Design Subgrade CBR For Flexible Pavemen PDF

25th ARRB Conference – Shaping the future: Linking policy, research and outcomes, Perth, Australia 2012
DESIGN SUBGRADE CBR FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS:

COMPARISON OF PREDICTIVE METHODS
A. Nataatmadja, S.Y. Tao and K. Chim, Roads and Maritime
Services, New South Wales
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, keep
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).
Table 1: Presumptive effective subgrade CBR for various working platforms (RMS, 2010).
© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 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
DESA of 106 (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 1: Austroads chart for designing thin bituminous pavement (Austroads, 2012).

Figure 2: Thickness of capping layer inferred from Fig. 8.4 of Austroads (2012) for an
effective CBR of 3%.
ODEMARK’S METHOD OF EQUIVALENT THICKNESS

Odemark has developed an approximate method to calculate stresses and strains in multilayer
pavement systems by transforming this structure into an equivalent one-layer system with
equivalent thicknesses of one elastic modulus. This concept is known as the Method of
Equivalent Thickness (MET) or Odemark’s Method, which assumes that the stresses and
strains below a layer depend only on the stiffness of that layer. If the thickness, modulus and
Poisson’s ratio of a layer is changed, but the stiffness remains unchanged, the stresses and
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
h E
2
1−υ
where:
h= Thickness of the layer (m)
E= Elastic modulus (MPa)
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 1
E 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
APPLICATION OF ODEMARK’S METHOD

If a finite subgrade layer of (h1, E1) is placed on top of another finite subgrade layer of (h2, E2)
then an equivalent subgrade layer (he, Ee) can be defined by means of the previously described
principle of layer equivalency.
However, since the stresses and strains calculated using the Odemark’s method are different
from those from the elastic theory, in order to achieve a better agreement between Odemark’s
method and the elastic theory, a correction factor f is applied to the above equation as follows:
For layer 1:
E
h = f ×h 3
1
e1 1
E
e
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).

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 2
E 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 1 E 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 1 E 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
⎡ ∑n h E 1 / 3 ⎤
f × ⎢1 n ⎥
i i
E = Equation (3)
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 3: Application of subgrade equivalency based on the Japan Equation.

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%. 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
900
Capping CBR 4%
800
Capping CBR 5%
Thickness of Capping (mm)
700
Capping CBR 6%
600 Capping CBR 7%
500 Capping CBR 8%
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%).
ODEMARK’S METHOD VERSUS ELASTIC ANALYSIS

From the above, it is clear that a multilayered elastic half-space analysis which considers
anisotropic soils layers (such as CIRCLY) will produce capping thicknesses (and effective
CBRs) that are different from those obtained from the use of the Japan Equation. Note that the
sublayering technique used to simulate the nonlinear modulus variation (Austroads, 2012) will
also affect the results.
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.
Comparing Odemark’s method without using a correction factor (i.e. f = 1) to KENPAVE solution
yielded different stress values at the points of interest. A correction factor f was then introduced
into the equation to calculate the corrected equivalent depth. First, a unique f value was applied
to all points of interest for each modular ratio. The results showed good agreement only for the
vertical stresses calculated at the interface between the two layers when using f of 0.8 to 0.9.
However, at any depth other than the interface between the two layers the results showed a
significant difference between the two solutions (Figure 6). This means that the correction factor
f is also dependent on the depth.

Figure 5: Two-layer model used by El-Badawy and Kamel (2011).
Figure 6: Variation of correction factor (f) with depth (after El-Badawy and Kamel, 2011).
FURTHER COMPARISON WITH ISOTROPIC ELASTIC ANALYSIS

Considering the highly variable nature of the correction factor f, the authors of the present study
did not attempt to find the exact value or correct variation of f. Rather, the objective of this study
was focussed on finding a typical f value that can be used to correct Odemark’s method for the
purpose of finding the thickness of capping layer required to convert a subgrade with low CBR
values to reach an equivalent half-space CBR of 3% based on surface deflection calculation.
For the purpose of this study, a subgrade with original (semi-infinite) CBR values of 1, 1.5, 2 and
2.5 percent and a capping layer with CBR values of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 percent were chosen.
While research overseas and in Australia has shown that non-stress dependent relationships
between CBR and resilient modulus have some limitations (Austroads, 2009), in this paper it is
assumed that E (in MPa) = 10 × CBR for subgrade soils.
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 7: Subgrade model used in the present study (isotropic case).
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).
Figure 8: Comparison capping thicknesses - Japan Equation vs. CHEVRON for an

Table 2: Capping thickness ratios - Japan Equation vs. CHEVRON.
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

COMPARISON WITH ANINSOTROPIC ELASTIC ANALYSIS

In accordance with the current Austroads mechanistic pavement design procedure both capping
layer and subgrade soil were considered cross-anisotropic with EV/EH = 2. The Poisson’s ratio
was assumed 0.45 for both the capping and subgrade layers. Sublayering of the capping was
done according to Austroads (2012).
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% and
5% 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 original subgrade with CBR values ranging from 1.5 to 5 percent and a
capping layer with CBR values of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 percent were chosen.
Figure 9: Subgrade model used in the present study (anisotropic case).
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
are 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× ⎢ ⎥ Equation (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 kept at 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).

Table 3: Calculation of coefficient f by minimising sum of differences.
CBR of Capping Layer (%)

CBR 5 6 7 8 9 10 CBR
CBR Sum
Eff. Effective
Origin Method f of
Capping Thickness (mm) CBR
(%) al (%) Diff.
Original
3 2 CIRCLY 765 615 535 490 455 430
ODEMARK 793 640 546 482 435 399 1.5 0.71
Differences -28 -25 -11 8 20 31 -5
4 2 CIRCLY 980 875 800
ODEMARK 965 871 798 2 0.52
Differences 15 4 2 21
4 3 CIRCLY 680 545 480 435 400
ODEMARK 714 569 480 420 376 1.33 0.8
Differences -34 -24 0 15 24 -19
5 3 CIRCLY 980 835 745
ODEMARK 972 850 761 1.67 0.64
Differences 8 -15 -16 -23
5 4 CIRCLY 640 515 445 405
ODEMARK 669 528 442 384 1.25 0.85
Differences -29 -13 3 21 -18
6 4 CIRCLY 905 765
ODEMARK 893 776 1.5 0.72
Differences 12 -11 1
6 5 CIRCLY 960 615 490 425
ODEMARK 918 642 503 419 1.2 0.88
Differences 42 -27 -13 6 8
7 5 CIRCLY 845
ODEMARK 848 1.75 0.77
Differences -3 -3
Figure 10: Variation of coefficient f with CBREff/CBROriginal.

(one point was ignored as it was from one pavement configuration only)

Figure 11: Capping thicknesses – Proposed chart to obtain an effective CBR of 3%.
Figure 12: Capping thicknesses – Proposed chart to obtain an effective CBR of 5%.
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%.
VALIDATION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD

As previously explained, Equation 4 was derived through the calculation of the surface
deflection of the capping layer so that the resulting thickness should be applicable to any type of
pavements. In spite of that, the process of pavement design involves certain assumptions about
the material properties e.g. non-linearity, anisotropy, and fatigue characteristics. Therefore, it is
important to validate the formula via mechanistic design of a number of flexible pavement types,
which include granular, full depth asphalt and deep strength asphalt pavements (Table 4).

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.

Table 4: Results of validation process.
Input
Pavement
Effective Vertical Cumulative
Pavement
DESA Subgrade Modulus Damage
Type
CBR (%) (MPa) Layers (critical Factor (CDF)
Thicknesses
layer is
(mm)
underlined)
350 Base 270
Granular 1.43E+07 5 150 SMZ 300 9.08 E-01
50 Subgrade Semi-infinite
350 Base 270
150 SMZ 300 9.57E-01
5**
90 Capping 834
1700 Wearing AC 40
4000 AC14 50
Full
4000 AC20 260 9.48E-01
Depth 1.52E+08 3
150 SMZ 300
Asphalt
50 UZF 300
1700 Wearing AC 40
4000 AC14 50
4000 AC20 260 9.72E-01
3** 150 SMZ 300
50 UZF 300
50 Capping 743
1700 Wearing AC 40
4000 AC14 50
4000 AC20 260 9.68E-01
3** 150 SMZ 300
50 UZF 300
70 Capping 512
1700 Wearing AC 40
4000 AC14 50
4000 AC20 260 9.70E-01
3** 15 SMZ 300
50 UZF 300
100 Capping 374
1000 Wearing AC 40
2500 AC14 50
Deep 2700 AC20 85
Strength 3.65E+07 3 10000 LMC 195 7.86E-01
Asphalt 150 SMZ 300
50 UZF 300
1000 Wearing AC 40
2500 AC14 50
2700 AC20 85
10000 LMC 197.5 ∼7.9E-01
3**
150 SMZ 300
50 UZF 300
50 Capping 743
1000 Wearing AC 40
2500 AC14 50
2700 AC20 85
10000 LMC 197.5 ∼7.9E-01
3**
150 SMZ 300
50 UZF 300
70 Capping 512
** With capping layer thicknesses from Equations 3 and 4 to improve the original subgrade CBR.

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.
Ullidtz, P., 1987, ‘Pavement Analysis’, Development in Civil Engineering, Vol.19, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
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.

Mr. Kevin Chim, BE (Civil) Sydney
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.
Copyright Licence Agreement
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 25th ARRB Conference,
granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:
• publish the work in printed format

• publish the work in electronic format
• publish the work online.
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.

Design Subgrade CBR For Flexible Pavemen PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Subgrade CBR For Flexible Pavemen PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25th ARRB Conference – Shaping the future: Linking policy, research and outcomes, Perth, Australia 2012

DESIGN SUBGRADE CBR FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS:

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 1

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 2

ODEMARK’S METHOD OF EQUIVALENT THICKNESS

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 3

APPLICATION OF ODEMARK’S METHOD

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 4

Figure 3: Application of subgrade equivalency based on the Japan Equation.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 5

500 Capping CBR 8%

ODEMARK’S METHOD VERSUS ELASTIC ANALYSIS

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 6

Figure 5: Two-layer model used by El-Badawy and Kamel (2011).

FURTHER COMPARISON WITH ISOTROPIC ELASTIC ANALYSIS

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 7

Figure 7: Subgrade model used in the present study (isotropic case).

Figure 8: Comparison capping thicknesses - Japan Equation vs. CHEVRON for an

Table 2: Capping thickness ratios - Japan Equation vs. CHEVRON.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 8

COMPARISON WITH ANINSOTROPIC ELASTIC ANALYSIS

Figure 9: Subgrade model used in the present study (anisotropic case).

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 9

Table 3: Calculation of coefficient f by minimising sum of differences.

CBR of Capping Layer (%)

Figure 10: Variation of coefficient f with CBREff/CBROriginal.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 10

VALIDATION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 11

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 12

Table 4: Results of validation process.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 13

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 14

Mr. Kevin Chim, BE (Civil) Sydney

Copyright Licence Agreement

• publish the work in printed format

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2012 15

You might also like