DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Engineering Properties on Resilient Modulus of Cohesive Soil as Subgrade

세립토의 회복탄성계수(Mr)에 대한 지반물성치의 영향

  • Kim, Dong-Gyou (Geotechnical Eng. Research Division, Korea Institute of Construction Technology) ;
  • Lee, Ju-Hyung (Geotechnical Eng. Research Division, Korea Institute of Construction Technology) ;
  • Hwang, Young-Cheol (Dept. of Construition System Eng., Sangji Univ.) ;
  • Chang, Buhm-Soo (Institute of Infrastructure Safety, Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology Corporation)
  • 김동규 (한국건설기술연구원 Geo-인프라연구실) ;
  • 이주형 (한국건설기술연구원 Geo-인프라연구실) ;
  • 황영철 (상지대학교 건설시스템공학과) ;
  • 장범수 (한국시설안전공단 시설안전연구소)
  • Received : 2013.10.18
  • Accepted : 2013.10.21
  • Published : 2013.10.31

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify the effect of engineering properties on the resilient modulus ($M_r$) of cohesive soils as subgrade. Eight representative cohesive soils representing A-6, and A-7-6 soil types collected from road construction sites, were tested in the laboratory to determine their basic engineering properties. The laboratory tests for the engineering properties were Atterberg limits test, sieve analysis, hydrometer test, Standard Proctor compaction test, and unconfined compressive strength test. Resilient modulus test and unconfined compressive strength test were conducted on unsaturated cohesive soils at three different moisture contents (dry of optimum moisture content, optimum moisture content, and wet of optimum moisture content). The increase in moisture content considerably affected the decrease in the resilient modulus. The resilient modulus increased with an increase in maximum unconfined compressive strength, percent of clay, percent of silt and clay, liquid limit and plasticity index. The resilient modulus decreased with an increase in percent of sand.

본 연구의 목적은 노상토로 사용되는 세립토의 회복탄성계수($M_r$)에 대한 지반물성치의 영향을 평가하는 것이다. A-6그룹과 A-7-6그룹에 해당하는 8개의 세립토를 도로건설현장의 노상토에서 수집하여 지반물성치를 결정하였다. Atterberg 한계실험, 체분석, 비중계 분석, 다짐실험, 일축압축강도 실험은 세립토의 지반물성치를 결정하기 위해 수행되었다. 각 흙 시료에서 3가지 조건의 함수비(최적함수비보다 낮은 함수비, 최적함수비, 최적함수보다 높은 함수비)를 가진 시편에 대하여 $M_r$실험과 일축압축강도실험을 수행하였다. 세립토의 $M_r$은 함수비에 가장 큰 영향을 받았으며 함수비가 증가할수록 $M_r$은 감소하는 경향을 보였다. 세립토의 $M_r$은 일축압축강도, 점토 함유량, 실트와 점토 함유량, 액성한계, 소성지수가 증가할수록 증가하는 경향을 보였다. 또한, 모래의 함유량이 증가할수록 세립토의 $M_r$은 감소하는 경향을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1986), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
  2. AASHTO T294-94 "Standard Method of Test for Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and Untreated Base/Subbase Materials - SHRP Protocol P46", American Association of StateHighwayandTransportation Officials,Washington,D.C. (1995).
  3. Burczyk, J. M., Ksaibati, K., Anderson-Sprecher, R., and Farrer, M.J. (1994), "Factors Influencing Determination of a Subgrade Resilient Modulus Value", Transportation Research Record No 1462, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp.72-78.
  4. Chu, T. Y., Humphries, W. K., Stewart, R. L., Guram, S. S., and Chen, S. N. (1977), "Soil moisture as a factor in subgrade evaluation", Transportation Engineering, Journal of ASCE, ASCE, Vol.103, No.1, pp.87102.
  5. Drumm, E. C., Boateng-Poku, Y., and Pierce, T. J. (1990), "Estimation of Subgrade Resilient Modulus from Standard Tests", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.116, No.5, May, pp.774-789. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:5(774)
  6. Drumm, E. C., Reeves, J. S., Madgett, M. R., and Trolinger, W. D. (1997), "Subgrade Resilient Modulus Correction for Saturation Effects", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.7, July, pp.663-670. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:7(663)
  7. Fredlund, D. G., Bergan, A. T., and Wong, P. K. (1977), "Relation between Resilient Modulus and Stress Research Conditions for Cohesive Subgrade Soils", Transportation Record No 642 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp.73-81.
  8. Lee, W. J., Bohra, N. C., Altschaeffl, A. G., and White, T. D. (1995), "Resilient Modulus of Cohesive Soils and the Effect of Freeze-Thaw", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.32, pp.559-568. https://doi.org/10.1139/t95-059
  9. Lee, W. J., Bohra, N. C., Altschaeffl, A. G., and White, T. D. (1997), "Resilient Modulus of Cohesive Soils", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.2, pp.131-136. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:2(131)
  10. Li, D. and Selig, E. T. (1994), "Resilient Modulus for Fine-grained Subgrade Soil", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.120, No.6, pp.939-957. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:6(939)
  11. Masada, T. and Sargand, S. M. (2002), "Laboratory Characterization of Materials and Data Management for Ohio-SHRP Projects (U.S. 23)", Job No. 14695(0), Final Report, Ohio Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
  12. Mohammad, L. N., Puppala, A. J. and Alavilli, P. (1995), "Resilient Properties of Laboratory Compated Subgrade Soils", Transportation Research Record No 1504, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp.87-102.
  13. Pezo, R. and Hudson, W. R. (1994), "Prediction Models of Resilient Modulus for Nongranular Materials", Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol.17, No.3, pp.349-355. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10109J
  14. Seed, H. B., Chan, C. K., and Lee, C. E.(1962), "Resilience Characteristics of Subgrade Soils and Their Relation to Fatigue Failure in Asphalt Pavement", Proc., International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavement, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp.611-636.
  15. Thadkamalla, G. B. and George, K. P. (1995), "Characterization of Subgrade Soils at Simulated Field Moisture", Transportation Research Record No 1481, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp.21-27.
  16. Woolstrum, G. (1990), "Dynamic Testing of Nebraska Soils and Aggregates", Transportation Research Record No 1278, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp.27-34.