CBR To MR
CBR To MR
1(2)
Cames 2014 - Published Online 2014 - http://publication.lecames.org/ ISSN 2312-8712
Vol. 1(2), pp. 65-71, Online January 2015 December 2014
Abstract:
One of the most important part of mechanistic flexible pavement design, is the determination of the resilient
modulus (Mr) to characterize the mechanical behavior of road structures. Because of the complexity and cost of
the test, correlations have been established to predict resilient modulus. California bearing ratio (CBR) is the
most used parameter to estimate resilient modulus since this parameter is not expensive and is easy to obtain.
The objective of this paper is to implement Mr-CBR relationship in Cast3m, to verify the impact of correlations
on the mechanistic design of the base course. In fact, correlations have been established based on statistical
analysis. The predicted modulus is used to replace Young’s modulus representing the stiffness modulus of the
base course. The Uzan model is also implemented to compare the deformations obtained by these two structures.
Tri-dimensional modeling performed on six pavements structures, shows that, the deformations obtained with
the pavements resilient modulus predicted is higher than pavements with Uzan model. These excessive
deformations due to the use of inadequate modulus, generate damages and premature failures in pavements.
Keyword: Mechanistic; Resilient modulus; CBR; Flexible pavement; Cast3m; Correlation; Tri-dimensional
modeling.
Later in 1962, Heukelom collaborated with Klomp to the most used one is the Heukelom and Klomp
find the famous Heukelom and Klomp relationship relationship [5]. The literature tells us that these
below : relationships are very limited. Indeed, most of these
relationships are applied to fine soils with very low
Mr ( psi) = 1500 × CBR [Eq. 2] values of CBR.
Mr : Resilient modulus (psi) However, the Mr-CBR relationship has interested by
CBR : California Bearing Ratio (%) many authors and this study creates many discussions
on scientific community. Angell [9] noted that the
This relationship can be expressed (in MPa): relationship of Heukelom and Klomp is not suitable for
estimating the resilient modulus. He indicated that this
Mr ( MPa) = 10 × CBR relationship ‘’under-estimates’’ the modulus for an
[Eq. 3] CBR less than 5 % and ‘’over-estimates’’ it for CBR
Mr : Resilient modulus (MPa)
greater than 5 %.
CBR : California Bearing Ratio (%)
Fall [10] suggested that the CBR test is arbitrary and
This equation was developed based on dynamic therefore its results are difficult to link with a stiffness
impedance test and Rayleigh waves in Netherlands and parameter of soil. Hopkins et al. [11] reported that,
UK. This relationship was derived from the results of Lotfi [12] suggested that the dispersed values of
wave propagation test at low strain levels and dynamic resilient modulus predicted from Heukelom and
deflection tests. The results have been modified for Klomp’s equation are owed only to the absence of the
suitable values of Poisson ratio and modulus varying deviatoric stress in the expression and that the
from 2 to 200 MPa in order to establish relationships relationship is valid for less than 10 or 20 CBR values.
with CBR [5]. Sukumaran et al. [13] studied a finite element analysis
Green and Hall [6], the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the CBR test to correlate the resilient modulus. The
proposed relations 4 and 5 resulting from the results show that the CBR is not suitable for estimating
comparison of measurements of vibration wave the resilient modulus. Indeed, they consider that the
propagation measurements in-situ CBR on CBR is a measure of strength so it is not correlated
experimental roads. with the resilient modulus which is a measure of
stiffness. In addition, the resilient modulus is strongly
Mr ( psi) = 5409 × CBR 0.71 dependent on the stress state.
[Eq.4] They suggested estimating the resilient modulus from
unconfined compressive test. Brown et al. [14] showed
Mr (MPa) = 37.3 × CBR 0.71 [Eq.5] that the resilient modulus is not a simple function of
Mr : Resilient modulus CBR, but depends on the soil type and the level of the
CBR : California Bearing Ratio (%) applied deviatoric stress. Drumm et al. [15] suggested
that the CBR is a measure of strength, thus is not
The South African Council on Scientific and Industrial allowed to be correlated with the resilient modulus
Research (CSIR), adopted equations of the form Mr = which is a measure of stiffness. Kumar et al. [5] have
k.CBR, by modifying the k factor which depend on the done significant work on the relationship between the
nature of the material and laboratory tests [7]. It offers resilient modulus and CBR.
equation 6 to estimate the resilient modulus. This work shows that these two parameters are
Mr ( psi) = 30 00 × CBR 0.65 [Eq.6] significantly different in nature. Indeed, Mr is
Mr: Resilient modulus (psi) determined from a dynamic load test, while the CBR
CBR: California Bearing Ratio (%) corresponding to a force measurement results from a
monotonous test. Furthermore, the resilient modulus
Powell et al. [8] found the relation 7, based on in-situ depends on the state of stress.
CBR test and wave propagation. This relationship is
only valid for CBR values included between 1 and 12: 3. Methodology
4. Experimental work
Mr (ksi) = 2554 × CBR 0.64 [Eq. 7]
1. - Grain size distribution
Mr : Resilient modulus (ksi)
The particle size analysis is carried out according to the
CBR : California Bearing Ratio (%)‘ standard NF P 94-056 [16] and the curves of Figures 1,
2 and 3 were obtained. These curves are based on
Transportation and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) specification defined by CEBTP [17]. These figures
establish the relations 8 and 9 as follows: show that all these curves are spread and therefore, the
materials have the advantage of having high densities
and mechanical properties, and low permeability and
Mr ( psi) = 2555 × CBR 0.64 [Eq. 8]
easily compactable.
Mr (MPa) = 17.6 × CBR 0.64 [Eq. 9] Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of various
Mr: Resilient modulus particle size materials studied.
CBR: California Bearing Ratio
60
shows that the Diack basalt has a higher density than
limestones, but absorbs less water. It also shows that
40
the limestones are very sensitive to water, particularly
20
Bargny limestone. This property of Bargny limestone
results from plasticity and its cohesive structure (VBS
0 = 11.2).
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
100
Inferior limit
80 Superior limit
Percent finer
Percent finer (%)
60
40
20
3. CBR results
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
60
19.93
40
Tableau 2. Compaction characteristics of materials
20
Materials Compaction characteristics
0
Wopt (%) γd max (kN / m3)
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Bargny limestone 8.9 20.60
Particle size (mm)
Bandia limestone 6.9 20.83
Figure 3. Grain size distribution curve of Diack basalt Diack basalt 4.4 22.05
The pavement is loaded with a half axle with a load initial Young modulus with the predicted model
equal to 0.662 MPa for dual tire. The wheel load will defined by Equation 11. For the Uzan model, the
be applied to both on imprint finely meshed located at implementation is more complicated; it is done
the area of the asphalt layer. The implementation of the according to Figure 5.
resilient modulus predicted consists in replacing the
Figure 5. Algorithm for implementing resilient modulus in Cast3m (Kim, [23] modified)
Mr - Uzan
Mr - CBR
-0,12
-0,14
-0,16
-0,18
Depth (m)
-0,2
-0,22
-0,24
-0,26
0,0001 0,00015 0,0002 0,00025 0,0003 0,00035
-0,14
-0,16
-0,18
Depth (m)
-0,2
-0,22
-0,24
-0,26
0,00015 0,0002 0,00025 0,0003 0,00035 0,0004
Deformations
Figure 9. Deformation of base course of the pavement
structure 2
Volume 1 - N° 2 :