Subgrade Soil Support
and Stabilization
O’HARE Airport Modernization Research Project
Research Progress Presentation – January 12, 2006
Co-PIs: Erol Tutumluer
Marshall R. Thompson
RA: H.S. Brar
Introduction
The strength and performance of an airport
pavement related to the structural design and the
subgrade soil characteristics
This project provides testing and analysis to establish
subgrade support and stabilization requirements
for O’Hare airport pavements
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
Research Objectives
Consider pavement design inputs for subgrade
support
• Modulus of subgrade reaction, k
Consider/Establish subgrade support and stabilization
requirements with respect to:
• Need for subgrade stabilization
• Selection of lime and other suitable admixture
stabilization considerations
• Stabilization depth
Estimate “subgrade support” for various
combinations of subgrade stabilization treatments and
prepared subgrade conditions
Progress Made In 2004-05
Technical Notes have been prepared and submitted to
the OMP throughout the project duration to:
Establish the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
for subgrade soil evaluation and stabilization
Communicate specific findings and recommendations to OMP
engineers
• TN5: K-150 Considerations for RW 9-27
• TN6: Subgrade Strength/Stiffness Evaluation
• TN7: “Working Platform” Requirements for Pavement Construction
• TN8: Subgrade Stability Manual (IDOT)
• TM13: Moisture Limitations for Lime Stabilization
• TN14: Admixture Stabilization (Lime Treatment of Subgrades)
Progress Made In 2004-05
Subgrade test sections constructed in the Fall of 2003
and the plate load tests conducted in August 2004 on
these test sections indicated that 12-in. quicklime and
lime kiln dust (LKD) stabilizations were satisfactory
• Plate 3: 12-inch quicklime fine stabilization (40 lb/yd2)
• Plate 4: 12-inch lime kiln dust stabilization (40 lb/yd2)
For characterizing the treated subgrade, Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer and Light-Weight Deflectometer tests were
performed by OMP designated firms
It was decided not to construct any new field test
sections for this purpose
Progress Made In 2004-05
Sampling of the R9L-27R stockpiled soils
• Grain size distribution (including hydrometer)
• Atterberg limits (LL and PL for PI)
• PH value & carbonate content
Selecting & identifying representative soil samples
Characterizing the representative soil samples by
conducting tests at the UIUC ATREL for
• Moisture-Density-CBR
• Resilient Modulus
• Unconfined Compressive Strength
• Lime Treatment Effectiveness
Final Report summarizing Laboratory Soil Test
Program & Year 1 research activities / findings
Soil Sampling: Dec. 04 – Feb. 05
Everest Engineering - Soil sampling & testing from 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
62 Buckets of OMP Soils Arrived at
ATREL from the Drilling Program
MARCH 2005
Bucket % % Carbonate
Boring No. Location No. Depth Soil Description Clay LL PI Silt pH Reaction
MT 5 Under N edge of Taxiway 48 6'-10' Gray SILTY SAND 11.9 NP NP 21.5 7.8 Weak
MT 13 North of Runway 1 1'-3' Brown Sandy Silt 16 NP NP 47.4 7.4 weak to strong
MT 2 Under Taxiway 57 15'-18' Gray SILTY SAND 17.4 NP NP 21.5 7.8 Weak
MT 14 N edge of Runway 20 5'-10' Gray SILTY CLAY with Sand 17.6 22 6 54.8 7.8 Strong
MT 3 Under Taxiway 53 22'-26' Gray SANDY SILT 18.3 NP NP 42.6 8 Weak
MT 16 North of Runway 17 1'-5' Brown and Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 19.2 30 17 35.4 7.2 Weak to Strong
MT 8 Under Runway 13 3'-6' Gray SANDY SILT CLAY 21.1 22 6 44.2 7.2 Weak to Strong
MT 4 Under S edge of Runway 43 1'-4' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 22.1 24 8 52.4 7.9 Strong
MT 5 Under N edge of Runway 49 24'-28' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 22.1 31 12 51.2 7.9 Strong
MT 3 Under Taxiway 54 29'-33' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.1 30 11 39.7 8.1 Strong
MT 12 North of Runway 9 3'-6' Brown and Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.2 22 9 45.5 7.6 Weak to Strong
MT 13 North of Runway 2 6'-10' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.5 24 11 46.8 6.3 Weak
MT 3 Under Taxiway 52 6'-10' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.8 25 8 44.5 7.5 Strong
MT 3 Under Taxiway 51 2'-6' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 23.5 27 12 49.9 7.7 Strong
MT 11 b/w Runway & taxiway 41 16'-20' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 23.7 24 8 43.7 7.1 Weak to Strong
MT 4 Under S edge of Runway 44 8'-12' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 23.7 24 8 42.9 8 Strong
MT 7 Under N edge of Runway 5 1'-5' Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.1 26 10 53.8 7.1 Weak to Strong
MT 5 Under N edge of Taxiway 50 33'-36' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 25.3 28 10 41.6 8 Weak
MT 17 Under Runway 22 1'-5' Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.4 29 13 50.8 7.7 Weak to Strong
MT 11 b/w Runway & taxiway 42 26'-30' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 25.6 30 12 46.8 7.8 Strong
MT 12 North of Runway 11 16'-20' Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.7 26 10 56.4 6.9 Weak
MT 16 North of Runway 18 18'-23' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 25.7 23 8 46.3 7.7 Strong
MT 13 North of Runway 2 6'-10' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.5 24 11 46.8 6.3 Weak
MT 3 Under Taxiway 52 6'-10' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.8 25 8 44.5 7.5 Strong
62 Buckets of OMP Soils Arrived at
MT 3
MT 11
Under Taxiway
b/w Runway & taxiway
51
41
2'-6'
16'-20'
Gray LEAN CLAY with sand
Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY
23.5 27 12 49.9 7.7
23.7 24 8 43.7 7.1
Strong
Weak to Strong
ATREL from the Drilling Program- cont’d
MT 4 Under S edge of Runway 44 8'-12' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 23.7 24 8 42.9 8 Strong
MT 7 Under N edge of Runway 5 1'-5' Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.1 26 10 53.8 7.1 Weak to Strong
MT 5 Under N edge of Taxiway 50 33'-36' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 25.3 28 10 41.6 8 Weak
MT 17 Under Runway 22 1'-5' Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.4 29 13 50.8 7.7
MT 11 b/w Runway & taxiway 42 26'-30' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 25.6 30
MARCH to Strong
Weak
12 46.8 7.8
2005
Strong
Bucket % % Carbonate
Boring No.
MT 12 Location
North of Runway No.
11 Depth
16'-20' Soil Description
Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand Clay LL 10 56.4 6.9
25.7 26 PI Silt pH Reaction
Weak
MT 5
MT 16 Under N edge of Taxiway
North of Runway 48
18 6'-10'
18'-23' GrayGray SILTY SANDsand
LEAN CLAY with 25.7 NP NP 46.3 7.7
11.9 23 8 21.5 7.8 Weak
Strong
MT 13
MT 9 North of Runway
Under S edge of Runway 1
28 1'-3'
1'-5' Brown Sandy Silt
Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.8 NP NP 45.3 7.4
16 23 8 47.4 weak to strong
Strong
MT 2
MT 12 Under Runway
North ofTaxiway 57
10 15'-18'
8'-12' GrayGray SILTY SANDSand
LEAN CLAY with 27.1 NP NP 51.5 7.5
17.4 25 10 21.5 7.8 Weak
Strong
MT 14
MT 4 N edge of of Runway
Under S edgeRunway 20
45 5'-10'
24'-28' Gray SILTY CLAY with sand
Gray LEAN Sand 17.6 22 6 54.8 7.8
27.6 27 10 46.1 8.2 Strong
3
MT 9 Under Taxiway
Under S edge of Runway 53
29 22'-26'
13'-18' GrayGray SANDY with Sand
LEAN CLAY SILT 27.7 NP NP 49.3 8
18.3 23 8 42.6 Weak
Strong
16
MT 15 Under Runway
North ofRunway 17
33 1'-5'
8'-12' Brown and Gray CLAY with Sand
Gray LEAN SANDY LEAN CLAY 19.2 30 17 35.4 7.2
27.9 26 10 44.7 8.5 Weak to Strong
Strong
MT 8
MT 11 b/w Under Runway
Runway & taxiway 13
39 3'-6'
2'-6' Gray SANDY SILT CLAY
Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 21.1 22
28.2 28 6 44.2 7.2
9 41.6 8.7 Weak to Strong
Strong
4
MT 6 Under S edge of Runway
Under Runway 43
26 1'-4'
0'-3' Black,Brown and Gray SANDY sand CLAY 28.7 41 23 52.4 8.4
Gray LEAN CLAY with LEAN 22.1 24 8 33 7.9 Strong
Weak
MT 5
MT 11 b/w Runway of Runway
Under N edge & taxiway 49
40 24'-28'
8'-12' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 22.1 31 12 51.2 7.9
28.9 28 10 46.3 8.4 Strong
3
MT 5 Under Taxiway
Under N edge of Taxiway 54
47 29'-33'
1'-5' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY
Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 29 30 11 39.7 8.1
22.1 33 13 43.2 7.5 Strong
12
MT 15 Under Runway
North ofRunway 9
32 3'-6'
1'-5' Brown and Gray CLAY with Sand
Gray LEAN SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.2 22
29.2 24 45.5 7.6
9 41.4 8.4 Weak to Strong
Strong
13
MT 10 North of Runway
b/w Runway & taxiway 2
36 6'-10'
1'-5' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY
Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 22.5 46.8 6.3
29.4 24 11 39.3 7.5 Weak
Strong
3
MT 8 Under Taxiway
Runway 52
14 6'-10'
10'-15' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY
Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 22.8 8 44.5 7.5
29.5 25 10 51.7 7.7 Strong
MT 3
MT 13 Under Runway
North ofTaxiway 51
3 2'-6'
16'20' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 29.7 32 17 49.9 7.6
23.5 27 12 50 7.7 Strong
11
MT 10 b/w Runway & taxiway 41
37 16'-20'
15'-20' Gray Gray SANDY CLAY
Brown and SANDY LEANLEAN CLAY 23.7 24 8 43.7 7.1
30.9 27 13 42.7 8.1 Weak to Strong
Strong
4
MT 9 Under S edge of Runway 44
30 8'-12'
28'-32' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY
Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 31 24 8 46 8
23.7 27 12 42.9 8.2 Strong
MT 7 Under N edge of Runway 5
6 1'-5'
11'-15' Brown and LEANLEAN CLAYsand Sand
Gray Gray CLAY with with 25.1 26 10 53.8 7.1
31.1 27 13 49.3 7.4 Weak to Strong
Strong
MT 5
MT 17 Under N edge of Taxiway
Under Runway 50
23 33'-36'
10'-13' Brown GrayGray LEAN CLAY with Sand
and SANDY LEAN CLAY 25.3 28 10 41.6 8
31.5 29 14 44.5 8.6 Weak
Strong
17
MT 16 Under Runway
North ofRunway 22
19 1'-5'
28'-33' Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.4 50.8 7.7
31.7 29 13 40.1 7.8 Weak to Strong
Weak
11
MT 15 Runway & taxiway
b/w Under Runway 42
34 26'-30'
24'-28' sand
Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.6 30 12 46.8 7.8
31.8 37 18 42.3 8.6 Strong
12
MT 10 North of Runway
b/w Runway & taxiway 11
38 16'-20'
25'-30' Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 31.9 31 16 44.3 6.9
25.7 26 10 56.4 8 Weak
Strong
16
MT 13 North of Runway 18
4 18'-23'
22'-27' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 25.7 23 8 46.3 7.7
32.2 34 17 45.6 6.5 Strong
Weak
MT 9 Under S edge of Runway 28 1'-5' Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 25.8 23 8 45.3 7.4 Strong
Progress Made In 2004-05
June 2005 technical report prepared on the
Laboratory Soil Test Program presented preliminary
results of the virgin and lime-treated soil testing
efforts at ATREL focused on determining moisture-
density-CBR relationships, unconfined compressive
strengths, and resilient modulus properties
The need for soil stabilization was established from
these preliminary test results
A 5 % LKD treatment was considered a feasible
stabilization choice for increasing the strength/
modulus of the North Runway 9L-27R subgrade soils
Progress Made In 2004-05
A conference paper was submitted & accepted for
presentation and publication in the conference
proceedings
“Characterizing Subgrade Soils and Establishing
Treatment Needs for a New Runway at the Chicago’s
O’Hare Airport”
by H.S. Brar, E. Tutumluer, M.R. Thompson, L.
Gosain, and R. Anderson
2006 ASCE Airfield and Highway Pavement Specialty
Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 30 – May 3, 2006
University of Illinois Laboratory
Testing Program at ATREL
Advanced Transportation Research & Engineering Laboratory (ATREL)
Grouping of Soils at ATREL
Boring Bucket Clay LL PI Silt
No. No. Depth Soil Description (%) (%) (%) (%)
GROUP 1
MT 14 20 5'-10' Gray SILTY CLAY with Sand 17.6 22 6 54.8
MT 16 17 1'-5' Brown and Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 19.2 30 17 35.4
MT 4 43 1'-4' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 22.1 24 8 52.4
MT 3 54 29'-33' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.1 30 11 39.7
GROUP 2
MT 3 52 6'-10' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 22.8 25 8 44.5
MT 3 51 2'-6' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 23.5 27 12 49.9
MT 4 44 8'-12' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 23.7 24 8 42.9
MT 5 50 33'-36' Gray SANDY LEAN CLAY 25.3 28 10 41.6
Grouping done primarily according to % clay content!..
Grouping of Soils at ATREL
Boring Bucket Clay LL PI Silt
No. No. Depth Soil Description (%) (%) (%) (%)
GROUP 3
MT 5 47 1'-5' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 29 33 13 43.2
MT 15 32 1'-5' Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 29.2 24 9 41.4
MT 10 36 1'-5' Gray LEAN CLAY with Sand 29.4 24 11 39.3
MT 13 3 16'-20' Gray LEAN CLAY with sand 29.7 32 17 50
GROUP 4
Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY
MT 17 24 18'-21' with Sand 39.4 41 24 39.7
Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY
MT 8 16 30'-34' with Sand 39.7 38 19 43.3
Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY
MT 12 12 30'-35' with Sand 41.9 46 26 42.6
Brown and Gray LEAN CLAY
MT 6 27 6'-10' with Sand 43.7 44 18 38
Test Specimen Preparation
Air Drying Pulverizing
Mixing
Moisture-
Density-
CBR Results
CBR
(ASTM D1883)
Untreated
Proctor
Compaction
(ASTM D698,
D1557)
Group 1 Results
CBR Plot
90
80
70
OMC=13.8%
60
CBR
50 0% Lime
40 5% Lime
Lime Source: 30 OMC=12.1%
20
10
High Calcium 0
Lime Kiln Dust (LKD) 10 12 14
Moisture-Density Plot
16 18 20
Moisture %
125
OMC=12.1%
120
OMC=13.8%
Density (pcf)
115 0% Lime
5% Lime
110
105
100
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Moisture %
Group 2 Results
60
50
OMC = 16%
40
CBR
30
20
OMC = 14.1%
Lime Source: 10
High Calcium 0
Lime Kiln Dust 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0% Lime
(LKD) 125 5% Lime
OMC =14.1%
Dry Density (pcf)
120
OMC=16%
115
110
105
100
95
10 13 16 19 22 25
Moisture Content %
Group 3 Results CBR Plot
60
50
40
CBR
0% Lime
30
5% Lime
OMC=18.8 %
Lime Source: 20
OMC=14.4 %
10
High Calcium 0
M oisture-Density Plot
Lime Kiln Dust 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(LKD) 120.00 Moisture Content%
OMC=14.4 %
116.00
Density (pcf)
112.00 0% Lime
OMC=18.8 % 5% Lime
108.00
104.00
100.00
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Moisture Content %
Group 4 Results CBR Plot
45
40
35
OMC= 22.8 %
30
CBR
25 OMC = 18.8 % 0% Lime
20
Lime Source: 15
5% Lime
10
High Calcium 5 Moisture-Density Plot
Lime Kiln Dust 0
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
(LKD) 108.00 Moisture %
OMC= 18.8 %
104.00
Density (pcf)
0% Lime
100.00 5% Lime
OMC = 22.8 %
96.00
92.00
14 17 20 23 26 29
Moisture %
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
MR Tests – Soil Samples
Cylindrical specimens, 2 in. f by 4 in. high
Undisturbed soil samples – Shelby tube (f = 2.8, 4 in.)
Group 1 MR Test Results
LEDFAA (FAA-AC No. 150/5320-6D, 2004) requires MR input
Group 1
24
22
Bilinear or
20
18 Eri Arithmetic
Resilient modulus, ksi
16 Model
14
15 to 20 ksi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deviator Stress, psi
Group 2 MR Test Results
Group 2
20
18 Bilinear or
16 Arithmetic
Model
Resilient modulus, ksi
14
Eri
12
10
15 to 20 ksi
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deviator Stress, psi
Group 3 MR Test Results
Group 3
24
22 Bilinear or
Sample 2
20
Arithmetic
Resilient modulus, ksi
18
16 Model
Eri
14
12 15 to 20 ksi
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deviator Stress, psi
Group 4 MR Test Results
Group 4
24
22
Bilinear or
Sam ple 1
20
18
Arithmetic
Resilient modulus, ksi
16 Model
Eri
14
12 15 to 20 ksi
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deviator Stress, psi
Unconfined Compressive
Strength Test Results
t
sd = s1 – s3(=0)
failure
C = (s1f)/2
= Qu/2
s3 = 0 s1 s1f s
Cohesive Soils (c, f=0)
(ASTM D2166)
UCS Without Lime
Unconfined Compressive Strength of All Groups without
Lime
120
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
100
Group 4
80
Axial Stress, psi
60
40
20
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Axial Strain, %
Group 1 with 5% Lime
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Group 1 with 5% Lime
140
Sample 1
120 Sample 2
Sample 3
100 without
Axial Stress, psi
lime
80
60
Lime Source:
40
High Calcium
20 Lime Kiln Dust (LKD)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Axial Strain, %
Group 4 with 5% Lime
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Group 4 with 5% Lime
250
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
200
Axial Stress, psi
150
100
without
lime
Lime Source:
50
High Calcium
Lime Kiln Dust (LKD)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Axial Strain, %
Lime Reactivity
Lime Source:
High Calcium
Lime Kiln Dust (LKD)
Group UCS with Lime UCS without Lime Lime Reactivity
No. Qulime Qu = (Qulime - Qu)
(psi) (psi) (psi)
1 119 80 39
2 184 44 140
3 138 60 78
4 217 74 143
UCS without Lime After
Resilient Modulus (MR) Testing
Group OMC Sample Water Dry Density UCS
No. (%) No. Content (%) (pcf) (psi)
1 12.1 1 12.1 122.6 160
2 12.3 122.7 123
2 14.1 1 13.8 118.4 103
2 13.8 119.3 83
3 14.4 1 14.9 116.9 83
2 14.7 118 82
4 18.8 1 19.8 107.5 74
2 19.7 108.2 77
Summary of Results (1)
Moisture Density CBR Tests:
Optimum moisture contents of the natural soils were always lower
those of the same soils treated with 5% lime kiln dust (LKD)
Similarly, maximum dry densities were always higher for the
natural soils without lime treatment
The unsoaked CBR values obtained from testing the compacted
specimens tend to drop sharply after the optimum moisture
contents for the soils without lime
The treated soils with 5% lime always gave much higher unsoaked
CBR values than the natural soils with no lime
In general, the 5% lime treatment was effective for increasing
sufficiently the strength of the North Runway 9L-37R subgrade
soils tested
Summary of Results (2)
Resilient Modulus (MR) Tests:
MR decreased with increasing applied deviator stresses;
typical stress-softening fine grained soil behavior
All soil groups tested at the OMC gave high MR values at 6
psi deviator stress, in the range of Eri = 15-20 ksi
Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests:
Large increases in unconfined compressive strengths observed for
all groups when 5% lime was added
Lime reactivity (Qu lime treated - Qu natural) is greater than 50 psi
for all the groups except for Group 1
Minimum lime treated Qu = 119 psi was recorded for Group 1 soils
with the lowest clay contents & the least reactivity with lime
Recommendation
From the results of all tests performed, “Green Light” is
given to the 5% lime kiln dust (LKD) treatment at the new
North Runway 9L-27R of O’Hare International Airport
seems to be working quite well in increasing the soil
strengths
the improvements are sufficient to serve as a stabilized
subgrade zone and alleviate wet soil conditions
FY 06 Year 2 Project Tasks
Task 1:
Conduct additional soil-lime testing in the laboratory
for soil samples with different lime percentages
and lime sources
Establish subgrade support for various
combinations of subgrade stabilization
treatments and prepared subgrade conditions
The data will also be helpful for considering the
thickness design of the shoulder flexible
pavements
Admixture Types / Sources
Carmeuse (potential supplier)
South Chicago (dolomitic lime)
Buffington, IN (high calcium lime)
Buffington is the primary source and primarily
worked with in year 1
Lime types
Lime Kiln Dust (LKD)
Quicklime fines
Group 2 with Different % of LKD
Lime % W% Dry Density CBR CBR Moisture
(pcf) Content, %
3 18.6 109.2 6 18.5
7 17.8 108.8 9 17.8
5 18.9 110.2 10 18.6
Group 2 with 5 % Lime of
Different Types
Lime Type W% Dry CBR CBR Moisture
Density Content, %
(pcf)
SCLKD 18.6 108.7 11 18.5
BLKD 18.9 110.2 10 18.6
BQL 17.7 109.2 16 17.5
Group 2 & 4 with 3 & 7 % BLKD
Group % Sample % Water Dry Density UCS Avg.
No. Lime No. Content (pcf) (psi) UCS
(psi)
1 15.5 114.3 273
2 3 2 15.8 114.5 289 279
3 16.2 113.5 275
1 15.3 115.7 367
2 7 2 15.3 115.8 320 351
3 15.2 116.4 365
1 22.2 99.7 228
4 7 2 22.2 99.8 190 214
3 22.4 98.8 223
Group 2 with 3% BLKD
350
Sample 1
300 Sample 2
Sample 3
250
Axial Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Axial Strain, %
Group 4 with 7% BLKD
250
Sample1
Sample2
200
Sample3
Axial Stress, psi
150
100
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Axial Strain, %
Group 2 with 5 % Lime of
Different Types
Lime Sample Water Dry UCS Avg. UCS
Type No. Content % Density (psi) (psi)
(pcf)
1 15.9 114.6 281
SCLKD 2 15.5 115.3 307 287
3 15.4 114.9 273
1 15.3 116.8 202
BLKD 2 15 116.1 177 184
3 15 115.4 174
1 14.3 116.1 311
BQL 2 14.0 117.2 327 318
3 14.2 117.9 317
Group 2 with 5% SCLKD
350
Sample 1
300
Sample 2
Sample 3
250
Axial Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Axial Strain, %
Group 2 with 5% BQL
350
Sample1
300 Sample 2
Sample 3
250
Axial Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Axial Strain, %
FY 06 Year 2 Project Tasks
Task 2:
Provide OMP with guidelines and support for
monitoring field soil lime stabilization and
construction of the 9L-27R subgrades
The research team will provide recommendations
on the various field tests such as automated
dynamic cone penetrometer, Clegg hammer,
Light-Weight-Deflectometer, etc.
FY 06 Year 2 Project Tasks
Task 3:
Evaluate the 9L-27R runway/taxiway soil lime
stabilization and modification for meeting the
subgrade support (k-value) requirements
The research team will support the activities of
OMP in the evaluation of completed lime
stabilization
Project Staff will cooperate with the OMP Project
– Field Validation of Constructed Subgrade and
Pavement Layers in this effort
FY 06 Year 2 Project Tasks
Task 4:
Evaluate currently available geotechnical/subgrade
data for the South airfield of the O’Hare
International Airport with particular emphasis on the
stockpiled soils
Advise on the soil sampling needs and if considered
essential, develop recommendations for additional soil
exploration/sampling activities
The need to construct additional subgrade treatment test
sections will be considered
Provide non-routine laboratory testing, such as the resilient
modulus test, for the soils obtained from drilling and
sampling and recommend and conduct (as time and
budget permit) a lime-treatment testing program
Project Schedule &
Deliverables
Technical Notes will be prepared and submitted to the OMP
throughout the duration of this project to communicate specific
findings and recommendations to OMP engineers as needed
A Final Report will be prepared at the end of the one-year
study
Several of the Project Tasks are already pursued
simultaneously, and the specific delivery of results will be
contingent upon availability of OMP data and other factors that
depend on coordination with OMP
Continue to work with OMP on current and future subgrade
soil support and stabilization needs for all O’Hare
runways/taxiways. This will be in the form of sustained support
for working with OMP on subgrade soil support issues
Any Questions?