Professional Documents
Culture Documents
25 ARRB Conference – Shaping the future: Linking policy, research and outcomes, Perth, Australia 2012
ABSTRACT
Subgrade performance is a function of a soil's strength and its behaviour under traffic loading.
The subgrade should be sufficiently stable to prevent excessive rutting and shoving during
construction, provide good support for placement and compaction of pavement layers, limit
pavement rebound deflections to acceptable limits, restrict the development of excessive
permanent deformation (rutting) in the subgrade during the service life of the pavement and
minimise effect of changes in moisture level.
When the subgrade does not possess these attributes, corrective action in the form of a
subgrade treatment is needed. The method of excavation and replacement is commonly
adopted in situations where the subgrade soaked CBR is less than the assumed design soaked
CBR. This paper discusses various methods used to obtain the design (effective) subgrade
CBR for use in a mechanistic design procedure for flexible pavements. The results from the
Odemark Transformation Method, both with and without a correction factor, are compared with
the results from multi-layered elastic analyses for both isotropic and anisotropic conditions. A
new method for calculating the effective subgrade CBR is proposed and validated based on the
performance of a number of typical pavement structures.
INTRODUCTION
In case of weak subgrade, it is common to use capping materials or working platforms of
suitable quality such as select material, chemically modified soil, geogrid reinforced soil, etc. In
this case, the effective or the composite strength of its subgrade and the capping material given
would then be used for the design of flexible pavements.
The RMS Austroads Guide Supplement to Pavement Technology Part 2 (RMS 2010) gives
presumptive subgrade CBR values which may be used in pavement design for various working
platforms (Table 1).
On the other hand, the 2010 version of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2
(Austroads 2010) specified that (in Section 3.14.1):
The above clause is no longer mentioned in the current Austroads Guide Part 2 (Austroads
2012) since it is generally accepted in practice that the thickness and strength of working
platform or capping layer should be taken into account to achieve the nominated effective
subgrade strength.
For pavements with thin bituminous surfacing, Figure 8.4 of Austroads Guide Part 2 seems to
suggest that it may be used to calculate the thicknesses of capping layers and other pavement
layers above the original subgrade for a certain design ESA. For example, from Figure 1 it may
be inferred that 110 mm of material with a CBR of 3% may be used as a capping layer on top of
a natural subgrade with a CBR of 2% to produce a subgrade with an effective CBR of 3% for a
6
DESA of 10 (Figure 2). This is certainly not in agreement with RMS Supplement as shown in
Table 1.
The chart shown as Figure 1 has been empirically developed to determine the layer
composition of a pavement with thin bituminous surfacing. It can be shown that for such a
pavement, CIRCLY modelling (with maximum base modulus = 500 MPa) can produce similar
layer thicknesses based on the limiting strain criterion of the natural subgrade. However, if the
chart is used to obtain the capping layer thickness for subgrade improvement, the thickness so
obtained may not be appropriate for other pavement configurations where pavement life may be
controlled by a layer other than the natural subgrade.
This paper examines the issue of selecting an effective material property, CBR or modulus
value, for the combination of a capping layer and a semi-infinite subgrade. In this case, it is
important to note that for a certain traffic loading it is possible to find one pavement
configuration that will perform similarly on a homogeneous semi-infinite subgrade and a two-
layer subgrade (capping plus homogeneous semi-infinite subgrade). However, the ‘equivalency’
of both subgrade types may not hold for other pavement configurations or traffic loadings.
In the subsequent sections of this paper, empirical methods for finding the effective CBR are
presented and their validity examined. The results from the calculations are compared with
those obtained from multilayered elastic theory on the basis of equal surface deflection so that
the effective subgrade CBR so obtained will be applicable to any flexible pavement types and
not affected by the choice of pavement materials and their fatigue characteristics.
Figure 2: Thickness of capping layer inferred from Fig. 8.4 of Austroads (2012) for an
effective CBR of 3%
strains below the layer should also remain (relatively) unchanged. According to Odemark, the
stiffness of a layer is proportional to the following term (Ullidtz 1987):
3 (1)
h E
2
1−υ
where
υ = Poisson’s ratio.
For the two layers of different materials shown below, it can be stated that both are of equivalent
stiffness if
3 3
h E h E
1 1 2 2
2
= 2
1 −υ 1−υ
1 2
For the case of two materials with equal Poisson’s ratio, the following equation will hold:
3
h E E
h =3 1 1
=h 3
1
2
E 1
E
2 2
Therefore, for a system with two finite layers with equal Poisson’s ratio as shown below, layer 1
of modulus E1 can be represented by an equivalent thickness (he) of modulus E2:
E
h =h 3
1
e 1
E
2
Note that the correction factor f of Odemark’s method is different from f = Ev / (1 + υv) used in
the CIRCLY computer program.
Researchers reported that the value of the correction factor ‘f’ depends on the layer
thicknesses, modular ratios, and the number of layers in the pavement structure. However, it
was mentioned that the use of f values of 0.8 to 0.9 leads to a reasonably good agreement
between the two methods (Subagio et al. 2005).
(2)
For layer 1:
E
h = f ×h 3
1
e1 1
E
e
For layer 2:
E
h = f ×h 3
2
e 2 2
E
e
Therefore,
E E
h = f ×h 3
1
+ f ×h 3
2
e 1
E 2
E
e e
−1/ 3 1/ 3 1/ 3
h = f ×E × (h E +h E )
e e 1 1 2 2
Thus,
3
⎡ (h 1E 1 1 / 3+ h 2 E 2 1 / 3) ⎤
E = f × ⎢ ⎥
e
⎢⎣ he ⎥⎦
Note that in the above equation, Ee and he are variables. If he is taken as (h1 + h2), then
3
⎡ (h 1E 1 1 / 3+ h 2 E 2 1 / 3) ⎤
E = f × ⎢ ⎥
e
⎣⎢ h1 + h 2 ⎦⎥
and if there are i layers to be combined, the following equation can be used to find Ee:
3
(3)
⎡ ∑n h E 1 / 3 ⎤
i i
E = f × ⎢ 1 n ⎥
e
⎢ ∑ ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 h i ⎥⎦
This equation is known as the Japan Equation in the Austroads Guide Part 2 (Austroads 2012),
where CBRi replaces Ei, with f =1 and Σ hi = 1 metre. The Japan Equation (Japan Road
Association 1989) implicitly assumes the following condition:
• all layers are isotropic and have the same Poisson’s ratio
• both the original structure and the transformed structure have the same stress & strain
distribution (f = 1)
• the existence of a semi-infinite subgrade thickness is ignored. Figure 3 (a) and 3 (b) shows
that only 1 metre upper layer depth is considered. In other words, the effect of applied stress
is assumed to be negligible below this depth. This is an assumption that may be acceptable
for designing concrete pavements but is erroneous in the case of flexible pavements.
Figure 4 shows the required capping thickness according to the Japan Equation to achieve a
design (effective) CBR of 3% for a semi-infinite subgrade CBR of 1% to 3.5%. The capping
materials in this figure can have a CBR between 4% and 10%. It is seen that for an original
subgrade CBR of 2%, a 560 mm thick capping layer of CBR 4% would be needed to produce an
effective CBR of 3%.
Japanese Formula - Target CBR 3%
900
Capping CBR 4%
800
Capping CBR 5%
Thickness of Capping (mm)
700
Capping CBR 6%
600 Capping CBR 7%
Capping CBR 9%
400
Capping CBR 10%
300
200
100
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Original CBR (%)
Figure 4: Thickness of capping layer from the Japan Equation (effective CBR = 3%)
El-Badawy and Kamel (2011) carried out an extensive study to quantify the influence of layer
thickness, depth, and modular ratios on the correction factor f of the Odemark’s transformation
method. A two-layer isotropic system with the first layer thickness (h1) values of 50, 150, 250
and 375 mm were used in the analysis. A total of 5 different modular ratios of E1/E2 = 3.33,
16.67, 33.33, 50.00, and 66.67 for each thickness were analysed. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 was
assumed in all computations. Figure 5 shows the applied load and the properties of the two
layer system used in their analysis.
A linear elastic analysis was performed on the two-layer isotropic subgrade using the KENPAVE
software to calculate the vertical and radial stresses at different depths measured from the
surface of the upper layer under the centerline of the load. Then Odemark’s method was used
to convert the two-layer problem into one layer with equivalent thicknesses and one modulus. A
comparison between stresses calculated from both systems was made. The influence of the
correction factor f on the computed stresses of the transformed system using Odemark’s
method was studied.
Figure 6: Variation of correction factor (f) with depth (after El-Badawy and Kamel 2011).
To simplify the analysis, a 5-layer linear elastic computer program CHEVRON was used instead
of CIRCLY since both programs can produce similar results for isotropic conditions. Firstly,
CHEVRON analyses were carried out to find the thickness of capping layer that will produce the
same magnitude of surface deflection (i.e. method of equivalent deflection) under a circular
loading representing a dual wheel assembly with 550 kPa tyre pressure (lower than the actual
tyre pressure acting on the pavement surface), at point A (centre of the load) as shown below in
Figure 7.
The method of equivalent surface deflection is based on the premise that if a correct thickness
of a capping layer of a certain CBR value is used over a subgrade with a certain CBR value, the
two layer system can represent a semi-infinite subgrade with a single design (effective) CBR
(Reddy et al. 2001). By using this method, the capping thickness so calculated is not going to
be influenced by the choice of pavement type (and the corresponding fatigue equations) and
hence, can be used for designing flexible pavement of any configurations.
Figure 8 shows comparison between the capping thickness requirements based on CHEVRON
and the Japan Equation, which suggests that the latter requires greater capping thickness over
a subgrade of various CBR values to produce an effective design CBR of 3%. It is seen that for
a subgrade of CBR 2%, CHEVRON suggests that a 280 mm capping layer with CBR 4% can be
used to reach an effective CBR of 3%.
It is interesting to note that Equation 3 indicates that the equivalent CBR of a multilayered
subgrade would be less than what is predicted from the Japan Equation if f < 1 and thus the
correct capping thicknesses should be greater than those suggested by the formula. The
calculated capping thickness values vary with the case studied (Table 2); however, in all values
but one, it was found that the capping thicknesses from CHEVRON linear elastic and isotropic
analyses are less than those obtained from the Japan Equation. While the Japan Equation
seems to produce adequate capping thicknesses if the soil layers are assumed to be linear
elastic and isotropic, such assumptions are not in accordance with current method for pavement
design (Austroads 2010, 2012).
Subgrade
Capping CBR (%) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CBR (%)
1.0 Japan/CHEVRON 0.9805 1.2952 1.4125 1.4578 1.4783 1.4819 1.4845
1.5 Japan/CHEVRON 1.4769 1.7533 1.8115 1.8084 1.7846 1.7569 1.7251
2.0 Japan/CHEVRON 2.0036 2.1094 2.0311 1.9510 1.8779 1.8049 1.7436
2.5 Japan/CHEVRON 2.3654 2.1140 1.8878 1.7191 1.5904 1.5128 1.4267
Similar to the previous case, the load chosen for this study was a half-axle configuration with
550 kPa tyre pressure. CIRCLY analyses were carried out to find the thickness of capping layer
that can convert a subgrade with lower CBR values to an equivalent half-space CBR of 3, 4, 5,
6 and 7 percent for the same magnitude of surface deflection (i.e. method of equivalent
deflection) under a dual wheel assembly, at point A (centre of the wheel) as shown in Figure 9.
For the purpose of this study, a semi-infinite subgrade CBR of 2, 3, 4 and 5 percent and a
capping layer with CBR values of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 percent were chosen.
Furthermore, to match the calculated capping thicknesses from CIRCLY runs with those from
Odemark’s method (Equation 3 with Σ hi = 1 metre), a trial and error process was done by
inputting f values such that the sum of differences between two corresponding capping
thickness values could be minimised (Table 3).
In contrast with the results of Subagyo et al. (2005) the f values obtained from the present study
is variable, which support the results of El-Badawy and Kamel (2011). When the ratios between
effective CBR over original subgrade CBR are plotted against the f values, it becomes clear that
f varies with the ratio between effective CBR to the original, semi-infinite, subgrade CBR (Figure
10). Therefore, the following equation can be used to find the correction factor f:
⎡ CBREffective ⎤
f = 1.5251−0.5251× ⎢ ⎥ (4)
⎣⎢ CBROriginal ⎥⎦
Figures 11 and 12 show the variation of capping thickness with the original subgrade CBR to
achieve an effective CBR of 3% and 5%, respectively (for this study the maximum capping layer
thickness was 1000 mm). The existence of double curvature relationships is evident in both
charts, which is similar to that of the previous CHEVRON isotropic analysis (Figure 8).
In contrast with the previously described methods, it has been found that for a subgrade of CBR
2%, it is not practical to place a capping layer with a CBR of 4% in order to obtain an effective
CBR of 3% (the required capping layer thickness would have to be much greater than 1000
mm). Instead, a 750 mm capping layer with CBR 5% would be needed. It is also interesting to
note that a typical RMS subgrade treatment is to place a 900 mm material with soaked CBR 8%
on top of the subgrade which would, according to these two charts, produce an effective
subgrade soaked CBR of 3% if the original subgrade soaked CBR is about 1.5% or an effective
soaked CBR of 5% if the original subgrade soaked CBR is about 3%.
Table 4 shows that in all cases, pavements containing the calculated capping thicknesses
produced pavement lives comparable to those obtained from CIRCLY analyses with a
homogenous semi-infinite subgrade. It is interesting to note that for all pavement types, failures
occurred in a layer other than subgrade.
The results also show that for deep strength asphalt pavement, in order to produce an equal
cumulative damage factor (CDF), the LMC thickness may need to be increased by 2.5 mm
when a capping layer is used. This additional thickness, which is related to the fatigue
characteristics of LMC, may be considered insignificant since in practice, tolerances of
10-20 mm may be applied.
CONCLUSIONS
It has been demonstrated that the effects of combining layers of different soils may alter not
only the stress and strain distributions within the individual layers but also the surface deflection.
Odemark’s method simplifies the effect of layering to produce an equation to predict the
combined modulus but does not produce an accurate representation of stress and strain
distribution within multilayered pavement foundation. Correction factors have been proposed to
improve the accuracy of Odemark’s method for a combined modulus, but their accuracy may be
questionable.
This paper presented the results of a preliminary investigation on the effect of layering and non-
linearity on the combined modulus of a multilayered subgrade. The study was limited to a two-
layer subgrade, being a capping layer with a maximum thickness of one metre, on top of a
semi-infinite subgrade. Limited CBR combinations were analysed using the CIRCLY computer
program with Austroads’ sublayering and anisotropy assumptions, which produced an equation
that can be used to find the appropriate correction factor for use with the Odemark’s method.
Subsequently, charts that can be used to obtain the capping layer thickness on top of a
subgrade were proposed to obtain an effective subgrade CBR for pavement design purposes.
Since the charts have been developed independent from pavement configurations, they can be
used for any type of flexible pavement.
The results of this study indicate that the use of the Odemark’s method without a correction
factor (i.e. the Japan Equation) will underestimate the capping thickness requirement if
anisotropy and nonlinearity are considered. The validation process employed in the present
study demonstrates the accuracy of the proposed correction factor and the resulting charts.
Further studies will be conducted to more comprehensively analyse the application of the
method for a wider range of CBR values, number of layers and layer thicknesses.
REFERENCES
Austroads (2009), Review of Relationship to Predict Subgrade Modulus from CBR (California
Bearing Ratio), Sydney, Australia.
Austroads (2010), Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Sydney,
Australia.
Austroads (2012), Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Sydney,
Australia.
El-Badawy, M. and Kamel, M.A. (2011), Assessment of Improvement of the Accuracy of the
Odemark Transformation Method, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and
Technologies, 5 (2), pp.105-110.
Japan Road Association (1989), Manual for Asphalt Pavement, Japan Road Association,
Tokyo.
Reddy, M.A., Reddy, K.S. and Pandey, B.B. (2001), Design CBR of Subgrade for Flexible
Pavements, IRC Highway Research Bulletin, 64, pp. 61-69.
RMS (2010), Austroads Guide Supplement to Pavement Technology Part 2, Sydney, Australia.
Subagio, B., Cahyanto, H., Rahman A. and Mardiyah, S. (2005), Multi-layer Pavement
Structural Analysis Using Method of Equivalent Thickness, Case Study: Jakarta-Cikampek Toll
Road, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 55-65.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The comments and views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and not necessarily
of the Roads and Maritime Services of NSW. The authors thank Messrs. D. Hazell and P.
Tamsett for reviewing the manuscript.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Andreas Nataatmadja, BE (Hons) Petra, MEng AIT, PhD Monash, GradCert (Env) Melb.,
MIEAust
Dr. Nataatmadja is the Supervising Pavement Engineer (Design & Analysis) of Roads Traffic
Authority-New South Wales in Parramatta. His previous position was Senior Lecturer in
Geotechnical and Pavement Engineering at QUT, Brisbane. He has published numerous
papers in geotechnical engineering and pavement technology. With a research interest in the
areas of material science, geotechnical and pavement engineering, Andreas has been working
in the broad area of civil engineering for more than 30 years in industrial, consulting, research
and teaching environments.
Ms. Su Yin Tao, BSc (App. Chem) UTS, Dip.Sci.Prac UTS, GradCert (Pavement Tech.) CPEE
Su Yin Tao joined the RMS in 2006 on the Graduate Program. She has worked in Materials
Technology, Environmental Assessment, Geotechnical Science, Pavement Design and
Analysis, and Bridge Technology areas of the RMS. She recently completed the Pavement
Technology Graduate Certificate with CPEE and currently works at RMS in the Design and
Analysis Unit, focusing on pavement wear and design review.
Kevin Chim joined the RMS in 2006 on the Graduate Recruitment and Development (GRAD)
Program. He has worked in Ballina Road Services, Sydney Asset Management, Sydney Project
Services, Hunter Project Management Service, as well as Road Design areas of the RMS. He is
currently a Pavement Engineer of the Design & Analysis Unit in RMS Pavement Structures
Section, and also involved in pavement material assessments (for Sydney region), section's
quality system, pavement design reviews, and pavement investigations.
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 25th ARRB Conference,
granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:
The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works
The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.