Design CBR of Subgrade for Flexible Pavements

M. Amaranatha Reddy * K. Sudhakar Reddy** B. B. Pandey*** Abstract The upper 500 mm of soil, whether in embankment or in cutting, compacted to a higher density than that of the native soil below it is considered as the subgrade of a flexible pavement as per the current practice in India. In case the existing embankment soil is weak, it is common to use borrow materials of suitable quality compacted to a thickness of 500 mm. CBR of the subgrade is often used for design of flexible pavements, where as the effective or the composite strength of its subgrade and the embankment soil given by design CBR should be used for the design of flexible pavements. This paper examines the issue of selecting an effective material property, CBR or modulus value, for the combination of embankment soil and subgrade layer. Equivalent CBR values for different types of embankment soil and the subgrade layers have been suggested using layered elastic theory on the basis of equal subgrade deflection. It is found that the design subgrade CBR is much lower than the CBR of the superior borrow material.

* Research Scholar, Civil Engg. Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302 ** Associate Professor, Civil Engg. Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302 *** Professor, Civil Engg. Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302

1. INTRODUCTION Subgrade plays a key role in the performance of pavements. Its property is the main input to any pavement design procedure. The parameters commonly used to characterize the subgrade include CBR, resilient modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction etc. Although mechanistic design approaches require elastic (resilient) modulus of subgrade as input, a large number of the existing design procedures are based on CBR value of the subgrade. Even in the case of some mechanistic design methods, it is common practice to estimate the modulus value of the subgrade from its CBR value using empirical relationships. The subgrade forms the foundation of a pavement. The usual practice in India is to compact upper 500 mm of the embankment1,2 to a higher density than that of the rest of the embankment and this compacted layer is defined as the subgrade. In case the embankment soil is weak, borrow material of higher strength is used as subgrade and the CBR of this layer is usually taken as the design CBR for the design of flexible pavements irrespective of the CBR of the embankment material below the 500 mm subgrade. This does not appear to be a sound practice since it is the composite strength of the subgrade and the embankment soil below it that should enter into the design rather than the strength of 500 mm thick subgrade alone. This paper presents a method for computation of design (effective/equivalent) CBR of the subgrade for design of flexible pavements taking into account CBR values of subgrade as well as embankment materials.

2. SUBGRADE MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

A number of parameters have been used for characterizing subgrade in pavement design methods. These include index properties, CBR, resilient modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction etc.

These properties are determined from laboratory or field tests. They can alternatively be estimated from other parameters using empirical relationships. While the procedure for the determination of CBR value in laboratory and field is well known, they can also be estimated from dynamic cone penetrometer test results3. The relationship is given as .log CBR =2.20 0.71 log(DCP)1.5 Where DCP is the penetration in mm per blow (1)

The resilient modulus (MR) of subgrade is an important input to the mechanistic design methods. It can be estimated using the following relationships MR( MPa) ? 10 CBR MR( MPa) ? 17.6(CBR)0.64 for CBR ? 5% for CBR ? 5 % (2) (3)

SHELL pavement design manual 4 uses Eq.2 for estimating the resilient modulus of subgrade soil. AASHTO guidelines5 also recommend the use of Eq.2 in the absence of repeated load triaxial test data.

3. SELECTION OF DESIGN CBR IN DIFFERENT GUIDELINES IRC-37: 1984 2 recommends that the subgrade, whether in cut or fill, should be well compacted to utilize its full strength and to economize on the overall thickness of pavement required. The top 500mm portion of the subgrade should be compacted to 95-100 % of the modified density for heavy volume roads. For thickness design purpose, the subgrade strength is assessed in terms of the CBR of the subgrade soil at the most critical moisture conditions likely to occur. CBR value of the remoulded subgrade soil is usually taken as the design CBR without any reference to the CBR of the soil below the 500 mm subgrade.

Austroads

considered the following factors in determining the design strength of a

subgrade. (i) Compaction moisture content used and field density achieved (ii) Moisture changes during service life (iii) Subgrade variability and (iv) Sequence of earthwork construction. While it is suggested that the total thickness of pavement will be governed by the presence of weak layers below design subgrade level, the method of evaluating effective subgrade support has not been discussed. Asphalt institute 7 recommends the use of improved material between native soil and the pavement structure. The improved subgrade is normally not required in the design and construction of a full-depth asphalt pavement structure. It should be considered only when a subgrade that can not support construction equipment is encountered. In such cases it is used as a working platform for construction of the pavement layers. The use of the borrow material does not affect the design thickness of the pavement structure. The resilient subgrade modulus value is estimated using CBR values in the absence of vigorous laboratory tests. For cohesive subgrades, a minimum of 95 % of AASHTO T 180, method D density (modified compaction) for the top 300mm and a minimum of 90 % for all fill areas below the top 300mm are recommended. For cohesionless subgrades, a minimum of 100 % of modified compaction density for the top 300mm and a minimum of 95 % below this for all the fill areas are recommended. AASHTO Guide for design of pavement structures 5 recommends the use of resilient modulus values for pavement design, which are based on the properties of the compacted layer of the roadbed (subgrade) soil. However, in some cases where insitu materials are weak, it may be necessary to include the consideration of the uncompacted foundation. In such cases, the design of pavement structure is based on the average resilient modulus value. The Japan Road association manual for asphalt pavement
8

recommends the use of higher

quality material on weak foundation (having less than 2 % CBR) to obtain a design CBR value of 3

or more. For the purpose of estimation of effective subgrade CBR, the CBR value of the original soil should be used as the CBR value of the bottom 200 mm of the imported soil. The expression for estimating the effective CBR of subgrade is given as
CBReff ? ((T im? 200)CBRim
1/ 3

? 200 (CBRex )1 / 3 /T im )3

( 4)

where CBR eff ? effective subgrade CBR.

CBRim , CBRex ? CBR Values of imported and existing soil respectively T im ? thickness of compacted imported soil mm

Example: If a subgrade with native soil CBR value of 1.5 % is to be filled to a depth of 1000 mm with borrow material of CBR value 10 %, then the effective (new) subgrade value is CBReff= (((1000-200) 101/3 +200 (1.5)1/3) /1000)3 = 7.44 %

4. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE SUBGRADE STRENGTH It is thus clear that if the compacted subgrade is laid over a weak soil, it is necessary to evaluate the composite strength of the subgrade or the effective CBR of the subgrade for pavement design. In this investigation, an attempt has been made to determine the equivalent subgrade CBR values for the combination of natural soil bed and borrow material. Subgrade surface deflection under the action of a single wheel load computed using layered elastic theory has been used as the parameter to assess the equivalence. A number of combinations of natural and borrow soil have been considered with different CBR values of both materials and different thicknesses of the subgrade layer. The loading arrangement considered is a single wheel load of magnitude 40 kN acting over circular contact area at a pressure of 560 kPa. The two-layer and the equivalent subgrade systems with loading under consideration are shown in Figure.1.

40 kN, 560 kPa

40 kN, 560 kPa

Borrow material

h? ?
Equivalent subgrade b) Single layer System

Existing soil a) Two layer system

Figure 1 Two layer and Equivalent subgrade systems The two-layer system has been analyzed using ELAYER computer program9 for which the inputs are selected as given below. Single wheel load Contact pressure Poisson ratio = 40 kN = 560 kPa = 0.4

Elastic modulus values of these two subgrade layers are estimated from their CBR values using equations (2) and (3). Deflection is computed along the axis of symmetry of the wheel load. From the computed surface deflection of the two-layer subgrade system, the corresponding modulus value of the equivalent single layer subgrade is determined from the following equation.
? ? 2.0 ( 1 ? ? 2 ) p.a / E eq (5)

where E eq .is the elastic mod ulus value of equivalent Subgrade, MPa

? ? surface deflection, mm p ? contact pressure MPa ? 0.56 a ? radius of load contact area ? 152.7 mm ? ? poisson ratio ? 0.4

The corresponding equivalent subgrade CBR value is backcalculated from the modulus values using equations (2) and (3). For different CBR values of existing soil and borrow material, Tables 1 to 4 present the equivalent subgrade CBR values for various compacted thicknesses of borrow material. Results are shown in graphical form in Figures 2 to 5. 5. CONCLUSIONS Various conclusions drawn from the present study on the selection of design CBR of subgrade for flexible pavements are given as: i) It is the composite strength of the subgrade layers of the embankment soil that should form the basis for pavement design. More specifically, the CBR values of the borrow material as well as the embankment soil must be considered in arriving at the design CBR of the subgrade. ii) Charts are presented for evaluation of design (equivalent / effective) CBR value of subgrade for various combinations of native and borrow soils. Design CBR of the subgrade is found to be much less than that of the borrow materials and it is incorrect to use CBR of the borrow material alone as the CBR of the subgrade. REFERENCES 1 2 3 Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, 1998. IRC: 37-1984 Guide lines for the design of Flexible Pavements, IRC, New Delhi. Jiannzhou Chen., Mustaque Hossain. and Todd M. Latorella. Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Pavement Evaluation, Transportation

Research Record, No.1665,1999. 4 Shell Pavement Design Manual- Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for Road Traffic, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, 1978,London.

5 6

Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1993. Pavement Design-A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements, Austroads, Sydney, Australia, 1992.

Thickness Design- Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets, Manual Series No: 1, Asphalt Institute, September 1981.

8 9

Manual for Asphalt Pavement, 1989, Japan Road Association, Japan. K. Sudhakar Reddy, Analytical Evaluation of Bituminous Pavements, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engg. Dept., IIT, Kharagpur, 1993.

Table.1 Design Subgrade CBR Values for borrow material of compacted thickness of 300 mm
Borrow material CBR value(%) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing CBR values of 1.5 % 3.35 3.49 3.62 3.81 3.85 3.95 4.04 4.13 4.21 4.30 4.37 4.44 4.51 4.58 5.30 5.98 6.54 2.0% 3.86 4.03 4.19 4.42 4.44 4.47 4.71 4.82 4.92 5.14 5.29 5.43 5.57 5.70 6.42 6.95 7.39 2.5 % 4.28 4.48 4.67 4.93 4.99 5.33 5.55 5.76 5.96 6.15 6.34 6.52 6.68 6.85 8.28 9.43 10.40 3.0% 4.63 4.86 5.23 5.72 5.83 6.11 6.37 6.62 6.86 7.10 7.32 7.53 7.74 7.94 9.66 10.75 12.20 5.0% 6.18 6.74 7.26 8.04 8.22 8.67 9.08 9.49 9.87 10.24 10.60 10.96 11.29 11.61 14.44 16.74 18.69 7.0% 6.87 7.52 8.13 9.05 9.25 9.78 10.28 10.77 11.22 11.67 12.10 12.51 12.91 13.75 16.73 19.55 21.88

Table.2 Design Subgrade CBR values for borrow material of compacted thickness of 400 mm
Borrow material CBR value(%) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing CBR values of 1.5 % 3.75 3.93 4.10 4.35 4.40 4.53 4.66 4.77 4.86 4.99 5.26 5.41 5.57 5.71 6.98 8.00 8.88 2.0% 4.22 4.44 4.64 4.94 5.00 5.37 5.62 5.85 6.08 6.29 6.50 6.71 6.91 7.10 8.75 10.11 11.27 2.5 % 4.59 4.85 5.24 5.79 5.91 6.23 6.53 6.80 7.09 7.35 7.64 7.85 8.09 8.39 10.37 12.03 13.46 3.0% 4.90 5.41 5.83 6.48 6.61 6.97 7.33 7.65 7.99 8.30 8.60 8.88 9.17 9.44 11.83 13.81 15.50 5.0% 6.34 6.97 7.59 8.51 8.73 9.26 9.78 10.26 10.74 11.22 11.66 12.12 12.53 12.96 16.65 19.74 22.43 7.0% 6.86 7.00 8.30 9.35 9.58 10.19 10.79 11.36 11.92 12.45 12.97 13.49 13.98 14.47 18.77 22.43 25.54

Table.3 Design Subgrade CBR values for borrow material of compacted thickness of 500 mm
Borrow material CBR value(%) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing CBR values of 1.5 % 4.05 4.27 4.47 4.76 4.85 4.99 5.34 5.58 5.80 6.02 6.23 6.47 6.63 6.81 8.51 9.92 11.12 2.0% 4.49 4.74 4.99 5.44 5.77 6.07 6.36 6.69 6.96 7.24 7.49 7.77 8.00 8.26 10.50 12.25 13.80 2.5 % 4.82 5.29 5.73 6.39 6.53 6.91 7.28 7.65 7.97 8.31 8.63 8.93 9.29 9.52 12.13 14.30 16.19 3.0% 5.25 5.77 6.27 7.02 7.20 7.54 8.03 8.45 8.83 9.21 9.57 9.94 10.28 10.62 13.62 16.16 18.37 5.0% 6.43 7.14 7.81 8.84 9.07 9.67 10.25 10.77 11.38 11.90 12.43 12.95 13.49 13.92 18.32 22.08 25.43 7.0% 6.87 7.65 8.39 9.34 9.80 10.48 11.12 11.77 12.39 13.00 13.58 14.16 14.72 15.29 20.32 24.64 28.52

Table.4 Design Subgrade CBR values for borrow material of compacted thickness of 600 mm
Borrow material CBR value(%) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing CBR values of 1.5 % 4.28 4.53 4.76 5.27 5.40 5.70 6.00 6.28 6.55 6.82 7.08 7.38 7.58 7.82 9.92 11.68 13.24 2.0% 4.68 4.97 5.49 6.15 6.29 6.67 7.03 7.38 7.72 8.06 8.38 8.68 9.00 9.29 11.92 14.16 16.10 2.5 % 4.98 5.60 6.10 6.85 7.02 7.57 7.88 8.30 8.69 9.07 9.45 9.81 10.17 10.52 13.64 16.29 18.65 3.0% 5.47 6.05 6.60 7.45 7.63 8.13 8.59 9.05 9.50 9.93 10.37 10.78 11.18 11.58 15.13 18.17 20.85 5.0% 6.54 7.25 7.96 9.07 9.32 9.98 10.61 11.23 11.83 12.41 13.00 13.57 14.12 14.66 19.64 23.95 27.85 7.0% 6.87 7.67 8.46 9.68 9.95 10.67 11.37 12.06 12.72 13.38 14.02 14.66 15.23 15.88 21.46 26.38 30.81

26 24 22 Design subgrade CBR Value (%) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Borrow material CBR Value (%) Figure. 2 Design Subgrade CBR values for the 300 mm compacted thickness of borrow m aterial 3% 2.5 % 2% 1.5 % Native soil CBR 7 % 5%

28 26 24 Design Subgrade CBR value (%) 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Borrow m aterial CBR value (%) Figure.3 Design Subgrade CBR values for 400 mm compacted thickness of borrow material 3% 2% 1.5 % 2.5 % Native soil CBR value 7 % 5%

30 28 26 Design subgrade CBR value (%) 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Borrow material CBR value (%) Figure.4 Design Subgrade CBR values for 500 mm compacted thickness of borrow material 2% 1.5 % 3% 2.5 % 5% Native soil CBR value 7 %

36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15

Design Subgrade CBR value(%)

Native soil CBR value 7% 5%

3% 2%

2.5 % 1.5 %

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Borrow m aterial CBR value (%) Figure.5 Design Subgrade CBR values for 600 mm compacted thickness of borrow m aterial