/ / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 6809510 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6809510

Yongsheng Yao, Junfeng Qian, Jue Li, Anshun Zhang, Junhui Peng, "Calculation and Control Methods for Equivalent Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Based on Nonuniform Distribution of Stress", Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 6809510, 11 pages, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6809510

# Calculation and Control Methods for Equivalent Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Based on Nonuniform Distribution of Stress

Revised05 Aug 2019
Accepted20 Aug 2019
Published08 Sep 2019

#### 1. Introduction

The resilient modulus of all pavement layers, including subgrades, is one of the primary material properties as it is used in mechanistic pavement thickness design [1]. The resilient modulus (Mr) is widely applied and defined as the slope between the largest resilient strain and the largest deviatoric stress of dynamic triaxial tests [2]. Current studies suggested that the resilient behaviour of subgrade soil is affected by many conditions, such as the stress level and path, the moisture condition, the type of soil, and the soil structure [3, 4]. It is an acknowledgement that the stress state plays a key role in the Mr of subgrade soil [5]. For past decades, many researchers focused on the relationship between the Mr and stress states, and over a dozen of prediction models have been put forward with stress conditions [6]. Taking into account volume stress (θ), the k-θ model was originally mentioned by Seed et al. [2], but it is suitable only for the linear elastic behaviour. Witczak and Uzan introduced the octahedral shear stress (τoct) into the k-θ model to represent the shear effect between soils under the loading [7]. In 2004, the modified model was developed to overcome the indeterminate value problem of the Witczak model (τoct = 0) and applied into the structural design of highway subgrades by the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) [8]. For multiple factors on subgrade soil, most of the predicting models were improved on the MEPDG model by embedding different stress terms and fitting coefficients [9].

The resilient modulus of subgrade is an important parameter to characterize the performance of subgrade [17]. However, many previous studies have also proved that the prediction model of resilient modulus of subgrade soil is highly dependent on stress states [18, 19]. The most famous prediction model of resilient modulus of subgrade is the three-parameter model proposed by Lytton, as shown in equation (1), which is ultimately included in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) [8]. Because of different stress states inside the subgrade, the Mr of subgrade soil is different at different points inside the subgrade structure. How to characterize the equivalent resilient modulus of subgrade is a very significant work in subgrade design.

To sum up, the resilient modulus of subgrade soil strongly depends on stress; however, the spatial distribution of the resilient modulus inside the subgrade is nonuniform because of the nonuniform distribution of static load and dynamic stress inside the subgrade; few researchers focus their research on this topic, which leads to the lack of a calculation method for the equivalent resilient modulus of subgrade based on nonuniform spatial distribution of stress, let alone a regulation and control method in this regard. Therefore, taking into account the nonuniform stress field in the subgrade, it is essential for the pavement design to calculate accurately the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade. Meanwhile, it is reasonable that increasing the stiffness of the roadbed can effectively control the deformation and fatigue life of the pavement structure.

#### 2. Calculation Method for Equivalent Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Based on Nonuniform Distribution of Stress

##### 2.1. Determination of Soil Density at Different Layers of Subgrade

Before the determination of the overlying load at various points of the subgrade, it is necessary to calculate the soil density at different layers of the subgrade. Generally speaking, subgrade soil is filled at certain compactness while the optimum water content of the soil is reached [28]. It includes three layers, which are the roadbed, upper embankment, and lower embankment. The compactness of subgrade varies at different positions of the subgrade. By the current highway subgrade design specification of China [29], the wet density of soil at various positions of subgrade is shown in equations (2)–(4).

Upper embankment:

Lower embankment:where is the maximum dry density of the soil, θiw is the volumetric water content of each point in the subgrade, and n is the number of nodes of each layer of the subgrade in the numerical calculation model.

To determine the overlying load on various nodes inside the subgrade is a relatively complex process. Formulas for calculating the overlying load on various nodes of the roadbed, upper embankment, and lower embankment are as follows.

Upper embankment:

Lower embankment:where yi is the vertical coordinate value of any point i inside the subgrade (unit: m); is the maximum value of the vertical coordinate in all node coordinates of the subgrade model; is the gravitational acceleration, taking 10 m/s2; ρ0 is the density of the pavement structural layer, taking 2500 kg/m2; ρ1 is the density of the roadbed; ρ2 is the density of the upper embankment; ρ3 is the density of the lower embankment; and h is the thickness of the pavement structural layer.

##### 2.3. Determination of Resilient Modulus of Various Points inside Subgrade
###### 2.3.1. Development of User Subprogram in ABAQUS

A subgrade structure model is created through the ABAQUS software. Subgrade soil is subject to the isotropic linearity-elasticity constitutive relation, with the stiffness matrix shown as

As the subgrade withstands traffic load transferred to the road surface, the dynamic load varies among soil of different depths, resulting in the nonuniform distribution of the modulus field inside the subgrade. For finite element calculation, each grid cell can be regarded as an elastomer; that is to say, the resilient modulus of each grid cell is a fixed value. To determine the resilient modulus of each grid cell, it is necessary to use the UMAT program for secondary development in ABAQUS. The specific method is given below.

The initial modulus (taken as 60 MPa herein) is set for each grid cell in the subgrade structure, the standard axle load is given, and then the first trial calculation is undertaken, whereby a dynamic stress qicyc is assigned to each node. Based on the authors’ previous study [6], the relation between octahedral shear stress and deviatoric stress is . Therefore, the octahedral shear stress of each node in the subgrade structure can be obtained, i.e., . And the Mr of each node (grid cell) can be obtained, as follows:

Many researches have studied the nonlinear convergence of the elastic modulus. The tangent stiffness method was applied to solve the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour by updating the tangent stiffness at each iteration until the stress increment converges [1]. Young’s modulus E (Young’s modulus is equal to the resilient modulus in a pure elastomer) in equation (8) is replaced by Mir corresponding to each node to obtain a new modulus of each node. The new modulus of each node is used to update the previous initial value of modulus, and the next dynamic load is then applied. This process is repeated. In Figure 1, the process of the UMAT subroutine was simplified to ensure that the style of the flow chart is consistent. In fact, the update of the Mr not only occurs in a single node but also occurs in all the FEM system.

The modulus of each node inside the subgrade varies under different dynamic stresses. When the error in the modulus between two calculations for a definite node is within 0.5%, and the accumulated error in the modulus between two calculations for all the nodes of the subgrade structure is within 5%, the accuracy of the modulus of each grid cell inside the subgrade is considered to meet the project requirements. The finite element calculation is concluded at this point. The convergence criteria for the modulus field inside the subgrade are as follows:where Mri is the output modulus of the cycle i; Mri−1 is the output modulus of the cycle i−1; errori is the error of the Mr of each node (grid); errorc is the cumulative error of the entire model; and n is the number of cycles.

The flow chart for the calculation of the nonuniform modulus field inside the subgrade is shown in Figure 1.

#### 3. Site Verification of Equivalent Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Based on Nonuniform Distribution of Stress

The site verification with a portable falling weight deflectometer (PFWD) is carried out on the top surface of the upper embankment (subsoil) of K116 + 980∼K117 + 180 (left part) in Lot C of Guangzhou–Foshan–Zhaoqing Highway. The PFWD site tests are also conducted on the top surface of unscreened gravel layers with different thicknesses laid on the upper embankment (subsoil).

##### 3.1. Testing Program

In this study, the PFWD site test section is 200 m in length. Firstly, two testing lines are placed on the top surface of the upper embankment along the vehicle wheelmark of the carriageway, and the horizontal distance between the two test lines is 2.0 m. The PFWD site tests are conducted on each testing line at a spacing of 20 m. The deflection of each test point on the top surface of the subgrade can be obtained by the PFWD. There are 24 test points in total. Secondly, after each PFWD test on the top surface of the upper embankment (subsoil) was carried out, the unscreened gravel layer of 10 cm thickness is laid on the upper embankment. And the PFWD site tests are also done in the same positions on the surface of the unscreened gravel layer of 10 cm thickness. Thirdly, the above experimental methods had been reused on the top surface of the unscreened gravel layer of 20 cm thickness and 30 cm thickness. There are 72 test points in total, and the stress-time curves of the dynamic loading can be obtained. And also the measured deflection of each test point in each layer can be gained.

##### 3.2. Material Parameters for Subgrade Soil

The filling subgrade soil is granite eluvial soil (sandy clay with a low liquid limit). After the PFWD tests on the top surface of the subgrade (subsoil) are implemented, the unscreened gravel is placed on the top surface of the subgrade and compacted to the layer with a thickness of 10 cm, and the compactness of the unscreened gravel layer is not less than 96%. After that, the test points are located by the electronic total station. The site tests of the PFWD are conducted in the same positions when the unscreened gravel layers are laid on the top surface of subgrade of 10 cm thickness, 20 cm thickness, and 30 cm thickness. More than 5 PFWD tests are carried out at each test point, and the average value of tests is taken as the measured value for every test point.

##### 3.3. Finite Element Modelling of Subgrade Structure of Test Section

Finite element model of subgrade is undertaken according to the size and parameters of the test section in Figure 2(a). In the ABAQUS model, all mesh and nodes are divided by a series of 8-node quadratic reduced integration elements. The element mesh is inherited from the attribute of the humidity calculation model in the GeoStudio/Vadose software, where a node is divided at 0.5 m intervals. The subsidence of the simulated surface of the road was caused by the vehicle’s axial load, without considering the influence of self-gravity. The bottom and the side of the model were applied to the constraints.

To study the impact of unscreened gravel on the equivalent resilient modulus of subgrade for different thicknesses of unscreened gravel layers, finite element models with different thicknesses of unscreened gravel layers are created. The method mentioned above for the finite element calculation of equivalent resilient modulus of subgrade is used for numerical calculation of the standard half-sinusoid loading curve with a stress amplitude of 100 kPa and a dynamic loading cycle of 0.2 s.

##### 3.4. Comparison and Verification of Calculated and Measured Values for Top Surfaces of Subgrade and Unscreened Gravel Layers

To investigate the difference between the calculated values and the PFWD-measured values of the deflection of the top surface of subgrade, a half-sinusoid loading curve under standard axle load is obtained according to the above-mentioned method. The calculated deflection value of the top surface of the subgrade is 152.4 (0.01 mm), measured by the PFWD tests. The test results are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

 Mileage pile number Deflection at the top of subgrade (0.01 mm) Deflection on a 10 cm thick layer (0.01 mm) Deflection on a 20 cm thick layer (0.01 mm) Deflection on a 30 cm thick layer (0.01 mm) Measured value Numerical value Measured value Numerical value Measured value Numerical value Measured value Numerical value K116 + 980 162.6 152.4 144.2 133.0 132.0 122.0 123.3 113.6 K117 + 000 163.1 144.1 132.6 123.4 K117 + 020 163.8 144.2 132.8 123.2 K117 + 040 165.5 144.6 132.7 123.9 K117 + 060 165.1 140.5 132.8 123.7 K117 + 080 165.5 146.8 132.9 123.8 K117 + 100 166.4 144.8 132.8 123.2 K117 + 120 164.4 144.7 132.3 123.4 K117 + 140 163.6 144.8 132.4 124.1 K117 + 160 165.3 144.9 132.3 123.8 K117 + 180 164.8 144.0 132.1 124.0 Mean of deflection 164.6 152.4 144.3 133.0 132.5 122.0 123.6 113.6 Error of deflection 12.2 11.3 10.5 10.0 Equivalent Mr (MPa) 63.45 68.72 73.03 79.63 79.95 87.28 86.08 94.15 Error of the Mr (MPa) 5.27 6.60 7.33 8.07
 Mileage pile number Deflection at the top of subgrade (0.01 mm) Deflection on a 10 cm thick layer (0.01 mm) Deflection on a 20 cm thick layer (0.01 mm) Deflection on a 30 cm thick layer (0.01 mm) Measured value Numerical value Measured value Numerical value Measured value Numerical value Measured value Numerical value K116 + 980 164.3 152.4 141.4 133.0 132.0 122.0 123.2 113.6 K117 + 000 162.5 143.2 132.1 123.6 K117 + 020 161.8 145.7 131.7 123.2 K117 + 040 164.4 138.6 131.3 123.4 K117 + 060 163.1 144.2 131.9 123.3 K117 + 080 164.7 147.1 131.8 123.5 K117 + 100 164.3 143.3 131.7 123.4 K117 + 120 161.5 143.8 131.5 123.6 K117 + 140 163.9 143.2 132.1 123.6 K117 + 160 161.8 143.6 131.5 123.0 K117 + 180 161.6 143.2 132.1 123.1 Mean of deflection 163.1 152.4 143.4 133.0 131.8 122.0 123.4 113.6 Error of deflection 11.3 10.4 9.8 9.8 Equivalent Mr (MPa) 64.12 68.72 73.51 79.63 80.41 87.28 86.23 94.15 Error of the Mr (MPa) 4.60 6.12 6.87 7.92

After the deflection of the top surface of subgrade soil in the test section is measured, unscreened gravel is placed on the top surface layer by layer; there are three layers in total, and each layer is 10 cm thick. The PFWD test is conducted on each layer. The coordinates of the test point correspond to those of the test point on the top surface of the subsoil.

When each unscreened gravel layer (10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm in thickness) is placed on the top surface of the subgrade, the deflection of the top surface of the subgrade is calculated. The material resilient modulus of the unscreened gravel layers is 200 MPa, which is obtained through the laboratory test [30].

It can be clearly found after comprehensive analysis of Tables 1 and 2 that, before unscreened gravel layers are placed, the average deviation value between the calculated deflection and the PFWD-measured deflection at the central position on the carriageway of the top surface of the subgrade is 12.2 (0.01 mm), with an error rate of 7.41%. Moreover, this difference at the position on the wheelmark belt of the carriageway is 11.3 (0.01 mm), with an error rate of 6.93%; the average deviation value of structural modulus is 4.60 MPa, with an error rate of 7.17%. Then, through conversion with the data in Figure 2(b), the average difference of structural modulus is 5.27 MPa, with an error rate of 8.31%. After 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm unscreened gravel layers are placed, the average deviation value between the calculated deflection and the PFWD-measured deflection at the central position on the carriageway of the top surface of the subgrade is 11.3, 10.5, and 10.0 (0.01 mm), respectively, with an error rate of 7.83%, 7.92%, and 8.09%, respectively.

From Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that, before unscreened gravel layers are placed, the average deviation value between the calculated deflection and the PFWD-measured deflection at the position on the wheelmark belt of the carriageway is 11.3 (0.01 mm), with an error rate of 6.93%; the average deviation value of structural modulus is 4.60 MPa, with an error rate of 7.17%.

#### 4. Control Method for Equivalent Resilient Modulus of Subgrade

Considering that many previous researchers paid more attention to the resilient modulus of the overlay or calculated the equivalent resilient modulus of the gravel layers under static loading, and the research results on the equivalent modulus of the gravel layer top under dynamic loading are few, especially considering the nonuniform distribution of the resilient modulus of subgrade soil, there are few related in-depth studies. One of the purposes of this paper is to provide a quantitative variation rule of equivalent resilient modulus for road engineering researchers under the condition of nonuniform distribution of resilient modulus in subgrade.

##### 4.1. Impact of Different Subsoil Modulus Values and Layer Thicknesses on Structural Modulus

To study the impact of different material modulus values and layer thicknesses on the equivalent resilient modulus of subgrade under different subsoil modulus conditions, a finite element calculation model is created for different material modulus values and layer thicknesses, based on the cross-sectional size and subsoil material parameters of the test section of Nanchang–Zhangshu Highway. The working conditions for calculation are shown in Table 3. The equivalent resilient modulus of the surface of the subgrade structure is calculated. The results of calculation are shown in Figure 3.

 Calculation condition Parameter values Modulus of subgrade soil (MPa) 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 Modulus of overlays (MPa) 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 Thickness of overlays (cm) 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80

According to Figure 3, before unscreened gravel layers are placed on the subsoil, the subsoil modulus has a significant impact on its overall equivalent resilient modulus. At the layer thickness of 30 cm and the layer modulus of 300 MPa, as the subsoil modulus increases from 20 MPa to 120 MPa, its equivalent resilient modulus increases from 32 MPa to 143 MPa, about 4.5 times. This shows that the subsoil modulus is an important factor in affecting its equivalent resilient modulus, and such layers can effectively increase the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade. With the fixed subsoil modulus, the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade increases as the modulus of such layers increases. When the Mr of the subsoil is 60 MPa and layer thickness is 30 cm, as the layer modulus increases from 100 MPa to 500 MPa, the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade also increases from 62 MPa to 82 MPa (up about 30%). With the fixed subsoil modulus and fixed layer modulus (larger than subsoil modulus), the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade increases as the layer thickness increases. At the subsoil modulus of 60 MPa and the layer modulus of 300 MPa, as the layer thickness increases from 0 cm to 30 cm, the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade increases from 59 MPa to 66 MPa, up about 15%. According to Figure 3 and the above-mentioned analysis, when the subsoil modulus is relatively low, layers with a larger material modulus can significantly increase the overall equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade; when the subsoil modulus is relatively high, layers with a higher material modulus is less effective in increasing the overall structural modulus of the subgrade.

##### 4.2. Law Governing Change in Structural Modulus of Subgrade under Different Material Modulus Values and Layer Thicknesses

To study the influence of different material resilient modulus values and layer thicknesses on the equivalent resilient modulus of subgrade under different subgrade soil modulus conditions, the same calculation model and parameters in Table 3 are used. For the finite element numerical calculations under different soil modulus values and thicknesses, the calculation conditions are shown in Table 3 and the results of the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade are shown in Figure 4.

According to Figure 4, when unscreened gravel layers are placed on the subsoil, the material modulus of the layers exerts significant influences on the overall equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade. At the subsoil modulus of 40 MPa and the layer material modulus of 300 MPa, as the layer thickness increases from 0 cm to 30 cm, the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade increases from 40 MPa to 50 MPa, up about 25%.

In conclusion, layers with a certain thickness and higher material modulus on the top surface of subgrade (top surface of subsoil) can effectively increase the overall equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade. Though layers cannot increase the equivalent resilient modulus of the subsoil, we can design corresponding layers according to the attenuation of the subsoil modulus during road operation, propose a regulation and control method for the equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade, increase the overall equivalent resilient modulus of the subgrade, and reduce the attenuation rate of the structural modulus of the subgrade during its service life so as to ensure the stability of the structural modulus of the subgrade throughout the road operation period.

#### Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

#### Disclosure

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

#### Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

#### Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51878078, 51608057, and 51908562), Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate (CX2018B521), Open Research Fund of Science and Technology Innovation Platform of State Engineering Laboratory of Highway Maintenance Technology, and Changsha University of Science & Technology (kfj150103). This study was also supported by the State Bureau of Forestry 948 Project (2015-4-38), the Youth Scientific Research Foundation, Central South University of Forestry and Technology (QJ2018008B), and the Open Fund of Engineering Research Center of Catastrophic Prophylaxis and Treatment of Road & Traffic Safety of Ministry of Education (Changsha University of Science & Technology) (kfj170405).

#### References

1. J. Li, J. Zheng, Y. Yao, J. Zhang, and J. Peng, “Numerical method of flexible pavement considering moisture and stress sensitivity of subgrade soils,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 7091210, 10 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
2. H. B. Seed, C. Chan, and C. E. Lee, “Resilience characteristics of subgrade soils and their relation to fatigue failures in asphalt pavements,” in Proceedings of International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements. Supplement, pp. 611–636, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, August 1962. View at: Google Scholar
3. X. Liu, X. Zhang, H. Wang, and B. Jiang, “Laboratory testing and analysis of dynamic and static resilient modulus of subgrade soil under various influencing factors,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 195, pp. 178–186, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
4. L. Zeng, L.-Y. Xiao, J.-H. Zhang, and Q.-F. Gao, “Effect of the characteristics of surface cracks on the transient saturated zones in colluvial soil slopes during rainfall,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, pp. 1–11, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
5. J. Zhang, J. Peng, W. Liu, and W. Lu, “Predicting resilient modulus of fine-grained subgrade soils considering relative compaction and matric suction,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, pp. 1–13, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
6. Y. Yao, J. Zheng, J. Zhang, J. Peng, and J. Li, “Model for predicting resilient modulus of unsaturated subgrade soils in south China,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 2089–2098, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
7. M. W. Witczak and J. Uzan, The Universal Airport Design System, Report I of IV: Granular Material Characterization, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park: MD, USA, 1988.
8. ARA Inc., “Guide for the mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, pp. 1–13, Quebec City, Canada, September 2004. View at: Google Scholar
9. Z. Han and S. K. Vanapalli, “Model for predicting resilient modulus of unsaturated subgrade soil using soil-water characteristic curve,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1605–1619, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
10. D.-S. Ling, Y. Zhao, B. Huang, F. Zhang, and Y. Zhou, “Analysis of dynamic stress path in inhomogenous subgrade under moving aircraft load,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 111, pp. 65–76, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
11. J. Li, J. Zhang, G. Qian, J. Zheng, and Y. Zhang, “Three-dimensional simulation of aggregate and asphalt mixture using parameterized shape and size gradation,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 31, no. 3, Article ID 04019004, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
12. B. Alabi, “A model for the problem of ground vibration induced by the wheels of a moving train,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 710–715, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
13. F. C. P. De Barros and J. E. Luco, “Stresses and displacements in a layered half-space for a moving line load,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 67, no. 1–3, pp. 103–134, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
14. L. Tang, P. Lin, K. Wu, X. Deng, Z. Deng, and H. Li, “Response characteristics of dynamic stress of subgrade soil under vehicle loads,” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 33, pp. 1745–1749, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
15. Z. Han, S. K. Vanapalli, and W.-L. Zou, “Integrated approaches for predicting soil-water characteristic curve and resilient modulus of compacted fine-grained subgrade soils,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 646–663, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
16. B. Ghadimi, H. Nikraz, and M. Rosano, “Dynamic simulation of a flexible pavement layers considering shakedown effects and soil-asphalt interaction,” Transportation Geotechnics, vol. 7, pp. 40–58, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
17. J. Zhang, J. Peng, L. Zeng, J. Li, and F. Li, “Rapid estimation of resilient modulus of subgrade soils using performance-related soil properties,” International Journal of Pavement Engineering, pp. 1–8, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
18. F. Salour, S. Erlingsson, and C. E. Zapata, “Model for seasonal variation of resilient modulus in silty sand subgrade soil: evaluation with falling weight deflectometer,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2510, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
19. A. K. Arshad, E. Shaffie, F. Ismail, W. Hashim, and Z. A. Rahman, “Resilient modulus of crushed granite aggregate base for use in mechanistic pavement design,” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1151–1160, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
20. K. Ng, Z. R. Henrichs, K. Ksaibati, and S. S. Wulff, “Resilient modulus of subgrade materials for mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1523–1545, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
21. E. Sadrossadat, A. Heidaripanah, and S. Osouli, “Prediction of the resilient modulus of flexible pavement subgrade soils using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 123, pp. 235–247, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
22. F. Gu, X. Luo, R. Luo, R. L. Lytton, E. Y. Hajj, and R. V. Siddharthan, “Numerical modeling of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement and corresponding validation using large-scale tank test,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 122, pp. 214–230, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
23. M. B. Mndawe, J. M. Ndambuki, W. K. Kupolati, A. A. Badejo, and R. Dunbar, “Assessment of the effects of climate change on the performance of pavement subgrade,” African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 111–115, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
24. H. Tuo, Z. Chang, and S. Qi, “Promotion method of subgrade stiffness for pavement structure,” Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), vol. 48, pp. 2777–2782, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
25. S. Farhad and E. Sigurdur, “Permanent deformation characteristics of silty sand subgrades from multistage RLT tests,” International Journal of Pavement Engineering, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 236–246, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
26. J. Kim, “General viscoelastic solutions for multilayered systems subjected to static and moving loads,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1007–1016, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
27. J. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Yao, J. Zheng, and F. Gu, “Geometric anisotropy modeling and shear behavior evaluation of graded crushed rocks,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 183, pp. 346–355, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
28. J. Zhang, F. Gu, and Y. Zhang, “Use of building-related construction and demolition wastes in highway embankment: laboratory and field evaluations,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 230, pp. 1051–1060, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
29. China Communications Press, Specifications for design of highway subgrades. JTG D30-2015, China Communications Press, Beijing, China, 2015.
30. S. Lv, J. Yuan, C. Liu, J. Wang, J. Li, and J. Zheng, “Investigation of the fatigue modulus decay in cement stabilized base material by considering the difference between compressive and tensile modulus,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 223, pp. 491–502, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Yongsheng Yao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.