Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fundamental Reserch DCP To in Situ CBR MOSHE LIVNEH PDF
Fundamental Reserch DCP To in Situ CBR MOSHE LIVNEH PDF
Previous papers have presented correlations among the dynamic on existing Israeli roads and airport runways . The analysis for
cone penetrometer, the dynamic probing Type A, the standard this validation w;is made possible by simultaneously carrying
penetration test, and the in situ California bearing ratio (CBR) out the above penetration tests and the direct in situ CBR
test. As is known, these penetration tests are intended to deter- tests after test pits had been dug. It was also possible to
mine, among other things, the bearing capacity of subgrades determine the subgrade DCP values by means of two meth-
or of existing pavements without requiring the digging of test ods: (1) the conventional method (i .e. , penetration through
pits. This paper presents validation for these correlations as
the structural layers after drilling the asphalt core) and (2) inside
recently tested in four bearing capacity evaluations of subgrades
and pavements on existing Israeli roads and airport runways. the test pit, with penetration of the subgrade only . It thus
The analysis was made possible by simultaneously carrying out became possible to determine the influence of friction devel-
the above penetration tests in combination with the in situ CBR opment, or, alternatively, of the layer overburden pressure
test after test pits had been dug. Results indicate that the on the results.
existing correlations are valid for translating the values of the In addition to examining the above correlations for use in
above penetration tests into in situ CBR values. In addition, calculating CBR values, it is also possible to compare the
the above investigations indicated the following: (a) the layer structural thickness values obtained by means of the pene-
thicknesses obtained by means of the penetration tests plausibly tration tests with those obtained through digging test pits.
correspond to the thickness obtained in the test pits, and (b) the Finally, the validation described in this paper is aimed at
friction that develops during penetration, or the effect due to
contributing to the issue of the applicability of the above
the overburden pressure, does not significantly influence the
final results. Finally, it should be noted that the experience penetration tests to subgrade and pavement evaluation-work
that has accumulated until now regarding an evaluation method whose practical value has been recently shown in Israel in a
based entirely on the above penetration tests proves the feasibility number of important site investigations, both in airfields and
of the method for regular use in other evaluation projects. on urban roads.
typical DCP values. Table 1 also indicates that Equation 1 SPT TEST
leads to CBR values that are approximately 15 percent higher
than those obtained by means of Equation 2, for DCP values The SPT test is commonly used in site investigations for build-
of approximately 15 mm/blow and upward. This increase stems ing foundations. The easy availability of this test makes it
from the fact, mentioned before, that the cone head angle is useful in determining pavement bearing capacity as well, espe-
30° in the test that leads to Equation 1 and 60° in the test that cially in those cases where penetration by means of the DCP
leads to Equation 2. The difference between the above two is difficult, or in cases where pavement thickness exceeds 800
penetrometers, as obtained in a special investigation designed mm (the maximum thickness at which the DCP test can be
to assess it (6), was indeed of a similar order of magnitude. applied).
In addition, it is important to note that the advantage of The equation for transforming SPT values into CBR values
Equation 1 is in the lower range of DCP values, where the was presented by Livneh and Ishai in 1987 (2) and was then
CBR values calculated by means of this equation are more improved in 1988 (5). Now, after additional field data have
plausible than those calculated by means of Equation 2. been gathered, it is possible to determine the following rec-
ommended expression:
log CBR = -5.13 + 6.55 (log SPT)- 0 · 26
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED CBR VALUES
N = 19
CBR (%)
R2 = 0.955 (3)
DCP (mm/blow) Equation 1 Equation 2
where SPT is the relationship between the depth of penetra-
100 1.6 1.5
50 4.2 3.7 tion in millimeters (300 mm) and the number of blows required
25 10.6 9.2 for such penetration .
15 19.7 18.1 A description of the above equation and the results of the
10 30.9 30.9 field tests are presented in Figure 1. The data in Figure 1
5 61.0 77.2
1 158.5 645.7
were used to formulate Equation 3. Finally, it is important
to mention here that the applicability of this test is in the SPT
500
.,
0::
ro
u
100
50
10
SPT - mm/blow
FIGURE 1 Relationship between calculated CBR from SPT-test and
direct in situ CBR test.
58 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1219
range, corresponding to CBR ranges from approximately 15 TESTING FOR CORRELATION VALIDATION
percent to very high values.
Mahanaim Airfield
""
.µ
Vl 10
<lJ
f-
.µ
u
<lJ
\._
'O
c:
E
0
,.._
4-
0::
co
u 5
•
~
t =0.05 > tcalculated
Cl.
15
(/)
'-
(/) w
+-> >,
:D ..'.'.l 10
I-
ll)
D... +->
L) <:::
ow
w al
_c: >
"'
....., D...
Eiw
'- _c:
4-.....,
c:.: _c:
ca
L) °'
::l
0
~l: 5
I-' I -
ro
~""Cl
::l w
U+-'
~ u
ro :::>
L) ""Cl
<:::
0
L)
5 10 15
Calculated CBR from the DCP Tests
Conducted in the Tests-Pits - %
FIGURE 4 Comparison between DCP test conducted through pavement layers
and DCP test conducted in test pits: Mahanaim Airfield. (CBR values are for
subgrade.)
capacity evaluation of the structure of an existing pavement Finally, it is important to note that an appropriate corre-
was also recently carried out at the Ben-Gurion Airport. lation has also been found between the thicknesses of the
Because field operating conditions made it impossible to dig structure as obtained through analysis of the DPA test and
test pits, only penetration tests were carried out in the pave- the thicknesses obtained through drilling for the SPT tests.
ment structure and its subgrade; vane shear tests were carried These thicknesses also correspond to those obtained from the
out also, in the subgrade only, of course. Translation of the two test pits that had been dug two years earlier.
vane shear strength values, S, calculated from the vane shear
test results into CBR values, was carried out by means of the
following expression: Road No. 34
CBR = 4. 79 x S 0 63
• (5)
A study was recently carried out to assess the pavement bear-
where S is the vane shear strength, expressed in kg/cm 2 , ing capacity of an urban road, Road No. 34. The pavement
and CBR is the corresponding CBR value, expressed in of this road is mainly based on silty soil with medium to very
percentages. high strength. Its thickness was found to average approxi-
The above expression is the product of a correlation study mately 60 cm. Direct in situ CBR and DCP tests were carried
that was conducted simultaneously during previous projects out in five test pits on this pavement. In addition, near the
at the Ben-Gurion Airport. Figure 10 presents an example of test pits, five DCP tests were conducted on the base-course
results obtained from that work. Here too, it was shown, by surface following drilling of asphalt cores. Comparative CBR
means of the statistical t-test, that the result populations of results are presented in Figure 12. As can be seen in Fig-
the DPA and the SPT tests do not differ, despite the scatter ure 12, a scatter exists between the direct in situ CBR values
that can be seen in Figure 11. Moreover, the calculated CBR and the calculated CBR values. However, in light of the expe-
values that were obtained from these tests correspond with rience gained in the preceding work described in this paper,
those obtained in the direct in-situ CBR tests that had been this scatter is still within the boundaries of identity between
carried out in two test pits about two years before the present the two results populations. In contrast to Figure 12, Fig-
investigation. It should be noted that this latter comparison ure 13 compares the CBR values calculated from the DCP
is the only one that refers to testing not done at the same tests for two cases: the test conducted inside the test pit and
time. the test conducted beside the test pit. Here too, results are
Livneh 61
0
-x 6.14 8.86 6.80 6.80 -
0.5
-x 12.10 10.50 16.50 111.90 17 . 37
n 14 5 17 6 11
n 11 5 11 5 6
n 10 5 10 5 5
c.v. o.42 0.36 0. 71 o.41 0 . 72
Legend :
x - Average value. n Number of readings .
a - Standard deviation. c.v. - Coefficient of variation.
scattered considerably, yet the main feature of the scatter is (DCP, SPT, and DPA) with respect to determining the bear-
the considerable heterogeneity of the subgrade . ing capacity of subgrades and existing pavements in roadways
Finally, Figure 14 compares the pavement thicknesses and airport runways. After analyses of four studies recently
obtained from both test pits and DCP tests. Here too, the carried out in Israel, the following three primary conclusions
scatter is considerable, but essentially stems from the hetero- were reached:
geneity of the structural thickness. It is worthwhile noting t hat
th.is thickness, acco rdi ng to the test pit , ranges between 1. The correlative transformation from DCP, SPT, or DPA
approximately 30 cm and 70 cm; and the above scatter is, values to direct CBR values can be used with plausible reli-
therefore only natural. Obviously, this fact also influences ability. The equations of these transformations (Equations 1,
the decoding of the NDT tests. 3, and 4) are presented in this paper, and it is not necessary
to modify them.
2. The effect of friction or alternatively the effect of over-
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS burden pressure on the results of DCP tests is negligible. This
is expressed in the reasonable correspondence that exists
This paper has attempted to validate empirical correlations between the DCP results of the first readings (a test conducted
among direct in situ CBR tests and three penetration tests on the base-course surface of the pavement following the
62 TRANSPORTATION RESEAR CH RECORD 12 19
E
u
Q)
·~
"'<...
Ol
..0
:::J
V)
50
Q)
..c:
+-'
'+-
0
Q)
u
"'
'+-
<...
:::J
V)
Q)
..c:
+-'
E 100
0
<...
'+- Legend:
ti0. CBR Calculated from the DPA Test.
Q)
0 CBR Calculated from the DCP Test.
• Direct In-Situ CBR Tests.
150 ..
200
drilling of an asphalt core) and the DCP results of the second the structural layers until the DPA cone achieves the depth
readings (a test conducted on the surface of the subgrade in at which the strength values of the structural layers are appro-
the test pit). Similar findings have been obtained for tests priate to the test's ability. Similarly, the SPT test is not limited
carried out in pits dug in the subgrade only. in depth but always necessitates vertical drilling . It is appli-
3. There is a plausible correlation between the thickness cable to materials with a strength range of medium to high.
of the pavement as obtained through test pit measurements In summary, it can be stated that the in situ practical work
and the thickness of the pavement obtained through decoding with the above penetration tests and without digging test pits
the results of the various penetration tests. in order to determine the direct in situ CBR values has proved
itself to be more efficient and faster. It is therefore recom-
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the DCP test mended that this method of assessing bearing capacity of
permits determining the in situ CBR value of materials with subgrades and pavements, as recently expressed in the assess-
any range of strength but to a limited depth of 80 cm. In ment of a taxiway at the Ben-Gurion Airport , also be adopted
contrast, the DPA test permits determining the in situ CBR for other evaluations.
of materials with a medium to low range of strength but to a Finally, it should be emphasized that differences in geo-
greater depth. Owing to the strength limitation, this test can- graphic areas throughout the world may lead to changes in
not always be carried out from the existing pavement's base the empirical equations presented in the paper, although the
course; and it is therefore necessary to drill vertically through method shown here is most likely to be applicable everywhere.
~ \x=0.05 > tcalculated
U')
~
~ 'a9l.05
< tcalculated
0
.µ
I!,
"C
Q)
.µ
"'u
..-
::i
3
..- 23
"'u
.µ
29
15 13
FIGURE 6 Statistical t-test for direct in situ CBR versus DCP test: Taxiway Y, Ben-Gurion Airport.
(Numbers denote degrees of freedom.)
~
t a=0.05 > tea 1cul a ted
U')
0
0
II
~
....,i:i
"C
t a=0.05 < t calculated
Q)
.µ 3
"'
::i
u
..- 14 13
.µ "'u 17 17
Legend:
CBR From the DPA Test
1. Depth of 0.0 meters
2. Depth of 0.5 meters
3. Depth of 1.0 meters
4. Depth of 1.5 meters
0
4
Method of Testing
FIGURE 7 Statistical t-test for direct in situ CBR test versus DPA test:
Taxiway Y, Ben-Gurion Airport. (Numbers denote degrees of freedom.)
LO
"!
0
II
Cl
~ ta 0.05
0
> t calculated
.µ
~
-0
Q)
.µ
< t calculated
"'
0
::J
'• 0.05
u
3
.µ
"'u
15
Legend :
CBR From the DCP Tests
1. Depth of 0.5 meters
2. Depth of 1.0 meters
3. Depth of 1.5 meters
u
2 3
Method of Testing
FIGURE 8 Statistical I-test for DCP test, first readings versus
second readings: Taxiway Y, Ben-Gurion Airport. (Numbers
denote degrees of freedom.)
35
"" Legend:
"'<=
30
• Depth of 0.5 meters
•
Cl
Depth of 1.0 meters
:0
"'
<IJ
Cl:'. • Depth of 1.5 meters
-0 25
s..
..r:::
.....
-0
<=
-0
"' 20
<=
0
u
<IJ
VI
.µ
f-
"'
Q) 15
a.
u
Cl
Q)
..r:::
.....
10
E
0
s..
4-
Cl:'.
ro
u
-0
Q)
5
.....
~
"'u
::J
u"' 0
0 5 10 15 20
Calculated CBR from the DCP Test
(First Reading) - %
FIGURE 9 Comparison of calculated CBR for DCP tests,
first readings versus second and third readings: Taxiway Y,
Ben-Gurion Airport.
Subgrades CBR Values - %
"'s...
.a
Ol •
::J
I/)
0 .5
QJ
:P
.....0
QJ
u
....."'s...
::J
I/)
QJ
:P 1.0
E
0
s...
.....
:Pa. Legend :
QJ
Cl CBR Ce.lcule.ted from the DPA Test.
CBR Ce.lcule.ted from the DCP Test .
2 .0
2
...
.µ
Ill Equality Line /
~
QJ
I- 10
ci:
c..
Cl 8
/
QJ
/
.c:
.µ /
6
E
0
......... 2
0:: 4 N=6 R =0.92
CD
u
"C
QJ
3 LOGY -1.05+1.87 LOG X
.µ
"'u
::J
2
'";;;
u
1
.1 2 3 4 6 8 10 2 3 4
Calculated .,CBR from the SPT Test - %
FIGURE 11 Comparison of CBR calculated from DPA and SPT tests.
66 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1219
JO
;,<!
...,
I/)
QJ
I-
c..
u
Cl
CIJ
...,
.r:.
E 20
0
s..
4- 6-B
a:
ca •
u
"O
...,
QJ
"'u
~
:l
~
"'
u
10
0 10 20 JO
Direct In-Situ CBR - %
FIGURE 12 Comparison of CBR results derived from direct in situ tests and DCP
tests: Road No. 34.
12-C
>60 0
.s:::.
O'l
:l
0
s..
.r:.
1-
60 6-B
"0 .,.., 0
QJ
.µ I
u
:l ...,
"O · ~
c n. 50
01
u+>
I/)
..., QI
I/) I-
Q)
I-
.r:.
QJ
40
n....,
u
Cl s..
..., "'
QI QI
.r:.z
I/)
30
Es..
0 QJ
s.. >, 10-A
4- .......
"'
0:: 0
ca
u+>"' 20
c
"O QJ
QI
...,
E
QJ
"'>
~"'
:l n.
u 10 2-C
~QI
re.s::. 0
u+>
o~~~--L~~~.._~~-.1.~~~_._~~--'
0 10 20 30 40 50
Calculated CBR from the DCP Test
Conducted in the Test-Pits Subgrade-%
FIGURE 13 Comparison of CBR calculated from DCP tests
conducted near test pits and inside test pits: Road No. 34.
Livneh 67
70
10-A
•
0
VI
.µ
VI
Q)
60
I-
a...
u
Cl
Q)
..c:
.µ
E
0
L-
'+-
-c
Q)
>
·;::::
Q)
Cl
VI
VI
Q)
c:
~
u
..c:
I-
.µ
c:
Q)
E
Q)
>
"'
a...