2001
DOI: 10.3141/1778-10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring Resilient Modulus of Granular Materials in Flexible Pavements

Abstract: A comparison study from the experimental results of the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) backcalculated modulus values, laboratory-measured resilient modulus values under field and laboratory conditions, and laboratory limerock bearing ratio values for granular materials in flexible pavements is presented. Based on the measured results, a case study was conducted to illustrate the use of laboratory resilient modulus for pavement design through the AASHTO flexible pavement design procedure. The results indica… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The LBR test is similar to the more widely used California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (ASTM D1883, 2007), in that both use the same diameter penetration piston, sample mould, and penetration rate; however, the standard reference strengths are different (FDOT, 2015; Laurion and McGillivray, 2001). The LBR value has been determined to be 1.25 times the CBR value (Keyser et al, 1984; Laurion and McGillivray, 2001; Virgil Ping et al, 2001).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LBR test is similar to the more widely used California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (ASTM D1883, 2007), in that both use the same diameter penetration piston, sample mould, and penetration rate; however, the standard reference strengths are different (FDOT, 2015; Laurion and McGillivray, 2001). The LBR value has been determined to be 1.25 times the CBR value (Keyser et al, 1984; Laurion and McGillivray, 2001; Virgil Ping et al, 2001).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The load distribution at the top of the subgrade was then treated as a circular plate for stress calculations. As an example of identifying the stress state of the predictive model, the stresses at 8 inches below the subgrade were calculated based on findings from Ji et al ( 18 ) and Ping et al ( 24 ). It worth noting that the stresses were calculated for 30 LTPP pavement cross-sections.…”
Section: Development Of Mr Prediction Model For Subgrade Soilsmentioning
confidence: 99%