Austroads Research Report

AP-R435-13
AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT
Proposed Procedures for the Design of

Pavements on Selected Subgrade and
Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials
Proposed Procedures for the Design of Pavements on
Selected Subgrade and Lime-stabilised
Subgrade Materials
Proposed Procedures for the Design of Pavements on Selected Subgrade and
Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials
Published May 2013
Austroads Ltd 2013
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-925037-04-3
Austroads Project No. TT1358
Austroads Publication No. AP-R435-13
Project Manager
Allan Jones
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Prepared by
Geoff Jameson
ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Ltd

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Proposed Procedures for the Design of Pavements on
Selected Subgrade and Lime-stabilised
Subgrade Materials
Sydney 2013
About Austroads
Austroads purpose is to:
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate Australian Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.
Proposed Procedures for the Design of Pavements on Selected Subgrade and Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials
SUMMARY
The Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design provides
guidance on the structural design of new flexible and rigid pavements. The Guide information
relating to the structural contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades is limited. Nor does the Guide
describe how selected subgrade materials can be considered in using the empirical design charts.
This report reviews current Australian and selected international pavement design and mix design
practices for stabilised soils, and research to assess the in-service characteristics of lime-stabilised
subgrades.
The review found a wide range of design approaches. Three out of the five Australian road
agencies surveyed did not commonly allow for the structural contribution of lime-stabilised
subgrades. The other two agencies had different approaches to mix design and pavement design.
The report proposes that the currently used structural design methods for selected subgrade
materials be extended to cover lime-stabilised subgrade layers. Revised text for the Guide is
provided in relation to the:
mechanistic design of pavements which include lime-stabilised subgrades
use of empirical design charts for thin bituminous surfaced granular pavements which
incorporate selected subgrade and lime-stabilised subgrade materials.
It is anticipated that the draft procedures will be used by practitioners and revised as necessary for
inclusion in the next edition of the Austroads Guide.
The report also recommends revising the mix design methods in the Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 4D: Stabilised Materials to align with current practice.
Further research is required to develop procedures for the use of lime-stabilised soils and granular
materials for use as subbase and base.
Austroads 2013
i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 REVIEW OF PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODS FOR FLEXIBLE

PAVEMENTS WHICH INCLUDE LIME-STABILISED SUBGRADE ...................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 United States of America ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 AASHTO MEPDG .................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Texas Department of Transportation ........................................................................ 4
2.2.3 Florida Department of Transportation ....................................................................... 4
2.2.4 Illinois Department of Transportation ........................................................................ 5
2.3 UK Design Method ................................................................................................................. 5
2.4 French Design Method........................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Australian Design Methods .................................................................................................... 6
2.5.1 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Design Methods ................. 6
2.5.2 VicRoads Design Methods ....................................................................................... 7
2.5.3 Roads and Maritime Services NSW Design Methods ............................................... 8
2.5.4 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia ..................... 9
2.5.5 Main Roads Western Australia ................................................................................. 9
3 PROPOSED AUSTROADS MECHANISTIC DESIGN PROCEDURES ............................... 10

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Scope of Proposed Design Method...................................................................................... 10
3.3 Maximum CBR and Modulus of Lime-stabilised Subgrade ................................................... 10
3.3.1 Measure of Subgrade Support ............................................................................... 10
3.3.2 Determination of Modulus from CBR ...................................................................... 11
3.4 Variation in Modulus with Underlying Support ...................................................................... 11
3.4.1 Current Characterisation of Selected Subgrade Materials ...................................... 11
3.4.2 Proposed Characterisation of Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials ......................... 12
3.5 Proposed Method ................................................................................................................ 15
4 PROPOSED AUSTROADS EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD .............................................. 17

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Proposed Guidance on use for Pavements with Selected Subgrade or Stabilised
Subgrade Materials .............................................................................................................. 18
5 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 20
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX A REVISED TEXT SECTIONS 5.1 AND 5.3.8......................................................... 23
APPENDIX B REVISED TEXT SECTION 8.2 ............................................................................ 24
APPENDIX C REVISED TEXT OF SECTION 8.3 ...................................................................... 30
APPENDIX D REVISED TEXT OF SECTION 12.8.2.................................................................. 33
APPENDIX E REVISED TEXT OF APPENDIX K OF PART 2 ................................................... 35
Austroads 2013
ii
FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Examples of the effect of subgrade modulus and select subgrade material
thickness on top sublayer modulus ........................................................................... 12
Figure 3.2: Variation in lime-stabilised soil moduli with modulus of underlying
subgrade .................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3.3: Variation in modulus ratio with thickness of lime-stabilised soil treatment ................. 13
Figure 3.4: Modulus and CBR ratios variation with thickness of stabilisation treatment .............. 14
Figure 3.5: DCP depth profile in the foundation of Brackmills Spine Road .................................. 14
Figure 3.6: Moduli back-calculated from FWD deflections measured six weeks after
construction .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4.1: Design chart for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing ......................... 17
Figure 4.2: Design chart for lightly-trafficked granular pavements with thin bituminous .............. 17
Figure 4.3: Example of how the design CBR adopted for a selected subgrade material
with a laboratory measured CBR of 10% is limited by the CBR of the
underlying in situ subgrade ....................................................................................... 19
Austroads 2013
iii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (Austroads 2012)
contains procedures for the design of the following forms of sealed road pavement construction:
flexible pavements consisting of unbound granular materials
flexible pavements that contain one or more bound layers
rigid pavements (i.e. concrete pavements).
Section 3.6 describes the use of stabilisation of subgrades and pavement materials. Whilst
detailed procedures are provided in Part 2 for cementitiously stabilised pavement materials and
Part 4D Stabilised Materials (Austroads 2006) details the mix design of lime-stabilised materials,
there is a deficiency of guidance in Part 2 on the structural design of pavements with
lime-stabilised subgrades; the advice is limited to the following text in Section 3.6 of the Guide:
For the purpose of pavement design, subgrade material which has been stabilised
should not generally be assigned a CBR value greater than 15%.
In mechanistic design of flexible pavements, no other details are provided on the elastic
characterisation of stabilised subgrades, particularly whether the modulus developed in stabilised
subgrades is influenced by the strength of the underlying materials.
Furthermore there is also a need to provide improved guidance in the use of the empirical design
charts for thin bituminous surfaced granular pavements which incorporate selected subgrade and
lime-stabilised subgrade materials.
Accordingly, the Austroads Pavement Task Force commissioned ARRB Group to draft additional
text describing the design procedures for pavements with lime-stabilised subgrades. As part of
Austroads project TT1358 Strategic Review of Pavement Design Practice, this report provides the
draft Part 2 text in relation to:
the mechanistic design of pavements which include lime-stabilised subgrades
the use of empirical design charts for thin bituminous surfaced granular pavements which
incorporate selected subgrade and lime-stabilised subgrade materials.
Note that it is only appropriate to recognise the structural contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades
when sufficient lime is added to achieve an excess after initial reactions with the subgrade soil are
completed as this ensures that the stabilised design properties are achieved in the long term. The
Austroads mix design procedures in Part 4D require a minimum lime content to satisfy the lime
demand test. The procedures described in this report are not applicable to soils treated with lime
contents below that required to satisfy the lime demand test.
1.2 Scope
Section 2 reviews design methods in use for pavements which include lime-stabilised subgrades.
Section 3 and Section 4 propose Austroads mechanistic and empirical design procedures.
The proposed text for Part 2 is included in the Appendices to this report as follows:
Appendix A is the proposed revision of Part 2 Sections 5.1 and 5.3.8.
Appendix B is the proposed revision of Part 2 Section 8.2.
Austroads 2013
1
Appendix C is the proposed revision of Part 2 Section 8.3.

Appendix D is the proposed revision of Part 2 Section 8.3.
Appendix E is the proposed revision of Part 2 Appendix K Design Examples.
The proposed text has been developed in conjunction with the Austroads Pavement Structures
Working Group.
Austroads 2013
2
2 REVIEW OF PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODS FOR

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS WHICH INCLUDE
LIME-STABILISED SUBGRADE
2.1 Introduction
The Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (Austroads 2012) does
not detail procedures for the mechanistic design of flexible pavements which include lime-stabilised
subgrades. Austroads requested ARRB Group draft procedures for evaluation and possible
inclusion in the next edition of Part 2.
To assist in developing these procedures, this section outlines design methods being used
overseas and by Australian road authorities.
2.2 United States of America

2.2.1 AASHTO MEPDG
The AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (AASHTO 2008) describes a state
of the practice tool for the design and analysis of new and rehabilitated pavement structures,
based on mechanistic-empirical design principles.
Section 11.4 of the AASHTO Guide describes the procedures for the design of chemically
stabilised materials, including lime-stabilised subgrades. The Guide assumes that sufficient lime is
added in the stabilisation process that it is no longer an unbound material but a bound material with
potential for fatigue cracking. Accordingly, the key input parameters for the structural design are:
resilient modulus
flexural strength
fatigue relationship.
However, the design procedures for all chemically stabilised materials, including lean concrete
subbase and cement treated base are currently not established and the AASHTO Guide includes
the following advice:
However the fatigue cracking prediction equations for semi-rigid pavements were
not calibrated with the NCHRP Project 1-37A and 1-40D. As such, these layers
should not be used until the prediction model is calibrated.
In terms of resilient modulus of lime-stabilised subgrades, the AASHTO Guide does not provide
protocols for modulus testing. However, the Guide includes a presumptive modulus for
undamaged material of about 310 MPa (45 000 psi) or recommends design moduli be estimated
from the unconfined compressive strength tested according to ASTM D1502. However, details of
the sample mixing, conditioning, curing and soaking conditions for the UCS testing are not included
in the AASHTO Guide.
Based on an earlier version of the AASHTO Guide (ARA 2004), the design modulus for chemically
stabilised materials is the value at 28 days. This earlier draft Guide also contained the typical
value of 310 MPa for lime-stabilised soil and this value appears to be the initial modulus prior to
traffic loading as the draft Guide also includes a typical value of 103 MPa (15 000 psi) after
repeated application of traffic loading; this is likely to be the value after fatigue cracking.
Austroads 2013
3
Note that unlike unbound materials, lime-stabilised soils are not sublayered in the AASHTO Guide;
the material is modelled as a single layer using the design principles as for bound cemented
materials.
The 2008 Guide recommends a Poissons ratio of 0.15 to 0.2 for lime-stabilised soil, similar to the
value for lean concrete subbase and cemented stabilised granular materials.
2.2.2 Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Pavement Design Manual (Texas DoT 2011) utilises a mechanistic-empirical design
methods for flexible pavements. The Manual recommends design moduli of 207310 MPa (30 000
to 45 000 psi) for lime-stabilised soils. No mention is made in the Manual of varying the design
modulus with the modulus of the underlying subgrade or the need to sublayer the stabilised layer.
There is also no requirement to assess the fatigue of lime-stabilised subgrade. A Poissons ratio of
0.3 is recommended.
The Texas Guidelines for mix design (Texas DoT 2005) include the following steps:
determine whether the soil has at least 25% passing 75 m sieve and a plasticity index of at
least 15
verify that the sulphate and organics contents are within acceptable levels
determine dry density-moisture compaction curve
determine the minimum percentage lime for the soil-lime mixture to reach a pH of 12.4, the
lime demand test
select a trial lime content
determine the plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture
when required undertake unconfined compressive strength testing
if the selected trial lime content does not result in the required plasticity index and strength
requirement, modify the lime content and repeat the testing.
The procedures do not describe the unconfined compressive strength requirements for use with
representative design moduli of 207310 MPa listed in the Texas Pavement Design Manual.
The Texas Pavement Design Manual mentions:

There are cases when a subgrade will be treated (23% lime) to provide a working
platform for construction equipment and a platform for compactive effort of the
overlying layers. This layer should not be accounted for in the structural
design.
Hence it is likely that lime contents above 3% are used when the structural contribution of lime
stabilisation is considered. From Little (1996) it is likely that current lime contents to stabilise clay
subgrades in Texas exceed 5%, similar to the current practice in Queensland (Section 2.5.1).
2.2.3 Florida Department of Transportation

The Florida Department of Transportation has yet to adopt a mechanistic-empirical design method
for flexible pavements (FDoT 2008). The design procedures are currently based on the structural
number utilised in the 1993 AASHTO Guide.
In this method, the maximum resilient modulus of lime-stabilised soil is about 85 MPa (12 000 psi)
corresponding to a maximum limerock bearing ratio of 40. The layer co-efficient is 0.08 which is
less than the value for a granular subbase.
Austroads 2013
4
2.2.4 Illinois Department of Transportation

The Illinois Department of Transportation publication Pavement Design (IDoT 2011) uses both a
mechanistic-empirical design method and a modified AASHTO 1993 Guide approach based on the
structural number. Whilst the characterisation of lime-stabilised soil for mechanistic design is not
provided in the Manual, in the structural number method a lime-stabilised soil with a minimum UCS
of 700 kPa has a layer co-efficient of 0.12, similar to that of a granular subbase.
2.3 UK Design Method

The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency 2006) details
procedures for the design of new pavements in the United Kingdom (UK). The Manual provides
designs for four Foundation Classes. The Foundation Classes are defined by the Foundation
Surface Modulus used for structural design purposes, as follows:
Class 1 50 MPa.
Class 2 100 MPa.
Class 3 200 MPa.
Class 4 400 MPa.
An Interim Advice Note 73/06 (Highways Agency 2009) provides guidance on the design of these
road pavement foundations.
Foundation materials comprise the subgrade, either natural ground or compacted fill, unbound
capping materials and stabilised capping materials (including lime-stabilised soil), granular
subbases and hydraulically bound subbases.
On weak subgrades it is common practice in the UK to use a capping layer between the subgrade
and the subbase. The capping layer reduces the thickness of the subbase which would otherwise
be required and provides a suitably firm surface for the placement and compaction of the subbase.
The Highways Agency Advice Note HA 74/07 (Highways Agency 2007) provides guidance on the
use of lime and cement to stabilise capping materials.
Tests to determine whether a material is suitable or not for lime stabilisation include the initial
consumption of lime and the soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The property requirements
are designed to produce a stabilised capping material that when compacted according to the
specification will have a CBR of not less than 15%, an air voids content of 5% or less and will not
be susceptible to swelling. Prior to laboratory compaction and CBR testing, the soil-lime mix is
mellowed in sealed containers to prevent carbonation for a period of 24 to 72 hours to allow the
lime to react with the soil and represent the field construction procedure. After compaction in the
CBR mould, the test sample is firstly cured in the sealed CBR mould for a three day period at
20 2 C, then soaked in water for 28 days at the same temperature, after which the CBR is
measured. The soaked CBR test was introduced to replicate very wet conditions in situ.
According to Advice Note HA 74/07, this characterisation is supported by testing undertaken by the
Transport Research Laboratory and fitted with the design and construction processes used in the
UK.
Note that regardless of the lime content required to satisfy the initial lime consumption test and
minimum soaked CBR requirement, the Highways Agency specifications require a minimum 2.5%
of lime.
Austroads 2013
5
Hence the lime content is the maximum of:

2.5%
lime required to satisfy the initial lime consumption test, typically ranging from 1.5% to 3.5%,
plus 0.5% for construction tolerance
lime required for a soaked CBR greater 15%, plus 0.5% for construction tolerance.
Based on these requirements it seems the UK design processes utilise a maximum design CBR of
15% for the lime-stabilised capping layer, consistent with the current Austroads Guide. In
mechanistic modelling of the pavement foundation, the lime-stabilised soil is modelled as a single
layer with a maximum isotropic modulus of 100 MPa, Poissons ratio of 0.45 (Chaddock & Roberts
2006).
Note that foundation design charts in Interim Advice Note 73/06 include a range of the design
moduli for unbound granular subbases of 150 MPa, 200 MPa and 300 MPa compared to 100 MPa
for lime-stabilised capping. Hence, the UK design method assumes that the structural contribution
of lime-stabilised subgrades is less than unbound granular subbases.
2.4 French Design Method

The French Design Manual for Pavement Structures (LCPC 1997) details procedures for the
design of new pavements. Like the UK design procedures, the French Manual provides designs
for four foundation classes. The pavement formation (PF) classes used for design purposes are as
follows:
PF1 20 MPa
PF2 50 MPa
PF3 120 MPa
PF4 200 MPa.
As the French Guide requires that material characteristics be measured, it provides limited
information about the typical design characteristics of lime-stabilised soil when used as subgrade
capping material.
However, the Guide provides the minimum capping thicknesses of unbound granular materials and
lime-stabilised soils that can be used as an indication of the structural contribution of
lime-stabilised soils relative to crushed rock. For a subgrade with a design modulus of 50 MPa (in
situ subgrade support Class AR1), 500 mm of lime-stabilised soil or 500 mm of crushed rock is
required for a pavement formation class of PF3 (modulus 120 MPa, semi-infinite in thickness).
That is, it appears in this case the structural contribution of lime-stabilised soil is the same as
crushed rock, however the design modulus is limited to 120 MPa.
2.5 Australian Design Methods

2.5.1 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Design Methods
Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) has developed a mix design and structural design
method (TMR 2012).
The TMR mix design procedures are different from those used in other Australian and New
Zealand road agencies. The lime content used is the greater of that required to satisfy the lime
demand test and that required to achieve an Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) in the range
12 MPa. For clay subgrades, lime contents in the range 58% have been specified (Evans et al.
Austroads 2013
6
1998), considerably higher than the lime contents used elsewhere in Australia and more in line with
the treatments being used in Texas (Section 2.2.2).
The TMR mix design method includes consideration of:

the lime content beyond which there is no further reduction in soil plasticity (lime fixation
method)
the lime content to achieve a pH of 12.4 in a lime-water solution (lime demand test)
lime content required to achieve an unsoaked UCS of 12 MPa, after 28 days curing.
In its structural design method (TMR 2012), lime-stabilised subgrade is considered to behave as
unbound soil with improved modulus, despite the UCS being in the range 12 MPa: that is
exceeding the value defined in the Guide (Austroads 2012) as modified material. The method for
the elastic characterisation of stabilised subgrade is as follows:
the material is sublayered into five sublayers
the modulus of the top sublayer is 200 MPa, irrespective of the support provided by the
underlying subgrade
the material is cross-anisotropic and has a Poissons ratio of 0.45.
UCS results of cores of in-service pavements (TMR 2012) have indicated field UCS values in
excess of 1.5 MPa.
2.5.2 VicRoads Design Methods

In terms of mechanistic design of pavements on lime-stabilised subgrades, VicRoads
(VicRoads 2002, VicRoads 2010) uses the Austroads Guide procedures with the lime-stabilised
subgrade characterised in the same manner as for selected subgrade materials. Specifically, if not
otherwise specified in contract documents, the lime-stabilised subgrade at or below the subgrade
level has:
a maximum modulus of 100 MPa (design CBR limited to 10%) for any freeway or national
highway or any other road with a design traffic loading exceeding 106 ESA
a maximum modulus of 150 MPa (design CBR limited to 15%) for other roads with a design
traffic loading less than or equal to 106 ESA.
The lime-stabilised soil is considered to be part of the subgrade rather than a subbase pavement
layer.
Accordingly, the following elastic characterisation for lime-stabilised subgrades applies:

the material is sublayered into five sublayers
the modulus of the top sublayer is dependent on the modulus of the underlying subgrade
the material is cross-anisotropic and has a Poissons ratio of 0.45.
The VicRoads mix design procedure (VicRoads 2002) includes firstly determining the minimum
lime content required to satisfy the lime demand test. Then the design CBR and swell of the
lime-stabilised soil is determined by:
firstly spreading the lime to be added over the surface of the soil
after about four hours, the lime is mixed thoroughly into the soil, then after about one hour
after mixing, specimens are compacted using AS1289.5.1.1 or 5.2.1 (drop hammer) as
Austroads 2013
7
appropriate. The specimen is then removed from the mould and placed into a sealable
container and the container sealed
between 48 hours and 72 hours after mixing has taken place, each specimen is then
removed from the mould and the aggregations broken up
immediately following this material conditioning, the four day soaked CBR and percentage
swell are determined using the same processes as for untreated subgrade
the design CBR is calculated by firstly calculating the mean of the two lowest CBR results.
The design CBR is one-third of this mean
if the required CBR and swell values are not achieved, the lime content is increased above
that required to satisfy the lime demand test and the material retested for CBR and swell.
2.5.3 Roads and Maritime Services NSW Design Methods

Mr David Hazell of RMS provided the following advice on the current use of lime-stabilised
subgrade:
Lime stabilisation for the specific purpose of producing a layer with increased
design strength is not a feature of RMS design procedures. Concerns as to:
differences between laboratory strength and achieved field strength
uncertain durability and possible leaching of lime over time
effects of shrinkage cracking on material stiffness, and
construction variability
cost of high lime contents
have all led to the discounting of strengthening benefit from lime stabilisation.
Where undertaken, lime stabilisation of subgrade is primarily for construction

expediency as a working platform to allow construction access to the site, to
reduce moisture sensitivity, and to improve compaction of overlying select material
or pavement layers. A recipe approach of 2% lime, nominally 300 mm thick is
often taken.
In rare cases, where available pavement material resources are scarce or cost
prohibitive, and the subgrade material can be processed in a manner to overcome
variability concerns, lime stabilisation has been investigated using both CBR and
UCS approaches at various times in the past to determine an appropriate design
strength, but with an upper limit of design modulus of 150 MPa. However layer
thickness constraints are unlikely to allow use of a value this high. For example,
the RMS supplement to the Austroads Guide Part 2 Pavement Structural Design
limits the presumptive subgrade CBR for a very soft subgrade with a 200 mm thick
bound layer as a working platform to CBR 3%.
In some more recent pavement structural designs, benefits from lime stabilisation
of clay subgrade have been taken into account for some projects. For example
CBR 5% has been used in lieu of CBR 2% with a 300 mm lime-stabilised clay
subgrade, subject to laboratory investigation and testing. No specific preference
for mix design Method A or Method B (Austroads 2006) has yet been determined.
Austroads 2013
8
2.5.4 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia

Mr Chris Mathias of DPTI provided advice on current practice. Like RMS, lime stabilisation of
subgrade is primarily for construction expediency as a working platform to allow construction
access to the site, to reduce moisture sensitivity, and to improve compaction of overlying select
material or pavement layers. Consequently, DPTI does not currently have a process for selection
of lime content, but if one was required it would probably adopt another state road authoritys mix
design method (e.g. VicRoads 2002).
2.5.5 Main Roads Western Australia

Mr Ross Keeley of Main Roads provided advice on current practice. Like RMS and TSD, lime
stabilisation of subgrade is primarily for construction expediency as a working platform to allow
construction access to the site. The structural contribution of lime-stabilised subgrade is currently
not considered. In terms of mix design, Main Roads has adopted the VicRoads lime demand test
method for estimating the required lime content. Laboratory specimens at this lime content are
then compacted to 100% modified maximum dry density, cured for 28 days, soaked for four hours
then tested for UCS. There is no minimum strength requirement but the stabilisation treatment is
not utilised if the UCS exceeds 1.5 MPa.
Austroads 2013
9
3 PROPOSED AUSTROADS MECHANISTIC DESIGN

PROCEDURES
3.1 Introduction
As described in Section 2, there is a wide variety of mix design methods and structural design
methods in use for lime-stabilised subgrades. In Australia there are significant differences in the
practice in design methods between state road authorities. Three of the five states surveyed do
not commonly allow for the structural contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades. However,
VicRoads and TMR design methods consider the materials structural contribution, but their mix
design and structural design methods differ. In terms of mix design, TMR utilises lime contents in
excess of 5% to achieve a target unsoaked unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 1.5 MPa
after 28 days curing, whereas VicRoads does not specify a minimum strength/modulus but selects
a design modulus of the material from four day soaked CBR laboratory tests. The associated
structural design methods differ with TMR providing for a higher structural contribution in line with
high lime content mixes being used in Queensland.
This section describes a proposed method of mechanistic pavement design for evaluation by road
agencies and possible modification prior to finalisation and inclusion in the Guide
(Austroads 2012). Given that most Australian road agencies seldom utilise the structural
contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades at present, a conservative approach to design is
recommended in the initial implementation.
3.2 Scope of Proposed Design Method

One significant issue in developing Austroads structural design procedures is whether the
lime-stabilised soil is being used as a pavement base layer, pavement subbase layer or an
improved subgrade layer.
Given the current lack of consistency in mix design and structural design methods in use in
Australia, it is proposed to limit the procedures proposed in this report to the use of lime-stabilised
subgrade as an improved subgrade layer.
It is recommended that research be undertaken to develop procedures for the design of

lime-stabilised materials for use as pavement base and subbase. Given that the materials may be
susceptible to fatigue, the structural design procedures may be aligned to the current
characterisation of cemented materials. This characterisation is consistent with the AASHTO
design method (Section 2.2.1) and the French (Section 2.4) mechanistic design methods.
3.3 Maximum CBR and Modulus of Lime-stabilised Subgrade

3.3.1 Measure of Subgrade Support
The Austroads Guide uses both modulus and CBR values as the measure of subgrade materials
support. The design CBR is used directly in the empirical design of sprayed seal surfaced granular
pavements and in the design of rigid pavements. For the mechanistic design of flexible
pavements, the vertical design modulus of subgrade materials is determined by the design CBR.
Accordingly, where lime-stabilised soil is used as a subgrade material it is proposed that CBR be
the measure of support to be consistent with the other subgrade materials. As the CBR test is not
applicable to high modulus unbound or bound materials it is assumed the lime-stabilised soils will
be tested uncured following a similar method as used by VicRoads (Section 2.5.2). In the future it
would be desirable to transition to measure modulus directly, particularly if the design procedures
are extended to cover lime-stabilised soil subbases and perhaps bases.
Austroads 2013
10
In terms of the maximum design CBR, it is proposed to retain the following wording in the Guide:
For the purpose of pavement design, subgrade material which has been stabilised
should not generally be assigned a CBR value greater than 15%.
It is recommended that Austroads develop procedures to determine appropriate CBR values as

part of the mix design procedures for lime-stabilised subgrades as the current text
(Austroads 2006) does not reflect current practice. In particular, this applies to the laboratory
procedures for mellowing the soil-lime mix after mixing and curing periods after compaction and
prior to CBR testing. The procedures currently used by VicRoads (Section 2.5.2) may be the
foundation from which to develop these procedures.
3.3.2 Determination of Modulus from CBR

For the mechanistic design of flexible pavements, the vertical design moduli of subgrade materials
are determined by multiplying the design CBR values by 10. This relationship is applicable for
subgrade materials with a maximum CBR of 15%. A maximum value of 150 MPa is normally
adopted for subgrade materials.
As uncured lime-stabilised soils were not used in the development of the E = 10CBR relationship, it
is recommended that Austroads undertake research to confirm the applicability of this relationship
for lime-stabilised soils. In the interim it is proposed that the E = 10CBR relationship be used.
3.4 Variation in Modulus with Underlying Support

3.4.1 Current Characterisation of Selected Subgrade Materials
In developing the elastic characterisation of lime-stabilised soil in the mechanistic design method,
an important consideration is whether or not the lime-stabilised soil needs to be sublayered, and if
so a suitable sublayering method. To assist in this consideration, the background to the current
sublayering method for selected subgrade materials is summarised below.
When a selected subgrade material is placed on top of a weaker in situ natural subgrade, the
mechanistic procedures (Austroads 2012) recognise that the maximum modulus selected
subgrade materials can develop may be limited by the support provided by the in situ subgrade.
The development of these procedures which utilised the research by Heukelom and Klomp (1962).
Heukelom and Klomp reported the results of measuring the moduli of granular layers and
subgrades using the road vibration machine. They observed that the moduli of granular materials
are dependent on the modulus of the underlying soil or unbound granular material. It was
concluded that the ratio of the moduli of successive layers was roughly equal to two. Only in those
cases where the modulus of the soil was very low did the ratio tend to be higher and reach values
up to five, but in those cases the unbound granular layers or sand fills were usually very thick. The
granular layer thicknesses were not reported but it is reasonable to assume all layers were more
than 100 mm or more thick.
In the Guide (Austroads 2012) the elastic characterisation for selected subgrade materials is as
follows:
each selected subgrade material is sublayered into five sublayers
for each selected subgrade material the modulus of the top sublayer is dependent on the
modulus of the underlying in situ subgrade or selected subgrade material (Figure 3.1)
the material is cross-anisotropic and has a Poissons ratio of 0.45 for cohesive materials and
0.35 for non-cohesive materials
a maximum vertical modulus of 150 MPa is commonly used.
Austroads 2013
11
Figure 3.1: Examples of the effect of subgrade modulus and select subgrade material thickness on top sublayer modulus
3.4.2 Proposed Characterisation of Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials

The research undertaken by Heukelom and Klomp (1962) did not include lime-stabilised
subgrades. However, there have been a number of research projects that provide some insight
into the dependency of lime-stabilised subgrade moduli on the modulus of the underlying
subgrade.
Little (1996) compared in-service moduli of lime-stabilised subgrades back-calculated from falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) surface deflections with the modulus of the underlying in situ
subgrade at 40 sites in Texas USA. Most of the soils were stabilised with 4% to 6% lime on the
basis of reducing plasticity rather than the current Texas approach to mix design that consider the
soil pH and optimises strength (Texas DoT 2011) and hence results in higher lime contents.
Typical pavement sections consisted of 75 mm to 125 mm of asphalt over unbound granular
limestone base and lime-stabilised subgrades. The underlying subgrades were mainly high
plasticity clays. In addition to estimating the in situ moduli from the measured surface deflections,
dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was undertaken to assist in verifying the
back-calculated moduli.
Plotted in Figure 3.2 are the back-calculated moduli for stabilisation depths of less than 200 mm
and greater than 200 mm. Also plotted is a line where the ratio of lime-stabilised material modulus
to the underlying subgrade modulus is four. In addition, plotted in Figure 3.3 is the ratio of
lime-stabilised subgrade moduli to that of the underlying subgrade moduli as a function of the
stabilisation thickness. The Austroads Guide sublayering method for selected subgrade material
(Section 3.4.1) is also plotted.
The back-calculated moduli of the clay subgrades were very high compared to commonly used
design moduli in Australia: 3050 MPa. Hence in translating these field results to an Austroads
pavement design method, the relative moduli are of greater interest than the absolute values.
Austroads 2013
12
There is no clear indication from the data that the lime-stabilised soil moduli vary with the thickness
of stabilisation. There is a tendency for the lime-stabilised subgrade modulus to be related to the
modulus of subgrade prior to treatment and this may be due to lime contents used not being
designed to achieve a strength/modulus requirement.
Figure 3.2: Variation in lime-stabilised soil moduli with modulus of underlying subgrade
Figure 3.3: Variation in modulus ratio with thickness of lime-stabilised soil treatment
Field testing of three New Zealand pavements on lime-stabilised subgrades was undertaken by
Bartley Consultants (1998). Lime contents of 3.54% were used and stabilisation depths achieved
in the field were 170220 mm.
The elastic modulus of the surface of the lime-stabilised soil and the underlying subgrade was
estimated using the Loadman portable falling weight deflectometer. In situ CBR values were also
estimated from dynamic cone penetrometer testing.
Figure 3.4 is a plot of the variation of the ratio of lime-stabilised soil modulus to subgrade modulus
with the depth of stabilisation. The Austroads sublayering method for selected subgrade material
(Section 3.4.1) is plotted. Also plotted in Figure 3.4 are the ratios of the CBR values estimated
from dynamic cone penetrometer results. Again, there is no clear indication from the data that the
modulus of the lime-stabilised subgrade varies with the thickness of stabilisation.
Austroads 2013
13
11 11
10 Site 1 10 Site 1
Site 2 Site 2
9 9
Site 3 Site 3
8 8
7 7
6 6
Modulus ratio CBR ratio
5 Austroads sublayering method 5 Austroads sublayering method
for selected subgrade materials for selected subgrade materials
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300
Depth of stabilisation (mm) Depth of stabilisation (mm)
Figure 3.4: Modulus and CBR ratios variation with thickness of stabilisation treatment
Biczysko (1996) investigated the long-term performance of 3% lime-stabilised soils in

Northamptonshire, United Kingdom. The depth of stabilisation was 300 mm. Dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) testing results for one of the two sites are shown in Figure 3.5. As expected,
the strength of the stabilised soil decreased with depth, consistent with the need to sublayer
stabilised soil in mechanistic design calculations.
Source: Biczysko (1996).
Figure 3.5: DCP depth profile in the foundation of Brackmills Spine Road
The moduli were estimated from the DCP results. The top 150 mm of the lime-stabilised material
had a modulus of 241 MPa, about 4.4 times the modulus of the underlying subgrade. The bottom
150 mm of lime-stabilised material had an estimated modulus of 158 MPa, about 2.9 times the
modulus of the underlying material.
TMR (Evans et al. 1998) reported on the testing of Cunningham Highway Queensland, where the
subgrade was stabilised to a depth of 300 mm with 8% quicklime. Falling weight deflectometer
(FWD) surface deflections were measured six weeks after construction and the moduli were
calculated (Figure 3.6). Clearly, when such high lime content soils are constructed in thick layers
(250300 mm) very high moduli can be field obtained; about 610 times the modulus of the
untreated subgrade was achieved only six weeks after construction.
Austroads 2013
14
Source: Evans et al. (1998).
Figure 3.6: Moduli back-calculated from FWD deflections measured six weeks after construction
3.5 Proposed Method

The structural design procedures described in this section are only applicable to lime-stabilised
subgrade materials for which:
sufficient lime has been added to satisfy the lime demand test (see Section 5.3.8 of Part 4D),
such that enhanced properties are maintained in the long-term
the lime content was determined using the Method A mix design (see Section 5.3.8 of
Part 4D).
These thickness design procedures may be conservative for materials designed using Method B
which includes a minimum strength requirement and alternative procedures have been developed
(TMR 2012).
In developing a proposed approach to the mechanistic design of flexible pavements with

lime-stabilised subgrades, consideration was given to the research summarised in Section 3.4 and
also to the current Austroads Guide elastic characterisation for subgrades, selected subgrade and
unbound granular materials. Given that most Australian road agencies seldom utilise the structural
contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades at present, a conservative approach to design is
recommended in the initial implementation by Austroads. In particular, it was considered
inappropriate at this stage to assign higher structural contribution to a lime-stabilised soil layer than
an unbound granular material, despite the very high back-calculated moduli that have been
measured when high (> 5%) lime contents are used (e.g. Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.6).
A conservative design approach consistent with that currently used by VicRoads (Section 2.5.2) is
to characterise lime-stabilised soil following the same method as currently used for selected
subgrade materials. In this procedure, the material is modelled as five sublayers. The research by
Bisczysko (1996) confirms the need to sublayer the lime-stabilised layer (Figure 3.5), at least for
low strength subgrades commonly stabilised.
Austroads 2013
15
As seen from the example in Figure 3.1, the top sublayer modulus of selected subgrade materials
may be limited by the support provided by the underlying material. For clay subgrades which
commonly have design moduli of 3050 MPa, the thickness of selected subgrade material needs
to exceed a thickness of 200 mm to achieve a maximum modulus of 150 MPa. Research
summarised in Section 3.4 has cast significant doubt on whether it is necessary to limit the top
sublayer modulus by the support provided by the underlying material. Hence it is recommended
that further research on this issue be undertaken. Pending this research, the proposed method
allows for support to be provided by the underlying material.
The key characteristics of the proposed procedures for the structural design of lime-stabilised soil
subgrades are as follows:
1 The thickness of stabilised subgrade is divided into five equi-thick sublayers.
2 The vertical modulus of the top sublayer of the stabilised subgrade material is the minimum
of 150 MPa, 10 times the design CBR of the material and that dependent on the support
provided by the underlying material (i.e. in situ subgrade, selected subgrade material or
stabilised subgrade) determined using (Equation 1):
E V top sublayer = E V underlying material 2(thickness of each selected subgrade or stab. subgrade layer / 150) 1
The ratio of the moduli of adjacent sublayers is given by (Equation 2):
1 2
E 5
R = V material top sublayer
Eunderlyingmaterial
3 The modulus of each sublayer is calculated from the modulus of the adjacent underlying
sublayer, beginning with the in situ subgrade, the modulus of which is known.
The proposed Austroads Guide text is given in Appendix A and Appendix B, with design examples
in Appendix E.
Austroads 2013
16
4 PROPOSED AUSTROADS EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD

4.1 Introduction
Sections 8.3 and 12.8.2 of the Guide (Austroads 2012) provide guidance on the design of flexible
pavements which are comprised of unbound layers of granular materials and which are surfaced
with either a bituminous seal or asphalt less than 40 mm thick. Two empirical design charts are
shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2.
Source: Austroads (2012, Figure 8.4).
Figure 4.1: Design chart for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing
Source: Austroads (2012, Figure 12.2).
Figure 4.2: Design chart for lightly-trafficked granular pavements with thin bituminous
These empirical design charts provide the thickness of granular material over the subgrade and
each successive granular subbase course. The thickness of cover required over a subbase
material is determined from its design.
Austroads 2013
17
4.2 Proposed Guidance on use for Pavements with Selected

Subgrade or Stabilised Subgrade Materials
Currently, the use of Figure 4.1 differs between road agencies as to whether the total thickness of
cover to protect the subgrade is comprised solely of unbound granular materials (consistent with
the label on the vertical axis) or whether the structural contribution of selected subgrade or
stabilised subgrade materials can be included in the thickness of cover. The Glossary of Terms
(Austroads 2010) defines granular material as:
Gravel or crushed rock grades so as to be mechanically stable, workable and able to be
compacted. They usually contain small amounts of silt and clay.
A design chart similar to Figure 4.1 was published by NAASRA in 1979 (now superseded). The
vertical axis of this chart was labelled as the thickness of granular material, consistent with
Figure 4.1. However, as described by Jameson (1996), the NAASRA design chart appears to
have been developed from a 1969 Victorian Country Roads Board chart (itself from a British design
chart) which was less specific about the nature of the cover material other than its CBR: the
vertical axis of these earlier charts was labelled depth of construction. In addition, Ingles and
Metcalf (1972) provided an example of how stabilised subgrade could be used as an alternative to
a granular subbase in providing the required depth of construction.
Recent communications with VicRoads and MRWA indicate that these organisations have included
the structural contribution of selected subgrade in their use of Figure 4.1, irrespective of whether
such materials would meet the definition of granular materials. In addition, VicRoads has
considered the structural contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades. In such a use of Figure 4.1,
selected subgrade and lime-stabilised subgrade materials have a design CBR value of 15% or less
and so are being used as an alternative to lower subbase granular material.
The underlying assumptions in the use of selected subgrade and lime-stabilised subgrade in this
manner are:
In terms of rutting of the underlying in situ subgrade, the structural contribution of lower
subbase granular materials, selected material and lime-stabilised subgrade material are
equivalent if their design CBR are the same.
The rut-resistance of unbound granular materials, selected subgrade and lime-stabilised
subgrade materials are the same if their design CBR are the same.
An important element of the Austroads elastic characterisation of selected subgrade materials for
mechanistic design is that the modulus the material can develop is dependent on the support
provided by the underlying material as shown in Equation 3:
E V top sublayer = E V underlying material 2(thickness of each selected subgrade layer / 150) 3
As discussed in Section 3.5, the proposed mechanistic procedures for lime-stabilised subgrades
also included this dependency on the support provided by the underlying material.
Austroads 2013
18
To provide consistency in the design thicknesses using the empirical and mechanistic approaches,
it is proposed that the design CBR of selected subgrade and lime-stabilised subgrade materials be
limited by the support provided by the underlying material. Accordingly, in selecting a design CBR
for selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade materials for use in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, the
following clause is proposed for inclusion in the Guide:
The design CBR of each selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade material is the
minimum of (1) 15%, (2) the value determined from CBR tests or presumed CBR ,
and (3) the value determined from the support provided by the underlying material
(i.e. in situ subgrade, selected subgrade or stabilised subgrade material) using
(Equation 4):
CBR selected or stab. subgrade = CBRunderlying material x 2(selected or stab.subgrade / 150) 4
Figure 4.3 illustrates the influence of this clause on the design CBR adopted for a selected
subgrade material with a laboratory measured CBR of 10%. For instance, if the in situ subgrade
has a design CBR of 3%, for 200 mm thickness of selected subgrade material its design CBR is
limited to 78% despite the laboratory measured CBR being 10%.
The inclusion of this limitation on the design CBR of selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade
materials in using the empirical design charts provides structural designs more consistent with
those derived with the proposed mechanistic procedures (Section 3.5).
11
10
Selected
7
subgrade
design
CBR 6 Thickness 150 mm
(%) Thickness 200 mm
Thickness 250 mm
5
Thickness 300 mm
2
2 3 4 5
In situ subgrade CBR (%)
Figure 4.3: Example of how the design CBR adopted for a selected subgrade material with a laboratory measured CBR of
10% is limited by the CBR of the underlying in situ subgrade
Austroads 2013
19
5 CONCLUSIONS
The Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (Austroads 2012)
provides guidance on the structural design of new flexible and rigid pavements.
Currently, there is very limited information relating to the structural contribution of lime-stabilised
subgrades. In addition, the Guide does not describe how selected subgrade materials can be
considered in using the empirical design charts.
Accordingly, Austroads requested that ARRB Group propose additional text for inclusion in a future
edition of Part 2 of the Guide.
The report reviewed the current Australian and selected international pavement design and mix
design practices for stabilised soils. In addition, research to assess the in-service characteristics of
lime-stabilised subgrades was reviewed.
There was a wide range of design approaches. Three out of the five Australian road agencies
surveyed did not commonly allow for the structural contribution of lime-stabilised subgrades. The
other two agencies had different approaches to mix design and pavement design. Given this, a
conservative approach has been recommended in the proposed structural design procedures.
It is proposed that the currently used structural design methods for selected subgrade materials be
extended to cover lime-stabilised subgrade layers. The proposed revised text for the Guide is
given in the appendices to the report.
It is anticipated that the draft procedures will be used by practitioners and revised as necessary for
inclusion in the next edition of the Austroads Guide.
There is a need to revise the mix design methods in the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology
Part 4D: Stabilised Materials to align with current practice.
Further research is required to develop procedures for the use of lime-stabilised soils and granular
materials for use as subbase and base.
Austroads 2013
20
REFERENCES
AASHTO 1993, Guide for the design of pavement structures, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2008, Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide: interim edition: manual of practice, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
ARA INC 2004, Guide to mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide of new and rehabilitated pavement
structures, NCHRP 1-37A, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Austroads 1998, Technical basis of the Austroads guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural
design, AP-T98/0, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006, Guide to pavement technology: part 4D: stabilised materials, AGPT04D/06, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010, Austroads glossary of terms, AP-C87/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02/12, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Bartley Consultants 1998, Mechanistic design of pavements incorporating a stabilised subgrade, research
report 127, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Biczysko, SJ 1996, Long term performance of lime stabilised road subgrade, Lime stabilisation: proceedings
of the seminar held at Loughborough university, civil and building engineering department 1996,
Telford Publishing, London, UK, pp. 62-74.
Chaddock, B & Roberts, C 2006, Road foundation design for major UK highways, published project report
PPR12, TRL, Crowthorne, UK.
Department of Main Roads 2009, Pavement design manual, Pavements, Materials and Geotechnical
Branch, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012, Structural design procedure of pavements on lime stabilised
subgrades, technical note TN74, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012b, Pavement rehabilitation manual, Pavements, Materials and
Geotechnical Branch, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Evans, P, Smith, W & Vorobieff, G 1998, Rethink of the design philosophy of lime stabilisation, ARRB
Transport Research Ltd conference, 19th, 1998, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, ARRB
Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic, pp.105-20.
Florida Department of Transportation 2008, Flexible pavement design manual, Florida DoT, Tallahassee,
Florida, USA.
Heukelom, W & Klomp, AJ 1962, Dynamic testing as a means of controlling pavements during and after
construction, International conference on the structural design of asphalt pavements, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, pp. 495-510.
Highways Agency 2006, Design manual for roads and bridges: volume 7: pavement design and
maintenance: section 2: pavement design and construction: part 3 HD 26/06 pavement design, The
Highways Agency, London, UK.
Austroads 2013
21
Highways Agency 2007, Design manual for roads and bridges: volume 4: geotechnics and drainage: section
1: earthworks: part 6 HD 74/07 treatment of fill and capping materials using either lime or cement or
both, The Highways Agency, London, UK.
Highways Agency 2009, Design guidance for road pavement foundations (draft HD25), interim advice note
73/06 revision 1, The Highways Agency, London, UK.
Illinois Department of Transportation 2011, Pavement design in Bureau of design and environment manual,
Illinos DoT, Springfield, IL, USA, chapter 54, viewed 7 January 2013,
<http://dot.state.il.us/desenv/bdemanual.html>.
Ingles, OG & Metcalf, JB 1972, Soil stabilization: principles and practice, Butterworths Pty Ltd, Sydney,
NSW.
Jameson, GW 1996, Origins of Austroads design procedures for granular pavements, ARR 292, ARRB
Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
LCPC 1997, French design manual for pavement structures, [english translation], Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chausses, Paris, France.
Little, DN 1996, Assessment of in situ structural properties of lime stabilised clay subgrades, Transportation
Research Record, no. 1546, pp. 13-23.
Texas Department of Transportation 2005, Guidelines for modification and stabilization of soils and base for
use in pavement structures, Tx DoT 09/205, Texas DoT, Austin, Texas, USA.
Texas Department of Transportation 2011, Pavement design manual, Texas DoT, Austin, Texas, USA,
viewed 16 July 2012, < http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/pdm/index.htm>.
VicRoads 2002, Code of practice for lime stabilised earthworks materials, code of practice RC 500.23,
VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2010, Code of practice for selection and design of pavements and surfacings, code of practice RC
500.22, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Austroads 2013
22
APPENDIX A REVISED TEXT SECTIONS 5.1 AND 5.3.8

5.1 General
The support provided by the subgrade is generally regarded as one of the most important factors in
determining pavement design thickness, composition and performance. The level of support as
characterised by the subgrade strength or modulus is dependent on the soil type, density and
moisture conditions at construction and during service.
One of the principal objectives of subgrade evaluation is to determine, for design, a subgrade CBR
value. A subgrade design CBR is determined for each identifiable unit defined on the basis of
topography, drainage and soil type.
The guidance provided in this section is of a broad nature and covers the principles of subgrade
evaluation for moderate-to-heavily-trafficked roads. Part 4I: Earthworks Materials of the Guide
provides more detailed advice. In addition, many of the Austroads member authorities have
developed more detailed procedures, which are based on local conditions of climate, traffic,
topography and materials. These are included in the references. Section 12.4 provides guidance
for evaluation of subgrade for lightly-trafficked roads.
Note that the subgrade is the trimmed or prepared portion of the formation on which the pavement
is constructed. The subgrade may be prepared using in situ materials but may also include
selected subgrade materials or stabilised subgrade (Section 5.3.8) that are placed above the in situ
subgrade.
5.3.8 Lime-stabilised Subgrades

The potential uses of lime-stabilised subgrades are described in Section 3.6.
For subgrades stabilised with sufficient lime to ensure design properties achieve long-term strength
(refer to Part 4D Stabilised Materials), provision is made in the thickness design calculations
(Chapters 8 and 12) for the structural contribution of the stabilised subgrade.
The mix design procedures described in Part 4D provide two approaches to determine the required
lime content after the minimum value to ensure long-term strength properties have been
established:
Method A: requires the lime content such that the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) is
within the range 1.01.5 MPa tested unsoaked after 28 days curing. Generally this strength
requirement increases the lime content above that to satisfy the lime demand test.
Method B: requires the CBR of the material to be tested and the lime content adjusted to
satisfy the required design CBR.
Due to their higher lime contents, the strength and modulus of materials designed using Method A
are generally higher than Method B.
Structural thickness design procedures (Chapters 8, 9 and 12) are based on design CBR and
design modulus assigned to the stabilised subgrade. For the purposes of pavement design, the
stabilised subgrade should generally be assigned a design CBR value not exceeding 15%
irrespective of measured CBR values. A maximum design modulus of 150 MPa is normally
adopted for lime-stabilised subgrade materials.
If the amount of lime is insufficient to achieve enhanced properties long-term, no allowance should
be made for the change in design CBR due to stabilisation.
Austroads 2013
23
APPENDIX B REVISED TEXT SECTION 8.2

8.2 Mechanistic Procedure
The detailed procedure presented here provides the designer with the capability of designing a
broad range of pavement types, for a broad range of loading types and configurations.
A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1: Design procedure for flexible pavements
In summary, the procedure consists of:

evaluating the input parameters (materials, traffic, environment etc.)
selecting a trial pavement
analysing the trial pavement to determine the allowable traffic
comparing this with the design traffic
finally, accepting or rejecting the trial pavement.
The appropriate design inputs are:

desired project reliability (Section 2)
construction and maintenance policy influences (Section 3)
environment (Section 4)
subgrade (Section 5)
Austroads 2013
24
materials and performance criteria (Section 6)

design traffic loading (Section 7).
The design procedure is based on the structural analysis of a multi-layered pavement subject to
normal road traffic loading. The critical locations of the strains within a pavement model and the
idealised loading situation are shown in Figure 8.2.
Figure 8.2: Pavement model for mechanistic procedure
Significant features of the assumed model are as follows:

1 Pavement materials are considered to be homogeneous, elastic and isotropic (except for
unbound granular materials and subgrades which, as discussed in Sections 5 and 6, are
considered to be anisotropic).
2 Response to load is calculated using a linear elastic model, such as the computer program
CIRCLY (Mincad Systems 2009).
3 The critical responses assessed for pavement and subgrade materials are:
asphalt horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the layer
unbound granular not considered in the model
cemented horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the layer
subgrade, selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade materials vertical compressive
strain at the top of the layer.
4 Standard Axle loading consists of a dual-wheeled single axle, applying a load of 80 kN.
For flexible pavements, the critical responses within the pavement occur either along the
vertical axis directly below the inner-most wheel of the dual wheel group or along the vertical
axis located symmetrically between a pair of dual wheels (Figure 8.2).
5 Standard Axle loading is represented by four uniformly-loaded circular areas of equal area
separated by centre-to-centre distances of 330 mm, 1470 mm, and 330 mm respectively as
illustrated in Figure 8.2.
Austroads 2013
25
6 The contact stress is assumed to be uniform over the loaded area and, for the purpose of
design, is taken to be 750 kPa. The contact stress is related to the air pressure in the tyre in
service which for highway traffic is assumed to be in the range 5001000 kPa.
7 Some variations to the above may be appropriate for other than normal axle types and
loadings; for example, where sharp turning movements or acceleration or braking occur. A
model which more closely corresponds to the actual axle configuration and loading should be
adopted in such cases. The computer program CIRCLY can accommodate these variations.
However, this is rarely undertaken for most pavement design situations and there is little
case-study experience to relate the calculated pavement responses to pavement
performance.
8 For some projects, the mechanistic modelling may indicate that both a thin (< 50 mm) and
thick asphalt surfaced pavement can be adopted. Caution is advised in adopting the thin
asphalt surfaced pavement option because the dominant damage types are not necessarily
those addressed by the design model, and as a consequence, mechanistic modelling of
asphalt layers less than 40 mm thick is less certain than for thicker asphalt layers
(Section 8.2.5).
Table 8.1, Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 list in detail the steps which are required to carry out the
mechanistic design procedure:
Table 8.1 deals with design inputs.
Table 8.2 deals with the analysis.
Table 8.3 deals with the interpretation of the results of the analysis.
Table 8.1: Mechanistic design procedure: input requirements

Step Activity Reference
Section 8.2.1
1 Select a trial pavement and a desired project reliability.
Section 2.3.1
Section 5
Determine the following elastic parameters for the in situ subgrade, selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade
2 Section 8.2.2
materials: EV; EH = 0.5 EV; v V = v H; f = EV / (1 + v V).
Section 8.2.3
Section 6.2 &
3 Determine the elastic parameters (as above) of the top sublayer of the granular layer (if relevant).
Section 8.2.3
4 Determine the elastic parameters and thickness of the other granular sublayers (if relevant). Section 8.2.3
5 Determine the elastic parameters for cemented materials, pre and post-fatigue cracking (if relevant). Section 6.4
6 Determine the elastic parameters for asphalt (if relevant). Section 6.5
7 Adopt the subgrade strain criterion. Section 5.8
8 Determine fatigue criteria for cemented materials (if relevant). Section 6.4
9 Determine fatigue criteria for asphalt (if relevant). Section 6.5
10 Determine design number of Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) for each relevant distress mode. Section 7.6.3
Austroads 2013
26
Table 8.2: Mechanistic design procedure: analysis

Step Activity
Approximate the Standard Axle loading as four uniformly loaded circular areas at centre-to-centre spacings of 330 mm, 1470 mm and
11 330 mm; a vertical load of 20 kN is applied to each circular area at a uniform vertical stress distribution of 750 kPa.
Radius of each loaded area R = 2523p-0.5 (about 92.1 mm for highway traffic), where R = radius (mm) and p = vertical stress (kPa).
Determine critical locations in the pavement for the calculation of strains as follows:
bottom of each asphalt or cemented layer, and
12 top of in situ subgrade, the top of selected subgrade material and the top of lime-stabilised subgrade.
On vertical axes, through the centre of an inner wheel load and through a point midway between the two wheel loads at a centre-to-
centre spacing of 330 mm.
Input the above values into the linear elastic model (e.g. CIRCLY) and determine the maximum vertical compressive strain at the top
of the subgrade and the top of the selected subgrade materials and the maximum horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of each
13 cemented and/or asphalt layer.
If the post-fatigue cracking phase of the cemented materials life is being considered (Section 8.2.4), it is necessary to calculate
critical strains for both pre-cracking and post-cracking phases of life.
Table 8.3: Mechanistic design procedure: interpretation of results

Step Activity Reference
Determine using the criteria selected in Steps 7, 8 and 9 the allowable number of Standard Axle Repetitions for each Section 8.2.4
of the relevant distress modes.
14 If the post-cracking phase of the cemented materials life is being considered, calculate the total allowable loading of
the pre-cracking and post-cracking phases of life. In this case the total allowable loading is expressed in terms of
ESA rather than Standard Axle Repetitions.
For each distress mode, compare the allowable number of Standard Axle Repetitions (Step 8) with the design
15
number of Standard Axles Repetitions (Step 10).
If, for all distress modes, the allowable number of Standard Axle Repetitions exceeds the design number of Standard
16
Axle Repetitions, the pavement is acceptable. If not, it is unacceptable.
If the pavement is unacceptable or additional pavement configurations are required for comparison, select a new trial
17
pavement, return to Step 1 and repeat Steps 1 to 16.
18 Compare alternative acceptable designs. Section 10
8.2.1 Selection of Trial Pavement

The selection of a trial pavement involves specifying the pavement materials to be used, the
thicknesses of each material and the relative positions of these materials in the pavement.
8.2.2 Procedure for Elastic Characterisation of Selected Subgrade and Lime-stabilised

Subgrade Materials
The design procedures described in this section are applicable to selected subgrade materials and
lime-stabilised subgrade materials. In the case of lime-stabilised subgrade materials the
procedures are only applicable where:
sufficient lime has been added to satisfy the lime demand test (refer to Section 5.3.8 of Part
4D) such that enhanced properties are maintained in the long-term
the lime content was determined using the Method A mix design (refer to Section 5.3.8 of
Part 4D).
These thickness design procedures may be conservative for materials designed using Method B
which includes a minimum strength requirement and alternative procedures have been developed
(TMR 2012).
Austroads 2013
27
The modulus of selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade materials is dependent not only on the
intrinsic characteristics of these materials but also the stiffness of the underlying in situ subgrade.
The effect reduces with the thickness of selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade materials and
may be neglected if the total thickness of selected subgrade materials exceeds 2 m, as may occur
on high embankments. Hence, if the uppermost selected subgrade material and stabilised
subgrade is greater than 2 m thickness, the pavement support condition in mechanistic designs is
modelled with the selected material at this depth as the semi-infinite subgrade layer. Otherwise,
each selected material and each stabilised subgrade material is subdivided into sublayers
according to the following guidelines:
1 Divide the thickness of each selected subgrade material into five equi-thick sublayers.
2 The vertical modulus of the top sublayer of selected subgrade and each stabilised subgrade
material is the minimum of 150 MPa, 10 times the design CBR of the material and that
dependent on the support provided by the underlying material (i.e. in situ subgrade, selected
subgrade material or stabilised subgrade) determined using (Equation 19):
E V top sublayer = E V underlying material 2(thickness of each selected subgrade or stab. subgrade layer / 150) 19
3 Where there is more than one type of selected material and/or stabilised subgrade, the
thickness to use in Equation 19 is the thickness of each selected subgrade and/or stabilised
material type, rather than the total thickness of all materials.
4 The ratio of moduli of adjacent sublayers is given by (Equation 20):
1 20
E V material top sublayer 5
R =
Eunderlyingmaterial
5 The modulus of each sublayer may then be calculated from the modulus of the adjacent
underlying sublayer, beginning with the in situ subgrade, the modulus of which is known.
6 For all selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade materials, the other elastic parameters
required for each sublayer may be calculated from the following relationships:
EH = 0.5 EV refer to Section 5.6
f = EV / (1 + v).
8.2.3 Procedure for Elastic Characterisation of Granular Materials

The modulus of granular materials is dependent not only on the intrinsic characteristics of these
materials, but also on the stress level at which they operate and the modulus of the underlying
layers. As a result, the modulus of pavement materials subjected to vertical loading will decrease
with depth to an extent influenced by the modulus of the subgrade. Iterative analyses with a finite
element model would permit allowance to be taken of the stress-dependent nature of the modulus
of granular material; however, it would not make allowance for the degree of support provided by
underlying layers.
In addition, as such models are not readily available to pavement designers, the procedure in this
Part utilises a linear elastic layer model, with the granular layers partitioned into several sublayers
and each assigned a modulus value according to the following guidelines:
1 For granular materials placed directly onto a bound cemented subbase, no sublayering is
required. The modulus is determined using the procedures discussed in Section 6.
Austroads 2013
28
2 For granular materials placed directly on the in situ subgrade or selected subgrade material,
sublayering is required and should be conducted as follows:
(a) Divide the total thickness of unbound granular materials into five equi-thick sublayers.
(b) The vertical modulus of the top sublayer is the minimum of the value indicated in
Table 6.4 or Table 6.5 and that determined using (Equation 21):
E V top granular sublayer = E V underyling material 2(total granular thickness / 125) 21
(c) The ratio of moduli of adjacent sublayers is given by (Equation 22):
1 22
E 5
R = V top granular sublayer
Eunderlying material
(d) The modulus of each sublayer may then be calculated from the modulus of the adjacent
underlying sublayer, beginning with the subgrade or upper sublayer of selected
subgrade or stabilised subgrade material as appropriate, the modulus of which is
known. Granular materials need to be selected such that the vertical modulus
calculated for each sublayer does not exceed the maximum modulus that the granular
material in the sublayer can develop due to its intrinsic characteristics (Section 6.2.2
and 6.2.3). If this condition is not met, a material with a higher modulus needs to be
used in this sublayer or an alternative pavement configuration selected.
3 For all granular materials, the other elastic parameters required for each sublayer may be
calculated from the following relationships:
EH = 0.5 EV refer to Section 6.2
f = EV / (1 + v).
Austroads 2013
29
APPENDIX C REVISED TEXT OF SECTION 8.3

8.3 Empirical Design of Granular Pavements with Thin Bituminous
Surfacing
Pavement types addressed in this section are those which are comprised of unbound layers of
granular material and which are surfaced with either a bituminous seal or asphalt less than 40 mm
thick. The design procedure for these pavements is illustrated in Figure 8.3.
The design procedure is based on an empirical design chart (Figure 8.4), which provides the
allowable design traffic in terms of rutting and shape loss of these pavements. This design chart
does not make any provision for a limitation on the allowable design traffic caused by the fatigue
cracking of an asphalt surfacing. The use of mechanistic procedures to assess the fatigue life of
such surfacings is discussed in Section 8.2.6. Similarly, this design chart does not make any
provision for a limitation on the allowable design traffic caused by fatigue cracking of bound
cementitious materials. Again, the mechanistic procedures are used for pavements with these
materials.
Figure 8.3: Flexible pavement design system for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing
Austroads 2013
30
8.3.1 Determination of Basic Thickness

The thickness of material required over the in situ subgrade is determined using the empirical
design chart given in Figure 8.4 and design traffic loading in ESA (Equation 7.4). Note that
Figure 8.4 is applicable to pavements with design traffic loading of 105108 ESA. Section 12.8
describes procedures for the design of lightly-trafficked flexible pavements.
Note that the mechanistic design procedures, as described in Section 8.2, yield a similar total
thickness as in Figure 8.4 using a top granular vertical moduli of 350 MPa and a SAR7/ESA factor
of 1.2.
Figure 8.4: Design chart for granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing
8.3.2 Pavement Composition

The total thickness of material over the in situ subgrade may be made up of the following materials:
unbound granular base and subbase courses
selected subgrade materials
lime-stabilised subgrade and/or lime-stabilised selected subgrade materials, provided the
material has sufficient lime to ensure design properties are achieved long-term (refer to Part
4D Stabilised Materials). As discussed in Section 5.3.8, these thickness design procedures
may be conservative for materials designed using Method B which includes a minimum
unconfined compressive strength of 1 MPa. If the amount of lime is insufficient to achieve
long-term strength, no allowance should be made for the increase in subgrade CBR due to
stabilisation.
The composition of the pavement structure is made up by providing sufficient cover over the in situ
subgrade and each successive material course. The thickness of cover required over a material is
determined from its design CBR. If the design CBR value of a material is less than 30%, then the
cover required to inhibit deformation is determined as for an in situ subgrade material, from
Figure 8.4.
Austroads 2013
31
For a granular subbase course with a design CBR equal to or greater than 30%, it is necessary to
provide a minimum thickness of a suitable (CBR 80%) granular base material. This minimum
base thickness is the thickness of cover required over material having a CBR equal to or greater
than 30% (Figure 8.4).
Note that the CBR test is not the sole measure used to assess the adequacy of unbound granular
materials (Section 6.2.1).
Beneath the granular layers, selected subgrade and/or stabilised subgrade materials may be used
to provide the required cover of materials over the in situ subgrade. The thicknesses of cover
required over these materials are determined from their design CBR.
If the thin surfacing is dense graded asphalt or stone mastic asphalt, its thickness (< 40 mm) may
be considered to contribute to the required total thickness over the in situ subgrade, but does not
affect the required thickness of the granular base. Other surfacing types (such as sprayed seals)
are considered to make no contribution to the required thickness of granular material.
For pavements without selected or stabilised subgrade materials, the total thickness of granular
material over the in situ subgrade and the minimum design CBR of each granular layer is
determined directly from Figure 8.4.
For pavements with selected and/or stabilised subgrade materials, an iterative approach to the
design is required as follows:
1 Select a trial pavement configuration.
2 The design CBR of each selected subgrade and stabilised subgrade material is the minimum
of (1) 15%, (2) the value determined from CBR tests or presumptive CBR, and (3) the value
determined from the support provided by the underlying material (i.e. in situ subgrade,
selected subgrade or stabilised subgrade material) using (Equation 25):
CBR selected or stab. subgrade = CBRunderlying material x 2(selected or stab.subgrade / 150) 25
3 Using Figure 8.4, determine the total thickness of cover required to protect each selected
subgrade and/or stabilised subgrade material. Select appropriate thicknesses and qualities
of granular materials to provide the required cover.
4 Calculate the total thickness of all materials over the in situ subgrade and compare this to the
thickness of cover required (Figure 8.4).
5 If there is insufficient cover over the in situ subgrade, repeat steps 1 to 4.
Austroads 2013
32
APPENDIX D REVISED TEXT OF SECTION 12.8.2

12.8.2 Empirical Design of Granular Pavements with Thin Bituminous Surfacing
Determination of basic thickness
Whereas Figure 8.4 is applicable to design traffic of 105 ESA or more, Figure 12.2 is applicable to
lightly-trafficked roads which are surfaced with either a bituminous seal or asphalt less than 40 mm
thick.
Figure 12.2 is applicable where a minimum 100 mm thickness of base quality (CBR 80%)
material is provided. However, lower quality material may provide a fit-for-purpose alternative in
some situations, as discussed in Section 12.6.1.
Note:
1 Appropriate local conditions, environmental and drainage issues must be considered in using these design curves.
2 Thin asphalt sufacings may be included in total granular thickness. However, the minimum thickness of the granular base is 100 mm.
Figure 12.2: Example design chart for lightly-trafficked granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacing
Pavement composition
The composition of the pavement structure is made up by providing sufficient cover over the in situ
subgrade and each successive material course. The thickness of cover required over a material is
determined from its design CBR. If the design CBR value of a material is less than 30%, then the
cover required to inhibit deformation is determined as for an in situ subgrade material, from
Figure 12.2.
For a granular subbase course with a design CBR equal to or greater than 30%, it is necessary to
provide a minimum thickness of a suitable (CBR 80%) granular base material. This minimum
base thickness is the thickness of cover required over material having a CBR equal to or greater
than 30% (Figure 12.2).
Note that the CBR test is not the sole measure used to assess the adequacy of unbound granular
materials (Section 6.2.1).
Austroads 2013
33
Beneath the granular layers, selected subgrade and or stabilised subgrade materials may be used
to provide the required cover of materials over the in situ subgrade. The thicknesses of cover
required over these materials are determined from their design CBR. In using Figure 12.2,
selected subgrade and lime-stabilised materials normally have a maximum design CBR of 15%,
irrespective of the measured CBR results. The process to determine the pavement composition is
described in Section 8.3.2.
If the thin surfacing is dense graded asphalt or stone mastic asphalt, its thickness (< 40 mm) may
be considered to contribute to the required total thickness over the in situ subgrade; however a
minimum 100 mm thickness of base material needs to be provided. Other surfacing types (such as
sprayed seals) are considered to make no contribution to the required thickness of material to
inhibit deformation.
Austroads 2013
34
APPENDIX E REVISED TEXT OF APPENDIX K OF PART 2

This appendix gives examples of the use of empirical design charts for granular pavements with a
thin bituminous surfacing:
Sections K.1 and K.2 illustrate the use of Figure 8.4 for moderate to heavily trafficked roads
Section K.3 illustrates the use of Figure 12.2 for lightly trafficked roads.
K.1 Example 1: Utilising Unbound Granular Materials

This design example utilises various qualities of granular materials and is based on the following
design parameters:
sprayed bituminous seal surface
subgrade design CBR = 3%
design traffic = 4 x 106 ESA.
The design process is described in Section 8.3 and illustrated in Figure 8.3.
Utilising Figure 8.4 (reproduced below), the total thickness of material over a subgrade with a
design CBR = 3% is 600 mm, as illustrated in Figure K.1.
Figure K.1: Example 1 use of Figure 8.4 to obtain the total thickness of material over subgrade and the pavement
composition
To evaluate the material qualities required to provide this 600 mm thickness, consider the
properties of the three granular materials available for use:
crushed rock base (CBR >= 80%)
crushed rock upper subbase (CBR >= 30%)
gravel lower subbase (CBR >= 15%).
Austroads 2013
35
As seen from Figure K.1, the top 150 mm of granular material needs to be base quality material
with a minimum CBR of 80%. Of the three available materials only the crushed rock base is
suitable for this layer.
The material immediately below the base layer needs to have a CBR of up to 30%. Both the base
and upper subbase materials are suitable. As the upper subbase quality is lower in cost, it is
decided to utilise it rather than the base material. The minimum practical layer thickness is
100 mm, so it is decided to utilise the upper subbase material between 150 mm and 250 mm below
the sprayed seal surface.
At a depth of 250 mm below the surface, the pavement material requires a minimum design CBR
of about 13% to inhibit deformation. Although all three available granular materials meet this
minimum strength requirement, the gravel is selected due to its lower cost. This layer is 350 mm
(600250 mm) thick. To ensure adequate compaction, it is placed in three layers.
Table K.1 summarises the Example 1 pavement composition.
Table K.1: Example 1 final design

Material type Thickness
(mm)
Sprayed seal surface
Crushed rock - base 150
Crushed rock upper subbase 100
Gravel lower subbase ( three layers) 350
Subgrade, design CBR = 3%
K.2 Example 2: Utilising Crushed Rocks and Selected Subgrade

Materials
Like Example 1, this example is based on the following design parameters:
design traffic = 4 x 106 ESA.
It utilises various qualities of crushed rock and selected subgrade material with a laboratory
measured CBR of 7%.
The iterative steps to determine the pavement composition are described in Section 8.3.2.
Step 1 Trial selected subgrade thickness

A trial selected subgrade thickness of 200 mm is selected.
Austroads 2013
36
Step 2 Design CBR of selected subgrade

The design CBR of selected subgrade is the minimum of (1) 15%, (2) the value determined from
CBR tests in this case 7%, and (3) the value determined from the support provided by the
underlying material (i.e. in situ subgrade or selected subgrade material) as follows:
CBR selected subgrade = 3 x 2(200 / 150) = 8%
The adopted design CBR of the selected subgrade material is the minumum of 15%, 7% and 8%.
Hence a design CBR of 7% is adopted.
Step 3 Select granular material types and thicknesses

From Figure K.2, selected subgrade with a design CBR of 7% requires 370 mm cover of granular
materials. The properties of the available granular materials are:
crushed rock lower subbase (CBR >= 15%).
A 150 mm thickness of crushed rock base is proposed. Therefore there is a need for an additional
220 mm (370 mm 150 mm) of granular material in addition to the base.
The material immediately below the granular base layer needs to have a CBR of at least 30%;
hence a 100 mm thickness of upper subbase quality crushed rock is adopted.
Below the upper subbase layer, at a depth of 250 mm below the surface, material with a minimum
CBR of about 13% is required. It is proposed to adopt a 120 mm thickness of lower subbase
quality crushed rock below the upper subbase material and above the selected subgrade material.
Figure K.2: Example 2 use of Figure 8.4 to obtain the total thickness of cover over selected subgrade and the pavement
composition
Austroads 2013
37
Step 4 Check whether the total thickness of cover over in situ subgrade is adequate
Table K2 summarises the pavement option.
Table K2: Example 2 trial design

(mm)
Crushed rock-base 150
Crushed rock lower subbase 120
Selected subgrade material, design CBR = 7% 200
In situ subgrade, design CBR = 3%
The total thickness of cover over the in situ subgrade is 570 mm. However, this thickness is
inadequate as Figure K.2 indicates the required minimum thickness is 600 mm.
Step 5 Increase selected subgrade thickness and repeat steps 1 to 4

The selected subgrade thickness is increase to 230 mm. The design CBR of the selected
subgrade material design CBR remains at 7%, despite the increase in its thickness. Hence the
granular materials types and thicknesses remain unchanged. The final pavement design is given
in Table K3.
Table K3: Example 2 final design

(mm)
Crushed rock lower subbase 120
Selected subgrade material, design CBR = 7% 230
K.3 Example 3: Utilising Crushed Rocks and Lime-stabilised

Subgrade Materials
This example illustrates the design of lightly-trafficked pavement based on the following design
parameters:
design traffic = 104 ESA.
The design process is described in Section 12.8.2 and the Figure 12.2 design chart.
This design example utilises crushed rock and lime-stabilised subgrade. Based on appropriate
testing, as defined in the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4D: Stabilised Materials, a long-term
CBR strength of 10% has been adopted for the lime-stabilised subgrade using 4% lime.
Austroads 2013
38
The iterative steps to determine the pavement composition are described in Section 8.3.2.
Step 1 Trial stabilised subgrade thickness

A trial stabilised subgrade thickness of 150 mm is selected.
Step 2 Design CBR of stabilised subgrade

The design CBR of stabilised subgrade is the minimum of (1) 15%, (2) the value determined from
CBR tests in this case 10%, and (3) the value determined from the support provided by the
underlying material (i.e. in situ subgrade or selected subgrade material) as follows:
CBR selected subgrade = 3 x 2(150 / 150) = 6%
Hence the adopted design CBR of the stabilised subgrade material is 6%.
Step 3 Select granular material types and thicknesses

From Figure K.3, stabilised subgrade with a design CBR of 6% requires a minimum 220 mm of
cover. The properties of the available granular materials are:
crushed rock lower subbase (CBR >= 15%).
From Figure K.3, a 100 mm thickness of crushed rock base is proposed. Therefore there is a need
for an additional 120 mm (220 mm - 100 mm) of granular material in addition to the base.
The material immediately below the granular base layer needs to have a CBR of up to 30%; hence
a 120 mm thickness of upper subbase quality crushed rock is adopted.
120 mm crushed rock upper subbase
150 mm lime-stabilised subgrade
Note:
1. Appropriate local conditions, environmental and drainage issues must be considered in using these design curves.
2. Thin asphalt surfacings may be included in total granular thickness. However, the minimum thickness of the granular base is 100 mm.
Figure K.3: Example C use of Figure 12.2 to design pavement with lime-stabilised subgrade
Austroads 2013
39
Step 4 Check whether the total thickness of cover over in situ subgrade is adequate
Table K4 summarises the pavement option. The total thickness of cover over the in situ subgrade
is 370 mm. As Figure K.3 indicates a minimum thickness of 320 mm is required over the in situ
subgrade, the pavement design is acceptable.
Table K4: Example 3 final design

(mm)
Crushed rock lower subbase
Lime-stabilised subgrade, design CBR = 6% 150
Austroads 2013
40
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2013, Proposed Procedures for the Design of Pavements on

Selected Subgrade and Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials, Sydney, A4,
pp.43. AP-R435-13
Keywords: pavement design, lime, stabilisation, mix design, selected

subgrade materials, subgrade
Abstract:
The report reviews current Australian and selected international structural

design methods for pavements on lime-stabilised subgrade layers. Research
to investigate in-service strength and modulus of lime-stabilised materials is
also summarised. The report proposes design methods for inclusion in the
Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design.
It is anticipated that these draft procedures will be used by practitioners and
revised as necessary for inclusion in the next edition of the Guide.

Austroads Research Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Austroads Research Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AP-R435-13

AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT

Proposed Procedures for the Design of

Published May 2013

Austroads Ltd 2013

Austroads Project No. TT1358

Austroads Publication No. AP-R435-13

Published by Austroads Ltd

2 REVIEW OF PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODS FOR FLEXIBLE

3 PROPOSED AUSTROADS MECHANISTIC DESIGN PROCEDURES ............................... 10

4 PROPOSED AUSTROADS EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD .............................................. 17

Appendix C is the proposed revision of Part 2 Section 8.3.

2 REVIEW OF PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODS FOR

2.2 United States of America

2.2.2 Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Pavement Design Manual mentions:

2.2.3 Florida Department of Transportation

2.2.4 Illinois Department of Transportation

2.3 UK Design Method

Hence the lime content is the maximum of:

2.4 French Design Method

2.5 Australian Design Methods

The TMR mix design method includes consideration of:

2.5.2 VicRoads Design Methods

Accordingly, the following elastic characterisation for lime-stabilised subgrades applies:

2.5.3 Roads and Maritime Services NSW Design Methods

Where undertaken, lime stabilisation of subgrade is primarily for construction

2.5.4 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia

2.5.5 Main Roads Western Australia

3 PROPOSED AUSTROADS MECHANISTIC DESIGN

3.2 Scope of Proposed Design Method

It is recommended that research be undertaken to develop procedures for the design of

3.3 Maximum CBR and Modulus of Lime-stabilised Subgrade

It is recommended that Austroads develop procedures to determine appropriate CBR values as

3.3.2 Determination of Modulus from CBR

3.4 Variation in Modulus with Underlying Support

3.4.2 Proposed Characterisation of Lime-stabilised Subgrade Materials

Biczysko (1996) investigated the long-term performance of 3% lime-stabilised soils in

Source: Biczysko (1996).

Source: Evans et al. (1998).

3.5 Proposed Method

In developing a proposed approach to the mechanistic design of flexible pavements with

The ratio of the moduli of adjacent sublayers is given by (Equation 2):

4 PROPOSED AUSTROADS EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD

Source: Austroads (2012, Figure 8.4).

Source: Austroads (2012, Figure 12.2).

4.2 Proposed Guidance on use for Pavements with Selected

CBR selected or stab. subgrade = CBRunderlying material x 2(selected or stab.subgrade / 150) 4

Austroads 2010, Austroads glossary of terms, AP-C87/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

APPENDIX A REVISED TEXT SECTIONS 5.1 AND 5.3.8

5.3.8 Lime-stabilised Subgrades

APPENDIX B REVISED TEXT SECTION 8.2

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1: Design procedure for flexible pavements

In summary, the procedure consists of:

The appropriate design inputs are:

materials and performance criteria (Section 6)

Figure 8.2: Pavement model for mechanistic procedure

Significant features of the assumed model are as follows:

Table 8.1: Mechanistic design procedure: input requirements

Table 8.2: Mechanistic design procedure: analysis

Table 8.3: Mechanistic design procedure: interpretation of results

8.2.1 Selection of Trial Pavement