subbase layers commonly involves vibratory and
lished in the laboratory are strongly governed by
shearing action, establishing aggregate compaction character-
compaction methods. For example, the maximum
istics in the laboratory using vibratory or gyratory compaction dry density values established using AASHTO T 99
methods may lead to better representation of field conditions in are consistently lower than those established using
the laboratory. AASHTO T 180 because of the lower compaction
energy imparted to the aggregate specimen in the
former.
Control Strip or “Test Strip” Method • Drop-hammer–based compaction methods (e.g.,
AASHTO T 99 and T 180) may not be adequate for
The control strip or “test strip” technique involves the con- coarse-grained aggregates, particularly with low
struction of a control strip using the same material as that used fines (P200) contents.
to construct the UAB/subbase layer. This strip is compacted • Test procedures similar to ASTM D 7382 that
through repeated rolling and vibration, and density tests are establish the moisture-density curves for un­bound
performed after each rolling until no additional increase in den- aggregates using a vibratory (or a gyratory) com-
sity is noticed. The average final density of the control strip is pactor may lead to better representation of field
used as the “maximum” density for the particular aggregate conditions in the laboratory.
material. Construction specifications require the aggregate
base/subbase layer to be compacted to a certain percentage of this
“maximum” density (Marek and Jones 1974). For successful Compaction Variables and Equipment Types
implementation of the control strip method, the compaction
of the strip is correlated to previously established compac- The DOC achieved in a constructed unbound aggregate
tion results. In the absence of adequate moisture and compaction layer is dependent on the interaction between several vari-
equipment, the maximum density achieved in the strip may not ables, which can be broadly classified into the following two
104

categories: (1) aggregate material and layer characteristics

and (2) compaction equipment and operating characteris-
tics. Different variables falling under the two categories are
described here.

Aggregate Material and Layer Characteristics

The following variables can be grouped under this category

and affect the DOC of unbound aggregate layers by governing
the arrangement of individual particles in the aggregate matrix:

1. Type of parent rock (in terms of the hardness and dura-

bility of individual particles);
2. Particle shape and surface texture;
3. Gradation or particle size distribution;
4. Construction lift thickness;
5. Moisture content; and FIGURE 79  Compaction of a crushed limestone base course
6. Layer support conditions. using a smooth drum vibratory roller.

Compaction Equipment and

Operating Characteristics on the spacing of the protrusions on the drum and creates a
kneading action that compacts the layer “bottom up.” Once
The following variables related to the compaction equipment compaction is complete, the roller “walks out” of the lift, leav-
and operating characteristics affect the DOC achieved in ing the surface fairly rough. This kneading or shearing action
unbound aggregate layers by governing the amount of energy maximizes a cohesive soil’s strength at high density levels.
imparted to the layer surface: Some sheepsfoot rollers are equipped with oscillatory vibra-
tors to increase the effectiveness across a broader range of soil
1. Roller type; (Christopher et al. 2010). One variation of the sheepsfoot roller,
2. Roller weight/energy; known as the tamping foot roller, has feet with sloping sides.
3. Roller speed or dwell time; Because of the sloping nature of the feet, tamping foot rollers
4. Number of passes or coverages; leave the compacted layer surface fairly smooth. Figure 80 is
5. Rolling zone; and a photo of a sheepsfoot roller used to compact a low plasticity
6. Rolling pattern. clayey silt.

Pneumatic or Rubber-Tire Rollers  Pneumatic-tired roll-

The roller types commonly used in the compaction of con-
ers generally have two tandem axles with three to six wheels
structed pavement layers are discussed here.
each. The wheels are arranged so that the rear ones will run
in the spaces between the front ones, theoretically leaving no
Smooth Drum Rollers  Smooth drum rollers are probably the
ruts. The weight of ballast carried by the equipment chassis can
most commonly used compaction devices during the con-
struction of UAB and subbase layers. These rollers can con-
sist of a single drum or dual drums that apply pressure across
the drum width. These rollers can also be “static” or “vibra-
tory” in nature. Static smooth drum rollers compact the pave-
ment layers through static application of the equipment dead
weight, but vibratory smooth drum rollers are equipped with
oscillatory vibrators to increase the energy transmitted to the
layer surface. Vibratory smooth drum rollers are best suited
for unbound aggregates and non­cohesive soils. In addition,
these rollers sometimes are used to finish subgrades before
the construction of base/subbase layers. Figure 79 is a photo
of a smooth drum vibratory roller (single drum) used to com-
pact a crushed limestone base course.

Sheepsfoot Rollers  Also known as “studded rollers,” these

typically are used in the compaction of cohesive soils. These
rollers have a drum with several rounded or rectangular protru-
sions or feet and apply very high contact pressures to the soil FIGURE 80  Compaction of a low plasticity clayey silt (CL-ML)
layer being compacted. The vertical contact stress is dependent using a sheepsfoot roller.
 105

be varied to achieve the required compactive energy. Some-

times the wheels are mounted slightly out of line with the axle,
giving them a weaving action and the name “wobble wheel.”
This condition improves the kneading action on the layer being
compacted. These rollers often are used as an alternative for
compacting a variety of soil types and are particularly effec-
tive for noncohesive silty soils. Construction vehicles such as
loaded dump trucks also can be used to serve as pneumatic roll-
ers, especially during the placement of embankments. Pneu-
matic rollers compact the soil layers top-down, and the zone of
influence is relatively shallow, particularly for small-tire units
(Ingersoll-Rand 1984).

Impact Rollers  Impact rollers comprise triangular ellipsoids

or hexagonal drums to apply impact energy on to the layers
being compacted as the roller moves along. Owing to the high
impact energies being applied to the layer surface, these rollers FIGURE 81  Impact roller (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/
achieve compaction at a faster rate and have a greater zone of geotech/pubs/05037/08.cfm).
influence compared with conventional smooth drum or sheeps-
foot rollers. Although the use of impact rollers is common in
Europe and South Africa, their availability in the United States Measuring In-Place Density of Constructed
Unbound Aggregate Layers
is limited. Figure 81 is a photo of an impact roller.
Different methods exist for determining the moisture con-
Grid Rollers  Grid rollers have a cylindrical heavy steel
tent and achieved density of constructed UAB and subbase
surface consisting of a network of steel bars forming a
layers. Some of these methods are listed in Table 13 along
grid with square holes and may be ballasted with concrete
with the test methods governing their respective procedures.
blocks. Grid rollers provide high-contact pressure but lit-
tle kneading action and are suitable for compacting most
Moisture Measurement
coarse grained soils (RDSO, 2005). Table 12 is borrowed
from Christopher et al. (2010) and lists the compactor Soil moisture measurements are routinely conducted during
types for different soil types (Original source: Rollings and pavement construction for QA purposes. State construction
Rollings 1996). guidelines typically specify methods, such as oven or hot
plate drying or nuclear density gauge testing. Under some cir-
cumstances, these methods may not be reliable, may require
special licensing, and may be time consuming. Develop­ing a
Key Lesson performance-based specification that relates soil moisture
The use of roller types that are most suitable for the to modulus requires that a rapid and reliable measure of
particular material types is critical to ensuring ade- unbound pavement material moisture content be developed.
quate compaction of unbound aggregate pavement The key issues to consider are (1) type of moisture content
layers. measured (gravimetric or volumetric), (2) accuracy, (3) dura-
bility, (4) response time, and (5) ease of use.

TABLE 12
Recommended Field Compaction Equipment for Different Soils
Soil Type First Choice Second Choice Comment
Rock fill Vibratory Pneumatic —
Sheepsfoot or pad Thin lifts usually
Plastic soils, CH-MH (A-7, A-5) Pneumatic
foot needed
Moisture control
Low-plasticity soils, CL, ML Sheepsfoot or pad
Pneumatic, vibratory often critical for silty
(A-6, A-4) foot
soils
Plastic sands and gravels, GC, SC Vibratory,
Pad foot —
(A-2-6, A-2-7) pneumatic
Silty sands and gravels Moisture control
Vibratory Pneumatic, pad foot
SM, GM (A-3, A-2-4, A-2-5) often critical
Clean sand, SW, SP
Vibratory Impact, pneumatic —
(A-1-b)
Pneumatic, impact, Grid useful for over-
Clean gravels, GW, GP (A-1-a) Vibratory
grid sized particles
Source: Rollings and Rollings (1996).
106

TABLE 13
Different Methods to Determine the Moisture Density of
Compacted Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers in the Field
Parameter to Be
Name of Method ASTM AASHTO
Determined
Gravimetric D 2216 T 265
Moisture Microwave D 4643 N/A
content Calcium carbide gas
D 4944 T 217
pressure test
Sand cone D 1556 T 191
Sand Replacement D4914 N/A
Density Balloon D 2167 T 205a
Oil or water
Drive cylinder D 2937 T 204a
Rapid D 5080 N/A
Moisture D 3017
Nuclear T 310
Moisture and density Density D 2922
Time domain
D 6780 N/Aa
reflectometry
N/A: Not available
a
Withdrawn from latest standards.

Direct Methods for Measuring Moisture Content  The oven tion of the need for a density measurement. Drawbacks of the
dry method, the microwave oven method, the direct heating method are the possibility of inaccuracies resulting from high
method, and the calcium carbide gas pressure tester method clay content and soil salinity, lack of durability, soil-specific
(“speedy moisture content”) are examples of methods used to calibration may be needed for some instruments, and instru-
make gravimetric moisture measurements during pavement ments can be relatively expensive.
construction. Oven dry and direct heating methods operate on
the principle that the water mass is the difference between the Nuclear gauge-based moisture-density measurements have
weights of the wet and oven dry samples. The soil water con- been in common use for transportation agencies for the last three
tent is expressed by weight as the ratio of the mass of water decades. Commonly referred to as “nuclear density gauges,”
present to the dry weight of the soil sample. The field moisture these devices can measure the wet density and moisture content
oven has been used to measure moisture content during pave- of compacted soil and aggregate layers. The wet density of a
ment construction (Camargo et al. 2006; White et al. 2009). layer is measured by detecting the suppression of gamma waves
The advantages of these devices are their ease of use and rela- from a source rod lowered into the ground (direct transmission
tive inexpensive cost. Possible drawbacks are that their use mode). In a second mode of operation (backscatter mode), the
can be time consuming, may require a large power source in source rod is at the same level as the detector (not lowered
the field, and requires an accompanying density test to convert into the pavement layer), and gamma rays from the source are
to volumetric water content. “scattered back” from the compacted layer to the gauge. Note
that the use of the backscatter mode usually is not recommended
Indirect Methods for Measuring Moisture Content Indirect for determining the density of granular base/subbase layers
methods for measuring volumetric water content rely on an because granular layers usually are porous, and the presence of
empirically derived calibration with a measured variable such large voids can significantly reduce the amount of gamma rays
as dielectric permittivity. Dielectric methods have been used that get reflected back to be captured by the detector.
extensively for measuring soil water content in agricultural and
geotechnical engineering applications. Time domain reflec- A nuclear density gauge monitors the moisture content of
tometers, frequency domain reflectometers, and capacitance constructed pavement layers using a strong neutron source that
probes use the principles of the matrix dielectric permittivity emits neutrons into the surface. These neutrons are reflected
to indirectly measure the volumetric moisture content in the upon colliding with the hydrogen atoms (similar in size to the
soil. Several studies document the use of dielectric methods for neutrons) present in water. The amount of reflected neutrons
measuring and monitoring pavement layer water content (Janoo detected by the gauge can be used to estimate the moisture con-
et al. 1994; Rainwater and Yoder 1999; Roberson 2007). Spe- tent of the pavement layers. Specifications for determining the
cific field devices that have been used to measure water con- moisture content of soil and aggregate layers using nuclear den-
tent during pavement construction include the Percometer, the sity gauges are provided in AASHTO T 310 and ASTM D 3017.
TRIME-EZ probe, and the Trident Moisture Meter (Veenstra
et al. 2005; Camargo et al. 2006). Recently, the DM600 Road-
bed Meter was developed specifically for measuring water con- CURRENT STATE OF THE PRACTICE
tent of pavement materials; however, the device has not been
extensively tested in the field. The advantages of the dielectric Based on the survey conducted, Figures 82 to 85 review trans-
methods are fast equilibrium measurement times, relatively portation agency practices related to field compaction and con-
accurate measurements, easy automation, and the elimina- struction QC of unbound aggregate layers. More than 75% of
 107

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other (Contractor 46 survey respondents

13% (6)
responsibility, etc.)

Measured through field

testing using other methods 76% (35)
(nuclear methods, etc.)
Sampled during
construction/compaction for 30% (14)
laboratory testing

According to quarry
4% (2)
reported moisture content

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 82  Different methods used by transportation agencies to control the moisture
content of constructed/compacted UAB layers in the field.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 9% (4) 46 survey respondents

Continuous compaction control by means of

0% (0)
Intelligent Compaction (IC) equipment

Field measurement of constructed layer modulus 7% (3)

Measurement of constructed layer density 89% (41)

Proof-rolling 7% (3)

Gradation 30% (14)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents

FIGURE 83  Primary approaches used by transportation agencies for evaluating degree of
compaction and construction quality control of UAB/subbase layers.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

44 survey respondents
Other (please indicate) 11% (5)

Balloon method (ASTM

2% (1)
D 2167)

Sand cone method

(ASTM D 1556 / 16% (7)
AASHTO T191)

Nuclear density
methods (ASTM D
89% (39)
2922 / AASHTO T310
or T238)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Repondents

FIGURE 84  Methods commonly used by transportation agencies for mea-

suring constructed aggregate base/subbase layer densities in the field.
108

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40

Other 17% (8)

No 41% (19)

Non-nuclear methods provide better results 7% (3) 46 survey respondents

Nuclear certification too inconvenient 44% (20)

Nuclear certification too expensive 41% (19)

Safety Concerns 37% (17)

Yes (please select all possible reasons) 52% (24)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Respondents

FIGURE 85  Responses to the question “Is there interest to implement nonnuclear density
measurement methods for construction quality control of unbound aggregate base/
subbase layers.”

the responding agencies control moisture content of constructed/ maximum achievable densities in the laboratory through com-
compacted UAB in the field (see Figure 82). Field moisture and monly used compaction tests. Although research has success-
density measurements using nuclear density gauges is a com- fully correlated higher densities to unbound aggregate layer
mon practice in 89% of the responding agencies (see Figures 83 stiffness or resilient modulus improvements (Rowshanzamir
and 84). The in-place densities thus determined are compared 1995; Tutumluer and Seyhan 1998), M-E pavement design
with laboratory-established compaction characteristics to check methods do not consider aggregate layer density as an input
the DOC achieved in constructed aggregate layers. Only 28% of into pavement thickness design. The resilient modulus, on the
the responding agencies construct test strips to establish roller other hand, governs the nature of stress dissipation in an aggre-
patterns and check for compaction density growth of aggregate gate layer because of wheel load, and thus is an essential input
layers. More than 50% of the responding agencies expressed for mechanistic analysis of the layered pavement structure.
interest in implementing non-nuclear density measurement This alone has made the alternative of measuring in situ layer
methods for construction control of UAB/subbase layers owing modulus attractive for pavement designers, although a chal-
to one reason or another (see Figure 86). However, several of lenging task now deals with how to develop related construc-
them indicated a lack of confidence in the performance of tion specifications for field modulus control.
non-nuclear moisture-density measurement alternatives.
Growing interest in modulus-based compaction control
procedures has led to the development of several different
Key Lessons alternatives for nondestructive field modulus measurements of
pavement layers. Von Quintus et al. (2009) and Puppala
• Measurement of compacted unbound aggregate layer (2008) present an extensive overview of different techniques
density using a nuclear gauge is a common practice
and devices available for the measurement of in-place pave-
among transportation agencies.
• There is growing interest among agencies in gradu-
ment layer moduli. The underlying techniques used for in-place
ally moving toward density measurement systems modulus measurement of UAB and subbase layers are listed
that are not nuclear based owing to certification and in Table 11 along with examples of devices based on the cor-
convenience issues associated with nuclear gauge responding principles. Note that the devices listed in Table 11
testing. all function based on different principles, so the reported
values may have different dimensions. Some devices are
based on the principle of measuring stiffness, whereas some
measure modulus. It is important to note that “stiffness” is
IN-PLACE MODULUS MEASUREMENT OF not an independent soil parameter and is dependent on the
CONSTRUCTED AGGREGATE LAYERS area over which the load is applied. However, “modulus” is
truly an independent soil parameter and is independent of the
Quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA) of constructed compaction equipment. Thus, for true representation of com-
unbound aggregate pavement layers traditionally has been pacted layer properties, a device should report the modulus
based on target density values, expressed with respect to the value and not just the stiffness value (Briaud and Seo 2003).
 109

Of the previously listed devices, the FWD is the most com- Von Quintus et al. (2009) reported that deflection-based
monly used device by transportation agencies for indirectly methods such as LWD and FWD had limited potential for
measuring (or backcalculating from measured deflections) QC purposes. Testing several constructed pavement sections
the in-service pavement layer moduli. The survey of state using different devices, they reported that deflection-based
and Canadian transportation agencies conducted under the methods were not able to consistently identify areas with con-
scope of the current synthesis study indicated that 27 of struction anomalies. Moreover, modulus values were influ-
46 responding agencies use FWD testing to assess the struc- enced by the underlying layers, resulting in lower or higher
tural condition of UAB and subbase layers in existing pave- and more variable modulus values.
ment structures. However, although FWD testing on in-service
pavement structures is a fairly common practice among trans- More recently, Mishra et al. (2012) measured the field
portation agencies, the use of an FWD device directly on top modulus values of full-scale unsurfaced pavement test
of UAB/subbase is a relatively new practice. For example, sections using a Dynatest LWD (Model 3031) and a soil
the UK performance-based specifications recommend the stiffness gauge (Humboldt GeoGauge). By measuring the
use of FWD to check the adequacy of constructed unbound layer moduli on top of the prepared subgrade as well as
aggregate layers (Interim Advice Note 2009). The most com- constructed unbound aggregate layers using both devices,
monly adopted techniques for checking the quality of con- they reported that both devices were capable of identify-
structed unbound aggregate layers using in-place modulus ing anomalies in construction conditions. Higher modulus
measurements involve portable devices such as the LWD, values were measured by the soil stiffness gauge compared
GeoGauge, and surface seismic, or continuous measurement with the LWD because of the relatively smaller magnitudes
devices such as instrumented compactors. LWDs are used of strains imposed on the pavement layers by the soil stiff-
as primary field devices in several countries, including Ger-
ness gauge when compared with the LWD. Similar to the
many, Austria, and Sweden, to measure earthwork stiffness/
findings of Von Quintus et al. (2009), Mishra et al. (2012)
modulus. However, in the United States, only Indiana DOT
reported that the LWD-measured modulus values were
uses LWD to measure the modulus of constructed unbound
affected by layer thicknesses. Mooney and Miller (2009)
aggregate layers.
also reported a depth of influence for LWD between 0.9 and
1.1 times the plate diameter, making it susceptible to the
Several studies have been conducted focusing on the cor-
influences of underlying layers, especially for testing on thin
relation between field measured stiffness/modulus to den-
sity, correlation between stiffness/modulus values reported aggregate layers.
by different devices, and repeatability of values reported by
individual devices. (Puppala 2008; Von Quintus et al. 2009). The soil stiffness gauge was found to be more consis-
tent in measuring field modulus values irrespective of
Chen et al. (1999) conducted field modulus/stiffness tests constructed layer thicknesses. Although Von Quintus et al.
on different subgrade and base materials in more than six (2009) reported a strong correlation between layer modulus
Texas districts and made the following observations: values measured by a soil stiffness gauge and the achieved
dry density values, Mishra et al. (2012) did not observe any
• Field-measured density of constructed pavement layers such correlation from their testing.
was not sensitive to change in modulus.
• Both the soil stiffness gauge (Humboldt GeoGauge) Moreover, several research studies have focused on the
and seismic techniques, such as Dirt-Seismic Pavement “validity” of stiffness/modulus values reported by these devices
Analyzer and Olson-SASW, reported modulus values with respect to the actual stress-strain states experienced by
that were consistent with those reported by conven- pavement layers under traffic loading. For example, Mooney
tional FWD and showed promise for being used as QC and Miller (2009) measured the in situ stress and strain behav-
devices, ior during LWD testing and showed that the LWD test engages
a nonlinear soil modulus.
Nazzal (2003) conducted extensive field testing to evalu-
ate the potential of several NDT devices, such as the soil
stiffness gauge (Humboldt GeoGauge), DCP, and LWD to Key Lessons
measure the stiffness/strength parameters of highway mate-
• Several research and implementation projects have
rials and embankment soils during and after construction. A
reported different degrees of success with in-place
strong correlation was found between layer modulus values
modulus measurement devices.
reported by LWD and GeoGauge-type devices and those • Although these devices have been used success-
measured from conventional FWD testing. Furthermore, fully to identify anomalies in construction condi-
higher coefficients of variation were reported to be associ- tions, extensive calibration for local materials is
ated with LWD-measured modulus values than were those needed before they can be used as primary tools
measured by the GeoGauge, indicating the GeoGauge is a for QC.
more “consistent” device (Nazzal 2003).
110

MODULUS-BASED COMPACTION CONTROL CONTINUOUS COMPACTION CONTROL

AND INTELLIGENT COMPACTION
Need for Modulus-Based Compaction Control
Continuous compaction control (CCC) uses vibratory drum
Although the measurement of the dry unit weight and mois- compactors, which combine the technologies of a global
ture content of constructed UAB/subbase layers is relatively positioning system (GPS), compactor-integrated measure-
straightforward and practical, it does not provide any direct ment system, and an onboard display of real-time compac-
indication about the layer modulus or shear strength. Moreover, tion measurements (Chang et al. 2011). Integration of these
it is important to note that the same density can be obtained for components allows compaction data, also known as roller
at least two different moisture contents on either side of the integrated compaction measurements (RICMs), to be tied
compaction (moisture-density) curve. Thus, it is not ideal to use to a specific project location, which is constantly updated
the achieved dry density as the only criterion for compaction/ as the compaction progresses. CCC typically involves the
construction QC. A modulus-based compaction control method use of vertical drum acceleration processed in the time and/
combines the aspects of construction QC with in-place mea- or frequency domains to assess the state of soil compac-
surements of layer moduli. tion. Early research in Sweden revealed that the vibration
characteristics of the drum changed as the underlying soil
was compacted (Thurner and Sandstrom 1980). For vibratory
Desired Characteristics of a Modulus-Based
Compaction Control System roller configurations, CCC involves measurement and anal-
ysis of output from an accelerometer mounted to the roller
For developing a modulus-based construction specifica- drum and can provide a spatial record of compaction quality
tion, a few key issues must be properly considered, namely: when linked to position measurements and a documentation
(1) measurement depth, (2) induced stress state and stress system (Chang et al. 2011). Roller measurement values cal-
path in relation to strength, and (3) use of proper algorithms culated based on accelerometer measurements use one of
for layer modulus estimation. two different approaches:

Ideally, a field technique would estimate the elastic modu- • Calculate a ratio of selected frequency harmonics for a
lus of the individual pavement layers separately to be consis- set time interval, or
tent with how material is represented in the MEPDG. Note • Calculate ground stiffness or elastic modulus based on a
that field devices also may provide stiffness measurements of drum-ground interaction model and some assumptions.
aggregate materials belonging to depths that are often incon-
sistent with layer thickness. This limitation for devices that Continuous compaction control machines typically include
measure deeper than the layer thickness can be overcome, as the following (Peterson 2005):
has been demonstrated in recent research by Senseney and
Mooney (2010), who successfully extracted unbound layer • Sensors to measure vibration of the drum;
moduli using the LWD with center position and radial offset • Onboard electronics to record and process sensor output
sensors (similar to FWD). The approach is simple and robust and record the stiffness;
for stiff-over-soft conditions (e.g., base over subbase, subbase • Linkages to the machine controls to adjust compaction
over subgrade). If such techniques are not followed in the effort according to the measured stiffness;
field, LWD moduli often will be dependent on depth of influ- • Systems to record machine location; and
ence but not exactly on the layer thickness of the constructed • Either local storage or wireless communications sys-
aggregate base/subbase. tems for data transfer.

The way to control compaction is to ensure that the IC differs from CCC by providing real-time, automatic
dry density is within tolerance from a target value, that the adjustment of compactor settings based on RICM values to
modulus is within tolerance from a target value, and that ensure maximum compactor efficiency as compaction pro-
the water content is within tolerance of a target value. It is pos- gresses and soil properties change. The equipment adjust-
sible to achieve reasonable control of compaction by ensuring ments based on RICM data generally involve modifying the
that two of these three properties are within tolerance of their eccentric mass moment with the drum(s) to affect excita-
target values. In that respect, it is possible to control compac- tion amplitude and frequency (Rinehart and Mooney 2008).
tion by ensuring that the soil modulus and the water content Essentially, IC adds an additional feature over CCC by
are within tolerance of their target values. Implementing the immediately interpreting RICMs and adjusting the compac-
modulus-based compaction control is desirable, but it can- tor operating characteristics. A formal definition of IC has
not be used readily in practice because of the lack of proper been given as:
guidelines and because specifications have not been estab-
 . . . the compaction of road materials, such as soils, aggregate
lished. Future practice no doubt will bring a basic need for the bases, or asphalt pavement materials, using modern vibratory
engineer to check that his or her modulus design assumption rollers equipped with an in situ measurement system and feed-
is verified in the field. back control. (http://www.intelligentcompaction.com/)
 111

NCHRP Project 21-09, Intelligent Soil Compaction Sys- of thick-lift aggregate layers. Evaluation of thick aggregate
tems, listed the following as desirable features of an IC sys- base materials in the United States has produced evidence
tem: (1) continuous assessment of mechanistic soil properties to confirm the usefulness of this feature. This reduces the
(e.g., stiffness, modulus) through roller vibration monitoring; spatial variability associated with the DOC achieved in a
(2) automatic feedback control of vibration amplitude and given pavement layer. Continuous data collection and pro-
frequency; and (3) an integrated global positioning system cessing also eliminates the need for frequent “spot testing”
to provide a complete geographic information system-based for quality assurance process. Applying the optimum number
record of the earthwork site. of passes of the roller, an IC system significantly reduces the
chances of over-compaction. Through comparison of data
Five different types of RICMs [also known as intelligent obtained from consecutive roller passes, an IC system can
compaction measurement values (ICMVs)] are used by com- quickly identify “difficult to compact” areas, thus enabling
monly available compaction equipment and typically vary field engineers to make decisions to remedy the problem.
from one equipment manufacturer to another. These five mea- Moreover, continuous monitoring and compaction control
surements can be broadly divided into three different theo- can significantly reduce differential settlements that result
ries. Compaction meter value (CMV) and compaction control from nonuniform compaction conditions in projects that rely
value are derived from amplitudes of the operating frequency solely on spot tests for QC.
and various harmonics and subharmonics. Roller-integrated
stiffness (ks or kb) and vibration modulus (Evib) are based on Finally, the level of compaction information gathered from
measuring the soil displacement under a compactor-generated rollers during the IC process is a better indicator of achieved
load. Finally, machine drive power, the relative newcomer to compaction levels. This is primarily because of the significantly
the group, is based on measuring the amount of power needed larger influence zones under a compactor compared with those
to propel the compactor over the soil. Chang et al. (2011) pres-
corresponding to spot-testing equipment such as FWD, LWD,
ents a summary of the ICMVs in common use in the United
soil stiffness gauge, nuclear density gauge, or DCP. Chang
States; these ICMVs are based on vibration frequency analysis
et al. (2011) compares the influence zone under a roller to those
or mechanical modeling (see Table 14).
under commonly used spot-testing devices (see Figure 86).

Need for Intelligent Compaction In addition to the previously mentioned advantages, the
following disadvantages of IC systems have been reported
Intelligent compaction using CCC provides continuous data by researchers (Briaud and Seo 2003):
indicating the level of compaction achieved with every pass.
Real-time processing of the data enables the equipment oper- 1. Requirement for sophisticated equipment in a rugged
ating characteristics to be changed frequently, thus imparting environment;
variable compactive energy levels to different spots as needed. 2. Requirement for operator training; and
This spontaneous adjustment of compactive effort has been 3. More expensive than conventional compaction (may
found to be particularly important during the compaction require an overall cost-benefit study).

TABLE 14
Different Methods Available for In-Situ Modulus Measurement of
Constructed Pavement Layers
Test Category Underlying Principle Corresponding Devices
Benkelman beam
Briaud compaction device (based on
Static load
measuring the bending strain on a loading
plate in contact with the ground)
Soil stiffness gauge (e.g., Humboldt
Steady state vibratory
GeoGauge)
Surface deformation Falling weight deflectometer (FWD)
Impact load Portable falling weight deflectometer or
light weight deflectometer (LWD)
Dynaflect
Sinusoidal load
Road rater
Continuous load Rolling wheel deflectometer
Ultrasonic body waves
Ultrasonic surface waves
Spectral analysis of surface waves
(SASW)
Geophysical Wave propagation
Multichannel analysis of surface waves
Free-free resonant column tests
Seismic pavement analyzer
Portable seismic pavement analyzer
112

FIGURE 86  Illustration of differences in measurement influence depths for different

measurements (Chang et al. 2011).

Synthesis of Past Research and Agency and Caterpillar. Through compaction using IC equipment
Experience with IC Systems and spot-testing using QA devices such as DCP, LWD, and
GeoGauge, it was observed that there was no significant dif-
Several research and trial projects have been conducted in
ference between the modulus measurements obtained from
the United States evaluating the application of IC systems as QA devices such as LWD or GeoGauge and the Bomag IC.
QC tools for UAB/subbase layer construction. Most notably, a Camargo et al. also highlighted the challenges associated
Transportation Pooled Fund project, TPF-5(128) was conducted with handling the massive amounts of data generated by IC
from 2008 to 2011 involving 12 participating state transporta- equipment before IC specifications can be implemented for
tion agencies (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, use by transportation agencies.
Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin). The primary objective of the study
was to develop an IC expertise base, evaluate current IC equip- Texas Experience
ment, and accelerate specification development. The follow-
ing section presents a summary of some of the most notable Under the pooled fund study TPF-5(128), a field IC demon-
findings from IC implementation studies in the United States. stration was performed in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2008. The IC
equipment used was Case/Ammann single-drum padfoot and
smooth drum vibratory rollers and the Dynapac single-drum
Minnesota Experience smooth drum vibratory roller. Using IC technology to compact
cohesive subgrade and granular base layers, it was observed
In 2005, Minnesota DOT used the MnROAD test track to that in situ measurements using the calibrated moisture-density
demonstrate the Bomag system and other subgrade soil and nuclear gauge, DCP, and LWD did not match well with those
aggregate base/subbase layer testing devices, including DCP, of the ICMVs. However, plate loading tests (PLTs) and FWD
GeoGauge, and Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD), to deter- tests produced better correlation with the ICMVs (Chang et al.
mine the relationship between the IC roller response output 2011) (see Table 15).
and independently measured soil properties (Peterson 2005).
In general, the demonstration project concluded that CCC was
an effective QC mechanism for soil compaction. NCHRP Project 10-65

Camargo et al. (2006) reported on a Minnesota case history NCHRP Project 10-65 (Von Quintus et al. 2009) used several
involving IC equipment manufactured by Ammann, Bomag, different IC rollers (Bomag, Caterpillar, Case/Ammann) and
 113

TABLE 15
Summary of IC Measurements
IC Measurement Units IC System Model Definition
Compaction A
Caterpillar CMV C 2
meter value None
Dynapac A
(CMV)
Machine drive A'
None Caterpillar MDP Pg Wv Sin mv b
power g
Compaction A0.5 A1.5 A2 A2.5 A3
control None Sakai CCV 100
values A0.5 A

Stiffness Ammann/ 2 m0 e0 cos

MN/m kb md
(Kb) Case zd
F Evib 2 a
Vibration 2 z1 3
MN/m Bomag 2 2 a Evib
modulus (Evib) 2 1 2.14 0.5 ln
1 2
16 mb me m g d
2

Source: Chang et al. (2011).

an instrumented vibratory roller for the QC/QA of HMA mix- and frequency of roller vibration, and thus recommended con-
tures and unbound pavement layers. Through comparison of struction specifications that allow IC during compaction but
the IC response output parameters with modulus and density do not permit its use during roller-based QA. The construction
values measured using traditional as well as nondestructive specifications developed through this project were grouped
testing devices, it was observed that the IC equipment was into the following three categories (Mooney et al. 2010):
successful in detecting areas with significant density differ-
ences. Moreover, the IC equipment output was found to cor- 1. Option 1: This option uses CCC to identify weak spots
relate with other nondestructive testing density and modulus in a compacted area to be further tested using commonly
values (Von Quintus et al. 2009). used spot tests.
2. Option 2: This option is based on statistical change
In summary, nearly all previous studies have concluded in the roller MV during compaction. It can be based
that the use of IC rollers has many advantages for use as on monitoring the difference between mean roller MV
a contractor’s QC tool to monitor the compaction of pave- from one pass to the other or on the percentage change
ment materials and identify soft spots or weak areas along a in spatial roller MV. Note that neither of these options
project. Most studies have focused on the effect of increasing requires the calibration of roller MV using test strips.
material compaction or density on the IC measured response 3. Option 3: This option was further subdivided into
and have reported good correlations between the IC output alternatives that required the calibration of roller MV
and density modulus for a specific material and project. with spot testing results and thus involves significant
Fewer studies have focused on the effect of temperature, initial investments. Detailed discussion of these alter-
moisture, material condition, and varying subsurface condi- native specifications and the challenges associated with
tions on the responses and output from the IC measurement the implementation of each can be found elsewhere
systems in terms of reducing the risk of making an incorrect (Mooney et al. 2010).
decision during construction. Temperature of HMA, mois-
ture content of unbound layers, and support conditions of
the underlying layers are important factors related to the IC Wisconsin Experience
roller’s output.
Von Quintus et al. (2010) collected information and data
on the use of IC technology to help Wisconsin DOT assess
NCHRP Project 21-09 the validity and accuracy of IC in pavement construction.
Through data collection from demonstration projects, they
NCHRP Project 21-09, “Intelligent Soil Compaction Systems,” identified the following two usage areas as more mature and
evaluated the reliability of different IC measurement systems ready to have immediate positive benefits, especially for
and developed construction specifications for the compaction unbound materials: (1) use of IC rollers as a testing device
of subgrades, embankments, and UAB/subbase layers. Upon to identify areas with weak supporting areas through con-
investigation of four vibration-based roller measurement val- tinuous mapping of the stiffness, and (2) development of
ues (MVs); (Ammann and Case/Ammann ks, Bomag Evib, stiffness-growth relationships to determine the rolling pat-
Dynapac CMVD, and Sakai continuous compaction value), the tern and number of passes to achieve a specific stiffness
study confirmed the dependence of roller MV on the amplitude level. They also recommended additional pilot projects to
114

increase contractor and agency personnel’s confidence in of material stiffnesses and a relatively weak correlation
using the IC technology. for strips with more uniform conditions. White et al.
were also able to correlate the Ammann kB with rut depth
Details on several other IC implementation projects were measured after test rolling procedures.
provided in Chang et al. (2011). Overall, all the IC imple- • IC technology could be successfully applied by the
mentation studies have shown promising results regarding MnDOT as the principal QC tool on a grading project
the potential of this technology to be used for QC purposes. near Akeley, Minnesota. The entire project passed the
test rolling acceptance criteria.
Quality Assurance Specifications
Based on Continuous Compaction Control Figure 87 shows the relationships between average in
situ properties and RICM values as reported by White and
White et al. (2007) conducted three field studies to inves- Thompson (2008).
tigate the correlation of CMV (also known as Caterpillar
compaction value) and machine drive power values from Rinehart et al. (2009) compared the in situ stress states
Caterpillar rollers and kB stiffness from Ammann rollers and stress paths experienced by a soil beneath two IC roll-
with in situ test measurements such as dry unit weight, DCP ers on instrumented vertically homogeneous embankment
index, Clegg Impact Value, and LWD modulus and made the soil and on layered base over subgrade to the stress states
following observations: applied during AASHTO T 307 resilient modulus testing.
Measuring the stress states to a depth of 1 m below the
• The Ammann kB value showed a strong correlation with roller wheel, they observed that stress fields varied sig-
in situ test results for strips with a relatively wide range nificantly with depth for the homogeneous embankment and

FIGURE 87  Relationships between average in situ and RICM values (White and
Thompson 2008).
 115

the layered base over subgrade. The measured deviator The Austrian/ISSMGE and German specifications each
stress (q) and mean stress (p) were observed to decrease by permit either of the two previously mentioned alternatives
factors of 4 and 6, respectively, within the 300-mm thick for construction QA using continuous compaction control.
crushed base. Even for low excitation forces applied by Based on a survey of European practice, Mooney et al. (2010)
the rollers, the estimated q values in the crushed base were reported that implementation of the calibration approach was
as much as 2.5 times greater than the maximum q values challenging and required a high level of on-site knowledge.
applied during resilient modulus testing in the laboratory.
Mean stress (p) values observed in the field were approxi-
mately 30% to 50% of the values applied during MR testing Ongoing Effort: NCHRP Project 10-84
in the laboratory.
With an objective to develop modulus-based compaction con-
Rinehart et al. (2009) also highlighted that the roller- trol specification in the United States, a research study funded
based stiffness values determined during IC of layered by NCHRP is being undertaken. The developed specification
constructions, such as pavement base over subgrade, are shall (http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.
complex functions of material properties, layer thicknesses, asp?ProjectID=2908):
and stress-dependent modulus parameters. Thus, any modulus-
based compaction control protocol would be able to extract 1. Be based on field measures of the stiffness or modulus
individual layer properties from these complex stiffness val- and moisture content of the compacted earthwork and
ues. This task may become simpler in the case of homoge- unbound aggregate that can be correlated with design
neous embankments with homogeneous modulus fields with modulus values;
depth. 2. Provide a single, straightforward, and well-defined
method for determining stiffness or modulus that is
compatible with a variety of earthwork and unbound
Current Specifications Based on Roller Integrated aggregate design methodologies;
Compaction Measurements 3. Directly account for the seasonal variation of the mod-
ulus of the compacted earthwork or unbound aggre-
Specifications for IC were first introduced in Austria in 1990 gate as the means to determine specification criteria
(later modified in 1993 and 1999), Germany in 1994 (updated and limits for compaction;
in 1997), Sweden in 1994 (revised in 2005), and Switzerland 4. Use available models, devices, and methods, as defined
in 2006. The International Society of Soil Mechanics and in the current literature, including NCHRP Synthesis
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) adopted the Austrian 382: Estimating Stiffness of Subgrade and Unbound
specifications in 2005. In the United States, a pilot specifica- Materials for Pavement Design (Puppala 2008);
tion was developed by MnDOT in 2007 and updated in 2010. and
Similarly, a special specification was developed by Texas 5. Be founded on a comprehensive review of the current
DOT in 2008, and a list of approved IC rollers was released literature on the long-term behavior of various soils
in 2009. In July 2011, FHWA released generic specifications and unbound aggregates in terms of the principles of
for compaction of soils and subbases using IC techniques. unsaturated soil mechanics.
These generic specifications are to be modified by individ-
ual agencies to meet specific requirements (www.intelligent The research work under the scope of this project will
compaction.com). be conducted in three phases that have been subdivided
into a total of 11 tasks. The project is currently in Phase III,
The current IC specifications follow one of the following
with interim reports for Phases I and II already submitted
two approaches (www.intelligentcompaction.com):
to NCHRP.
• Use of RICM values to identify weak spots, which
can then be assessed by spot-testing techniques, such Current State of the Practice
as moisture-density tests, PLTs, and/or LWD tests.
Acceptance of the constructed layer is dependent From the survey of state and Canadian provincial agencies
on these “weak” spots satisfying minimum thresh- conducted under the scope of this synthesis, it was observed
olds with respect to PLT modulus, LWD modulus, that only one agency (Texas) has actively implemented IC
or density. This is the only approach permitted in techniques to construct in-service pavements with UAB/
Sweden. subbase layers and has developed a specification for this
• Use of test beds to develop correlations between MVs purpose. Two agencies (Indiana and Georgia) implement
to PLT modulus, LWD modulus, or density in a defined modulus-based compaction control for the construction of
calibration area. If a suitable correlation is found to UAB/subbase layers but only in demonstration projects.
exist, a target roller MV is determined from the correla- Indiana DOT reported the use of LWDs for field modulus
tion and used for QA purposes. measurement in demonstration projects.
116

Within an unsaturated soil mechanics framework, soil

Key Lessons suction can be represented as an independent stress state
variable, and resilient modulus (MR) can be represented as
• Continuous compaction control using different roller
shown in Equation 18 (Gupta et al. 2007):
measurement values can significantly reduce spatial
variability in compaction levels and can reduce the
potential for differential settlements in constructed
 k2
 σ − 3k6   τoct  
k3
M R =  k1 pa  b   + k7   + α1 ψ βm1 (18)
pavement layers.   pa   pa  
• Most research and implementation projects conducted
in the United States involving the use of continuous
where sb is the summation of all around or bulk stress;
compaction control and IC to construct UAB/subbase
toct is the octahedral shear stress, ym is the matric suction,
layers have reported considerable success. How-
ever, such practices are not common for transpor- a1 and b1 are empirical fit parameters relating the resilient
tation agencies. Encouraging more implementation modulus (MR) to ym; pa is the atmospheric (normalizing)
projects across agencies can help to incorporate pressure; and k1, k2, k3, k6, and k7 are model parameters
continuous compaction control and IC into agency obtained from regression analyses.
practice.
• Target relative stiffness values established during con- A modulus-based QA specification includes field moisture
tinuous compaction control vary significantly from one target values to ensure permanent deformation in the field
compactor to another. For example, the compaction remains below the allowable limit. A modulus specification
measurement value established using a double-drum based on unsaturated soil mechanics uses the volumetric
IC roller is significantly different than that established moisture content (q) instead of the gravimetric value (w)
using a single-drum IC roller.
(Gupta et al. 2007). A modulus-based compaction control
specification incorporating soil suction effects also incor-
porates methods to measure the soil suction of constructed
pavement layers. In addition, the detrimental effects of soil
CONSIDERATION OF SUCTION EFFECTS wetting and the resulting loss of suction with changes in
IN LAYER MODULUS ESTIMATION aggregate layer capillary structure should be considered in a
comprehensive modulus-based QA specification.
Background

The modulus (and, correspondingly, the load response linked Methods for Measuring Soil Suction
to performance) of earthwork and unbound aggregates is
strongly influenced by the seasonal variation of their mois- Different methods available to measure soil suction in the field
ture content. This variation depends on material composition, can be broadly divided into two categories: (1) direct methods
DOC, and available free moisture, which is controlled primar- and (2) indirect methods (Lu and Likos 2004; Munoz-Carpena
ily by the local climatic environment and the distance from 2009). Oven dry methods and the calcium carbide gas pressure
the GWT. In developing a modulus-based construction speci- tester method (“speedy moisture content”) provide a direct
fication for compaction of earthwork and unbound aggregate measure of the gravimetric moisture content (w), whereas
that will provide a direct link with design parameters, all indirect methods for measuring q, such as time domain reflec-
three factors—material, compaction, and moisture—should tometry, rely on an empirically derived calibration with a mea-
be examined on the basis of the principles of unsaturated sured variable, such as dielectric permittivity. Although many
soil mechanics with respect to highway engineering and of the available devices have been used in pavement research,
construction. an evaluation of such devices for routine field use and spe-
cifically for use in the development of a performance-based
Unbound aggregate pavement layers are usually compacted construction specification is still needed.
at moisture contents corresponding to 80% to 90% saturation
conditions (Gupta et al. 2007) and thus fall in the unsaturated Indirect methods for soil suction measurement include
regime. The unsaturated conditions and distribution of pore thermal conductivity methods and the filter paper method.
structure within the compacted aggregate layers lead to the Thermal conductivity methods have been used in pavement
development of negative pore water pressure (matric suction), engineering research to characterize soil suction in the base
which increases the effective stress states within the layers. and subgrade layers (Nichol et al. 2003; Roberson 2007).
This increase in the overall stress states may have a signifi- The measurement of soil suction is based on the theory that
cant influence on the shear strength and stiffness (or modulus) thermal conductivity properties of a soil are indicative of the
of stress-dependent unbound aggregate materials. Moreover, soil water content. Soil suction is inferred by measuring
suction conditions significantly affect soil volume change, the dissipation of heat within the sensor, which is related to
the coefficient of permeability, and freeze-thaw susceptibility. the water content of the sensor that is in equilibrium with
Thus, a suitable procedure for evaluating constructed aggregate soil water (Roberson and Reece 1993; Reece 1996). The
layer conditions includes the effects of matric suction. advantages of the thermal conductivity method are that it has
 117

a wide measurement range, is easily automated, and is not of Intelligent Compaction Technology for Embankment
affected by salinity. The limitations include hysteresis, indi- Subgrade Soils, Aggregate Base, and Asphalt Pavement
vidual sensor calibration, and long equilibrium times. Materials, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C., 2011.
Chen, D.H., W.W. Wu, R. He, J. Bilyeu, and M. Arrelano,
Filter Paper Methods “Evaluation of In situ Resilient Modulus Testing Tech-
niques,” Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 89, 1999,
Both the contact and noncontact filter paper methods are used pp. 1–11.
to indirectly measure soil suction by measuring the amount of Christopher, B.R., C. Schwartz, and R. Boudreau, Geotech-
moisture transferred from a soil sample to a calibrated piece of nical Aspects of Pavements, Report FHWA NHI-10-092,
filter paper. The filter paper is placed in direct contact with a soil National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Adminis-
specimen or is suspended (noncontact) over the soil specimen. tration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Once equilibrium between the soil sample and the filter paper Gupta, S.C., A. Ranaivoson, T. Edil, C. Benson, and A.
is reached, the water content of the filter paper is determined Sawangsuriya, Pavement Design Using Unsaturated Soil
gravimetrically and related to the soil suction by means of a Technology, MN/RC-2007-1, Minnesota Department of
calibration curve particular to the type of filter paper (Lu and Transportation, St. Paul, 2007.
Likos 2004). The filter paper method is simple and relatively Gupta, S.C., A. Singh, and A. Ranaivoson, Moisture Retention
inexpensive. Drawbacks of the method are long equilibration Characteristics of Base and Subbase Materials, Report
times (6 to 10 days). submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation,
St. Paul, Dec., 2004, p. 47.
Holtz, R.D., Guide of Earthwork Construction, State of the
Art Report 8, Transportation Research Board, National
Key Lesson Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Ingersoll-Rand, Compaction Data Handbook, Ingersoll-Rand
Suction effects and resulting changes in aggregate
Construction and Mining, 1984.
layer modulus should be considered during the design
of UAB/subbase layers. Interim Advice Note 73/06 Revision 1 (2009): Design Guid-
ance for Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25),
Department of Transport, London, U.K., 2009.
Lu, N. and W. Likos, Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Wiley and
Sons Inc., Hoboken, N.J., 2004, pp. 294–295.
REFERENCES Marek, C.R. and T.R. Jones, Jr., “Compaction-An Essential
Ingredient for Good Base Performance,” Proceedings
Anday, M.C. and C.S. Hughes, “Compaction Control of Gran- from Conference on Utilization of Graded Aggregate Base
ular Base Course Materials by use of Nuclear Devices and in Flexible Pavements, Sponsored by National Crushed
a Control Strip Technique,” Highway Research Record Stone Association, National Sand and Gravel Association,
177, Transportation Research Board, National Research and National Slag Association, Mar. 25–26, 1974, Oak
Council, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 136–143. Brook, Ill.
Briaud, J.L. and J. Seo, Intelligent Compaction Overview and Mishra, D., E. Tutumluer, M. Moaveni, and Y. Xiao, “Labora-
Research Needs, Report to the Federal Highway Adminis- tory and Field Measured Moduli of Unsurfaced Pavements
tration, Washington, D.C., Texas A&M University, College on Weak Subgrade,” Proceedings of the ASCE Geo-Institute
Station, Tex., 2003. GeoCongess, State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical
Briaud, J.L. and K.Y. Rhee, The BCD: A New Instrumenta- Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 225,
tion for Compaction Control, Final Report for IDEA Proj- CD-ROM, R.D. Hryciw, A. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, and
ect 118, Transportation Research Board of the National N. Yesiller, Eds., Oakland, Calif., Mar. 25–29, 2012.
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009. Mooney, M.A. and D. Adam, “Vibratory Roller Integrated
Buchanan, S., Inverted Pavements-What, Why, and How? Measurement of Earthwork Compaction: An Overview,”
AFTRE Industry Education Webinar, Aggregates Founda- Proceedings, FMGM2007—International Symposium on
tion for Technology, Research, and Education, Alexandria, Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Sep. 24–27, 2007,
Va., June 1, 2010. Boston, Mass.
Camargo, F., B. Larsen, B. Chadbourn, R. Roberson, and Mooney, M.A. and P.K. Miller, “Analysis of Lightweight
J. Siekmeier, “Intelligent Compaction: A Minnesota Case Deflectometer Test Based on In situ Stress and Strain
History,” 54th Annual University of Minnesota Geo- Response,” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
technical Conference, Feb. 17, 2006 [Online]. Available: Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 2, 2009, pp. 199–208.
http://www.intelligentcompaction.com/downloads/Papers Mooney, M.A., R.V. Rinehart, N.W. Facas, O.M. Musimbi,
Reports/MnDOT_Camargo_IC%20A%20Minnesota%20 D.J. White, and P.K.R. Vennapusa, NCHRP Report 676:
Case%20History_2006.pdf. Intelligent Soil Compaction Systems, Transportation
Chang, G., Q. Xu, J. Rutledge, B. Horan, L. Michael, D. Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
White, and P. Vennapusa, Accelerated Implementation D.C., 2010.
118

Munoz-Carpena, R., “Field Devices for Monitoring Soil Poster/Abstract 85th Annual Meeting Soil Science Society
Water Content,” University of Florida IFAS Extension, of America, 1993.
2009. Roberson, R., Impact of Pavement Drainage Design on
Nazzal, M., Field Evaluation of In situ Test Technology for Material Stiffness, M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota,
QC/QA Procedures during Construction of Pavement 2007.
Layers and Embankments, MS Thesis, Louisiana State Rollings, M.P., and R.S. Rollings, Geotechnical Materials in
University, Baton Rouge, 2003. Construction, McGraw–Hill, N.Y., 1996.
Nichol, C., L. Smith, and R. Beckie, “Long-term Mea- Rowshanzamir, M.A., Resilient Cross Anisotropic Behav-
surement of Matric Suction Using Thermal Conductiv- ior of Granular Base Materials under Repetitive Load-
ity Sensors,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, ing, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New South Wales,
2003, pp. 587–597. Australia, 1995.
Peterson, D.L., Continuous Compaction Control: MnRoad Seed, H.B., “A Modern Approach to Soil Compaction,” Pro-
Demonstration, Report No. MN/RC-2005-07, Office of ceedings of the Eleventh California Street and Highway
Materials and Road Research, Minnesota Department of Conference, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engi-
Transportation, Maplewood, 2005. neering, University of California, 1959, pp. 77–93.
Proctor, R.R., “Fundamental Principles of Soil Compaction,” Senseney, C.T. and M.A. Mooney, “Characterization of Two-
Engineering News Record, Vol. 7, Aug.–Sep. 1933. Layer Soil System Using a Lightweight Deflectometer
Puppala, A.J., NCHRP Synthesis 382: Estimating Stiffness of with Radial Sensors,” Transportation Research Record:
Subgrade and Unbound Materials for Pavement Design, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2186,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2008, 137 pp. Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 21–28.
Research Designs and Standards Organization (RDSO), Thurner, H.F. and A. Sandstrom, “Continuous Compaction
Study Report on Compaction Equipment and Construction Control, CCC,” Proceedings of the International Confer-
Machinery, Report No. GE-R-76, Geotechnical Engineer- ence on Compaction, Paris, France, 1980, pp. 237–245.
ing Directorate, RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow, India, Tutumluer, E. and U. Seyhan, “Neural Network Modeling
2005. of Anisotropic Aggregate Behavior from Repeated Load
Reece, C.F., “Evaluation of a Line Heat Dissipation Sensor Triaxial Tests,” Transportation Research Record 1615,
for Measuring Soil Matric Potential,” Soil Science Society Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
of America Journal, Vol. 60, 1996, pp. 1022–1028. cil, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 86–93.
Richter, C.A., Seasonal Variations in the Moduli of Unbound Von Quintus, H.L., C. Rao, R.E. Minchin, S. Nazarian, K.R.
Pavement Layers, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-04-079, Maser, and B. Prowell, NCHRP Report 626: NDT Technol-
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2006. ogy for Quality Assurance of HMA Pavement Construction,
Rinehart, R.V. and M.A. Mooney, “Instrumentation of a Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Roller Compactor to Monitor Vibration Behavior during Washington, D.C., 2009.
Earthwork Compaction,” Automation in Construction, Von Quintus, H.L., C. Rao, H. Titi, B. Bhattacharya, and
No. 17, 2008, pp. 144–150. R. English, Evaluation of Intelligent Compaction Technol-
Rinehart, R.V. and M.A. Mooney, “Measurement of Roller ogy for Densification of Roadway Subgrades and Struc-
Compactor Induced Triaxial Soil Stresses and Strains,” tural Layers, Final Report: WHRP Study #00092-08-07,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 32, No. 4, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, 2010.
2009. White, D.J., M. Thompson, and P. Vennapusa, Field Valida-
Rinehart, R.V., M.A. Mooney, and J.R. Berger, “Comparison tion of Intelligent Compaction Monitoring Technology for
of Stress States and Paths: Vibratory Roller-Measured Unbound Materials, Report No. MN/RC-2007-10, Center
Soil Stiffness and Resilient Modulus Testing,” Trans- for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta- University, Ames, 2007.
tion Research Board, No. 2116, Transportation Research White, D.J., and M.J. Thompson, “Relationships between In
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Situ and Roller-Integrated Compaction Measurements for
2009, pp. 8–15. Granular Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
Rinehart, R.V. and M.A. Mooney, “Measurement Depth of mental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 12, 2008, pp. 1763–1770.
Vibratory Roller-Measured Soil Stiffness,” Géotechnique, White, D.J., P. Vennapusa, J. Zhang, H. Gieselman, and
Vol. 59, No. 7, 2009, pp. 609–619. M. Morris, Implementation of Intelligent Compaction
Roberson, R.L. and C.F. Reece, “Comparison of Heat Dissi- Performance Based Specifications in Minnesota, Report
pation Sensor, Tensiometer, and Thermocouple Psychrom- No. MN/RC 2009-14, Minnesota Department of Transpor-
eter Response to Changing Soil Moisture Conditions,” tation, St. Paul, 2009.
 119

chapter six

sUMMARY OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND effective PRACTICES

OBJECTIVES OF SYNTHESIS STUDY Aggregate Types and Material Selection

The primary objective of NCHRP Synthesis 20-05 Topic 43-03, A brief overview of the different types of aggregate materials
Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement Layers, was to available as natural resources and mined from sand and gravel
gather information on the current state of the practice and the pit and quarry operations throughout the United States and
state-of-the-art research findings on the following topics: Canada was provided. Important aggregate properties and
quality aspects that enable a certain aggregate material to pass
1. Materials characterization and quality of natural aggre- agency specifications for pavement granular base/subbase use
gate and common recycled materials that relate to were summarized to establish guidelines for aggregate source
performance; selection. The concept of best value granular material utiliza-
2. Properties of unbound aggregate layers that are used in tion was introduced for pavement projects with the potential
the design of pavements and how they are determined to save energy and material hauling costs through examples
(need to first determine the method of design); of recent sustainable construction practices highlighting how
3. Influence of gradation on permeability; local aggregates and recycled m ­ aterials can be better used in
4. Current practices and innovations in construction, com- granular base/subbase applications.
paction, and quality assurance (QA) procedures (such as
compaction in thicker layers, use of intelligent compac- The use of recycled granular materials in base and subbase
tion (IC) systems, and the use of tests other than density layers was discussed in detail. The following two categories
in evaluating in-place modulus, stiffness, and quality); of recycled materials were considered: (1) unbound aggregate
5. Performance of different base types in research pave- materials recycled from old pavement base/subbase layers
ment sections; and (2) recycled surface course materials: that is, reclaimed
6. Potential to save energy and hauling costs by better asphalt pavement (RAP) and recycled concrete aggregate
utilizing local aggregates and recycled materials; (RCA). The goal was to shed light onto what tests are used
7. How states manage storage, transport, and placement by agencies to characterize recycled materials for unbound
of materials to minimize degradation of material prop- granular base/subbase acceptance and design. Information
erties and performance, including lessons learned; and was gathered on whether or not the same tests are used for
8. How states address climatic, subgrade, and drainage characterizing virgin materials and recycled materials before
considerations in design of aggregate base layers. they are included in unbound aggregate base (UAB)/subbase
layer specifications and the potential environmental concerns
The previous aggregate base and subbase issues target both when using RAP and RCA aggregate materials.
flexible and rigid pavement systems and exclude for the purposes
of this synthesis gravel and/or unpaved roads. Other broader
topics in the areas of chemical admixture (such as lime, cement, Granular Base/Subbase Construction Practices
fly ash, or bitumen) and/or mechanical additive (geosynthetic,
Diverse agency specifications and construction practices for
fiber, and so forth) stabilization of aggregates also were excluded
UAB layers were discussed from the survey results and lit-
from the scope of this synthesis. ­Relevant ­information was
erature to summarize aspects such as storage, transportation,
gathered through literature review, survey of the members of
and placement (e.g., lift thickness) of materials to minimize
the AASHTO Highway ­Subcommittee on ­Materials (including
deviation from intended use and the degradation of m ­ aterial
Canadian Provinces), industry input, and selected interviews.
properties and maximize performance through improved
structural load-taking ability. Applications of nonstandard
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK or unconventional pavement types using unbound aggregate
layers and related construction practices, such as the inverted
Gaps in knowledge and current practice were noted along pavement concept of a granular layer over a stiff layer at depth,
with research needs to address these gaps. Information gath- were described in detail. Beneficial international practices
ered under the scope of this synthesis study findings were (e.g., South African and Australian practices for constructing
documented in this report under the following four chapters. thinly surfaced pavements with the most effective utilization
120

of unbound aggregate layers) were documented with proper emphasizing that constructed layer density measurement is
construction techniques. In addition, new construction prac- the most commonly used field evaluation tool for verifying
tices and performances of recently built test sections by sev- the adequacy of UAB/subbase construction. Different field
eral state highway agencies in the United States (e.g., Georgia, techniques used to measure densities of constructed pavement
Louisiana, and Virginia) were summarized in this chapter to layers were discussed with particular given to the widespread
demonstrate the advantages of these new unconventional pave- nuclear gauge-based direct density measurement methods.
ment types using unbound aggregate layers.
The concept of modulus-based compaction control was
introduced by highlighting its potential advantages, such as
Unbound Aggregate Base continuous compaction control for uniformity over the “spot
Characterization for Design
checking” compared with density-based compaction control
Information was gathered from the survey results and research approaches. Different IC approaches currently available were
publications on specific unbound aggregate material property discussed through a review of equipment manufacturers. In
inputs obtained from different laboratory and field testing addition, experiences of different states in the United States for
alternatives. All levels of material characterization and qual- implementing IC approaches were presented along with their
ity aspects of different aggregate types (crushed stone, sand preliminary findings. Finally, other portable devices used for
and gravel, slag, and other types of recycled materials) were measuring the in situ moduli of constructed pavement layers
described through aggregate properties and properly evaluated were discussed.
for granular base/subbase strength, deformation, and modulus
requirements. Consideration was given to the current agency
specifications/design approaches in use and the new character- SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES
ization tools and improved models [such as stress-dependent
Use of Unbound Aggregate Base
and anisotropic modulus, International Center for Aggregate and Subbase Layers
Research (ICAR) model, and so forth] developed for aggre-
gate base/subbase layers. The need for improved characteriza- • All the responding transportation agencies indicated the
tion of aggregate materials through nonlinear stress-dependent use of UAB/subbase layers into the design and construc-
and anisotropic (directionally dependent) models was docu- tion of pavement structures. Flexible pavement base
mented in this chapter based on the improved predictions of courses appear to be the most common application of
pavement responses through comparisons of the predicted and unbound aggregate layers.
field-measured values in constructed unbound aggregate layer • UAB courses are the most common type of aggregate
applications. layers used by transportation agencies (used by 96% of
responding agencies), whereas only 24% of responding
Finally, information on how highway agencies address cli- agencies indicated the use of open graded drainage layers
matic, subgrade, and drainage considerations in the design of (OGDLs). Another common instance of unbound aggre-
unbound aggregate layers was discussed in this chapter. Influ- gate application in pavements was in working platforms
ences of aggregate gradation, fines content, and other material or subgrade replacement and subbase applications.
properties, such as particle shape and angularity, on permea-
bility were topics of specific interest when reviewing and sum-
marizing agency survey responses and specifications related to Material Selection and Construction Practices
the structural contributions of open-graded aggregate drainage
layer applications (e.g., permeable bases and drainable sub- • No common practice exists among state and Canadian
bases commonly used in rigid pavement foundations). provincial transportation agencies regarding the fre-
quency of acceptance checking of materials obtained
from normally used and approved aggregate sources.
Compaction, Quality Control,
and Field Performance Only 39% of the responding agencies indicated that
aggregate material quality checking was a requirement
Detailed findings were presented on different approaches used before every major construction project.
by transportation agencies for compaction testing on labora- • Apart from gradation analysis, no other aggregate
tory samples, field compaction, quality control and quality material quality test is consistently used by transporta-
assurance (QC/QA), and finally, field performance evalua- tion agencies.
tions of constructed UAB/subbase layers. Different aspects of • Significant differences exist among agencies regard-
compaction and QC of UAB and subbase construction were ing the maximum allowable particle size for aggregates
discussed by introducing the theory of compaction along with used in unbound aggregate layers.
the objectives behind compacting unbound aggregate pave- • Ninety-eight percent of the responding agencies do not
ment layers. This was followed by a review of different types distinguish between nonplastic and plastic fines when
of compactors commonly used for compacting UAB and sub- specifying the maximum amount of fines allowed in
base layers in the field. The concept of QC was introduced, base and subbase courses.
 121

• Sixty-three percent of the responding agencies limit agencies for establishing the compaction characteristics
the maximum construction lift thickness to be less of aggregates in the laboratory.
than 8 in. (205 mm). Although several research studies • Field moisture and density measurements using nuclear
have reported on the successful construction of thicker density gauge are commonly used in 89% of the respond-
unbound aggregate lifts, transportation agencies have ing agencies. The in-place densities thus determined are
not adopted such thick lift construction as a practice and compared with laboratory-established compaction char-
into their specifications. acteristics to check the degree of compaction (DOC)
achieved in constructed aggregate layers. Only 28% of
the responding agencies construct test strips to establish
Unbound Aggregate Base
Characterization for Design
roller patterns and check for compaction density growth
of aggregate layers.
• Shear strength index tests, such as California Bearing • There is no common practice among transportation
Ratio (CBR) and Hveem stabilometer R-value, are the agencies regarding the minimum compaction require-
most commonly used ones, not only for determining ments in constructed aggregate base and subbase layers.
strength properties, but also for characterizing modulus Compaction requirements often are based on certain
and deformation behavior of UAB and subbase layers. percentages of the laboratory-established dry density
• The use of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) is the values. Such differences in compaction requirements by
most common practice among transportation agencies agencies may potentially lead to significantly different
for evaluating the characteristics of in-service unbound pavement aggregate layer responses (i.e., stiffnesses)
aggregate layers. Only 10% of responding agencies resulting in much different rutting performances even
have started adopting portable field devices, such as the when similar pavement configurations are constructed
light weight deflectometers (LWD) and soil stiffness for standard design loads.
gauge (GeoGauge), for in-place modulus measurement • More than 50% of the responding agencies expressed
of constructed aggregate base and subbase layers. interest in implementing non-nuclear density measure-
• Approximately 61% of the responding agencies use the ment methods for construction control of UAB/subbase
AASHTO 1993 design guide for designing pavements layers for one reason or another. However, several of
with UAB and subbase layers; 22% of the responding agen- them indicated a lack of confidence in the performance of
cies use empirical methods (AASHTO 1972, AASHTO non-nuclear moisture-density measurement alternatives.
1986, or agency-specified empirical procedures), and 30% • Although 37% of the agencies have participated in
of the agencies have adopted the use of the Mechanistic- demonstration projects involving continuous compac-
Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). tion control of UAB/subbase layers using IC techniques,
• About 22% of the responding agencies do not use resil- only one agency (Texas) has actively implemented IC
ient modulus as an input for the design of UAB and techniques to construct in-service pavements with UAB/
subbase layers. Although the remaining agencies use subbase layers; that agency also reported having such a
aggregate resilient modulus as a key input for pavement specification currently adopted for use by practitioners.
design, the common practice is to assign a single modu- • Ninety-six percent of the responding agencies do not
lus to the entire aggregate layer without considering any implement modulus-based compaction control during
modulus distribution within the layer owing to the load- the construction of unbound aggregate pavement layers,
or stress-dependent nature of unbound aggregate layer and use achieved layer density and density-based rela-
modulus characteristics. Only one agency indicated the tive compaction as the primary indicator of construction
use of state-of-the-art concepts such as aggregate cross- quality.
anisotropy (directional dependency) in pavement design. • None of the agencies have incorporated nontraditional
• More than 50% of the responding agencies do not run compaction techniques, such as the South African
laboratory tests to determine the resilient modulus of “slushing” method, into unbound aggregate layer con-
aggregates and instead use empirical correlations with struction practices. Any application of such technology
index properties such as CBR and aggregate gradation has been confined to trial and demonstration projects
parameters. involved with the application of inverted pavements.
• More than 80% of the responding agencies do not have
specific guidelines for including locally available “mar-
Recycling Aggregates and Recycled
ginal” aggregates into the thickness design procedure.
Granular Materials

Compaction, Quality Control,

• Thirty-three percent of the responding agencies do
and Field Performance not commonly recycle unbound aggregate materials
from base and subbase layers of existing pavements,
• Drop-hammer–based techniques, such as the standard and clearly showing a lack of more sustainable construc-
modified Proctor tests, are used by 91% of the responding tion practices.
122

• Forty-eight percent of the agencies have not incorpo- relations to estimate the permeability of such drainage
rated the use of recycled aggregates from existing base layers, when used.
and subbase courses into their specifications. • Thirty-seven percent of the respondents indicated the
• Eighty-three percent of the responding agencies indicated construction of filter layers (using aggregates or geo-
that contractors are not allowed to use locally available synthetics) as a common practice for protecting aggre-
“marginal” or “out-of-specification” aggregates for UAB gate drainage layers from clogging.
and subbase layer construction. Modifying the structural • Thirty percent of the responding agencies do not con-
designs of pavements to accommodate such aggregate struct subsurface drainage systems, such as “edge drains,”
types on a project-basis may significantly reduce the trans- whereas 26% of the respondents indicated such drainage
portation costs associated with material procurement. systems are commonly used.
• Sixty-eight percent of the responding agencies reported
no environmental concerns associated with the use of
FUTURE RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION
recycled materials in the unbound aggregate layer appli-
cations. This indicates a possible gap in knowledge with
Based on information gathered from this comprehensive sur-
respect to phenomena such as leaching from recycled
vey of state and Canadian provincial transportation agencies,
aggregates.
the following topics have been identified where significant
• Sixty-four percent of the respondents do not require any
gaps in knowledge exist, and accordingly, future research and
strength, deformation, or modulus characterization of
demonstration projects may be required to modify/improve or
recycled materials such as RCA and RAP before their
further develop agency specifications.
use in unbound aggregate pavement layers. For agen-
cies that require such tests to be conducted on recycled
materials, the quality requirements are the same as for Use of Locally Available Marginal
virgin aggregates. and Out-of-Specification Materials

Most agencies currently do not allow the use of marginal

Climatic Effects and Drainage and/or out-of-specification materials in the construction of
UAB/subbase layers. Future research needs to focus on how
• Sixty-one percent of the respondents indicated climatic existing pavement designs can be modified for accommo-
effects on pavement subgrade performance as an issue dating mechanistic-empirical (M-E) pavement design con-
of major concern. However, only 15% of the respon- cepts so that properly mechanistic-based evaluations can be
dents currently test unbound aggregate materials for performed for the use of these materials, which would lead
suction characteristics and other moisture effects, such to significantly reducing material transportation costs. Labo-
as soil water characteristic curve or suction characteris- ratory and accelerated pavement testing efforts need to be
tics of fines and freeze-thaw durability. carried out to evaluate and verify adequate pavement perfor-
• Fifty-nine percent of the responding agencies do not mance using marginal quality aggregates.
consider the effects of climatic changes on unbound
aggregate layer performance during pavement design.
For the agencies that take this aspect into consideration, Use of Modulus-Based Construction
Quality Control
changing the aggregate layer resilient modulus or struc-
tural layer coefficient (as defined by the AASHTO 1993
Although several research and demonstration projects have
pavement design guide) appear to be the most common
advocated the benefits of implementing modulus-based con-
practices.
struction quality control techniques, density-based compac-
• Only 41% of the responding agencies specify different
tion remains the most commonly used approach. The ongoing
gradations for unbound aggregate applications target-
NCHRP 10-84, “Modulus-Based Construction Specification for
ing drainable versus low permeability aggregate layers.
Compaction of Earthwork and Unbound Aggregate,” will shed
• Fifty percent of the responding agencies indicated that
more light on the desired characteristics when developing such
drainage is not one of the primary functions of flex-
specifications. Depending on the project findings, accelerated
ible pavement UAB/subbase layers. For the agencies
testing of full-scale pavement test sections and demonstration
that consider the drainability of dense-graded aggregate
projects will need to be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness
layers, limiting the maximum allowable percent fines
of such modulus-based construction specifications.
(material passing sieve No. 200) appears to be the most
common practice aimed at facilitating drainage.
• Only 4% of the respondents conduct in situ permeability Use of Intelligent Compaction Techniques
tests to measure the effectiveness of open-graded aggre-
gate drainage layers. Equal numbers of agencies rely on Almost all research studies and demonstration projects focus-
laboratory permeability measurements or empirical cor- ing on continuous compaction control using IC techniques have
 123

advocated the promise shown by this method. Although pilot can be set for the maximum allowable fines content for
studies using IC techniques have been conducted in the nonplastic and plastic fines.
United States since 2004, state transportation agencies are • In addition to commonly used tests for evaluating the
hesitant to use this technology more actively, which is pri- physical characteristics, the mechanical performance
marily the result of the lack of having available standards of recycled materials, by-products, and other marginal
and construction specifications. Transportation agencies aggregates needs to be carefully studied.
would benefit from participating in IC demonstration projects, • RAP materials are tested in the laboratory for resilient
and subsequently developing state-approved standards and modulus and permanent deformation behavior before
construction specifications. Ongoing demonstration research being used in UAB/subbase layers. Several studies
studies and demonstration projects funded by the FHWA can have reported high resilient modulus values for RAP
contribute significantly to this cause. Note that IC was selected accompanied by significantly high permanent deforma-
as a FHWA Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative for 2013 (http:// tion accumulations.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/innovator/issue32.cfm). • The expansive properties of RAP materials contain-
ing expansive components such as steel slag are best
carefully evaluated before their application in UAB/
Alternative Base Course Applications subbase layers.
Such as Inverted Pavements • Recycled crushed concrete often can be adequately used
in UAB/subbase layers.
A review of published literature established that there is wide-
• Care needs to be taken while blending two different recy-
spread consensus among researchers regarding the benefits of
cled aggregate types to ensure that the resulting blend
alternative base course applications, such as the inverted pave-
possesses adequate physical, chemical, and mechanical
ment concept of constructing aggregate layers on a stiff sub-
properties.
base. The use of inverted pavements with thin asphalt surface
• Recycled materials from unknown sources or those to
courses is common in South Africa. Moreover, other coun-
be used in drainage applications are always tested for
tries, such as France and Australia, also use thick aggregate
potential environmental impacts before being used in
base courses as the primary structural layer in their pavement
UAB/subbase layers.
systems. However, current agency practices in the United
• The use of recycled materials in pavements may be
States and Canada do not adopt these alternative construction
evaluated on a project basis, instead of following generic
practices. Optimal use of unbound aggregate layers as the pri-
guidelines. For example, the use of RCA in UAB/subbase
mary structural component in pavement systems will greatly
layers may or may not be allowed, depending on whether
benefit with the construction of cost-effective and long-lasting
or not the pavement has an underdrain system.
pavement structures designed for improved performance. It
would be beneficial to thoroughly evaluate performances of
existing pavement sections constructed using such alternative Granular Base and Subbase
base courses. Construction Practices

• Stockpiling of aggregates using the windrow concept

KEY LESSONS AND effective PRACTICES has been proven to be the most efficient practice as far
as minimizing segregation is concerned.
Material Selection and Quality Testing
• From extensive review of the literature as well as cur-
• The use of 100% uncrushed aggregates in UABs/subbase rent state practices, this synthesis study finds an opti-
layers must be done with caution, realizing their substan- mum lift thickness of 12 in. for the construction of
dard strength properties and high rutting potentials. UAB/subbase layers. Note that this finding is based
• To ensure ease of construction and adequate compac- on the assumption that the UAB/subbase layer to be
tion, the maximum particle size allowed in UAB, sub- constructed is at least 12-in. thick. Moreover, the DOC
base, and drainage layers are best restricted to 1.5 in., achieved is contingent upon the use of adequate equip-
2 in., and 4 in., respectively. ment by the contractor.
• Excessive fines (P200) deteriorate aggregate layer per-
formance, especially in the presence of moisture. The Unbound Aggregate Base
maximum amount of fines allowed in UAB/subbase Characterization for Design
layers are best restricted to 12% unless prior perfor-
mance of a material can be documented to show that the • Compaction and stress-induced anisotropy may be
material performs satisfactorily at higher fine contents. considered during the design and analysis of pavement
• The presence of plastic fines in an unbound aggregate systems with UAB and subbase layers.
layer is best limited. For instances where the presence • Test procedures (AASHTO T 307 and NCHRP 1-28A)
of plastic fines is unavoidable, different threshold limits for conducting resilient modulus tests on aggregates have
124

been available for more than a decade. These ­methods Compaction, Quality Control,
can adequately capture the stress-dependent nature of and Field Performance
unbound aggregates and are ready to be implemented in
• Drop-hammer–based compaction methods (e.g.,AASHTO
practice. Agencies may incorporate these specifications
into practice. T 99 and T 180) may not be adequate for coarse-grained
• New research efforts are needed for developing har- aggregates, particularly those with low fines (P200) con-
monized test protocols for quantifying the permanent tents. Transportation agencies may need to adopt test
deformation behavior of aggregates. procedures similar to ASTM D 7382 to establish the
• It would be useful for stress dependence of unbound moisture-density curves for unbound aggregates using
aggregate materials to be incorporated into future releases a vibratory or gyratory compactor.
of DARWin-ME, the current AASHTO mechanistic • The use of roller types that are most suitable for the
empirical pavement design procedure. particular material types is critical to ensuring adequate
• A simplified approach is available for agencies to incor- compaction of unbound aggregate pavement layers.
porate the cross-anisotropy of unbound aggregates into • Several research and implementation projects have
pavement design without the need to conduct state-of- reported different degrees of success with in-place
the-art triaxial tests. modulus measurement devices. Although these devices
• Rapid removal of excessive moisture from unbound have been used successfully to identify anomalies in
aggregate layers can be achieved through (1) selec- construction conditions, extensive calibration for local
tion of aggregate materials with low water-retaining ten­ materials is needed before they can be used as primary
dencies and (2) design of suitable subsurface drainage tools for quality control.
systems. • Most research and implementation projects conducted
• Aggregate materials may be tested for erosion poten- in the United States involving the use of continuous
tial or “erodibility” before being used in UAB/subbase compaction control and IC to construct UAB/subbase
layers, particularly under rigid pavements. layers have reported considerable success. However,
• Stable open-graded and gap-graded aggregates with low such practices are not common for transportation agen-
fine (P200) contents are best used in unbound aggregate cies. Encouraging more implementation projects across
drainage layers. agencies can help to incorporate continuous compac-
• Tube suction tests can evaluate the frost susceptibility tion control and IC into agency practice.
of aggregates before their application in unbound base/ • Suction effects and resulting changes in aggregate layer
subbase layers in areas experiencing significant frost modulus can be considered during the design of UAB/
penetration. subbase layers.
 125

ACRONYMS

ACPA American Concrete Pavement Association

AIMS Aggregate Image Measurement System
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CCC Continuous compaction control
CCP Constant confining pressure
CH Fat clay
CKD Cement kiln dust
CL Lean clay
CMV Compaction meter value
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
DOT Department of Transportation
EICM Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model
ESAL Equivalent single-axle load
FWD Falling weight deflectometer
GAB Graded aggregate base
GC Clayey gravel
GM Silty gravel
GP Poorly graded gravel
GW Well-graded gravel
GWT Groundwater table
HMA Hot mix asphalt
IC Intelligent compaction
ICAR International Center for Aggregate Research
ICMV Intelligent compaction measurement value
IPC Industrial Process Control
LVDT Linear variable differential transformer
LWD Light weight deflectometer
MDD Maximum dry density
MH Elastic silt
MR Resilient modulus
MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
ML Silt
MV Measurement value
NSSGA National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
OH Organic clay, organic silt
OL Organic silt, organic clay
OMC Optimum moisture content
P200 Percentage of material (by weight) passing no. 200 sieve
PCC Portland cement concrete
PI Plasticity Index
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RAP Reclaimed asphalt pavement
RCA Recycled concrete aggregate
RICM Roller integrated compaction measurement
SASW Spectral analysis of surface waves
SC Clayey sand
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
SM Silty sand
SP Poorly graded sand
126

SW Well-graded sand
SWCC Soil water characteristic curves
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TPF Transportation Pooled Fund
UAB Unbound aggregate base
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCP Variable confining pressure
 127

APPENDIX A
Questionnaire

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
NCHRP PROJECT 20-5
TOPIC 43-03
PRACTICES FOR UNBOUND AGGREGATE PAVEMENT LAYERS

NCHRP Topic 43-03 Survey Questionnaire

February 2011

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a Synthesis on “Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement Layers.”
This is being done for NCHRP, under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Granular aggregate base and subbase layers are very important in pavement construction and performance. Properly designed
and constructed bases have the potential to improve pavement performance and longevity while also addressing today’s issues
like the costs of other pavement materials, the need to save energy, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
construction and reconstruction of pavements. A synthesis is being undertaken concerning the full range of unbound aggregate
base and subbase issues for both flexible and rigid pavement systems.

States have diverse specifications and construction practices for unbound aggregate pavement layers; sharing this informa-
tion among the states will most likely lead to better design and construction practices. Information is being gathered through
a literature review, survey of the members of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials (including Canadian prov-
inces), and selected interviews. Gaps in knowledge and current practices will be noted, along with research needs to address
these gaps. This synthesis will ultimately provide information for harmonization of specifications (particularly on a regional
basis) to ultimately benefit both states and material producers without adverse impacts on pavement performance.

This questionnaire is being sent to State Departments of Transportation. Your cooperation in completing the questionnaire
will ensure the success of this effort. If you are not the appropriate person at your agency to complete this questionnaire,
please forward it to the correct person.

Please complete and submit this survey by April 6, 2012. For questions, please contact our principal investigator:

Erol Tutumluer, Ph.D. E-mail: [email protected] Phone (217) 333-8637

Please identify your contact information. NCHRP will email you a link to the online report when it is completed.

Agency: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

City: _____________________________ State: ____________________________ ZIP: ______________________________

Questionnaire Contact:________________________________________________________________________________________
Position/Title:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
In case of questions and for NCHRP to send you a link to the final report, please provide:
Tel:_______________________________________________ E-mail:________________________________________________
128

General: Use of Unbound Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers

Please provide the contact information of the persons in your agency who directly deal with the material selection and char-
acterization, as well as design and construction of unbound aggregate base and subbase layers for pavement applications. The
consultants will contact the relevant personnel separately with specific questions.

Material Selection and Characterization

Name:______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Position/Title:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: _____________________________ State: ____________________________ ZIP: ______________________________
Telephone: ___________________________ ; E-Mail: __________________________; Fax: ____________________________

Pavement Design

Name:______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Position/Title:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: _____________________________ State: ____________________________ ZIP: ______________________________
Telephone: ___________________________ ; E-Mail: __________________________; Fax: ____________________________

Construction of Pavements with Unbound Aggregate Layers

Name:______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Position/Title:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: _____________________________ State: ____________________________ ZIP: ______________________________
Telephone: ___________________________ ; E-Mail: __________________________; Fax: ____________________________

1. Is it common practice for your agency to incorporate unbound aggregate layers into the design and construction of
pavement structures? (Note that this survey focusses on unbound aggregate layers in asphalt, concrete, and compos-
ite pavements only, and does not include unbound aggregate layer applications in unsurfaced pavements and gravel
roads.)

� Yes
� No

If your answer to the above question is “No”, you do not need to complete this survey. Please include comments below
regarding why your agency does not prefer to construct unbound aggregate layers as pavement base and subbase
courses.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. What types of unbound aggregate layers are commonly constructed by your agency? (Please check all that apply.)

�  Base course
�  Subbase course
 129

�  Open graded drainage layer

�  Pavement working platforms for subgrade stability applications

3. What types of pavement structures designed and constructed by your agency commonly incorporate unbound aggregate
layers?

�  Flexible pavements (comprising hot mix or warm mix asphalt surface layer)
�  Rigid pavements (comprising portland/hydraulic cement concrete slabs)
�  Rehabilitated pavements (asphalt overlay over concrete, etc.)
�  Others such as composite pavements, inverted pavements, etc.
(Please specify): 

4. What primary functionalities of unbound aggregate layers are intended to serve in pavement systems designed and con-
structed by your agency? (Please check all that apply.)

�  Dense graded base courses as primary structural layers

�  Open graded layers under rigid pavements for uniform support and providing drainage
� Pavement construction platforms to protect weak subgrade layers from excessive rutting under heavy construction
equipment loading
�  Others (please specify): 

Category 1: Material Selection and Construction Practices

5. How frequently does your agency check the acceptance of materials obtained from commonly used and/or approved
aggregate sources?

�  Prior to the use on every major construction project

�  More than twice every year
�  Twice every year
�  Once every year
�  Less than once every year
�  Other (please explain): 

6. What tests are used by your agency for evaluating quality aspects of virgin aggregate materials for pavement base and
subbase applications? (Please check all that apply.)

� Na2SO4/MgSO4 Soundness Test

�  Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test
�  Sieve Analysis
�  Percent Deleterious Materials
�  Other (please indicate):  ___________________________________________________________________
___


7. Does your agency permit the use of uncrushed aggregates in pavement base and subbase applications?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 
130

8. What is the maximum aggregate particle size (Dmax) in inches allowed by your agency in the following constructed
unbound aggregate layers?

�  Dense graded base: 

�  Dense graded subbase: 
�  Open graded base as drainage layers: 
�  Open graded subbase as drainage layers: 
�  Other (please list below):



9. What is the maximum amount of fines (material finer than 0.075 mm or passing sieve No. 200) allowed by your agency
for aggregates to be used for unbound aggregate base and subbase course applications?

�  Dense graded base (%):

�  Dense graded subbase (%):
�  Open graded base/subbase as drainage layers (%):

10. Does your agency specify different allowable percent fines (material finer than 0.075 mm or passing sieve No. 200) for
aggregates having nonplastic and plastic fines?

�  Yes (please give the specified values below):

�  Base, Nonplastic (%):
�  Base, Plastic (%)
�  Subbase, Nonplastic (%):
�  Subbase, Plastic (%):
� No

11. What is the maximum value of plasticity index (PI) allowed by your agency for the fines fraction of aggregate materials
to be used in the following unbound pavement layers?

�  Dense graded base: 

�  Dense graded subbase: 
�  Open graded base as drainage layers: 
�  Open graded subbase as drainage layers: 

12. Does your agency have a list of approved aggregate types and sources for base and subbase course applications?

�  Yes (please reference document/website) 

� No
�  Other (please explain): 

13. If you answered “Yes” to Question 12, does your agency frequently allow new materials into the list of approved aggregate
types and sources for base and subbase course applications?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 
 131

14. Does your agency have specific guidelines regarding the transportation and storage (stockpiling) of aggregate materials
for base and subbase construction?

�  Yes (please reference document/website) 

� No
�  Other (please explain): 

15. What is the maximum construction lift thickness for unbound aggregate layers permitted by your agency?

�  6 in.
�  8 in.
�  10 in.
�  12 in.
�  Other (please indicate): 
�  No such restrictions

16. Does your agency allow the construction of multiple unbound aggregate layers placed on top of each other (e.g., dense
graded base over an open graded drainage layer)?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

17. If you answered “Yes” to the above question, do you separate the two unbound aggregate layers by any kind of constructed
aggregate separation (i.e., filter) layer?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

18. Does your agency allow the construction of unbound aggregate layers over or under pavement layers stabilized/treated
with lime, fly ash, cement, or bitumen?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

19. If you answered “Yes” to the above question, please give typical thicknesses of such constructed layers:
• Thickness (in.) of stabilized layer 
• Thickness (in.) of unbound aggregate layer 

Category 2: Unbound Aggregate Base Characterization for Design

20. Who is responsible for testing/characterizing aggregate materials and providing input properties for the design of pave-
ments with unbound granular layers?

�  Geotechnical/materials laboratory
�  University laboratory (under research subcontract)
�  Field engineer
�  Other (please indicate): 
132

21. What laboratory tests are conducted by your agency for strength, deformation, and modulus characterization of unbound
aggregates used in base and subbase course applications? (Please check all that apply.)

�  Strength index tests (e.g., CBR, Hveem stabilometer, etc.)

�  Triaxial shear strength tests
�  Repeated load triaxial tests for resilient modulus (standard tests such as AASHTO T 307, NCHRP 1-28, etc.)
�  Repeated load triaxial tests for permanent deformation behavior
�  Other (please indicate): 

22. What field tests are conducted by your agency for strength, deformation, and modulus characteristics of in-service unbound
aggregate layers? (Please check all that apply.)

�  Plate Load tests

�  Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests
�  Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests
�  Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) tests
�  Soil Stiffness Gauge tests (e.g., GeoGaugeTM, etc.)
�  Other (please indicate): 

23. How often are these laboratory/field tests conducted to characterize aggregate materials for use in granular base and sub-
base layers?

�  Once on limited aggregate types/materials commonly used by the agency

�  On a project-need basis
�  Once on all agency-approved aggregate sources
�  At regular intervals on agency-approved aggregate sources to establish a database
�  Other (please indicate): 

24. Is the structural contribution of open graded aggregate drainage layers taken into account in pavement thickness design
by your agency?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

25. What method is used by your agency to design pavements with unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

�  1972 AASHTO Design Guide

�  1986 AASHTO Design Guide
�  1993 AASHTO Design Guide
�  Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG)
�  Agency-Specific Mechanistic Procedure: 
�  Agency-Specific Empirical Procedure: 
�  Other (please indicate): 

26. What aggregate properties and/or characteristics are used as inputs for the design of pavements with granular base/subbase
layers by your agency? (Please check all that apply.)

�  Percent passing sieve sizes (gradation) and/or maximum aggregate particle size
�  Particle shape and angularity (crushed or uncrushed)
 133

�  Compaction characteristics; i.e., optimum moisture content and maximum dry density
�  Shear strength properties (e.g., friction angle, CBR, etc.)
�  Resilient modulus
�  Other (please indicate): _______________________________________________

27. What approach is adopted by your agency for assigning resilient modulus values to unbound aggregate base and subbase
layers?

�  Modulus is not used in pavement design

�  Single modulus is assigned to the entire layer
�  Stress-dependency of aggregate layer modulus is considered during pavement design
� Based on research by the International Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), anisotropy (directional depen-
dency) of aggregate layer modulus is considered
�  Other (please indicate): ______________________________________________

28. How does your agency determine the resilient modulus of unbound aggregate materials for use in granular base and sub-
base layers?

�  Resilient modulus testing in the laboratory

�  Empirical correlations with index properties like CBR, gradation parameters, etc.
�  In-place modulus measurement of constructed layers by deflection-based methods such as FWD, LWD, etc.
�  Other (please indicate): _______________________________________________

29. Does your agency have special provisions for including new and/or locally available “marginal” aggregates in the thick-
ness design of unbound base and subbase layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): ________________________________________________

Category 3: Compaction, Quality Control, and Field Performance

30. How are aggregate compaction characteristics established in the lab by your agency?

�  Drop-hammer based methods like the standard and modified Proctor tests
�  Static compaction methods
�  Vibratory compaction methods
�  Gyratory compaction methods
�  Kneading compaction methods
�  Other (please indicate): ________________________________________________

31. List typical equipment used for placement and construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase layers in your state.
(Please check all that apply.)

�  Dump truck
�  Material Transfer Device
�  Trucks and graders
�  Aggregate spreaders
134

�  Other (please indicate below):




32. Please describe briefly the preferred method of placement and construction of unbound aggregate base and subbase lay-
ers in your state.





33. How is moisture content of constructed/compacted unbound aggregate base and subbase controlled in the field?

�  According to quarry reported moisture content

�  Sampled during construction/compaction for laboratory testing
� Measured through field testing using
(please indicate): 
�  Other (please indicate): 

34. What is an acceptable variation from optimum moisture content for constructed/compacted unbound aggregate base and
subbase allowed by your agency?




35. What is the primary approach used by your agency for evaluating degree of compaction and construction quality control
of unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

� Gradation
� Proof-rolling
�  Measurement of constructed layer density
�  Field measurement of constructed layer modulus
�  Continuous compaction control by means of Intelligent Compaction (IC) equipment
�  Other (please indicate): 

36. If your answer to the previous question was “Measurement of constructed layer density,” what method is commonly used
by your agency for measuring constructed layer densities in the field?

�  Nuclear density methods (ASTM D 2922/AASHTO T310 or T238)

�  Sand cone method (ASTM D 1556/AASHTO T191)
�  Balloon method (ASTM D 2167)
�  Oil or water method
�  Drive cylinder method (ASTM D 2937)
�  Rapid method (ASTM D 5080)
�  Electrical density measurement method (ASTM D 7698)
�  Other (please indicate): 
 135

37. Is it common practice for your agency to construct “test strips” to establish roller patterns and check for compaction
density growth of unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

38. If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” do you primarily use nuclear density measurement method for this
purpose?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

39. What is the primary mode of nuclear gauge operation used by your agency for density checks on constructed unbound
aggregate base and subbase layers?

�  Direct transmission
� Backscatter
�  Not applicable (nuclear density measurement not used)

40. If your agency uses the “drop-hammer based” methods to establish compaction characteristics of aggregates in the labora-
tory, please circle and select all applicable options from the list below regarding the minimum compaction requirements in
the field:

Pavement Aggregate Compaction

Type Layer Type Method Field Relative Compaction
Flexible Base Standard Proctor 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Flexible Base Modified Proctor 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Flexible Subbase Standard Proctor 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Flexible Subbase Modified Proctor 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Rigid Base/Subbase Standard Proctor 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Rigid Base/Subbase Modified Proctor 90% 95% 100% Other ________

41. If you selected “Other” as one of the responses to the above question, please specify the answer below (submit your
answer in the format: Flexible Base-Standard Proctor-xx%)

�  

42. If your agency does NOT use “drop-hammer based” methods to establish compaction characteristics of aggregates in the lab-
oratory, please specify the relative compaction requirements for the following unbound aggregate base/subbase applications:

Pavement Aggregate
Type Layer Type Field Relative Compaction
Flexible Base 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Flexible Subbase 90% 95% 100% Other ________
Rigid Base/Subbase 90% 95% 100% Other ________

43. If you selected “Other” as one of the responses in the above question, please specify the details below:

�  
136

44. Is there common interest among engineers in your agency to implement non-nuclear density measurement methods for
construction quality control of unbound aggregate base/subbase layers?

�  Yes (please select all possible reasons):

�  Safety concerns
�  Nuclear certification too expensive
�  Nuclear certification too inconvenient
�  Non-nuclear methods provide better results
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

45. Has your agency ever participated in demonstration projects involving continuous compaction control of unbound aggre-
gate base/subbase layers using Intelligent Compaction (IC) techniques?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

46. Has your agency actively implemented IC techniques to construct in-service pavements with unbound aggregate base/
subbase layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

47. If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” does your agency have a specification for continuous compaction control
using IC techniques and construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

48. Does your agency implement modulus-based compaction control for the construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase
layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

49. If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, what method is used for measuring the field modulus of constructed
unbound aggregate layers?

�  Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)

�  Light Weight Deflectometers (LWD)
�  Soil Stiffness Gauge (e.g., GeoGaugeTM)
�  Seismic testing such as the Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer based on spectral analyses of surface waves
�  Other (please indicate): 
 137

50. If you answered “Yes” to question No. 46, what percentage of construction projects in your agency involve modulus based
compaction control?

�  <10%
� 10–30%
� 30–60%
�  >60%

51. Does your agency use any non-traditional compaction technique (e.g., South African “slushing” technique) during the
construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase?

�  Yes (please name the technique and give brief detail below)
� No

Comments:

52. Does your agency perform FWD tests to assess the structural condition of unbound aggregate base and subbase layers in
existing in-service pavements?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

53. If your answer to the previous question was “Yes,” what backcalculation program/software/approach does your agency
use to determine granular base/subbase modulus from the FWD test results? (Please indicate below.)




54. What tests are commonly used by your agency to evaluate the field-performance of existing pavements with unbound
aggregate base and subbase layers? (Please list all.)





Category 4: Recycling Aggregates and Recycled Granular Materials

Note: Recycled Granular Materials in this questionnaire refer to Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA) and Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement (RAP) materials only.

55. Does your agency commonly recycle unbound aggregate materials from base and subbase layers of existing pavements
for application in new and rehabilitated pavement construction?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 
138

56. If your answer to the previous question was “Yes,” what tests are used by your agency for evaluating the quality of these
recycled aggregates? (Please check all that apply.)

� Na2SO4/MgSO4 Soundness Test

�  Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test
�  Sieve Analysis
�  Percent Deleterious Materials
�  Other (please indicate): 


57. What other tests are used by your agency to characterize recycled aggregates from existing base and subbase courses for
acceptance and design? (Please list all.)

�  
�  
�  

58. Is the use of recycled aggregates from existing base and subbase courses incorporated into your agency specifications?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

59. Does your agency allow contractors to use locally available “marginal or out of specification” aggregates for unbound
aggregate base and subbase layer applications?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

60. What other recycled granular materials are approved for use by your agency in unbound aggregate layer construction?
(Please check all that apply.)

�  Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)

�  Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA)
�  Other (please indicate): 
�  None of the above (please skip to Category 5 of the survey)

61. What tests are used by your agency for evaluating the material quality of recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP, and/or
others from question No. 58) for base and subbase applications? (Please check all that apply.)

� Na2SO4/MgSO4 Soundness Test

�  Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test
�  Sieve Analysis
�  Percent Deleterious Materials
�  Other (please indicate): 

 139

62. What other tests are used by your agency to characterize recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP, and/or others from ques-
tion No. 58) for acceptance and design? (Please list all.)

�  
�  
�  

63. Does your agency have environmental concerns regarding the use of recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP, and/or oth-
ers from question No. 58) in unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

64. If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” what environmental issues is your agency particularly concerned about
(e.g., leaching, etc.)?

�  
�  
�  

65. Does your agency require strength, deformation and modulus testing and characterization of recycled aggregates
(from existing base and subbase courses) as well as recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP, and/or others from ques-
tion No. 58)?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

66. If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, are these characterization tests the same as those used for virgin aggregates?

� Yes
�  No (please indicate below how the test methods are different)

Comments:

Category 5: Climatic Effects and Drainage

67. Are climatic effects on pavement subgrade performance a major concern for your agency?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

68. If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” please check all factors that contribute to this concern:

�  Groundwater table (GWT) is often shallow (can be less than 5 ft deep) under the pavements
� Native soils primarily fine-grained (e.g., silts, clays, etc.) and may get wet of optimum due to upward movement
of moisture from GWT
�  In-service pavement subgrades are often under “wet of optimum” moisture conditions
140

�  Seasonal fluctuations cause significant changes in subgrade soil properties

�  Subgrades stay frozen for extended periods (one month or longer)
�  More than 10 freeze-thaw cycles per year are experienced at the subgrade level
�  Spring thaw weakening and timing of spring load restrictions
�  Subgrade soils are primarily frost-susceptible (i.e., silty soils)

69. Are aggregate materials selected for use in granular base/subbase applications by your agency tested for climatic effects
(e.g., soil water characteristic curve, freeze-thaw durability, suction characteristics of fines, etc.)?

�  Yes (please indicate the test types) 

� No
�  Other (please explain): 

70. Does the pavement design procedure used by your agency consider the effects of climatic changes on unbound aggregate
layer performance?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

71. If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” what unbound aggregate layer properties are adjusted in your pavement
design procedure to account for detrimental climatic effects on pavement performance?

�  Layer structural coefficients

�  Resilient modulus
�  Shear strength
�  Other (please indicate): 

72. Are there different gradations specified by your agency for unbound aggregate applications targeting drainable vs. low
permeability aggregate layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 

73. If drainage is one of the primary functions of your flexible pavement unbound aggregate base/subbase layer, what approach
is adopted by your agency to facilitate the drainability of dense-graded base courses?

�  Limiting the maximum allowable percent fines (material passing sieve No. 200)
�  Increasing the maximum aggregate size
�  Adjusting the constructed layer gradation toward a more open-graded layer
�  Other (please explain): 

74. Does your agency distinguish between crushed and uncrushed aggregate types while constructing open-graded drainage
layers?

� Yes
� No
�  Other (please explain): 
 141

75. How is the effectiveness of an open-graded aggregate drainage layer measured by your agency?

�  In-situ permeability measurements

�  Laboratory tests to measure the permeability of aggregate samples
� Empirical correlations to estimate the permeability from aggregate physical properties like gradation, dry density,
specific surface, and void ratio (or porosity)
�  Other (please explain): 



76. For pavement structures with aggregate drainage layers, is it common practice in your agency to include a filter layer
underneath to protect the drainage layer from clogging?

�  Yes (open graded aggregates commonly used to construct the filter layer)
�  Yes (geosynthetics commonly used as the mode of filtration)
�  No (no extra layer constructed for filtration purposes)

77. How common is it for your agency to construct subsurface drainage systems like “edge-drains” under unbound aggregate
base and subbase layers?

�  Yes, very common

�  Yes, for specific projects when required by the design
�  No, not common at all

This is the End of Questionnaire

Thank you for your Cooperation

142

APPENDIX B
Respondent Information

SURVEY RESPONDENT INFORMATION

NCHRP PROJECT 20-5
TOPIC 43-03
PRACTICES FOR UNBOUND AGGREGATE PAVEMENT LAYERS

State Name Title Agency/Organization

AK Steve Saboundjan State Pavement Engineer Alaska DOT/PF
AL Robert Shugart Materials Engineer Alabama DOT
AR Michael Benson Materials Engineer Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Department
AZ Paul Burch State Pavement Design Engineer Arizona Department of Transportation
CA Hector Romero California Department of Transportation
CO Jay Goldbaum Pavement Design Program Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation
DC Wasi Khan Materials Engineer District of Columbia (DC) DOT
DE Greg Hainsworth Materials Engineer Delaware DOT
FL David Horhota State Geotechnical Materials Engineer Florida DOT
GA Georgene Geary State Materials and Research Engineer Georgia DOT
NC Jack Cowsert State Materials Quality Engineer North Carolina DOT
ID Michael Santi Materials Engineer Idaho Transportation Department
IL Sheila Beshears Ms. Illinois Department of Transportation
IN Ronald Walkers Manager, Office of Materials Engineer Indiana NDOT
KS Andrew Gisi Geotechnical Engineer Kansas Department of Transportation
LA Bert Wintz Field Quality Assurance Administrator Louisiana DOTD Materials and Testing
Section
MD Dan Sajedi Soils and Aggregate Division Chief Maryland State Highway
ME Karen Gross Assistant Engineer – Pavement Design and Maine Department of Transportation
Quality
MN Tim Andersen Pavement Design Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation
MO John Donahue Construction and Materials Liaison Engineer Missouri DOT
WY Rick Harvey State Materials Engineer Wyoming DOT
MS James Williams State Materials Engineer Mississippi Department of Transportation
MT Dan Hill Pavement Analysis Engineer Montana DOT
ND Ron Horner Materials and Research Engineer North Dakota DOT
NH Denis Boisvert Chief of Materials Technology New Hampshire DOT
NJ Eileen Sheehy New Jersey DOT
NM Bryce Simons New Mexico Department of Transportation
NV Charlie Pan Principal Bituminous Engineer Nevada Department of Transportation
NY Bob Burnett Director, GEB New York State DOT
OH Lloyd Welker Administrator Office of Materials Ohio Department of Transportation
Management
 143

State Name Title Agency/Organization

OK Vincent Reidenbach Oklahoma DOT
OR Justin Moderie Pavement Design Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation
PA Timothy Ramirez Engineer of Tests PA Department of Transportation
RI Robert Snyder Sr. Civil Engineer (Materials) Rhode Island DOT
SC Andrew Johnson State Pavement Design Engineer South Carolina DOT
SD Joe Feller Chief Materials and Surfacing Engineer South Dakota DOT
TX Mark McDaniel Transportation Engineer Texas Department of Transportation
UT Howard Andersen Quality Assurance and Aggregate Engineer Utah DOT
VA Mohamed Elfino Assistant Division Engineer Virginia Dept. of Transportation
WA Michael Polodna Structural Materials Testing Engineer Washington State Dept. of Transportation
WI Steven Krebs Chief Materials Management Engineer Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WV Thomas Medvick Pavement Engineer West Virginia DOT/DOH Materials Division
AB, Chick McMillan Director-Surface Engineering and Alberta Transportation
Canada Aggregates
NL, Ken Pike Manager, Materials Engineering Transportation and Works, Newfoundland
Canada and Labrador
ON, Stephen Senior Head, Soils and Aggregates Section Ministry of Transportation
Canada
SK, Ania Anthony Senior Surfacing Engineer Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways &
Canada Infrastructure
144

aPPENDIX C
Survey Responses

COMPILATION OF SURVEY RESPONSES NCHRP PROJECT 20-5 TOPIC 43-03

PRACTICES FOR UNBOUND AGGREGATE PAVEMENT LAYERS

Background and Purpose

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a Synthesis on “Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement Layers.”
This is being done for NCHRP, under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Granular aggregate base and subbase layers are very important in pavement construction and performance. Properly designed
and constructed bases have the potential to improve pavement performance and longevity while also addressing today’s issues
like the costs of other pavement materials, the need to save energy, and to reduce green-house gas emissions associated with the
construction and reconstruction of pavements. A synthesis is being undertaken concerning the full range of granular aggregate
base and subbase issues for both flexible and rigid pavement systems.

States have diverse specifications and construction practices for unbound aggregate pavement layers; sharing this
information among the states will most likely lead to better design and construction practices. Information is being gath-
ered through literature review, survey of the members of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials (including
Canadian Provinces), and selected interviews. Gaps in knowledge and current practices will be noted, along with research
needs to address these gaps. This synthesis will ultimately provide information for harmonization of specifications (par-
ticularly on a regional basis) to ultimately benefit both States and material producers without adverse impacts on pavement
performance.

This questionnaire is being sent to state departments of transportation. Your cooperation in completing the questionnaire
will ensure the success of this effort. If you are not the appropriate person at your agency to complete this questionnaire, please
forward it to the correct person.

General: Use of Unbound Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers

  1) Is it common practice for your agency to incorporate unbound aggregate layers into the design and construc-
tion of pavement structures? (Note that this survey focuses on unbound aggregate layers in asphalt, concrete and
composite pavements only, and does not include unbound aggregate layer applications in unsurfaced pavements
and gravel roads). If your answer to this question is “No,” you do not need to complete this survey. Please include
comments in the textbox regarding why your agency does not prefer to construct unbound aggregate layers as pave-
ment base and subbase courses

[46] Yes - 100%

[0] No - 0%
46 Respondents

  2) What types of unbound aggregate layers are commonly constructed by your agency? (Please check all that
apply.)

[44] Base course - 95.7%

[30] Subbase course - 65.2%
[11] Open graded drainage layer - 23.9%
[21] Pavement working platforms for subgrade stability applications - 45.7%
46 Respondents
 145

  3) What types of pavement structures designed and constructed by your agency commonly incorporate unbound
aggregate layers? (Please check all that apply.)

[46] Flexible pavements (comprising hot mix or warm mix asphalt surface layer) - 100%
[32] Rigid pavements (comprising portland/hydraulic cement concrete slabs) - 69.9%
[14] Rehabilitated pavements (asphalt overlay over concrete, etc.) - 30.4%
[10] Others such as composite pavements, inverted pavements, etc. (please specify) - 21.7%
46 Respondents

“Others” responses
• All of our pavements have had a subbase beneath them since at least the 1950s.
• Composite pavements
• Foamed Asphalt base (FASB)
• Have done one inverted pavement, but are considering more.
• Inverted pavement
• We have one inverted pavement project underway right now
• Composite (listed 3 times)
• Composite bases with a layer of crushed stone over a soil cement layer

  4) What primary functionalities are unbound aggregate layers intended to serve in pavement systems designed
and constructed by your agency? (Please check all that apply.)

[43] Dense graded base courses as primary structural layers - 93.5%

[11] Open graded layers under rigid pavements for uniform support and providing drainage - 23.9%
[24] Pavement construction platforms to protect weak subgrade layers from excessive rutting under heavy construction
equipment loading - 52.2%
[4] Others (please specify): - 8.7%
46 Respondents

“Others” responses
• Control expansion
• Gravel Subbase is most commonly used
• On a geotextile or geogrid for pavement construction platform
• These are the main three, but the first is the primary use, with occasional uses for the other two.

Category 1: Material Selection and Construction Practices

  5) How frequently does your agency check the acceptance of materials obtained from commonly used and/or
approved aggregate sources?

[18] Prior to the use on every major construction project - 39.1%

[2] More than twice every year - 4.3%
[1] Twice every year - 2.2%
[5] Once every year - 10.9%
[3] Less than once every year - 6.5%
[17] Other (please explain): - 37%
46 Respondents

“Others” responses
• 1/2,000 tons on every project
• Acceptance is done on delivered materials on every major project
• Aggregate base is approved by stockpile to be used in each project.
• Gradation and density every 2500 tons
• QA every 10 days interval during production and delivery to the project site
• QC/QA on each project
• Subbase material is placed in stockpiles and every pile is sampled and tested.
146

• The aggregate base is checked for acceptance for any project that has least 500 cu. yd or more.
• Soundness and durability are done annually, gradations and densities are performed every 1,000 CY
• Aggregates are accepted from a Certified Aggregate Producer. INDOT audits these plants on an annual basis.
• QA on a project basis—aggregate sources are glacio-fluvial deposits and often a source is used infrequently.
• Aggregate soundness is annual. Other properties are at the start of the project and typically every 2000 tons thereafter.
• Once a year for contractor furnished sources—Make state leased sources available to the contractor, dig test pits,
perform quality tests, and make information available to contractors before the pit or quarry is opened.
• Unbound aggregate is tested under ODOT certification program before shipment to the jobsite for gradation.
Source materials are quality testing from once to 4 times a year.
• Quarries are qualified annually or biennially depending on the characteristics of the materials, and then accep-
tance samples are taken from the roadway during construction.
• All aggregate sources and each material from a source are sampled and requalified every two years.
• Once the source is tested and approved for durability, we run gradation and deleterious materials acceptance
samples approx. every 1,000 cu. yards of material.

  6) What tests are used by your agency for evaluating quality aspects of virgin aggregate materials for pavement
base and subbase applications? (Please check all that apply)

[26] Na2SO4/MgSO4 Soundness Test - 56.5%

[39] Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test - 84.8%
[43] Sieve Analysis - 93.5%
[30] Percent Deleterious Materials - 65.2%
[22] Other (please indicate): - 47.8%
46 Respondents

“Others” responses
• Absorption and Specific Gravity
• Absorption and Specific Gravity, by either T84/85 or by TP77
• Atterberg Plasticity Index
• Freeze Thaw
• Idaho IT-15 Idaho Degradation
• LAR & -#200 Insoluble Residue
• Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR)
• Liquid Limit, Fracture Face, CBR, Dry-rodded Weight
• PI
• Petro Number
• Plastic Index
• Plasticity Index, Fractured Coarse Aggregate Particles
• R-Value
• Sand equivalent, durability, R value
• Thin & Elongated, Crushed Fragments, & Unit Weight
• Volume Swell (MT-305)
• WSDOT Degradation Test, Sand Equivalent
• Washington Degradation
• Atterberg limits
• Plasticity, unconfined freeze-thaw, permeability
• ODOT TM 208 degradation test. It checks the soundness of aggregate in wet conditions by agitating crushed
aggregate with bubblers under water, and then performing a sand equivalency type evaluation.
• Texas Triaxial strength, Plasticity Index with liquid limit separate, wet-ball mill (hardness), aggregate type
(morphology)

  7) Does your agency permit the use of uncrushed aggregates in pavement base and subbase applications?

[20] Yes - 43.5%

[20] No - 43.5%
[6] Other (please explain): - 13%
46 Respondents
 147

“Others” responses
• A minimum of 30% fractured coarse aggregate is required.
• Natural rough surfaced gravel
• Subbase only
• Allowed in subbase but not in base
• Only with a stabilized sand clay gravel material
• Spec Requirement: Aggregates shall consist of Granular material of which 30% of the particles retained on the
No. 4 sieve shall contain one or more fractured faces.

  8) What is the maximum aggregate particle size (Dmax) in inches allowed by your agency in the following con-
structed unbound aggregate layers? 46 respondents

[44] Dense graded base:

¾ of the lift thickness (1 agency)
1 in. (11 agencies)
1.5 in. (21 agencies)
1.75 in. (1 agency)
2 in. (4 agencies)
2 in. for graded aggregate base; 3.5 in. for coquina shell base; 1.5 in. for sand-clay base (1 agency)
2.5 in. max is allowed, but 1 in. max is almost always used (1 agency)
3 in. (2 agencies)
3.5 in. (1 agency)
4 in. (1 agency)

[36] Dense graded subbase

¾ of the lift thickness (1 agency)
0.75 in. (1 agency)
1 inch (1 agency)
1.5 in. (11 agencies)
1.75 in. (1 agency)
2-in. (8 agencies)
2.5 in. (1 agency)
3 in. (5 agencies)
3 in. in the top of the layer, 4 in. if a lower layer (1 agency)
4 in. (2 agencies)
5 in. (1 agency)
5.9 (150 mm) (1 agency)
6 in. (2 agencies)

[16] Open graded base as drainage layers

0.375 in. (1 agency)
0.75 in. (3 agencies)
1 in. (4 agencies)
1.5 in. (2 agencies)
2 in. (2 agencies)
2.25 in. (1 agency)
3 in. (1 agency)
8 in. (1 agency)
N/A (1 agency)

[12] Open graded subbase as drainage layers

0.375 in. (1 agency)
0.75 in. (1 agency)
1 in. (3 agencies)
1.5 in. (2 agencies)
2.25 in. (1 agency)
148

3 in. (1 agency)
4 in. (1 agency)
8 in. (1 agency)
N/A (1 agency)
[4] Other (please list)
Break run 6 in. (1 agency)
Dense graded top course - 0.5 in. (1 agency)
N/A (2 agencies)

  9) What is the maximum amount of fines (material finer than 0.075 mm or passing sieve No. 200) allowed by your
agency for aggregates to be used for unbound aggregate base and subbase course applications? 46 respondents

[44] Dense graded base (% fines)

5 (2 agencies)
6 (1 agency)
7 (1 agency)
7.5 (1 agency)
8 (6 agencies)
9 (1 agency)
10 (8 agencies)
11 (2 agencies)
12 (11 agencies)
13 (1 agency)
15 (2 agencies)
18 (2 agencies)
20 (1 agency)
None—typ. 10–20% (1 agency)
Silicate aggregates—11%, carbonate aggregates—15% (1 agency)
specification state “well graded to dust” (1 agency)
12% for granite-derived or recycled concrete graded aggregate; 20% for marine limestone-derived graded aggregate;
  30% for coquina shell base; 33% for sand-clay base (1 agency)
Up to 20% in theory. However, fines are controlled by Sand Equivalency testing and a statement “of the fraction passing
  the 1/4 in. sieve, 50% to 60% shall pass the No. 10 sieve.” We are in the initial stages of adding a No. 200 sieve wash
  requirement. (1 agency).

[35] Dense graded subbase (% fines)

6 (2 agencies)
7 (1 agency)
8 (4 agencies)
9 (1 agency)
10 (7 agencies)
12 (3 agencies)
13 (1 agency)
15 (6 agencies)
18 (2 agencies)
20 (1 agency)
25 (1 agency)
34 (1 agency)
10% (Class 4 & 5), 15% (Class 6) (1 agency)
Fines are limited by a maximum 10% passing the #100 sieve (1 agency)
None—typically 10–20% (1 agency)
Not Specified (1 agency)
Silicate aggregates—11%, carbonate aggregates—15% (1 agency)

[17] Open graded base/subbase as drainage layers (% fines)

1.5 (1 agency)
2 (4 agencies)
 149

3 (2 agencies)
5 (4 agencies)
7 (1 agency)
10 (1 agency)
5% max passing #4 (1 agency)
3% passing the #100 sieve (1 agency)
N/A (1 agency)
Not specified but typical (1 agency)

10) Does your agency specify different allowable percent fines (material finer than 0.075 mm or passing sieve No.
200) for aggregates having nonplastic and plastic fines?

[1] Yes (please give the specified values below) - 2.2%

[1] Base, Nonplastic (%): 8% fines
[0] Base, Plastic (%)
[0] Subbase, Nonplastic (%):
[0] Subbase, Plastic (%):
[45] No - 97.8%
46 Respondents

11) What is the maximum value of plasticity index (PI) allowed by your agency for the fines fraction of aggregate
materials to be used in the following unbound pavement layers? 46 respondents

[44] Dense graded base:

0 (5 agencies)
3 (2 agencies)
4 (1 agency)
5 (1 agency)
6 (18 agencies)
6 for graded aggregate base and coquina base; 9 for sand-clay base (1 agency)
7 (1 agency)
8 (1 agency)
10 (1 agency)
12 (1 agency)
15 (1 agency)
AASHTO M147 (1 agency)
LL (1 agency)
N/A (4 agencies)
No specification (3 agencies)
SE 40 minimum (1 agency)
We have no PI requirement. However, the sand equivalency of “not less than 30” has helped eliminate plastic fines
  (1 agency)

[33] Dense graded subbase:

0 (5 agencies)
4 (1 agency)
5 (3 agencies)
6 (11 agencies)
8 (1 agency)
9 (1 agency)
12 (1 agency)
15 (1 agency)
LL (1 agency)
N/A (3 agencies)
No specification (3 agencies)
SE 35 minimum (1 agency)
We have no PI requirement. However, the sand equivalency of “not less than 25” has helped eliminate plastic fines.
  (1 agency)
150

[12] Open graded base as drainage layers:

0 (2 agencies)
2 (1 agency)
6 (3 agencies)
LL (1 agency)
N/A (3 agencies)
No specification (2 agencies)

[7] Open graded subbase as drainage layers:

0 (2 agencies)
6 (1 agency)
LL (1 agency)
N/A (2 agencies)
No specification (1 agency)

12) Does your agency have a list of approved aggregate types and sources for base and subbase course applications?

[21] Yes (please reference document/web site) - 45.7%

[25] No - 54.3%
[0] Other (please explain):
46 respondents

Document/website
• Georgia: QPL2- http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/Materials/qpl/Documents/qpl02.pdf
• Florida: ftp://ftp.dot.state.fl.us/fdot/smo/website/sources/aggregatesource.pdf
• Oregon: ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/construction/TrainingManuals/MFTP/2011/09_section_4a.pdf
• Mississippi: http://sp.gomdot.com/Materials/Pages/Producer-Supplier.aspx
• Alabama: http://www.dot.state.al.us/mtweb/Testing/MSDSAR/doc/QMSD/Li01.pdf
• Louisiana: http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/construction/lab/qpl/qpl%2002%20aggregates.pdf
• Washington State: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Business/MaterialsLab/ASA.htm
• North Carolina: https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/vendor/approvedproducts/
• Indiana: www.in.gov/indot
• South Carolina: www.scdot.org/doing/ConstructionDocs/pdfs/Materials/2%20QPL%20102411.pdf
• Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ConstructionMgt/Materials/Aggregate1/S1069%20Aggregate%20
Producer%20Suppliers.pdf
• Pennsylvania: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/ConstrBulletins.nsf/frmBulletin14info?OpenFrameset (Material
Code 203, Material Class C2A)
• Arkansas: http://arkansashighways.com/materials_division/Division%20300%20Bases/303020%20Aggregate%
20Suppliers.pdf
• New Jersey (for Base only): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/materials/qualified/QPLDB.shtm

13) If you answered “Yes” to Question 12, does your agency frequently allow new materials into the list of approved
aggregate types and sources for base and subbase course applications?

[14] Yes - 73.7%

[4] No - 21.1%
[1] Other (please explain: As needed) - 5.3%
19 Respondents (out of 21 selecting YES to Question #12)

14) Does your agency have specific guidelines regarding the transportation and storage (stockpiling) of aggregate
materials for base and subbase construction?

[17] Yes (please reference document/web site) - 37.8%

[25] No - 55.6%
[4] Other (please explain): - 8.9%
46 respondents
 151

Document/website
• Montana: Transport Bulk materials in vehicles that do not cause material loss or segregation
• Indiana: Indiana Test Method 211
• Missouri: MoDOT Spec. 1001.10
• Wyoming: Require moisture to be added in a pugmill
• Georgia: SOP-1 http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/TheSource/sop/sop01.pdf
• Texas: Standard Specifications Item 247.4 Construction
• Nevada: Standard Specifications for Construction
• Kansas: Subsection 1100 of Standard Specifications
• Alabama: http://www.dot.state.al.us/mtweb/Testing/testing_manual/doc/pro/ALDOT175.pdf
• Louisiana: http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/specifications/
• Pennsylvania: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/bureaus/design/pub408/pdf%20for%20printing%202011%203/106.
pdf (See Sections 106.05 & 106.06)
• Arizona: http://azdot.gov/Highways/ConstGrp/Contractors/Useful_Information.asp (Division I—section 106.09
and 106.10)
• New Hampshire: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/specifications/documents/2010_
Division_300.pdf
• NewYork: Section 304 in https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/specifications/updated-standard-
specifications-us and GCP-17 in https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/geotechnical-
engineering-bureau/manuals

“Other” responses
• Mississippi: Samples for job acceptance are obtained from the job site
• Florida: Source Quality Control Plan is required to designate methods
• Oregon: We require plant mixing and adding water at the source.
• Louisiana: Look in Section Ten, 1003.03, on page 767, also part three.

15) What is the maximum construction lift thickness for unbound aggregate layers permitted by your agency?

[17] 6 in. - 37%

[12] 8 in. - 23.9%
[4] 10 in. - 8.7%
[6] 12 in. - 13%
[6] Other (please indicate): - 15.2%
[1] No such restrictions - 2.2%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• 3 in., 6 in. when a vibratory steel drum roller is used
• 4 in.
• 9 in.
• Depends on the field compaction equipment being used by the contractor
• Placement thickness will be shown on plans
• Up to 24 in. total, in lifts of 3-6 in.
• Conventional dense-graded base is 4 in. by design, but will allow thicker lifts on case-by-case basis. Also have 18”
rock base option, which is basically shot rock or reclaimed PCC balded and rolled into place with no sieve control
other than for fines—MoDOT Spec 303.

16) Does your agency allow the construction of multiple unbound aggregate layers placed on top of each other
(e.g., dense graded base over an open graded drainage layer)?

[24] Yes - 52.2%

[12] No - 26.1%
[10] Other (please explain): - 21.7%
46 respondents
152

“Other” responses
• Base courses constructed in 2 lift (typically 6 in. & same material)
• Only with a geotextile separation fabric.
• We would have multiple lifts of dense graded base.
• Yes, but infrequent and discouraged.
• Occasionally—generally there is only one 6 to 8 in. crushed stone base
• Special provision
• Not really but if the compaction equipment is weak then we would require the buildup of one layer using multiple
compacted layers
• Open graded drainage layer over a dense graded base or a dense graded base over a dense graded subbase
• In general, this does not apply. Special applications where large rock is used to bridge soft soils, dense graded base
is allowed, but a placement of a geotextile is recommended prior to dense graded base placement.
• We used to allow unbound aggregate Open-Graded Subbase to be placed over unbound aggregate dense-graded sub-
base, but now have discontinued the unbound open-graded subbase in lieu of treated permeable base courses as the
drainable layer above the dense-graded unbound aggregate layer beneath rigid pavements.

17) If you answered “Yes” to the above question, do you separate the two unbound aggregate layers by any kind of
constructed aggregate separation (i.e., filter) layer?

[4] Yes - 16.7%

[16] No - 66.7%
[4] Other (please explain): - 16.7%
24 Respondents (out of 24 selecting YES to Question #16)

“Other” responses
• Choker material is placed over crushed bedrock.
• Open graded aggregates are typically separated from soil layers with a filter fabric.
• Sometimes as required by the project special
• Sometimes-filter, geogrid, etc.

18) Does your agency allow the construction of unbound aggregate layers over or under pavement layers stabilized/
treated with lime, fly ash, cement, or bitumen?

[30] Yes - 65.2%

[10] No - 21.7%
[6] Other (please explain): - 13%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Allowed but seldomly used
• It is neither required nor discouraged. No one does it.
• This might be something called out in design, but no policy
• This situation has not been encountered to date.
• Yes, under
• Not as a rule—could occur in a type of sandwich layer construction if vertical grade was changing.

19) If you answered “Yes” to the above question, please give typical thicknesses of such constructed layers:

[29] Thickness (in.) of stabilized layer

3-4 in. (1 agency)
4 in. (3 agencies)
4 to 12 in. (1 agency)
6 in. (8 agencies)
6 to 8 in. (2 agencies)
6 to 12 in. (2 agencies)
6+ in. (1 agency)
 153

7 in. for cement stabilized, 8 in. for lime stabilized (1 agency)

8 in. (1 agency)
12 in. (4 agencies)
12 to 16 in. (1 agency)
12 to 24 in. (1 agency)
18 in. (1 agency)
Not specified (site specific design thickness) (1 agency)
Variable (1 agency)

[26] Thickness (in.) of unbound aggregate layer

3 to 8 in. (1 agency)
4 in. (2 agencies)
4 to 6 in. (1 agency)
4 to 12 in. (1 agency)
> 4 in. (1 agency)
6 in. (9 agencies)
6 to 8 in. (3 agencies)
6 to 10 in. (1 agency)
8 to 10 in. (1 agency)
10 to 12 in. (1 agency)
12 in. (2 agencies)
Based on pavement structural design (1 agency)
Variable (2 agencies)

Category 2: Unbound Aggregate Base Characterization and Design

20) Who is responsible for testing/characterizing aggregate materials and providing input properties for the design
of pavements with unbound granular layers?

[39] Geotechnical/Materials laboratory - 84.8%

[1] University laboratory (under research subcontract) - 2.2%
[8] Field Engineer - 17.4%
[12] Other (please indicate) - 26.1%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Assigned Structural Coefficient
• Consultants for project specific designs
• Engineering Division
• Layer coefficients provided in Design Standards
• Modulus is standard at 20,000 psi and layer coefficient of 0.10 for AASHTO 1993
• Regional Materials section/lab
• We currently use a single layer coefficient under AASHTO 93 independent of the aggregate source.
• Standard sections utilized
• Pavement sections are designed with “assumed” aggregate properties. Testing is performed to ensure minimum
specifications are met.
• The materials laboratory and field engineer test aggregate materials for acceptance. The Pavement Design Engineer
decides the input properties of aggregate materials for pavement design.
• Pavement Engineer specifies minimum quality levels, and the Contractor is required to provide material that meets
or exceeds these requirements.
• Pavement Engineer in each district or designer with assistance from the district materials laboratory.

21) What laboratory tests are conducted by your agency for strength, deformation and modulus characterization
of unbound aggregates used in base and subbase course applications? (Please check all that apply.)

[20] Strength index tests (e.g., CBR, Hveem stabilometer, etc.) - 43.5%
[6] Triaxial shear strength tests - 13%
154

[12] Repeated load triaxial tests for resilient modulus (standard tests such as AASHTO T 307, NCHRP 1-28, etc.) - 26.1%
[2] Repeated load triaxial tests for permanent deformation behavior - 4.3%
[21] Other (please indicate) - 45.7%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Basis for design is backcalculation of moduli from FWD data.
• Depends on the existing soil being tested.
• DynaFlect, FWD
• Grain Size Analysis correlated with Mri
• None of the above (8 agencies)
• None. Will be looking at as we look more at DARWin-ME
• RLTT, for research purposes
• Standard structural number of 0.14
• Back-calculated FWD data
• Gradation and proctor for subbase. Gradations for base.
• Use uniform relative strength coefficient based on full-scale tests done by Clemson University in the late 1960s.

22) What field tests are conducted by your agency for strength, deformation and modulus characteristics of in-
service unbound aggregate layers? (Please check all that apply.)

[0] Plate Load tests - 0%

[12] Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests - 26.1%
[30] Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests - 65.2%
[4] Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) tests - 8.7% (MD, LA, OK, IN)
[1] Soil Stiffness Gauge tests (e.g., GeoGauge, etc.) - 2.2% (MD)
[17] Other (please indicate) - 37%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Compaction/Density (4 agencies)
• None for acceptance, only gradation and density
• None of the above (7 agencies)
• Roller Pattern/control strip
• We have FWD capabilities but used in a limited capacity
• We have done all of these tests, but only at the research level.
• FWD of in-service pavements but not on unsurfaced roads and not specifically to look at aggregate characteristics.

23) How often are these laboratory/field tests conducted to characterize aggregate materials for use in granular base
and subbase layers?

[5] Once on limited aggregate types/materials commonly used by the agency - 10.9%
[27] On a project-need basis - 58.7%
[0] Once on all agency-approved aggregate sources - 0%
[3] At regular intervals on agency-approved aggregate sources to establish a database - 6.5%
[11] Other (please indicate) - 23.9%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• As needed
• FWD conducted only on local roads, per local agency request
• None (6 agencies)
• None on new materials. Nearly every project for in-service materials.
• Only when the information is needed.
• Assumed values
 155

24) Is the structural contribution of open graded aggregate drainage layers taken into account in pavement thick-
ness design by your agency?

[11] Yes - 23.9%

[11] No - 23.9%
[19] Open Graded Aggregate Drainage Layers are Not Used - 41.3%
[5] Other (please explain) - 10.9%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• N/A (4 agencies)
• Used only on widening to match existing design

25) What method is used by your agency to design pavements with unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

[4] 1972 AASHTO Design Guide - 8.7%

[1] 1986 AASHTO Design Guide - 2.2%
[28] 1993 AASHTO Design Guide - 60.9%
[14] Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) - 30.4%
[5] Agency-Specific Mechanistic Procedure: - 10.9%
AKFPD: AK Flexible Pavement Design
Cal-ME
Modified Shell Method (M-E)
Winflex
MnPAVE, mechanistic procedure developed in Minnesota for flexible pavements - program can be found on MnDOTs
  Pavement Design website
[5] Agency-Specific Empirical Procedure: - 10.9%
Idaho R-Value
MTO standard section tables
R value
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/cpdm
Flexpave, MN Investigation 183 that is based on R-values and pavement deflection, RigidPave, rigid design based
  on a modified 1981 AASHTO Interim Guide Procedures, both programs can be found on MnDOTs Pavement
  Design website
[10] Other (please indicate) - 21.7%
Beginning to use MEPDG
Defer to PMU
Moving toward MEPDG
Not sure
PerRoad
Contact Jeff Lambert
Getting ready to move to MEPDG
Standard sections
Our official policy calls for the use of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, but we also check with the MEPDG for
  information and back-up purposes
FPS21 (flexible pavement design system) a mechanistic-empirical system based on SCI or deflections
46 respondents (although 67 selections were made, indicating some agencies use more than one method)

26) What aggregate properties and/or characteristics are used as inputs for the design of pavements with granular
base/subbase layers by your agency? (Please check all that apply.)

[18] Percent passing sieve sizes (gradation) and/or maximum aggregate particle size - 39.1%
[9] Particle shape and angularity (crushed or uncrushed) - 19.6%
[12] Compaction characteristics; i.e., optimum moisture content and maximum dry density- 26.1%
[2] Shear strength properties (e.g., friction angle, CBR, etc.) - 4.3%
[21] Resilient modulus - 45.7%
[22] Other (please indicate): - 47.8%
46 respondents
156

“Other” responses
• Current policy assigns a structural number to the subbase layers for flexible pavement designs.
• Defer to PMU
• Gravel Equivalence (G.E.) or back-calculated FWD modulus
• Hveem R-Value (3 agencies)
• Modulus from backcalculation of FWD data
• With respect to compliance with specifications.
• Contact Jeff Lambert
• Not sure
• Structural layer coefficient (10 agencies)
• Modulus is standard at 20,000 psi and layer coefficient of 0.10 for AASHTO 1993. Gradation, angularity, compaction
characteristics, and resilient modulus are used for MEPDG.
• All subbases meeting our specifications are considered equal. It is not an efficient use of time to design pavements
AFTER the contractor has chosen his subbase source.

27) What approach is adopted by your agency for assigning resilient modulus values to unbound aggregate base and
subbase layers?

[10] Modulus is not used in pavement design - 21.7%

[26] Single modulus is assigned to the entire layer - 56.5%
[0] Stress-dependency of aggregate layer modulus is considered during pavement design - 0%
[1] Based on research by the International Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR), anisotropy (directional dependency)
of aggregate layer modulus is considered - 2.2%
[9] Other (please indicate) - 19.6%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Contact Jeff Lambert
• Defer to PMU
• MEPDG default values
• Back-calculated FWD modulus from MnROAD & various county projects around the state
• Established value
• Nil
• Not sure
• Characterization of unbound aggregate materials is being done for MEPDG local calibration. Modulus is not con-
sidered in current design methodology.

28) How does your agency determine the resilient modulus of unbound aggregate materials for use in granular base
and subbase layers?
[10] Resilient modulus testing in the laboratory - 21.7%
[23] Empirical correlations with index properties like CBR, gradation parameters, etc. - 50%
[14] In-place modulus measurement of constructed layers by deflection-based methods such as FWD, LWD,
  etc. - 30.4%
[15] Other (please indicate) - 32.6%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Defer to PMU
• Do not use resilient modulus (6 agencies)
• FWD on Local jobs & grain size analysis on state jobs
• Modulus is standard at 20,000 psi and layer coefficient of 0.10 for AASHTO 1993
• Resilient modulus for base materials used for research purposes
• Resilient modulus is only used for the subgrade layer in the pavement design.
• Standard inputs correlated from AASHTO recs and typical aggregate properties
• Assumed values in design
 157

29) Does your agency have specific guidelines for including new and/or locally available “marginal” aggregates in
the thickness design of unbound base and subbase layers?

[6] Yes - 13%

[38] No - 82.6%
[2] Other (please explain): - 4.3%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Treated base should be used where a “binder” should be incorporated.
• No—the modulus of the material is either determined or estimated from lab testing (Strength in comparison to typi-
cal materials).

Category 3: Compaction, Quality Control and Field Performance

30) How are aggregate compaction characteristics established in the lab by your agency?

[42] Drop-hammer based methods like the standard and modified Proctor tests - 91.3%
[0] Static compaction methods - 0%
[2] Vibratory compaction methods - 4.3%
[0] Gyratory compaction methods - 0%
[0] Kneading compaction methods - 0%
[7] Other (please indicate) - 15.2%
46 respondents

“Other” responses

• CT method
• DCP, modified Penetration Index, can be found on the MnDOTs Grading & Base website
• Proctor
• We don’t establish compaction characteristics
• Method based compaction
• Not in laboratory in field
• Generally done in the field, but occasional proctor test to verify or resolve field dispute or conflict

31) List typical equipment used for placement and construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase layers in your
state (please check all that apply).

[26] Dump truck - 56.5%

[5] Material Transfer Device - 10.9% (CA, NV, IL, MS, OH)
[39] Trucks and graders - 84.8%
[24] Aggregate spreaders - 52.2%
[4] Other (please indicate below) - 8.7%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• For big projects we may ask for the drop box
• Any of the above, depending on the job size
• Compactors, rare use of aggregate spreader
• Truck and grader for small quantity

32) Please describe briefly the preferred method of placement and construction of unbound aggregate base and
subbase layers in your state.

• Use of drop box rather use of dozer

• Jersey spreader
158

• Deliver the aggregate to the grade, uniformly spread the uncompacted material, then compact with proper equipment
until minimum compaction levels are achieved
• Up to Contractor
• Preferred would be an auto-grader, but commonly it is dump trucks and graders.
• Aggregate Spreaders, Subsection 305.3c Standard Specifications
• Plant-mixed aggregate base, moisture conditioned at the plant, and spread by graders and compacted in 6-in.
lifts.
• Uniform spreading of layers
• Placement in 8 in.–12 in. lifts followed by compaction.
• Trucks and Graders
• We do not specify placement method, although spreaders are common. However, we do sample and accept the base
from the roadway after placement, with emphasis on sampling areas that appear to be segregated. Contractors and
suppliers must be aware and account for breakdown during compaction.
• Use of dump trucks and spreaders
• Specified depth w/near optimum moisture and mechanical densification (rolling w/pneumatic and/or steel roller in
vibratory mode.
• Preferred by whom? DOTD or the contractors? We do not require specific equipment. Contractor given flexibility
but must meet density requirements.
• Don’t have a specified or preferred method.
• None, only concerned about avoiding segregation.
• Tucks and graders
• Material is placed by belly dumps in a windrow, blade processed while moisture conditioned, spread, and compacted
to grade.
• ftp://ftp.dot.state.fl.us/LTS/CO/Specifications/SpecBook/2010Book/200.pdf
• Use of spreader box
• Contractor preference
• Truck delivery, bladed to grade, watered and compacted, finish grading, watered surface and rolled finish.
• Spread by excavator or dozer and compact with vibratory steel drum rollers in horizontal layers
• Central mixed and placed with aggregate spreader.
• Do not dictate construction methods. Contractor choice of methods. Must perform. No locations where method of
placement has affected pavement life/performance.
• Graders
• Trucks and graders are most commonly used. Transfer devices or aggregate spreader to remix material help with
aggregate segregation.
• Aggregate spreader and vibratory compaction
• Placement, grading or spreading and compaction
• Placed by a dump truck, spread by a grader and moisture conditioned (as needed) by a water truck. Each layer is then
compacted using vibratory rollers.
• Trucks, graders, rollers
• Dump, spread, roll, final grade
• Windrow aggregate with a belly dump trailer and spread with a grader. Compact in maximum 8 in. lifts to 98% of
modified Proctor.
• Specifications require adjustable, self-propelled mechanical spreaders capable of placing and screeding material
without segregation with automatic grading machine trimmer.
• Base layers are placed by windrowing, using a grader to work the material to the desired crossfall while compact-
ing with wobbly compaction equipment. Compaction requirements are based on a specified set of compaction
equipment.
• Trucks and graders
• Not one preferred method. Different ways have been used and our specifications are not written in a manner to
specify any one method. End result.
• Windrowed material is spread out with graders in lifts less than 6 in., and compacted
• Contractor controlled. Acceptance on lot-by-lot basis. Must meet compaction, grade requirements
• Pug-milled base material placed by mechanical spreader
• Belly dumps and graders, the method of placement is determine by the contractor
• Aggregate Spreaders
• T & G
 159

33) How is moisture content of constructed/compacted unbound aggregate base and subbase controlled in the
field?

[2] According to quarry reported moisture content - 4.3%

[14] Sampled during construction/compaction for laboratory testing - 30.4%
[35] Measured through field testing using (Please indicate) - 76.1%
• 0
• AASHTO T255
• CT 226 Moisture content
• Compaction is controlled based on a control strip method.
• GDT21 http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/TheSource/gdt/gdt021.pdf
• Indiana Test Method 506
• Nuclear compaction and within 2% of optimum
• Nuclear density method (16 agencies)
• Nuclear gauge/speedy moisture
• Sample taken from in-place material
• Speedy moisture tester
• Compacted density, moisture content
• Moisture pan & density gauge
• Nuclear device checks, but QA samples taken and dried in oven
• Nuclear or burn off method
• Using surface nuclear gauge
• Specified Density Method—not less than 65% of optimum moisture of standard proctor, Quality Compaction
Method—not less than 5% of dry weight, modified Penetration Index Method - not less than 5% of dry weight,
Can be found in the Standard Specifications for Construction (spec 2211) found on the MnDOT Grading & Base
website
[6] Other (please indicate) - 13%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Controlled totally by contractor.
• Material is required to be damp.
• Visual
• Control of moisture content is the responsibility of the contractor; base accepted on gradation and compaction level.
• Measurement is often following compaction. Compaction control is often left to the contractor as a QC function.
• Based on visual inspection and ability to achieve a practical target density and resulting constructed density
per lot placed. Procedures are outlined within the Materials Procedure governing placement and compaction of
aggregate bases.

34) What is an acceptable variation from optimum moisture content for constructed/compacted unbound aggregate
base and subbase allowed by your agency?

• ±2 % over optimum
• <2%
• Not specified
• Aggregate shall be maintained substantially at optimum moisture.
• N/A
• ±3% of optimum
• Plus or minus 2% of optimum
• += 2%
• ±2% is desired, but required provided dry density is attained.
• Not specified
• Do not specify.
• As required to produce a density of 100% T180
• Minus 2% to plus 1%
• Plus or minus 2% of optimum MC
160

• Plus 2% to minus 4%
• We don’t specify the optimum moisture content, simply that 95% of max. dry density is achieved.
• 95% density
• No moisture requirement
• Compaction controlled. No variation in moisture content specified.
• Need to obtain target density in the field
• ±2% points
• No requirement.
• Not less than 1% below optimum but as much as 2% above.
• Enough to obtain the specified compaction, but not too much to cause pumping and rutting
• 3%
• Varies but generally ±2%
• ±2%
• 0 to 5% above optimum
• There is no allowable variation for moisture. Acceptance is based on acceptable density.
• 2% of optimum
• Don’t have one.
• Not specified
• Plus or minus 2%
• No requirement on moisture content
• Optimum moisture is not specified for base and subbase.
• Required to be damp.
• N/A
• Approx 2%
• There is no target moisture content and therefore no tolerance established.
• No specified value
• +1%, -2%
• 2%
• 3 and -1 % of optimum moisture content
• No set variation; however experience shows that we end up with -2% to +1% of optimum w

35) What is the primary approach used by your agency for evaluating degree of compaction and construction qual-
ity control of unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

[14] Gradation - 30.4%

[3] Proof-rolling - 6.5%
[41] Measurement of constructed layer density - 89.1%
[3] Field measurement of constructed layer modulus - 6.5%
[0] Continuous compaction control by means of Intelligent Compaction (IC) equipment - 0%
[4] Other (please indicate) - 8.7%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• DCP, modified Penetration Index
• Non-movement under compaction equipment.
• Nuclear density gauge
• Control strip. Comparing density achieved to that achieved by the specified compaction equipment/effort.

36) If your answer to the previous question was “Measurement of constructed layer density,” what method is
commonly used by your agency for measuring constructed layer densities in the field?

[39] Nuclear density methods (ASTM D 2922 / AASHTO T310 or T238) - 88.6%
[7] Sand cone method (ASTM D 1556 / AASHTO T191) - 15.9%
[1] Balloon method (ASTM D 2167) - 2.3%
[0] Oil or water method - 0%
[0] Drive cylinder method (ASTM D 2937) - 0%
 161

[0] Rapid method (ASTM D 5080) - 0%

[0] Electrical density measurement method (ASTM D 7698) - 0%
[5] Other (please indicate) - 11.4%
44 respondents

“Other” responses
• AASHTO TP 68
• CT 216
• GDT59 http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/TheSource/gdt/gdt059.pdf
• Illinois Modified AASHTO 310
• N/A

37) Is it common practice for your agency to construct “test strips” to establish roller patterns and check for com-
paction density growth of unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

[13] Yes - 28.3%

[31] No - 67.4%
[2] Other (please explain) - 4.3%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• No, but currently considering.
• Yes, but usually part of project, start of placement.

38) If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” do you primarily use nuclear density measurement method for
this purpose?
[12] Yes - 92.3%
[0] No - 0%
[1] Other (please explain) - 7.7%
13 respondents

“Other” responses
• We are transitioning from the nuclear gauge to the LWD for stiffness and both are used on the test strip.

39) What is the primary mode of nuclear gauge operation used by your agency for density checks on constructed
unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

[33] Direct Transmission - 76.7%

[7] Backscatter - 16.3%
[5] Not applicable (nuclear density measurement not used) - 11.6%
43 respondents

40) If your agency uses the “drop-hammer based” methods to establish compaction characteristics of aggregates
in the laboratory, please select all applicable options from the list below regarding the minimum compaction
requirements in the field:

90% 95% 100% Other Responses

% # % # % # % # #
Flexible Base Standard Proctor  4.3% 1 47.8% 11 21.7% 5 26.1% 6 23
Flexible Base Modified Proctor  9.1% 2 27.3% 6 18.2% 4 45.5% 10 22
Flexible Subbase Standard Proctor  4.8% 1 52.4% 11 23.8% 5 19.0% 4 21
Flexible Subbase Modified Proctor 12.5% 2 50.0% 8 12.5% 2 25.0% 4 16
Rigid Base/Subbase Standard Proctor  4.3% 1 43.5% 10 26.1% 6 26.1% 6 23
Rigid Base/Subbase Modified Proctor 11.1% 2 44.4% 8 5.6% 1 38.9% 7 18
162

41) If you selected “Other” as one of the responses to the above question, please specify the answer below (submit
your answer in the format: Flexible Base-Standard Proctor-xx %).

• Flexible Base Modified Proctor-98%

• 98% of modified proctor
• Compact to within 97 percent of optimum for flexible and rigid

42) If your agency does NOT use “drop-hammer based” methods to establish compaction characteristics of aggre-
gates in the laboratory, please specify the relative compaction requirements for the following unbound aggre-
gate base/subbase applications:

90% 95% 100% Other Responses

% # % # % # % # #
Flexible Base 11.1% 1 22.2% 2 0% 0 66.7% 6  9
Flexible Subbase 0% 0 25% 2 0% 0 75% 6  8
Rigid Base/Subbase 0% 0 29.6% 8 11.1% 3 59.3% 16 27

43) If you selected “Other” as one of the responses in the above question, please specify the details below:

97% for the unbounded aggregate on top 12”

Type A Subbase requires 95%, Type A Base requires 100%; regardless of pavement type
98% of control strip density

44) Is there common interest among engineers in your agency to implement non-nuclear density measurement
methods for construction quality control of unbound aggregate base/subbase layers?

[24] Yes (please select all possible reasons) - 52.2%

[17] Safety concerns
[19] Nuclear certification too expensive
[20] Nuclear certification too inconvenient
[3] Non-nuclear methods provide better results
[19] No - 41.3%
[8] Other (please explain): - 17.4%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Don’t know
• Speed of testing.
• We have investigated non-nuclear methods, but have not seen equivalent performance so far
• If served as better and simpler, we would use
• Reduction in staffing levels to support program
• Trying to find reliable, practical measurement of strength, not just density
• MnDOT does not use nuclear density measurement for quality acceptance, contractors can use nuclear density mea-
sure methods for process or quality control
• Some. Our agency has not started to use mechanistic design as the staple for our pavements yet. But we are starting to
use it for many cases and the need to develop inputs for these methods will lead to more of a need to utilize methods
to control field measurements that mirror these inputs.

45) Has your agency ever participated in demonstration projects involving continuous compaction control of unbound
aggregate base/subbase layers using Intelligent Compaction (IC) techniques?

[17] Yes - 37%

[27] No - 58.7%
[2] Other (please explain): - 4.3%
46 respondents
 163

“Other” responses
• Doing that summer of 2012 (UT)
• Research yes, but not within a road that remained property of the state (DE)

46) Has your agency actively implemented IC techniques to construct in-service pavements with unbound aggregate
base/subbase layers?

[1] Yes - 2.2% (TX)

[42] No - 91.3%
[3] Other (please explain): - 6.5%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Georgia: Have plans to let another demonstration project in April 2012
• Louisiana: It is been looked at and tried on a few projects
• Indiana: We have just let our first contract for QC/QA Soil Embankment that requires the Contractor to implement
IC Technology.

47) If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” does your agency have a specification for continuous compac-
tion control using IC techniques and construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase layers?

[1] Yes - 100% (TX)

[0] No

48) Does your agency implement modulus-based compaction control for the construction of unbound aggregate
base/subbase layers?

[2] Yes - 4.3% (IN, GA – demo only)

[44] No - 95.7%
46 respondents

49) If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, what method is used for measuring the field modulus of con-
structed unbound aggregate layers?

[0] Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)

[1] Light Weight Deflectometers (LWD) - Indiana
[0] Soil Stiffness Gauge (e.g., GeoGauge)
[0] Seismic testing such as the Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer based on spectral analyses of surface waves
[1] Other (please indicate) – Georgia: Intelligent Compaction-Demo only
2 respondents

50) If you answered “Yes” to question No. 48, what percentage of construction projects in your agency involve
modulus based compaction control?

[ ] <10%
[ ] 10–30%
[1] 30–60% - Indiana
[ ] >60%
1 respondent

51) Does your agency use any non-traditional compaction technique (e.g., South African “slushing” technique) during
the construction of unbound aggregate base/subbase?

[2] Yes (please name the technique and give brief details) - 4.3% [NM, RI]
[44] No - 95.7%
46 respondents

“Details for Yes” responses

• Rhode Island: Use test strip to obtain a maximum density value by testing the same spot until the density no longer
increases. Compare other values to that value.
164

• New Mexico: As indicated above, we are doing one inverted project in which we will be utilizing the slushing effort
as a part of the effort.

52) Does your agency perform FWD tests to assess the structural condition of unbound aggregate base and subbase
layers in existing in-service pavements?

[27] Yes - 58.7%

[11] No - 23.9%
[8] Other (please explain): - 17.4%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Defer to PMU
• FWD is used for determination of in-place embankment resilient modulus
• For research purposes only
• For specific purposes but not routinely
• Non-standard testing, but we have performed in the past
• Only when needed by research
• Used on a limited capacity
• Project-specific and research projects

53) If your answer to the previous question was “Yes,” what back calculation program/software/approach does your
agency use to determine granular base/subbase modulus from the FWD test results? (Please indicate below.)

• Deflexus AARA program designed for our State

• ELMOD
• DELMAT A forward calculation based program (DELMAT) developed by Makbul Hossain of our staff
• Evercalc
• Darwin, Evercalc, BACKFA, and/or AASHTO 1993 equations
• Calback
• SCDOT-specific, similar to 1993 AASHTO
• Contact LTRC Doc Zhang (225)767-9162
• ModTag
• Modulus
• Illi-Pave
• Modulus 6.0
• MODULUS6.0
• FWD AREA Program
• Modulus
• Elmod
• ELMOD
• Internally developed at Ohio DOT
• Modtag
• I don’t know
• We utilize the “modulus” backcalculation software
• DARWin Software multiplied by C = 0.25 correction factor
• ELMOD, Looking at Modtag, others
• Unknown
• Dynatest’s ELMOD 6

54) What tests are commonly used by your agency to evaluate the field-performance of existing pavements with
unbound aggregate base and subbase layers? (Please list all.)

• FWD
• We run IRI for HPMS and have an annual visual rating program that uses cracking, rutting, raveling, etc.
• Pavement Condition Surveys
• FWD
 165

• Primarily a visual assessment, but FWD and coring are also done.
• FWD, DCP
• Visual assessment, coring, indirect tensile testing of cores, TSR of cores, bulk and component properties of cores, DCP,
geoprobes (for samples), and FWD. Considering using a recently purchased APA for testing in-service HMAC cores.
• IRI, FWD
• None
• FWD—project specific and research projects
• FWD analysis
• Defer to PMU
• FWD
• Dyna-flect, FWD LWFWD, DCP
• FWD
• DCP, FWD
• FWD, Depth Check and Line Sampling
• FWD
• Annual condition surveys
• Layer thickness based on cores
• FWD
• FWD
• DCP, FWD, GPR
• Rideability
• FWD
• DCP, FWD
• No testing on the unbound layer of the pavement section. Measure thickness of constructed road and assign structural
number to the various layers based upon accepted layer coefficients.
• FWD
• FWD with cores taken to evaluate layer thicknesses
• Not really tests. We have a pavement evaluation system
• None
• FWD along with sampling the existing materials and testing for R-Value, gradation and soil classification
• FWD on asphalt or concrete pavements
• I don’t know
• We use FWD to test all of MDT’s pavements on a 5-year rotation (i.e., it takes 5 years to complete all roads). We
also annually access the condition of our pavements using automated pavement distress collection vans. The vans
characterize pavement condition using ride (international roughness index), alligator cracking, longitudinal and
transverse cracking, and rut depth.
• FWD, Ride Quality (IRI), Automated Pavement Distress Surveys
• Field performance is based on characteristics such as ride, strength, and surface distresses.
• Nil
• SPT, Compaction and FWD
• Benkelman Beam and Falling Weight Deflectometer on a trial basis at this time
• Surficial distress observations, rutting, smoothness, pavement condition evaluation
• None
• FWD
• FWD
• FWD
• No specific test, however rut depth and IRI are collected as part of PMS

Category 4: Recycling Aggregates and Recycled Granular Materials

Note: Recycled Granular Materials in this questionnaire refer to Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA) and
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) materials only.

55) Does your agency commonly recycle unbound aggregate materials from base and subbase layers of existing
pavements for application in new and rehabilitated pavement construction?

[24] Yes - 52.2%

[15] No - 32.6%
166

[7] Other (please explain) - 15.2%

46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Occasionally with Full Depth Reclamation
• RAP is used a lot. RCA not as much due to environmental runoff issues and breakdown
• As needed
• Base only
• If applicable—however, we do not reconstruct very often
• Left in place and regarded for rehabilitation projects
• Used occasionally

56) If your answer to the previous question was “Yes,” what tests are used by your agency for evaluating the quality
of these recycled aggregates? (Please check all that apply.)

[9] Na2SO4/MgSO4 Soundness Test - 19.6%

[14] Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test - 30.4%
[24] Sieve Analysis - 63.0%
[15] Percent Deleterious Materials - 32.6%
[8] Other (please indicate): - 45.7%
24 respondents

“Other” responses
• Limerock Bearing Ratio after removal
• PI, R value
• Plastic Index
• Rare opportunity and case-by-case
• Asphalt content
• Restrictions on RCA that can be found in spec 2211 & 3138 Standard Specifications
• We recycle from our own pavement so assume quality equal to original. Sieve analysis is used for control.
• If used as granular fill then no acceptance criteria - if used as base then would meet new requirements.

57) What other tests are used by your agency to characterize recycled aggregates from existing base and subbase
courses for acceptance and design? (Please list all.)

Only 5 responses—PI, pH, R-value, % recycled pavement, % bitumen content, our primary method of recycling base
course is by pulverizing it and mixing it with the existing hot mix asphalt surface, Our only requirement is that the
resulting blended mix consists of no more than 50% RAP by volume.

58) Is the use of recycled aggregates from existing base and subbase courses incorporated into your agency
specifications?

[21] Yes - 45.7%

[22] No - 47.8%
[3] Other (please explain): - 6.5%
46 respondents

“Other” responses
• They are not prohibited, but they would need to meet same requirements as virgin aggregate.
• Not specified but common knowledge is that this is an acceptable substitution as no cost betterment.
• The final mixture of recycled aggregates from existing base and subbase courses must meet specifications.

59) Does your agency allow contractors to use locally available “marginal or out of specification” aggregates for
unbound aggregate base and subbase layer applications?

[2] Yes - 4.3%

[38] No - 82.6%
 167

[6] Other (please explain): - 13%

46 respondents

“Other” responses
• Do not readily do, but has been done due to economic considerations.
• In some locations, agency specifies marginal aggregate sources for sub-base.
• Only if allowed. They would not be allowed as a substitute.
• Recycled aggregates must meet the requirements of the virgin aggregate for gradation.
• Lower quality “Stone Embankment” material is sometimes substituted during design for a sub-base.
• The gradation does not change when recycled materials are used. The virgin materials must still meet specifications,
before the recycled material is added.

60) What other recycled granular materials are approved for use by your agency in unbound aggregate layer
construction? (Please check all that apply.)

[31] Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) - 67.4%

[37] Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA) - 80.4%
[10] Other (please indicate): - 21.7%
[2] None of the above (please skip to Category 5 of the survey) - 4.3%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• Air cooled blast furnace slag
• Glass
• Glass, blast furnace slag
• On occasion RAP is used in shoulder areas as a substitute for aggregate base
• Blast furnace slag
• Glass
• Glass cullet
• Glass, whiteware, slags
• Glass cutlet, aggregate blended with oil field waste, others that meet specification requirements

61) What tests are used by your agency for evaluating the material quality of recycled granular materials (RCA,
RAP, and/or others from question No. 60) for base and subbase applications? (Please check all that apply.)

[8] Na2SO4/MgSO4 Soundness Test - 32%

[12] Los Angeles Abrasion and/or Micro Deval Test - 48%
[22] Sieve Analysis - 88%
[11] Percent Deleterious Materials - 44%
[3] Other (please indicate): - 12%
25 respondents

“Other” response
• Sand equivalent (2 agencies)
• Dry rodded weight, fractured face and permeability

62) What other tests are used by your agency to characterize recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP, and/or others
from question No. 60) for acceptance and design? (Please list all)

• Atterberg limits (5 agencies)

• R-value (3 agencies)
• Degradation-sand equivalent (3 agencies)
• RAP ac content (3 agencies)
• Micro-Deval
• Micro-Deval on RAP
168

• DCP
• FWD
• Dynaflect
• 50% RAP blend with virgin, max
• Visual observation of stockpiles
• LBR for RCA
• CBR for RCA
• RCP-pH
• Durability
• Sulfates
• Fractured faces
• pH
• RAP limited to shoulders
• Freeze/thaw soundness for RCA
• Must meet same criteria as virgin aggregate

63) Does your agency have environmental concerns regarding the use of recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP,
and/or others from question No. 60) in unbound aggregate base and subbase layers?

[6] Yes - 24%

[17] No - 68%
[2] Other (please explain): - 8%
25 respondents

64) If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” what environmental issues is your agency particularly concerned
about (e.g., leaching, etc.)?

• RCP leachate (3 agencies)

• RAP leachate
• pH levels
• Leaching (2 agencies)
• Only use RCP
• Toxicity
• Hydroxide levels

65) Does your agency require strength, deformation and modulus testing and characterization of recycled aggre-
gates (from existing base and subbase courses) as well as recycled granular materials (RCA, RAP, and/or others
from question No. 60)?

[7] Yes - 28%

[16] No - 64%
[2] Other (please explain): - 8%
25 respondents

66) If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, are these characterization tests the same as those used for virgin
aggregates?

[7] Yes - 100%

[0] No (please indicate how the test methods are different)
7 respondents

Category 5: Climatic Effects and Drainage

67) Are climatic effects on pavement subgrade performance a major concern for your agency?

[28] Yes - 60.9%

[16] No - 34.8%
 169

[2] Other (please explain): - 4.3%

46 respondents

“Other” response
• Freeze-thaw on silty subgrade caused problems (pavement heave) on some projects
• Only changes in subgrade moisture

68) If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” please check all factors that contribute to this concern: 28
respondents

[16] Groundwater table (GWT) is often shallow (can be less than 5 ft deep) under the pavements - 57.1%
[22] Native soils primarily fine-grained (e.g., silts, clays, etc.) and may get wet of optimum due to upward movement
  of moisture from the GWT - 78.6%
[13] In-service pavement subgrades are often under “wet of optimum” moisture conditions—46.4%
[24] Seasonal fluctuations cause significant changes in subgrade soil properties - 85.7%
[17] Subgrades stay frozen for extended periods (one month or longer) - 60.7%
[19] More than 10 freeze-thaw cycles per year are experienced at the subgrade level - 67.9%
[17] Spring thaw weakening and timing of spring load restrictions - 60.7%
[16] Subgrade soils are primarily frost-susceptible (i.e., silty soils) - 57.1%

69) Are aggregate materials selected for use in granular base/subbase applications by your agency tested
for climatic effects (e.g., soil water characteristic curve, freeze-thaw durability, suction characteristics of
fines, etc.)?

[7] Yes (please indicate the test types) - 15.2%

• Expansion test
• Freeze Thaw
• Idaho IT-116, Ethylene Glycol
• LAR & -#200 insoluble residue for carbonate materials
• Soundness Testing (include AASHTO T 103, Sodium Sulfate, or Brine Freeze-Thaw)
• Freeze-thaw
• Unconfined freeze-thaw durability
[36] No - 78.3%
[3] Other (please explain): - 6.5%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• Not on a regular basis. The specifications were written to minimize these problems.
• Grain size analysis to determine % silt.
• Currently testing subbase materials for information gathering including % water absorption, freeze/thaw, British
frost heave.

70) Does the pavement design procedure used by your agency consider the effects of climatic changes on unbound
aggregate layer performance?

[9] Yes - 19.6%

[27] No - 58.7%
[10] Other (please explain): - 21.7%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• Adjust Structural Coefficient based on a drainage factor
• Defer to PMU
• I don’t think it does.
170

• MEPDG designs only

• Not sure
• To the respect that subgrade stiffness affects base stiffness (modulus ratio of 3-5).
• Yes, in that our granular materials are chosen to minimize these effects.
• Contact Jeff Lambert
• Reduction in embankment Mr due to base clearance < 3 ft
• Use soaked CBR

71) If your answer to the above question was “Yes,” what unbound aggregate layer properties are adjusted in your
pavement design procedure to account for detrimental climatic effects on pavement performance?

[4] Layer structural coefficients - 44.4%

[7] Resilient modulus - 77.8%
[1] Shear strength - 11.1%
[2] Other (please indicate): - 22.2%
9 respondents

“Other” response
• Drainage coefficient
• Minimum thickness

72) Are there different gradations specified by your agency for unbound aggregate applications targeting drainable
vs. low permeability aggregate layers?

[19] Yes - 41.3%

[24] No - 52.2%
[3] Other (please explain): - 6.5%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• Don’t know
• We’ve tried without much success.
• Yes, but typically our “drainable” layers are a soil, not aggregate. For an unbound aggregate layer, the gradation
would be gap graded, not dense graded. We don’t specify “low permeability” layers—these would be based upon
need for pavement structure.

73) If drainage is one of the primary functions of your flexible pavement unbound aggregate base/subbase layer,
what approach is adopted by your agency to facilitate the drainability of dense-graded base courses?

[17] Limiting the maximum allowable percent fines (material passing sieve No. 200) - 37%
[2] Increasing the maximum aggregate size - 4.3%
[6] Adjusting the constructed layer gradation toward a more open-graded layer - 13%
[8] Other (please explain): - 17.4%
[23] Drainage is NOT one of the primary functions of flexible pavement unbound aggregate base/subbase layers - 50%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• Fines are limited by sand equivalence and split sieve gradations.
• N/A- do not use drainage layers
• None
• We install edge drain systems for all new pavement
• Minimize micaceous mineral content
• Not for flexible pavements
• Drainage layers are not part of the pavement structure. Drainage of the unbound layer would be accomplished
through edge drains using open graded aggregate wrapped in filter fabric of some type.
 171

• A drainage layer is not often designed as a layer in TX flexible pavements, but when it is gradations are more uniform
(less fines and coarse).

74) Does your agency distinguish between crushed and uncrushed aggregate types while constructing open-graded
drainage layers?

[14] Yes - 30.4%

[10] No - 21.7%
[16] Open-graded drainage layers are not used - 34.8%
[6] Other (please explain) - 13%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• 85% two face crush
• Base is required to be crushed, subbase is assumed to be uncrushed
• N/A
• Not exactly; we require uncrushed gravel to have a minimum crush count
• Unbound open-graded drainage layers were used in past, but discontinued in lieu of treated permeable base courses.
The unbound open-graded and treated permeable base required minimum crushed particles.

75) How is the effectiveness of an open-graded aggregate drainage layer measured by your agency?

[2] In-situ permeability measurements - 4.3%

[8] Laboratory tests to measure the permeability of aggregate samples - 17.4%
[9] Empirical correlations to estimate the permeability from aggregate physical properties like gradation, dry density,
  specific surface, and void ratio (or porosity) - 19.6%
[23] Open-graded drainage layers are not used - 50%
[9] Other (please explain) - 19.6%
46 respondents

“Other” response
• DRIP Program
• Historical performance is basis
• N/A
• No testing. Rarely use them.
• None
• Not measured.
• Gradation
• Nil
• Two passes with a double drum roller and a 5 gal. pail of water passes through the material before it starts to puddle.

76) For pavement structures with aggregate drainage layers, is it common practice in your agency to include a filter
layer underneath to protect the drainage layer from clogging?

[5] Yes (open graded aggregates commonly used to construct the filter layer) - 10.9%
[12] Yes (geosynthetics commonly used as the mode of filtration) - 26.1%
[9] No (no extra layer constructed for filtration purposes) - 19.6%
[22] Open-graded drainage layers are not used - 47.8%
46 respondents

77) How common is it for your agency to construct subsurface drainage systems like “edge-drains” under unbound
aggregate base and subbase layers?

[12] Yes, very common - 26.1%

[21] Yes, for specific projects when required by the design - 45.7%
[14] No, not common at all - 30.4%
46 respondents
172

APPENDIX D
Review of Current Resilient Modulus Models

Review of Current Resilient the test data that showed a decrease in resilient modulus.
Modulus Models According to Brown and Pappin (1981), the K-q model is
not able to handle volumetric strains and therefore can only
Resilient models of granular materials increase with increas-
be applicable to a very limited stress range when confining
ing stress states (stress-hardening), especially with confining
pressure (s3) is less than deviator stress (sd). In addition,
pressure and/or bulk stress, and slightly with deviator stress
Nataatmadja (1989) reported that this model was not dimen-
(Lekarp et al. 2000a). Resilient behavior of unbound aggre-
sionally satisfied as K had the same dimension with resilient
gate materials can be reasonably characterized by using stress
modulus (MR). Despite of this weakness, the K-q model is
dependent models which express the modulus as nonlinear
still being used frequently for granular materials because of
functions of stress states. Such a characterization model must
its simplicity.
include in the formulation the two triaxial stress conditions,
i.e., the confining pressure s3 and the deviator stress sd or,
the applied mean pressure p and the deviator stress q, to Shackel’s Model
account for the effects of both confinement and shear load-
ing. The model parameters are traditionally obtained from After conducting repeated load triaxial tests on a silty-clayey
the multiple regression analyses of the repeated load triaxial soil, Shackel (1973) developed the following resilient modu-
test data. In the following subsections, currently available lus model in terms of octahedral shear stress and octahedral
models are discussed in detail. normal stress

Confining Pressure Model  ( τ )K 2 

MR = K1  oct K3  (D-3)
( σ oct ) 
Seed et al. (1967) introduced a simple model for the resil-
ient modulus relating it to confining stresses. They con- where Ki are material regression constants obtained from tri-
ducted repeated load triaxial tests on sands and gravels, and axial test data. He proposed that his model was valid for both
expressed the results in the form: granular materials and cohesive soils. Since the model was
defined in terms of stress invariants, it was considered to be
MR = K1 ( σ 3 )K 2 (D-1) one of the early advanced nonlinear models.

where s3 is confining pressure and K1 and K2 are regression 1 1

σ oct = ( σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 ) = I1 (D-4)
analysis constants from experimental data. This model, how- 3 3
ever, did not give high correlation coefficients.
1
1
τoct = ( σ1 − σ 2 )2 + ( σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + ( σ1 − σ 3 )2  2
K- Model
3
2 2 1
One of the most popular models was developed by Hicks and = ( I1 − 3I 2 )2 (D-5)
3
Monismith (1971). This model, known as the K-q model, has
been the most widely used for modeling modulus as a func- where I1 is the first stress invariant and I2 is the second
tion of stress state applicable to granular materials. invariant.
MR = K ( θ )n (D-2)
Bulk-Shear Modulus Model
where q is bulk stress = (s1 + 2s3) or (sd + 3s3), sd is deviator
stress = (s1 - s3) and K, n are regression analysis constants Boyce (1980) developed a nonlinear material model based
obtained from experimental data. Even though it is a popu- on the secant bulk modulus (K) and the shear modulus (G).
lar model, the K-q model has a shortcoming since it fails to He found the influence of mean normal stress to resilient
adequately distinguish the effect of shear behavior. strain and the relationships were given as:

The impact of neglecting shear stress was illustrated by K = K i p(1− n ) (D-6)

Uzan (1985) and the K-q model predicted an increasing
resilient modulus as axial strains increased in contrast to G = Gi p(1− n ) (D-7)
 173

where Ki is an initial value of bulk modulus, Gi is an initial this model, isotropic and nonlinear assumption was used in
value of shear modulus and n is a constant less than 1.0. Boyce the elastic behavior of granular materials. With the assump-
(1980) also updated his model to satisfy Maxwell’s reciproc- tion of energy conservation, the work during any arbitrary
ity theorem. Accordingly, the second order partial derivatives closed path stress cycle was written as:
of a stress potential function are independent of the order of
differentiation of volumetric and deviatoric stress compo-
nents. Expressions of the moduli were given as follows:
Wcycle = ∫
cycle
dW = ∫
cycle
(9IK dI + dJ2G ) = 0
1
1
2
(D-13)

K i p(1− n ) where K is bulk modulus, G is shear modulus, I1 is the first

K= 2 (D-8)
 q stress invariant, and J2 is the second deviatoric invariant. The
1− β 
 p first order partial differential equation from Equation 5.24 is
derived as follows:
G = Gi p(1− n ) (D-9)
I1 ∂ K J ∂G
K = 2 (D-14)
where b is (1 − n ) i , p is mean stress, q is deviator stress. 9 K 2 ∂ J 2 G 2 ∂ I1
6Gi
In this model, the volumetric strains and deviatoric strains E E
After substituting K = and G = into
are related to mean normal stress ( p) and deviatoric stress 3 (1 − 2 ν ) 2 (1 + 2 ν )
(q) as follows: Equation (D-14), the equation can be expressed in terms
of E (Young’s modulus).

( )
2
1 n  q 
εv = p 1 − β    (D-10)
Ki   p  1 ∂E 1 ∂E
=R (D-15)
J2 ∂ J2 I1 ∂ I1

εq = (13G ) p  qp

i
n (D-11)
where R =
6 (1 + ν )
(1 − 2 ν )
. The final form of the stress-dependent
modulus equation was proposed as follows:
where ev and eq are the volumetric and shear strains, respec-
tively. This model can successfully predict measured strains λ
from the initial bulk and shear moduli and the applied stress  I  2 J 
E = Mpa  1  + R 2  (D-16)
states.  pa  pa 

where pa is atmospheric pressure and M and l are material

Uzan Model
constants. This Lade and Nelson model did not give good
Since the K-q model was not sufficient to describe the shear results due to the energy conservation principles adopted in
behavior of granular materials, Uzan (1985) made a modifi- this hyperelastic material model formulation since energy
cation to this model. An additional deviator stress component dissipates when granular materials are subjected to repeated
that includes the effect of shear behavior was shown to be in loading.
good agreement with test results.
Universal Octahedral Shear Stress Model
MR = K1 ( θ )K 2 ( σ d )K3 (D-12)
Witczak and Uzan (1988) proposed an improvement over the
where q is bulk stress = (s1 + 2s3) or (sd + 3s3), sd is deviator Uzan (1985) model by replacing the deviator stress term with
stress = (s1 – s3), and K1, K2, and K3 are regression analysis octahedral shear stress. This model also used atmospheric
constants obtained from experimental data. Considering in pressure (pa) to normalize the bulk and shear stress terms to
the formulation both bulk and deviator stresses, the Uzan make the model parameters dimensionless.
model overcomes the deficiency of the K-q model that did
not include shear effects and fits better with the test data than K2 K3
the K-q model. This was shown to be especially important I   τoct 
MR = K1 pa  1   p  (D-17)
when confining stress values applied on the specimen were  pa  a

larger than the applied deviator stresses during testing.

where I1 is first stress invariant = (s1 + s2 + s3) or (s1 +
2s3), toct is octahedral shear stress = ¹⁄³{(s1 - s2)2 + (s1 - s3)2
Lade and Nelson Model + (s2 - s3)2}1/2 = 2 (s1 - s2), pa is atmospheric pressure,
3
Lade and Nelson (1987) proposed an elastic material model and K1, K2, and K3 are regression constants obtained from
based on energy conservation for closed-loop strain path. In experimental data.
174

Itani Model where sd is deviator stress = (s1 - s3), s3 is confining stress

and K1, K2 and K3 are regression analysis constants obtained
An improved correlation between the resilient modulus and from experimental data.
various stress state variables, such as deviator stress, mean
stress, confining stress, and axial strain, was obtained from
multiple regression analyses. Itani (1990) proposed the mate- Lytton Model
rial model with a high correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.96) as
follows: Lytton (1995) proposed that the principles of unsaturated soil
mechanics could be applied to the universal octahedral shear
σ 
K2 stress model (Witczak and Uzan 1988) because unbound
MR = K1 pa  θ  ( σ d )K 3 ( σ 3 )K 4 (D-18) aggregate materials in pavements are normally unsaturated.
 pa 
To evaluate the effective resilient properties of unsaturated
where sq = (s1 + s2 + s3) = (s1 + 2s3), sd = s1-s3, s3 is con- granular materials, Lytton added a suction term to the univer-
fining stress, pa is atmospheric pressure, and K1, K2, K3 and K4 sal octahedral shear stress model as follows:
are multiple regression constants obtained from triaxial tests. K2 K3
With the goal of developing improved models to character-  I − 3θfhm   τoct 
MR = K1 pa  1   p  (D-21)
ize the resilient modulus, laboratory test data from different  pa a
aggregate gradations were used in this study. Itani (1990) con-
cluded that this model was useful to predict resilient modulus, where pa is atmospheric pressure, I1 is first stress invariant
although there was a slight multi-colinearity problem. This is = (s1 + s2 + s3), is volumetric water content, f is function
due to the fact that two independent triaxial stress states are of the volumetric water content, hm is matric suction, toct is
expressed in three stress terms in this equation. octa­hedral shear stress = ¹⁄³{(s1 - s2)2 + (s1 - s3)2 + (s2 -
s3)2}1/2, and K1, K2, and K3 are multiple regression constants
obtained from triaxial tests.
Crockford et al. Model

Crockford et al. (1990) developed a resilient modulus model NCHRP 1-37A Mechanistic Empirical Pavement
which was expressed as a function of volumetric water con- Design Guide (MEPDG) Model
tent, suction stress, octahedral shear stress, unit weight of
material normalized by the unit weight of water, and the bulk In the MEPDG (NCHRP 1-37A, 2004), a generalized con-
stress. The model was proposed as follows: stitutive model was adopted to characterize the resilient
modulus of unbound aggregates. This equation combines
β1 β4 both the stiffening effect of bulk stress and the softening


V 
MR = β 0  θ + 3Ψ W 
Vt 
( τoct )β2  γγ  (D-19) effect of shear stress. Thus, the values of K2 should be posi-
W
tive, since increasing the bulk stress produces a stiffening
of the material. However, K3 should be negative to show a
where b0, b1, b2, and b3 are material constants, y is suction
softening effect. To properly find the model constants, mul-
stress, VW is volumetric water content, toct is octahedral shear tiple correlation coefficients determined from test results
Vt
have to exceed 0.90. Note that this model is proposed for
γ
stress, and is unit weight of material normalized by the use with both unbound aggregates and fine-grained sub-
γW
grade soils.
unit weight of water. When eliminating moisture term and
K2 K3
the normalized unit weight term, this equation simplifies to the  θ  τoct 
octahedral shear stress model of Witczak and Uzan (1988). MR = K1 pa  
 pa   p + 1 (D-22)
a

UT-Austin Model
where is the bulk stress = s1 + s2 + s3, toct is octahedral shear
stress = ¹⁄³{(s1 - s2)2 + (s1 - s3)2 + (s2 - s3)2}1/2, pa is atmo-
UT-Austin model was developed by Pezo (1993) with a good spheric pressure, and K1, K2, and K3 are constants obtained
agreement of the resilient modulus data from the repeated from experimental data.
load triaxial test. This model predicts the response vari-
able, axial strain, instead of the resilient modulus using the
REFERENCES
applied confining and deviator stresses. Since this model is
independent of the response variables, it is very useful for Boyce, J.R., “A Nonlinear Model for the Elastic Behavior
any condition. of Granular Materials Under Repeated Loading,” Inter-
national Symposium on Soils Under Cyclic and Transient
σD σd 1
MR = = = ( σ1− b σ − c ) = K1 ( σ d )K 2 ( σ 3 )K3 Loading, Swansea, 1980.
εr aσ bd σ 3c a d 3
Brown, S.F. and J.W. Pappin, “Analysis of Pavements with
(D-20) Granular Bases,” Transportation Research Record 810,
 175

Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- Nataatmadja, A., Variability of Pavement Material Param-
cil, Washington D.C., 1981, pp. 17–23. eters under Repeated Loading, PhD Dissertation, Monash
Crockford, W.W., L.J. Bendana, W.S. Yang, S.K. Rhee, University, Australia, 1989.
and S.P. Senadheera, Modeling Stress and Strain States NCHRP 1-37A, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
in Pavement Structures Incorporating Thick Granular Guide, Draft Report, Part 2 Design Inputs, 2004.
Layers, Final Report, Contract F08635-87-C-0039, The Pezo, R.F., “A General Method of Reporting Resilient
Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M Univer- Modulus Tests of Soils—A Pavement Engineer’s Point
sity, College Station, 1990. of View,” Paper No: 93082, 72nd Annual Meeting of the
Hicks, R.G. and C.L. Monismith, “Factors Influencing the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1993.
Resilient Properties of Granular Materials,” Transpor- Seed, H.B., F.G. Mitry, C.L. Monismith, and C.K. Chan,
tation Research Record 345, Transportation Research NCHRP Report 35: Prediction of Flexible Pavement
Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., Deflections from Laboratory Repeated Load Tests, High-
1971, pp. 15–31. way Research Board, National Research Council, Wash-
Itani, S.Y., Behavior of Base Materials Containing Large- ington, D.C., 1967.
Sized Particles, PhD Thesis, School of Civil and Envi- Shackel, B., “Repeated Loading of Soils–A Review,” Austra-
ronmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, lian Road Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1973, pp. 22-49.
Sep. 1990. Uzan, J., “Characterization of Granular Material,” Transpor-
Lade, P.V. and R.B. Nelson, “Modeling the Elastic Behavior tation Research Record 1022, Transportation Research
of Granular Materials,” International Journal for Numer- Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.,
ical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 11, 1985, pp. 52–59.
1987, pp. 521–542. Witczak, M.W. and J. Uzan, The Universal Airport Pavement
Lytton, R.L., “Foundations and Pavements on Unsaturated Design System, Report I of V: Granular Material Charac-
Soils,” 1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, terization, Department of Civil Engineering, University
Paris, France, 1995. of Maryland, College Park, Md., 1988.
176

aPPENDIX E
Review of Current Permanent Deformation Models

Constitutive relationships often need to be developed to Thompson and Nauman (1993) observed that the “A”
properly describe permanent deformation accumulation in term in the phenomenological model was significantly
unbound granular materials with number of load applica- affected by stress states (“A” values typically increased with
tions. In this section, a summary is given of the different increasing stress levels), whereas the “b” parameter varied
models proposed by many researchers to predict permanent in the range between 0.12 and 0.20 for different granular
strain as a function of load and material property related material types.
factors.

Strain Rate Model

Barksdale Model
El-Mitiny (1980) and Khedr (1985) proposed the strain rate
Barksdale (1972) analyzed standard repeated load triaxial model, which was related to the phenomenological model. The
data to propose a linear relationship between permanent axial strain rate model inversely correlates the rate of permanent
strain and the logarithm of number of load applications as axial strain to the logarithm of the number of load repetitions
shown below: as follows:

ε p = a + b log ( N ) (E-1) εp
= aN − b (E-3)
N
Where ep is the axial permanent strain; N is the number of
load applications; a and b are model parameter estimates where the definitions of ep, N, A (or a) and b are the same as
from linear regression of laboratory experimental data. given above.

Phenomenological Model Tseng and Lytton Model

Monismith et al. (1975) proposed a log-log relationship Tseng and Lytton (1989) presented a three-parameter per-
between axial permanent strain and the number of load manent deformation model to predict the accumulation
applications as shown in Equation (E-2). This model, also of permanent deformation through material testing. The
known as the phenomenological model, is used widely to parameters were developed from the laboratory established
present permanent deformation test results from laboratory relationship between permanent strains and the number of
experiments. load applications. The curve relationship is expressed as
ε p = AN b (E-2) follows:

( Nρ )
β
where the definitions of ep, N, A (or a) and b are the same as −
ε a = ε 0e (E-4)
given above.

Note that researchers (Monismith et al. 1975; Maree 1978) Where ea is the axial permanent strain; N is the number of load
have proposed a value less than unity (1.0) for the regression applications, e0, b, and r are material parameters that are dif-
parameter “b” for stress conditions significantly below the ferent for each sample, and are determined based on the water
shear strength of the material [30, 35]. However, a value of content, resilient modulus, and stress states for base aggregate
“b” that is less than unity (1.0) would imply a permanent and subgrade soils through multiple regression analyses.
deformation accumulation rate of infinity (∞) for the first
load application (N = 1), and zero for large values of N. This
Wolff Model
also implies that the “A” parameter represents an asymptote
for the accumulated permanent deformation for large values Wolff (1992) developed the following model to predict per-
of N. Note that asymptotic permanent deformation response is manent strain accumulation in aggregate base and subbase
typical of unbound aggregate behavior in the “plastic shake- layers from Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) test data.
down” range (Werkmeister 2003). Therefore, the phenomeno-
logical model can predict material behavior accurately only
for stress levels below the plastic shakedown limit. ε p = ( mN + a )(1 − e − bN ) (E-5)
 177

where ep is the axial permanent strain; N is the number of tion of permanent deformation after 100 cycles, considering
load application; and a, b, and m are model parameters. The the maximum permanent axial strain possible, depicted as “a”
primary feature of Wolff’s model is that it accounts for the in the model:
initial rapid increase in permanent deformation followed by
a linear phase in which the permanent deformation increases
( )
−b
at a steady rate. Upon differentiating the above expression to  N 
ε p = a 1 −  (E-8)
study the rate of accumulation of permanent strain ∂ε p
one can see that the incremental permanent deformation is
∂N
, ( )  100

equal to (a × b) for N = 0, and approaches “m” as N→∞. The model parameter definitions are the same as above.
Note that Paute’s model excluded the rapid rate part of
permanent deformation accumulation between the 1st
Rutting Rate Model and 100th cycle. This is in accordance with the difficulty
of predicting the permanent deformation development
Thompson and Nauman (1993) proposed a practical applica-
within the first 100 cycles which often corresponds to the
tion of the above model. They used rut depths obtained from
rapid reorientation of individual particles in the aggregate
field measurements instead of the permanent axial strain
term as follows: matrix.

RD Huurman Model
RR = = aN b (E-6)
N
Huurman (1997) combined stress level and number of load
applications into one expression to predict the accumulation
where RR = Rutting rate; RD = Rut depth; N = Number
of permanent deformation in unbound granular materials.
of load applications; a, b = Model Parameters. Thompson
Equation shows the model proposed by Huurman.
and Nauman (1993) successfully applied their rutting rate
model to prediction of the AASHO Road Test section rutting
B
performances.  N    N  
ε p = A + C  exp  D −1 (E--9)
 1000   1000 

Van Niekerk and Huurman Model

Where the parameters A, B, C, and D account for the stress
Note that none of the above discussed models accounted dependency of permanent strains as shown below:
for the effects of stress states on the accumulation of per-
manent deformation in unbound aggregates. Accordingly, x2
van Niekerk and Huurman (1995) proposed the following  σ 
X = x1  1  (E-10)
relationship between plastic strain and the number of load  σ1, f 
repetitions for unbound granular materials:
where X is a variable representing each parameter A, B, C, or
b
D in Equation E-9; x1 and x2 are variables representing related
(1000 )
a2  σ  2
b1  1 
 σ  N  σ1, f 
ε p = a1  1  (E-7) coefficients a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, c2, d1, and d2, respectively.
 σ1, f 

where ep is the permanent or plastic strain; N is the number Ullidtz Model

of load applications; s1 is the major principal stress, s1,f is
the major principal stress at failure; and a1, a2, b1, and b2 Ullidtz (1997) proposed a stress related permanent model
are model parameter estimates. This model accounts for the which expresses the accumulated permanent strain in terms
effect stress state on permanent deformation by incorporat- of the applied deviator stress and the number of load applica-
ing the ratio between applied deviator stress, and the deviator tions for a triaxial specimen. Equation (E-11) shows the model
stress at failure for a triaxial specimen. Note that as the ratio proposed by Ullidtz.
( σ
)
σ1, f is kept constant for a particular test, the above equa- b
tion is essentially the same as the phenomenological model σ 
εp = a d  Nc (E-11)
is Equation (E-2).  p0 

Paute Model where sd is the axial deviator stress, p0 is the normalizing

reference stress (often p0 = 1 psi or 1 kPa), a, b, and c are
Paute et al. (1996) suggested the following relationship model parameter estimates obtained from regression analy-
between the number of load applications and the accumula- ses of experimental data.
178

Lekarp and Dawson Model Lekarp, F. and A. Dawson, “Modeling Permanent Deforma-
tion Behavior of Unbound Granular Materials,” Construc-
Lekarp and Dawson (1998) used the shakedown concept to tion and Building Materials, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998, pp. 9–18.
investigate the effect of stress state on permanent deforma- Monismith, C.L., N. Ogawa, and C.R. Freeme, “Permanent
tion development, and proposed the following model relat- Deformation Characteristics of Subgrade Soils Due to
ing the permanent strain accumulation to the maximum shear Repeated Loading,” Transportation Research Record
stress ratio and the length of the stress path: 537, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 1–17.
ε p ( N ref )
 q
b
Maree, J.H., Design Parameters for Crushed Stone in Pave-
= a  (E-12)
L   p max ments, MS Thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa,
 p0  1978.
Paute, J.L., P. Hornych, and J.P. Benaben, “Repeated Load
where: ep (Nref) is the permanent axial strain at a given Triaxial Testing of Granular Materials in the French Net-
reference number of cycles Nref, where Nref > 100; L is work of Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées,” Flexible
the length of stress path, p is the mean normal stress Pavements, Proceedings of the European Symposium

( )
p = ( σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 ) 3 ; q is the deviatoric stress (q = σ1 - σ3);
Euroflex 1993, A.G. Correia, Ed., Balkema, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, 1996, pp. 53–64.
(q/p)max is the maximum stress ratio; p0 is the normalizing Thompson, M.R. and D. Nauman, “Rutting Rate Analyses of
reference stress; N is the number of load applications; a the AASHO Road Test Flexible Pavements,” Transpor-
and b are model parameter estimates. Although this model tation Research Record 1384, Transportation Research
included several load related variables, it did not consider the Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
stress path-direction and loading slope which can influence 1993, pp. 36–48.
the permanent deformation accumulation. Tseng, K.-H. and R.L. Lytton, “Prediction of Permanent
Deformation In Flexible Pavement Materials,” Impli-
REFERENCES cation of Aggregates In the Design, Construction, and
Performance of Flexible Pavements, ASTM STP 1016,
Barksdale, R.D., “Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1989, pp. 154–172.
Course Materials,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Ullidtz, P., “Modeling of Granular Materials Using the Dis-
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, University of Michi- crete Element Method,” Proceedings of the 8th Interna-
gan, Ann Arbor, 1972, pp. 161–174. tional Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, Wash.,
El-Mitiny, M.R., Material Characterization for Studying 1997, pp. 757–769.
Flexible Pavement Behavior in Fatigue and Permanent Van Niekerk, A.A. and M. Huurman, Establishing Complex
Deformation, PhD Thesis, Ohio State University, Colum- Behavior of Unbound Road Building Materials from Simple
bus, 1980. Material Testing, Technical Report No. 7-95-200-16, Delft
Huurman, M., Permanent Deformation in Concrete Block University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, 1995.
Pavements, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Werkmeister, S., Permanent Deformation Behaviour of
Delft, the Netherlands, 1997. Unbound Granular Materials in Pavement Construc-
Khedr, S., “Deformation Characteristics of Granular tions, PhD Thesis, Dresden University of Technology,
Base Course in Flexible Pavement,” Transportation Dresden, Germany, 2003.
Research Record 1043, Transportation Research Board, Wolff, H., Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Granular Pavement
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, Layers in South Africa, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Preto-
pp. 131–138. ria, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa, 1992.
 179

APPENDIX F
Follow-up Survey on Resilient Modulus Testing

Survey Result Brief: 46 total respondents Oklahoma Department of Transportation: Although

– 14 indicated doing Mr testing the Materials Group has an MTS Test System capable of con-
ducting the resilient modulus test on base materials, they cur-
Idaho Transportation Department: Idaho uses a state- rently only perform such tests (AASHTO T307 method) on
specific mechanistic design procedure (Winflex), which uses subgrade soils. In years past, they used a Trautwein triaxial
the Idaho R-Value as the main input parameter for base layers. chamber for testing 6-in. diameter × 12-in. height cylindrical
They are considering a switch to MEPDG and are currently test specimen with externally mounted transducers (location
running companion tests (Idaho R-value and Mr) on sub- of load cell and LVDTs), but found the process of remolding
grade soils and some selected base materials for the purpose quality test specimens to be burdensome. Oklahoma currently
of improving on Level 3 inputs/defaults. The Materials Group uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide design procedure and uses a
has a GeoComp Test System, which is used experimentally range of structural layer coefficients (0.10–0.14 based upon
to conduct resilient modulus tests using the AASHTO T307 gradation) as the main input parameter for base layers. They
method. This system uses one of two triaxial chambers (for are transitioning to MEPDG, and currently use 35,000 psi as
either a 4-in. diameter × 8-in. height or 6-in. diameter × 12-in. an input for base layer modulus.
height cylindrical test specimen) manufactured by GeoComp
with externally mounted transducers (location of load cell and Virginia Department of Transportation: Virginia cur-
LVDTs). Idaho uses the bulk stress model (Mr = K1 (q)K2) to rently uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide design procedure and
characterize stiffness as interpreted from the T307 data. selects a structural layer coefficient as the main input parameter
for base layers. Although the Materials Group has an Instron
Maryland State Highway: Maryland currently uses the Test System capable of conducting the resilient modulus
1993 AASHTO Guide design procedure and selects from a test on base materials, they currently only perform such tests
range of structural layer coefficients (0.08–0.14 with 0.11 typi- (AASHTO T307 method) on subgrade soils. A research project
cal) as the main input parameter for base layers. The Materials was performed by a consultant (Instron Test System) to char-
Group has a GeoComp Test System that is used experimentally acterize base materials using resilient modulus (6 sources), but
to conduct resilient modulus tests using the AASHTO T307 this test is not a current practice in Virginia.
method. This system uses a triaxial chamber for 6-in. diam-
eter × 12-in. height cylindrical test specimen, manufactured Mississippi Department of Transportation: Mississippi
by GeoComp, with externally mounted transducers (location currently uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide design procedure
of load cell and LVDTs). Maryland uses the universal model and selects a structural layer coefficient as the main input
(Mr = K1pa (q/pa)K2 ((toct/pa) + 1)K3) to characterize stiffness parameter for base layers. A research project was performed
by a consultant (Interlaken Test System) to characterize base
as interpreted from the T307 data. They have modeled materi-
materials using resilient modulus, but this test is not a current
als from 30 quarries thus far, and are considering a switch to
practice in Mississippi. They are transitioning to MEPDG,
MEPDG. They consider the characterization of base materials
but most likely will rely on backcalculated base layer values
critical with respect to the MEPDG, and are also using the lab
as input for new designs.
data to confirm selection of structural layers coefficients used
in their current designs. Additionally, they perceive the test Utah Department of Transportation: Utah currently
will be a valuable discriminator when considering alternative uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide design procedure and selects a
materials such as RAP, RCP, and other sources. structural layer coefficient as the main input parameter for base
layers. A research project was performed by a local university
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Depart- (IPC Test System) to characterize base materials using resilient
ment: Arkansas currently uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide modulus, but this test is not a current practice in Utah.
design procedure and selects a structural layer coefficient
as the main input parameter for base layers. Although the North Carolina Department of Transportation: North
Materials Group has an Instron Test System capable of Carolina currently uses the 1972 AASHTO Interim Guide
conducting the resilient modulus test on base materials, design procedure and a structural layer coefficient (0.14) as
they currently only perform such tests (AASHTO T307 the main input parameter for base layers. The Materials Group
method) on subgrade soils. A research project was per- has an Instron Test System which is used experimentally to
formed by a local university to characterize base materials conduct resilient modulus tests using the AASHTO T307
using resilient modulus, but this test is not a current prac- method. This system uses a triaxial chamber for 6-in. diam-
tice in Arkansas. eter × 12-in. height cylindrical test specimen, manufactured
180

by Karol-Warner, with externally mounted transducers (location ducting the resilient modulus test on base materials, they cur-
of load cell and LVDTs). North Carolina uses the SHRP Model rently only perform such tests (AASHTO T307 method) on
(Mr = K1(SC)K2(S3)K5) to characterize stiffness as interpreted from subgrade soils. This is due to the fact that they do not possess
the T307 data. They are considering a switch to MEPDG, and a large triaxial chamber for conducting tests on large-diameter
intend to use the experimental data from their lab program to specimens. Indiana has implemented the MEPDG procedure
determine a single value to use as input. Presently, they are using and currently uses 30,000 psi as the main input parameter for
40,000 psi, but are fine-tuning and calibrating this value. their base layer, based primarily on backcalculated values of
existing pavement structures. They recognize this general use
Missouri Department of Transportation: Missouri shifted default value is restrictive and are exploring options to add
to the MEPDG design procedure in 2004 and currently uses robustness through research (develop a catalog of values) or
resilient modulus as the main input parameter for base layers. active testing.
A research project was performed by a local university (MTS
Test System – GCTS 6-inch triaxial cell) to characterize base Kansas Department of Transportation: Kansas cur-
materials using resilient modulus. Missouri uses the universal rently uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide design procedure and
model (Mr = K1pa (q/pa)K2 ((toct/pa)+1)K3) to model stiffness selects a structural layer coefficient as the main input param-
as interpreted from the T307 research data, and have used eter for base layers. Although the Materials Group has an
this study to calibrate models and supplement and/or replace Interlaken Test System capable of conducting the resilient
Level 3 lookup values since the 2004 implementation. The modulus test on base materials, they have not conducted tests
resilient modulus test is not considered a routine practice in for nearly 10 years.
Missouri.
Minnesota Department of Transportation: Minnesota
South Dakota Department of Transportation: South DOT currently uses FlexPave (R-value inputs) and Rigid-
Dakota currently uses the 1993 AASHTO Guide design pro- Pave for flexible and rigid pavement designs, respectively.
cedure and is considering using the MEPDG. They currently The Materials Group (The Research Group) has an Inter-
do not have the capability to perform resilient modulus tests laken Test System, which is used currently (experimen-
to characterize base materials. If the need arises, they would tally) to conduct resilient modulus tests using the NCHRP
contract the work to a university or consultant. 1-28a method for research projects (although 3 internally-
mounted LVDTs are used rather than the recommended 2
Wisconsin Department of Transportation: Wisconsin LVDTs, and a rigorous QA/QC protocol has been established
currently uses the 1972 AASHTO Guide design procedure to readily scan data for acceptance). This system uses a tri-
and is considering using the MEPDG. They currently do axial chamber for 6-in. diameter × 12-in. height cylindrical
not have the capability to perform resilient modulus tests to test specimen, manufactured by Interlaken, with internally
characterize base materials. In preparation for the MEPDG, mounted transducers (location of load cell and LVDTs).
Wisconsin has initiated some research work in this speci- Minnesota uses the Universal Model (Mr = K1pa (q/pa)K2
fic area to local universities, who conduct AASHTO T307 ((toct/pa) + 1)K3) to characterize stiffness as interpreted from
testing. the NCHRP 1-28a data. MnDOT currently uses MnPAVE
and RigidPave for flexible and rigid pavement designs,
Indiana Department of Transportation: Although the respectively. They are developing a pavement design cata-
Materials Group has a GeoComp Test System capable of con- log for rigid pavements using MEPDG (through research).
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America

AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation