1 / 57

Co-PIs: Erol Tutumluer Marshall R. Thompson

Subgrade Soil Support and Stabilization. O’HARE Airport Modernization Research Project. Research Progress Presentation – June 30, 2005. Co-PIs: Erol Tutumluer Marshall R. Thompson RA: H.S. Brar. P209. P154. Introduction.

sol
Download Presentation

Co-PIs: Erol Tutumluer Marshall R. Thompson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Subgrade Soil Support and Stabilization O’HARE Airport Modernization Research Project Research Progress Presentation – June 30, 2005 Co-PIs: Erol Tutumluer Marshall R. Thompson RA: H.S. Brar

  2. P209 P154 Introduction • Subgrade performanceis a key factor in the overall pavement performance National Airport Pavement Test Facility - Atlantic City, NJ • This project provides testing and analysis to establish subgrade support and stabilization requirements for O’Hare airport pavements

  3. Introduction (cont’d) • The preliminary concrete pavement design for the O’Hare Modernization Program (OMP): • 15 – 17 inches of PCC Surface • 6-inch Hot Mix Asphalt Base • 6-inch Asphalt Treated Permeable Base (!?) • “Stabilized” Subgrade Zone (SSZ) • Prepared Subgrade • North Runway (9L-27R, 7,500 ft) paving is scheduled first for the Spring 2006 (!?) • Stockpiles of local soil on runway centerline (excavated from the “Deep Pond” nearby) • Primarily fill and cut areas

  4. Research Objectives • Consider pavement design inputs for subgrade support • Modulus of subgrade reaction, k • Consider subgrade support and stabilization requirements with respect to: • Need for subgrade stabilization • Stabilization admixture(s) stabilization • Stabilization depth • Estimate “subgrade support” for various combinations of subgrade stabilization treatments and prepared subgrade conditions

  5. Project Tasks Task 1: Establish the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) for subgrade soil evaluation and stabilization (Ongoing) Reports and publications collected & submitted as “Technical Notes” on: • Subgrade strength/stiffness evaluation techniques • Subgrade stability requirements & IDOT Manual • “Working platform” requirements for pavement construction

  6. Project Tasks Task 2: Evaluate currently available data for the subgrade test sections constructed in the Fall of 2003 and the necessity/usefulness of constructing additional subgrade treatment test sections at O’Hare (Effort completed) Plate load tests conducted (8/04) on the test sections: • Plate 1: 12-inch stabilization/compaction – no admixture • Plate 2: 12-inch quicklime fine (40 lb/yd2) & fly ash (80 lb/yd2) stabilization • Plate 3: 12-inch quicklime fine stabilization (40 lb/yd2)  • Plate 4: 12-inch lime kiln dust stabilization (40 lb/yd2)

  7. Plate Load Tests Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k

  8. Project Tasks Task 3: Advise OMP on current and future test section monitoring and field test evaluation programs (Effort completed) Various field tests may be useful to characterize the treated subgrade (OMP will arrange for testing): • Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (8/04) • Light-Weight Deflectometer (8/04) • Clegg Hammer • Geogauge • Heavy Weight Deflectometer (HWD) • Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) • Seismic Pavement Analyzer, SASW, etc.

  9. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Light-Weight Deflectometer

  10. Project Tasks Task 4: Evaluate currently available geotechnical/subgrade data for the North Runway with emphasis on the stockpiled “Deep Pond” soils. Recommend further soil sampling & testing to be conducted (by an OMP designated testing firm) (Ongoing) Routine tests to establish representative soils existing for the runway subgrade • Grain size distribution (including hydrometer) • Atterberg limits (LL and PL for PI) • Moisture-density-CBR • PH value & calcareous content • If needed, organic matter content

  11. Preliminary Geotechnical Report Soil sampling & testing conducted by Everest Engineering on OMP Runway 9L-27R - October 2004 Atterberg limits (LL and PL for PI) Boring Logs

  12. Preliminary Geotechnical Report Soil sampling & testing conducted by Everest Engineering on OMP Runway 9L-27R - October 2004 Grain size distribution (including hydrometer)

  13. Preliminary Geotechnical Report Soil sampling & testing conducted by Everest Engineering on OMP Runway 9L-27R - October 2004 Moisture-density-CBR

  14. Preliminary Geotechnical Report Soil sampling & testing conducted by Everest Engineering on OMP Runway 9L-27R - October 2004 Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu

  15. Soil Sampling: Dec. 04 – Feb. 05 Current scheduled soil sampling & testing from the R9L-27R The Drilling Program • Auger borings, 17 boreholes, MT-1 to MT-17 • 10’ to 45’ depths through fill & cut areas • All reaching down to elev. 640’ in the natural subgrade • 3 North of runway, 3 North edge of runway, 4 under runway, 2 South edge of runway, 2 between runway and taxiway, and 3 under taxiway • SPT and soil sampling at 2.5’ • Moisture content, LL, PI, grain size distribution (%clay) • Shelby tube samples at each location (638’ to 642’) • At least 1 bucket for each major soil in each borehole • Two 5-gallon buckets (60-70 lbs./bucket) for each representative soil (composite sample) to test at the University of Illinois

  16. Project Tasks Task 5: Based on the data and information gathered in Task 4, select (in consultation with OMP) the identified representative soils and recommend an admixture stabilization program (Ongoing) Tests to be conducted at the UIUC Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering Laboratory (ATREL)on both untreated & treated soils • Moisture-Density-CBR • Unconfined Compressive Strength • Resilient Modulus • Permanent Deformation @ 6-psi deviator stress

  17. Project Challenges • Proper sampling of the R9L-27R stockpiled soils • Selecting & identifying representative soil samples • Adequately characterizing the representative soil samples by conductingtests at the UIUC ATREL for • Moisture-Density-CBR • Unconfined Compressive Strength • Resilient Modulus • Permanent Deformation @ 6-psi deviator stress

  18. University of Illinois Laboratory Testing Program at ATREL Advanced Transportation Research & Engineering Laboratory (ATREL)

  19. 62 Buckets of OMP Soils Arrived at ATREL from the Drilling Program MARCH 2005

  20. 62 Buckets of OMP Soils Arrived at ATREL from the Drilling Program- cont’d MARCH 2005

  21. Grouping of Soils at ATREL Grouping done primarily according to % clay content!..

  22. Grouping of Soils at ATREL

  23. Admixture Types / Sources • Carmeuse (potential supplier) • South Chicago (dolomitic lime) • Buffington, IN (high calcium lime) • Lime types • Lime Kiln Dust (LKD) • Quicklime fines • Buffington is the primary source (We will work with this & confirm with S. Chicago) so far used in lime treatment

  24. Test Specimen Preparation Air Drying Pulverizing Mixing

  25. Moisture- Density- CBR Results CBR (ASTM D1883) Untreated Proctor Compaction (ASTM D698, D1557)

  26. Group 1 Results Moisture-Density

  27. Group 1 Results California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

  28. Group 1 Results

  29. Group 2 Results Moisture-Density

  30. Group 2 Results California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

  31. 60 50 OMC = 16% 40 CBR 30 20 OMC = 14.1% 10 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0% Lime 125 5% Lime OMC =14.1% 120 OMC=16% 115 Dry Density (pcf) 110 105 100 95 10 13 16 19 22 25 Moisture Content % Group 2 Results

  32. Group 3 Results Moisture-Density

  33. Group 3 Results California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

  34. OMC=18.8 % OMC=14.4 % OMC=14.4 % Group 3 Results

  35. Group 4 Results Moisture-Density

  36. Group 4 Results California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

  37. Group 4 Results

  38. Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results Cohesive Soils (c, f=0) (ASTM D2166) t sd = s1 – s3(=0) failure C = (s1f)/2 = Qu/2 s3 = 0 s1f s1 s

  39. UCS without Lime

  40. UCS Without Lime

  41. UCS with 5% Lime

  42. Group 1 with 5% Lime

  43. Group 4 with 5% Lime

  44. Lime Reactivity

  45. Resilient Modulus (MR) Testing sd Unconfined: s3 = 0 2-in. in f MR = resilient modulus = sd / er sd : Deviator stress er : recoverable strain Conditioning:200 load applications at s3 = 0, sd = 41 kPa Testing:100 load applications sd = 14, 28, 41, 55, 69, 83, 96, 110 kPa

  46. MR Tests – Soil Samples Cylindrical specimens, 2 in. f by 4 in. high Undisturbed soil samples – Shelby tube (f = 2.8, 4 in.)

  47. s M = - 2.21248 + 29.696 R d 2 R = 0.9497 (ksi) R RESILIENT MODULUS M Typical MR Characterization Greensboro, NC Airport Subgrade Soils 28 24 A-4 soil at OMC A-4 soil at OMC+3 20 Bilinear or Arithmetic Model 16 s M = - 0.6274 + 1820 R d 2 R = 0.6617 12 8 4 s M = - 0.4203 + 8.351 s R d M = 0.0408 + 4.9412 R d 2 R = 0.8715 2 R = 0.8796 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 s APPLIED DEVIATOR STRESS (psi) d

  48. Group 1 MR Test Results Eri

  49. Eri Group 2 MR Test Results

  50. Group 3 MR Test Results Eri

More Related