I.K.

GUJRAL PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JALANDHAR, INDIA

EVALUATION OF SOIL SUBGRADE CHARACTERISTICS IN

FIELD APPLICATIONS
Viva-Voce
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Faculty of Civil Engineering)

Submitted By: DALJEET SINGH (Reg. No.: 1102002)

Under the Supervision of

Dr. K.S. Gill (Supervisor) & Dr. J.N.Jha (Co-Supervisor)

Prof & Dean Academics Principal,
Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Muzaffarpur (Govt. of Bihar)

Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, Punjab (India)

 Introduction –
Land to population ratio is very small in India (Punjab has population
density of 550 person per square kilometer and Human Development
Index (HDI) of 0.661 where as Indian average is 382 and 0.609
respectively)
 Punjab is among the top ranker states where acquisition cost of land
is highest.
 Government data revealed that (Statement in upper house in 2016)
hundred and twelve projects of NHAI are delayed beyond the
scheduled date of completion. (Jun 4, 2019, NHAI halts land acquisition for four-lane
road projects Work on Pathankot-Mandi, Kangra-Shimla projects comes to a halt) Land
acquisition and utility shifting is considered as the major cause of
delay.
2
 Solution of above stated problem……
 Punjab government has decided to construct additional road network along
the major canals and rivers . The following five roads have been identified
in the first phase.
 Ropar- Chamkur Sahib- Neelon- Doraha road, (upto NH-1, length = 54.80 km)
 Manpur Head-works (Doraha,) to Jagraon Raikot road (Along Abohar branch,
length = 53.51 km)
 Manpur Head-works (Doraha) to Raikot Barnala road (Along Bathinda branch,
length = 47.44 km)
 Nidampur NH-64 to Lehra Gagga road crossing NH-71, (Along Ghaggar branch,
length = 49.00 km)
 Rayya NH-1 to Khara (NH-15) road, (Along Sabhraon branch, length = 42.12 km)
Cont..

3
Problems faced during construction of roads along water channels
 Failure of roads constructed on canal embankment are often reported
in print and electronic media.
 The probable causes may be as under:
 Soil deposits are Alluvial in nature ( Highly heterogeneous in horizontal and vertical
profile)
 Lot of cutting and filling is involved to maintain the desired bed slope of canal, the
soil available from cutting in some areas is transported to other location for filling.
The use of cutting of soil for filling in construction of embankment further leads to
heterogeneity.
 Embankment slope failure under varying phreatic level.

 Unrealistic design stipulations. Cont..

4
 Parameters Required for the Design of Flexible Pavement)
 Main parameters are subgrade strength, axle load, annual precipitation, and ground water
table.
 Different design approaches ( Empirical design approach and Mechanistic-Empirical
Design) use different strength parameters.
 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Modulus of Resilience (MR) values are commonly
used to evaluate the subgrade strength and same are used for the design.
 To determine the laboratory CBR value minimum six tests on one sample are required to
take the average value ( Because of its low repeatability)
 Similarly Cyclic Triaxial Test is required to determine MR value ( Costly and highly
skilled persons are required)
 Due to the heterogeneous nature of subgrade soil aggressive quality control is required
(More number of samples needs to be tested to have realistic design stipulation)
 Which is mostly compromised due to more Time & Cost involvement Cont..

5
 Solution Suggested
 Now a days in situ testing is becoming more popular( Sampling is a big problem
particularly in non cohesive soils)

 In this study handy in-situ testing apparatus and simple laboratory tests are
proposed to evaluate the subgrade strength.

 Correlations are developed using in-situ test apparatus results and index
properties of subgrade soil. (DCPT, PLWD)

 These tests are easy to perform, less time consuming and more number of tests
can be conducted to enhance the level of quality control during execution.

Cont..

6
 Literature Review
Previous literature relevant to this study mainly consisting of developing some correlations
between the in-situ test results and CBR and MR etc. also some relationships with CBR and
Index Properties (Particle Size, LL, PL & PI) is carried out.
 Powell et al.(1984) proposed the most widely accepted relationship between the CBR and
the modulus of elasticity of subgrade Es measured in mPa is given
Es = 17.58 x CBR 0.64
 Webster et al.(1992) have reported a relationship between the CBR and the penetration rate
(DCPI) expressed in mm per blow is given
Log CBR = 2.465 – 1.12 Log (DCPI)
 Similar correlations between CBR and DCPI were proposed by Ayers et al. (1989); Livneh,
(1987); Harison, (1987); Livneh et al. (1992); Ese et al. (1995); Shongtao Dai and Charlie
(2008); Verghesse George (2009) and Chukka et al. (2012).
7
Contd…….
Rao Nageshwar et al. (2008) proposed the following relationship between
CBR and PFWD output. CBR = – 2.7543 + 0.2867 (Epfwd)
Nazzal (2003) also proposed a similar correlation ; CBR = - 14.0 + 0.66
(Epfwd)
Hikouei Iman Salehi, et.al. (2016) have also reported similar work.
National Cooprative Highway Research Program(NCHRP), (2001)
developed a co relation between CBR value and Index properties.
 For Non Cohesive Soils, CBR = 28.09 (D60)0.358
 For Plastic Soils, CBR = 75/ 1+ 0.728(wPI) , where wPI is weighted
plasticity index Cont...

8
Contd…..

 Bello A. A. (2012) using Regression analysis for Lateritic soil gave

the following correlations between CBR and Index properties.
 For Unsoaked CBR Value; CBR = 0.031(LL) + 83.19 and CBR = 0.8(PL) + 65.31
 For Soaked CBR Value; CBR = 0.22(LL) + 28.87 and CBR = 1.04(PL) + 13.56

 Bassey et.al. (2017) developed few correlations to determine CBR

value indirectly where more than one parameter was considered
 CBR = 90.17+ 0.415PI – 5.481OMC,
 CBR = - 257.843 + 2.36OMC + 128.186MDD

9
 Research Gap
Most of the available literature highlights the correlations between in-
situ test results and CBR.
 Few researcher tried more than one parameter Bassey et.al. (2017) to
develop such equations.
 Literature review also highlights that CBR value is governed by grain
size, Atterberg’s limits, moisture content and density of subgrade soil.
 So Some correlations needs to be developed which include maximum
number of parameters affecting subgrade strength.

10
 Problem Formulation
Necessity of the study:
 To address the problem of road failures ( By enhancing quality
control/ quality assurance)
 To promote the use of handy in-situ testing {Dynamic cone
penetration test(DCPT) and Portable light weight deflectometer
(PLWD)}
 To develop more realistic correlations/prediction models ( By
incorporating more parameters e.g. DCPI, Emod, Atterberg’s limits,
grain size, moisture content and density)

11
 Objectives of the Study
Objectives are designed to bridge the research gaps established during
the literature review. The main objectives of the study are:
To study the stability of embankment slopes by conducting slope
stability analysis.
To develop correlations of CBR with maximum dry density, grain size
distribution and index properties of subgrade soil.
To develop a correlation between laboratory CBR and DCPI, at
constant dry density .
Cont..

12
Objectives Contd…

To develop a relationship between Laboratory CBR and elastic

modulus using portable light weight deflectometer.
Validation of the co-relations with other national/state highway
project.
To develop a nomograph and a handy calculation spreadsheet for easy
determination of in-situ CBR of subgrade directly in the field.

13
 Methodology
Study is divided into four stages
 Selection of suitable/stable locations
 Laboratory Testing and development of correlations between CBR
and Index Properties.
 Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) and development of linear
regression model based upon DCPT results and Index properties.
 Portable Light Weight Deflectometer (PLWD) and development of
linear regression model based upon Emod results and Index properties

14
 Stage-I

Selection of Suitable Locations along the Canal Bank

15
 Selection of Stable Embankment Section
IRC 75 demonstrates to ensure the stability of embankment for the following possibilities.
Slip circle failure through the slope or through slope and base;
Block sliding over a weak soil stratum in the foundation;
Plastic squeezing and/or creep of foundation soils;
Excessive and uneven settlement of embankment and foundation soil;
Erosion of embankment.
Plastic squeezing, creep of foundation, excessive and uneven settlement of embankment
is ruled out (canal is more than century old).
Dense growth of deep rooted vegetation, top protection, slope of the road towards shallow
ditch drain make the embankment safe against erosion.
Hence during this study, safety of embankment against failure of slopes/block sliding is
evaluated.

16
 Factor of Safety (FOS) for Slope Stability
Indian and other international standard suggests that for all normal purpose
of slope analysis of long-lasting fills and landslide restoration works, a
safety factor at least 1.3 should be provided.
Keeping in view the age of the embankment (overall stability of slopes
increase with increase in shear strength), hence for staged construction a
minimum factor of safety of 1.2 is also acceptable.
For extreme events such as a rapid drawdown or earthquake, the minimum
factor of safety equal to 1.1 may be taken.
 In this study a factor of safety of 1.25 for rapid drawdown with surcharge of
vehicle load condition is considered appropriate to overrule the possibility
of failure of embankment during the period of investigation.
17
 Procedure Used for Stability Analysis
Nowadays slope stability analyses can be quickly performed by using various computer
based geotechnical software.
SLOPE/W a comprehensive software that is based on LE interpretations, developed by
GEO-SLOPE (2012) found to be most suitable for the present study.
The salient features of the soft that make it most suitable for this study are:
 Analysis capabilities: Slope /W has very flexible analysis database, it has the
capability to analyze the problem with the all prominent limit equilibrium methods.
 Material and Layer Capabilities: Slope/W has flexible material assignment tool, with
indefinite and flexible layer tool and material can be assigned by selecting the suitable
material model from dropdown menu. In this study Mohr-Column model is used.
 Easy Selection of Slip Surface, Assignment of Phreatic Line, Sudden Draw
Down Analysis and easy to locate slip circle with its FOS makes it most suitable
software.
18
Screenshot of the software’s available analysis options

Cont..
19
Screenshot of the software’s output capabilities

20
Cont..
 Typical Canal Embankment Section
Embankment Top Width
Chainage= K+M
TRUCK

Spoil Bank
Layer-1 Road Crust Material

Layer-2 Layer Depth

Material Type and Properties
Layer-3
Layer Depth
Material Type and Properties
Layer-4

Piezometric Line Layer-5 Layer Depth

Material Type and Properties
Layer Depth
Material Type and Properties

HFL BERM Layer Depth

Material Type and Properties
Layer-N

Layer Depth
Material Type and Properties

LFL
Laywe Below Bed Level Layer Depth
Material Type and Properties

Typical Cross Section of Embankment of Sarhind Canal for Acquisition of Data

Cont.. 21
Index Plan Showing the Selected Site Sample Reference No. and Site Location

RUPNAGAR
0
+0
0
0

2+
500
S
2 S
1
5+
000

7
S
9 S
8

+50
S
5 S
4

15

00
00
+0

0
10+0
12+5
0
17

0
+5
3

32+500

30+000
5

27+500

25+000
S
11

00
+

22+500

0
0

0
0

20+0
S
IRHI
NDCANAL
0
3
7+

S
12 S
3
5

S
10 S
7 S
0

6
0
4
0+0
00
4
2+
5

ROADUNDE
R
00
4

STUDY
5+0
0

S
15 NE
ELON
0
4
7+
5
00

5
0+0
S
13
00
S
14
5
2+5
00

5
5+0
00
DORAHA
5
6+9
96

22
 Exploration of Embankment Material (Soil) Properties

After conducting the reconnaissance survey the twenty representative stretches as

shown in index plan were identified for this study.
Subsoil exploration was carried out up to the required depth (by drilling two bore
holes at each location). The undisturbed and disturbed soil samples with reference
to the depth were collected for laboratory investigations.
The depth of water table was also recorded at two different location for plotting of
piezometric level line.
The tests conducted for required input parameters for analysis of stability of soil
slopes; Unit Weight of Soil (kN/m3) Cohesion (kPa) and Angle of Internal Friction
(غ) and physical data to plot the geometry of embankment.

23
 Data Collected for Embankment layers
Chainage Reference of Layer Unit Weight Cohesion Phi Depth of 
γd (C) ϕ Layer
(kN/m3) (kPa) (°) (m)
1+600 Road Crust 22.00 0.0 40.0 1.50
Layer‐1 21.00 50.0 18.0 1.50
Layer‐2 20.00 30.0 21.0 3.00
Layer‐3 18.50 0.0 33.0 1.50
Layer‐4 18.50 80.0 25.0 1.50
Layer‐5 18.00 30.0 26.0 3.00
Layer‐6 17.50 0.0 29.0 1.50
Layer‐7 20.00 0.0 36.0 6.00

24
 Summary of Analysis of Results for Least Factor of Safety with Different Method
Chainage BH No Morgenstern- Spencer Sarma Bishop Ordinary
Price Method Method Method or
Method Fellenius
1+600 1 0.908 0.91 0.877 0.886 0.906 Possible

FOS<1.25
3+630 2 0.912 0.911 0.873 0.882 0.903 reason is
5+580 3 1.001 0.99 0.993 1.003 0.935 height of
7+965 4 1.145 1.12 1.07 1.081 1.035 embankment
10+410 5 1.372 1.36 1.322 1.336 1.287

Stretch meets the stability criteria of FOS>1.25

13+180 6 1.914 1.909 1.91 1.928 1.853
15+195 7 2 1.989 1.993 2.027 1.909
18+105 8 1.358 1.35 1.349 1.359 1.295
20+650 9 1.502 1.495 1.493 1.507 1.436
22+950 10 1.487 1.49 1.487 1.509 1.415
24+700 11 1.393 1.393 1.391 1.409 1.339
27+800 12 1.618 1.614 1.608 1.632 1.566
31+375 13 2.686 2.67 2.685 2.698 1.773
34+760 14 1.69 1.68 1.674 1.7 1.549
38+100 15 1.453 1.446 1.435 1.455 1.377
41+150 16 1.392 1.396 1.395 1.415 1.304
45+500 17 1.333 1.333 1.334 1.338 1.267
47+100 18 1.353 1.343 1.273 1.355 1.27
48+650 19 1.358 1.343 1.361 1.359 1.266
50+600 20 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.67 FOS<1.25 Soft Strata
25
Note: Stability analysis was carried out for the worst case (during rainy season when water table is minimum in the canal)
Contd… 

From the results of stability analysis, five locations

failed to conform the desired factor of safety i.e. 1.25

So for further study remaining fifteen sites were

under taken.

26
 Stage-II
Development of correlations between CBR
and Index Properties.

27
Sampling of Soil at Selected Locations up to 500 mm Thick Soil
Subgrade.

Representative samples up to 500 mm depth were collected and

following laboratory tests were performed:
 Grainsize analysis
 Atterberg’s limits
 Modified Proctor test
 Laboratory CBR at OMC and 97% of MDD
 In-situ density and moisture content.

28
 Laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results
laboratory CBR is determine at the 97% density of modified MDD (IS 2720 Part 8)
Sample ID 97% MDD OMC CBR @ OMC
S-01 18.58 8.5 28
S-02 18.22 9.5 22
S-03 18.56 8.5 15.3
S-04 17.5 11 12.6
S-05 17.13 9.5 13.3
S-06 16.46 9 14
S-07 18.39 8 13.6
S-08 18.92 9.5 12.3
S-09 18.41 10 8
S-10 18.24 10.5 12.6
S-11 17.36 12 9
S-12 16.78 9.5 11.67
S-13 17.36 10 10.3
S-14 16.81 8.5 12
S-15 20.02 9.5 16 29
 Typical Subgrade Soil Gradation Curve
4.75 Coarse 2.0 Medium 0.425 Fine 0.075 SILT/CLAY
GRAVEL
100 SAND SAND SAND

90
80
70
% Passing

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)

30
 Summary of GSA
Sample Gravel Sand Silt Clay D10 D30 D60
Cu Cc
ID (%) (%) (%) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm)
S-01 60.0 29.0 11.0 0.0 0.138 0.393 0.925 6.722 1.217
S-02 32.0 56.0 12.0 0.0 0.094 0.231 0.515 5.447 1.094
S-03 9.0 59.0 31.0 1.0 0.058 0.139 0.355 6.104 0.944
S-04 0.0 54.0 45.0 1.0 0.047 0.099 0.207 4.377 1.008
S-05 0.0 46.0 52.0 2.0 0.048 0.088 0.175 3.632 0.913
S-06 0.0 46.5 52.0 1.5 0.057 0.097 0.176 3.058 0.935
S-07 0.0 43.7 53.0 3.3 0.027 0.082 0.166 6.232 1.529
S-08 0.0 38.0 57.0 5.0 0.017 0.049 0.126 7.457 1.132
S-09 0.0 32.0 62.0 6.0 0.017 0.049 0.101 5.967 1.414
S-10 0.0 6.0 87.0 7.0 0.015 0.031 0.084 5.692 0.764
S-11 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 0.013 0.025 0.058 4.361 0.815
S-12 0.0 0.0 89.0 11.0 0.013 0.021 0.045 3.489 0.793
S-13 0.0 0.0 88.0 12.0 0.013 0.025 0.058 4.384 0.784
S-14 0.0 60.4 34.0 5.6 0.058 0.112 0.206 3.527 1.05
S-15 12.0 60.0 23.0 5.0 0.04 0.161 0.415 10.379 1.572
31
 Correlation Between Grain Size D60 and CBR

CBR = 1.1323*D602 + 19.576*D60 + 9.214 P < 0.001

R² = 0.9086
30 Std. Error of the Estimate = 1.650
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

25 The results obtained from this

correlation when compared
with NCHRP correlation
20 almost 30-40% variation was
CBR Poly. (CBR) observed. The results of
NCHRP are on higher side.
15

10

5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
GRAIN SIZE (D60) (MM)

32
 Correlation Between Grain Size D30 and CBR
CBR= 29.487*D302 + 40.477*D30 + 9.2428
P < 0.001
30 R² = 0.8958
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

Std. Error = 1.761

25

20
CBR Poly. (CBR)

15

10

5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
GRAIN SIZE D30 (MM)

33
 Correlation Between Grain Size D10 and CBR

CBR = 405.67*D102 + 73.685*D10 + 9.6096 P < 0.001

R² = 0.8653
30
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

Std. Error = 2.002

25

20
CBR Poly. (CBR)

15

10

5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
GRAIN SIZE D10 (MM)

34
 Maximum Dry Density (Modified) & OMC
Sample ID Maximum Dry Density (MDD) Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
(kN/m3) (%)
S-01 19.15 8.5
S-02 18.78 9.5
S-03 19.13 8.5
S-04 18.04 11
S-05 17.66 9.5
S-06 16.97 9
S-07 18.96 8
S-08 19.51 9.5
S-09 18.98 10
S-10 18.8 10.5
S-11 17.9 12
S-12 17.3 9.5
S-13 17.9 10
S-14 17.33 8.5
S-15 20.64 9.5
35
 Correlation Between Dry Density and CBR
CBR = -0.2704*γd2 + 11.485*γd - 104.75 P=0.51>0.05
30 R² = 0.1063
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

Std Error = 4.957

25
CBR Poly. (CBR)

20 The reason for the above results may be the

huge variation in subgrade soil
encountered at different location. If
15 cohesive and non cohesive soils having the
same density, the CBR value may be highly
different. For example the CBR value of
10 clayey soils is almost 20 to 30% that of
sandy soil.

5
16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5

FIELD DRY DENSITY (97% MDD) kN/m3

36
 Atterberg Limits
Sample Ref Liquid Limit (LL) Platic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI)

S-01 15 15 Non- Plastic

S-02 16 16 Non- Plastic
S-03 17 17 Non- Plastic
S-04 18 18 Non- Plastic
S-05 19 18 1
S-06 19 18 1
S-07 20 18 2
S-08 21 18 3
S-09 22 18 4
S-10 23 18 5
S-11 24 18 6
S-12 25 18 7
S-13 24 18 6
S-14 23 19 4
S-15 24 18 6 37
 Correlation Between Liquid Limit and CBR
R² = 0.805; P < 0.001; Std. Err. = 2.41
30 The above results are as expected since
higher Liquid Limit indicates the
CBR Field = 0.3171(LL)2 - 13.934(LL) + 163.52 presence of clay particle which may be
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

25 responsible for decrease in the CBR

value of subgrade soil. In some cases
higher CBR value in spite of higher LL
may be due to the better gradation of the
20 soil. (due to the presence of coarser
particle) Similar trend was observed
when correlation between CBR and
15 Plastic Limit, was developed.
Afeez Adefemi Bello, (2012) and Okon
Bassey (Bassey et.al., 2017) have also
10
concluded that there exists a relationship
between LL and CBR although their
CBR Poly. (CBR) results are quite as compared laboratory
tests conducted during this study reason
5 may be the different type of soils.
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Liquid Limit (LL) (%)
38
 Correlation Between Plastic Limit and CBR
30 R² = 0.8458; P < 0.001; Std. Err. = 2.143

The above results are as expected

CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

25 CBR Field = 1.1641(PL)2 - 43.869(PL) + 424.7

since higher Plastic Limit indicates
the presence of clay particle which
may be responsible for decrease in
20
the CBR value of subgrade soil.
CBR Poly. (CBR) Afeez Adefemi Bello, (2012) and
Okon Bassey (Bassey et.al., 2017)
15 have also concluded that there
exists a relationship between PL and
CBR although their results are quite
10 as compared laboratory tests
conducted during this study reason
may be the different type of soils.
5
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Plastic Limit (PL) (%)
39
 Stage-III
Development of correlations between CBR,
DCPI and Index Properties.

40
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Apparatus Used

41
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Procedure

42
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Results

43
Summary of Field Investigation Test Results
Sample ID Field Density Field MC DCPI Layer
(Core Density) Moisture N Thickness
(kN/m3) ( %) (mm/blow) (mm)
S01 18.59 8.5 7.66 490
S02 18.26 9.0 10 511
S03 18.6 9.0 14.33 504
S04 17.54 11.5 16.67 503
S05 17.17 9.0 14.33 508
S06 16.5 9.0 13.67 514
S07 18.43 8.5 13.67 488
S08 18.97 9.0 14 485
S09 18.45 9.5 17 504
S10 18.28 10.0 12 510
S11 17.4 11.5 14.33 486
S12 16.82 9.5 11.66 495
S13 17.4 10.0 13 489
S14 16.85 9.0 12.66 498
S15 20.07 9.0 9.66 485
44
 Correlation Between DCPI (N) and CBR
30
CBR Field = 0.2481N2 - 7.7369N + 71.197
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

25
R² = 0.7431; P < 0.001; Std. Error. = 2.766

20

15

10 .
CBR Poly. (CBR)
5
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
DCPI (N) mm/blow
45
 Comparison of Lab. CBR with IRC Equation based CBR
Sample ID Lab CBR IRC:37-2012

VS-3 8.1 11.3

VS-4 8.5 10.4
VS-1 9.3 15.7
VS-6 9.3 10.7
VS-5 10.1 10.7
VS-2 12.6 16.8
VS-7 24.9 31.3
VS-8 34.8 45.2
VS-9 47.6 58.6
The correlation recommended by IRC 37:2012 gives higher results as compared
to Lab. CBR value.
46
47
 Summary of correlation developed so far
Sign.
Parameter Most fit equation R2 Remarks
P
Dynamic Cone
= 0.2481*N2 - 7.7369*N + 71.197 0.7431 <0.0001 Sig.
Penetration Index (N)
Effective Grain Size
= 1.1323*(D60)2 + 19.576*(D60) + 9.214 0.9086 <0.0001 Sig.
(D60)
Effective Grain Size
= 29.487*(D30)2 + 40.477*(D30) + 9.2428 0.8958 <0.0001 Sig.
(D30)
Effective Grain Size
= 405.67*(D10)2 + 73.685*(D10) + 9.6096 0.8653 <0.0001 Sig.
(D10)
Liquid Limit
= 0.3171*(LL)2 - 13.934*(LL) + 163.52 0.805 <0.0001 Sig.
(LL)
Plastic Limit
= 1.1641*(PL)2 - 43.869*(PL) + 424.7 0.846 <0.0001 Sig.
(PL)
Field Dry Density (γd) = -0.2704*γd2 + 11.485*γd - 104.75 0.1063 0.51 In-sig.

48
 Selection of essentially significant parameters for regression analysis

 Backward Elimination, technique, an inbuilt module of IBM SPSS® software is used to find
most significant parameters. The variable parameter having minimum partial correlation
with the dependent variable parameter is first to be removed.

 Only variables parameters that pass the tolerance criterion are to be entered in the
regression equation model. For this study the default significance level is considered as
0.001.

 Based on the above criteria DCPI (N), LL,PL and D60. were taken for Linear Regression
Analysis (LRA)

49
 CBR Verses DCPI and Index Properties Based Model

In-situ CBR of subgrade at OMC and density 97%MDD (CBR Field@OMC)

CBR = (43.728 +5.392*D60 )- (1.043*N + 0.717*LL + 0.149*PL)

With R2 =0.995 and a standard error of 0.407.

The results of the ANOVA test are

df SS MS F P-value
Regression 4 355.58 88.895 535.256 1.2979 E-11
Residual 10 1.661 0.166
Total 14 357.24
Since the P-value is 1.2979E-11, which is much less than the significant value of 0.001, the
null hypothesis is rejected
Cont. 50
 Residual Graph for DCPI Based LRA Prediction Model
0.8
4
CBR Prediction Residual Error

0.6
12
0.4
1 7 8
0.2
10
0 15
0 5 6 9 15
-0.2 2 11
13 14
-0.4

-0.6
3
-0.8
Sample ID
 Validation of Linear Regression Analysis Models
Laboratory Liquid Plastic
DCPI (N) D60 Variation observed
Sample CBR Limit- Limit

ID (mm/
(% ) (mm) (% ) (% ) CBR % Error
blow)
VS-1 9.3 13.6 0.09 25 19 9.27 -0.32
VS-2 12.6 12.8 0.1 22 18 12.46 -1.11
VS-3 8.1 18.2 0.12 20 18 8.37 3.33
VS-4 8.5 19.6 0.15 18 17 8.65 1.76
VS-5 10.1 19.2 0.16 17 17 9.84 -2.57
VS-6 9.3 19.2 0.175 18 15 9.5 2.15
VS-7 24.9 7.33 0.71 17 17 25.19 1.16
VS-8 34.8 1.66 2.26 15 15 41.19 18.65
VS-9 47.6 1.33 4.5 15 15 53.61 12.63

52
Comparison of Lab. CBR with Model and IRC 37 Equations
Sample ID Laboratory DCPT Model (CBR) IRC:37-2012 Eq.
CBR (Developed in this study) 5.1 (CBR)

VS-3 8.1 8.37 11.3

VS-4 8.5 8.65 10.4
VS-1 9.3 9.27 15.7
VS-6 9.3 9.5 10.7
VS-5 10.1 9.84 10.7
VS-2 12.6 12.46 16.8
VS-7 24.9 25.19 31.3
VS-8 34.8 41.19 45.2
VS-9 47.6 53.61 58.6

53
Contd.

 In the correlation suggested by IRC 37:2012, no weightage is given to index

properties, after comparison of results as given in the previous table, it has
been observed that CBR value predicted by IRC correlations are consistently
higher than the laboratory CBR value in all the cases under taken in this study.

 The model developed in this study are relatively much nearer to the laboratory
CBR value. This may be due to the reason that weightage has been given to the
other parameters as compared to the IRC correlations.

54
Nomograph on the basis of
DCPT prediction Model

55
 L1 (2)
B-Select D60 (mm)
50.0 Nomograph for DCPT
Model CBR (%) Value
A-Start 43.73 (1) Steps to be followed
(5) • Starting from A, Select the D60
C-DCPI grain size scale B. Draw a
L3 vertical downwards line R,
L2 (3) from grain size point (0.4mm
in this case) point marked (1)
• Draw a line L1 by Joining the
(4) point (1) and (2), draw a line
L2 parallel to Line L1 fron N
(6) D-LL value point (15 in this case)
point 3. that meets the line R at
L4 point 4. and join the point 4
R (8) and 5 to draw line L3.
L5 • Similarly draw lines L4, L5
(7) and L6
PL (9)
Result 9.5 L6 • The Line L6 intersect the drop
(10) line R at point 10. Value
corresponding to point 10 on
5.0 scale is the CBR value.

56
 Stage-IV
Development of correlations between CBR,
PLWD and Index Properties.

57
 Light Weight Deflectometer
ASTM E2583-07, ASTM E2835-11 (2015) and the European Union specification CEN
ICS 93.020 U.K. compliant Dynatest 3031 Light Weight Deflectometer is used
throughout this study.
The instrument has Accurate measuring load cell to measure the falling load, time history
and peak result, it has 10 kg standard weight there is option for 15 kg or 20 kg weight.
Measurement is recorded via needle that passes through a hole in the loading plate.
Dual plate system (DPS) for quick and easy switching between the 300 mm and 150 mm
loading plate diameter, Desired drop height, handheld personal digital assistant (PDA)
with wireless Bluetooth connection to the device for display of real-time graphs and
surface modulus (Emod).
Simple calculation equation for manual calculations Emod = 1.5 r σ / s
r = is the radius of the loading plate, σ = is the stress below the Loading Plate, s = is the measured
deflection or settlement.

58
Surface Modulus using Light Weight Deflectometer

59
 Surface Modulus using The Light Weight Deflectometer
Stress Level and central deflection achieved:
stress level 50 – 100 kPa and central deflections in the
range from 300 microns to 1000 microns is achieved
by adjusting the drop weight and height.

Pulse duration time: Buffer pads were configured

to ensure that the pulse duration is within expected
range of 15 to 25 ms.

Loading plate and surface contact: good contact

between surface to be tested and loading plate

Geophone position: Center position of geophone is

invariably ensured

Number of drops: Sufficient number of drops that

were necessary to get the stable deflection readings
were taken at each point.

Handling of Instrument: vital parts of instrument

were kept dust free during the testing.

60
Summary of Field Investigation Test Results
Sample ID Field Density Field MC Surface Modulus Emod Layer
(Core Density) Moisture (Dynatest 3031) Thickness
(kN/m3) ( %) (MPa) (mm)
S01 18.59 8.5 74 490
S02 18.26 9.0 63 511
S03 18.6 9.0 50 504
S04 17.54 11.5 44 503
S05 17.17 9.0 47 508
S06 16.5 9.0 49 514
S07 18.43 8.5 50 488
S08 18.97 9.0 49 485
S09 18.45 9.5 38 504
S10 18.28 10.0 53 510
S11 17.4 11.5 44 486
S12 16.82 9.5 54 495
S13 17.4 10.0 48 489
S14 16.85 9.0 49 498
S15 20.07 9.0 64 485
61
 Correlation Between Surface Modulus (Emod) and CBR

30 2
R² = 0.8408; P < 0.001;
CBR Field = 0.0091(Emod) - 0.5191(Emod) + 15.982
Std. Error. = 2.177
CBR AT FIELD DENSITY AND OMC

25

20

CBR Poly. (CBR)

15

10

5
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Emod (mPa)

62
 Soil Parameters and their relationship with in-situ CBR
Sign. Overall
Independent Variable Most fit equation R2
F Result

Surface Modulus (EMOD) = 0.0091*(Emod)2 - 0.5191*(Emod) + 15.982 0.814 <0.0001 Sig.

Effective Grain Size (D60) = 1.1323*(D60)2 + 19.576*(D60) + 9.214 0.9086 <0.0001 Sig.

Effective Grain Size (D30) = 29.487*(D30)2 + 40.477*(D30) + 9.2428 0.8958 <0.0001 Sig.

Effective Grain Size (D10) = 405.67*(D10)2 + 73.685*(D10) + 9.6096 0.8653 <0.0001 Sig.

Liquid Limit (LL) = 0.3171*(LL)2 - 13.934*(LL) + 163.52 0.805 <0.0001 Sig.

Plastic Limit (PL) = 1.1641*(PL)2 - 43.869*(PL) + 424.7 0.846 <0.0001 Sig.

Field Dry Density (γd) = -0.2704*γd2 + 11.485*γd - 104.75 0.1063 0.51 In-sig.

63
 CBR Verses Emod and Index Properties Based LRA Model
In-situ CBR of subgrade at OMC and density 97% MDD (CBR Field@OMC)
CBR =(11.538+0.344*Emod+2.95*D60) – (0.588*LL+0.217*PL)
With R2 =0.995 and a standard error of 0.441
The results of the ANOVA
df SS MS F P-value
Regression 4 355.294 88.823 456.575 2.86 E-11
Residual 10 1.945 0.1945
Total 14 357.239

Since the P-value is 2.86 E-11, which is much less than the significance value of 0.001, the
null hypothesis is rejected

64
 Residual Graph for Emod Based LRA Prediction Model
0.8
14
0.6
CBR Prediction Residual Error

0.4 1
0.2 2 5 6 11
13
7 10 12
0
0 9 15
-0.2 4 8

-0.4

-0.6

3 15
-0.8

-1
Sample ID
 Validation of PLWD Based Model
Laboratory Liquid Plastic Model Based
Sample Emod D60
CBR Limit- Limit Results
ID
(% ) (mPa) (mm) (% ) (% ) CBR % Error
VS-1 9.3 48 0.09 25 19 9.48 1.9
VS-2 12.6 52 0.1 22 18 12.87 2.1
VS-3 8.1 35 0.12 20 18 8.26 2
VS-4 8.5 32 0.15 18 17 8.71 2.5
VS-5 10.1 35 0.16 17 17 10.36 2.6
VS-6 9.3 33 0.175 18 15 9.56 2.8
VS-7 24.9 73 0.71 17 17 25.05 0.6
VS-8 34.8 70 2.26 15 15 30.2 -13.2
VS-9 47.6 90 4.5 15 15 43.69 -8.2
66
 Discussion of results
From this component of research it has Sample CBR Value with other corelation equations 
been observed that CBR values based on ID 
our model are quite consistent with the Labo‐ PLWD  Nazal 2003  Rao Et.al 
laboratory CBR values, where as erratic ratory Model Epfwd 2008 Epfwd
trend was observed when CBR value was VS‐3 8.1 8.26 9.1 7.3
calculated using other equations (Nazzal VS‐4 8.5 8.71 7.1 6.4
2003 and Rao et.al 2008). Again the VS‐1 9.3 9.48 17.7 11
reason may be the same that model VS‐6 9.3 9.56 7.8 6.7
developed in this study includes other VS‐5 10.1 10.36 9.1 7.3
parameters like grain size and Atterberg’s
VS‐2 12.6 12.87 20.3 12.2
limits along with Emod, where as other
VS‐7 24.9 25.05 34.2 18.2
models are based on Emod only.
VS‐8 34.8 30.2 32.2 17.3
VS‐9 47.6 43.69 45.4 23

67
Screen Shot of Calculation Spreadsheet

68
69
 Conclusions Drawn From the Present Study

 From the present it is concluded that significant relationship exists between

Laboratory CBR/Field CBR, DCPI at constant moisture content, in the present
study OMC is considered as constant moisture content.
 From the present study it is also concluded that significant relationship exists
between Atterberg’s limits and gradation (D60, D30 and D10) of soil subgrade.
 Based upon the correlations of Laboratory CBR at field density, DCPI, GSA
and Atterberg’s limits a Nomograph is prepared for getting direct CBR value in
the filed.
 Based upon the significant correlations between Laboratory CBR, in-situ test
results of portable instrument PLWD and DCPT, D60 grain size, Liquid Limit
and Plastic, regression analysis models are prepared.
Cont…

70
Contd.. Conclusions
 The regression models are test for their validity on state highway/ national
highway project and found that:
 The proposed DCPT based model predicts CBR value very near to
laboratory CBR where as the IRC:37(2017) correlation equation gives
much higher values.
 Similarly, proposed PLWD based model predicts CBR value very near to
laboratory CBR where as the values given by the correlations given by
Nazzal 2003 and Rao et.al 2008 gives erratic results for the soils used in
present study.
 From the study it is concluded that handy portable instrument i.e. PLWD
and DCPT with combination of index properties of soil (grain size and
Atterberg’s limits) can be quite useful for quality control/quality
assurance and verification of design stipulations during execution of road
projects.

Cont…
71
Contd.. Conclusions
 The subgrades consisting of different types soils (heterogenous in nature)
can be tested in-situ condition with reasonable accuracy with the help of
PLWD/DCPT as to conduct the tests with these apparatus is simple less
time consuming and economical. Less skilled person can conduct the test
with reasonable accuracy.
 From the study it is observed that for low budget road project DCPT
based nomograph could be quite useful, as the it involves very economical
apparatus.
 For large scale projects having large quantity of earth work in subgrade,
PLWD can serve the purposes better as it gives value of Emod more
speedily and results can easily compiled with the help of spread sheet that
can be operated on personal digital assistant (PDA) provided with
instrument.
Cont…
72
Contd.. Conclusions
 The present study can encourage use of portable instrument with index
properties of soil for evaluation of other in-situ unbound pavement layers.

 During the stability analysis of embankment slopes it is found that phreatic level,
embankment height its composition layers properties seriously affect the stability
embankments along the canal and subsequently pavement structure. Five out of
total twenty stretches the factor of safety is found to be less than 1.25, this may be
a major cause of pavement failure in these locations. (Therefore these locations
were not considered for further studies).

Limitations of the study:

In-situ CBR prediction models prepared are valid only for the type of soil having parameters
within the range of parameters investigated during study.

73
Papers Published
PAPERS PUBLISHED IN THE REFEREED JOURNALS
 Daljeet Singh, J. N. Jha, K. S. Gill (2016), “Strength Evaluation of Soil Subgrade Using In-situ Tests”, Civil
Engineering and Architecture, 4, 201 - 212. doi: 10.13189/cea.2016.040601
 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha, K.S.Gill (2017), “Effect of Canal Water Level on Stability of its Embankment and
Side Slopes”; International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST) June 2017 -
IJEST(ISSN: 0975-5462) pp.645-651 (UGC Listed Journal Serial No. 42862)
 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha, K.S.Gill (2017), "Effect of Field Moisture Content on Penetration Index Value of
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Alluvial Soil Subgrades." International Journal of Engineering Sciences
& Research Technology 6.7 (2017): 327-33. Web. 15 July 2017. Impact Factor: 4.116 (UGC Listed Journal
Serial No. 43449)
 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha, K.S.Gill (2017), “Evaluation of Existing Alluvial Soil Subgrade Using Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer and Index Properties”; International Journal of Current Advanced Research
(IJCAR) July 2017 - ISSN: E: 2319-6475, ISSN: P: 2319-6505 (UGC Listed Journal Serial No. 43892)
 Sidhu, D.S., Jha, J. & Gill, K.S. (2019) “Development of correction factor for penetration index of dynamic
cone penetrometer to assess insitu soaked California bearing ratio” Journal Institution of Engineers (India)
Ser. A. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00386-8
 Sidhu, Daljeet Singh., Jha, Jagdanand . & Gill, K.S. (2019) “Evaluation of Alluvial Soil subgrade for
Forensic Purposes using In-Situ Testing Techniques” Indian Highways, Indian Road Congress, New Delhi,
47(7) PP 18-23.
74
PAPERS PUBLISHED IN THE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha and K.S.Gill (2014). CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBGRADE

SOILS FOR ROAD ALONG CANAL’ Proceedings of National Conference on
Innovation in engineering, Pharmaceutical, Legal & Management Sciences” held at
Bahra University, Shimla Hills (HP), India, May 30, 2014.

 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha and K.S.Gill (2014). Strength evaluation of subgrade soil using
in-situ tests. Proceedings of National Conference ‘Geotechnical Engineering Practice
and sustainable Infrastructure Development (GEPSID)’ held at Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College, Ludhiana (Punjab), India, Oct. 11-12, 2014. Pp.15.

 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha and K.S.Gill (2013), “GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALONG THE CANAL”, Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Roorke, Uttarakhand (India), December 22-24,2013.

75
Acknowledgement

Wholeheartedly cooperation of Engineers and Management of M/S

Atlanta Ropar Tollways Private Limited, Faculty, technicians and
faculty of GNDEC Ludhiana, Engineers of PIDB/PWD B&R/IB and
NHAI during the study is duly acknowledged

76
77
References:

78
 Abramson, L.W., Lee T.S., Sharma, S. and Boyce, G.M. (2002) “Slope Stability and Stabilisation Methods.” John Wiley & Sons, 
Inc, New York, USA.
 Abu‐Farsakh, M.Y., Alshibli, A.K., Nazzal, M.D., and Seyman, E. (2004), “Assessment of in‐situ testing technology for 
construction control base course and embankments”, LTRC Project No. 02‐1GT, Louisiana Department of Transportation and 
Development.
 Afeez Adefemi BELLO, “Regression analysis between properties of subgrade lateritic soil,” Leonardo Journal of Sci ence, Issue 
21, July‐December 2012, pp. 99‐108.
 Afeez Adefemi BELLO, “Regression analysis between properties of subgrade lateritic soil,” Leonardo Journal of Science, Issue 
21, July‐December 2012, pp. 99‐108.
 Alkio, R., Juvankoski, M., Korkiala‐Tanttu, L., Laaksonen, R., Laukkanen, K., Petäjä, S., Pihlajamäki, J. and Spoof, H. 2001. Tien 
rakennekerrosten materiaalit. Taustatietoa materiaalivalinnoille, Tiehallinnon selvityksiä 66/2001, Finnish Road Administration, 
Helsinki 2001. 139 p. + app. 2 p. (In Finnish)
 Alshibli, A.K., Abu‐Farsakh, M. & Seyman, E. (2005). “Laboratory evaluation of the geogauge and light falling weight 
deflectometer as construction tools”. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 2005, pp. 560‐569.
 Arnold G and S Werkemeister (2010) Pavement thickness design charts derived from a rut depth finite element model. NZ 
Transport Agency research report no.427. 84pp.ISBN 978‐0‐478‐37129‐1
 ASTM. 2009. Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications. ASTM 
standard D6951.
 Ataei M (2008), Bodaghabadi S. Comprehensive analysis of slope stability and determination of stable slopes in the Chador‐
Malu iron ore mine using numerical and limit equilibrium methods. Journal of China University of Mining and Technology. 
2008;18(4):488–493.

 BISHOP, A. W. (1955) “The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes” Géotechnique, London, v.5, n.1, p.7‐17.
 Boston, K. et al. (2009), “The potential use of the light drop‐weight deflectometer to control subgrade compaction on forest 
roads”, Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol 24, 2, pp. 83‐87.
 Bureau of Indian Standards, "Methods of test for soils: Part 8, Determination of water content‐dry density relation using heavy 
compaction"  Is :2720 ( Part 8 ) ( Re‐affirmed 2015 ), Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, 
New Delhi
 C. Hsein Juang, Jie Zhang, Wenping Gong (2015) Reliability‐based Assessment of Stability of Slopes Available in  IOP Conference 
Series Earth and Environmental Science 26(1):012006 ∙ September 2015 with 104 Reads DOI: 10.1088/1755‐
1315/26/1/012006.
 Chen, D. H., Lin, D. F., Pen‐Hwang Liau, P. H., and Bilyeu, J. 2005. A correlation between Dynamic Cone Penetrometer values and 
pavement layer oduli, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 38(1).
 Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N. & Gill, K.S. (2010). Utilization of Plastic Waste for Improving the Subgrades in Flexible Pavements. 
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE,203,320‐326.
 Chugh A.K. (1986) Variable factor of safety in slope stability analysis. Geotechnique, 36, 57–64
 Deepika Chukka, Chakravarthi.V.K‐“ Evaluation of Properties of Soil Subgrade Using Dynamic Cone Penetration Index”‐
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e‐ISSN: 2278‐067X, p‐ISSN: 2278‐800X, www.ijerd.com Volume 
4, Issue 4 (October 2012), PP. 07‐15 7
 E. Alex Baylot et.al (2012) Predicting the stability of low volume road embankments in contingency areas.
 Ekblad, J. 2004. Influence of water on resilient properties of coarse granular materials. Licentiate Thesis, Kungliga Tekniska
Högskolan (KTH), Stockholm, 2004. TRITA‐VT FR 03:03. ISSN 1650‐867X. 192 p.Lekarp et al
 FELLENIUS, W. (1936) Calculation of stability of earth dams. In: TRANS. 2nd CONGRESSO ON LARGE DAMS, 4; Washington, v.4, 
445p.
 Fleming P.R., Frost, M.W. and Lambert, J.P. 2009. Lightweight Deflectometers for quality assurance in road construction. IN: 
Tutumluer, E. and Al‐Qadi, I.L. (eds). Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields: In Proceedings of the 8th International 
Conference (BCRRA), June 29 ‐ July 2 2009, University of Illinois at Urbana ‐ Champaign, Illinois, USA, pp. 809‐818. ISBN 
9780415871990.
 Fleming, P.R., Frost, M.W. & Lambert, J.P. (2007). “A review of the lightweight deflectometer (LWD) for routine insitu assessment 
of pavement material stiffness”. Transportation research record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 80‐87.
 Frost, M.W., Lambert, J.P., Fleming, P.R. 2007. A review of the Lightweight Deflectometer (LWD) for routine in‐situ assessment of 
pavement material stiffness, Transportation Research Record 2004: Soil Mechanics 2007, pp.80‐87, ISSN: 0361‐1981. DOI: 
10.3141/2004‐09.
 G. Chai, and N. Roslie, “The Structural Response and Behavior Prediction of Subgrade Soils using Falling Weight Defelectometer in 
Pavement Construction”, 3rd International Conference on Road & Airfield Pavement Technology, April 1998.
 George, K.P. (2004) “Prediction of resilient modulus from soil index properties”,Final Report to University of Mississippi, 
Department of Civil Engineering.
 George, K.P. (2007) “FWD (Prima 100) for In‐situ Subgrade Evaluation”. Final Report to University of Mississippi, Department of 
Civil Engineering.
 George, V., Rao, N.C., Shivashankar, R, (2009), “PFWD, DCP and CBR correlations for evaluation of lateritic subgrades”. 
International Journal of Pavement Engineering,Vol 10 (3), pp. 189‐199. 
 GEO‐SLOPE (2012) International. Stability Modeling with SLOPE/W 2012 Version – An Engineering Methodology. 4th ed. Calgary: 
Dickinson S.
 Gill K.S. & Jha J.N., Choudhary A.K,”CBR value Estimation using Dynamic cone penetrometer “, (Indian geotechnical journal‐2010),
GEOtrends December 16‐18, 2010 IGS Mumbai chapter & IIT Bombay
 Gudishala, R. (2004). “Development of Resilient Modulus Prediction Models for Base and Subgrade Pavement Layers from In‐Situ 
Devices Test Results”, M.S.Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
 Hassan, “The Effect of Material Parameters on Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Results for Fine‐grained Soils and Granular 
Materials,” Ph.D Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1996.

 Heuklelom, W., and Klomp, A. J. G., (1962), “Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling Pavements During and After 
Construction.” Proceedings, 1st Int. Conf. on Struct. Des. Of Asphalt Pavement, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 667‐679
 Hoff, I. 1999. Material properties of unbound aggregates for pavement structures. PhD thesis, NTNU Trondheim. ISBN 82‐471‐
0421‐0
 Hoffmann, O.J.M., B.B. Guzina and A. Drescher. Enhancements and Verification Tests for Portable Deflectometers. Final Report 
2003‐10. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St‐Paul,MN, (2003), 100 pp.

 Hopper, W.D. 1988. The World Bank. Road Deterioration in Developing Countries, Washington, D.C.: A World Bank Policy Study.

 Iman Salehi Hikouei, Abolfazl Hasani, Ziba Shirkhani Kelagari; "Evaluation of PFWD and DCP as Quality Control Tools for Sub‐Grade 

of GW and SW Soils" International Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol 3/ No. 3/ Winter 2016
 Indian Road Congress, "RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EARTH EMBANKMENTS AND SUBGRADE FOR 
ROAD WORKS" IRC 36: (2010). The Indian Road Congress New Delhi, India.
 Indian Road Congress, “Guidelines for the Design of High Embankments" IRC 75: (2015). The Indian Road Congress New Delhi, 
India
 Indian Road Congress, Code of practice, Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements IRC 37: (2012). The Indian Road Congress
New Delhi, India.
 Indian Road Congress, Code of practice, Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements IRC 37: 2012. The Indian Road Congress 
New Delhi, India.
 IRC‐SP. 2007. Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural Roads: IRC‐SP‐72. The Indian Road Congress 
New Delhi, India. Code of practice.
 JANBU, N. (1954) Applications of composite slip surfaces for stability analysis. In:EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON THE STABILITY OF 
EARTH SLOPES, 3., Stockholm. Proceedings… p.43.
 JANBU, N. (1973) Slope stability computations. Embankment dam ‐ engineering. In: HIRSCH FIELD, E.; POULOS, S. (Ed.) Casagrande 
memorial, New York: Wiley, v.E, p.47– 86.
 Kavussi, A., Rafiei, K. & Yasrobi, S. (2010). “Evaluation of PFWD as potential quality control tool of pavement layers”. Journal of 
Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1): 123‐129.
 Kleyn E. G., (1975), The Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Report No. 2/74, Transvaal Roads Department, 
Pretoria,South Africa, July.

 Kleyn, E. G. and Savage, P. F., “The application of the pavement DCP to determine the Bearing Properties and Performance of 
Road Pavements”, International Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields. Trodheim, Norway, June 1982.
 Kolisoja, P. 1993. Sitomattomien kerrosten kiviainesten muodonmuutos‐ominaisuudet – Kirjallisuusselvitys. Tielaitoksen 
selvityksiä 39/1993, TIEL 3200163, Helsinki. 147 p. (In Finnish)
 Krahn J (2004),Stability Modeling with. SLOPE/W, An Engineering Methodology.  First Edition, May 2004.
 Lambert, J.P, Fleming.PR, and Frost, M.W. (2006), “Material testing for sustainable pavement foundation design,” Proceedings of 
the ICE – Construction Materials, Vol 159, Issue 4, pp. 139‐146.
 Lin, D.F., Liau, C.C. & Lin, J.D. (2006). “Factors affecting portable falling weight deflectometer measurements”. Journal of 
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 804‐808.
 M. Livneh, “Friction Correction Equation for the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Subsoil Strength Testing,” Paper Presented at the 
79th Transportation Research Board Annual Meet, Washington, DC., 2000.

 M. Livneh, I. Ishai, and N. A. Livneh, “ Effect of Vertical Confinement on Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Values in Pavement 
and Subgrade Evaluation,” In Transportation Research Record 1473, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., 1995.
 Miller P.K., Rinehart R.V., Mooney M.A. (2007): Measurement of soil stress and strain using in‐ground instrumentation. In: 
Proceedings of the ASCE Geoinstitute GeoDenver Conference, Denver: 10.
 Mohammad, L. N., Nazzal, M. D., Abu‐Farsakh, M. Y., and Alshibli, K. (2009), “Estimation of subgrade soils resilient modulus from 
in‐situ devices test results”, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol.37(3), pp. 1‐9.
 Mooney, M.A. and Miller, P.K. (2009). “Analysis of lightweight deflectometer test based on in‐situ stress and strain response”. 
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2009, pp. 199‐207.

 Mooney, M.A., Nocks, C.S., Selden, K.L., Bee, G.T., and Senseney, C.T.  2009. Improving Quality Assurance of MSE Wall and Bridge 
Approach Earthwork Compaction, Report No. CDOT‐2008‐11, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, Co, USA.
 MORGENSTERN, N. R.; PRICE, V. E. (1965) The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique, London, v.15, n.1, 
p.79 – 93.
 MORT&H. 2013. “Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, 5th Revision”, Published By the Indian Roads Congress. New Delhi, 
India.

 Nash, D. (1987): A comparative review of limit equilibrium methods of stability analysis. In: Anderson & Richards (Eds.), pp. 11‐75.
 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council (NCHRP) March 2001, 
Guide for Mechanistic‐Empirical Design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures, correlation of CBR values with soil index 
properties. West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois USA.
 Nazzal, M. 2003. Field evaluation of in‐situ test technology for QC/QA procedures during construction of pavement layers and 
embankments, MS thesis, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.

 Odermatt, N., Wiman, L.G., Arm, M. and Magnusson, R. 2004. Deformation of Unbound Pavement Materials, Heavy Vehicle 
Simulator and Cyclic Load Triaxial Tests. 2nd International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing, Minneapolis. 20 p.
 Okon Bassey Bassey, Imoh Christopher Attah, Edidiong Eseme Ambrose, Roland Kufre Etim; "Correlation between CBR Values and 
Index Properties of Soils: A Case Study of Ibiono, Oron and Onna in Akwa Ibom State" Resources and Environment 2017, 7(4): 94‐
102 DOI: 10.5923/j.re.20170704.02
 Powell, W. D., Potter, J. F., Mayhew, H. C., and Nunn, M. E. 1984. The structural design of bituminous roads, TRRL report LR 113, 
62, (TRRL: London)
 R‐19(1994) "Pavement Performance Study of Existing Pavement Sections", Final Report, Volume‐2, submitted to the Ministry of 
Surface Transport (Roads Wing), Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi 1994.

 R‐6(1995) "Development of Methods, such as, Benkelman Beam Method for Evaluation of Structural Capacity of Existing Flexible 
Pavements and also for Estimation and Design of Overlays for Strengthening of Weak Pavements", Research Scheme R‐6 of 
Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), Final Report submitted by Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi 1995.
 Reddy A., Sudhakar M., Reddy, K. and Pandey B.B. (2001), ‘Design CBR of Subgrade for Flexible Pavements’, IRC Highway Research 
Bulletin No.64, June 2001 pp. 61‐69.
 Santoso A M, Phoon K K and Quek S T (2011) Effects of soil spatial variability on rainfall‐induced landslides Comput. Struct. 89 
893‐900
 SARMA, S. K. (1973). Stability analysis of embankments. and slopes. Gkotechnique 23, No. 3, 423433.
 Scala, A.J.(1956). Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone Penetrometer. N.Z.Eng.,11(2).
 Siekmeier, J. A., Young, D., and Beberg, D. (2000). Comparison of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer with Other Tests during 
Subgrade and Granular Base Characterization in Minnesota, In Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Back Calculation of 
Moduli, ASTM STP 1375, West Conshohocken, PA, 175‐188, (ASTM: PA).
 SPENCER, E. E. (1967) A method of the analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter‐slice forces. 
Géotechnique, London, v.17, p.11–26.
 T. Burnham, and D. Johnson, “ In‐Situ Foundation Characterization Using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Report MN‐93/05, 
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Maplewood, 1993
 Tatsumi and Takahashi (2007), “Strength evaluation for subgrade and subbase using historical time data for portable FWD”, 
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, pp 275‐282.
 Uthus, L. 2007. Deformation Properties of Unbound Granular Aggregates, Doctoral thesis. Norwegian University of Science and 
Technology, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering. 52 p.
 Van Niekirk, A.A. 2002. Mechanical Behaviour and Performance of Granular Bases and Sub‐Bases in Pavements. PhD thesis, Delft 
University of Technology. 516 p.
 Van Vuuren (1969), D. J. “Rapid Determination of CBR with the Portable Dynamic  Cone Penetrometer,” The Rhodesian Engineer, 
September, 1969
 Vennapusa, P.P.K. and White, D. J., 2009. Comparison of Light Weight Deflectometer Measurements for Pavement Foundation 
Materials. Geotechnical Test Journal 32 (3): 1–13.
 White, D., Thompson, M., and Vennapusa, P.  2007. Field Validation of Intelligent Compaction Monitoring Technology for 
Unbound Materials, Report No. 2007‐10, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, USA.
 Zhang L L, Zhang L M and Tang W H (2005) Rainfall‐induced slope failure considering variability of soil properties Geotechnique 55 
183‐8