0% found this document useful (0 votes)

44 views270 pages

Resilient Modulus and Strength of Base Course With Recycled Bituminous Material

Uploaded by

Tarek Khallaf

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

44 views270 pages

Resilient Modulus and Strength of Base Course With Recycled Bituminous Material

Uploaded by

Tarek Khallaf

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 270

2007-05

Resilient Modulus and Strength of

Base Course with Recycled
Bituminous Material

ve Solutions!
vati
ch . ... Inno
r .. Knowledge
sea
Take the steps... Re

Transportation Research
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No.
MN/RC-2007-05
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Resilient Modulus And Strength Of Base Course With Recycled January 2007
Bituminous Material 6.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Woosung Kim and Joseph F. Labuz
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Dept. of Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.
500 Pillsbury Drive SE (c) 81655 (wo) 132
Minneapolis, MN 55455
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report
395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
15. Supplementary Notes
http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200705.pdf
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The objective of the research was to determine the strength and deformation characteristics of base
material produced from recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) and aggregate. Various samples with
different ratios of RAP and aggregate base were mixed (% RAP/aggregate): 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25.
Laboratory compaction testing and field monitoring indicated that gyratory compacted specimens were
closer to the densities measured in the field. Resilient modulus (MR) tests were generally conducted
following the National Cooperative Highway Research Program 1-28A test protocol. MR increased
with increase of confining pressure, but MR showed little change with deviator stress. The specimens
with 65% optimum moisture contents were stiffer than the specimens with 100% optimum moisture
contents at all confining pressures. Cyclic triaxial tests were conducted at two deviator stresses, 35%
and 50% of the estimated peak stress, to evaluate recoverable and permanent deformation behavior
from initial loading to 5000 cycles. The specimens with RAP exhibited at least two times greater
permanent deformation than the 100% aggregate material. As %RAP increased, more permanent
deformation occurred. In summary, the base material produced with various %RAP content performed
at a similar level to 100% aggregate in terms of MR and strength when properly compacted.

17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement

Recycled asphalt pavement, No restrictions. Document available from:
Resilient modulus, National Technical Information Services,
Aggregate base Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 270
Resilient Modulus and Strength of Base Course with
Recycled Bituminous Material

Final Report

Prepared by:

Woosung Kim and Joseph F. Labuz

Department of Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota

January 2007

Prepared for:

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Materials and Road Research
1400 Gervais Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109

Published by:

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Research Services Section
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899

This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily
represent the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or the Center
for Transportation Studies. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique.
Acknowledgements

Partial support was provided by the Local Road Research Board and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). Special thanks are extended to (a) Mn/DOT
Office of Materials, especially Shongtao Dai, Marc Loken, Tim Anderson, Jerry Geib,
Bruce Chadbourn, and John Siekmeier; and (b) Wright County Engineers Wayne
Fingalson and Virgil Hawkins.
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction…………………………………………………………………..1

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………...2
1.2 Objectives…………………………………………………………………….3
1.3 Organization………………………………………………………………….4

Chapter 2 - Experimental Procedure………………………………………………………5

2.1 Sample Preparation…………………………………………………………...5

2.1.1 Gradation Test Procedure………………………………………….6
2.1.2 Gradation Test Result……………………………………………...7
2.2 Compaction Tests..………………………………………………………….10
2.2.1 Proctor Compaction Test…………………………………………10
2.2.2 Gyratory Compaction Tests……………………………………...11
2.2.3 Results and Selection of Compaction Method…………………...12
2.3 Test Equipments…………………………………………………………….17
2.4 Resilient Modulus Test Protocol………………………………………….20
2.4.1 Moisture Content ……….………………………………………..23
2.4.2 Specimen Compaction ……….…………………………………..24
2.4.3 LVDT Displacement Range ……….…………………………….27
2.4.4 Permanent Strain ………………………………………………...27
2.5 Cyclic Triaxial Test Procedure……………………………………………...28

Chapter 3 - Quality Control / Quality Assurance……………………………………...…32

3.1 Rotation……………………………………………………………………..32
3.1.1 Non-uniformity of Displacement……………………………….33
3.1.2 Angle of Rotation………………………………………………...35
3.1.3 Uniformity Ratio…………………………………………………36
3.2 Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR)………………………………………………..38
3.3 Coefficient of Variation (COV)……………………………………………..40
3.4 LVDT Range………………………………………………………………..40
3.5 Synthetic Specimen Testing………………………………………………...41

Chapter 4 - Discussion of Results………………………………………………………..44

4.1 Resilient Modulus (MR) Data…….………………………………………...44

4.1.1 Resilient Modulus (MR) Data Interpretation……………………..52
4.1.2 Quality Control / Quality Assurance……………………………..56
4.2 Shear Strength Test Result……………………………………………… 58
4.3 Cyclic Triaxial Test Result………………………………………………….60
4.3.1 Test Data Interpretation…………………………………………..70
4.3.2 Quality Control / Quality Assurance……………………………..77

Chapter 5 - Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………….78

References……………………………………………………………………………..…80

Appendix A - Index Properties

A.1 Gradation………………………………………………………………….A-1
A.2 Proctor Compaction Test………………………………………………...A-2
A.3 Gyratory Compaction Test………………………………………………A-15
A.4 Zero Air Void Curve……………………………………………………A-25
A.5 Gyratory Compaction Test Procedure…………………………………A-27
A.6 Asphalt Extraction……………………………………………………….A-28

Appendix B – Calibrations

B.1 Load Cell Calibration……………………………………………………...B-1

B.2 Data Acquisition System Check…………………………………………..B-3
B.3 LVDT Calibration…………………………………………………………B-5
B.4 LVDT Clamp Weight……………………………………………………..B-6
B.5 Dynamic Response……………………………………………………….B-7

Appendix C - Detailed Test Procedure

C.1 MR and Shear Strength Tests………………………………………………C-1

C.2 MR and Shear Strength Tests: Hammering Compaction…………………..C-6
C.3 Cyclic Triaxial Tests………………………………………………………C-8
C.4 Cyclic Triaxial Test Design……………………………………………….C-9

Appendix D - Detailed Results

D.1 Resilient Modulus (MR) Tables…………………………………………...D-1

D.2 Resilient Modulus (MR) versus Deviator Stress…………………………D-30
D.3 Resilient Modulus (MR) vs. Deviator Stress vs. Confining Pressure…….D-60
D.4 Strain at Maximum Stress………………………………………………D-70
D.5 Orientation of Failure Plane (θ)………………………………………….D-73
D.6 Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp)……………………………………….D-86
D.7 Young’s Modulus (Esecant)………………………………………………D-90
D.8 Energy Loss...……………………………………………………………D-94
D.9 QC / QA for Mr testing……………………………………….…………D-98
List of Figures

1.1: Full Depth Reclamation and Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP)……………………1

1.2: Element Response during Cyclic Triaxial Testing…………………………………...2
1.3: Example Cyclic Axial Stress…………………………………………………………3
1.4: Example Load vs. Displacement……………………………………………………..4
2.1: RAP, Aggregate, and In-situ Blend Produced from County Road (CR) 3…………...5
2.2: Soil Splitter…………………………………………………………………………...6
2.3: Sieves for Coarse Grained Soil (Left) and Fine Grained Soil (Right)………………..7
2.4: Gradation Curves for CR 3 Materials………………………………………………...8
2.5: Gradation Curves for TH 23, TH 200 and TH 5 Materials…………………………...9
2.6: Proctor Compaction Test Hammer and Mold……………………………………….10
2.7: Gyratory Compactor and Diagram………………………………………………….11
2.8: Gyratory Compacted Specimen……………………………………………………..12
2.9: Compaction Method Comparison CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP…………….13
2.10: Compaction Method Comparison: TH 5 Blend……………………………………14
2.11: Last Five Cycles: Sequence 26: TH 5 Blend…………………………...………….15
2.12: Last Five Cycles: Sequence 25: TH 5 Blend………………………………...…….15
2.13: Last Five Cycles: Sequence 20: CR 3 Blend 100% Aggregate……………………16
2.14: Last Five Cycles: Sequence 21: CR 3 Blend 100% Aggregate……………………16
2.15: Comparison of Resilient Modulus (MR): TH 5 Blend……………………………..17
2.16: Triaxial Cell Diagram [20]………………………………………………………...18
2.17: Load Frame, TestStar Program and Load Cell…………………………………….19
2.18: LVDT Collars with Spacers [20]…………………………………………………..19
2.19: Removed Aggregates………………………………………………………………22
2.20: Specimen Compacted by Gyratory Compactor After Strength Testing..………25
2.21: Example LVDT Range Check……………………………………………………..27
3.1: Axial Force and Bending Moment Imposed by Rigid Platens That Rotate…………32
3.2: Example Three LVDT Displacement Time Histories………………………………33
3.3: Geometry of Specimen and LVDTs with Respect to the Axis of Rotation…………34
3.4: Influence of Rotation on the Uniformity Ratio γmax at Various Levels of
Axial Strain Δεa (Gage Length = 100 mm)………………………………………..38
3.5: Example Displacement History: SNR=3……………………………………………39
3.6: Example Displacement History: SNR=30…………………………………………..39
3.7: Synthetic Specimen………………………………….………………………………41
3.8: Modulus Data of Synthetic Specimen……………………………………………....42
3.9: Stress-Strain Relation of Synthetic Specimen: σ3 = 13.8 kPa………………………43
4.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%)……………………………...46
4.2: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%)………………………..………..46
4.3: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%, 65% OMC = 5.1%)………….47
4.4: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%, 65% OMC = 5.7%)………….48
4.5: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%, 65% OMC = 5.7%)……….....48
4.6: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%, 65% OMC = 5.2%)…………....49
4.7: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%, 65% OMC = 4.7%)………….49
4.8: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%, 65% OMC = 3.5%)……….....50
4.9: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%, 65% OMC = 3.7%)………….50
4.10: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 98% Gyratory and 65% OMC…………..51
4.11: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 100% Gyratory and 100% OMC………..52
4.12: Example Curve Fit of CR 3 100% Aggregate by (4.1) (R2 = 0.97)
(T_8.8, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%)………………………..53
4.13: Example Curve Fit of CR 3 100% Aggregate by (4.2) (R2 = 0.75)
(T_8.8, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%)………………………..54
4.14: Example Curve Fit of CR 3 100% Aggregate by (4.3) (R2 = 0.95)
(T_8.8, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%)………………………..54
4.15: Example Curve Fit Comparison of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%)……………………….55
4.16: Stress-strain Change by Cycle
(CR 3 100% Aggregate at 35% Stress Ratio)………………………………………..61
4.17: Stress-strain Change by Cycle
(CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP at 35% Stress Ratio)……………………………62
4.18: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio………..63
4.19: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio………..63
4.20: Permanent Strain (Δεp) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio: First Cycles……..64
4.21: Permanent Strain (Δεp) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio: First Cycles……..64
4.22: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of Blend Materials at 50% Stress Ratio……….65
4.23: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of Blend Materials at 35% Stress Ratio……….66
4.24: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio………………..67
4.25: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio………………..67
4.26: Young’s Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio: First Cycles…………..68
4.27: Young’s Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio: First Cycles…………..68
4.28: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of Blend Materials at 50% Stress Ratio……………….69
4.29: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of Blend Materials at 35% Stress Ratio……………….70
4.30: εp vs. Log (Cycle) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio………………………...71
4.31: εp vs. Log (Cycle) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio………………………...71
4.32: Energy Loss (Hysteresis Loop)…………………………………………………….73
4.33: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio……………………………74
4.34: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio…………………………....74
4.35: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio: First Cycles……………...75
4.36: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio: First Cycles……………...75
A.1: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 Blend: Test 1………………………………...A-3
A.2: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 Blend: Test 2………………………………...A-4
A.3: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate: Test 1…………………….A-4
A.4: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate: Test 2…………………….A-5
A.5: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP………………A-5
A.6: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 1………A-6
A.7: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 2………A-6
A.8: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP………………A-7
A.9: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 23 Blend………………………………………A-7
A.10: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 200 Blend……………………………………A-8
A.11: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 5 Blend………………………………………A-8
A.12: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 Blend: Test 1………………………………A-9
A.13: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 Blend: Test 2………………………………A-9
A.14: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate: Test 1………………...….A-10
A.15: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate: Test 2……………………A-10
A.16: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP……………..…A-11
A.17: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 1……..…A-11
A.18: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 2………A-12
A.19: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP………………A-12
A.20: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 23 Blend…………………………………….A-13
A.21: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 200 Blend…………………………………A-13
A.22: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 5 Blend……………………………………A-14
A.23: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 Blend…………………………………...…A-17
A.24: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate……………………….…A-17
A.25: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP……………...A-18
A.26: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP……………...A-18
A.27: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP……...………A-19
A.28: Gyratory Compaction Curve: TH 23 Blend…………………………………….A-19
A.29: Gyratory Compaction Curve: TH 200 Blend…………………………...………A-20
A.30: Gyratory Compaction Curve: TH 5 Blend……………………………...………A-20
A.31: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 Blend……………………………...………A-21
A.32: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate………………….………A-21
A.33: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP……...………A-22
A.34: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP……...………A-22
A.35: Gyratory Compaction Curve: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP……...………A-23
A.36: Gyratory Compaction Curve: TH 23 Blend…………………………….………A-23
A.37: Gyratory Compaction Curve: TH 200 Blend…………………………………...A-24
A.38: Gyratory Compaction Curve: TH 5 Blend…………………………………...…A-24
A.39: Proctor Compaction Curves vs. Zero Air Void Curve…………………………A-25
A.40: Gyratory Compaction Curves vs. Zero Air Void Curve……………………..…A-26
B.1: Load Cell Calibration……………………………………………………………...B-1
B.2: MTS vs. Data Acquisition: Stroke………………………………………………...B-3
B.3: MTS vs. Data Acquisition: Load………………………………………………….B-4
B.4: Voltage Measurement, Conditioner (Left) and Stroke Measurement (Right)…….B-5
B.5: Calibration Results………………………………………………………………...B-6
B.6: Cycles Considered for The Analysis in [12] – Force Load Time History………B-9
B.7: Testing Setup.……..………………………………………………………...……B-9
B.8: Cycles Considered in The Present Work – Measured Load with 5 Hz Input……B-10
B.9: Testing Setup for Test Series 2 and 3: (a) Series 2, and (b) Series 3……………B-13
C.1: Permanent Deformation of CR 3 In-situ Blend: Sequence 28
(S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2043 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%))………C-11
C.2: Deformation vs. Stress Ratio: CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2035 kg/m3, MC = 9.1%))………C-12
C.3: Deformation vs. Stress Ratio: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.8%))………C-12
C.4: Deformation vs. Stress Ratio: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.0%))………….C-13
C.5: Deformation vs. Stress Ratio: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2032 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%))…C-13
D.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1966 kg/m3, MC = 5.1%))………….D-31
D.2: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1995 kg/m3, MC = 4.9%))…………D-31
D.3: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2032 kg/m3, MC = 7.4%))………D-32
D.4: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2043 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%))………D-32
D.5: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1963 kg/m3, MC = 6.0%))…………D-33
D.6: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1961 kg/m3, MC = 6.2%))…………D-33
D.7: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2041 kg/m3, MC = 9.1%))………D-34
D.8: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2035 kg/m3, MC = 9.1%))………D-34
D.9: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2001 kg/m3, MC = 6.1%))………D-35
D.10: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1958 kg/m3, MC = 6.0%))………D-35
D.11: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2051 kg/m3, MC = 8.3%))……D-36
D.12: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.8%))……D-36
D.13: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1996 kg/m3, MC = 5.1%))………D-37
D.14: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1964 kg/m3, MC = 5.7%))………D-37
D.15: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2048 kg/m3, MC = 8.4%))………….D-38
D.16: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.0%))………….D-38
D.17: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2000 kg/m3, MC = 4.5%))………….D-39
D.18: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1987 kg/m3, MC = 4.3%))………….D-39
D.19: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2052 kg/m3, MC = 7.3%))……….D-40
D.20: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2032 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%)).............D-40
D.21: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2097 kg/m3, MC = 3.6%))………D-41
D.22: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2094 kg/m3, MC = 3.6%))………D-41
D.23: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2100 kg/m3, MC = 5.4%))………D-42
D.24: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2091 kg/m3, MC = 5.6%))……D-42
D.25: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2140 kg/m3, MC = 4.0%))…………D-43
D.26: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2145 kg/m3, MC = 3.9%))…………D-43
D.27: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2161 kg/m3, MC = 5.6%))……D-44
D.28: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2153 kg/m3, MC = 5.9%))……D-44
D.29: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.73 lb/ft3, MC = 5.1%))………….D-45
D.30: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.54 lb/ft3, MC = 4.9%))………….D-46
D.31: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 126.85 lb/ft3, MC = 7.4%))………D-46
D.32: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.54 lb/ft3, MC = 7.7%))…...…D-47
D.33: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.55 lb/ft3, MC = 6.0%))………….D-47
D.34: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.42 lb/ft3, MC = 6.2%))………….D-48
D.35: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.35 lb/ft3, MC = 9.1%))………D-48
D.36: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.04 lb/ft3, MC = 9.1%))………D-49
D.37: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.98 lb/ft3, MC = 6.1%))………D-49
D.38: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.23 lb/ft3, MC = 6.0%))…………D-50
D.39: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 128.04 lb/ft3, MC = 8.3%))………D-50
D.40: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.91 lb/ft3, MC = 8.8%))………D-51
D.41: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.61 lb/ft3, MC = 5.1%))…………D-51
D.42: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.61 lb/ft3, MC = 5.7%))…………D-52
D.43: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.85 lb/ft3, MC = 8.4%))……….D-52
D.44: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.91 lb/ft3, MC = 8.0%))……….D-53
D.45: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.86 lb/ft3, MC = 4.5%))……….D-53
D.46: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.04 lb/ft3, MC = 4.3%))……….D-54
D.47: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 128.10 lb/ft3, MC = 7.3%))…….D-54
D.48: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 126.85 lb/ft3, MC = 7.7%))............D-55
D.49: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 130.91 lb/ft3, MC = 3.6%))………D-55
D.50: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 130.72 lb/ft3, MC = 3.6%))………D-56
D.51: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 131.10 lb/ft3, MC = 5.4%))……D-56
D.52: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 130.54 lb/ft3, MC = 5.6%))……D-57
D.53: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 133.60 lb/ft3, MC = 4.0%))………D-57
D.54: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 133.91 lb/ft3, MC = 3.9%))………D-58
D.55: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 134.91 lb/ft3, MC = 5.6%))……D-58
D.56: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 134.51 lb/ft3, MC = 5.9%))……D-59
D.57: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%, 65% OMC = 5.1%)……….D-60
D.58: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%, 65% OMC = 5.7%)……….D-61
D.59: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%, 65% OMC = 5.7%)…….…D-61
D.60: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%, 65% OMC = 5.2%)……….D-62
D.61: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%, 65% OMC = 4.7%)……….D-62
D.62: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%, 65% OMC = 3.5%)…….…D-63
D.63: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%, 65% OMC = 3.7%)……..D-63
D.64: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 98% Gyratory and 65% OMC……….D-64
D.65: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 100% Gyratory and 100% OMC…….D-64
D.66: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%, 65% OMC = 5.1%)……….D-65
D.67: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%, 65% OMC = 5.7%)……….D-66
D.68: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%, 65% OMC = 5.7%)…….…D-66
D.69: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%, 65% OMC = 5.2%)……….D-67
D.70: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%, 65% OMC = 4.7%)……….D-67
D.71: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%, 65% OMC = 3.5%)…….…D-68
D.72: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%, 65% OMC = 3.7%)……….D-68
D.73: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 98% Gyratory and 65% OMC……….D-69
D.74: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 100% Gyratory and 100% OMC…….D-69
D.75: S_5.1_1…………………………………………………………………………D-74
D.76: S_7.8_1…………………………………………………………………………D-74
D.77: S_7.8_2…………………………………………………………………………D-75
D.78: T_5.7_1…………………………………………………………………………D-75
D.79: T_5.7_2…………………………………………………………………………D-76
D.80: T_8.8_1…………………………………………………………………………D-76
D.81: T_8.8_2…………………………………………………………………………D-77
D.82: U_5.7_1...............................................................................................................D-77
D.83: U_5.7_2...............................................................................................................D-78
D.84: U_8.7_1...............................................................................................................D-78
D.85: V_5.2_1...............................................................................................................D-79
D.86: V_5.2_2...............................................................................................................D-79
D.87: V_8_1…………………………………………………………………..………D-80
D.88: V_8_2…………………………………………………………………..………D-80
D.89: W_4.7_1………………………………………………………………...………D-81
D.90: W_4.7_2………………………………………………………………...………D-81
D.91: W_7.2_1………………………………………………………………...………D-82
D.92: W_7.2_2...............................................................................................................D-82
D.93: X_3.5_1...............................................................................................................D-83
D.94: X_3.5_2...............................................................................................................D-83
D.95: X_5.4_1...............................................................................................................D-84
D.96: Y_3.7_1...............................................................................................................D-84
D.97: Y_3.7_2………………………………………………………………………...D-85
D.98: Y_5.7_2………………………………………………………………………...D-85
D.99: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 In-situ Blend………………………D-86
D.100: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 100% Aggregate…………………D-86
D.101: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP…….D-87
D.102: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP…….D-87
D.103: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP…….D-88
D.104: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of TH 23 In-situ Blend……………………D-88
D.105: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of TH 200 In-situ Blend…………………..D-89
D.106: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 In-situ Blend…………………………….D-90
D.107: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 100% Aggregate…………………………D-90
D.108: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP…………..…D-91
D.109: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP…………..…D-91
D.110: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP…………..…D-92
D.111: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of TH 23 In-situ Blend………………………….D-92
D.112: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of TH 200 In-situ Blend…………………………D-93
D.113: Energy Loss of CR 3 In-situ Blend…………………………………………..D-94
D.114: Energy Loss of CR 3 100% Aggregate………………………………………D-94
D.115: Energy Loss of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP…………………………..D-95
D.116: Energy Loss of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP…………………..………D-95
D.117: Energy Loss of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP……………..……………D-96
D.118: Energy Loss of TH 23 % In-situ Blend………………………………...……D-96
D.119: Energy Loss of TH 200 % In-situ Blend……………………………………D-97
List of Tables
2.1: Proctor and Gyratory Compaction Test Results…………………………………….12
2.2: TH5 Sand Cone Test Values…………………………………………..………….…13
2.3: Testing Sequences for Base/Sub-base Materials (NCHRP 1-28A) [8]……………..21
2.4: Test Matrix…………………………………………………………………………..23
2.5: Moisture Content Control…………………………………………………………...24
2.6: Specimen Compaction Control……………………………………………………...26
2.7: Permanent Strain…………………………………………………………………….28
2.8: Test Matrix…………………………………………………………………………..29
2.9: Moisture Content Control…………………………………………………………...30
2.10: Specimen Compaction Control…..………………………………………………...31
3.1: Bender Element Test Result for Synthetic Specimen……………………………….42
4.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7, 98% Gyratory = 1981 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.7%)………………..…………45
4.2: Coefficients k and R2………………………………………………………………56
4.3: Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Resilient Modulus (MR) Data……………..57
4.4: Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Resilient Modulus (MR) Data: Total………57
4.5: Shear Strength Test Result…………………………………………………………..59
4.6: Estimated Cohesions Assuming φ = 45˚…………………………………………60
4.7: BISAR Pavement (3D) Stress Analysis……………………………………………..61
4.8: Coefficient a and R2…………………………………………………………………72
4.9: Coefficient b and R2…………………………………………………………………76
4.10: Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Cyclic Triaxial Test Data………………...77
A.1: Gradation………………………………………………………………………….A-1
A.2: Proctor Compaction Test Results…………………………………………………A-2
A.3: Gyratory Compaction Test Results………………………………………………A-15
A.4: Gyratory Compaction Test Results………………………………………………A-16
A.5: Asphalt Extraction Test Result………………………………………………..…A-28
B.1: Load Cell Calibration……………………………………………………………...B-2
B.2: MTS vs. Data Acquisition…………………………………………………………B-3
B.3: Calibration Results………………………………………………………………...B-5
B.4: Tests Results……………………………………………………………………B-11
B.5: Additional Results Using the 5 Last Cycles Altogether…………………………B-12
C.1: Stress Ratio of NCHRP 1-28A Testing Sequences………………………………C-10
D.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_1 and S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.1%)………D-2
D.2: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_1 and S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%………D-3
D.3: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_1 and T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.7%)………D-4
D.4: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_1 and T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%)……D-5
D.5: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_1 and U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.7%)………D-6
D.6: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_1 and U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%)…...D-7
D.7: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_1 and V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.2%)………D-8
D.8: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_1 and V_8_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%)…………..D-9
D.9: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_1 and W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 4.7%)……D-10
D.10: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_1 and W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%)…D-11
D.11: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_1 and X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 3.5%)……D-12
D.12: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_1 and X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%)…D-13
D.13: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_1 and Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 3.7%)……D-14
D.14: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_1 and Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%)…D-15
D.15: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_1 and S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.1%)……D-16
D.16: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_1 and S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 7.8%)…D-17
D.17: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_1 and T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.7%)……D-18
D.18: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_1 and T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 8.8%)…D-19
D.19: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_1 and U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.7%)……D-20
D.20: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_1 and U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 8.7%)…D-21
D.21: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_1 and V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.2%)……D-22
D.22: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_1 and V_8_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 8%)……D-23
D.23: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_1 and W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 4.7%)……D-24
D.24: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_1 and W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 7.2%)…D-25
D.25: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_1 and X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory = 129.85 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 3.5%)……D-26
D.26: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_1 and X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory = 129.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 5.4%)…D-27
D.27: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_1 and Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 133.84 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 3.7%)……D-28
D.28: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_1 and Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 133.84 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 5.7%)…D-29
D.29: Strain at Maximum Stress………………………………………………………D-71
D.30: Strain at Maximum Stress………………………………………………………D-72
D.31: Orientation of Failure Plane…………………………………………………….D-73
D32: QC / QA for S_5.1_1, CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1………………………………D-98
D33: QC / QA for S_5.1_2, CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2…………………………….D-98
D34: QC / QA for S_7.8_1, CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1……………………………D-99
D35: QC / QA for S_7.8_2, CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2……………………………D-100
D36: QC / QA for T_5.7_1, CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1…………………………D-100
D37: QC / QA for T_5.7_2, CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2…………………………D-101
D38: QC / QA for T_8.8_1, CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1…………………………D-101
D39: QC / QA for T_8.8_2, CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2………………………….D-102
D40: QC / QA for U_5.7_1, CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1…………………….D-103
D41: QC / QA for U_5.7_2, CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2…………………….D-103
D42: QC / QA for U_8.7_1, CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1…………………...D-104
D43: QC / QA for U_8.7_2, CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2………….…….….D-104
D44: QC / QA for V_8_1, CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1……………………..D-105
D45: QC / QA for V_8_2, CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2……………………D-105
D46: QC / QA for W_4.7_1, CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1……………………D-106
D47: QC / QA for W_7.2_2, CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2…………………D-106
D48: QC / QA for X_3.5_1, TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1…………………………...D-107
D49: QC / QA for X_3.5_2, TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2…………………………D-107
D50: QC / QA for X_5.4_2, TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2………………………….D-108
D51: QC / QA for Y_3.7_1, TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1………………………….D-108
D52: QC / QA for Y_3.7_2, TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2………………………….D-109
D53: QC / QA for Y_5.7_1, TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1………………………D-109
D54: QC / QA for Y_5.7_2, TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2………………………D-110
Executive Summary
Full-depth reclamation is a recycling technique in which the existing asphalt pavement section
and all or a predetermined portion of the underlying aggregate are uniformly reclaimed and
blended to produce a base course. Full-depth reclamation has been proposed as a viable
alternative in road rehabilitation, where asphalt and aggregate resources are conserved, and
material and transportation costs are reduced. The objective of the research was to determine
the strength and deformation characteristics of base material produced from recycled asphalt
pavement (RAP) and aggregate.

Various samples with different ratios of RAP and aggregate base were mixed (%
RAP/aggregate): 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25. Sieve analyses were performed, and it was found
that as % RAP increased the material became coarser. Laboratory compaction testing and field
monitoring indicated that gyratory compacted specimens were closer to the densities measured in
the field. Resilient modulus (MR) tests were generally conducted following the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program 1-28A test protocol. MR increased with increase of
confining pressure, but MR showed little change with deviator stress. The specimens with 65%
optimum moisture contents were stiffer than the specimens with 100% optimum moisture
contents at all confining pressures, with the effect increasing at higher confining pressures.

Cyclic triaxial tests were conducted at two deviator stresses, 35% and 50% of the
estimated peak stress, to evaluate recoverable and permanent deformation behavior from initial
loading to 5000 cycles. The specimens with RAP exhibited at least two times greater
permanent deformation than the 100% aggregate material, and a steady state condition was
reached after approximately 1000 cycles. As %RAP increased, more permanent deformation
occurred. The secant Young’s modulus (Esecant) increased as the number of cycles increased.
Initially, Esecant was larger for the 100% aggregate specimens, but after approximately 100 cycles
the 25% aggregate – 75% RAP specimens had the highest Esecant. The cyclic tests at the 50%
peak stress ratio exhibited greater permanent deformation by a factor of 2-3 compared to the
35% peak stress ratio tests, and Esecant was about 15% greater at the higher deviator stress. In
summary, the base material produced with various %RAP content performed at a similar level to
100% aggregate in terms of MR and strength when properly compacted.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Full-depth reclamation is a recycling technique in which all of the existing pavement section and
all or a predetermined portion of the underlying aggregate are uniformly blended to produce a
base course [1, 2]. Full-depth reclamation has been proposed as a viable alternative in road
construction, where asphalt and aggregate resources are conserved, and material and
transportation costs are reduced because recycling eliminates the need for hauling new materials
and disposing of old materials [3, 4]. The mixture of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) and
aggregate produced from full-depth reclamation (Fig. 1.1) has the potential to have engineering
properties that exceed those of a 100% aggregate base material, although little data are available
to substantiate the claim [5].

Figure 1.1: Full Depth Reclamation and Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP).

Pavements are located on material layers called the base and sub-grade. It has been
proven that the mechanical properties of the base layer greatly affect the pavement performance.
Therefore, it is important to determine stiffness, strength, and permanent deformation
characteristics of the base. By conducting cyclic triaxial testing that simulates traffic load, the
recoverable and permanent axial strain can be measured and used to estimate the performance of
the pavement structure (Fig. 1.2).

1
Permanent Recoverable
Strain Strain

Stress
Esecant

Strain

Figure 1.2: Element Response during Cyclic Triaxial Testing.

In this research, resilient modulus (MR) tests were conducted to measure recoverable
(resilient) behavior of base materials with various mixtures of RAP and aggregate. In addition,
shear strength tests were performed to measure strength of the different mixtures. Cyclic
triaxial tests were also designed and conducted to measure permanent deformation (axial strain)
of the mixtures.

1.1 Background
Although there are potential benefits in cost and improvements in engineering properties of RAP
as a base material, laboratory and field data are not extensive. Highter et al. [6] conducted MR
tests with different ratios of RAP and aggregate (crushed stone and gravel) mixtures. Standard
Proctor tests provided compaction characteristics, and the dry density of the mixtures decreased
as the percentage of RAP increased. No trend for moisture content was observed. The MR test
results showed an increase of MR with the addition of RAP to the aggregate mixtures.

Papp et al. [7] compared engineering properties of RAP and dense-graded aggregate
base course. Various ratios of RAP and aggregate mixtures were prepared. From the grain
size distribution, aggregate contained more fines than RAP mixtures. From the standard Proctor
tests, it was noticed that the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content decreased as
the percentage of RAP increased. By using a vibratory hammer, specimens were compacted to
154.2 mm diameter and 304.8 mm height, and MR and permanent deformation were measured.
The RAP blended mixtures obtained higher MR than the pure aggregate. However, the RAP
blended mixtures had higher permanent deformation from cyclic triaxial tests of 100,000 loading
cycles at 103 kPa confining pressure and 310 kPa deviator stress. It was explained that higher
RAP content specimens had higher permanent deformation from the conditioning and first 95
cycles from each sequences, and stiffened enough before MR values were measured from the last
2
five cycles, which are used to calculate MR. From the shear strength tests, aggregate had higher
friction angle and cohesion compared to the RAP mixtures.

1.2 Objectives
This report presents MR, shear strength and cyclic triaxial test results on specimens with various
blends of RAP and base aggregate. The effects of %RAP and moisture content on MR, strength,
and permanent deformation are discussed. The results will be useful in helping Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) develop specifications for the use of RAP materials as
a base course.

The resilient modulus (MR) tests were conducted on specimens with various mixtures of
RAP and aggregate. MR is similar to (a secant) Young’s modulus based on the recoverable axial
strain due to cyclic axial stress:

Δσ a
MR = (1.1)
Δε a
r

where Δσa = cyclic axial (deviator) stress and Δεar = recoverable axial strain. The MR tests were
conducted in the laboratory generally following the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) 1-28A test protocol [8]. Cyclic axial stress (Fig. 1.3), which simulates
traffic loading, was applied to a cylindrical specimen at a given confining pressure within a
conventional triaxial cell, and the recoverable axial strain was measured (Fig. 1.2).

200

150 cyclic axial

Axial Stress (kPa)

(deviator) stress
=Δσa
100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)

Figure 1.3: Example Cyclic Axial Stress.

3
Shear strength tests were also conducted on the same specimens after MR tests. For
each mixture, the maximum axial stresses at two different confining pressures were measured
(Fig. 1.4). From the principal stress data, friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c) were calculated,
and the orientation of the failure plane (θ) was noted.

12
Load (kN)

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Displacement (mm)

Figure 1.4: Mechanical Response from a Strength Test.

Although permanent deformation of pavement base is critical for pavement performance,

it has not received much attention by the researchers compared to the recoverable deformation
[9]. From previous research, the cyclic triaxial test has been tried and proved as an acceptable
test method in analyzing not only recoverable deformation but also permanent deformation [10,
11]. However, there is no standard protocol of the cyclic triaxial test to measure the mechanical
response of base materials [12]. Cyclic triaxial tests were designed and performed on
specimens from different mixtures at two different deviator stresses, and the deformation
behavior (permanent and recoverable deformation) of each mixture at two different deviator
stresses was measured.

1.3 Organization
Chapter 2 contains descriptions of the sample preparation procedure including gradation tests,
Proctor and gyratory compaction tests, and the mechanical testing procedures. Chapter 3
describes quality control / quality assurance criteria for the tests, including angle of rotation and
signal-to-noise ratio. Chapter 4 contains the test results of MR, shear strength and cyclic triaxial
tests, and data interpretation. Chapter 5 summarizes and concludes the findings of the research.

4
Chapter 2
Experimental Procedures
2.1 Sample Preparation
Reclaimed materials were obtained from County Road (CR) 3 in Wright County,
Minnesota (Fig. 2.1). An in-situ blend (the mixture of RAP and aggregate) was taken
during full-depth reclamation.

Figure 2.1: RAP, Aggregate, and In-situ Blend Produced from County Road (CR) 3.

In addition, pure RAP and pure aggregate materials from CR 3 were sampled
separately, and various blended mixtures with different ratios of RAP and aggregate base
were produced (% RAP/aggregate): 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25. RAP and aggregate
materials were poured into a splitter provided by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) Office of Materials Laboratory (Fig. 2.2) according to the
specified ratio by mass, and mixed several (4-6) times until the materials were visually
well-mixed. Finally, the five different blended mixtures from CR 3, one in-situ and four
laboratory samples, were prepared for testing.

5
Figure 2.2: Soil Splitter.

In-situ blends (the mixture of RAP and aggregate) were also sampled from Trunk
Highway (TH) 23 (Wikipedia, MN), TH 200 (Ada, MN) and TH 5 (St. Paul, MN) during
full-depth reclamation. The sample from TH 5 was provided to compare densities in the
field with those measured by standard Proctor and gyratory compaction (Tables 2.1 and
2.2).

2.1.1 Gradation Test Procedure

Sieve tests for each material were conducted according to the procedure from the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards C136-01, “Standard Test
Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate [13].” About 5 kg of
representative material of each sample were collected. Then, the representative material
of each sample was put into the coarse grained soil sieve shaker (Fig. 2.3), and masses on
each pan were measured after 10 minute shaking.

6
Figure 2.3: Sieves for Coarse Grained Soil (Left) and Fine Grained Soil (Right).

Among the material that passed all the sieves and was collected by the bottom
pan, about 600 g of representative material was selected and dried at 140ºF for about 2 hr,
and then sent to the fine grained soil sieve shaker (Fig. 2.3). The soil retained on each
sieve was measured after shaking. Based on the mass ratio, a gradation curve was
plotted and compared with the MnDOT specification bands [14].

2.1.2 Gradation Test Result

Gradation curves from the sieve analysis are shown in Figs. 2.4 and 2.5 (detail gradation
results are contained in Appendix A.1). For CR 3 material, “Blend” represents in-situ
blend material, and “number A – number R” represents percentage of aggregate and RAP.
For example, 75% aggregate and 25% RAP sample is expressed as 75A – 25R. Samples
from TH 23, TH 200 and TH 5 were all in-situ blend material.

From Fig. 2.4, it is noticed that samples with more RAP are more granular and
have less fines content, and the gradation curve for the Blend sample is close to that of
50A – 50R sample. From Fig. 2.5, it is noticed that in-situ blend materials from three
Trunk Highways have very similar gradation curves.

7
100%

90%

80%

70%
% Passing

60%

50%

40% `

30%

20%

10%
Mn/DOT Specification Bands
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm)

Class 5 Max Band Class 5 Min Band Blend 100A 75A-25R 50A-50R 25A-75R

Figure 2.4: Gradation Curves for CR 3 Materials.

8
100%

90%

80%

70%
% Passing

60%

50%

40% `

30%

20%

10%
Mn/DOT Specification Bands
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm)

Class 5 Max Band Class 5 Min Band TH 23 TH 200 TH 5

Figure 2.5: Gradation Curves for TH 23, TH 200 and TH 5 Materials.

9
2.2 Compaction Tests
The Proctor compaction test is typically performed for soils. However, compaction by
the drop of a mass has been questioned as the appropriate procedure for simulating field
compaction of granular materials, with an additional problem that excess moisture can
escape from a Proctor mold. For these reasons, gyratory compaction was investigated
for determining the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Both standard
Proctor and gyratory compaction tests were performed for the eight mixtures and the
results were compared (Table 2.1).

2.2.1 Standard Proctor Compaction Test

Standard Proctor compaction tests were performed following the procedure from the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T99,
“The Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) Rammer and a 305 mm
(12 in) Drop [15].” Also, ASTM Standard D698-00ae1, “Standard Test Method for
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Using Standard Effort” was referenced [16].
Method C was chosen from the AASHTO T99, which specifies a 101 mm mold size,
materials smaller than 19 mm, and 3 layers of 25 blows each (Fig. 2.6).

Figure 2.6: Proctor Compaction Test Hammer and Mold.

Although there were some materials larger than 19 mm, AASHTO allows the following:

“If it is necessary to maintain same percentage of coarse material (-50 mm., +4.75 mm) in
a sample as in the original field sample, +19 mm material can be replaced as follows:
mass of -50 mm, +19 mm material determined and replaced with equal mass of -19 mm,

10
+4.75 mm material. Replacement material should be taken from the remaining portion
of the sample.”
Therefore, 5.4 kg of the representative samples were prepared for each sample and those
materials larger than 19 mm were replaced by equal mass of -19 mm, +4.75 mm
materials. From the Proctor compaction tests, density at different moisture contents
were measured, and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each
different mixture were estimated. Moisture content was determined by obtaining about
500 g of material from the center of the mold and drying in an oven at 40oC for 48 hours.

2.2.2 Gyratory Compaction Tests

Gyratory compaction tests were performed with a 152 mm diameter specimen mold, and
the base rotated at a constant 30 revolutions per minute during compaction with the mold
positioned at a compaction angle of 1.25 degrees [17, 18]. A compaction pressure of
600 kPa with 50 gyrations was selected [19]. By comparing field density and moisture
content (Table 2.2), and comparing the MR of specimens compacted by 50 and 75
gyrations, 50 gyrations was recommended for the specimen compaction [19]. Therefore,
5.4 kg of the representative samples (+12.5 mm material were replaced with -12.5 mm ,
+4.75 mm material for material homogeneity) with different moisture contents were
compacted by 50 gyrations, and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
for each different mixture were calculated (detailed testing procedure is contained in
Appendix A.5). Moisture content was determined by obtaining about 200 g of material
from the center of the mold and drying in an oven at 40oC for 6 days [19]. Figure 2.7
shows the gyratory compactor and Fig. 2.8 shows a specimen after gyratory compaction.

Figure 2.7: Gyratory Compactor and Diagram.

11
Figure 2.8: Gyratory Compacted Specimen.

2.2.3 Results and Selection of Compaction Method

Eight different mixtures, including their identification letters, descriptions, maximum dry
densities and optimum moisture contents from two different compaction methods
(Proctor and gyratory), are summarized in Table 2.1. Detailed test results including
Proctor and gyratory compaction curves for the mixtures are in Appendix A, and
examples of Proctor and gyratory compaction curves for CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50%
RAP sample are shown in Fig. 2.9. For some samples (CR 3 Blend, CR 3 100%
Aggregate and CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP), duplicate tests were conducted for
Proctor to check on repeatability.

Table 2.1: Proctor and Gyratory Compaction Test Results.

Proctor Gyratory
Soil Maximum Optimum Maximum Optimum
Identification Description Dry Moisture Dry Moisture
Letter Density Content Density Content
(kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3) (%)
S In-situ Blend, CR 3 1984 9 2032 7.8
T 100% Aggregate, CR 3 2000 10 2032 8.8
U 75% Aggregate - 25% RAP, CR 3 2000 10 2032 8.7
V 50% Aggregate - 50% RAP, CR 3 1952 9.5 2032 8.0
W 25% Aggregate - 75% RAP, CR 3 1920 8.5 2032 7.2
X In-situ Blend, TH 23 2000 7 2080 5.4
Y In-situ Blend, TH 200 2096 6.5 2144 5.7
Z In-situ Blend, TH 5 1984 8.5 2112 6.6

12
Table 2.2: TH5 Sand Cone Test Values.

Dry Moisture
Sand Density Content
Cone
(kg/m3) (%)
2165 4.2
2200 3.6
4 in. 2196 3.6
2300 4.5
2124 3.1
2169 3.7
6 in. 2266 3.8
2175 3.2

2400

2300
Dry Density (kg/m3)

2200
Gyratory
ρd(Max) = 2035 kg/m3
2100 OMC = 8.0 %
Proctor
ρd(Max) = 1950 kg/m3
2000 OMC = 9.6 %

1900

1800
0 5 10 15
MC (%)

Fig 2.9: Compaction Method Comparison CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP.

Results from the gyratory compaction tests, as compared to the Proctor tests,
showed increased maximum dry densities (32 – 128 kg/m3) and reduced optimum
moisture contents (0.8 – 1.9%). The optimum moisture contents for the CR 3 materials
decreased by 0% – 1% as 25% of RAP material increased from the two compaction test.
However, the maximum dry density for the CR 3 materials decreased by 0 – 38 kg/m3 as
25% of RAP material increased from the Proctor, and remained more or less constant
regardless of the RAP content for the Gyratory compaction.

13
Compaction by a vibratory hammer following the maximum dry density from the
standard Proctor test is suggested by the MR testing protocols. However, as mentioned
previously, compaction by the drop of a mass has been questioned as the appropriate
procedure for simulating field compaction of granular materials. As shown in Tables
2.1 and 2.2, both standard Proctor and gyratory compaction tests were performed for the
TH 5 in-situ blend material, and the results were compared with the field sand cone (4 in.
and 6 in.) test values. From Fig. 2.10, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content obtained from a gyratory compaction test were closer to the field compaction
values compared to the values from a standard Proctor test. Thus, gyratory compaction
seemed to better simulate field conditions.

2400
Sand Cone_4in.
Sand Cone_6in.
2300
Dry Density (kg/m )
3

Gyratory
ρd(Max) = 2112 kg/m3
2200
OMC = 6.6 %

2100 Proctor
ρd(Max) = 1984 kg/m3
OMC = 8.5 %
2000

1900
0 5 10 15
MC (%)

Figure 2.10: Compaction Method Comparison: TH 5 Blend.

To compare the effect of the different laboratory compaction methods on MR,

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-3
Displacement (mm×10 )

Fig 2.13: Last Five Cycles: Sequence 20: CR 3 100% Aggregate.

10
Load (kN)

100% Gyratory Density

100% OMC

100% Proctor Density

100% OMC
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Displacement (mm×10-3)

Fig 2.14: Last Five Cycles: Sequence 21: CR 3 100% Aggregate.

16
800

600

100% Gyratory, 100% OMC

MR (MPa)

400

200
100% Proctor, 100% OMC

0
0 40 80 120 160
Confining Pressure (kPa)

Figure 2.15: Comparison of Resilient Modulus (MR): TH 5 Blend.

2.3 Test Equipment

The resilient modulus (MR) test system consists of all appropriate sensors and data
acquisition necessary for conducting the test, generally following the NCHRP 1-28A
protocol [20]. Figure 2.16 shows the triaxial cell used for the MR tests. The specimen
is located inside the chamber, which acts as a pressure vessel [21]. The interior of the
cell is 495 mm in height, 241 mm in diameter, and is surrounded by a plexiglass chamber
13 mm in thickness, which is large enough to contain a 152 mm diameter and 305 mm
high specimen. The base contains a port for the air supply for confinement, and it also
contains seven electrical feed throughs for LVDTs and internal load cell [20].

17
Figure 2.16: Triaxial Cell Diagram [20].

Axial load is applied by a servo-hydraulic load frame (MTS Systems, Eden

Prairie, MN), which has a 22.2 kN capacity and 102 mm stroke. The MTS system is
operated by a controlling program named TestStar (Fig. 2.17). The load cell has a 22.2
kN capacity (Fig. 2.17). The calibration chart for the load cell is included in Appendix
B.1. Load and displacement data are collected by a LabView program named “MR Data
Acquisition.” Comparison between the data acquired from the LabView program and
the data from the MTS computer is contained in Appendix B.2.

18
Figure 2.17: Load Frame, TestStar Program and Load Cell.

Since the MR is calculated from recoverable axial strain, and the recoverable
axial strain is determined from recoverable axial displacement, it is important to measure
accurately the axial displacement. In this research, three interior Linear Variable
Differential Transformers (LVDTs) were used (Fig. 2.18).

Figure 2.18: LVDT Collars with Spacers [20].

Three LVDTs are positioned at equi-angular positions around two parallel

aluminum collars, which are attached to the specimen. On the lower collar, columns are
19
mounted below the LVDTs as contacts for the spring-loaded tips of the LVDTs. This
arrangement allows the two collars to move independently of each other. Spacers
maintain a parallel distance between the collars while the apparatus is placed on the
specimen [20]. This LVDT system has a 152 mm gage length, and the three LVDTs
have a ±2.5 mm stroke range. The transducers were calibrated by measuring voltage
change per unit displacement and the results are presented in Appendix B.3.

2.4 Resilient Modulus Test Protocol

For MR testing, two protocols are commonly used: (a) Long Term Pavement Program
(LTTP) P46 by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) [22], and (b) National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 1–28A [8]. In both protocols,
repeated cycles of axial stress (Fig. 1.3) are applied to a cylindrical specimen (152 mm
diameter and 305 mm height for base material) at a given confining pressure within a
conventional triaxial cell. Each cycle is 1 s in duration, consisting of a 0.1 or 0.2 s
haversine pulse followed by a 0.9 or 0.8 s rest period for coarse- and fine-grained soils
respectively.

From NCHRP 1–28A, which was chosen as the test protocol for the load
sequences, each test specimen experience, at 103.5 kPa confining pressure, 1000 cycles
of 207 kPa deviator stress to condition the specimen before MR data collection. The
cycles are then repeated 100 times for 30 loading sequences with different combinations
of confining pressures and deviator stresses. The MR is calculated from recoverable
axial strain (Fig. 1.2) and cyclic axial stress values from the last five cycles of each
sequence. The loading sequences for base materials are shown in Table 2.3.

20
Table 2.3: Testing Sequences for Base/Sub-base Materials (NCHRP 1–28A) [8].

Confining Contact Cyclic Maximum

Sequence Pressure Stress Stress Stress Nrep
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
Conditioning 103.5 20.7 207.0 227.7 1000
1 20.7 4.1 10.4 14.5 100
2 41.4 8.3 20.7 29.0 100
3 69.0 13.8 34.5 48.3 100
4 103.5 20.7 51.8 72.5 100
5 138.0 27.6 69.0 96.6 100
6 20.7 4.1 20.7 24.8 100
7 41.4 8.3 41.4 49.7 100
8 69.0 13.8 69.0 82.8 100
9 103.5 20.7 103.5 124.2 100
10 138.0 27.6 138.0 165.6 100
11 20.7 4.1 41.4 45.5 100
12 41.4 8.3 82.8 91.1 100
13 69.0 13.8 138.0 151.8 100
14 103.5 20.7 207.0 227.7 100
15 138.0 27.6 276.0 303.6 100
16 20.7 4.1 62.1 66.2 100
17 41.4 8.3 124.2 132.5 100
18 69.0 13.8 207.0 220.8 100
19 103.5 20.7 310.5 331.2 100
20 138.0 27.6 414.0 441.6 100
21 20.7 4.1 103.5 107.6 100
22 41.4 8.3 207.0 215.3 100
23 69.0 13.8 345.0 358.8 100
24 103.5 20.7 517.5 538.2 100
25 138.0 27.6 690.0 717.6 100
26 20.7 4.1 144.9 149.0 100
27 41.4 8.3 289.8 298.1 100
28 69.0 13.8 483.0 496.8 100
29 103.5 20.7 724.5 745.2 100
30 138.0 27.6 966.0 993.6 100

In Table 2.3, contact stress is axial stress applied to a specimen to maintain a

positive contact between the specimen cap and specimen. Contact stress is set to
maintain a constant confining stress-ratio: (contact stress + confining pressure)/confining
pressure = 1.2. Cyclic stress is a repeated haversine axial stress applied to a test
specimen. Maximum stress is the sum of contact stress and cyclic stress.

The NCHRP 1-28A protocol was released in 2002 as an improvement of the

LTTP P46 protocol, released in 1996. For base course material, the primary differences
21
of the NCHRP 1-28 A protocol from the LTTP P46 protocol are a larger number of
loading sequences (30 for NCHRP 1-28 A and 15 for LTTP P46), and larger (confining
and deviator) stress ranges [20].

It is common in triaxial testing to remove all aggregate larger than 10% of the
specimen diameter (152 mm) for specimen homogeneity [20]. Therefore, all the
aggregates larger than 12.5 mm were removed before the specimen compaction (Fig.
2.19). Detail test procedure, following the procedure and requirements for NCHRP 1-28
A protocol is listed in Appendix C.

Figure 2.19: Removed Aggregates.

A total of 28 MR and shear strength tests were conducted: seven different blend
types at one density, two moisture contents and one set of replicates. Each specimen
was labeled “letter_number1_number2,” where the letter represents the sample
identification, number1 shows the moisture content, and number2 shows whether it is the
first or second test. Dry densities from gyratory compaction were chosen as the target
densities (100% maximum), and the target moisture contents were 100% and 65% of
optimum (Table 2.4). After completion of MR tests, shear strength tests were performed
at 34.5 kPa and 69 kPa confining pressures, 0.03mm/s loading rate, and the maximum
deviator stresses at two confining pressures were measured for two replicate test
specimens.

22
Table 2.4: Test Matrix.

Target Target
Specimen
Description MC Dry Density
ID
(%) (kg/m3)
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 5.1 2032
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 5.1 2032
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 7.8 2032
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 7.8 2032
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 5.7 2032
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 5.7 2032
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 8.8 2032
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 8.8 2032
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 5.7 2032
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 5.7 2032
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 8.7 2032
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 8.7 2032
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 5.2 2032
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 5.2 2032
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 8 2032
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 8 2032
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 4.7 2032
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 4.7 2032
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 7.2 2032
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 7.2 2032
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 3.5 2080
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 3.5 2080
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 5.4 2080
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 5.4 2080
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 3.7 2144
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 3.7 2144
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 5.7 2144
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 5.7 2144

2.4.1 Moisture Content

NCHRP 1-28A protocol specifies that the moisture content of the specimens should be
within ±0.5% from the target moisture content. As seen from Table 2.5, all 28
specimens had moisture contents within ±0.5% from the target. Moisture contents were
also measured after testing, and did not show much difference with the moisture contents
before testing. Details of the moisture content control procedures are contained in
Appendix C.

23
Table 2.5: Moisture Content Control.

Target MC MC
Specimen ΔMC
Description MC Before After
ID (%)
(%) (%) (%)
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 5.1 5.1 0.0
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 5.1 4.9 4.6 -0.2
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 7.8 7.4 -0.4
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 7.8 7.7 7.1 -0.1
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 5.7 6.0 0.3
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 5.7 6.2 5.8 0.5
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 8.8 9.1 0.3
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 8.8 9.1 8.3 0.3
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 5.7 6.1 0.4
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 5.7 6.0 0.3
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 8.7 8.3 -0.4
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 8.7 8.8 0.1
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 5.2 5.1 4.9 -0.1
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 5.2 5.7 5.2 0.5
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 8 8.4 7.5 0.4
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 8 8.0 7.8 0.0
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 4.7 4.5 4.3 -0.2
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 4.7 4.3 3.9 -0.4
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 7.2 7.3 6.8 0.1
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 7.2 7.7 6.3 0.5
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 3.5 3.6 3.3 0.1
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 3.5 3.6 3.6 0.1
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 5.4 5.4 5.4 0.0
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 5.4 5.6 5.3 0.2
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 3.7 4.0 3.7 0.3
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 3.7 3.9 4.0 0.2
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 5.7 5.6 5.4 -0.1
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 5.7 5.9 5.2 0.2

2.4.2 Specimen Compaction

The compaction pressure ranged from 500 – 700 kPa, and up to 150 gyrations (for the dry
of optimum specimen) were used to produce the target dry densities (Table 2.6). Two
specimens around 140 mm in height were compacted separately and then placed one on
top of the other; the surfaces in contact between the two specimens were scratched, and
the joined specimens were compacted again by a vibratory hammer to achieve a
specimen height of 280 mm. The interface between the two 140 mm specimens was not
pronounced, and no separation was noticed during any of the tests (Fig. 2.20). Although
a 305 mm height is required by the NCHRP 1-28A protocol to achieve a 2:1
24
(length:diameter) ratio, the gage length of 152 mm (as specified by the protocol) was
used to measure axial deformation so that it is anticipated that the slightly (< 10%) short
specimen had no effect on the MR. The compaction procedure is listed in Appendix C.

Figure 2.20: Specimen Compacted by Gyratory Compactor After Strength Testing.

25
Table 2.6: Specimen Compaction Control.

Actual
Specimen Gyration1 Gyration2 Height /
Description
ID (kPa-#) (kPa-#) (mm) Target
(%)
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 700-150 700-150 292 96.8
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 700-150 700-150 291 98.2
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 600-150 600-150 282 100.0
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 500-150 500-120 282 100.6
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 700-150 700-150 290 96.6
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 700-150 700-150 290 96.5
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 500-90 500-90 281 100.5
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 500-140 500-150 282 100.2
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 700-150 700-150 287 98.5
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 700-150 700-150 283 96.4
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 600-83 600-90 287 100.9
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 600-67 600-75 281 100.9
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 700-150 700-150 285 98.3
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 700-150 700-150 288 96.7
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 500-97 500-92 282 100.8
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 500-110 500-115 283 100.9
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 700-150 700-150 284 98.4
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 700-150 700-150 286 97.8
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 500-80 500-95 279 101.0
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 500-150 600-75 281 100.0
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 500-125 500-118 275 100.8
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 500-200 500-122 276 100.7
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 500-77 500-100 280 101.0
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 500-68 500-60 280 100.5
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 500-73 500-66 278 99.9
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 500-88 500-80 277 100.1
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 500-57 500-56 277 100.8
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 500-64 500-54 277 100.4

For the lower moisture content specimens, more compaction energy was required
(Table 2.6). However, for CR 3 materials, with the highest compaction pressure (700
kPa) and number of gyrations (150), it was still difficult to produce a 100% (gyratory)
dry density specimen at the lower moisture content. Therefore, for the lower moisture
content specimens from CR 3, around 98% of the target dry density was achieved instead
of 100% (Table 2.6). The lower moisture content specimens from CR 3 could not
satisfy the NCHRP 1-28A protocol for the variation (±1%) in dry density.

26
2.4.3 LVDT Displacement Range
Although the NCHRP 1-28A protocol specified the LVDT minimum stroke range
requirement as ±6.3 mm, a ±2.5 mm range was used for the tests for more accurate data
with less noise effects. LVDT ranges were always checked before the tests to make sure
that all three LVDTs were within range (Fig. 2.21). When the LVDTs were about to
reach their limit during the MR tests, the loading was stopped and the LVDTs were re-
zeroed. For the last sequence (sequence 30), the displacement was so large that the
LVDTs sometimes reached the range limit (even though the LVDTs were re-zeroed
before the sequence).

4
Stroke (mm)

3
lvdt1
lvdt2
lvdt3
2

Figure 2.21: Example of the LVDT Range Check.

2.4.4 Permanent Strain

The NCHRP 1-28A protocol requires stopping the MR test when 5% axial permanent
strain is reached [8]. Specimen heights were compared before and after the MR tests,
and the permanent strain was calculated (Table 2.7). None of the specimen reached 5%
permanent strain. From Table 2.7, it is noticed that the lower moisture content
specimens usually had smaller permanent strain.

27
Table 2.7: Permanent Strain.

Permanent
Specimen
Description Strain
ID
(%)
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 0.7
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 0.7
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 1.4
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 2.5
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 0.3
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 0.7
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 3.9
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 2.5
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 0.3
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 0.4
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 1.0
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 2.5
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 0.4
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 2.1
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 1.8
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 3.9
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 0.7
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 0.7
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 3.2
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 2.1
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 2.5
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 2.9
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 2.1
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 3.2
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 1.4
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 2.5
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 2.5
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 3.2

2.5 Cyclic Triaxial Test Procedure

The cyclic triaxial tests were conducted with 21 kPa confining pressure, 4 kPa contact
stress and 193 kPa and 286 kPa cyclic axial (deviator) stresses; 5,000 repeated cycles of
axial stress was applied to a soil specimen. Each cycle was 1 s in duration, consisting of
a 0.1 s haversine pulse followed by a 0.9 s rest period, following the MR protocol for base
materials [8]. Specimens had the same dimensions (152 mm diameter and 280 mm
height) as the specimens for the MR tests. Detail test design procedure is in Appendix C.
From the tests, displacement behavior (permanent and recoverable deformation) of each
mixture was measured.

28
A total of 14 cyclic triaxial tests were conducted: seven different mixtures of
RAP and aggregate at one density and moisture content at two different deviator stresses.
Each specimen was labeled “letter_number,” where the letter represents the sample
identification and number shows the peak stress ratio; the peak stress ratio of 35% is for a
193 kPa deviator stress and 50% is for a 286 kPa deviator stress. The target dry
densities and moisture contents were from gyratory compaction tests (100% maximum
dry densities and 100% optimum moisture contents, Table 2.8). Detailed testing
procedures are contained in Appendix C.

Table 2.8: Test Matrix.

Target
Target
Specimen Dry
Description MC
ID Density
(%)
(kg/m3)
S_50 CR 3_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 7.8 2032
S_35 CR 3_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 7.8 2032
T_50 CR 3_100%A_50% Peak Stress Ratio 8.8 2032
T_35 CR 3_100%A_35% Peak Stress Ratio 8.8 2032
U_50 CR 3_75%A-25%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 8.7 2032
U_35 CR 3_75%A-25%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 8.7 2032
V_50 CR 3_50%A-50%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 8.0 2032
V_35 CR 3_50%A-50%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 8.0 2032
W_50 CR 3_25%A-75%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 7.2 2032
W_35 CR 3_25%A-75%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 7.2 2032
X_50 TH 23_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 5.4 2080
X_35 TH 23_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 5.4 2080
Y_50 TH 200_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 5.7 2144
Y_35 TH 200_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 5.7 2144

All 14 specimens had the moisture contents within ±0.5% from the target (Table
2.9). Moisture contents were also measured after testing, and did not show much
difference with the moisture contents before testing. Specimens were compacted and
prepared same way as the specimens for the MR tests. The compaction pressure ranged
from 400 – 500 kPa, and up to 200 gyrations were used to produce the desired dry density
(Table 2.9). All 14 specimens had the dry densities within ±1% from the target (Table
2.10).

29
Table 2.9: Moisture Content Control.

Target Actual Actual MC MC

Specimen ΔMC_1 ΔMC_2
Description MC MC_1 MC_2 After_1 After_2
ID (%) (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

S_50 CR 3_Blend_50% Peak Stress 7.8 8.0 7.8 0.2 0.0 7.9 8.2
S_35 CR 3_Blend_35% Peak Stress 7.8 8.0 7.8 0.2 0.0 7.9 8.2
T_50 CR 3_100%A_50% Peak Stress 8.8 9.0 8.6 0.2 -0.2 9.0 8.5
T_35 CR 3_100%A_35% Peak Stress 8.8 9.0 8.5 0.2 -0.3 8.5 8.9
U_50 CR 3_75%A-25%R_50% Peak Stress 8.7 8.9 8.6 0.2 -0.1 8.5 8.7
U_35 CR 3_75%A-25%R_35% Peak Stress 8.7 8.9 9.0 0.2 0.3 8.6 8.7
V_50 CR 3_50%A-50%R_50% Peak Stress 8.0 8.1 8.5 0.1 0.5 8.0 7.9
V_35 CR 3_50%A-50%R_35% Peak Stress 8.0 8.1 8.5 0.1 0.5 8.0 7.9
W_50 CR 3_25%A-75%R_50% Peak Stress 7.2 7.0 7.2 -0.2 0.0 6.8 6.9
W_35 CR 3_25%A-75%R_35% Peak Stress 7.2 6.9 6.7 -0.3 -0.5 6.6 6.7
X_50 TH 23_Blend_50% Peak Stress 5.4 5.3 5.8 -0.1 0.4 5.4 5.4
X_35 TH 23_Blend_35% Peak Stress 5.4 5.3 5.8 -0.1 0.4 5.4 5.4
Y_50 TH 200_Blend_50% Peak Stress 5.7 5.9 6.2 0.2 0.5 5.3 5.2
Y_35 TH 200_Blend_35% Peak Stress 5.7 5.9 6.2 0.2 0.5 5.3 5.2

30
Table 2.10: Specimen Compaction Control.

Target Actual Actual

Specimen Gyration1 Gyration2 Height Dry Dry /
ID (kPa-#) (kPa-#) (mm) Density Density Target
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (%)
S_50 500-152 500-124 288 2032 2036 100.2
S_35 500-131 500-151 288 2032 2033 100.1
T_50 400-100 400-89 285 2032 2030 99.9
T_35 400-95 400-96 284 2032 2038 100.3
U_50 400-99 400-88 285 2032 2041 100.5
U_35 400-82 400-70 285 2032 2036 100.2
V_50 500-77 500-93 287 2032 2038 100.3
V_35 500-119 500-132 286 2032 2040 100.4
W_50 500-89 500-78 290 2032 2041 100.5
W_35 400-200 400-182 291 2032 2038 100.3
X_50 400-95 400-79 287 2080 2094 100.7
X_35 400-102 400-115 287 2080 2089 100.5
Y_50 400-93 400-93 284 2144 2144 100.0
Y_35 400-95 400-88 283 2144 2147 100.1

31
Chapter 3
Quality Control / Quality Assurance
MR data from a test should represent element response at a given density and moisture.
However, due to imperfections of the specimen and test equipment, some error occurs.
Therefore, it is important to control the quality of the data through various criteria. MR
data were checked for angle of rotation, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and coefficient of
variation (COV). MR tests for a synthetic specimen were conducted to evaluate the
testing measurement system.

3.1 Rotation
An element test assumes that the material deforms in a uniform manner. A specimen
that is originally cylindrical in shape remains a cylinder during testing. Ideally, the
kinematic boundary condition imposed by a rigid platen means that the loading platen
should not rotate but remain normal to the longitudinal axis of the specimen. However,
some rotation is typically allowed and when multiple displacement measurements are
compared, non-uniformity between readings is inevitable. In this chapter, the degree of
non-uniformity due to rotation is quantified, and the relation between the degree of non-
uniformity and the specimen deformation is discussed to evaluate the influence of
rotation on the measured displacements (Fig. 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Axial Force and Bending Moment Imposed by Rigid Platens That Rotate.

32
3.1.1 Non-uniformity of Displacement
MR test data typically display non-uniform displacement histories between three LVDT
readings during the loading sequences (Fig. 3.2). Because the MR value is calculated
from the axial displacement of a specimen during cyclic loading, it is critical to have
reliable displacement values from at least three LVDTs (two LVDTs are not sufficient to
evaluate the non-uniformity).
70
LVDT1
60
LVDT2
Displacement (mm×10 )
-3

50 LVDT3

-10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Time (s)
Figure 3.2: Example Three LVDT Displacement Time Histories.

Consider the boundary condition imposed by a rigid platen that can rotate (Fig.
3.1). The distribution of normal stress varies and the resultant is composed of an axial
force and a bending moment. Thus, the total displacement can be decomposed into

δ(i) =δ(i)F+δ(i)M (3.1)

where
δ(i) = total displacement of LVDT ‘i’
δ(i)F = displacement of LVDT ‘i’due to the axial force
δ(i)M = displacement of LVDT ‘i’due to the bending moment

Displacement due to the axial force (δF) will be the same for the three LVDTs.
However, displacement due to the bending moment (δM) will depend on the angle of
rotation of the platen (θ) and the position of the LVDT relative to the axis of rotation
(Fig. 3.3). To describe the rotated plane, consider three LVDTs positioned at equi-
angular positions, 120° apart. Because the axis of rotation is assumed to go through the
center of the specimen, displacement of each LVDT due to the bending moment will be
decided by the position of the LVDT in relation to the axis of rotation. If an LVDT is on

33
the axis of rotation, displacement due to bending moment is zero, and total displacement
will be the same as axial displacement. If an LVDT is located on a line perpendicular to
the axis of rotation, displacement due to the bending moment will be either maximum
δmax or minimum δmin (Fig. 3.3).

Figure 3.3: Geometry of Specimen and LVDTs with Respect to the Axis of Rotation.

For a cylindrical specimen of radius R, define angles α, β, and χ as the angles

between a line from the center of the specimen to each LVDT and the axis of rotation
such that the location of δmin is between LVDT1 and LVDT2. Therefore, the
displacements of the three LVDTs are
δ1 = δF – R sin(α) sin(θ) (3.2)
δ2 = δF – R sin(β) sin(θ)
δ3 = δF + R sin(χ) sin(θ)
and the sum is

δ1 + δ2 + δ3 = 3δF – R sin(θ) (sin(α)+sin(β)-sin(χ)) (3.3)

For equi-angular placement of the three LVDTs, the last term in equation (3.3) becomes

sin(α) + sin(β) – sin(χ) = sin(α) + sin(60°-α) - sin(120°-α) = 0 (3.4)

From equations (3.3) and (3.4),

δF= (δ1 + δ2 + δ3)/3 = δaverage (3.5)

34
Consequently, the displacement due to axial force, even if rotation occurs, is simply the
mean of the displacement values from the three LVDTs. This means that the angle of
rotation does not affect the value of the axial displacement for stiffness calculations.
This does not mean that the angle of rotation should not be limited, as the assumption of
uniform deformation may be violated as rotation increases. In addition, the angle of
rotation can be used a s a quality assurance parameter.

3.1.2 Angle of Rotation

To estimate the angle of rotation, note that θ is the angle between the normal vectors of
the plane before loading (the horizontal plane) and the rotated plane, defined by the
(minimum) three LVDT displacement values. Recalling that a plane is described by
Ax + By + Cz + D = 0 (3.6)

the angle between the normals of the two planes is [23]

A1 A2 + B1 B2 + C1C 2
cos θ = (3.7)
A12 + B12 + C12 A22 + B22 + C 22

In addition, a plane passing through three points Pi (xi, yi, zi), Pj (xj, yj, zj), Pk (xk, yk, zk) is
determined by
yi zi 1 zi xi 1 xi yi 1 xi yi zi
yj zj 1x + z j xj 1y + xj yj 1z = xj yj zj (3.8)
yk zk 1 zk xk 1 xk yk 1 xk yk zk

The plane before loading is the horizontal plane:

z=0 (3.9)

The plane at a particular load is defined by the three LVDT readings:

LVDT1 = (R,0, δ 1 ) (3.10)

⎛ R R 3 ⎞
LVDT2 = ⎜⎜ − , , δ 2 ⎟⎟ (3.11)
⎝ 2 2 ⎠
⎛ R R 3 ⎞
LVDT3 = ⎜⎜ − ,− , δ 3 ⎟⎟ (3.12)
⎝ 2 2 ⎠

35
Thus, the equation of the rotated plane at a particular load is
⎛δ δ ⎞ 3 3 3 2 3 2
3R⎜ 2 + 3 − δ 1 ⎟ x + R(δ 3 − δ 2 ) y + R z− R (δ 1 + δ 2 + δ 3 ) = 0 (3.13)
⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 2 2 2

Substituting equations (3.9) and (3.13) into equation (3.7), the angle of rotation θ is
3
R
cos θ = 2 (3.14)
9
δ + δ + δ − δ 1δ 2 − δ 1δ 3 − δ 2δ 3 + R 2
1
2 2
2
2
3
4

The axis of rotation is the line of intersection of the rotated plane with the horizontal
plane, with
δ1 + δ 2 + δ 3
z= (3.15)
3

The equation for the intersection of two planes in the xy plane is [23]
C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2
x+ y+ =0 (3.16)
A1 A2 B1 B2 D1 D2

Substituting equations (3.13) and (3.15) into equation (3.16) results in the equation for
the axis of rotation:
⎛δ δ ⎞ 3
3R⎜ 2 + 3 − δ 1 ⎟ x + R(δ 3 − δ 2 ) y = 0 (3.17)
⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 2

In summary, from three sensors placed equi-angular to measure axial displacement, the
angle of rotation and the position of the axis of rotation can be calculated.

3.1.3 Uniformity Ratio

In NCHRP 1-28A, the uniformity ratio, γ, is given as

δ'
γ = max (3.18)
δ 'min

where δ'max, min are the maximum and minimum displacements measured by two LVDTs;
γ ≤ 1.1 defines an acceptable test [8]. However, when rotation occurs during the load
application, γ values will vary depending on where the LVDTs are located with reference
36
to the axis of rotation. Even if rotation is substantial, γ = 1 can be obtained if two
LVDTs are located on the axis of rotation. Thus, γ does not provide an objective
measure of uniformity.

The maximum uniformity ratio γmax can be introduced based on the maximum and
minimum displacements calculated from three LVDTS:

δ max δ avg + R sin θ

γ max = = (3.19)
δ min δ avg − R sin θ

This provides some improvement, as a test result may show that γ is within some
acceptable limit, but the same test result may not satisfy the condition if γmax is estimated.
What is still needed, however, is an evaluation of the strain state at various values of γmax
to establish a limit for γmax where displacement measurements can still provide a
reasonable estimate of material response.

Obviously, γmax depends on both the uniform and non-uniform components of

displacement, and for a constant value of rotation, γmax will vary with the amount of
uniform deformation, as measured by the average displacement or the recoverable axial
strain Δεa. As shown in Fig. 5, the same value of rotation could result in different values
of γmax depending on the stiffness of the specimen and the applied stress, both of which
influence Δεa. In evaluating test results, it is recognized that some minimal amount of
rotation cannot be eliminated, so it may be more reasonable to set a limit on θ together
with γmax. For example, given a gage length = 100 mm and rotation = 0.04°, γmax = 1.36
when Δεa = 0.2% and γmax = 1.17 when Δεa = 0.4%. To produce γmax = 1.17 when Δεa =
0.2%, the rotation would need to be reduced to 0.02°. This improved performance of the
testing system may not result in a change in measured response, although further research
is needed to evaluate an acceptable level of γmax.

37
2.00
0.025% 0.05%
Δεa=0.1%

1.75

γmax
1.50
0.2%

1.25 0.4%

1.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Angle of Rotation θ (°)
Figure 3.4: Influence of Rotation on the Uniformity Ratio γmax at Various Levels of
Axial Strain Δεa (Gage Length = 100 mm).

Angle of rotation , which is defined in equation (3.14), of the last five cycles of
the 30 sequences of all specimens were analyzed, and those cycles that failed to pass the
maximum limit of 0.04°, set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation were
withdrawn.

3.2 Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR)

Because specimen stiffness and applied deviator stress may require the LVDTs to
measure very small amount of displacement, noise acting during a MR test can seriously
affect the results. Therefore, a coefficient called the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which
compares the peak displacement to the standard deviation (SDev) of the noise, was
introduced [24]:

Peak
SNR = (3.20)
3 × SDev( Baseline)

SNR value of 3 was chosen for the minimum limit for each three LVDTs at each cycle by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Figs. 3.5-3.6). Also, SNR value of 10 was
used for each loading cycle. All cycles that failed to pass the limits were withdrawn.

38
6
Peak Displacement
5

Displacement (mm×10 )
4

-3
3

0 Noise

-1

-2
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec)

Figure 3.5: Example Displacement History: SNR=3.

140

120
Displacement (mm×10 )

100
-3

-20
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec)

Figure 3.6: Example Displacement History: SNR=30.

Standard deviation is defined as

∑ (Y (n) − μ ) 2

SDev = 0
(3.21)
N −1

where μ = mean of the baseline, Y(n) = value at point n, and N = total data points.
39
Root mean square (RMS) is defined as
N

∫Y
2
(n)dn
RMS = 0
(3.22)
N

When N is very large, root mean square will be close to

∑Y 2
( n)
RMS = 0
(3.23)
N

Therefore, root mean square can be used for SNR instead of standard deviation only
when N is very large and μ = 0.

3.3 Coefficient of Variation (COV)

For a specimen at a given sequence, MR values for the last five cycles should be similar.
However, there will be some variation in MR between the cycles and it is important to
control the maximum amount for each sequence. Therefore, the coefficient of variation
(COV), defined as

SDev
COV (%) = (3.24)
Average

must be less than 10%. The MR values from last five cycles were analyzed by this
criterion. Those sequences that failed to pass the maximum COV limit (10%) were
withdrawn.

3.4 LVDT Range

As mentioned previously, LVDT ranges were checked before the tests to make sure that
all three LVDTs were within the stroke range. Also, when the LVDTs were about to
reach their limit during a test, the loading was stopped and the LVDTs were re-zeroed.
However, for some sequences (usually sequence 30), the displacement was so large that
the LVDTs sometimes reached the limit even though it was re-zeroed and checked before
the sequence. If at least one of the LVDTs reached its range limit, those cycles were
withdrawn.

40
3.5 Synthetic Specimen Testing
Resilient modulus testing was conducted with a neoprene spring rubber specimen, 102
mm diameter × 152 mm height. The loading surfaces of the specimen were machined
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis within ±0.01°. The displacements were measured
with three LVDTs with 102 mm gage lengths (Fig. 3.7). A total of six tests were
performed, with four of the tests conducted at MnDOT Office of Materials Laboratory.
Among the two tests from the UM, one was performed with the specimen ends lubricated
by using two teflon sheets. The NCHRP 1-28A testing protocol was used. In addition,
one bender element test was performed on the specimen. The results are shown in Fig.
3.8.

The Young’s modulus of the synthetic specimen, determined from wave speeds
obtained through bender element testing, was 94 MPa (Table 3.1), and this value is
associated with very small strain. In addition, with lubricated ends (two teflon sheets),
the value of Young’s modulus was 1-10% higher than the value without lubricated ends.
The results from MnDOT and UM compared very well.

Figure 3.7: Synthetic Specimen

41
125
MnDOT 1
MnDOT 2
100 MnDOT 3
MnDOT 4
UM with Teflon
75
MR (MPa)

UM without Teflon
UM Bender
50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure 3.8: Modulus Data of Synthetic Specimen.

Table 3.1: Bender Element Test Result for Synthetic Specimen.

cP p-wave speed 250 m/s

cS s-wave speed 39 m/s
v Poisson's ratio 0.49
G Shear Modulus 32 MPa
E Young's Modulus 94 MPa

For the same deviator stress, Esecant difference due to confining pressure change
was small (within 2%). However, for the same confining pressure, Esecant decreased
significantly as deviator stress increased (Fig. 3.8). Fig. 3.9 shows the stress-strain
response of the rubber specimen (with teflon sheets) at one confining pressure and four
deviator stresses. As the deviator stress increased, the synthetic specimen showed a
decrease in secant modulus.

42
100 100

75 75
Stress (kPa)

Stress (kPa)
50 50

25 25
Δ σa = 25 kPa Δσa = 45 kPa
0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
-3 -3
Strain (×10 ) Strain (×10 )

100 100

75 75
Stress (kPa)

Stress (kPa)
50 50

25 25
Δσa = 65 kPa Δσa = 90 kPa
0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
-3 -3
Strain (×10 ) Strain (×10 )

Figure 3.9: Stress-Strain Behavior of Synthetic Specimen: σ3 = 13.8 kPa.

43
Chapter 4
Discussion of Results

4.1 Resilient Modulus (MR) Data

The load and displacement data recorded by MR data collection were stored in 30 separate
files. Each of these data files consisted of the load, stroke, and three LVDT
displacement values recorded during the test. A spreadsheet was used to convert these
data files into resilient modulus values. The algorithm searched for local maxima in the
load and three displacement data sets; these peak values correspond to the peak load and
displacement pulses observed during the haversine load pulse. The baseline load and
displacement values during the material recovery periods of each cycle were calculated
by averaging the data over the final 0.75 seconds of each one second cycle.

MR tests were conducted on seven different blend types at one density, two
moisture contents and one set of replicates. As seen from Table 4.1, replicate tests
usually showed very similar MR values (within 20% difference) for each sequence.
Therefore, MR values for each sequence from replicate tests were averaged for the
discussion of the result. Tables of MR values for each sequence from all 28 specimens
are contained in Appendix D.1.

Figures 4.1 – 4.2 show MR versus deviator stress at different confining pressures
for CR 3 materials. MR versus deviator stress from all 28 soil specimens are contained
in Appendix D.2. Generally, as deviator stress increased, MR decreased. However, for
higher moisture content specimens at lower confining pressures (21 and 41 kPa), MR
values increasing as deviator stress increased were also noticed (Fig. 4.2). Because the
deviator stress effect on MR change was less pronounced compared to the confining
pressure effect, relations between MR with confining pressure are plotted without
considering deviator stress in Figs. 4.3 – 4.12. Examples that show the combined
influence of confining pressure and deviator stress are shown in Figs. 4.13 and 4.14.

44
Table 4.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7, 98% Gyratory = 1981 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.7%).

Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR

kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa
1 21 10.2 242 1 21 10.2 230
2 41 19.7 292 2 41 19.6 292
3 69 32.5 347 3 69 33.7 348
4 103 51.1 418 4 103 50.6 421
5 138 68.2 501 5 138 67.5 507
6 21 20.5 236 6 21 19.8 215
7 41 40.7 278 7 41 40.1 255
8 69 67.9 329 8 69 67.4 311
9 103 101.9 396 9 103 101.5 386
10 138 136.3 468 10 138 135.5 468
11 21 40.6 214 11 21 40.6 195
12 41 81.7 256 12 41 81.2 237
13 69 136.3 314 13 69 135.7 302
14 103 204.9 394 14 103 203.5 386
15 138 272.8 457 15 138 270.3 453
16 21 61.4 203 16 21 60.9 181
17 41 122.9 251 17 41 121.8 231
18 69 204.8 317 18 69 200.8 306
19 103 306.9 388 19 103 303.2 384
20 138 409.1 442 20 138 405.2 440
21 21 99.4 196 21 21 99.6 175
22 41 203.7 249 22 41 202.6 236
23 69 342.3 322 23 69 339.6 317
24 103 511.9 386 24 103 507.6 378
25 138 679.1 444 25 138 676.6 433
26 21 143.4 190 26 21 141.9 172
27 41 287.0 246 27 41 284.8 233
28 69 477.0 325 28 69 473.1 316
29 103 711.2 395 29 103 707.4 389
30 138 946.1 435 30 138 940.5 434

45
800

600
MR (MPa)

σ3 = 138 kPa
400
103 kPa
69 kPa
200
41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure 4.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%).

800

600
MR (MPa)

400 σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
69 kPa
200 41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure 4.2: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%).

51
800

600
25A-75R

Blend
MR (MPa)

400 50A-50R
75A-25R
100A

S_7.8: CR 3 Blend
200 T_8.8: CR 3 100A
U_8.7: CR 3 75A-25R
V_8: CR 3 50A-50R
W_7.2: CR 3 25A-75R
0
0 40 80 120 160
Confining Pressure (kPa)
Figure 4.11: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 100% Gyratory and 100% OMC.

4.1.1 Resilient Modulus (MR) Data Interpretation

The MR of granular material depends on the state of stress during loading. Therefore,
several models have been proposed to describe the stress dependency of MR [25]. Some
researchers [26-27] have noted that the MR increases with an increase in confining
pressure:
k2
⎛σ ⎞
M R = k1 ⋅ ⎜ 3 ⎟ (4.1)
⎝ Pa ⎠
where k1, k2 = regression coefficients
Pa = atmospheric pressure (0.101 MPa)
σ3 = confining pressure

Others [28-29] have suggested that MR should be given as a function of bulk stress:
k2
⎛θ ⎞
M R = k1 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (4.2)
⎝ Pa ⎠
where k1, k2 = regression coefficients
Pa = atmospheric pressure (0.101 MPa)
θ = bulk stress = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = σ1 + 2σ3
52
Including deviator stress into equation (4.2) was suggested by [30]:

k k3
⎛ θ ⎞ 2 ⎛τ ⎞
M R = k1 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ oct + 1⎟ (4.3)
⎝ Pa ⎠ ⎝ Pa ⎠

where k1, k2, k3 = regression coefficients

Pa = atmospheric pressure (0.101 MPa)
θ = bulk stress = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = σ1 + 2σ3
τoct = octahedral shear stress = (20.5/3)×deviator stress

Figures 4.12 – 4.14 show the curve fit plots by equations (4.1) – (4.3) for the
same material. As seen from Fig 4.13, the data did not fit well with equation (4.2).
Although test data fit well with equation (4.3), both bulk and octahedral shear stresses
contain deviator stress, which has less of an effect on MR compared to the confining
pressure (Fig 4.14). However, as seen from Fig 4.12, test data fit well with equation
(4.1) assuming k2 = 0.50, and MR could be expressed as a function of confinement only.

800

600
MR (MPa)

400

200

0
0 40 80 120 160
Confining Pressure (kPa)

Figure 4.12: Example Curve Fit of CR 3 100% Aggregate by (4.1) (R2 = 0.97)
(T_8.8, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%).

53
500

400

MR (MPa) 300

200

100 0.4736
y = 4.9045x
2
R = 0.7462
0
0 5000 10000 15000
θ/pa

Figure 4.13: Example Curve Fit of CR 3 100% Aggregate by (4.2) (R2 = 0.75)
(T_8.8, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%).

Figure 4.14: Example Curve Fit of CR 3 100% Aggregate by (4.3) (R2 = 0.95)
(T_8.8, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%).

54
As seen from Figs 4.3 – 4.11, MR increased as confining pressure increased. For
simplicity, a square-root dependency between confining pressure (mean stress before
application of the deviator stress) and MR was assumed:

0.5
MR ⎛σ ⎞
= k ⋅ ⎜ mean ⎟ (4.4)
Pa ⎝ Pa ⎠

where σmean = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 = confining pressure

Pa = atmospheric pressure (0.101 MPa)
k = regression coefficient

From the Herzian contact theory of spheres subjected to normal load, it can be
shown that the tangent modulus depends on the cube root of stress [31]. However, a
square-root dependence fits the data better (Fig. 4.15).

800

600
MR (MPa)

400

200 Square Root

Cube Root

0
0 40 80 120 160
Confining Pressure (kPa)

Figure 4.15: Example Curve Fit Comparison of CR 3, 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%).

Coefficient k and R2 values from equation (4.4), or equation (4.1) with k2 = 0.50,
for the seven different mixtures at two different moisture contents are shown in Table 4.2.
The MR test results strongly correlate with the model (R2 values > 0.9). Lower moisture
content specimens have 10 – 50% higher k1 values for the seven different mixtures,
indicating more confining pressure dependency. For CR 3 samples, as % RAP increased,
the value of k1 increased indicating more confining pressure dependency. The k1, k2, k3
model represented by equation (4.3) was also used to fit the data (Table 4.2).

55
Table 4.2: Coefficients k and R2.

Spec ID Description Equation (4.1) Equation (4.3)

k1 k2 R2 k1 k2 k3 R2
S_5.1 CR 3_Blend_65 4764 0.50 0.97 269 0.74 -0.91 0.84
S_7.8 CR 3_Blend_100 3903 0.50 0.97 153 0.94 -0.83 0.94
T_5.7 CR 3_100%A_65 3895 0.50 0.98 199 0.69 -0.64 0.87
T_8.8 CR 3_100%A_100 3112 0.50 0.97 117 0.98 -0.87 0.96
U_5.7 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65 4697 0.50 0.99 239 0.80 -0.90 0.91
U_8.7 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100 3122 0.50 0.95 113 1.02 -0.89 0.98
V_5.2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65 4657 0.50 1.00 211 0.83 -0.79 0.94
V_8 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100 3481 0.50 0.91 110 1.16 -1.03 0.99
W_4.7 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65 6009 0.50 0.99 268 0.92 -0.97 0.95
W_7.2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100 4515 0.50 0.97 172 1.00 -0.93 0.98
X_3.5 TH 23_Blend_65 4334 0.50 0.99 180 0.86 -0.75 0.97
X_5.4 TH 23_Blend_100 3934 0.50 0.98 153 0.91 -0.76 0.97
Y_3.7 TH 200_Blend_65 4739 0.50 0.97 177 0.95 -0.79 0.98
Y_5.7 TH 200_Blend_100 3804 0.50 0.92 121 1.12 -0.94 0.99

4.1.2 Quality Control / Quality Assurance

The MR data were analyzed by LVDT range, angle of rotation, signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) and coefficient of variation (COV), and those that failed to pass the limit were
withdrawn. The % passing rate of each specimens for each criterion of all 28 specimens
are in Table 4.3, and summary of % passing rate for each criterion and total % passing
rate are in Table 4.4. A total of 95.2% of the test data passed all the criteria. Those
sequences that failed to pass the LVDT range and rotation limits were usually higher
loading sequences (sequences 29 and 30), and those sequences that failed to pass the
SNR limit were usually lower loading sequences (sequences 1 and 2). Appendix D.9
contains the detailed QC / QA evaluation of the particular MR sequences that did not pass
the criteria; all sequences of all tests passed the SNR for load.

56
Table 4.3: Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Resilient Modulus (MR) Data.

% Passing
Specimen SNR
Description LVDT Rotation SNR COV
ID F
range <0.04° >3 <10%
>10
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 100 97 97 100 100
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 100 100 93 100 100
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 90 100 100 100 100
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 100 97 98 100 100
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 100 100 97 100 100
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 100 100 98 100 100
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 97 100 100 100 100
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 100 93 93 100 100
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 100 100 98 100 100
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 100 93 87 100 100
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 97 100 100 100 100
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 97 100 100 100 100
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 100 100 100 100 100
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 100 100 100 100 100
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 97 100 100 100 100
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 97 97 100 100 100
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 100 100 97 100 100
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 100 100 100 100 100
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 100 100 100 100 100
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 100 100 93 100 100
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 93 100 97 100 100
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 97 100 100 100 100
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 100 100 100 100 100
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 100 93 99 100 100
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 97 100 100 100 100
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 100 95 100 100 100
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 97 100 100 100 100
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 97 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4: Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Resilient Modulus (MR) Data: Total

% Passing

LVDT Rotation SNR SNR F COV

Total
Range <0.04° >3 >10 <10%

98.3 98.7 98.1 100 100 95.2

57
4.2 Shear Strength Test Result
After completion of MR tests, shear strength tests were performed at 34.5 kPa and 69 kPa
confining pressures at 0.03mm/s loading rate. The maximum deviator stresses at two
confining pressures were measured for two test specimens. From the principal stress
data, friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c) can be calculated:

σ 1 f = 2c K p + K pσ 3 (4.5)
1 + sin φ
Kp = (4.6)
1 − sin φ
where σ3 = confining pressure
σ1f = confining pressure + deviator stress

Also, the relation between the orientation of the failure plane (θ) and friction angle (φ)
can be used to estimate φ :

φ
θ = 45 + (4.7)
2

Table 4.5 shows the deviator stresses at two confining pressures (34.5 kPa and 69
kPa), and the values of friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c). Friction angles range from
32˚ – 50˚ where the range is close to the typical range for gravel with some sand (34˚–
48˚) [21]. It appears that friction angles at 65% optimal moisture content were higher
than friction angles at 100% optimal moisture content except sample X, and the friction
angles of CR 3 materials with RAP were higher than the friction angles of CR 3 materials
of 100% aggregate for both 100% and 65% OMC specimens except for sample S. The
orientation of the failure planes (θ) ranged from 58˚– 72˚ by actual measurement and
from 61˚– 70˚ by calculation (Appendix D.5).

58
Table 4.5: Shear Strength Test Result.

Specimen Confining Deviator φ c

Description Pressure Stress
ID (°) (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa)
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 69 906 32 207
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 34 793
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 34 719
32 157
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 69 830
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 69 917
46 115
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 34 707
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 69 858
39 152
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 34 710
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 69 1026
49 110
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 34 775
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 69 820
47 85
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 34 593
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 69 934
50 85
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 34 667
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 69 834
45 104
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 34 633
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 69 1005
48 113
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 34 766
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 69 868
44 120
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 34 680
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 69 750
39 125
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 34 600
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 69 758
48 72
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 34 529
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 69 809
45 96
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 34 604
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 69 778
42 110
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 34 602

If it is assumed that the CR 3 specimens have a distinct friction angle dependent

on density only, then the effect of moisture and RAP content can be estimated through
the cohesion parameter. Thus, the values of cohesion were estimated assuming the
constant friction angle of 45˚ (Table 4.6). Lower moisture content specimens had 5 –
50% higher values of cohesion than higher moisture content specimens.

59
Table 4.6: Estimated Cohesion (c) Assuming φ = 45˚.

Specimen Confining Deviator c

Description Pressure Stress (kPa)
ID
(kPa) (kPa)
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 69 917 106
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 34 707
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 69 858
100
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 34 710
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 69 1026
124
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 34 775
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 69 820
84
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 34 593
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 69 934
103
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 34 667
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 69 834
89
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 34 633
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 69 1005
121
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 34 766
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 69 868
98
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 34 680

4.3 Cyclic Triaxial Test Result

A total of 14 cyclic triaxial tests were conducted: seven different mixtures of RAP and
aggregate at one density and moisture content at two different peak-stress ratios. A
three dimensional pavement stress analysis, performed using layered linear elastic theory
contained in Bitumen Stress Analysis in Roads (BISAR) software, showed that the cyclic
triaxial stress state at 35% peak stress corresponded to a similar stress state for the
following three layer system: 152 mm asphalt pavement (E = 552 MPa) on top, 152 mm
base (E = 276 MPa) in the middle, and soil layer (E = 28 MPa) on the bottom; traffic load
was assumed to be 758 kPa uniform stress on a 152 mm diameter area. Stresses were
estimated at three points, top, middle and bottom of the base layer; all three points were
below the center of the traffic load. The result is shown in Table 4.7. The stresses near
the top of the base layer were close to the stresses of the 35% peak stress ratio (σ1 = 203
kPa and σ3 = 21 kPa).

60
Table 4.7: BISAR Pavement (3D) Stress Analysis.

σ1 (kPa) σ3 (kPa)
Top 203 21
Middle 87 46
Bottom 40 101

The stress-strain behavior of CR 3 mixtures at selected cycles are shown in Figs.

4.16 – 4.17. Notice that the material stiffened as the number of cycles increased; this
was probably a result of the specimen compacting during loading, as indicated by the
permanent deformation. Energy loss and permanent deformation decreased with
continued loading.

250

Cycle 500 Cycle 100

200 Cycle 5 Cycle 1
Cycle 5000
Stress (kPa)

150

100

0
0 1 2 3 4
-3
Strain (×10 )

Figure 4.16: Stress-Strain Behavior by Cycle

(CR 3 100% Aggregate at 35% Peak Stress).

61
250

Cycle 500
Cycle 100 Cycle 5 Cycle 1
200
Cycle 5000
Stress (kPa)
150

100

0
0 1 2 3 4
-3
Strain (×10 )

Figure 4.17: Stress-Strain Behavior by Cycle

(CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP at 35% Peak Stress).

Figures 4.18 – 4.19 show the cumulative permanent strain (εp) versus cycle
number for CR 3 specimens at 50% and 35% peak stress ratios respectively. The
cumulative permanent strain (εp) leveled off as cycles of loading increased. It is noted
that the specimens containing RAP experienced higher cumulative permanent strain (εp)
than the 100% aggregate specimens at both peak stress ratios. In addition, the
specimens with more RAP usually had more cumulative permanent strain (εp). For
example, the 100% aggregate specimen experienced εp = 0.29% while the 25% aggregate
– 75% RAP specimen had εp = 1.21% at the peak stress ratio of 35%. From Figs 4.18 –
4.19, the cumulative permanent strains at the 50% peak stress ratio were approximately
twice higher than cumulative permanent strains at the 35% peak stress ratio for the five
different mixtures (also see Appendix D.6).

Figures 4.20 – 4.21 show the incremental permanent strain (Δεp) for the first five
cycles. For the specimens containing RAP, the first cycle of loading resulted in a
significant amount of permanent deformation (approximately 10% of cumulative
permanent strain (εp)).

62
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5 25A-75R
50A-50R
εp (%)

2.0
75A-25R
1.5

1.0

0.5 100A

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.18: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Peak Stress.

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
εp (%)

2.0

1.5 50A-50R

1.0 25A-75R

75A-25R
0.5
100A
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.19: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Peak Stress.

63
0.20

0.15 25A-75R
Δεp (%)

50A-50R
0.10
75A-25R

0.05

100A
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Cycle

Figure 4.20: Incremental Permanent Strain (Δεp) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Peak Stress:
First Five Cycles.

0.20

0.15
Δεp (%)

25A-75R
0.10

50A-50R
75A-25R

0.05

100A

0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Cycle

Figure 4.21: Incremental Permanent Strain (Δεp) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Peak Stress:
First Five Cycles.

64
Figures 4.22 – 4.23 show the cumulative permanent strain (εp) versus cycle of in-
situ blend specimens from CR 3, TH 23 and TH 200 at 50% and 35% peak stress ratios.
TH 200 specimens experienced the highest cumulative permanent strain, and CR 3 and
TH 23 specimens had similar cumulative permanent deformation at both peak stress
ratios. The increase of cumulative permanent strain from 35% peak stress to 50% peak
stress is also noticed (also see Appendix D.6).

4.0

TH200
3.5

3.0

2.5
εp (%)

2.0 TH23

1.5 CR3

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.22: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of Blend Materials at 50% Peak Stress.

65
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
εp (%)

2.0 TH200

1.5

1.0
CR3
TH23
0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.23: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εp) of Blend Materials at 35% Peak Stress.

Figures 4.24 – 4.25 illustrate the change in the secant Young’s modulus (Esecant)
with loading at 50% and 35% peak stresses, where Esecant is defined as (Fig. 1.2)

Δσ a
Esec ant = (4.8)
Δε r a

Δσa = cyclic axial (deviator) stress and Δεra = recoverable axial strain. From both
figures, it is noticed that the 25% aggregate – 75% RAP specimens had the highest Esecant
values (185 – 200 MPa) at both peak stress ratios. The 100% aggregate specimens were
very close or slightly stiffer (155 – 175 MPa) than 50% aggregate – 50% RAP and 75%
aggregate – 25% RAP specimens at both peak stress ratios.

Young’s modulus (Esecant) increased as cycle number increased, and leveled off
gradually, probably because permanent strain leveled off. Young’s modulus (Esecant) at
the 50% peak stress ratio was higher than that at the 35% peak stress ratio, as the
increased deviator stress induced more permanent deformation and thus more compaction
(also see Appendix D.7).

66
220

200

25A-75R
180
100A
Esecant (MPa)

50A-50R
160 75A-25R

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.24: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Peak Stress.

220

200 25A-75R

180
Esecant (MPa)

100A
160
50A-50R
75A-25R
140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.25: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Peak Stress.

Figures 4.26 – 4.27 show Young’s modulus (Esecant) for the first five cycles.
The order of Esecant for the first five cycles did not follow the same order when
considering 5000 cycles. The 100% aggregate specimen was the stiffest for the first five
67
cycles whereas the 25% aggregate – 75% RAP specimen was the stiffest at the end of
5000 cycles. The RAP specimens experienced more permanent deformation than the
100% aggregate specimens due to more compaction (permanent deformation) through
cycles.

150

140
100A

25A-75R
Esecant (MPa)

130
50A-50R

120 75A-25R

110

100
1 2 3 4 5
Cycle

Figure 4.26: Young’s Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 50% Stress Ratio: First Five Cycles.

150

140

100A
Esecant (MPa)

130

25A-75R
120

75A-25R
110

50A-50R
100
1 2 3 4 5
Cycle

Figure 4.27: Young’s Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 35% Stress Ratio: First Five Cycles.
68
Figures 4.28 – 4.29 show the Young’s modulus (Esecant) versus cycle of in-situ
blend materials at 50% and 35% peak stress ratios. From both figures, it is noticed that
the TH 23 specimens had the highest Young’s modulus (Esecant) values at both peak stress
ratios. The Young’s modulus (Esecant) increased as cycle increased, and leveled off
gradually, probably because permanent strain leveled off. Opposite to the result from
CR 3 materials, the Young’s modulus (Esecant) at the 35% peak stress ratio was higher
than that at the 50% peak stress ratio for TH 23 and TH 200 specimens (also see
Appendix D.7).

220

200
TH 23

180
Esecant (MPa)

CR 3
160
TH 200

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.28: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of Blend Materials at 50% Peak Stress.

69
220

TH 23
200

180
TH 200
Esecant (MPa)

160
CR 3

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.29: Young’s Modulus (Esecant) of Blend Materials at 35% Peak Stress.

4.3.1 Test Data Interpretation

Several researchers [32-34] suggested a linear relation between the cumulative permanent
strain (εp) and the logarithm of the number of load cycles:

ε p = a + b(log N ) (4.9)
where εp = cumulative permanent strain, N = number of loading cycles, and a, b =
regression coefficients.

As seen from Figs. 4.30 – 4.31, the relation is close to linear. Therefore, (4.10)
is modified from (4.9), and coefficient a and R2 of the trend lines of 14 specimens were
calculated and presented in Table 4.8.

ε p = ε p (1) + a(log N ) (4.10)

where εp = cumulative permanent strain, εp(1) = permanent strain at the first cycle, N =
number of loading cycles, and a = regression coefficient.

From Table 4.8, coefficient a for the 50% peak stress specimens are 1.7 – 2.6
times higher than that for the 35% peak stress specimens for different mixtures (more
permanent deformation). Also, increase of RAP contents results in an increase of
coefficient a (more permanent deformation) from CR 3. The test results correlate with
the model (most of the R2 values > 0.9).
70
3.0

25A-75R

εp (%) 2.0 50A-50R

75A-25R

1.0

100A

0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Cycle

Figure 4.30: εp vs. Log (Cycle) of CR 3 Materials at 50% Peak Stress.

3.0

2.0
εp (%)

50A-50R

1.0 25A-75R

75A-25R

100A
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Cycle

Figure 4.31: εp vs. Log (Cycle) of CR 3 Materials at 35% Peak Stress.

71
Table 4.8: Coefficient a and R2.

Specimen
Description a R2
ID

S_50 CR 3_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 0.33 0.99

T_50 CR 3_100%A_50% Peak Stress Ratio 0.15 0.99
U_50 CR 3_75%A-25%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 0.44 0.97
V_50 CR 3_50%A-50%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 0.52 0.93
W_50 CR 3_25%A-75%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 0.59 0.94
X_50 TH 23_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 0.44 0.75
Y_50 TH 200_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 1.11 0.87
S_35 CR 3_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.18 1.00
T_35 CR 3_100%A_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.06 1.00
U_35 CR 3_75%A-25%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.17 0.99
V_35 CR 3_50%A-50%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.32 0.98
W_35 CR 3_25%A-75%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.28 1.00
X_35 TH 23_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.17 0.99
Y_35 TH 200_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 0.47 0.97

As shown schematically in Fig. 4.32, energy dissipation during cyclic triaxial

testing can be measured by the size of the hysteresis loop [35, 36], where the area
enclosed by the loading-unloading response represents the loss of energy per unit volume.
Previous work [36] showed that energy dissipation is the largest at the beginning of
loading, decreases continuously, and becomes stable after a number of cycles. A
concept of a total energy dissipation capacity for certain aggregate materials was
suggested, and the remaining life of the base course was claimed to be predicted by
comparing the cumulative energy dissipation with the total energy dissipation capacity
[36]. The cumulative permanent deformation appeared to increase after further loading
because the cumulative energy dissipation approached the total energy dissipation
capacity [37, 38].

72
Axial Stress

Energy
Loss

Axial Strain

Figure 4.32: Energy Loss (Hysteresis Loop).

Energy loss (ΔW) was analyzed by calculating the size of the hysteresis loop (Fig.
4.32) for each cycle of CR 3 specimens at both 50% and 35% peak stress ratios and
shown in Figs 4.33 – 4.34. Similar to the previous research, the energy loss is the
largest at the beginning, decreases continuously, and becomes stable after a number of
cycles. The energy loss plots from the 35% peak stress ratio specimens are very close to
each other (Fig. 4.34). However, from the 50% peak stress ratio plots (Fig. 4.33), it is
noticed that specimens with more RAP had more energy loss, and the order of energy
loss is same as the order of permanent deformation. The energy loss from the 50% peak
stress ratio specimens was higher than the energy loss from the 35% peak stress ratio
(Appendix D.8). Figures 4.35 – 4.36 show the energy loss for the first five cycles. As
the RAP content increased, the energy loss also increased.

73
400

300

Δ W (J/m )
3

200

25A-75R
50A-50R
100 75A-25R
100A

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.33: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 50% Peak Stress.

400

300
Δ W (J/m )
3

200

100
50A-50R
75A-25R 25A-75R
100A
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure 4.34: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 35% Peak Stress.

74
600
25A-75R

50A-50R
3
Δ W (J/m ) 400

75A-25R

200
100A

0
1 2 3 4 5
Cycle

Figure 4.35: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 50% Peak Stress: First Cycles.

600

400
Δ W (J/m )
3

25A-75R

50A-50R

200 75A-25R

100A

0
1 2 3 4 5
Cycle

Figure 4.36: ΔEnergy Loss of CR 3 Materials at 35% Peak Stress: First Cycles.

75
The relation between loading cycle and ΔW is modeled as

ΔW 1
= b ⋅ ( N )5 (4.11)
W0
where N = number of loading cycles
W0 = 1 J/m3
ΔW = Energy loss / cycle
b = regression coefficient

The coefficient b and R2 of the trend lines of 14 specimens are shown in Table 4.9. The
coefficient b for the 50% peak stress ratio specimens were about two times higher than
that of the 35% peak stress ratio specimens for different mixtures, indicating more energy
loss. Also, increase of RAP content results in an increase of the coefficient b (more
energy loss).

Table 4.9: Coefficient b and R2.

Specimen
Description b R2
ID

S_50 CR 3_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 103 0.99

T_50 CR 3_100%A_50% Peak Stress Ratio 83 0.97
U_50 CR 3_75%A-25%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 107 0.99
V_50 CR 3_50%A-50%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 111 0.97
W_50 CR 3_25%A-75%R_50% Peak Stress Ratio 122 0.96
X_50 TH 23_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 85 0.59
Y_50 TH 200_Blend_50% Peak Stress Ratio 124 0.96
S_35 CR 3_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 51 0.98
T_35 CR 3_100%A_35% Peak Stress Ratio 43 0.82
U_35 CR 3_75%A-25%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 50 0.98
V_35 CR 3_50%A-50%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 59 0.98
W_35 CR 3_25%A-75%R_35% Peak Stress Ratio 57 0.92
X_35 TH 23_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 41 0.99
Y_35 TH 200_Blend_35% Peak Stress Ratio 58 0.88

In conclusion, permanent strain and energy loss leveled off as number of cycles
increase, and the order of permanent strain and energy loss for the first five cycles was
the same as the order for the entire cycling, indicating that more permanent strain and
energy loss happened with more RAP content. However, the order of Young’s modulus
(Esecant) for the first five cycles did not follow the order of Esecant for 5000 cycles. The
100% aggregate specimen was the stiffest for the first five cycles whereas the 25%
aggregate – 75% RAP specimen was the stiffest after 5000 cycles.
76
4.3.2 Quality Control / Quality Assurance
Cyclic triaxial test data were analyzed by angle of rotation (maximum limit of 0.04°),
signal to noise ratio (minimum limit of 3 for LVDT displacements and 10 for loading
cycles) and coefficient of variation (maximum limit of 10%). Table 4.10 shows the %
passing rate for each criterion of sampled cycles of all 14 specimens. Cycles at the
beginning usually had higher rotation.

Table 4.10: Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Cyclic Triaxial Test Data.

% Passing
Rotation SNR SNR F COV
<0.04° >3 >10 <10%
95.7 100 100 100

77
Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusions
Resilient modulus (MR), shear strength, and cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on
various mixtures of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) and aggregate. Eight different
blended mixtures were prepared: four in-situ blends and four laboratory samples with
different ratios of RAP and aggregate (%RAP/aggregate: 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25).
As %RAP increased, the gradation curve shifted to coarse-grained and fine contents
decreased. Specimens were prepared by a gyratory compactor because the density was
closer to that measured in the field. As %RAP increased for gyratory compaction tests,
the OMC decreased slightly, but the maximum dry density stayed the same.

A total of 28 resilient modulus and strength tests were conducted generally

following the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 1-28A test
protocol; seven different blend types at one density (100% gyratory density), two
moisture contents (100% and 65% OMC), and one set of replicates. MR increased with
increase of confining pressure, and the effect of deviator stress was not pronounced.
The specimens with 65% OPM were 10 – 116% stiffer than the specimens with 100%
OPM at all confining pressures with the effect increasing at higher confining pressures.
As % RAP increased, a 0 – 65% increase in MR occurred with the effect increasing at
higher confining pressures. The in-situ blend produced during full-depth reclamation
behaved similar to the 50% aggregate – 50% RAP specimens and the MR of these
materials were similar to 100% aggregate.

MR data were evaluated with the universal model involving k1, k2, k3 and a
simplified model (k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0) and the values are reported in Table 4.2. The quality
control / quality assurance criteria of angle of rotation, signal-to-noise ratio and
coefficient of variance were evaluated and about 95% of the sequences passed the criteria.
Strength parameters (cohesion and friction angle) for different mixtures were calculated
from shear strength tests. By assuming a constant friction angle of 45˚ (specimen
density remained constant), 65% OMC specimens had 5 – 50% larger values of cohesion
than 100% OMC specimens, probably due to an increase in soil suction.

A total of 14 cyclic triaxial tests were conducted: seven different blend types at
one density (100% gyratory density) and one moisture content (100% OMC) at two
different peak stress ratios, 35% and 50% of the estimated deviator stress at failure (peak).
Cumulative permanent deformation leveled off after approximately 1000 cycles. The
specimens with RAP exhibited at least two times greater permanent deformation than the
100% aggregate material. As % RAP increased, 15 – 300% more permanent
deformation occurred. The 25% aggregate – 75% RAP specimens exhibited the highest
permanent deformation, and the 100% aggregate specimens exhibited the lowest
permanent deformation. The Young’s modulus (Esecant) increased as the number of
cycles increased, and leveled off after approximately 1000 cycles as the permanent strain
leveled off. The 25% aggregate – 75% RAP specimens had the highest Young’s
78
modulus (Esecant) values (185 – 200 MPa), and the 100% aggregate specimens were very
close or slightly (3 – 8%) stiffer than 50% aggregate – 50% RAP specimens (155 – 175
MPa). A summary of the main conclusions follow.

• In terms of stiffness and strength, base course containing 50% aggregate – 50%
RAP performed similar to 100% aggregate with proper compaction. For the
field sites studied, the reclaimed material was coarser as %RAP increased, and the
in-situ blend was equivalent to the 50-50 mix.
• To match densities measured in the field for bases containing aggregate with RAP,
laboratory specimens were compacted using a gyratory process with compaction
pressure of 600 kPa and 50 gyrations. Further research is needed to evaluate
compaction effort and material behavior such as change in stiffness.
• The specimens with 65% OPM were stiffer and stronger (cohesion increased
assuming friction angle remained constant) than the specimens with 100% OPM
at the same density, probably due to the increase in soil suction and compaction
energy with decrease in moisture.
• From triaxial tests with cyclic loading, specimens with RAP exhibited at least two
times greater permanent deformation than the 100% aggregate material. Further
research is needed to understand the mechanism of higher permanent deformation
in RAP material.

79
References
[1] J. Aurstad, and I. Hoff. (2002). Crushed Asphalt and Concrete as Unbound Road
Materials Comparisons of Field Measurements and Laboratory Investigations.
Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways, and Airfields, 967.
[2] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2001). Basic
Asphalt Recycling Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, PUB:NH101-022.
[3] P. R. Fleming. (1998). Recycled Bituminous as Unbound Granular Materials for
Road Foundations in the UK. Proceedings 5th International Conference of Bearing
Capacity of Roads and Airfields, 1581.
[4] D. Bloomquist, G. Diamond, M. Oden, B. Ruth, and M. Tia. (1993). Engineering
and Environmental Aspects of Recycled Materials for Highway Construction, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. FHWA-RD-93-088.
[5] K. W. Lee, and J. S. Davis. (1998). Structural Properties of New England Subbase
Materials of Flexible Pavements. Proceedings 5th International Conference of
Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, 1641.
[6] W. H. Highter, J. A. Clary, and D. J. DeGroot. (1997). Structural Numbers for
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Base and Subbase Course Mixes. Final Report,
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.
[7] W. J. Papp, A. Maher, T. Bennert, and N. Gucunski. (1998). Behavior of
Construction and Demolition Debris in Base and Subbase Applications. Recycled
Materials in Geotechnical Applications. Vol. 79, 122-136.
[8] National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2002). Recommended Standard
Method for Routine Resilient Modulus Testing of Unbound Granular Base/Subbase
Materials and Subgrade Soils, Protocol 1-28A. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program.
[9] R. P. Elliott, N. D. Dennis, and Y. Qiu. (1998). Permanent Deformation of Subgrade
soils: Phase I, A Test Protocol. Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
[10] G. Behzadi, and W. O. Yandell. (1996). A Determination of Elastic and Plastic
Subgrade Soil Parameters for Asphalt Cracking and Rutting Prediction.
Transportation Research Record, 97-104.
[11] T. Bennert, W. J. Papp, A. Maher, and N. Gucunski. (2000). Utilization of
Construction and Demolition Debris under Traffic-Type Loading in Base and
Subbase Applications. Transportation Research Record, No. 1714, Paper No. 00-
1350., 33-39
[12] A. J. Puppala, S. Chomtid, and V. Bhadriraju. (2005). Using Repeated-Load Triaxial
Tests to Evaluate Plastic Strain Potentials in Subgrade Soils. Transportation
Research Record, No. 1913, 86-98.
[13] American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM Standard): C136-01.
Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
[14] Minnesota Department of Transportation Specification: 3138.3. 2000.
[15] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO):
80
T99. The Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) Rammer and a
305 mm (12 in) Drop.
[16] American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM Standard): D698-
00ae1. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Using
Standard Effort.
[17] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO):
TP4. Preparation of Compacted Specimens of Modified and Unmodified Hot Mix
Asphalt by Means of the SHRP Gyratory Compactor.
[18] Asphalt Institute (1996). Superpave Mix Design. Asphalt Institute Superpave Series
No. 2 (SP-2).
[19] R. Mallich, P. Kandhal, E. Brown, R. Bradbury, and E. Kearney. (2002).
Development of a Rational and Practical Mix Design System for Full Depth
Reclaimed (FDR) Mixes. Final Report for a Project (Subcontract No. 00-373)
Funded by the Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC) at the University of
New Hampshire, New Hampshire.
[20] P. Davich, J. Labuz, B. Guzina, and A. Drescher. (2004). Small Strain and Resilient
Modulus Testing of Granular Soils. Minnesota Department of Transportation Report,
Final Report 2004-39.
[21] B. M. Das. (2000). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering. Brooks/Cole.
[22] Federal Highway Administration Pavement Performance Division. (1996). Resilient
Modulus of Unbound Granular Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils, Long
Term Pavement Performance, Protocol 46.
[23] J. J. Tuma. (1987). Engineering Mathematics Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc, 3rd Ed.
[24] B. Chadbourn. (2005). Resilient Modulus Testing at Mn/DOT. Minnesota
Department of Transportation Internal Report.
[25] F. Lekarp, U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson. (2000). State of the Art. I: Resilient
Response of Unbound Aggregates. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Jan/Feb
2000, 66-75.
[26] W. A. Dunlap. (1963). A Report on a Mathematical Model Describing the
Deformation Characteristics of Granular Materials. Texas Transp. Inst., Tech. Rep.
No. 1, Proj. 2-8-62-27, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
[27] C. L. Monismith, H. B. Seed, F. G. Mitry, and C. K. Chan. (1967). Prediction of
Pavement Deflections from Laboratory Tests. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. Struct. Des. of
Asphalt Pavements, 109–140.
[28] H. B. Seed, F. G. Mitry, C. L. Monismith, and C. K. Chan. (1967). Prediction of
Flexible Pavement Deflections from Laboratory Repeated Load Tests. NCHRP Rep.
No. 35, National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
[29] R. G. Hicks. (1970). Factors Influencing the Resilient Properties of Granular
Materials. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
[30] J. Uzan. (1985). Characterization of granular material. Transportation Research
Record No.1022, 52–59.
[31] F. E. Richard, R. D. Woods, and J. R. Hall. (1970). Vibrations of Soils and
Foundations. Prentice-Hall.

81
[32] R. D. Barksdale. (1972). Repeated Load Test Evaluation of Base Course Materials.
Georgia Highway Department Research Project 7002, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
[33] R. W. Lentz, and G. Y. Baladi. (1981). Constitutive Equation for Permanent Strain
of Sand Subjected to Cyclic Loading. Transportation Research Record, No. 810, 50-
54.
[34] R. W. Lentz. (1979). Permanent Deformation of a Cohesionless Subgrade Material
under Cyclic Loading. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
[35] M. Zytynski, M. F. Randolph, R. Nova, and C. P. Wroth. (1978). Short
Communications on Modeling the Unloading-Reloading Behavior of Soils.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol.
2, 87-94.
[36] K. Sobhan, and R. J. Krizek. (1998). Resilient Properties and Fatigue Damage in
Stabilized Recycled Aggregate Base Course Material. Transportation Research
Record, No. 1611, 28-37.
[37] F. Lekarp, U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson. (2000). State of the Art. II: Permanent
Strain Response of Unbound Aggregates. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Jan/Feb 2000, 76-83.

82
Appendix A

Index Properties
A.1 Gradation
Table A.1: Gradation.
Pecent Passing
CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 TH 23 TH 200 TH 5 Class 5 Class 5
Sieve (mm)
Blend Aggregate 75%A-25%R 50%A-50%R 25%A-75%R Blend Blend Blend Max Band Min Band
63
50
37.5 100.0 100.0
31.5 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 100.0
25 90.8 100.0 99.6 98.7 99.6 99.6 96.3 98.4 100.0 100.0
19 84.6 98.7 97.6 94.3 95.5 99.4 91.0 96.0 100.0 90.0
16 80.8 97.0 95.4 92.3 93.6 98.4 89.1 92.8
12.5 76.8 94.7 91.5 87.0 88.2 95.0 84.9 88.4
9.5 71.8 92.2 87.6 81.3 81.8 89.8 79.6 82.6 90.0 50.0
4.75 59.9 81.7 72.6 64.2 59.8 73.4 65.9 67.8 80.0 35.0
2.36 29.4 57.3 44.4 31.5 23.9 59.6 54.9 56.1
2 27.7 54.7 42.1 28.8 21.3 56.4 52.2 53.5 65.0 20.0
1.18 22.8 46.7 34.6 22.0 15.0 46.7 42.8 44.8
0.6 16.7 36.2 25.4 15.0 8.9 29.1 28.2 30.8
0.425 13.5 30.1 20.7 11.9 6.7 20.4 21.9 23.9 35.0 10.0
0.3 9.4 22.0 15.1 8.3 4.6 12.8 16.6 16.5
0.15 4.9 11.4 8.1 4.6 2.4 5.3 8.6 8.7
0.075 3.3 8.3 6.0 3.5 1.7 3.0 4.0 6.1 10.0 3.0

A-1
A.2 Proctor Compaction Test

Table A.2: Proctor Compaction Test Results.

MC (%) Dry Density (kg/m3) MC (%) Dry Density (kg/m3)
3.5 1846 4.8 1922
6.7 1916 6.6 1938
CR 3
8.8 1958 8.7 1994
Blend
9.9 1983 10.4 1980
11.2 1938
9.3 1979 4.2 1827
12.0 1953 6.1 1899
CR 3
13.3 1889 8.2 1934
Aggregate
9.7 2016
12.2 1936
6.3 1921
CR 3 8.8 1964
75%A-25%R 9.8 2012
11.8 1927
4.1 1836 3.6 1816
6.8 1900 5.6 1819
CR 3 10.2 1949 7.2 1903
50%A-50%R 10.9 1942 8.7 1933
10.3 1941
10.6 1927
4.8 1830
CR 3 6.3 1897
25%A-75%R 8.0 1920
10.8 1907

A-2
Table A.2: Proctor Compaction Test Results (Continued).
MC (%) Dry Density (kg/m3) MC (%) Dry Density (kg/m3)
3.6 2004
TH 200 4.9 2065
Blend 6.0 2099
8.0 2076
3.7 1907
TH 23 5.1 1944
Blend 7.3 2004
8.6 1974
4.7 1952
TH 5 7.1 1971
Blend 9.0 1992
10.1 1974

2200
Optimum Moisture Content = 9.8 %
Maximum Dry Density = 1982 kg/m3
Dry Density (kg/m )

2200
Optimum Moisture Content = 9.6 %
Maximum Dry Density =1950 kg/m3
2100
Dry Density (kg/m )
3

2000

1900

1800
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.7: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 2.

A-6
2200
Optimum Moisture Content = 8.8 %
Maximum Dry Density =1923 kg/m3

Dry Density (kg/m )

2100
3

2000

1900

1800
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.8: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP.

2200
Optimum Moisture Content = 7.2 %
Maximum Dry Density = 2004 kg/m3
2100
Dry Density (kg/m )
3

2000

1900

1800
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.9: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 23 Blend.

A-7
2200
Optimum Moisture Content = 6.6 %
Maximum Dry Density = 2102 kg/m3
2100
Dry Density (kg/m )
3

2000

1900

1800
0 5 10 15
Mosture Content (%)

Figure A.10: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 200 Blend.

2200
Optimum Moisture Content = 8.6 %
Maximum Dry Density = 1992 kg/m3

2100
Dry Density (kg/m )
3

2000

1900

1800
0 5 10 15
Mosture Content (%)

Figure A.11: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 5 Blend.

A-8
ENGLISH UNITS

Figure A.14: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate: Test 1.

130
Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

125

120

115
Optimum Moisture Content = 10.2 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight = 126.3 lb/ft
110
0 5 10 15
Mositure Content (%)

Figure A.15: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 100% Aggregate: Test 2.

A-10
130

Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

125

120

115
Optimum Moisture Content = 10.1 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight =125.9 lb/ft
110
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)
Figure A.16: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP.

130
Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

125

120

115
Optimum Moisture Content = 9.8 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight =121.9 lb/ft
110
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.17: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 1.

A-11
130

Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

125

120

115
Optimum Moisture Content = 9.6 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight =121.9 lb/ft
110
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.18: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP: Test 2.

130
Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

125

120

115
Optimum Moisture Content = 8.8 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight =120.2 lb/ft
110
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.19: Proctor Compaction Curve: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP.

A-12
135

Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

130

125

120
Optimum Moisture Content = 7.2 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight = 125.3 lb/ft
115
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.20: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 23 Blend.

135
Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

130

125

120
Optimum Moisture Content = 6.6 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight = 131.4 lb/ft
115
0 5 10 15
Mosture Content (%)

Figure A.21: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 200 Blend.

A-13
135

Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

130

125

120
Optimum Moisture Content = 8.6 %
3
Maximum Dry Unit Weight = 124.5 lb/ft
115
0 5 10 15
Mosture Content (%)

Figure A.22: Proctor Compaction Curve: TH 5 Blend.

A-14
A.3 Gyratory Compaction Test

Table A.3: Gyratory Compaction Test Results.

MC (%) Dry Density (kg/m3)
5.0 1968
CR 3 5.6 1982
Blend 6.9 2025
9.7 2006
4.8 1902
CR 3 6.7 1987
Aggregate 8.8 2030
10.5 2004
4.7 1917
CR 3 6.9 2003
75%A-25%R 9.0 2036
10.4 2006
4.2 1944
CR 3 6.0 2001
50%A-50%R 8.4 2033
10.0 2004
4.4 1947
CR 3 6.3 1982
25%A-75%R 7.3 2032
7.9 1995
3.1 2062
TH 23 4.8 2091
Blend 6.4 2088
8.0 2078
3.5 2110
TH 200 5.5 2152
Blend 7.6 2123

5.3 2065
TH 5 5.5 2081
Blend 6.3 2118
8.4 2023

A-15
ENGLISH UNITS
Table A.4: Gyratory Compaction Test Results.
MC (%) Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)
5.0 123.0
CR 3 5.6 123.9
Blend 6.9 126.6
9.7 125.4
4.8 118.9
CR 3 6.7 124.2
Aggregate 8.8 126.9
10.5 125.3
4.7 119.8
CR 3 6.9 125.2
75%A-25%R 9.0 127.3
10.4 125.4
4.2 121.5
CR 3 6.0 125.1
50%A-50%R 8.4 127.1
10.0 125.3
4.4 121.7
CR 3 6.3 123.9
25%A-75%R 7.3 127.0
7.9 124.7
3.1 128.9
TH 23 4.8 130.7
Blend 6.4 130.5
8.0 129.9
3.5 131.9
TH 200 5.5 134.5
Blend 7.6 132.7

5.3 129.1
TH 5 5.5 130.1
Blend 6.3 132.4
8.4 126.4

2200

2100 Zero_Air_Void
Poly. (TH 200 Blend)
Dry Density (kg/m3)

Poly. (TH 23 Blend)

Poly. (CR 3 Blend_2)
Poly. (CR 3 100A_2)
Poly. (CR 3 100A_1)
2000 Poly. (CR 3 75A-25R)
Poly. (CR 3 Blend_1)
Poly. (CR 3 50A-50R_1)
Poly. (CR 3 50A-50R_2)
Poly. (TH 5 Blend)
1900 Poly. (CR 3 25A-75R)

1800
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.39: Proctor Compaction Curves vs. Zero Air Void Curve.

A-25
2200

2100
Zero_Air_Void
Dry Density (kg/m3)

Poly. (CR 3 Blend)

Poly. (CR 3 100A)
Poly. (CR 3 75A-25R)
2000 Poly. (CR 3 50A-50R)
Poly. (CR 3 25A-75R)
Poly. (TH 23 Blend)
Poly. (TH 5 Blend)
Poly. (TH 200 Blend)
1900

1800
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (%)

Figure A.40: Gyratory Compaction Curves vs. Zero Air Void Curve.

A-26
A.5 Gyratory Compaction Test Procedure
1. Prepare a sample following the procedure described in section 2.1. Dump RAP and
aggregate materials into a splitter according to the specified ratio by mass, and mix
several (4-6) times until the materials is visually well-mixed.
2. Replace +12.5 mm material with -12.5 mm , +4.75 mm material for material
homogeneity.
3. Add water to have moisture content around 3.5%-4.5%.
4. Pour around 5400g of sample to the gyratory mold.
5. Act 50 gyrations at 600 kPa pressure for compaction.
6. Check and record height of the compacted specimen after compaction.
7. Calculate volume and density of the specimen based on the height.
8. Obtain about 200 g of material sample from the center of the mold and dry in an oven
at 40oC for 6 days.
9. Break the compacted specimen and pour back into the rest of the sample.
10. Add water to the sample to make the moisture content increase of 1.5%-2%.
11. Repeat steps 4-10 until the density of the compacted specimen decreases.
12. Measure the weight of the oven dried samples, and calculate moisture contents.
13. Calculate dry densities based on the densities and moisture contents.

A-27
A.6 Asphalt Extraction
Asphalt extraction tests were conducted by MnDOT on five different mixtures from CR 3
(Table A.4). The tests were done with the samples previously used for MR and shear
strength tests, therefore, aggregates larger than 12.5 mm were already removed.
Therefore, the gradation results were less granular than the gradation test results in
Appendix A.1. As percent of RAP increased, percent of asphalt extracted increased
(Table A.4).

Table A.5: Asphalt Extraction Test Result.

Percent Passing
CR3 CR3 CR3 CR3 CR3
Sieve (mm)
Blend 100%A 75%A-25%R 50%A-50%R 25%A-75%R
19 99 97 100 100 99
16 98 94 98 100 98
12.5 96 90 96 97 97
9.5 93 88 92 94 96
4.75 86 81 83 86 85
2.36 77 71 72 76 73
2 74 69 69 73 69
1.18 65 60 59 63 59
0.6 52 48 46 49 44
0.425 43 41 38 39 35
0.3 31 30 28 28 26
0.15 16 16 15 13 14
0.075 11.9 12.6 11.8 9.1 10.5
% AC Extracted 4.5 2.3 3.6 4.4 6

A-28
Appendix B

Calibrations
B.1 Load Cell Calibration
Load cell calibration was performed by two proving rings with different load calibration
ranges. Table B.1 and Figure B.1 show the result. From Fig. B.1, the difference was less
then one percent to each other, and which was less than within ±5 percent difference
requirement from LTTP P46 protocol [22].

20000
y = 0.9901x
16000 R2 = 1
Proving Ring (N)

12000

8000

4000

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
MTS (N)

Figure B.1: Load Cell Calibration.

B-1
Table B.1: Load Cell Calibration.

Proving Ring Proving Ring

MTS (N)
(Divisions) (N)

42 10 42
155 35 149
277 66 280
467 107 454
688 161 684

44 11 47
69 14 59
72 19 81
72 19 81
146 36 153
170 38 161
205 47 200
255 62 263
324 76 323
333 78 331
480 113 480
526 124 527
651 153 650
840 197 837

592 15 653
2610 60 2611
4580 106 4612
6460 149 6483

17519 398 17317

14547 331 14402
13378 304 13227
10826 246 10704
10069 229 9964
8901 203 8833
6485 146 6353
3300 76 3307

B-2
B.2 Data Acquisition System Check
The data acquired from the data acquisition file in the Labview program was compared
with the data displayed on the MTS computer. The results are shown in Table B.2 and
Figs. B.2 and B.3.

Table B.2: MTS vs. Data Acquisition.

MTS (mm) Data Acquisition (mm) MTS (N) Data Acquisition (N)
713 714 240 251
777 779 556 568
791 791 1263 1268
794 794 2548 2570
797 797 3550 3565
780 782 4970 4998
574 574

800
y = 1.0007x
2
R = 0.9999
Data Acquisition (mm)

700

600

500
500 600 700 800
MTS (mm)

Figure B.2: MTS vs. Data Acquisition: Stroke.

B-3
5000
y = 1.0058x
2
Data Acquisition (N) 4000 R =1

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
MTS (N)

Figure B.3: MTS vs. Data Acquisition: Load.

B-4
B.3 LVDT Calibration
Sensitivities of three LVDTs were calibrated by the measurements shown in Fig. B.4.
The voltage measurement measures voltage change per unit displacement of stroke
measurement, and the sensitivity can be calculated by the slope of voltage change per
unit displacement. Detail results are in Table B.3 and Fig. B.5.

Figure B.4: Voltage Measurement, Conditioner (Left) and Stroke Measurement (Right).

Table B.3: Calibration Results.

Conditioner LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3
LVDT# 81353 79028 78581
V mm V mm V mm
-12.140 0.0 -10.080 0.0 -12.988 0.0
-9.632 0.5 -7.835 0.5 -10.800 0.5
-7.152 1.0 -5.616 1.0 -8.560 1.0
-4.681 1.5 -3.405 1.5 -6.300 1.5
-2.184 2.0 -1.170 2.0 -3.999 2.0
0.348 2.5 1.096 2.5 -1.728 2.5
2.958 3.0 3.431 3.0 0.500 3.0
5.467 3.5 5.676 3.5 2.790 3.5
7.991 4.0 7.935 4.0 5.016 4.0
10.274 4.5 7.225 4.5
12.538 5.0 9.446 5.0
14.650 5.5 11.741 5.5
14.165 6.0
Sensitivity 5.036 V/mm 4.519 V/mm 4.514 V/mm
± Range (mm) 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm
± Range (V) 15.1068 V 13.5567 V 13.5417 V
R2 1 1 1

B-5
20
LVDT1
15 LVDT2
LVDT3
Linear (LVDT1)
10
Linear (LVDT2)
Voltage (V)

Linear (LVDT3)
5

0 y = 5.0356x - 12.185

-5 y = 4.5189x - 10.136

y = 4.5139x - 13.041
-10

-15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stroke (mm)

Figure B.5: Calibration Results.

B.4 LVDT Clamp Weight

From the NCHRP 1-28A testing protocol, the maximum LVDT clamp weight
requirement for 152 mm diameter testing specimen is 2.4 N [8]. The upper clamp had
2.4 N weight, however, the lower clamp had its weight of 3.6 N, which exceeded the
requirement.

B-6
B.5 Dynamic Response
This section presents the results of the system check performed on the resilient modulus
testing equipment utilized by the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of
Minnesota. The verification generally follows the procedure recommended by the LTPP
Protocol 46 [11]. The main goals are to quantify the overall machine response by
estimating the phase angle between load and displacement, as well as the attenuation in
the load amplitude. The method followed is briefly described, results from a previous
study analyzed, and results of the new system verification are presented and discussed.

Phase Angle Estimation

The approach follows the procedure described in [11]. In this approach, the phase angle
introduced by the entire system (machine, electronics and sensors) is evaluated, in a least-
square sense, from a series of measurements. The topic of attenuation of the load
amplitude is not addressed in [11].

Procedure
As a reminder, the procedure in [11] is based a series of sweep sinusoidal loading
experiments with:
• Use of a proving ring in place of the specimen, the load cell and 2 LVDTs
usually utilized in the resilient modulus tests (LVDT1 and LVDT2).
• Application of 100 cycles of a sinusoidal load with a peak-to-peak amplitude
of 1.33 kN and an average of 1.11 kN, using the resilient modulus testing
system controls.
• Recording load and deformation measurements for the last 5 cycles.
• 3 frequencies: 1, 5 and 10 Hz with corresponding sampling frequencies of
200, 1,000 and 2,000 Hz.

Data Analysis
The analysis is based on the sole assumption that the system is linear. For such a system,
it is well known that a steady-state sinusoidal input results in an output that is also
sinusoidal, with identical frequency but possibly shifted in time and with a different
amplitude (attenuated or amplified). In addition one can also include a shift in the base
level (DC component). In other words, if the input is a sinusoidal signal of amplitude Ax
and frequency ω = 2πf , i.e.
x = Ax sin (ω t ) (B.1)
then the output can be written as
y = A y sin (ω t + ϕ ) + b (B.2)
where ϕ is the phase angle, A y the amplitude, and b a shift in the DC response. The
amplification factor between input and output is
Ay
K= (B.3)
Ax
It can easily be shown that (B.2) is equivalent to

B-7
y = C sin (ω t ) + D sin (ω t ) + b (B.4)
with
Ay = C 2 + D 2 (B.5)
and
⎛C⎞
ϕ = a tan⎜ ⎟ (B.6)
⎝ D⎠
Note that the temporal delay τ [s] is obtained from the phase angle ϕ [o] using
ϕ
τ= (B.7)
360 f
Defining new variables x1 and x 2 as
m1 = sin (ω t ), m2 = cos(ω t ) (B.8)
allows one to rewrite (B.4) as
y = m1 x1 + m2 x 2 (B.9)
which can be solved for an unknown y, and known (measured) x1 and x 2 , in a least
square sense.
More precisely, x1 and x 2 are computed for each time step. The least square
fitting is applied separately three times: to the load, the displacement measured by
LVDT1, and that measured by LVDT2, which constitute the unknowns y for each data
fitting. Resulting from each data set, one obtains phase angle, amplitude gain and DC
offset pertaining to the load cell and to each LVDT, with respect to the digital input.
Finally, phase angle between load cell and LVDTs is obtained by subtraction of the
corresponding phase angle with respect to the digital input. Similarly to the procedure in
[11], the program Microsoft Excel is used for this study to perform the calculations, the
function Linest being utilized for the least-squares fitting.

Previous Results
Preliminary results were obtained in 2004 by Davich et al. [12]. However, to cater with
the only data available at the time, the approach followed for the 2004 study did not
strictly follow the protocol in [11]. Indeed, the driving (input) signal was a haversine
constituted of 1/10th second (0.1 s duration load pulses and 0.9 s of rest) with a peak load
of 276 kPa. The data were analyzed by assuming a sinusoidal input with frequency of 5
Hz and by using only the data corresponding to one loading period (i.e. 0.1 s) of the
measured input.

B-8
1200 Data utilized for analysis
Measured load cell signal

1000

800

Load [lb]
600

400

200

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
t [s]

Figure B.6: Cycles Considered for The Analysis in [12] – Force Load Time History.

Load cell

LVDT

Proving
ring

Figure B.7: Testing Setup.

New Phase Angle Verification

The present testing campaign was conducted according to the specifications in [11].
However, a few modifications were necessary to adapt the technique to the equipment
utilized.

Test Setup
As shown in Fig. B.7, tests are performed on a proving ring. Load and displacement are
measured using a load cell and a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT),

B-9
respectively. Because the software of the control system allows only for forcing signal
based on ramp, step and haversine segments, using a simple sine input was not possible.
Therefore, haversine oscillations were utilized. Fortunately, the data analysis described
for sine input can be directly applied to haversine signals. This can be readily shown
using the superposition property of the linear system and the definition of haversine,:
1 − cos(θ )
hav(θ ) = (B.10)
2

Data Interpretation and Results

Three series of tests, each composed of one test at 1 Hz, one test at 5 Hz and one test at
10 Hz, were conducted. Series 1 includes tests 1 to 3, series 2 contains tests 4 to 6, and
series 3 consists of tests 7 to 9. Each series corresponds to an independent test, as the
location of the LVDT is changed from one test series to another. Also, the proving ring is
removed and repositioned in-between each test series.
Figure B.8 illustrates how the five cycles considered in the fitting process were
selected from the end of the recording of the measured data. For example, the first cycle
is located between peaks number 1 and 2. The data analysis is performed on each of the
five cycles.
Table B.4 shows the average results and maximum variation for the phase angle
(in degrees) and corresponding average time delay (in milliseconds) between the load cell
and the LVDT. Results for series 1 and 2 present phase angles smaller than 1.5 degrees.
They also show a good consistency in the phase angle estimate, within approximately 0.5
degrees. Series 3 exhibits slightly higher values for the phase angle, up to about 2.29 in
average and about 3.03 for the last cycle at 10 Hz. The outstanding deviation of 0.79
reported for test 9 in Table 1 is also due to this particular cycle. Disregarding the fifth
cycle in test 9 would yield an average phase angle of - 2.11 +/- 0.61 degrees.
450 1 2 3 4 5 6
400

350

300

250
F [lb]

200

150

100

0
21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5
t [s]

Figure B.8: Cycles Considered in The Present Work – Measured Load with 5 Hz Input.

B-10
Additional Results
Using the same series of data than for the phase angle verification, one can also extract
some information pertaining to the reduction in amplitude between peak load specified as
input in the system’s controls and peak load measured by the load cell. The attenuation
or gain in amplitude is given by
Ay + b
G= (B.11)
Ainput
where Ainput is the amplitude of the specified haversine oscillation (1.775 kN, i.e. 399 lb,
as suggested in [11]). The values of A y and b are those computed in the least squares
fitting process. Table B.4 shows the average values for the gain over the five cycles for
each test. It can be seen that the gain estimates in each series are consistent. These
results exhibit an increase of the attenuation with increase test frequencies; the amplitude
reduction reaches about 15% at 10 Hz.

Table B.4: Tests Results.

Input Sampling
Test ID Gain Phase angle [o] Delay [ms]
frequency frequency
Test 1 0.97 - 0.90 +/- 0.54 2.50
1 Hz 200 Hz Test 4 0.98 - 0.71 +/- 0.33 1.98
Test 7 0.98 - 2.13 +/- 0.13 5.92
Test 2 0.91 -1.25 +/- 0.42 0.70
5 Hz 1 kHz Test 5 0.90 - 1.31 +/- 0.13 0.73
Test 8 0.89 - 2.73 +/- 0.18 1.47
Test 3 0.82 -1.49 +/- 0.49 0.41
10 Hz 2 kHz Test 6 0.82 - 1.33 +/- 0.05 0.37
Test 9 0.85 - 2.29 +/- 0.79 0.64

B-11
Table B.5: Additional Results Using the 5 Last Cycles Altogether.

Input Sampling
Test ID Gain Phase angle [o] Delay [ms]
frequency frequency
Test 1 0.96 - 0.88 2.43
1 Hz 200 Hz Test 4 0.97 - 0.70 1.93
Test 7 0.97 - 2.11 5.85
Test 2 0.72 -1.01 0.56
5 Hz 1 kHz Test 5 0.71 - 0.89 0.49
Test 8 0.68 - 2.23 1.24
Test 3 0.63 -1.52 0.42
10 Hz 2 kHz Test 6 0.62 - 1.11 0.31
Test 9 0.63 - 2.57 0.71

To investigate further the data collected, a second method that considers the five
last cycles altogether rather than individually, is employed. Table B.5 shows the results
for gain, phase angle and time delay corresponding to fitting the last five cycles
conjointly. Comparison between Table B.4 and Table B.5 shows that in general both
approaches yield similar results for the estimation of phase angle and time delay. The
results for the gain in Table B.5 follow the same trend than those in Table B.4. However,
the magnitude of the amplification for test series 2 and 3 is much lower than that in Table
B.4. With this method of analysis, the attenuation becomes very severe at 10 Hz with an
amplitude diminution up to about 40%. The discrepancy between the results for the gain
for series 1 and 3 can be due to the presence of high-frequency noise at the lower and
upper peaks of the signals; fitting the five cycle altogether might results in filtering out
the extreme values and therefore in a lower gain than if the cycles are fitted one by one.

Summary
The acceptance criteria in [12] are: (1) phase angle within +/- 0.5 degree in each series of
five cycles; and (2) average phase angle less than 2.8 degrees. The second criterion is
based on a tolerance for the electronics phase angle of 1.8 degrees, specific to the
equipment used in [12], and a desired phase angle of 1 degree. No similar information
for the equipment utilized in this study was found. Based on acceptance criteria similar
than those in [12], verification tests results show that the equipment response is
acceptable. The degradation in the goodness of the results observed in the last test series
can be attributed to a mechanical misalignment. Tests show that the gain of the system
decreases with frequency, and that the loss in amplitude can be significant. This
frequency dependant attenuation can be due to the filters characteristics, but further work
is needed to investigate this topic.

B-12
Equipment Utilized
Servo-hydraulic Load frame: MTS 858 Table Top System.
Control system software: MTS TestWare-SX 4.0D.
Load cell: Sensotec model 41/05 72-05, 5,000 lbs range, S/N 913573.
Proving ring: Humboldt MFG.CO, model H-4454.property of Mn/DOT.
LVDT: LVDT # 2 with conditioner # 52384.

Test Series Setup

(a) (b)

Figuer B.9: Testing Setup for Test Series 2 and 3: (a) Series 2, and (b) Series 3.

B-13
Appendix C

Detailed Procedures
C.1 MR and Shear Strength Tests
1. Weigh a large container.

2. Pour 13.6 kg of the sample to be tested into the large container through a 12.5 mm
sieve.

3. Mix until sample materials are homogeneous.

4. Determine the amount of water to be added for the sample (assume the dry sample
originally has 0.3 % moisture content).

5. Mix the correct amount of water and soil until the moisture content of the sample
looks relatively homogeneous by color.

6. Take moisture contents from two different locations within the sample. Moisture
contents samples should be more than 200 g.

7. Place the moisture content samples within an oven at approximately 60°C until
moisture content does not change.

8. Seal the remainder of the sample in the airtight container and allow it to temper
overnight.

9. Before compaction, compare the actual and target moisture contents of the sample,
and adjust if necessary.

10. Calculate the mass for the target density, with height of 140 mm.

11. Pour the material into the gyratory compacter and turn on the compacter. Start with
pressure = 500 kPa and gyrations up to 150.

12. Check to see if target height (density) was reached. If not, increase pressure by 100
kPa (pressure = 600 kPa) and repeat step 11.

13. Check to see if target height (density) was reached. If not, increase pressure by 100
kPa (pressure = 700 kPa) and repeat step 11.

14. If target height was not reached, use specimen as compacted. Repeat steps 10-13 one
more time to get two specimens around 140 mm in height.

15. Inspect the base unit, mold, and top and bottom platens for damage and cleanliness.

16. Place the porous stone on top of the platen and bender element if not already in
place.

C-1
17. Place a small amount of fine (Ottawa) sand around the lower bender element to
protect it.

18. Place one specimen on the porous stone.

19. Attach a membrane to the lower bender element platen using two O-rings in the
appropriate grooves. A third O-ring may be placed between the grooves if the vacuum
mold does not seal properly without it.

20. Place the vacuum mold on top of the platen and tighten the ring supports; the upper
ring support should be placed over the excess rubber membrane to hold it in place.

21. Open the blue vacuum valve. Apply a 10 in.-Hg vacuum supply and turn on the
Vacuum button on the pressure panel. Connect the pressure panel to the mold by an air
hose. Check to make certain that the vacuum is acting uniformly on the membrane.

22. Scratch the top surface of the specimen on the platen, and scratch the top surface of
the other specimen also for better contact between them.

23. Place the second specimen on the first one inside the mold. Place it upside down.

24. Place the compaction plate into the vacuum mold. Make certain that they sit evenly
on the specimens.

25. Compact two specimens using a 3000 beats-per-minute rotary hammer (AASHTO
307 specification). Make certain that the top of the specimen remains level and that only
a small amount of soil escapes around the edges of the compaction plate. Compact
around 10 seconds.

26. Use threaded rods to pull the compaction plate from the vacuum mold.

27. Place the upper porous stone on top of the specimen and put a small amount of fine
(Ottawa) sand around the center hole of the porous stone to protect the upper bender
element. Place the upper platen on the porous stone. Make certain that there is enough
fine sand around the bender element to ensure a good contact.

28. Release vacuum and close the vacuum valve.

29. Remove the split mold and use O-rings to hold the membrane to the upper platen.
The material used in this study will hold together due to apparent cohesion.

30. Record the height and weight of the specimen.

31. Pull a second membrane over the exterior of the first. After reaching the bottom,
slide all but one O-ring from the surface of the first membrane over the surface of the
second. Place four O-rings in the platens’ grooves to seal the membrane.

C-2
32. Assemble the LVDT frame (LVDT 1-2-3 from right to left).

33. Check to make certain that the LVDTs have a sufficient stroke range (For example,
set them to 80% of their negative range or 3.5mm of their range.).

34. Slide the LVDT holder into place over the membrane. Make certain that there is a
good contact between the LVDT holder and the membrane.

35. Attach the LVDT holder with two elastic bands (o-rings). Use the smallest size o-
rings for better contact.

36. Carefully place the specimen in the center of the triaxial cell. Clean all surfaces to
ensure that the cell and specimen are airtight.

37. Attach the air hoses to the platens.

38. Check the cable orders of the triaxial cell (1-Bottom bender, 2-Blank, 3-LVDT1, 4-
Load cell, 5-Top bender, 6-LVDT2, 7-LVDT3) and connect them.

39. Check that the LVDTs are resting evenly on top of their pedestals and that none of the
lead wires in the cell are impeding their movement.

40. Connect the three LVDT lead wires, both of the bender element lead wires, and the
load cell wire to their respective LEMO connectors.

41. Open the LabView program (on the Dell personal computer) named “MR Data
Acquisition”.

42. Define the data channels in LabView (0-Load cell, 1-Stroke, 2-LVDT1, 3-LVDT2,
4-LVDT3) and make certain that it records data at a rate of 400 points per second.

43. Check the sensitivities of three LVDTs (go to tool and menu).

44. Check the range of the three LVDTs, and make sure all three LVDTs are in the
correct range. Try several times until the best ranges are achieved.

45. Remove the spacers from the LVDT holder.

46. Connect the cables from the MTS load frame (Ground – Ground, LVDT – LVDT,
Valve – Valve, Load cell – Load cell, HSM – HSM Solenoid).

47. Connect the cables in the back of the MTS computer (HSM – HSM Solenoid, long
cable → left bottom).

48. Change the load cell cable connection of the MTS computer from J2 to J3.

C-3
49. Turn on the computer (Password: MTS).

50. Open Test Star2 -> Utility -> Test Star setup (Next, change hardware parameters ->
next, next, next, no, 2 state, next, next, no, finish).

51. Open Test Star (ID: mts, Password: mts). Next, go to File -> Open -> Davich -> Soil
Lab MR.

52. Open the water supply (the yellow valve).

53. Turn on the pump (to low -> come back to middle automatically -> to high after
10s).

54. Open the air supply (the yellow valve).

55. Turn on the hydraulic system through the MTS pod (Reset -> low -> high). Always
turn off the pod except when you move it.

56. Place the steel ball bearing on top of the upper platen and lower the plexiglass
chamber around the outside of the specimen. Make certain that none of the wires are
pinched.

57. Connect the cell with the load cell cable.

58. Place the top cap, and load cell on top of the cell and screw the load shafts together.

59. Press the top cap down into the plexiglass chamber. Make sure everything is
aligned. The location of the cell may have to be shifted slightly to prevent lateral
pressure on the shaft. Attach the top cap with the three bolts.

60. Lock the chamber by screwing down the circular plates on top of the top cap.

61. Attach all of the external wiring to the front of the cell and the air hose to the back of
the cell. Connect the interior load cell lead wire.

62. Use the MTS pod to lower the actuator to make contact with the top of the specimen.
Check that the load cell is reading a small value. Zero the load by using F2 and F1 on the
pod.

63. Look over the entire system to make certain that everything is connected properly.

64. Open the Test Ware program on the MTS computer named “MR Test – NCHRP_6in”
(file, open, C, Winnt, Profiles, All users, Start Menu, Program, Test Star2, Test Ware
program, Davich, ). Then go to procedure, and execute.

C-4
65. Turn on pressure and external button on the pressure panel. Pressurize the cell by
opening the air supply and pressure valve (Listen for leaks in the system).

66. Pressurize the cell to103 kPa.

67. Make certain that the system is in stroke control and turn off the pod.

68. Run the data collection. As soon as the data collection is running resume the MR
test.

69. Check the permanent strain of each LVDT after each sequence and stop the test
whenever 5% strain is reached. When the LVDT reach its range, re-zero and proceed
with testing.

70. After all 30 sequences are finished, stop the Test Ware program, release confining
pressure, remove top cap and plexiglass chamber, remove LVDTs and LVDT holder, and
reset the topcap and plexiglass chamber. Open the Test Ware program on the MTS
computer named “MR Test – NCHRP_6in_shear.” Use 69 kPa confining pressure for
trial 1 and 34.5 kPa for trial 2. Run the test and record the data using the LabVIEW
program (200 points per second). The specimen will be loaded in stroke control.

71. After finishing the test, relief confining pressure, remove top cap and plexiglass
chamber, turn off TestWare and TestStar, close air valve, close hydraulic pump and
valve, remove air hoses, remove wires and take out the specimen from the triaxial cell.

72. Take soil samples from the top and bottom of the failed specimen for moisture
contents.

C-5
C.2 MR and Shear Strength Tests: Hammering Compaction
When a specimen was compacted by a vibratory hammer instead of a gyratory
compactor, test steps 10 – 30 in Appendix C.1 were replaced by the steps 10 – 29 listed
below.

10. Inspect the base unit, mold, and top and bottom platens for damage and cleanliness.

11. Place the porous stone on top of the platen and bender element if not already in
place.

12. Attach a membrane to the lower bender element platen using two O-rings in the
appropriate grooves. A third O-ring may be placed between the grooves if the vacuum
mold does not seal properly without it.

13. Place the vacuum mold on top of the platen and tighten the ring supports; the upper
ring support should be placed over the excess rubber membrane to hold it in place.

14. Open the blue vacuum valve. Apply a 10 in.-Hg vacuum supply and turn on the
Vacuum button on the pressure panel. Connect the pressure panel to the mold by an air
hose. Check to make certain that the vacuum is acting uniformly on the membrane.

15. Weigh the split mold assembly with ring supports in place. Record the weight.

16. Record the initial height of the mold from top to bottom at three different points.

17. Calculate the amount of soil needed for a 51 mm lift.

18. Place a small amount of fine (Ottawa) sand around the lower bender element to
protect it.

19. Pour the soil into the vacuum mold on the scale until the right amount achieved. Use
a trowel to give the soil a relatively flat surface.

20. Lower a plastic spacer and the compaction plate into the vacuum mold. Make certain
that they sit evenly on the sample.

21. Compact each lift using a 3000 beats-per-minute rotary hammer (spec. AASHTO
307). Make certain that the top of the specimen remains level and that only a small
amount of soil escapes around the edges of the compaction plate. The length of
compaction varies between soil types (10 to 20 seconds).

22. Use threaded rods to pull the plate and spacer from the vacuum mold.

C-6
23. Record the height and weight of the specimen and check to see that the correct dry
density was achieved.

24. Scratch the top surface for better contact between layers.

25. Repeat steps 19-24 five times.

26. Release vacuum and close the vacuum valve.

27. Place a wire mesh over the top of the specimen to protect the upper bender element.
Cover this mesh with approximately ¼ in. of fine (Ottawa) sand and compact using a
short burst from the rotary hammer.

28. Place the upper platen and porous stone on top of the specimen. Make certain that
there is enough fine sand around the bender element to ensure a good contact.

29. Remove the split mold and use ones O-ring to hold the membrane to the upper
platen. The materials used in this study will hold together due to apparent cohesion.

C-7
C.3 Cyclic Triaxial Tests
The cyclic triaxial tests were conducted with the steps in Appendix C.1 with replacing
steps 64 – 72 with steps 64 – 71 listed below.

64. Open the Test Ware program on the MTS computer named “Cyclic Triaxial _6in”
(file, open, C, Winnt, Profiles, All users, Start Menu, Program, Test Star2, Test Ware
program). Then go to procedure, and execute.

65. Turn on pressure and external button on the pressure panel. Pressurize the cell by
opening the air supply and pressure valve (Listen for leaks in the system).

66. Pressurize the cell to 21 kPa.

67. Make certain that the system is in stroke control and turn off the pod.

68. Run the data collection. As soon as the data collection is running resume the cyclic
triaxial test.

69. Check the permanent strain of each LVDT frequently and stop the test whenever 5%
strain is reached.

70. After finishing the test, stop the Test Ware program, release confining pressure,
remove top cap and plexiglass chamber, turn off TestStar, close air valve, close hydraulic
pump and valve, remove air hoses, remove LVDTs and LVDT holder, remove wires and
take out the specimen from the triaxial cell.

71. Take soil samples from the top and bottom of the failed specimen for moisture
contents.

C-8
C.4 Cyclic Triaxial Test Design
Because base material is located immediately below a pavement, other researchers [9]
have used a confining pressure of 21 kPa in cyclic triaxial testing.
From the shear strength tests, the average friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c) of
the various materials were about φ = 45° and c = 103 kPa. Based on the values, using
equations (C.1) and (C.2), the major principal stresses (σ1f) at a given confining pressures
(σ3) can be calculated for all 30 sequences of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) 1-28A testing protocol for base/sub-base materials [8]
(Table C.1).

σ 1 f = 2c K p + K pσ 3 (C.1)
1 + sin φ
Kp = (C.2)
1 − sin φ
where σ3 = confining pressure
σ1P = confining pressure + deviator stress at peak stress (failure)
φ = friction angle
c = cohesion

Also, the peak stress ratio, defined as confining pressure plus deviator stress for each
sequence divided by σ1P (C.3), can be computed for each sequence (Table C.1).

σa
Peak Stress Ratio(%) = (C.3)
σ 1P
where σa = σ3 + deviator stress

C-9
Table C.1: Stress Ratio of NCHRP 1–28A Testing Sequences.
Peak
Deviator Estimated
σ3 σa Stress
Sq Stress σ1P
(kPa) (kPa) Ratio
(kPa) (kPa)
(%)

0 103 228 331 1102 30.0

1 21 14 35 620 5.7
2 41 29 70 741 9.5
3 69 48 117 901 13.0
4 103 72 176 1102 16.0
5 138 97 234 1303 18.0
6 21 25 46 620 7.3
7 41 50 91 741 12.3
8 69 83 152 901 16.8
9 103 124 228 1102 20.6
10 138 165 303 1303 23.3
11 21 46 66 620 10.7
12 41 91 132 741 17.9
13 69 152 221 901 24.5
14 103 228 331 1102 30.0
15 138 303 441 1303 33.9
16 21 66 87 620 14.0
17 41 132 174 741 23.5
18 69 221 290 901 32.1
19 103 331 434 1102 39.4
20 138 441 579 1303 44.4
21 21 108 128 620 20.7
22 41 215 256 741 34.6
23 69 359 427 901 47.4
24 103 538 641 1102 58.2
25 138 717 855 1303 65.6
26 21 149 170 620 27.4
27 41 298 339 741 45.8
28 69 496 565 901 62.7
29 103 745 848 1102 76.9
30 138 993 1131 1303 86.8

C-10
From the MR tests on four specimens (100% OMC) from CR 3, recoverable and
permanent deformations were calculated from the 100 cycles of each sequence with a
stress ratio from 30 – 80%, as shown in Fig. C.1. The relations between permanent
deformation and stress ratio were approximately linear, and very little permanent
deformation occurred at a peak stress ratio less than 30% (Figs C.2 – C.5). Also, if the
peak stress ratio was above 60%, there was a possibility of specimen failure with cyclic
loading based on the failure angle calculated from shear strength test (32˚ – 50˚).
Therefore, the two peak stress ratios for cyclic triaxial tests were recommended to be
35% and 50%.

0.4

0.3
Displacement (mm)

Recoverable
Deformation

0.2

0.1 Permanent
Deformation

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (s)

Figure C.1: Permanent Deformation of CR 3 In-situ Blend: Sequence 28

(S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2043 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%)).

C-11
1.2
y = 0.0087x - 0.2768

Permanent Deformation (mm)

2
1.0 R = 0.9577

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stress Ratio (%)

Figure C.2: Deformation vs. Peak Stress Ratio: CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2035 kg/m3, MC = 9.1%)).

1.2
y = 0.0208x - 0.6553
Permanent Deformation (mm)

2
1.0 R = 0.9514

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stress Ratio (%)

Figure C.3: Deformation vs. Peak Stress Ratio: CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.8%)).

C-12
1.2
y = 0.0144x - 0.4404

Permanent Deformation (mm)

2
1.0 R = 0.8258

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stress Ratio (%)

Figure C.4: Deformation vs. Peak Stress Ratio: CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.0%)).

1.2
y = 0.0116x - 0.3433
Permanent Deformation (mm)

2
1.0 R = 0.9582

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stress Ratio (%)

Figure C.5: Deformation vs. Peak Stress Ratio: CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2032 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%)).

C-13
For 21 kPa confining pressure, the axial stresses were estimated to be 197 kPa
for the 35% peak stress ratio and 290 kPa for the 50% peak stress ratio. Axial stress is
the sum of contact stress and cyclic stress, where contact stress is axial stress applied to a
specimen to maintain a positive contact between the specimen cap and specimen, and
cyclic stress is a repeated haversine axial stress applied to a test specimen. From the
NCHRP 1–28A protocol, contact stress is set to maintain a constant (contact stress +
confining pressure)/confining pressure = 1.2 [8]. In conclusion, following the NCHRP
1–28A protocol, cyclic triaxial tests were performed with 21 kPa confining pressure, 4
kPa contact stress and 193 kPa and 286 kPa cyclic stresses.
From preliminary tests, no significant changes in permanent deformation were
noticed after 2,000 cycles. Thus, the 5,000 repeated cycles of axial stress was decided.
Each cycle was 1 s in duration, consisting of a 0.1 s haversine pulse followed by a 0.9 s
rest period, following the MR protocol for base materials [8]; this loading was also used
by previous researchers [9]. Specimens dimension (152 mm diameter and 280 mm
height) were the same as for the MR tests.

C-14
Appendix D

Detailed Results
D.1 Resilient Modulus (MR) Tables
Tables D.1 – D.14 show confining pressure, deviator stress and MR values at each
sequence of all 28 specimens. The sequences that failed to pass the quality control /
quality assurance criteria do not have MR values listed (the cell is blank).

D-1
Table D.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_1 and S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.1%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.3 286 1 21 10.3
2 41 19.7 342 2 41 19.8
3 69 33.7 432 3 69 33.8 624 31
4 103 50.5 529 4 103 50.6 722 27
5 138 67.4 614 5 138 67.2 770 20
6 21 20.6 270 6 21 20.4 345 22
7 41 40.6 306 7 41 40.4 402 24
8 69 67.4 391 8 69 67.4 465 16
9 103 101.1 480 9 103 100.9 538 11
10 138 135.5 560 10 138 135.3 600 7
11 21 40.5 238 11 21 40.6 294 19
12 41 81.0 292 12 41 81.0 330 12
13 69 136.0 370 13 69 135.7 392 6
14 103 203.5 458 14 103 202.7 460 0
15 138 271.4 524 15 138 269.9 512 2
16 21 61.3 223 16 21 60.9 267 17
17 41 122.0 279 17 41 121.5 300 7
18 69 203.2 362 18 69 202.6 367 1
19 103 305.0 447 19 103 303.7 433 3
20 138 407.5 510 20 138 404.4 482 5
21 21 101.3 213 21 21 101.2 239 11
22 41 203.9 283 22 41 202.6 286 1
23 69 339.1 370 23 69 337.0 359 3
24 103 508.6 438 24 103 504.3 413 6
25 138 680.0 500 25 138 669.2 469 6
26 21 142.2 208 26 21 142.2 232 11
27 41 284.7 277 27 41 283.7 291 5
28 69 476.1 369 28 69 471.4 369 0
29 103 713.6 451 29 103 703.8 432 4
30 138 945.5 30 138 924.7 466

D-2
Table D.2: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_1 and S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.1 1 21 10.2 183
2 41 19.5 249 2 41 19.6 263 6
3 69 33.6 313 3 69 33.8 345 9
4 103 50.3 396 4 103 50.7 448 12
5 138 67.8 497 5 138 67.8 542 8
6 21 19.8 6 21 20.1 163
7 41 40.5 228 7 41 40.4 225 1
8 69 67.8 300 8 69 67.9 320 6
9 103 101.8 389 9 103 101.8 423 8
10 138 135.1 479 10 138 135.9 537 11
11 21 40.6 11 21 40.5 149
12 41 81.0 221 12 41 81.6 221 0
13 69 135.4 301 13 69 135.9 314 4
14 103 202.9 390 14 103 204.0 432 10
15 138 271.2 455 15 138 272.5 513 11
16 21 60.6 154 16 21 61.3 143 7
17 41 121.5 217 17 41 122.2 221 2
18 69 202.7 302 18 69 204.1 324 7
19 103 304.8 382 19 103 305.7 420 9
20 138 406.2 438 20 138 407.6 492 11
21 21 101.1 152 21 21 101.7 145 4
22 41 202.8 225 22 41 203.9 232 3
23 69 338.9 311 23 69 338.9 324 4
24 103 505.2 378 24 103 508.9 394 4
25 138 671.8 446 25 138 678.2 454 2
26 21 141.4 149 26 21 142.3 140 6
27 41 283.9 228 27 41 283.9 230 0
28 69 472.3 323 28 69 474.1 329 2
29 103 705.8 406 29 103 710.3 388 4
30 138 937.3 476 30 138 945.3

D-3
Table D.3: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_1 and T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.2 242 1 21 10.2 230 5
2 41 19.7 292 2 41 19.6 292 0
3 69 32.5 347 3 69 33.7 348 0
4 103 51.1 418 4 103 50.6 421 1
5 138 68.2 501 5 138 67.5 507 1
6 21 20.5 236 6 21 19.8 215 9
7 41 40.7 278 7 41 40.1 255 8
8 69 67.9 329 8 69 67.4 311 5
9 103 101.9 396 9 103 101.5 386 2
10 138 136.3 468 10 138 135.5 468 0
11 21 40.6 214 11 21 40.6 195 9
12 41 81.7 256 12 41 81.2 237 7
13 69 136.3 314 13 69 135.7 302 4
14 103 204.9 394 14 103 203.5 386 2
15 138 272.8 457 15 138 270.3 453 1
16 21 61.4 203 16 21 60.9 181 11
17 41 122.9 251 17 41 121.8 231 8
18 69 204.8 317 18 69 200.8 306 4
19 103 306.9 388 19 103 303.2 384 1
20 138 409.1 442 20 138 405.2 440 0
21 21 99.4 196 21 21 99.6 175 11
22 41 203.7 249 22 41 202.6 236 5
23 69 342.3 322 23 69 339.6 317 2
24 103 511.9 386 24 103 507.6 378 2
25 138 679.1 444 25 138 676.6 433 2
26 21 143.4 190 26 21 141.9 172 9
27 41 287.0 246 27 41 284.8 233 5
28 69 477.0 325 28 69 473.1 316 3
29 103 711.2 395 29 103 707.4 389 1
30 138 946.1 435 30 138 940.5 434 0

D-4
Table D.4: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_1 and T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.1 108 1 21 9.8
2 41 19.6 169 2 41 19.3
3 69 33.7 231 3 69 33.8 277 16
4 103 50.6 310 4 103 51.0 353 12
5 138 67.7 396 5 138 67.7 439 10
6 21 19.8 111 6 21 20.1 159 30
7 41 40.5 163 7 41 40.7 196 17
8 69 67.6 228 8 69 68.0 255 11
9 103 101.4 306 9 103 102.2 340 10
10 138 135.6 376 10 138 136.3 424 11
11 21 40.0 104 11 21 40.6 137 24
12 41 81.3 161 12 41 81.7 188 14
13 69 135.8 230 13 69 136.0 258 11
14 103 203.4 315 14 103 204.4 350 10
15 138 271.6 372 15 138 272.1 419 11
16 21 58.1 105 16 21 60.9 131 19
17 41 119.2 164 17 41 122.1 186 12
18 69 200.7 242 18 69 204.3 267 9
19 103 303.6 308 19 103 306.5 345 11
20 138 407.4 352 20 138 407.3 399 12
21 21 99.3 110 21 21 101.4 128 14
22 41 201.2 177 22 41 203.6 194 9
23 69 340.1 250 23 69 339.9 274 9
24 103 509.1 296 24 103 509.3
25 138 677.2 335 25 138 679.2
26 21 141.1 108 26 21 142.3 124 13
27 41 285.1 176 27 41 285.1 187 6
28 69 475.9 255 28 69 475.8 274 7
29 103 710.6 298 29 103 711.9 332 10
30 138 942.1 30 138 944.7 369

D-5
Table D.5: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_1 and U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.6 268 1 21 9.5
2 41 19.7 329 2 41 19.7
3 69 34.0 412 3 69 34.1
4 103 51.1 522 4 103 50.8 643 19
5 138 68.3 605 5 138 67.8 727 17
6 21 20.4 251 6 21 20.3
7 41 40.5 296 7 41 40.6 373 21
8 69 67.9 381 8 69 68.0 436 13
9 103 101.9 473 9 103 101.9 525 10
10 138 136.5 563 10 138 136.1 619 9
11 21 40.6 222 11 21 41.1 274 19
12 41 81.5 286 12 41 82.0 316 9
13 69 136.5 371 13 69 136.3 393 6
14 103 204.9 468 14 103 204.5 486 4
15 138 273.8 534 15 138 272.2 548 3
16 21 61.3 216 16 21 61.3 244 12
17 41 123.0 283 17 41 122.7 297 5
18 69 205.0 366 18 69 204.1 376 3
19 103 307.2 456 19 103 306.3 459 0
20 138 408.4 513 20 138 408.3 511 0
21 21 101.1 209 21 21 102.4 216 3
22 41 204.8 282 22 41 204.1 282 0
23 69 342.3 372 23 69 339.8 369 1
24 103 510.9 438 24 103 509.3 437 0
25 138 680.1 480 25 138 677.3 501 4
26 21 143.9 198 26 21 142.7 202 2
27 41 286.6 270 27 41 285.4 273 1
28 69 478.0 365 28 69 475.3 370 1
29 103 711.8 428 29 103 710.3
30 138 944.5 452 30 138 944.6

D-6
Table D.6: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_1 and U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.1 148 1 21 9.9 76 49
2 41 19.6 211 2 41 19.2 139 34
3 69 33.5 289 3 69 33.4 214 26
4 103 50.6 378 4 103 50.2 295 22
5 138 67.3 456 5 138 67.2 366 20
6 21 20.1 135 6 21 19.2 70 48
7 41 40.4 190 7 41 40.0 137 28
8 69 67.3 267 8 69 67.3 219 18
9 103 101.3 356 9 103 101.2 304 15
10 138 135.0 443 10 138 135.2 368 17
11 21 40.0 126 11 21 40.0 76 39
12 41 81.3 194 12 41 81.1 148 24
13 69 132.7 279 13 69 135.6 236 15
14 103 200.8 368 14 103 202.9 315 14
15 138 270.3 429 15 138 270.1 357 17
16 21 60.8 129 16 21 60.6 82 37
17 41 122.9 201 17 41 121.5 160 20
18 69 204.2 285 18 69 203.3 244 14
19 103 306.6 362 19 103 303.6 301 17
20 138 407.0 413 20 138 404.6 332 19
21 21 101.3 130 21 21 100.7 91 30
22 41 203.8 208 22 41 203.0 169 19
23 69 338.8 288 23 69 334.7 238 18
24 103 507.2 347 24 103 503.0 283 18
25 138 674.6 398 25 138 672.4 338 15
26 21 141.9 125 26 21 138.7 91 27
27 41 284.5 202 27 41 280.2 173 14
28 69 473.4 289 28 69 471.9 253 13
29 103 707.4 349 29 103 703.8 291 17
30 138 939.0 30 138 932.1

D-7
Table D.7: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_1 and V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 5.2%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.4 231 1 21 10.7 234 1
2 41 19.8 324 2 41 19.7 290 11
3 69 34.1 412 3 69 34.0 387 6
4 103 50.9 528 4 103 50.9 508 4
5 138 67.8 625 5 138 67.8 605 3
6 21 20.5 239 6 21 20.5 216 9
7 41 40.7 310 7 41 40.6 283 9
8 69 67.8 403 8 69 67.9 373 7
9 103 101.9 511 9 103 101.9 473 8
10 138 136.6 609 10 138 136.1 567 7
11 21 40.4 217 11 21 40.4 202 7
12 41 81.3 296 12 41 81.6 274 7
13 69 136.3 398 13 69 136.4 370 7
14 103 204.6 502 14 103 205.2 469 7
15 138 273.5 578 15 138 273.1 539 7
16 21 61.3 209 16 21 61.4 189 9
17 41 122.9 296 17 41 122.6 271 8
18 69 204.3 398 18 69 204.2 367 8
19 103 307.3 494 19 103 306.9 455 8
20 138 409.1 558 20 138 408.4 514 8
21 21 102.0 209 21 21 102.1 188 10
22 41 204.2 302 22 41 204.1 273 10
23 69 340.8 408 23 69 340.5 367 10
24 103 509.8 485 24 103 509.9 428 12
25 138 677.7 547 25 138 679.2 487 11
26 21 142.7 203 26 21 142.5 179 12
27 41 285.9 297 27 41 285.8 266 10
28 69 476.1 408 28 69 475.7 365 11
29 103 712.3 491 29 103 713.2 426 13
30 138 946.3 539 30 138 946.0 491 9

D-8
Table D.8: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_1 and V_8_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.0 88 1 21 10.0 70 21
2 41 19.6 171 2 41 19.5 153 11
3 69 33.9 273 3 69 33.6 255 7
4 103 50.9 383 4 103 50.9 379 1
5 138 67.8 487 5 138 67.8 473 3
6 21 20.2 98 6 21 19.8 76 23
7 41 40.7 182 7 41 40.7 164 10
8 69 67.9 280 8 69 67.7 266 5
9 103 101.9 387 9 103 101.6 376 3
10 138 135.6 475 10 138 135.9 473 0
11 21 40.6 106 11 21 40.4 88 17
12 41 81.7 198 12 41 81.7 178 11
13 69 135.7 297 13 69 136.1 285 4
14 103 203.9 389 14 103 204.2 377 3
15 138 272.1 457 15 138 271.8 447 2
16 21 61.4 115 16 21 61.4 95 17
17 41 122.5 206 17 41 122.4 185 10
18 69 204.1 299 18 69 204.1 283 5
19 103 305.9 377 19 103 305.5 362 4
20 138 408.0 434 20 138 408.0 426 2
21 21 101.7 124 21 21 101.5 105 15
22 41 203.6 214 22 41 203.5 196 8
23 69 339.0 295 23 69 339.3 280 5
24 103 508.3 350 24 103 508.7 343 2
25 138 677.1 410 25 138 672.2 402 2
26 21 142.3 119 26 21 141.3 105 12
27 41 285.4 214 27 41 283.1 199 7
28 69 475.3 300 28 69 471.3 284 5
29 103 711.9 355 29 103 706.2
30 138 945.9 30 138 937.3

D-9
Table D.9: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_1 and W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 1991 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 4.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.7 1 21 10.4 264
2 41 19.7 407 2 41 19.6 396 3
3 69 34.1 570 3 69 34.0 560 2
4 103 51.0 699 4 103 50.8 766 9
5 138 68.1 853 5 138 67.8 864 1
6 21 20.6 281 6 21 20.6 257 9
7 41 40.8 396 7 41 40.5 375 5
8 69 68.0 533 8 69 67.9 512 4
9 103 101.9 670 9 103 101.8 651 3
10 138 136.8 813 10 138 136.1 760 6
11 21 40.8 260 11 21 40.6 245 6
12 41 81.3 386 12 41 81.3 362 6
13 69 135.9 520 13 69 136.3 492 5
14 103 204.3 655 14 103 204.8 620 5
15 138 273.8 718 15 138 273.4 696 3
16 21 60.2 254 16 21 61.5 238 6
17 41 119.8 367 17 41 122.8 351 4
18 69 205.7 504 18 69 204.2 480 5
19 103 307.7 616 19 103 307.3 593 4
20 138 450.6 681 20 138 408.9 649 5
21 21 102.5 241 21 21 102.5 232 4
22 41 204.6 367 22 41 204.1 352 4
23 69 341.7 496 23 69 340.2 477 4
24 103 511.6 586 24 103 509.6 558 5
25 138 685.3 651 25 138 679.3 620 5
26 21 143.3 231 26 21 142.5 225 3
27 41 286.3 358 27 41 285.3 348 3
28 69 476.7 495 28 69 475.5 476 4
29 103 711.8 578 29 103 713.0 558 4
30 138 945.7 635 30 138 946.3 611 4

D-10
Table D.10: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_1 and W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.3 148 1 21 10.3
2 41 19.5 250 2 41 19.6
3 69 34.1 362 3 69 33.8 400 9
4 103 51.0 501 4 103 50.7 518 3
5 138 68.0 609 5 138 67.8 624 2
6 21 20.0 148 6 21 20.1 180 18
7 41 40.6 253 7 41 40.6 268 6
8 69 67.8 370 8 69 67.8 378 2
9 103 101.9 492 9 103 101.5 490 0
10 138 135.8 589 10 138 136.0 583 1
11 21 40.5 151 11 21 40.5 172 12
12 41 81.5 259 12 41 81.1 274 6
13 69 136.3 376 13 69 135.8 378 0
14 103 204.7 485 14 103 204.2 478 1
15 138 273.6 557 15 138 272.5 548 2
16 21 61.5 152 16 21 61.4 176 13
17 41 123.0 262 17 41 122.6 272 4
18 69 204.3 373 18 69 204.0 379 2
19 103 306.9 469 19 103 306.0 472 1
20 138 408.5 531 20 138 407.1 532 0
21 21 102.0 163 21 21 101.7 176 8
22 41 204.0 270 22 41 204.1 282 4
23 69 340.4 373 23 69 339.4 379 2
24 103 509.6 443 24 103 508.7 449 1
25 138 679.1 507 25 138 676.5 517 2
26 21 142.5 157 26 21 142.3 169 7
27 41 285.6 274 27 41 285.2 270 1
28 69 475.7 380 28 69 475.5 369 3
29 103 711.8 446 29 103 711.3 441 1
30 138 945.3 504 30 138 944.8 498 1

D-11
Table D.11: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_1 and X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 3.5%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.2 1 21 10.3 187
2 41 19.6 290 2 41 19.6 257 12
3 69 33.6 380 3 69 33.6 336 12
4 103 50.4 485 4 103 50.4 431 11
5 138 67.2 584 5 138 67.2 520 11
6 21 20.0 197 6 21 20.0 163 17
7 41 40.3 266 7 41 40.2 237 11
8 69 67.4 364 8 69 67.4 326 11
9 103 101.0 464 9 103 101.4 427 8
10 138 135.0 564 10 138 135.1 519 8
11 21 40.1 180 11 21 40.0 158 12
12 41 81.0 265 12 41 81.1 244 8
13 69 135.4 363 13 69 135.7 340 6
14 103 203.2 468 14 103 203.3 440 6
15 138 271.2 540 15 138 271.0 508 6
16 21 61.0 177 16 21 61.0 161 9
17 41 121.9 270 17 41 121.8 251 7
18 69 203.2 366 18 69 202.9 350 4
19 103 304.6 451 19 103 304.3 434 4
20 138 406.3 514 20 138 405.9 500 3
21 21 101.5 178 21 21 101.4 171 4
22 41 202.7 272 22 41 203.1 269 1
23 69 338.1 360 23 69 337.7 358 1
24 103 507.0 437 24 103 505.8 429 2
25 138 674.2 512 25 138 673.3 509 1
26 21 141.9 178 26 21 142.0 179 0
27 41 284.1 284 27 41 283.7 281 1
28 69 473.1 391 28 69 472.7 391 0
29 103 708.4 29 103 707.3 449
30 138 30 138 938.3

D-12
Table D.12: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_1 and X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.4 155 1 21 10.3 169 8
2 41 19.5 224 2 41 19.6 240 7
3 69 33.8 317 3 69 33.6 315 1
4 103 50.8 410 4 103 50.5 411 0
5 138 67.7 506 5 138 67.1 497 2
6 21 20.1 143 6 21 19.8 129 10
7 41 40.6 219 7 41 40.3 226 3
8 69 67.7 306 8 69 67.3 304 1
9 103 101.8 413 9 103 101.3 405 2
10 138 136.1 502 10 138 135.4 478 5
11 21 40.4 146 11 21 40.1 143 2
12 41 81.4 230 12 41 81.1 224 2
13 69 136.1 324 13 69 135.7 316 2
14 103 204.2 427 14 103 203.0 407 5
15 138 272.4 497 15 138 271.0 476 4
16 21 61.3 148 16 21 60.8 143 4
17 41 122.5 237 17 41 121.6 230 3
18 69 204.1 335 18 69 202.9 321 4
19 103 306.6 415 19 103 304.3 404 3
20 138 408.0 473 20 138 405.5 464 2
21 21 101.8 156 21 21 101.2 150 4
22 41 203.9 251 22 41 203.0 242 3
23 69 339.7 330 23 69 337.8 333 1
24 103 509.1 393 24 103 505.8 434 9
25 138 678.8 467 25 138 674.1 492 5
26 21 142.7 159 26 21 141.7 152 4
27 41 283.5 257 27 41 283.9 255 1
28 69 472.5 350 28 69 472.7 359 2
29 103 708.1 395 29 103 707.6
30 138 940.8 453 30 138 940.9

D-13
Table D.13: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_1 and Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 65% OMC = 3.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.3 172 1 21 10.1 196 12
2 41 20.0 274 2 41 19.8 274 0
3 69 34.1 369 3 69 33.6 362 2
4 103 51.2 496 4 103 50.9 488 2
5 138 68.1 610 5 138 68.0 619 2
6 21 20.4 172 6 21 20.0 161 7
7 41 40.9 272 7 41 40.5 255 6
8 69 68.0 372 8 69 67.6 365 2
9 103 102.3 495 9 103 101.1 496 0
10 138 136.3 608 10 138 134.6 610 0
11 21 41.1 176 11 21 40.4 157 11
12 41 81.6 279 12 41 80.7 256 8
13 69 136.4 399 13 69 135.1 384 4
14 103 203.9 515 14 103 202.7 511 1
15 138 275.8 582 15 138 269.6 596 2
16 21 61.4 177 16 21 60.6 161 9
17 41 122.6 283 17 41 121.4 264 7
18 69 204.4 400 18 69 202.0 393 2
19 103 305.6 492 19 103 303.5 504 2
20 138 409.3 557 20 138 404.5 576 3
21 21 102.3 184 21 21 100.7 169 8
22 41 203.8 298 22 41 201.4 287 4
23 69 340.6 399 23 69 336.0 401 1
24 103 509.3 475 24 103 503.2 490 3
25 138 677.8 555 25 138 671.2 576 4
26 21 142.7 188 26 21 140.9
27 41 285.2 308 27 41 282.0 297 3
28 69 475.5 425 28 69 469.5 421 1
29 103 711.2 485 29 103 701.5 502 3
30 138 945.9 30 138 931.7 570

D-14
Table D.14: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_1 and Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator MR Sq Confining Deviator MR Difrerence
kPa kPa MPa kPa kPa MPa (%)
1 21 10.1 76 1 21 10.0 75 0
2 41 19.7 172 2 41 19.5 172 0
3 69 33.6 277 3 69 33.5 274 1
4 103 50.8 398 4 103 50.6 401 1
5 138 67.4 498 5 138 67.6 507 2
6 21 20.0 83 6 21 20.0 92 9
7 41 40.3 182 7 41 40.6 178 2
8 69 67.7 293 8 69 67.7 300 2
9 103 101.3 405 9 103 101.3 419 3
10 138 135.3 504 10 138 135.3 519 3
11 21 40.6 100 11 21 40.6 110 9
12 41 81.2 201 12 41 81.3 216 7
13 69 135.5 318 13 69 135.1 327 3
14 103 202.8 415 14 103 202.8 430 4
15 138 270.5 487 15 138 269.5 502 3
16 21 60.9 109 16 21 60.7 124 13
17 41 121.7 216 17 41 121.0 227 5
18 69 202.2 315 18 69 202.0 329 4
19 103 303.6 400 19 103 302.4 414 3
20 138 403.8 464 20 138 402.2 480 3
21 21 101.0 126 21 21 100.8 135 7
22 41 202.2 227 22 41 201.5 239 5
23 69 336.5 305 23 69 335.6 316 3
24 103 503.9 380 24 103 502.3 389 2
25 138 670.5 460 25 138 668.6 472 3
26 21 141.3 126 26 21 141.1 148 14
27 41 283.9 243 27 41 282.1 252 3
28 69 471.9 325 28 69 468.7 330 2
29 103 706.2 389 29 103 701.0 396 2
30 138 937.0 30 138 927.9

D-15
ENGLISH UNITS
Table D.15: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_5.1_1 and S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.1%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 41416 1 3 1.5
2 6 2.9 49652 2 6 2.9
3 10 4.9 62654 3 10 4.9 90446 31
4 15 7.3 76771 4 15 7.3 104762 27
5 20 9.8 89120 5 20 9.7 111656 20
6 3 3.0 39152 6 3 3.0 50005 22
7 6 5.9 44360 7 6 5.9 58364 24
8 10 9.8 56684 8 10 9.8 67477 16
9 15 14.7 69566 9 15 14.6 78021 11
10 20 19.7 81233 10 20 19.6 87010 7
11 3 5.9 34588 11 3 5.9 42637 19
12 6 11.8 42313 12 6 11.7 47831 12
13 10 19.7 53636 13 10 19.7 56924 6
14 15 29.5 66476 14 15 29.4 66722 0
15 20 39.4 76011 15 20 39.1 74319 2
16 3 8.9 32349 16 3 8.8 38749 17
17 6 17.7 40508 17 6 17.6 43441 7
18 10 29.5 52560 18 10 29.4 53261 1
19 15 44.2 64765 19 15 44.1 62775 3
20 20 59.1 73926 20 20 58.6 69879 6
21 3 14.7 30853 21 3 14.7 34653 11
22 6 29.6 41024 22 6 29.4 41546 1
23 10 49.2 53608 23 10 48.9 52014 3
24 15 73.8 63571 24 15 73.1 59906 6
25 20 98.6 72582 25 20 97.1 68027 7
26 3 20.6 30105 26 3 20.6 33651 11
27 6 41.3 40154 27 6 41.1 42191 5
28 10 69.1 53568 28 10 68.4 53493 0
29 15 103.5 65424 29 15 102.1 62586 5
30 20 137.1 30 20 134.1 67621

D-16
Table D.16: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend
(S_7.8_1 and S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 7.8%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 1 3 1.5 26566
2 6 2.8 36052 2 6 2.8 38156 6
3 10 4.9 45403 3 10 4.9 50094 9
4 15 7.3 57463 4 15 7.4 65036 12
5 20 9.8 72015 5 20 9.8 78650 8
6 3 2.9 6 3 2.9 23575
7 6 5.9 33038 7 6 5.9 32664 1
8 10 9.8 43545 8 10 9.8 46389 6
9 15 14.8 56400 9 15 14.8 61289 8
10 20 19.6 69405 10 20 19.7 77848 11
11 3 5.9 11 3 5.9 21577
12 6 11.8 32056 12 6 11.8 32067 0
13 10 19.6 43643 13 10 19.7 45611 4
14 15 29.4 56631 14 15 29.6 62593 10
15 20 39.3 66004 15 20 39.5 74444 11
16 3 8.8 22296 16 3 8.9 20782 7
17 6 17.6 31434 17 6 17.7 32107 2
18 10 29.4 43782 18 10 29.6 46973 7
19 15 44.2 55373 19 15 44.3 60947 9
20 20 58.9 63520 20 20 59.1 71372 11
21 3 14.7 22023 21 3 14.8 21068 5
22 6 29.4 32688 22 6 29.6 33615 3
23 10 49.1 45115 23 10 49.1 47011 4
24 15 73.3 54802 24 15 73.8 57091 4
25 20 97.4 64652 25 20 98.4 65806 2
26 3 20.5 21660 26 3 20.6 20374 6
27 6 41.2 33127 27 6 41.2 33289 0
28 10 68.5 46917 28 10 68.8 47759 2
29 15 102.4 58812 29 15 103.0 56218 5
30 20 135.9 69050 30 20 137.1

D-17
Table D.17: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_5.7_1 and T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 35167 1 3 1.5 33403 5
2 6 2.9 42357 2 6 2.8 42411 0
3 10 4.7 50374 3 10 4.9 50535 0
4 15 7.4 60574 4 15 7.3 61030 1
5 20 9.9 72693 5 20 9.8 73466 1
6 3 3.0 34253 6 3 2.9 31150 10
7 6 5.9 40331 7 6 5.8 36933 9
8 10 9.8 47698 8 10 9.8 45161 6
9 15 14.8 57362 9 15 14.7 56051 2
10 20 19.8 67828 10 20 19.7 67896 0
11 3 5.9 31000 11 3 5.9 28346 9
12 6 11.8 37058 12 6 11.8 34303 8
13 10 19.8 45611 13 10 19.7 43821 4
14 15 29.7 57200 14 15 29.5 56028 2
15 20 39.6 66307 15 20 39.2 65666 1
16 3 8.9 29471 16 3 8.8 26256 12
17 6 17.8 36343 17 6 17.7 33532 8
18 10 29.7 46009 18 10 29.1 44363 4
19 15 44.5 56245 19 15 44.0 55653 1
20 20 59.3 64096 20 20 58.8 63781 0
21 3 14.4 28370 21 3 14.4 25356 12
22 6 29.5 36130 22 6 29.4 34168 6
23 10 49.6 46710 23 10 49.3 45905 2
24 15 74.2 56036 24 15 73.6 54852 2
25 20 98.5 64379 25 20 98.1 62815 2
26 3 20.8 27498 26 3 20.6 24904 10
27 6 41.6 35725 27 6 41.3 33779 6
28 10 69.2 47109 28 10 68.6 45855 3
29 15 103.1 57226 29 15 102.6 56468 1
30 20 137.2 63156 30 20 136.4 63001 0

D-18
Table D.18: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(T_8.8_1 and T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 8.8%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 15599 1 3 1.4
2 6 2.8 24510 2 6 2.8
3 10 4.9 33518 3 10 4.9 40119 16
4 15 7.3 45012 4 15 7.4 51178 12
5 20 9.8 57431 5 20 9.8 63682 10
6 3 2.9 16058 6 3 2.9 23001 30
7 6 5.9 23672 7 6 5.9 28472 17
8 10 9.8 33022 8 10 9.9 36982 11
9 15 14.7 44409 9 15 14.8 49333 10
10 20 19.7 54590 10 20 19.8 61458 11
11 3 5.8 15048 11 3 5.9 19857 24
12 6 11.8 23303 12 6 11.8 27224 14
13 10 19.7 33349 13 10 19.7 37377 11
14 15 29.5 45715 14 15 29.6 50808 10
15 20 39.4 54018 15 20 39.5 60746 11
16 3 8.4 15297 16 3 8.8 18965 19
17 6 17.3 23763 17 6 17.7 26991 12
18 10 29.1 35152 18 10 29.6 38681 9
19 15 44.0 44706 19 15 44.4 50091 11
20 20 59.1 51103 20 20 59.1 57861 12
21 3 14.4 15978 21 3 14.7 18551 14
22 6 29.2 25609 22 6 29.5 28097 9
23 10 49.3 36307 23 10 49.3 39718 9
24 15 73.8 42913 24 15 73.9
25 20 98.2 48601 25 20 98.5
26 3 20.5 15678 26 3 20.6 17935 13
27 6 41.4 25523 27 6 41.3 27107 6
28 10 69.0 37016 28 10 69.0 39800 7
29 15 103.1 43211 29 15 103.2 48118 10
30 20 136.6 30 20 137.0 53572

D-19
Table D.19: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_5.7_1 and U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 38870 1 3 1.4
2 6 2.9 47662 2 6 2.9
3 10 4.9 59799 3 10 4.9
4 15 7.4 75660 4 15 7.4 93248 19
5 20 9.9 87815 5 20 9.8 105367 17
6 3 3.0 36343 6 3 2.9
7 6 5.9 42870 7 6 5.9 54164 21
8 10 9.8 55222 8 10 9.9 63303 13
9 15 14.8 68635 9 15 14.8 76152 10
10 20 19.8 81638 10 20 19.7 89802 9
11 3 5.9 32135 11 3 6.0 39693 19
12 6 11.8 41527 12 6 11.9 45860 9
13 10 19.8 53759 13 10 19.8 56932 6
14 15 29.7 67818 14 15 29.7 70425 4
15 20 39.7 77454 15 20 39.5 79480 3
16 3 8.9 31256 16 3 8.9 35337 12
17 6 17.8 41081 17 6 17.8 43099 5
18 10 29.7 53016 18 10 29.6 54529 3
19 15 44.5 66180 19 15 44.4 66502 0
20 20 59.2 74417 20 20 59.2 74126 0
21 3 14.7 30255 21 3 14.8 31352 3
22 6 29.7 40945 22 6 29.6 40943 0
23 10 49.6 53906 23 10 49.3 53458 1
24 15 74.1 63532 24 15 73.9 63388 0
25 20 98.6 69635 25 20 98.2 72649 4
26 3 20.9 28720 26 3 20.7 29307 2
27 6 41.6 39119 27 6 41.4 39560 1
28 10 69.3 52975 28 10 68.9 53631 1
29 15 103.2 62133 29 15 103.0
30 20 137.0 65567 30 20 137.0

D-20
Table D.20: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP
(U_8.7_1 and U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 8.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 21411 1 3 1.4 10987 49
2 6 2.8 30575 2 6 2.8 20125 34
3 10 4.9 41887 3 10 4.8 31047 26
4 15 7.3 54838 4 15 7.3 42840 22
5 20 9.8 66100 5 20 9.7 53124 20
6 3 2.9 19597 6 3 2.8 10165 48
7 6 5.9 27624 7 6 5.8 19854 28
8 10 9.8 38769 8 10 9.8 31822 18
9 15 14.7 51668 9 15 14.7 44036 15
10 20 19.6 64194 10 20 19.6 53300 17
11 3 5.8 18208 11 3 5.8 11018 39
12 6 11.8 28126 12 6 11.8 21415 24
13 10 19.3 40475 13 10 19.7 34226 15
14 15 29.1 53387 14 15 29.4 45708 14
15 20 39.2 62174 15 20 39.2 51772 17
16 3 8.8 18720 16 3 8.8 11858 37
17 6 17.8 29154 17 6 17.6 23266 20
18 10 29.6 41301 18 10 29.5 35389 14
19 15 44.5 52438 19 15 44.0 43620 17
20 20 59.0 59871 20 20 58.7 48207 19
21 3 14.7 18916 21 3 14.6 13200 30
22 6 29.6 30207 22 6 29.4 24560 19
23 10 49.1 41800 23 10 48.5 34465 18
24 15 73.6 50279 24 15 72.9 41024 18
25 20 97.8 57744 25 20 97.5 49050 15
26 3 20.6 18126 26 3 20.1 13142 27
27 6 41.3 29251 27 6 40.6 25094 14
28 10 68.7 41976 28 10 68.4 36723 13
29 15 102.6 50610 29 15 102.1 42198 17
30 20 136.2 30 20 135.2

D-21
Table D.21: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_5.2_1 and V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 5.2%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 33454 1 3 1.5 33889 1
2 6 2.9 47032 2 6 2.9 42075 11
3 10 4.9 59791 3 10 4.9 56099 6
4 15 7.4 76529 4 15 7.4 73727 4
5 20 9.8 90701 5 20 9.8 87812 3
6 3 3.0 34634 6 3 3.0 31360 9
7 6 5.9 45019 7 6 5.9 41046 9
8 10 9.8 58407 8 10 9.8 54140 7
9 15 14.8 74167 9 15 14.8 68543 8
10 20 19.8 88365 10 20 19.7 82251 7
11 3 5.9 31540 11 3 5.9 29297 7
12 6 11.8 42962 12 6 11.8 39755 7
13 10 19.8 57789 13 10 19.8 53721 7
14 15 29.7 72847 14 15 29.8 68063 7
15 20 39.7 83819 15 20 39.6 78204 7
16 3 8.9 30287 16 3 8.9 27465 9
17 6 17.8 42930 17 6 17.8 39364 8
18 10 29.6 57695 18 10 29.6 53245 8
19 15 44.6 71624 19 15 44.5 65934 8
20 20 59.3 80964 20 20 59.2 74570 8
21 3 14.8 30365 21 3 14.8 27195 10
22 6 29.6 43836 22 6 29.6 39660 10
23 10 49.4 59106 23 10 49.4 53182 10
24 15 73.9 70300 24 15 73.9 62124 12
25 20 98.3 79309 25 20 98.5 70696 11
26 3 20.7 29502 26 3 20.7 25893 12
27 6 41.5 43025 27 6 41.5 38604 10
28 10 69.0 59219 28 10 69.0 52977 11
29 15 103.3 71143 29 15 103.4 61851 13
30 20 137.2 78205 30 20 137.2 71171 9

D-22
Table D.22: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(V_8_1 and V_8_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 8%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 12812 1 3 1.5 10136 21
2 6 2.8 24839 2 6 2.8 22127 11
3 10 4.9 39649 3 10 4.9 36972 7
4 15 7.4 55518 4 15 7.4 54948 1
5 20 9.8 70647 5 20 9.8 68628 3
6 3 2.9 14234 6 3 2.9 11022 23
7 6 5.9 26379 7 6 5.9 23728 10
8 10 9.8 40675 8 10 9.8 38582 5
9 15 14.8 56181 9 15 14.7 54502 3
10 20 19.7 68823 10 20 19.7 68575 0
11 3 5.9 15334 11 3 5.9 12715 17
12 6 11.8 28779 12 6 11.8 25746 11
13 10 19.7 43127 13 10 19.7 41331 4
14 15 29.6 56397 14 15 29.6 54706 3
15 20 39.5 66245 15 20 39.4 64777 2
16 3 8.9 16649 16 3 8.9 13782 17
17 6 17.8 29895 17 6 17.8 26833 10
18 10 29.6 43362 18 10 29.6 41052 5
19 15 44.4 54624 19 15 44.3 52519 4
20 20 59.2 62968 20 20 59.2 61815 2
21 3 14.7 17919 21 3 14.7 15231 15
22 6 29.5 31030 22 6 29.5 28455 8
23 10 49.2 42719 23 10 49.2 40598 5
24 15 73.7 50731 24 15 73.8 49736 2
25 20 98.2 59469 25 20 97.5 58332 2
26 3 20.6 17280 26 3 20.5 15262 12
27 6 41.4 31022 27 6 41.1 28840 7
28 10 68.9 43500 28 10 68.4 41195 5
29 15 103.2 51558 29 15 102.4
30 20 137.2 30 20 135.9

D-23
Table D.23: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_4.7_1 and W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory = 124.29 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 4.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 1 3 1.5 38246
2 6 2.9 58990 2 6 2.8 57447 3
3 10 5.0 82681 3 10 4.9 81228 2
4 15 7.4 101390 4 15 7.4 111123 10
5 20 9.9 123715 5 20 9.8 125378 1
6 3 3.0 40820 6 3 3.0 37203 9
7 6 5.9 57437 7 6 5.9 54395 5
8 10 9.9 77358 8 10 9.8 74232 4
9 15 14.8 97102 9 15 14.8 94397 3
10 20 19.8 117845 10 20 19.7 110274 6
11 3 5.9 37650 11 3 5.9 35547 6
12 6 11.8 55995 12 6 11.8 52559 6
13 10 19.7 75412 13 10 19.8 71333 5
14 15 29.6 95046 14 15 29.7 89871 5
15 20 39.7 104187 15 20 39.7 100965 3
16 3 8.7 36820 16 3 8.9 34580 6
17 6 17.4 53162 17 6 17.8 50908 4
18 10 29.8 73034 18 10 29.6 69662 5
19 15 44.6 89284 19 15 44.6 85982 4
20 20 65.3 98715 20 20 59.3 94091 5
21 3 14.9 34972 21 3 14.9 33718 4
22 6 29.7 53290 22 6 29.6 51045 4
23 10 49.6 71991 23 10 49.3 69137 4
24 15 74.2 84959 24 15 73.9 80862 5
25 20 99.4 94396 25 20 98.5 89978 5
26 3 20.8 33560 26 3 20.7 32666 3
27 6 41.5 51858 27 6 41.4 50543 3
28 10 69.1 71758 28 10 69.0 69013 4
29 15 103.2 83871 29 15 103.4 80895 4
30 20 137.2 92156 30 20 137.2 88585 4

D-24
Table D.24: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP
(W_7.2_1 and W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory = 126.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 7.2%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 21415 1 3 1.5
2 6 2.8 36316 2 6 2.8
3 10 4.9 52553 3 10 4.9 58026 10
4 15 7.4 72727 4 15 7.4 75091 3
5 20 9.9 88270 5 20 9.8 90486 3
6 3 2.9 21403 6 3 2.9 26041 22
7 6 5.9 36753 7 6 5.9 38915 6
8 10 9.8 53704 8 10 9.8 54820 2
9 15 14.8 71413 9 15 14.7 71096 0
10 20 19.7 85487 10 20 19.7 84582 1
11 3 5.9 21935 11 3 5.9 24985 14
12 6 11.8 37562 12 6 11.8 39765 6
13 10 19.8 54596 13 10 19.7 54864 0
14 15 29.7 70295 14 15 29.6 69315 1
15 20 39.7 80762 15 20 39.5 79513 2
16 3 8.9 22103 16 3 8.9 25469 15
17 6 17.8 38050 17 6 17.8 39511 4
18 10 29.6 54127 18 10 29.6 55035 2
19 15 44.5 68025 19 15 44.4 68492 1
20 20 59.2 76997 20 20 59.0 77186 0
21 3 14.8 23571 21 3 14.8 25560 8
22 6 29.6 39129 22 6 29.6 40891 5
23 10 49.4 54065 23 10 49.2 55017 2
24 15 73.9 64221 24 15 73.8 65144 1
25 20 98.5 73537 25 20 98.1 74986 2
26 3 20.7 22742 26 3 20.6 24443 7
27 6 41.4 39714 27 6 41.4 39152 1
28 10 69.0 55081 28 10 69.0 53521 3
29 15 103.2 64668 29 15 103.2 63934 1
30 20 137.1 73071 30 20 137.0 72294 1

D-25
Table D.25: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_3.5_1 and X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory = 129.85 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 3.5%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 1 3 1.5 27092
2 6 2.8 42109 2 6 2.8 37235 12
3 10 4.9 55119 3 10 4.9 48661 12
4 15 7.3 70301 4 15 7.3 62519 11
5 20 9.7 84645 5 20 9.7 75404 11
6 3 2.9 28541 6 3 2.9 23660 17
7 6 5.8 38568 7 6 5.8 34437 11
8 10 9.8 52825 8 10 9.8 47215 11
9 15 14.6 67357 9 15 14.7 61957 8
10 20 19.6 81728 10 20 19.6 75253 8
11 3 5.8 26035 11 3 5.8 22900 12
12 6 11.7 38466 12 6 11.8 35395 8
13 10 19.6 52692 13 10 19.7 49293 6
14 15 29.5 67859 14 15 29.5 63813 6
15 20 39.3 78337 15 20 39.3 73656 6
16 3 8.9 25660 16 3 8.9 23378 9
17 6 17.7 39100 17 6 17.7 36468 7
18 10 29.5 53082 18 10 29.4 50703 4
19 15 44.2 65424 19 15 44.1 62960 4
20 20 58.9 74561 20 20 58.9 72528 3
21 3 14.7 25831 21 3 14.7 24855 4
22 6 29.4 39472 22 6 29.5 38944 1
23 10 49.0 52186 23 10 49.0 51881 1
24 15 73.5 63327 24 15 73.4 62247 2
25 20 97.8 74283 25 20 97.6 73824 1
26 3 20.6 25847 26 3 20.6 25973 0
27 6 41.2 41219 27 6 41.1 40798 1
28 10 68.6 56660 28 10 68.6 56651 0
29 15 102.7 29 15 102.6 65073
30 20 30 20 136.1

D-26
Table D.26: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(X_5.4_1 and X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory = 129.85 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 5.4%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 22459 1 3 1.5 24501 9
2 6 2.8 32463 2 6 2.8 34871 7
3 10 4.9 46007 3 10 4.9 45693 1
4 15 7.4 59491 4 15 7.3 59619 0
5 20 9.8 73420 5 20 9.7 72028 2
6 3 2.9 20745 6 3 2.9 18773 10
7 6 5.9 31728 7 6 5.8 32810 3
8 10 9.8 44373 8 10 9.8 44118 1
9 15 14.8 59934 9 15 14.7 58807 2
10 20 19.7 72835 10 20 19.6 69351 5
11 3 5.9 21197 11 3 5.8 20755 2
12 6 11.8 33295 12 6 11.8 32534 2
13 10 19.7 46947 13 10 19.7 45882 2
14 15 29.6 61969 14 15 29.4 59032 5
15 20 39.5 72124 15 20 39.3 68976 4
16 3 8.9 21491 16 3 8.8 20668 4
17 6 17.8 34419 17 6 17.6 33323 3
18 10 29.6 48607 18 10 29.4 46623 4
19 15 44.5 60235 19 15 44.1 58652 3
20 20 59.2 68630 20 20 58.8 67345 2
21 3 14.8 22657 21 3 14.7 21694 4
22 6 29.6 36340 22 6 29.4 35097 3
23 10 49.3 47879 23 10 49.0 48253 1
24 15 73.8 57036 24 15 73.4 62904 10
25 20 98.4 67729 25 20 97.8 71292 5
26 3 20.7 23045 26 3 20.6 22082 4
27 6 41.1 37342 27 6 41.2 36930 1
28 10 68.5 50791 28 10 68.5 52042 2
29 15 102.7 57317 29 15 102.6
30 20 136.5 65765 30 20 136.5

D-27
Table D.27: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_3.7_1 and Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 133.84 lb/ft3, 65% OMC = 3.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 24883 1 3 1.5 28430 12
2 6 2.9 39751 2 6 2.9 39722 0
3 10 4.9 53527 3 10 4.9 52571 2
4 15 7.4 71926 4 15 7.4 70711 2
5 20 9.9 88478 5 20 9.9 89847 2
6 3 3.0 24957 6 3 2.9 23309 7
7 6 5.9 39409 7 6 5.9 36928 7
8 10 9.9 53963 8 10 9.8 52925 2
9 15 14.8 71852 9 15 14.7 71980 0
10 20 19.8 88198 10 20 19.5 88533 0
11 3 6.0 25577 11 3 5.9 22761 12
12 6 11.8 40450 12 6 11.7 37169 9
13 10 19.8 57853 13 10 19.6 55654 4
14 15 29.6 74667 14 15 29.4 74132 1
15 20 40.0 84396 15 20 39.1 86509 2
16 3 8.9 25610 16 3 8.8 23392 9
17 6 17.8 41059 17 6 17.6 38246 7
18 10 29.7 58001 18 10 29.3 56926 2
19 15 44.3 71301 19 15 44.0 73090 2
20 20 59.4 80814 20 20 58.7 83590 3
21 3 14.8 26664 21 3 14.6 24546 9
22 6 29.6 43192 22 6 29.2 41661 4
23 10 49.4 57914 23 10 48.7 58212 1
24 15 73.9 68888 24 15 73.0 71039 3
25 20 98.3 80482 25 20 97.3 83487 4
26 3 20.7 27335 26 3 20.4
27 6 41.4 44646 27 6 40.9 43098 4
28 10 69.0 61580 28 10 68.1 61101 1
29 15 103.2 70372 29 15 101.7 72805 3
30 20 137.2 30 20 135.1 82642

D-28
Table D.28: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend
(Y_5.7_1 and Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory = 133.84 lb/ft3, 100% OMC = 5.7%).
Sq Confining Deviator Mr Sq Confining Deviator Mr Difference
psi psi psi psi psi psi (%)
1 3 1.5 10953 1 3 1.4 10903 0
2 6 2.9 24905 2 6 2.8 24924 0
3 10 4.9 40212 3 10 4.9 39689 1
4 15 7.4 57750 4 15 7.3 58180 1
5 20 9.8 72279 5 20 9.8 73548 2
6 3 2.9 12090 6 3 2.9 13354 9
7 6 5.8 26405 7 6 5.9 25833 2
8 10 9.8 42469 8 10 9.8 43478 2
9 15 14.7 58725 9 15 14.7 60756 3
10 20 19.6 73146 10 20 19.6 75272 3
11 3 5.9 14538 11 3 5.9 15998 9
12 6 11.8 29122 12 6 11.8 31299 7
13 10 19.7 46131 13 10 19.6 47432 3
14 15 29.4 60127 14 15 29.4 62418 4
15 20 39.2 70603 15 20 39.1 72757 3
16 3 8.8 15751 16 3 8.8 18050 13
17 6 17.7 31322 17 6 17.6 32893 5
18 10 29.3 45668 18 10 29.3 47718 4
19 15 44.0 58011 19 15 43.9 60082 3
20 20 58.6 67258 20 20 58.3 69600 3
21 3 14.7 18210 21 3 14.6 19556 7
22 6 29.3 32953 22 6 29.2 34702 5
23 10 48.8 44281 23 10 48.7 45876 3
24 15 73.1 55053 24 15 72.8 56394 2
25 20 97.3 66677 25 20 97.0 68528 3
26 3 20.5 18346 26 3 20.5 21409 14
27 6 41.2 35236 27 6 40.9 36496 3
28 10 68.4 47113 28 10 68.0 47845 2
29 15 102.4 56443 29 15 101.7 57411 2
30 20 135.9 30 20 134.6

D-29
D.2 Resilient Modulus (MR) versus Deviator Stress
Figures D.1 – D.28 show MR versus deviator stress at different confining pressures of all
28 soil specimens. MR consistently increased as confining pressure increased. However,
deviator stress effect on MR was less pronounced than confining pressure effect on MR.
Generally, as deviator stress increased, MR decreased. However, for higher moisture
content specimens at lower confining pressures (21 kPa and 41 kPa), MR values
increasing as deviator stress increased were also noticed.

D-30
800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

103 kPa
400
69 kPa

41 kPa

200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.1: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_5.1_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1966 kg/m3, MC = 5.1%)).

800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 103 kPa

69 kPa
41 kPa

200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.2: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1995 kg/m3, MC = 4.9%)).

D-31
800

600
σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400
103 kPa

69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.3: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_7.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2032 kg/m3, MC = 7.4%)).

800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 103 kPa

69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.4: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2043 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%)).

D-32
800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 103 kPa

69 kPa
41 kPa
200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.5: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1963 kg/m3, MC = 6.0%)).

800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400
103 kPa
69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.6: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1961 kg/m3, MC = 6.2%)).

D-33
800

600
MR (MPa)

400
σ3 = 138 kPa
103 kPa
69 kPa
200
41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.7: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_8.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2041 kg/m3, MC = 9.1%)).

800

600
MR (MPa)

σ3 = 138 kPa
400
103 kPa

69 kPa
200
41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.8: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2035 kg/m3, MC = 9.1%)).

D-34
800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 103 kPa

69 kPa

41 kPa
200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.9: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2001 kg/m3, MC = 6.1%)).

800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

103 kPa
400
69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.10: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1958 kg/m3, MC = 6.0%)).

D-35
800

600
MR (MPa)

400 σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
69 kPa

200 41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.11: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_8.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2051 kg/m3, MC = 8.3%)).

800

600
MR (MPa)

400
σ3 = 138 kPa
103 kPa
69 kPa
200
41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.12: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.8%)).

D-36
800

600 σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 69 kPa

41 kPa

200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.13: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_5.2_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1996 kg/m3, MC = 5.1%)).

800

600
σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400
103 kPa
69 kPa

41 kPa
200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.14: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1964 kg/m3, MC = 5.7%)).

D-37
800

600
MR (MPa)

400 σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
69 kPa

200 41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.15: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2048 kg/m3, MC = 8.4%)).

800

600
MR (MPa)

400 σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
69 kPa
200 41 kPa

21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.16: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2049 kg/m3, MC = 8.0%)).

D-38
800

σ3 = 138 kPa

600
103 kPa
MR (MPa)
69 kPa
400
41 kPa

21 kPa
200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.17: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(W_4.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2000 kg/m3, MC = 4.5%)).

800

σ3 = 138 kPa
600

103 kPa
MR (MPa)

69 kPa
400
41 kPa

21 kPa
200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.18: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 1987 kg/m3, MC = 4.3%)).

D-39
800

600
MR (MPa) σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
400
69 kPa

41 kPa

200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.19: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(W_7.2_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2052 kg/m3, MC = 7.3%)).

800

600
σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

103 kPa
400
69 kPa

41 kPa

200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.20: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(W_7.2_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2032 kg/m3, MC = 7.7%)).

D-40
800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

103 kPa
400
69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.21: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend

(X_3.5_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2097 kg/m3, MC = 3.6%)).

800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

103 kPa
400
69 kPa

41 kPa

200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.22: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend

(X_3.5_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2094 kg/m3, MC = 3.6%)).

D-41
800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 103 kPa

69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.23: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend

(X_5.4_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2100 kg/m3, MC = 5.4%)).

800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 103 kPa

69 kPa

41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.24: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend

(X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2091 kg/m3, MC = 5.6%)).

D-42
800

600
σ3 = 138 kPa

103 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 69 kPa

41 kPa

200 21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.25: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_3.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2140 kg/m3, MC = 4.0%)).

800

σ3 = 138 kPa
600

103 kPa
MR (MPa)

400 69 kPa

41 kPa

200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.26: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 2145 kg/m3, MC = 3.9%)).

D-43
800

600

σ3 = 138 kPa
MR (MPa)

400
103 kPa
69 kPa
41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.27: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_5.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2161 kg/m3, MC = 5.6%)).

800

600
MR (MPa)

σ3 = 138 kPa
400
103 kPa
69 kPa
41 kPa
200
21 kPa

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Figure D.28: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 2153 kg/m3, MC = 5.9%)).

D-44
ENGLISH UNITS

100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000 15 psi

10 psi

40000 6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.29: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_5.1_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.73 lb/ft3, MC = 5.1%)).

D-45
100000

80000
MR (psi) σ3 = 20 psi

60000 15 psi
10 psi
40000 6 psi
3 psi

20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.30: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_5.1_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.54 lb/ft3, MC = 4.9%)).

100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000
15 psi

10 psi
40000
6 psi

20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.31: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_7.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 126.85 lb/ft3, MC = 7.4%)).

D-46
100000

80000

σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000 15 psi

10 psi
40000
6 psi

20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.32: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(S_7.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.54 lb/ft3, MC = 7.7%)).

100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000
15 psi

10 psi
40000
6 psi
3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.33: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.55 lb/ft3, MC = 6.0%)).

D-47
100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000
15 psi
10 psi
40000
6 psi
3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.34: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.42 lb/ft3, MC = 6.2%)).

100000

80000
MR (psi)

60000
σ3 = 20 psi

40000 15 psi
10 psi
6 psi
20000
3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.35: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_8.8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.35 lb/ft3, MC = 9.1%)).

D-48
100000

MR (psi) 80000

σ3 = 20 psi
60000

15 psi
40000
10 psi
6 psi
20000
3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.36: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate

(T_8.8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.04 lb/ft3, MC = 9.1%)).

100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000 15 psi
10 psi

40000 6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.37: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_5.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.98 lb/ft3, MC = 6.1%)).

D-49
100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000 15 psi
10 psi

40000 6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.38: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_5.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.23 lb/ft3, MC = 6.0%)).

100000

80000
MR (psi)

60000 σ3 = 20 psi
15 psi
40000 10 psi

6 psi
20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.39: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_8.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 128.04 lb/ft3, MC = 8.3%)).

D-50
100000

MR (psi) 80000

60000
σ3 = 20 psi
40000 15 psi
10 psi
6 psi
20000
3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.40: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(U_8.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.91 lb/ft3, MC = 8.8%)).

100000

σ3 = 20 psi
80000
15 psi
MR (psi)

60000
10 psi

40000 6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.41: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_5.2_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.61 lb/ft3, MC = 5.1%)).

D-51
100000

MR (psi) 80000 σ3 = 20 psi

60000
15 psi
10 psi
40000 6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.42: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_5.2_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 122.61 lb/ft3, MC = 5.7%)).

100000

80000
MR (psi)

60000 σ3 = 20 psi

15 psi
40000 10 psi

6 psi

20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.43: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_8_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.85 lb/ft3, MC = 8.4%)).

D-52
100000

MR (psi) 80000

60000 σ3 = 20 psi
15 psi
40000 10 psi

6 psi
20000
3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.44: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP

(V_8_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 127.91 lb/ft3, MC = 8.0%)).

100000 σ3 = 20 psi

80000
15 psi
10 psi
MR (psi)

60000
6 psi
40000
3 psi

20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.45: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(W_4.7_1, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.86 lb/ft3, MC = 4.5%)).

D-53
100000
σ3 = 20 psi

80000
15 psi
MR (psi)

10 psi
60000
6 psi
40000
3 psi

20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.46: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(W_4.7_2, 98% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 124.04 lb/ft3, MC = 4.3%)).

100000

80000 σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000 15 psi

60000
15 psi
10 psi
40000
6 psi

20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.51: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend

(X_5.4_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 131.10 lb/ft3, MC = 5.4%)).

D-56
100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000 15 psi

10 psi
40000
6 psi

20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.52: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend

(X_5.4_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 130.54 lb/ft3, MC = 5.6%)).

100000

80000 σ3 = 20 psi

15 psi
MR (psi)

60000 10 psi

6 psi
40000

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.53: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_3.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 133.60 lb/ft3, MC = 4.0%)).

D-57
100000
σ3 = 20 psi
80000
15 psi
MR (psi)

60000 10 psi

40000 6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.54: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_3.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 65% OMC (γd = 133.91 lb/ft3, MC = 3.9%)).

100000

80000
σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000
15 psi
10 psi
40000
6 psi

20000 3 psi

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.55: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_5.7_1, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 134.91 lb/ft3, MC = 5.6%)).

D-58
100000

80000

σ3 = 20 psi
MR (psi)

60000
15 psi
10 psi
40000
6 psi

3 psi
20000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Deviator Stress (psi)

Figure D.56: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(Y_5.7_2, 100% Gyratory, 100% OMC (γd = 134.51 lb/ft3, MC = 5.9%)).

D-59
D.3 Resilient Modulus (MR) vs. Deviator Stress vs. Confining
Pressure
Figures D.29 – D.37 show MR versus deviator stress versus confining pressure plots for
the seven different mixtures at two different moisture contents. From the Figures, it is
noticed that deviator stress effect on MR was less pronounced than confining pressure
effect on MR

Figure D.57: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%, 65% OMC = 5.1%).

D-60
Figure D.58: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%, 65% OMC = 5.7%).

Figure D.59: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%, 65% OMC = 5.7%).

D-61
Figure D.60: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%, 65% OMC = 5.2%).

Figure D.61: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%, 65% OMC = 4.7%).

D-62
Figure D.62: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%, 65% OMC = 3.5%).

Figure D.63: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%, 65% OMC = 3.7%).

D-63
Figure D.64: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 98% Gyratory and 65% OMC.

Figure D.65: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 100% Gyratory and 100% OMC.

D-64
ENGLISH UNITS

Figure D.66: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Blend

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.8%, 65% OMC = 5.1%).

D-65
Figure D.67: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 100% Aggregate
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.8%, 65% OMC = 5.7%).

Figure D.68: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8.7%, 65% OMC = 5.7%).

D-66
Figure D.69: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP
(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 8%, 65% OMC = 5.2%).

Figure D.70: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP

(100% Gyratory = 2032 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 7.2%, 65% OMC = 4.7%).

D-67
Figure D.71: Resilient Modulus of TH 23 Blend
(100% Gyratory = 2080 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.4%, 65% OMC = 3.5%).

Figure D.72: Resilient Modulus of TH 200 Blend

(100% Gyratory = 2144 kg/m3, 100% OMC = 5.7%, 65% OMC = 3.7%).

D-68
Figure D.73: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 98% Gyratory and 65% OMC.

Figure D.74: Resilient Modulus of CR 3 Materials at 100% Gyratory and 100% OMC.

D-69
D.4 Strain at Maximum Stress
Table D.15 shows the strain at maximum stress from 28 shear strength tests. Machine
stiffness was estimated to be 37.6 kN/mm. Test results from 100% optimum moisture
content specimens usually had higher strain values compared to test results from 65%
optimum moisture content specimens. For CR 3 samples, specimens with RAP had
higher strain at maximum stress than 100% aggregate specimens for both 100% and 65%
optimal moisture content samples.

D-70
Table D.29: Strain at Maximum Stress.
Confinin Deviato
Specime Strain at
g r φ c
n Description Maximu
ID
Pressure Stress (°) (kPa)
m Stress
(kPa) (kPa)
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 69 906 32 207 0.0093
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 34 793 0.0057
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 34 719 0.0048
32 157
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 69 830 0.0064
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 69 917 0.0044
46 115
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 34 707 0.0062
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 69 858 0.0089
39 152
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 34 710 0.0076
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 69 1026 0.0068
49 110
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 34 775 0.0058
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 69 820 0.0090
47 85
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 34 593 0.0142
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 69 934 0.0067
50 85
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 34 667 0.0065
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 69 834 0.0110
45 104
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 34 633 0.0141
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 69 1005 0.0088
48 113
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 34 766 0.0073
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 69 868 0.0097
44 120
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 34 680 0.0086
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 69 750 0.0069
39 125
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 34 600 0.0056
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 69 758 0.0066
48 72
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 34 529 0.0058
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 69 809 0.0049
45 96
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 34 604 0.0060
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 69 778 0.0108
42 110
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 34 602 0.0093

D-71
ENGLISH UNITS
Table D.30: Strain at Maximum Stress.
Confining Deviator Strain at
Specimen φ c
Description Pressure Stress Maximum
ID
(psi) (psi) (°) (psi)
Stress
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 10.0 131.4 32 30.0 0.0093
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2 4.9 115.0 0.0057
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 4.9 104.3 0.0048
32 22.8
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 10.0 120.4 0.0064
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 10.0 133.0 0.0044
46 16.7
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 4.9 102.5 0.0062
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 10.0 124.4 0.0089
39 22.0
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 4.9 103.0 0.0076
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 10.0 148.8 0.0068
49 16.0
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 4.9 112.4 0.0058
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 10.0 118.9 0.009
47 12.3
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2 4.9 86.0 0.0142
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 10.0 135.5 0.0067
50 12.3
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 4.9 96.7 0.0065
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 10.0 121.0 0.011
45 15.1
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 4.9 91.8 0.0141
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1 10.0 145.8 0.0088
48 16.4
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2 4.9 111.1 0.0073
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1 10.0 125.9 0.0097
44 17.4
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2 4.9 98.6 0.0086
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1 10.0 108.8 0.0069
39 18.1
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 4.9 87.0 0.0056
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 10.0 109.9 0.0066
48 10.4
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2 4.9 76.7 0.0058
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 10.0 117.3 0.0049
45 13.9
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 4.9 87.6 0.006
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1 10.0 112.8 0.0108
42 16.0
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2 4.9 87.3 0.0093

D-72
D.5 Orientation of Failure Plane (θ)
Table D.16 compares the failure plane orientation calculated from the shear strength test
results and the actual failure plane orientation measured. Pictures of the failed specimens
are shown in Figs. D.38 – D.61.

Table D.31: Orientation of Failure Plane.

θ θ
Specimen
Description from from
ID
calculation specimen
S_5.1_1 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1 61.0 58
S_5.1_2 CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2
S_7.8_1 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1 68
60.9
S_7.8_2 CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2 63 68
T_5.7_1 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1 68 65
68.0
T_5.7_2 CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2 68 72
T_8.8_1 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1 67 63
64.3
T_8.8_2 CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2 68 68
U_5.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1 63 70
69.7
U_5.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2 68 67
U_8.7_1 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1 60
68.7
U_8.7_2 CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2
V_5.2_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_1 63 58
70.2
V_5.2_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_65%OMC_2 72 66
V_8_1 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1 58 58
67.5
V_8_2 CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2 65 58
W_4.7_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1
69.2
W_4.7_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_2
W_7.2_1 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_1
66.8
W_7.2_2 CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2
X_3.5_1 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1
64.3
X_3.5_2 TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2 62 63
X_5.4_1 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_1 68
68.8
X_5.4_2 TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2
Y_3.7_1 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1 58 61
67.7
Y_3.7_2 TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2 64 62
Y_5.7_1 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1
66.1
Y_5.7_2 TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2

D-73
Figure D.75: S_5.1_1.

Figure D.76: S_7.8_1.

D-74
Figure D.77: S_7.8_2.

Figure D.78: T_5.7_1.

D-75
Figure D.79: T_5.7_2.

Figure D.80: T_8.8_1.

D-76
Figure D.81: T_8.8_2.

Figure D.82: U_5.7_1.

D-77
Figure D.83: U_5.7_2.

Figure D.84: U_8.7_1.

D-78
Figure D.85: V_5.2_1.

Figure D.86: V_5.2_2.

D-79
Figure D.87: V_8_1.

Figure D.88: V_8_2.

D-80
Figure D.89: W_4.7_1.

Figure D.90: W_4.7_2.

D-81
Figure D.91: W_7.2_1.

Figure D.92: W_7.2_2.

D-82
Figure D.93: X_3.5_1.

Figure D.94: X_3.5_2.

D-83
Figure .D.95: X_5.4_1.

Figure D.96: Y_3.7_1.

D-84
Figure D.97: Y_3.7_2.

Figure D.98: Y_5.7_2.

D-85
D.6 Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap)
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
εa (%)

2.0
p

1.5
50% stress ratio

1.0
35% stress ratio
0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.99: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of CR 3 In-situ Blend.

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
εa (%)

2.0
p

1.5

1.0

0.5 50% stress ratio

35% stress ratio
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.100: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of CR 3 100% Aggregate.

D-86
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
εa (%)

2.0
p

50% stress ratio

1.5

1.0
35% stress ratio
0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.101: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP.

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
50% stress ratio
εa (%)

2.0
p

1.5
35% stress ratio

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.102: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP.

D-87
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5 50% stress ratio

εa (%)

2.0
p

1.5
35% stress ratio
1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.103: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP.

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
εa (%)

2.0 50% stress ratio

1.5

1.0
35% stress ratio
0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.104: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of TH 23 In-situ Blend.

D-88
4.0

50% stress ratio

3.5

3.0

2.5
εa (%)

2.0 35% stress ratio

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.105: Cumulative Permanent Strain (εap) of TH 200 In-situ Blend.

D-89
D.7 Young’s Modulus (Esecant)
220

200

180
Esecant (MPa)

50% stress ratio

160

35% stress ratio

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.106: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 In-situ Blend.

220

200

50% stress ratio

180
Esecant (MPa)

160

35% stress ratio

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.107: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 100% Aggregate.

D-90
220

200

Esecant (MPa) 180

50% stress ratio

160

140 35% stress ratio

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.108: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 75% Aggregate – 25% RAP.

220

200

180
Esecant (MPa)

50% stress ratio

160

35% stress ratio

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.109: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 50% Aggregate – 50% RAP.

D-91
220

200
35% stress ratio

50% stress ratio

Esecant (MPa) 180

160

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.110: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of CR 3 25% Aggregate – 75% RAP.

220

35% stress ratio

200

50% stress ratio

180
Esecant (MPa)

160

140

120

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cycle

Figure D.111: Young’s modulus (Esecant) of TH 23 In-situ Blend.

D-92
220

200

180
35% stress ratio
Esecant (MPa)

160
50% stress ratio

140

120

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Cycle

Figure D.118: Energy Loss of TH 23 % In-situ Blend.

D-96
400

300
Δ W (J/m )
3

200

50% stress ratio

100

35% stress ratio

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Cycle

Figure D.119: Energy Loss of TH 200 % In-situ Blend.

D-97
D.9 QC / QA Criteria for MR Testing

Table D32: QC / QA for S_5.1_1, CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi Psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.509 3.09 3.07 16.63 0.0009 4.14 Yes 41415.78
2 3 1.511 2.71 3.04 23.83 0.0005 No NA
3 3 1.506 2.78 2.97 10.58 0.0004 No NA
4 3 1.504 3.10 2.97 8.00 0.0008 No NA
5 3 1.423 2.65 3.01 7.00 0.0004 No NA
29 1 15 103.469 58.66 61.72 68.21 0.0337 0.10 Yes 65330.65
2 15 103.555 56.70 58.97 66.00 0.0341 Yes 65386.27
3 15 103.453 56.42 59.11 63.10 0.0336 Yes 65443.33
4 15 103.532 52.21 55.26 60.34 0.0340 Yes 65499.92
5 15 103.449 49.09 54.22 61.88 0.0334 Yes 65461.26
30 1 20 137.059 61.38 63.62 62.38 0.0424 0.19 No NA
2 20 137.251 63.69 59.84 59.17 0.0424 No NA
3 20 137.233 55.39 58.17 59.59 0.0421 No NA
4 20 137.148 55.32 56.97 56.22 0.0424 No NA
5 20 136.969 56.44 54.76 56.41 0.0419 No NA

Table D33: QC / QA for S_5.1_2, CR 3_Blend_65%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.478 2.65 1.66 infinite 0.0016 2.49 No NA
2 3 1.565 2.73 1.68 6.75 0.0016 No NA
3 3 1.479 2.34 1.79 infinite 0.0012 No NA
4 3 1.478 2.25 1.83 infinite 0.0012 No NA
5 3 1.474 2.28 1.91 9.37 0.0012 No NA
2 1 6 2.844 3.04 2.42 3.38 0.0013 2.09 No NA
2 6 2.834 3.78 2.73 3.20 0.0013 No NA
3 6 2.834 3.68 2.69 2.96 0.0013 No NA
4 6 2.921 3.75 2.92 3.33 0.0012 No NA
5 6 2.922 3.72 2.63 3.62 0.0014 No NA
3 1 10 4.923 4.96 3.65 5.89 0.0013 2.38 Yes 90378.73
2 10 4.838 4.74 3.76 5.63 0.0014 Yes 92755.62
3 10 4.924 5.23 3.69 6.35 0.0017 Yes 86937.91
4 10 4.921 4.89 3.78 5.82 0.0013 Yes 90967.64
5 10 4.922 4.97 3.65 5.42 0.0013 Yes 91188.02

D-98
Table D34: QC / QA for S_7.8_1, CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.437 10.87 4.11
2 3 1.532 12.80 3.70
3 3 1.440 8.60 3.14
4 3 1.438 16.46 2.97
5 3 1.453 9.04 3.02
2 1 6 2.851 10.00 5.62 32.77 0.0033 2.63 Yes 36265.14
2 6 2.851 10.31 5.40 23.37 0.0033 Yes 36263.85
3 6 2.765 9.69 5.61 infinite 0.0034 Yes 35034.57
4 6 2.851 10.26 5.05 33.51 0.0031 Yes 37418.13
5 6 2.854 10.62 5.79 infinite 0.0036 Yes 35279.40
6 1 3 2.878 15.41 62.20
2 3 2.882 17.93 43.12
3 3 2.883 17.47 27.40
4 3 2.877 17.49 25.19
5 3 2.871 17.99 35.31
7 1 6 5.890 22.46 11.93 35.04 0.0050 1.15 Yes 33524.22
2 6 5.799 21.12 12.16 37.74 0.0054 Yes 32564.84
3 6 5.902 22.09 11.84 41.23 0.0051 Yes 33183.85
4 6 5.898 22.78 10.99 31.08 0.0051 Yes 33164.54
5 6 5.893 22.20 11.68 91.16 0.0054 Yes 32751.61
11 1 3 5.885 28.17 32.08
2 3 5.883 27.62 35.24
3 3 5.887 27.65 27.58
4 3 5.880 28.70 32.77
5 3 5.897 26.49 23.82
12 1 6 11.752 43.87 23.71 32.26 0.0102 0.25 Yes 32192.96
2 6 11.756 42.30 22.87 33.86 0.0107 Yes 31990.21
3 6 11.748 40.28 24.17 28.27 0.0107 Yes 32038.57
4 6 11.749 39.43 23.91 30.74 0.0104 Yes 32009.02
5 6 11.752 43.52 25.04 28.88 0.0104 Yes 32047.47

D-99
Table D35: QC / QA for S_7.8_2, CR 3_Blend_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.456 4.80 3.11 6.28 0.0019 4.31 Yes 26110.93
2 3 1.457 4.25 3.11 6.27 0.0018 Yes 27021.31
3 3 1.544 5.32 2.97 6.27 0.0019 No NA
4 3 1.463 4.06 2.41 6.53 0.0024 No NA
5 3 1.460 4.51 2.33 6.05 0.0020 No NA
2 1 6 2.847 7.07 5.32 7.40 0.0016 2.72 Yes 38701.14
2 6 2.848 7.13 5.31 7.80 0.0021 Yes 37491.00
3 6 2.849 7.25 5.17 7.80 0.0021 Yes 37470.68
4 6 2.847 7.16 5.12 7.88 0.0022 Yes 37376.61
5 6 2.847 7.28 5.28 6.46 0.0020 Yes 39739.36
29 1 15 103.032 62.75 68.48 62.10 0.0385 0.16 Yes 56069.72
2 15 103.028 63.91 66.66 58.62 0.0388 Yes 56195.41
3 15 103.026 62.68 60.93 59.13 0.0388 Yes 56245.95
4 15 103.024 54.50 60.91 57.04 0.0389 Yes 56294.26
5 15 102.942 55.01 61.00 55.56 0.0390 Yes 56284.77
30 1 20 137.101 60.94 61.77 59.01 0.0508 0.12 No NA
2 20 137.105 57.65 59.98 56.14 0.0514 No NA
3 20 137.103 54.86 58.77 52.73 0.0512 No NA
4 20 137.101 50.99 55.47 52.69 0.0512 No NA
5 20 137.101 54.86 52.98 54.70 0.0509 No NA

Table D36: QC / QA for T_5.7_1, CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.464 2.88 3.07 infinite 0.0011 4.71 No NA
2 3 1.463 2.98 3.03 37.39 0.0015 No NA
3 3 1.464 3.76 2.94 infinite 0.0007 No NA
4 3 1.462 3.94 2.84 infinite 0.0012 No NA
5 3 1.549 3.13 3.03 26.52 0.0015 Yes 35166.62
2 1 6 2.858 5.13 4.14 8.01 0.0015 2.71 Yes 40745.57
2 6 2.850 4.79 3.86 7.95 0.0020 Yes 43445.65
3 6 2.850 4.89 3.71 7.84 0.0020 Yes 43494.21
4 6 2.854 5.57 3.84 8.07 0.0018 Yes 42006.53
5 6 2.853 5.58 3.79 7.86 0.0018 Yes 42094.91

D-100
Table D37: QC / QA for T_5.7_2, CR 3_100%A_65%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.532 3.47 4.34 4.41 0.0010 4.00 Yes 34776.13
2 3 1.433 3.77 4.49 4.10 0.0011 Yes 32030.70
3 3 1.444 3.60 4.40 2.94 0.0015 No NA
4 3 1.444 2.98 4.09 3.04 0.0015 No NA
5 3 1.519 2.99 4.09 3.31 0.0016 No NA
2 1 6 2.844 5.30 7.53 10.28 0.0022 1.98 Yes 41149.69
2 6 2.849 4.94 7.04 10.49 0.0017 Yes 42345.62
3 6 2.845 4.71 7.04 8.24 0.0017 Yes 42206.87
4 6 2.848 5.01 6.37 8.03 0.0019 Yes 43251.11
5 6 2.849 4.87 6.30 7.79 0.0019 Yes 43102.05

Table D38: QC / QA for T_8.8_1, CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.461 7.55 9.69 9.88 0.0009 1.45 Yes 15434.48
2 3 1.461 7.74 8.90 8.66 0.0009 Yes 15319.77
3 3 1.462 7.70 8.99 7.87 0.0012 Yes 15886.29
4 3 1.463 7.17 9.05 8.31 0.0013 Yes 15724.14
5 3 1.463 7.45 8.85 9.26 0.0013 Yes 15632.13
29 1 15 103.008 86.77 78.54 67.40 0.0120 0.13 Yes 43168.84
2 15 103.085 80.87 80.28 68.88 0.0121 Yes 43213.59
3 15 103.173 82.53 75.62 64.37 0.0116 Yes 43239.41
4 15 103.175 73.04 75.75 58.96 0.0122 Yes 43290.33
5 15 102.829 78.01 73.36 57.88 0.0117 Yes 43143.94
30 1 20 136.598
2 20 136.598
3 20 136.596
4 20 136.763
5 20 136.596

D-101
Table D39: QC / QA for T_8.8_2, CR 3_100%A_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.433 7.41 1.11 7.23 0.0056 4.49 No NA
2 3 1.343 7.63 1.04 8.69 0.0056 No NA
3 3 1.435 7.23 0.97 8.33 0.0057 No NA
4 3 1.433 7.42 1.05 11.03 0.0055 No NA
5 3 1.432 7.72 1.05 12.93 0.0060 No NA
2 1 6 2.848 12.14 1.17 20.17 0.0089 1.76 No NA
2 6 2.846 11.94 0.59 17.14 0.0097 No NA
3 6 2.761 11.05 0.59 17.40 0.0094 No NA
4 6 2.758 11.05 1.27 17.14 0.0088 No NA
5 6 2.753 11.04 1.24 15.04 0.0088 No NA
3 1 10 4.927 11.02 6.87 71.42 0.0053 0.98 Yes 40389.55
2 10 4.838 11.06 6.56 71.42 0.0053 Yes 39665.31
3 10 4.924 11.12 6.52 infinite 0.0053 Yes 40402.98
4 10 4.927 10.78 6.75 100.73 0.0053 Yes 40428.93
5 10 4.924 11.11 7.63 infinite 0.0048 Yes 39709.65
4 1 15 7.387 10.32 12.87 infinite 0.0015 0.74 Yes 50942.24
2 15 7.383 9.95 13.34 102.96 0.0019 Yes 51685.46
3 15 7.377 10.43 13.38 102.96 0.0015 Yes 50906.56
4 15 7.465 10.24 13.03 72.97 0.0015 Yes 51479.93
5 15 7.361 10.83 13.56 33.25 0.0015 Yes 50875.03
8 1 10 9.868 22.30 20.75 infinite 0.0030 0.74 Yes 37042.49
2 10 9.871 22.55 23.22 135.95 0.0024 Yes 37045.55
3 10 9.863 19.23 22.67 191.98 0.0029 Yes 36728.65
4 10 9.862 18.45 23.52 infinite 0.0029 Yes 36712.71
5 10 9.855 17.81 22.50 132.72 0.0025 Yes 37379.30
24 1 15 73.845 82.38 132.90 88.45 0.0486 0.18 No NA
2 15 73.843 76.56 123.59 80.88 0.0476 No NA
3 15 73.931 69.87 118.97 81.61 0.0487 No NA
4 15 73.847 75.69 108.96 76.47 0.0486 No NA
5 15 73.845 66.21 111.54 74.00 0.0487 No NA
25 1 20 98.532 84.58 110.43 92.83 0.0508 0.07 No NA
2 20 98.527 86.85 113.48 89.75 0.0504 No NA
3 20 98.525 89.80 105.35 79.83 0.0504 No NA
4 20 98.440 84.06 97.82 81.58 0.0500 No NA
5 20 98.528 83.10 103.94 77.63 0.0504 No NA

D-102
Table D40: QC / QA for U_5.7_1, CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.550 3.09 4.25 4.13 0.0007 2.60 Yes 39424.50
2 3 1.551 2.81 4.27 3.66 0.0010 No NA
3 3 1.526 2.45 4.23 3.94 0.0010 No NA
4 3 1.521 3.47 4.56 3.69 0.0006 Yes 38315.17
5 3 1.527 2.59 4.15 3.66 0.0010 No NA

Table D41: QC / QA for U_5.7_2, CR 3_75%A-25%R_65%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.394 0.62 2.93 0.91 0.0025 6.11 No NA
2 3 1.315 0.60 2.95 1.01 0.0026 No NA
3 3 1.394 0.78 2.39 0.96 0.0020 No NA
4 3 1.397 0.83 2.99 1.03 0.0025 No NA
5 3 1.393 0.83 2.57 1.05 0.0019 No NA
2 1 6 2.844 2.36 4.89 3.40 0.0032 4.85 No NA
2 6 2.848 2.36 4.53 2.95 0.0028 No NA
3 6 2.845 2.36 4.55 3.01 0.0028 No NA
4 6 2.844 2.36 4.54 3.57 0.0027 No NA
5 6 2.930 2.31 4.56 3.75 0.0027 No NA
3 1 10 4.925 2.34 9.87 5.07 0.0059 0.81 No NA
2 10 5.010 2.36 9.50 5.27 0.0059 No NA
3 10 4.924 2.32 9.19 5.30 0.0059 No NA
4 10 4.923 2.31 9.04 5.33 0.0059 No NA
5 10 4.925 2.40 9.34 5.35 0.0059 No NA
6 1 3 2.941 2.51 5.89 4.92 0.0039 2.81 No NA
2 3 2.941 2.88 5.98 5.01 0.0037 No NA
3 3 2.939 2.36 6.12 4.68 0.0042 No NA
4 3 2.939 2.36 5.60 4.83 0.0037 No NA
5 3 2.936 2.56 5.60 4.89 0.0036 No NA
29 1 15 103.022 72.82 74.84 56.38 0.0476 0.08 No NA
2 15 103.027 74.05 77.70 53.54 0.0471 No NA
3 15 103.022 76.30 78.27 57.42 0.0474 No NA
4 15 103.024 81.85 77.92 56.97 0.0472 No NA
5 15 103.023 76.26 78.00 55.62 0.0471 No NA
30 1 20 137.019 67.78 72.79 49.66 0.0569 0.12 No NA
2 20 137.019 65.96 71.37 50.40 0.0569 No NA
3 20 137.019 65.53 68.41 50.17 0.0572 No NA
4 20 137.008 61.47 64.87 49.23 0.0574 No NA
5 20 136.932 61.24 63.24 45.85 0.0568 No NA

D-103
Table D42: QC / QA for U_8.7_1, CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.471 9.57 4.41 12.34 0.0023 2.55 Yes 21313.56
2 3 1.472 8.72 4.35 8.53 0.0018 Yes 22106.19
3 3 1.469 8.99 5.42 6.15 0.0022 Yes 20887.27
4 3 1.472 9.18 5.26 5.97 0.0022 Yes 20915.51
5 3 1.469 8.96 4.99 5.22 0.0023 Yes 21834.43
30 1 20 136.296
2 20 136.225
3 20 136.303
4 20 136.044
5 20 136.037

Table D43: QC / QA for U_8.7_2, CR 3_75%A-25%R_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.444 15.23 10.52 14.17 0.0006 2.31 Yes 11109.41
2 3 1.449 13.77 10.63 17.54 0.0007 Yes 11044.04
3 3 1.440 14.10 11.54 23.37 0.0011 Yes 11095.03
4 3 1.361 13.52 11.03 13.74 0.0008 Yes 10537.40
5 3 1.448 14.67 10.80 12.58 0.0008 Yes 11147.52
30 1 20 135.208
2 20 135.206
3 20 135.120
4 20 135.201
5 20 135.201

D-104
Table D44: QC / QA for V_8_1, CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.456 14.16 10.47 9.19 0.0035 0.43 Yes 12787.86
2 3 1.455 14.08 9.60 9.95 0.0030 Yes 12903.46
3 3 1.461 14.20 9.65 11.79 0.0030 Yes 12823.49
4 3 1.453 14.46 9.53 12.78 0.0030 Yes 12773.45
5 3 1.459 15.25 9.76 11.92 0.0030 Yes 12771.33
30 1 20 137.220
2 20 137.218
3 20 137.132
4 20 137.130
5 20 137.214

Table D45: QC / QA for V_8_2, CR 3_50%A-50%R_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.431 14.08 14.70 11.90 0.0028 2.31 Yes 10031.99
2 3 1.429 14.13 13.50 12.08 0.0028 Yes 10004.68
3 3 1.436 18.61 14.79 12.85 0.0028 Yes 9977.20
4 3 1.444 18.81 14.57 14.69 0.0026 Yes 10120.01
5 3 1.536 15.76 14.81 13.16 0.0028 Yes 10543.80
29 1 15 102.467 44.59 48.12 46.48 0.0412 0.19 No NA
2 15 102.391 42.06 45.10 45.18 0.0412 No NA
3 15 102.386 41.32 44.69 42.03 0.0413 No NA
4 15 102.381 40.72 43.69 40.81 0.0412 No NA
5 15 102.469 38.37 42.44 38.21 0.0412 No NA
30 1 20 135.913
2 20 135.909
3 20 135.992
4 20 135.991
5 20 135.900

D-105
Table D46: QC / QA for W_4.7_1, CR 3_25%A-75%R_65%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.538 5.37 2.81 3.62 0.0017 5.54 No NA
2 3 1.544 5.09 2.54 3.62 0.0017 No NA
3 3 1.548 4.26 2.65 3.71 0.0014 No NA
4 3 1.544 4.07 2.58 3.14 0.0013 No NA
5 3 1.551 4.56 2.67 4.13 0.0018 No NA
2 1 6 2.861 5.21 4.30 4.97 0.0012 2.11 Yes 58564.25
2 6 2.859 6.63 4.66 5.00 0.0012 Yes 58225.78
3 6 2.867 8.15 4.36 4.89 0.0012 Yes 58658.15
4 6 2.860 12.28 4.51 5.23 0.0012 Yes 58313.08
5 6 2.864 8.42 4.32 4.84 0.0008 Yes 61190.57

Table D47: QC / QA for W_7.2_2, CR 3_25%A-75%R_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.458 6.49 7.09 1.32 0.0041 2.49 No NA
2 3 1.445 6.33 7.94 1.23 0.0040 No NA
3 3 1.524 6.18 7.08 1.23 0.0041 No NA
4 3 1.534 6.87 7.12 1.30 0.0041 No NA
5 3 1.529 9.25 7.97 1.42 0.0040 No NA
2 1 6 2.838 11.29 8.88 2.53 0.0047 1.74 No NA
2 6 2.847 10.02 8.57 2.44 0.0047 No NA
3 6 2.843 10.62 8.90 2.57 0.0048 No NA
4 6 2.849 10.90 8.91 2.56 0.0048 No NA
5 6 2.845 10.93 8.92 2.44 0.0046 No NA
3 1 10 4.849 11.86 13.59 4.43 0.0045 1.57 Yes 57518.87
2 10 4.854 10.87 12.75 4.19 0.0045 Yes 57573.97
3 10 4.939 12.16 14.02 4.39 0.0049 Yes 57067.07
4 10 4.919 13.58 13.89 4.42 0.0044 Yes 58772.10
5 10 4.923 13.05 12.35 4.31 0.0045 Yes 59195.80

D-106
Table D48: QC / QA for X_3.5_1, TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.521 6.60 5.61 2.25 0.0027 3.19 No NA
2 3 1.434 6.69 5.80 2.30 0.0028 No NA
3 3 1.440 7.84 5.90 2.24 0.0028 No NA
4 3 1.448 8.49 5.97 2.20 0.0028 No NA
5 3 1.532 9.44 6.13 2.29 0.0028 No NA
2 1 6 2.842 11.94 7.67 3.94 0.0029 1.72 Yes 42521.91
2 6 2.843 10.41 7.61 3.75 0.0029 Yes 42637.55
3 6 2.839 11.03 8.22 3.98 0.0033 Yes 41231.08
4 6 2.843 9.91 7.57 3.64 0.0029 Yes 42737.76
5 6 2.839 9.54 8.22 3.82 0.0033 Yes 41414.44
29 1 15 102.842
2 15 102.669
3 15 102.839
4 15 102.659
5 15 102.665
30 1 20
2 20
3 20
4 20
5 20

Table D49: QC / QA for X_3.5_2, TH 23_Blend_65%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.533 5.77 6.07 4.11 0.0036 4.83 Yes 27729.72
2 3 1.520 4.87 6.45 4.33 0.0037 Yes 28754.52
3 3 1.526 5.17 6.57 3.70 0.0036 Yes 27424.49
4 3 1.443 5.63 6.41 3.43 0.0036 Yes 25983.90
5 3 1.448 5.06 6.01 3.06 0.0036 Yes 25565.27
29 1 15 102.576 52.84 60.56 53.95 0.0123 0.11 Yes 65055.82
2 15 102.477 57.02 59.19 48.81 0.0127 Yes 65014.12
3 15 102.647 49.37 57.80 49.03 0.0123 Yes 65036.82
4 15 102.571 46.76 55.55 45.68 0.0117 Yes 65061.98
5 15 102.649 51.32 54.07 47.37 0.0122 Yes 65196.23
30 1 20 136.183
2 20 136.094
3 20 136.091
4 20 136.086
5 20 136.001

D-107
Table D50: QC / QA for X_5.4_2, TH 23_Blend_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.428 5.79 7.86 4.35 0.0022 2.30 Yes 24628.72
2 3 1.528 5.87 9.46 4.33 0.0026 Yes 24349.72
3 3 1.446 6.50 10.33 4.28 0.0028 Yes 23607.97
4 3 1.535 5.86 9.06 4.30 0.0028 Yes 25030.20
5 3 1.534 7.76 8.26 4.49 0.0021 Yes 24889.60
7 1 6 5.903 17.65 26.60 13.89 0.0069 1.58 Yes 32689.09
2 6 5.811 1.72 25.33 3.39 0.0070 No NA
3 6 5.814 17.48 24.56 14.02 0.0064 Yes 32678.32
4 6 5.799 16.85 25.29 15.10 0.0069 Yes 32275.20
5 6 5.897 16.44 23.86 14.65 0.0066 Yes 33598.73
29 1 15 102.662 68.25 66.28 60.05 0.0447 0.16 No NA
2 15 102.586 67.77 62.98 61.35 0.0446 No NA
3 15 102.749 62.17 60.66 57.22 0.0447 No NA
4 15 102.665 56.83 56.36 54.66 0.0445 No NA
5 15 102.493 55.38 57.51 52.28 0.0447 No NA
30 1 20 136.525 61.08 60.17 55.09 0.0555 0.17 No NA
2 20 136.437 58.67 58.08 53.40 0.0554 No NA
3 20 136.438 55.91 55.14 51.66 0.0548 No NA
4 20 136.432 56.35 54.56 49.73 0.0552 No NA
5 20 136.438 54.28 52.83 49.14 0.0550 No NA

Table D51: QC / QA for Y_3.7_1, TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.476 6.20 5.37 6.37 0.0020 3.64 Yes 24055.18
2 3 1.470 5.97 5.31 6.02 0.0017 Yes 24448.32
3 3 1.556 5.66 5.69 5.55 0.0022 Yes 24750.01
4 3 1.475 5.67 4.83 4.61 0.0030 Yes 24741.04
5 3 1.466 6.22 5.11 4.68 0.0020 Yes 26422.56
30 1 20 137.072
2 20 137.158
3 20 137.171
4 20 137.075
5 20 137.483

D-108
Table D52: QC / QA for Y_3.7_2, TH 200_Blend_65%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.544 5.29 3.23 4.29 0.0028 4.85 Yes 30595.59
2 3 1.369 5.51 3.23 3.89 0.0027 Yes 27002.68
3 3 1.467 6.70 3.58 3.82 0.0034 Yes 27504.53
4 3 1.459 4.84 3.01 3.71 0.0027 Yes 28615.60
5 3 1.459 4.84 3.07 3.69 0.0026 Yes 28431.05
26 1 3 20.452 49.86 63.16 62.50 0.0402 0.21 No NA
2 3 20.456 42.36 62.94 60.59 0.0407 No NA
3 3 20.378 37.14 58.56 58.83 0.0402 No NA
4 3 20.455 32.48 59.48 59.46 0.0406 No NA
5 3 20.452 43.46 59.90 54.16 0.0402 No NA
27 1 6 40.778 43.09 71.01 66.45 0.0398 0.27 Yes 42978.42
2 6 40.786 63.06 70.55 66.60 0.0402 No NA
3 6 41.042 51.88 63.77 63.77 0.0400 Yes 43217.48
4 6 40.864 50.74 65.02 60.08 0.0404 No NA
5 6 41.042 39.15 61.66 56.55 0.0404 No NA

Table D53: QC / QA for Y_5.7_1, TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_1

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.435 11.97 11.67 19.40 0.0034 2.47 Yes 10813.21
2 3 1.445 11.60 10.96 31.68 0.0036 Yes 11011.59
3 3 1.447 17.94 12.15 22.96 0.0036 Yes 10876.65
4 3 1.538 10.82 13.84 15.85 0.0036 Yes 11387.05
5 3 1.458 11.92 14.73 21.44 0.0038 Yes 10676.50
30 1 20 135.944
2 20 135.793
3 20 135.951
4 20 135.861
5 20 135.921

D-109
Table D54: QC / QA for Y_5.7_2, TH 200_Blend_100%OMC_2

Sq Cycle Conf Dev Stress SNR SNR SNR Rotation COV Pass Mr
psi psi LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3 θ(°) % Criteria psi
1 1 3 1.438 10.18 12.56 12.88 0.0010 0.59 Yes 10974.06
2 3 1.440 13.43 17.44 15.89 0.0010 Yes 10814.96
3 3 1.450 15.21 13.46 18.43 0.0010 Yes 10862.97
4 3 1.453 13.23 12.20 14.02 0.0005 Yes 10947.45
5 3 1.438 10.28 12.80 16.64 0.0005 Yes 10913.49
30 1 20 134.385
2 20 134.648
3 20 134.634
4 20 134.607
5 20 134.612

D-110

200725
No ratings yet
200725
55 pages
Resilience
No ratings yet
Resilience
16 pages
Bennert 2000
No ratings yet
Bennert 2000
7 pages
Cyclic Triaxial Test Results On Unbound Crushed Limestone and Gravel Aggregates by Pradip Adhikari, Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
No ratings yet
Cyclic Triaxial Test Results On Unbound Crushed Limestone and Gravel Aggregates by Pradip Adhikari, Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
50 pages
Gaillard 2020
No ratings yet
Gaillard 2020
12 pages
Test Setup
No ratings yet
Test Setup
11 pages
ASTM International Constructuring Smooth Hot Mix Asphalt 2003 PDF
100% (1)
ASTM International Constructuring Smooth Hot Mix Asphalt 2003 PDF
274 pages
Research Article: A Methodology For Determination of Resilient Modulus of Asphaltic Concrete
No ratings yet
Research Article: A Methodology For Determination of Resilient Modulus of Asphaltic Concrete
7 pages
Resilient Modulus of Compacted Lateritic Soils From Senegal at OPM Conditions
No ratings yet
Resilient Modulus of Compacted Lateritic Soils From Senegal at OPM Conditions
7 pages
STP12520S
No ratings yet
STP12520S
11 pages
Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus For Flexible Pavement Design
No ratings yet
Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus For Flexible Pavement Design
53 pages
Eaton Et. Al, 1991
No ratings yet
Eaton Et. Al, 1991
20 pages
Bitumen PDF
No ratings yet
Bitumen PDF
251 pages
Memoria Capa
No ratings yet
Memoria Capa
376 pages
Beneficio
No ratings yet
Beneficio
9 pages
How To Characterize The Mechanical Response of Bitumen Stabilized Material
No ratings yet
How To Characterize The Mechanical Response of Bitumen Stabilized Material
10 pages
Resilient Modulus Testing For Pavement Components ASTM Special Technical Publication 1437 Gary N. Durham Instant Download
100% (1)
Resilient Modulus Testing For Pavement Components ASTM Special Technical Publication 1437 Gary N. Durham Instant Download
58 pages
Main Letter 1
No ratings yet
Main Letter 1
6 pages
CBR MR
No ratings yet
CBR MR
17 pages
Resilent Modulus
No ratings yet
Resilent Modulus
53 pages
Applying Geostatistics To Continuous Compaction Control of Construction and Demolition Materials For Road Embankments
No ratings yet
Applying Geostatistics To Continuous Compaction Control of Construction and Demolition Materials For Road Embankments
4 pages
CIV-4105 Resilient-Modulus Draft2
No ratings yet
CIV-4105 Resilient-Modulus Draft2
31 pages
"The Mechanical Properties of Bituminous Materials" Adnan Meiaci Bedrawi
No ratings yet
"The Mechanical Properties of Bituminous Materials" Adnan Meiaci Bedrawi
247 pages
A Study On The Resilient Modulus of Cement-Treated Mixtures of RAP and Aggregates Using Indirect Tensile, Triaxial and Flexural Tests
No ratings yet
A Study On The Resilient Modulus of Cement-Treated Mixtures of RAP and Aggregates Using Indirect Tensile, Triaxial and Flexural Tests
9 pages
Mechanical Characterization of Pavement Granular Materials Using Hardening Soil Model
No ratings yet
Mechanical Characterization of Pavement Granular Materials Using Hardening Soil Model
13 pages
Recycled Asphalt for Road Bases
No ratings yet
Recycled Asphalt for Road Bases
12 pages
02 APTE 2016-Saravut
No ratings yet
02 APTE 2016-Saravut
20 pages
489-Article Text-1315-1-10-20200402
No ratings yet
489-Article Text-1315-1-10-20200402
15 pages
Base Course5
No ratings yet
Base Course5
117 pages
Construction and Building Materials: Muhammad Arshad
No ratings yet
Construction and Building Materials: Muhammad Arshad
12 pages
Comparing Resilient Modulus and Dynamic
No ratings yet
Comparing Resilient Modulus and Dynamic
10 pages
Comparing Resilient Modulus and Dynamic PDF
No ratings yet
Comparing Resilient Modulus and Dynamic PDF
10 pages
J Trgeo 2021 100599
No ratings yet
J Trgeo 2021 100599
14 pages
Moisture Susceptibility of Recycled Asphalt
No ratings yet
Moisture Susceptibility of Recycled Asphalt
58 pages
Modulus: Resilient Aashto
No ratings yet
Modulus: Resilient Aashto
9 pages
Determining The Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials
No ratings yet
Determining The Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials
43 pages
Design Phamplet 1997 PDF
No ratings yet
Design Phamplet 1997 PDF
33 pages
RLT Test for Unbound Pavements
No ratings yet
RLT Test for Unbound Pavements
2 pages
Ffinal Major Project Report (1) 2pm
No ratings yet
Ffinal Major Project Report (1) 2pm
47 pages
Nur Anis Najiehah Binti Sukiman
No ratings yet
Nur Anis Najiehah Binti Sukiman
47 pages
10.1007 - s10706 007 9144 5
100% (1)
10.1007 - s10706 007 9144 5
23 pages
Moussa Et Al., 2021
No ratings yet
Moussa Et Al., 2021
18 pages
فعالية الاختبار الميكانيكي في تحديد ضرر الرطوبة في خلطات الأسفلت.
No ratings yet
فعالية الاختبار الميكانيكي في تحديد ضرر الرطوبة في خلطات الأسفلت.
83 pages
PHD-Micromechanical and Probabilistic Approaches To Improve Asphalt Concrete Rutting Performance Prediction Procedures
No ratings yet
PHD-Micromechanical and Probabilistic Approaches To Improve Asphalt Concrete Rutting Performance Prediction Procedures
283 pages
13 - Chakravarthi and All 2019
No ratings yet
13 - Chakravarthi and All 2019
8 pages
Recycled Aggregate
No ratings yet
Recycled Aggregate
22 pages
Aashto T307-12
No ratings yet
Aashto T307-12
40 pages
Ictpa 26 187 PDF
No ratings yet
Ictpa 26 187 PDF
9 pages
Experimental Study On Shear Behaviour of High Strength Reinforced Recycled Concrete Beam
No ratings yet
Experimental Study On Shear Behaviour of High Strength Reinforced Recycled Concrete Beam
10 pages
2011 PDF
No ratings yet
2011 PDF
68 pages
Construction and Building Materials: Mohammad Lavasani, Manouchehr Latifi Namin, Homa Fartash
No ratings yet
Construction and Building Materials: Mohammad Lavasani, Manouchehr Latifi Namin, Homa Fartash
11 pages
BCR2A-09 Aurstad Et Al Unbound Crushed Concrete
No ratings yet
BCR2A-09 Aurstad Et Al Unbound Crushed Concrete
10 pages
PERFORMANCE CHECK OF CIPR of NH-2
No ratings yet
PERFORMANCE CHECK OF CIPR of NH-2
34 pages
Laboratory Experiment On Resilient Modulus of Rba Modified Asphalt Mixtures
No ratings yet
Laboratory Experiment On Resilient Modulus of Rba Modified Asphalt Mixtures
9 pages
Diploma - 6th Major Project (1
No ratings yet
Diploma - 6th Major Project (1
30 pages
Degruyter - Rams - Rams-2022-0260 576..586 ++
No ratings yet
Degruyter - Rams - Rams-2022-0260 576..586 ++
11 pages
Study & Analysis of Characteristics of Construction and Demolition Waste in Highway Pavements
No ratings yet
Study & Analysis of Characteristics of Construction and Demolition Waste in Highway Pavements
37 pages
DS016 (01.11.2015)
No ratings yet
DS016 (01.11.2015)
26 pages
ADA425462
No ratings yet
ADA425462
323 pages
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Guide
No ratings yet
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Guide
8 pages
(Asce) 1090-0241 (2006) 132 6
No ratings yet
(Asce) 1090-0241 (2006) 132 6
10 pages
Percolation Test Method
No ratings yet
Percolation Test Method
4 pages
Computation of Soil Bearing Capacity Und
No ratings yet
Computation of Soil Bearing Capacity Und
11 pages
Fhwa RD-83026 - PB84190024
No ratings yet
Fhwa RD-83026 - PB84190024
212 pages
Dot 58203 DS1
No ratings yet
Dot 58203 DS1
46 pages
Din en 12350 - 7
100% (1)
Din en 12350 - 7
18 pages
Determining The Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Soil by The Plate Loading Test
No ratings yet
Determining The Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Soil by The Plate Loading Test
13 pages
Din en 12350 - 6
No ratings yet
Din en 12350 - 6
9 pages
Din en 12350 - 3
No ratings yet
Din en 12350 - 3
9 pages
CPeT-IT v.3.0 - CPT Interpretation Software - GeoLogismiki
No ratings yet
CPeT-IT v.3.0 - CPT Interpretation Software - GeoLogismiki
5 pages
Listing (PDF, 2801KB) (PDFDrive)
No ratings yet
Listing (PDF, 2801KB) (PDFDrive)
209 pages
Suresh 2007
No ratings yet
Suresh 2007
9 pages
Profis Anchor Design Report Dubai
No ratings yet
Profis Anchor Design Report Dubai
6 pages
Engineering Mechanics Primer
82% (11)
Engineering Mechanics Primer
27 pages
(Ebook PDF) Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering: An Integrated Approach, 5th Edition Kindle & PDF Formats
100% (1)
(Ebook PDF) Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering: An Integrated Approach, 5th Edition Kindle & PDF Formats
107 pages
Notes Short BMC Unit 1 Basic Mechanical
No ratings yet
Notes Short BMC Unit 1 Basic Mechanical
7 pages
Solution Manual For Steel Structures Behavior and LRFD McGraw Hill Civil Engineering 1st Edition
No ratings yet
Solution Manual For Steel Structures Behavior and LRFD McGraw Hill Civil Engineering 1st Edition
8 pages
Properties of Linear Poly (Lactic Acid) /polyethylene Glycol Blends
No ratings yet
Properties of Linear Poly (Lactic Acid) /polyethylene Glycol Blends
9 pages
Solid and Fluids: (Physics For Engineer)
No ratings yet
Solid and Fluids: (Physics For Engineer)
42 pages
Sustainable Concrete with PET
No ratings yet
Sustainable Concrete with PET
12 pages
Liu 2017
No ratings yet
Liu 2017
8 pages
Combined - 205 Elastic Plastic Analysis
No ratings yet
Combined - 205 Elastic Plastic Analysis
6 pages
Measurement Procedure: Investigation of Stiffness Parameters of Fine Sands For Hardening Soil Model
No ratings yet
Measurement Procedure: Investigation of Stiffness Parameters of Fine Sands For Hardening Soil Model
1 page
Properties of Steel
No ratings yet
Properties of Steel
16 pages
PLAXIS - 2D - CEV21 - Tutorial - 10 - Cyclic Vertical Capacity and Stiffness of Circular Underwater Footing
No ratings yet
PLAXIS - 2D - CEV21 - Tutorial - 10 - Cyclic Vertical Capacity and Stiffness of Circular Underwater Footing
21 pages
Underwater Explosion - by Nilanjan Mitra
No ratings yet
Underwater Explosion - by Nilanjan Mitra
71 pages
An Evaluation of The Cross-Tension Test of Resistance Spot Welds in High-Strength Dual-Phase Steels
No ratings yet
An Evaluation of The Cross-Tension Test of Resistance Spot Welds in High-Strength Dual-Phase Steels
8 pages
Ce 415 PDF
No ratings yet
Ce 415 PDF
98 pages
Tribology Prof. DR Harish Hirani Department of Mechanical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
No ratings yet
Tribology Prof. DR Harish Hirani Department of Mechanical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
22 pages
Small Mills in Africa. Selection, Installation and Operation of Equipment - FAO J8482E
No ratings yet
Small Mills in Africa. Selection, Installation and Operation of Equipment - FAO J8482E
34 pages
Column Design Strength Charts Guide
No ratings yet
Column Design Strength Charts Guide
26 pages
Basis of Structural Design For Buildings and Public Works: October 2002
No ratings yet
Basis of Structural Design For Buildings and Public Works: October 2002
43 pages
Physics Improvement Questions
No ratings yet
Physics Improvement Questions
43 pages
Complete Stress-Strain Curve 1999
No ratings yet
Complete Stress-Strain Curve 1999
11 pages
DIC Method Applied in The Calibration of FEA Model of Rock-Mortar Cohesive Interface
No ratings yet
DIC Method Applied in The Calibration of FEA Model of Rock-Mortar Cohesive Interface
17 pages
Correlation of Almen Arc Height With Residual Stresses in Shot Peening Process
No ratings yet
Correlation of Almen Arc Height With Residual Stresses in Shot Peening Process
7 pages
Design of RCC Beams - LSM Study Notes
No ratings yet
Design of RCC Beams - LSM Study Notes
15 pages
Tevi Si Fitinguri Din Fonta Ductila de La DN 60 La DN 2000 Conform en 545-2010 (En)
No ratings yet
Tevi Si Fitinguri Din Fonta Ductila de La DN 60 La DN 2000 Conform en 545-2010 (En)
52 pages
Topic 7-8 Revision (Unrevised)
No ratings yet
Topic 7-8 Revision (Unrevised)
3 pages
A Study of Strain and Deformation Measurement Using The Arduino Microcontroller and Strain Gauges Devices
No ratings yet
A Study of Strain and Deformation Measurement Using The Arduino Microcontroller and Strain Gauges Devices
7 pages