MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ART AND

TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING

Developing Model Correlations for Determining In-situ

Stiffness of Flexible Pavement Subgrades Using Portable Field
Tests

BY

Ivan Masuba
203000740
2012/HD08/1050U

A Proposal Submitted to the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training in

Partial Fulfillment of the Award of Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering

Supervised By:
1. Dr. Gilbert Kasangaki
2. Ass. Prof Umaru Bagampande
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Roads have performed a very vital role in meeting the strategic and developmental requirements,
accelerating all-round development. Technical progress in road design and construction
technology has kept pace with rapid changes in the field of infrastructural development
(Nageshwar et al., 2008; Gupta et al., 2010). And since the quality of the road depends to a large
extent on the strength and stiffness characteristics of subgrade materials, to perform optimistic
pavement design, an accurate and representative in place material characterization technique is
essential; such technique would be more acceptable if it is simple, rapid and economical. The
evaluation of subgrade strength and stiffness is pertinent for the road pavement throughout the
design, construction and service stages (Patel et al., 2012; George et al., 2009; Tarefder et al.,
2008). This is because subgrades play an important role in imparting structural stability to the
pavement structure as it receives loads imposed upon it by road traffic. Traffic loads need to be
transmitted in a manner that the subgrade deformation is within elastic limits, and the shear
forces developed, are within safe limits under adverse climatic and loading conditions. The
subgrade comprises unbound earth materials such as gravel, sand, silt and clay that influence the
design and construction of roads. The assessment of properties of soil subgrades, in terms of
density, soil stiffness, strength, and other in-situ parameters is vital in the design of roads, and
their performance (Nageshwar et al., 2008; Gupta et al., 2010).

Historically, flexible pavement design practices were typically based on empirical procedures,
which recommend certain base, subbase, and surface layer types and their thicknesses based on
the strength of the subgrade. Recommendation of layer types and their dimensions were
established based on AASHO road tests performed during the 1950s. The often-used soil
strength parameters in this pavement design practice are California Bearing Ratio (or CBR)
value, Hveem R value, and Soil Support Value (SSV). All these soil parameters are based on the
failures of subgrade soil specimens in the laboratory conditions. However, flexible pavements
seldom fail owing to subgrade strength failures during their service life (Puppala, 2008; Huang,
1993).

Previous studies indicate that most of the flexible pavements failure is due to excessive rutting or
cracking of pavement layers as a result of fatigue, temperature variations, and/or softening
caused by surface layer cracking (Barksdale 1972; Brown 1974, 1996) allowing moisture
infiltration in the pavement structure and its eventual deterioration. As a result, majority of
flexible pavements do not fail because of soil strength failure, the 1986 AASHTO interim
pavement design guide and subsequently the 1993 AASHTO pavement design guide
recommended the use of a soil stiffness parameter known as the Resilient Modulus (MR) to
replace strength based parameters such as CBR, R value and SSV, which do not represent the
conditions of a pavement subjected to repeated traffic loading (Brickman, 1989; Mohammad et
al., 1994; Maher et al., 2000; Hani et al., 2006). Several other investigations also refer to this
modulus parameter as MR in their studies (Puppala, 2008). Resilient Modulus (MR) has been used
for characterizing the non-linear stress-strain behavior of subgrade soils subjected to traffic
loadings in the design of pavements (Kim et al., 2010) and according to Maher et al. (2000), the

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

resilient modulus (MR) of a soil is an index that describes its stress-strain relation under cyclic
loads. This stiffness property used for characterizing subgrade material is crucial in pavement
design/rehabilitation activities as suggested by the 1993 AASHTO Guide for design of pavement
structures. Resilient modulus is a measure of elastic property of the soil that recognizes certain
nonlinear characteristics. It is the ratio of deviator stress to the recoverable strain. MR may be
estimated directly from laboratory testing, by backcalculation from deflection testing in the field
or indirectly through correlation with other standard measures (George et al., 2000).

Recent technological developments have led to the innovation of several new portable non
destructive devices such as the portable falling weight deflectometer (PFWD), the soil stiffness
gauge (SSG) and the portable seismic pavement analyzer (PSPA) for characterizing sub grade
stiffness (Jersey & Edwards, 2009). Of interest to this study is the PFWD, which has
revolutionized the field of pavement evaluation mainly due to its simplicity and ease of use,
portability, reliability and ruggedness. PFWD provides information on the composite-stiffness of
subgrades for all layers, up to a particular depth. These are designed based on the working
principle of the full sized FWD. Similarly, the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is a low-cost
portable device that has gained popularity in the recent years. It permits rapid testing and
evaluation of subgrades and pavements layers in order to make reliable estimated of the CBR
values of underlying layers effectively (George et al., 2009). And as thus, this study is focused
on the evaluation of the PFWD and the DCP as potential tests for determining the stiffness
properties of pavement subgrade.

1.2 Problem Statement

Characterizing field material properties by using laboratory tests is an ongoing problem in the
discipline of pavement design. This problem has two aspects. First it is difficult to collect and
test representative samples because of the large variability of typical pavement and subgrade
materials, a large number of random samples must be collected and tested to generate results
with good statistical significance. Second it is difficult to quantify, much less reproduce, the in-
situ sample condition and environment in a laboratory. This problem is particularly acute for
subgrade material layers which are a product of a seemingly random geologic process rather than
of a controlled manufacturing process (Burnham et al., 1993) and therefore, determining in-situ
subgrade stiffness using the PFWD and the DCP is justified over using the triaxial test or indirect
correlation from laboratory CBR. Hani et al. (2006) and Barksdale et al. (1990) argued that
indirect correlations to predict sub-grade stiffness properties from CBR have proved
unsuccessful to characterize the sub grade in-situ behavior under traffic loading, as they failed to
satisfy the design and analysis requirements since they neglect all possible failure mechanisms in
the field. Other associated limitations with the laboratory triaxial test procedures other than the
ones stated above for determining subgrade stiffness are mentioned by Mohammad et al. (2013).

Whilst, the resilient modulus is accepted to be an appropriate measure of stiffness for unbound
materials in a pavement structure, there is no clear-cut test procedure suggested, though
laboratory MR is the intended property designated in the AASHTO design guide. The laboratory
test procedure itself is highly complex, not to mention the added difficulties if pavement coring
were to be conducted for retrieving samples from the bare subgrade or from an in service
pavement. Even if the sample prepared and tested in the laboratory repeated load triaxial test is
as close as possible to the in-situ condition, it is true that the sample may not represent

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

completely the in situ subgrade because of various different conditions such as boundary
conditions and temperature. In-situ tests are therefore preferred as they can alleviate sample
disturbance and consequent variability (Erdem, 2007; Kim et al., 2010; George et al., 2000).

Driven by this desire to better characterize subgrade in-situ stiffness (resilient modulus), this
research is undertaken with the main aim of exploring the Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer
(PFWD) and the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) for this purpose.

1.3 Objectives
The primary objective is to assess the use of PFWD and DCP in determining in place subgrade
soil stiffness as potential alternatives to the empirical laboratory tests. The specific objectives
include:
 To classify the pavement subgrade soils in the study and determine the subgrade stiffness
parameters using PFWD and DCP devices
 To determine the subgrade resilient modulus using repeated load triaxial test and from
indirect correlations from lab CBR, and there after develop regression correlations to the
penetration index values from the DCP and elastic modulus values from the PFWD.
 And to compare the developed regression correlation models with the published models

1.4 Justification
Pavement design and evaluation relies mainly on information on the stiffness of pavement layers,
and the resilient modulus of sub-grades, in addition to supplementary data on density and
moisture content. It is therefore, often required to estimate the subgrade-stiffness or modulus of
the pavements, before for design purposes and after their construction as part of the quality
control and assurance measures (Nageshwar et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2005). The repeated load
triaxial (RLT) testing is the preferred laboratory method to determine resilient modulus for
subgrade characterization needed for pavement design, many transportation agencies are hesitant
to adopt routine RLT resilient modulus testing because of continual modifications to
standardized test procedures (Mokwa et al., 2009) as attested by different test protocols including
AASHTO T-274-1982, T-292-1991, T-294-1992 (SHRP Protocol P46) and T-307-1999 in
addition to the test being expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and cumbersome. In lieu
of conducting RLT tests, use of local correlations with other test devices is considered preferable
to correlations developed for national use (Puppala, 2008). With the invention of a number of
non-destructive and intrusive testing devices that are more efficient in data-collection, modern
devices such as the portable falling weight deflectometers (PFWD) and the now popular
intrusive test in pavement design and evaluation, the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) may be
used if correlations are developed to estimate the resilient modulus of sub-grade. Therefore, this
study will contributed enormously to the database of the use of these devices in evaluating
subgrade stiffness with respect to this nation - Uganda.

1.6 Conceptual Framework

In-situ subgrade stiffness is a principle input parameter for Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) based
approach of the design and evaluation of a flexible pavement. The conventional approach of
determination of subgrade stiffness also known as the resilient modulus (M R) is repeated load
triaxial (RLT) test and the use empirical correlations with the California bearing ratio (CBR)
method. However, the mechanistic empirical non destructive evaluation techniques of MR

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

determination that will be deployed in this study, is the PFWD and DCP. Figure 1.1 shows the
conceptual framework for the development of the correlation models to predict subgrade
stiffness using the PFWD & DCP.

Subgrade Stiffness as Input Design

Parameter for Flexible Pavement

Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Non Empirical Pavement Destructive

Destructive Evaluation Techniques Evaluation Techniques
1. PFWD 1. Lab CBR
2. DCP 2. Resilient Modulus, MR

Perform Regression Correlations on

Collected Data from the above
Techniques

Develop Mechanistic Models To

Predict Subgrade Stiffness Using
PFWD & DCP

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework: PFWD & DCP as Potential Tests to Evaluate In-situ Subgrade Stiffness

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

2 RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a brief overview of the mechanistic-empirical pavement design method, the
subgrade stiffness (particularly the resilient modulus), the non destructive test device (PFWD),
and intrusive test device (DCP) that will be used in the investigations of subgrade stiffness as
substitute methods to the empirical laboratory test methods. In this light, the load repeated
triaxial test, the modified proctor test for compaction and the lab CBR tests, supplemented by the
soil index properties and in situ density tests by the sand replacement method will be canvassed,
including studying existing correlations with the aforementioned devices.

2.2 Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) Pavement Design Method

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) released the New Mechanistic-
Empirical (M-E) Design Guide for pavement structures which was recently adopted by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as the design
software AASHTOWare Pavement M-E Design (AASHTO, 2012) superseding the earlier
empirical pavement design approach (AASHTO, 1993). The M-E Pavement Design Guide
(MEPDG) requires that the resilient modulus of unbound materials be inputted in characterizing
layers for their structural design (NCHRP, 2004; Kim et al., 2010; Papagiannakis, 2012). The
development and implementation of the M-E Pavement Design Guide, has caused renewed
emphasis on characterizing pavement materials based on stiffness properties i.e. performance
measures. In particular, attempts have been made to develop methods for characterizing subgrade
and pavement materials in the field. Construction practice has historically been dominated by
quantifying quality assurance in subgrade, subbase and base materials using moisture and density
measurements. The design modulus is affected by the moisture and density; however, these are
merely indicator variables and not predictors of the modulus. These parameters do not guarantee
that the as-constructed stiffness will match the design stiffness. Thus, measuring density and
moisture content in the field does not guarantee that the pavement foundation will perform as
designed (Jersey et al., 2009).
The primary advantage of an M-E based design system is that it is based on pavement fatigue
and deformation characteristics of all layers, rather than solely on the pavement’s surface
condition (ride quality). The concepts of M-E based methods allow the pavement design
engineer to quantify the effect of changes in materials, load, climate, age, pavement geometry,
and construction practices on pavement performance. Such a rational engineering design
approach provides a more accurate and cost effective method of diagnosing pavement problems,
as well as forecasting maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation needs (VonQuintus et al., 2007).

2.3 Subgrade Stiffness

The subgrade is a layer of natural soil prepared to receive the layers of pavement materials
placed over it. The loads on the pavement are ultimately received by the subgrade for dispersion
to the earth mass. It’s essential that at no time the subgrade is over stressed. It means that the
pressure transmitted on the top of subgrade is within allowable limit, not to cause excessive
stress condition to deform the same beyond the elastic limit (Chukka et al., 2012).

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Stiffness is a qualitative term meaning a general resistance to deformation. It is often used

interchangeably with elastic modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction, and resilient modulus. It
largely determines the strains and displacements of the pavement and subgrade as it is loaded
and unloaded. Elastic Modulus is the applied axial stress divided by the resulting axial strain
within the linear range of stress-strain behavior of a material and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
is the applied stress imposed by a loaded plate of a specified dimension acting on a soil mass
divided by the displacement of the plate within the linear portion of the stress-deformation curve.
Pertinent to this study and the flexible pavement design is Resilient Modulus, which is the stress
generated by an impulse load divided by the resulting recoverable strain after loading (Siekmeier
et al., 2009).

2.4 Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer (PFWD)

Falling weight deflectometers (FWD) are in-situ testing devices initially developed in Germany
as an alternative to the plate load test. The light-weight versions of this device, known as the
light-falling weight deflectometer (LFWD), or the portable falling weight deflectometer (PFWD)
came to be used extensively in the Middle East, Japan, Europe, and the United States. The
LFWDs, and PFWDs developed include the German Dynamic Plate (GDP), the TRRL
Foundation Tester (TFT), and the Prima 100 LFWD, and the more efficient PFWDs such as the
Loadman, Zorn ZFG 2000 (Nageshwar et al., 2008; Nazzal, 2003; Gros, 1993) and
TERRATEST 3000. The PFWD is a light, portable device that has been developed to measure
stiffness of construction layers including sub-grades, base courses, and pavements and consists
of a lighter mass (10-15 kg), an accelerometer or geophone, and a data collection unit. The
PFWD creates a non-destructive shock-wave through the soil as a result of the impact of a falling
weight. Sensors such as velocity transducers or accelerometers are used to measure surface
movement, from which deflection is determined. A load cell is used to measure the impact force
of the falling weight. Boussinesq developed equations for the state of stress within a
homogeneous, isotropic, linearly elastic half-space for a point load acting perpendicular to the
surface. Manipulation of this theory provides a means for determining the modulus from the two
measurements (Steinert et al., 2005; Siekmeier et al., 2009; Holtz et al., 1981).

“TERRATEST 3000” with intergrated GPS system and Google Maps Interface PFWD
manufactured by TERRATEST GmbH of Germany will be used in the present study for the
estimation of the subgrade moduli.

2.5 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test

Scala (1956) developed the Scala penetrometer for assessing in situ California bearing ratio
(CBR) of cohesive soils. In the last decade, the Scala penetrometer has evolved into the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test for determining in situ CBR and elastic modulus. The DCP is now
being used extensively in South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and
other countries including Uganda because it is simple, rugged, economical, require minimum
maintenance, easy to access sites, and able to provide a rapid in situ index of strength and more
indirectly stiffness of subgrade as well as pavement structures without the need for destructive
excavation the existing pavement. In addition, it can also be used to determine the tested layer
thickness (Truncer et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2001; Livneh et al., 1989; Kim H. et al., 2010). In
2004, the ASTM D6951-03 Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Shallow Pavement Applications described using a DCP with based on its latest design. This
device consists of a steel rod with a steel penetration cone of 60 degrees cone-angle and 20 mm
diameter attached at one end. This can be driven into the pavement structure or subgrade using a
sliding-hammer of 8 kg weight falling through a height of 575 mm. The penetration of the cone
is measured using a calibrated scale up to a metre or more with the aid of extension rods (Kleyn,
1982; Nageshwar et al, 2008; Farshad, 2003). Numerous studies have been performed to
correlate the results of the DCP test for the estimation of strength and stiffness parameters (Refer
to Table 2.1).

2.6 Laboratory CBR

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a static penetration test used to assess the strength of
pavement materials used for subgrade, subbase, or base course applications (Kim H. et al., 2010).
In order to evaluate the strength of the material, a piston bar of standard cross-sectional area
equal is plunged into the soil at a uniform standardized rate. The unit loads required for up to a
penetration of 7.5mm or more are recorded. The ratio of the recorded unit load for a given
penetration to that of a standard value for the same penetration is taken as the CBR value
(AASHTO T193-93; ASTM D 1883-99; ASTM D 4429-04). The standard values correspond to
the unit loads for well-graded crushed stone. The CBR values for soil are typically reported at
2.5mm of penetration, and the reference stress corresponds to 13.2 MPa for this penetration
value. If penetration resistance is at its peak value during the test, the pressure determined at
5.0mm of penetration, which has a reference stress of 20 MPa, is taken as the CBR. (BS
1377:Part 4; TMH1 Method A8, 1986)

The most important concern with respect to using CBR values in pavement design is that the
CBR test does not simulate the shear stresses that are generated due to repeated traffic loading.
In addition, it is possible to obtain the same CBR values for two specimens that have very
different stress-strain behavior (Kim H. et al; Brown 1996). Nevertheless, several transportation
agencies across the world still use the CBR test, even though it has been abandoned by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the originator of the CBR. Due to the
drawbacks associated with using the CBR test results for pavement design, other tests, such as
the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), and the Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD),
are being increasingly used in practice (Kim H. et al., 2010;).

2.7 Repeated Load Triaxial Test

The Resilient Modulus test using Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) test equipment is designed to
simulate traffic wheel loading on in situ subsoils by applying a sequence of repeated or cyclic
loads on compacted soil specimens. The AASHTO T-307-99 method is currently followed for
determining the resilient modulus of soils. Prior to this method, a few methods (namely,
AASHTO T-274, T-292 and T-294) were used. A compacted soil specimen is, initially, prepared
by using impact compaction or other methods and then, is transferred into triaxial chamber. After
that, confining pressure is applied to the specimen. Then, testing is performed by applying
various levels of deviatoric stresses as per the test sequence (Ruttanaporamakul, 2012; Puppala
2008).

Although the resilient modulus testing simulates the response of the subgrade soil to traffic
loading conditions, it is impractical to use the MR test as a design and quality control method
because of the complex, time-consuming efforts, and costs involved in sample preparation and

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

performance of the test in addition to the test being likely not warranted for all soil types. Also, a
sample prepared in a laboratory may not simulate precisely the subgrade state and under which
condition it exists at a construction site (Kim H. et al., 2010; Mokwa et al., 2009).

2.8 In-situ Density - Sand Cone Test Method

In Uganda, the sand cone test is currently the most widely used tests performed on site to
determine the in situ density of natural or compacted soils. BS 1377-9 describes two variations
on the sand replacement method. The first, employing a small pouring cylinder, is used for fine
and medium-grained soils, as defined in BS 1377. The second, using a large pouring cylinder, is
suitable for fine, medium and coarse-grained soils. These methods are unsuited to soils
containing a high proportion of very coarse gravel or larger particles because the apparatus is not
large enough to cope with a hole of sufficient size to obtain a representative sample; the sand
also tends to run into the interstices of the material, thus leading to inaccurate results. The
method cannot be used in soils where the volume of the hole cannot be maintained constantly. It
also loses accuracy in soils where it is difficult to excavate a smooth hole because the sand
cannot easily occupy the full volume (BS 5930, 1999).

2.9 Existing Model Correlations of Subgrade Stiffness/ Strength

The resilient modulus testing to describe subgrade stiffness and lab CBR to describe subgrade
strength are considered complicated, expensive and time-consuming methods by many agencies.
Because of this, a simple method, which is the use of correlations with other soil properties such
as the DCPI from the DCP and elastic modulus from FWD has been proposed for estimating the
MR & CBR of the geo-materials. These model correlations have been given in Table 2.1 to
estimate material properties of stiffness and strength.

Table 2.1: Summary of Model Correlations Developed for Subgrade Stiffness and Strength
Reference Soils Tested Input Model Correlations Remark
Parameter
TRL, 1993 Granular & DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
Fine Soils
Webster et al., Granular & DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
1992 Fine Soils
Kylen, 1982 Fine Soils DCPI DCPI > 2 mm/blow

Kylen, 1982 Coarse Soils DCPI DCPI ≤ 2 mm/blow

Sampson, 1984 All Soil DCPI DCPI in mm per blow

Harison, 1986 All Soil DCPI DCPI in mm per blow

Hassan, 1996 All Soil DCPI DCPI in inches per

blow
George & Sandy Soils DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
Uddin, 2000
George & Clays DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
Uddin, 2000
Chen et al., All Soils DCPI DCPI in mm per blow;
1999 R2=0.42

Chen et al., Coarse Soils DCPI DCPI in mm per blow:

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Reference Soils Tested Input Model Correlations Remark

Parameter
2007 Valid for bases
Abu-Farsakh et Fine & DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
al., 2004 Granular
Soils
Beer & Marwe, All Soils DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
1991
Nageshwar et Lateritic Soils DCPI DCPI in mm per blow
al., 2008
Chai and Roslie, All Soils DCP DCP in blows per
1998 300mm
Powel et al., CBR Limited to Soils with
1984 CBR, 2-12%
Heukelom & Fine-grained CBR Applicable to soils
Klomp, 1926 Soils with CBR < 10%
Nageshwar et Lateritic Soils CBR R2=0.93
al., 2008
Nazzal, 2003 All Soils Limited to EPFWD= 2.5-
174.5 MPa, R2=0.93
Abu-Farsakh et Fine & R2=0.36
al., 2004 Granular
Soils
White et al., Fine & Conducted at
2007 Granular deviatoric stress of
Soils 68.9 kPa, R2=0.85

The investigations conducted above indicate that DCPs and PFWDs are capable of providing
better estimates of the strength and stiffness properties of subgrades. Based on this premise, it
was felt that further investigations could be performed to explore and develop correlations
between the subgrade stiffness properties values estimated and portable non destructive devices
(PFWDs and DCP). This would be of special advantage to highway design engineers in Uganda.

2.10 Limitation of Existing Research and the Study Logic

Many researchers have put forward relevant information on the correlations of the subgrade
stiffness (resilient modulus) to CBR, DCP and PFWD as given in Table 2.1, Section 2.6 above.
However, these correlation models have been formulated for specific application in regions that
have advanced both in infrastructure and technology with different climatic conditions and soils
such as the USA, Japan, European countries et al. Implying that the models developed to date are
yet to be acceptable universally and as thus cannot be applied in Uganda unless similar models
are developed based on local conditions.
MoWT (2010) road design manual for flexible pavements urges that the DCP can also be used as
a design tool in its own right and that a method has been developed for such application but no
reference or literature is cited other than its mention. This therefore, warrants this study to be
conducted to develop correlation models for the now popular DCP equipment and PFWD device,
a revolution of the FWD to the empirical laboratory tests since; these portable devices are now
strongly encouraged in the design and evaluation of the flexible pavement across many transport

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

agencies. And most importantly this research shall form part of the future data base and reference
for the use of these devices to evaluate our local flexible pavement conditions in Uganda.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Steps
The summary sequence of the experimental activities to be conducted in this study is detailed in
Figure 3.1. The selected flexible pavements will be excavated on the shoulder locations to
expose the underlying subgrades. In-situ density test by sand replacement method and PFWD
will be run on the exposed subgrades to characterize their strength and stiffness properties. Since
the DCP tests use the intrusion technique, they will be conducted on the pavement surface and
run into the subgrade for its characterization. Excavated test pits shall be profiled and disturbed
& un-disturbed subgrade samples shall be extracted and delivered to the laboratory for testing.
Regression analysis will be performed, from which correlation prediction models will be
formulated and comparisons made with the existing models.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Select Pavement for Subgrade

Stiffness Evaluation

Test Pit Excavation

Examine Existing Models of 1. Soil Profile/ Logs
Subgrade Stiffness 2. Recover Disturbed & Undisturbed
Samples

Field Tests Laboratory Tests

1. Soil Index Properties
1. Insitu Density
2. Compaction Tests
2. PFWD
3. CBR Tests
3. DCP
4. Repeated Load Triaxial Test

Regression Analysis
1. Correlate PFWD and MR
2. Correlate PFWD and CBR
3. Correlate DCP and MR
4. Correlate DCP and CBR
5. Correlate PFWD to DCP

Development of Prediction
Correlation Model

Figure 3.1: Experimental Framework

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

3.2 Subgrade Survey Location

Subgrades beneath flexible pavements will be investigated on the outskirts of the Central
Business District (CBD) of Kampala. This selection is considered appropriate because a number
of these roads have out-stayed their service life as depicted by the frequent pothole patching
repair remedies and placement of overlay to keep them in use. For the feasibility of conducting
the study, it is suggested that at least three such pavements be considered, and their shoulder
locations be selected to avoid traffic interference and associated risks.

3.3 Testing & Sampling Strategies

Significant debate exists around the frequency of testing and sampling along roads. Various
recommendations have been made and these vary from one test every 500 meters to between one
every 10 km and more than one every kilometer, depending on the required confidence (Paige-
Green, 2009). MoWT design manual (2010) for flexible pavement suggests that the testing
frequency of 100 meters and 1.0 km, minimum be adopted for DCP and test pits sampling
respectively. To ensure confidence in any conclusions, it is suggested that a minimum of five
tests (spaced at 200 m intervals) in every kilometer be carried out. This is recommended,
depending on the prevailing road conditions, the degree of variability expected, the level of
confidence required and the available funds or budget.

3.4 Data Collection Methods

3.4.1 Existing Research

Different types of correlations used to estimate the stiffness properties of subgrades are being
studied. Several literature sources have been collected that provided comprehensive details of
these models and correlations, and will be closely examined throughout the course of the study to
compare them with the outcome of the study.

3.4.2 Test Pit Excavation

Test pits shall be manually excavated by hands on the shoulder locations of the selected
pavements up to expose the underlying subgrades in accordance with the SAICE Code of
Practice (2010) for the safety of persons working in small diameter shafts and test pits for civil
engineering purposes. At most, 1 m depth will be dug. This depth is thought to be sufficient
enough to expose the underlying subgrade and yet still safe. In each of the test pit location, the
following will be carried out:
1. Soil profiling of the pavement layers including subgrades in accordant with the
descriptions of soil in profile guide to practical geotechnical engineering (Franki, 2008)
2. Recovering both disturbed bulk samples and undisturbed samples from subgrades for
laboratory testing
3. Conducting in-situ densities by sand replacement method and PFWD on subgrades
4. Performing DCP tests

3.4.3 In-situ Density – Sand Replacement Method

Sand cone test will be used to determine in-situ densities of exposed subgrades in accordance
with BS 1377: Part 9: 1990. The test will be able to provide useful information on the

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

compaction levels of the subgrade and their natural moisture in relation to their in-situ strength
and stiffness.

3.4.4 DCP & PFWD Surveys

To be able to adequately assess the subgrade strength and stiffness properties, the DCP and the
PFWD tests will be conducted in accordance with ASTM D6951-03 and TERRATEST Manual,
2000 respectively. A DCP with a 60° cone tip of 20mm diameter, 8 kg hammer, and 575 mm
free fall (Kleyn, 1982) will be deployed and the test shall consist of driving the steel cone into
the subgrade using free-falling hammer and then measuring the penetration per blow, also called
the penetration rate (PR), in mm/blow. This measurement will denote the stiffness of the tested
material, with a smaller PR number indicating a stiffer material (Wu & Sargand, 2007).
The type of PFWD to be deployed in this study is “TERRATEST 3000’’ light falling weight
deflectometer to measure the elastic modulus of subgrade. The method of testing involves setting
a load and letting it drop to the ground on a 30 cm diameter plate with a maximum force of 7070
kN. This force is gauged during the calibration so as to have a normal tension of 0.1MPa under
the plate while performing the tests (TERRATEST Manual, 2000). The deformability parameter
of the soil caused by this vertical falling weight will be the measured elastic modulus of
subgrade.

3.4.5 Laboratory Sample Testing

Disturbed subgrade samples will be tested in accordance with the relevant sections of BS 1377
and AASHTO test standards as presented in Table 3.1. Classification soil tests (particle size
distribution and Atterberg limits) will be conducted in order to predict engineering properties and
behavior of soils. Many systems are in use, which are based on grain size distribution and limits
of soil, the systems that are quite popular amongst road engineers are the AASHTO Soil
Classification System designated in ASTM D-3282 and AASHTO Method M 145, and the
Unified Soil Classification System in ASTM Test Designation D-2487, which shall accordingly
be used in this research in categorizing subgrade soils (Murthy, 2002).

Compaction tests and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests will be performed according to the
Modified AASHTO T-180 and T-193 respectively. Compaction tests will be used to determine
the maximum dry density (MDD) and the optimum moisture content (OMC) of the subgrade
soils. Two sets of CBR tests using both soaked and unsoaked methods will be conducted on the
same sample. The un-soaked set of CBR test will be conducted for purposes of stimulating to the
initial in-situ moisture conditions, given that all subgrades are expected to be subjected to
significant moisture variation caused by the seasons and/or the ground water table level
fluctuations, if pavements are established on cut embankments, the effect of moisture variation is
deemed minimal or not present all.
Table 3.1: Test Method Standards
Test Description International Standard/ Manuals

Moisture Content BS 1377: Part 2:1990

Particle Size Distribution/ Grading BS 1377: Part 2:1990
Liquid Limit (Cone Penetrometer) BS 1377: Part 2:1990
Plastic Limit & Plasticity Index BS 1377: Part 2:1990

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Test Description International Standard/ Manuals

Linear Shrinkage BS 1377: Part 2:1990

Compaction AASHTO T180-1997
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) AASHTO T193-1999

Pertinent to this study is the determination of the subgrade resilient modulus by the repeated load
triaxial test. This test shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM designation, D3999-91
(2003) test method. A repeated axial cyclic stress of fixed magnitude, load duration and cycle
duration will be applied to the cylindrical test specimen recovered from the subgrade undisturbed
sampler. During testing, the specimen will be subjected to a dynamic cyclic stress and a static
confining stress provided by means of a triaxial pressure chamber. The total resilient
(recoverable) axial deformation response of the specimen will be measured and used to calculate
the resilient modulus, MR of the subgrade.

3.5 Data Analysis

DCP penetration data will be analyzed using the UK DCP Version 3.1 user defined software in
collaboration with the empirical models to compute the in-situ CBR from the penetration index
in mm/blow. And the deflection data obtained by the “TERRATEST 3000” PFWD will be
analyzed using the TERRATEST software after the data is removed from the chip card reader
device. TERRATEST software performs automatic statistical analysis, outputting the mean value
of displacement for the three weight drops per test and computing the averaged dynamic elastic
modulus.

Raw data obtained from the index property tests, compaction, CBR and triaxial tests will be
primary analyzed using the Microsoft Excel program.

Combining both the MS Excel Tool and the Matlab program, regressions will be developed to
relate the DCP and PFWD stiffness parameter results to the laboratory CBR and M R including
developing further relationships to the laboratory index properties and existing models. The
coefficient of determinant and the ANOVA methods will be deployed to evaluate the statistical
significance of the developed relations.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

REFERENCES
1. Nageshwar Ch. R., George V., and Shivashankar R., (2008), PFWD, CBR and DCP
Evaluation of Lateritic Subgrades of Dakshina Kannada, The 12th International
Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, India, pp. 4417-4423.
2. Gupta A., Kumar P., and Rastogi R., (2010), Field and Laboaratory Investigations on
Subgrade Layer of Low Volume Roads, Indian Geotechnical Conference, IGS Mumbai
Chapter & IIT Bombay, pp 1019-1022.
3. Patel M. A., and Patel H. S., (2012), Experimental Study on Various Soils to Correlate
DCP with PBT, UCS and CBR Results, International Journal of Earth Sciences and
Engineering, ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 05, No.05 (01), pp. 1298-1304.
4. George V., Nageshwar Ch. R., Shivashankar R., (2009), Investigations on Unsoaked
Blended Laterites Using PFWD, PBT, DCP and CBR Tests, Journal of Indian Roads
Congress, Technical Paper No. 556, pp. 223-233.
5. Tarefder R. A., Saha N., Hall J. W., and Percy T., (2008), Evaluating Weak Subgrade for
Pavement Design and Performance Prediction: A Case Study of US 550, Journal of
GeoEngineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 13-24
6. Puppala A. J., (2008), Estimating Stiffness of Subgrade and Unbound Materials for
Pavment Design, NCHRP Synthesis 382, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, pp 3-129.
7. Huang Y. H., (1993), Pavement Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1993.
8. Barksdale, R.D., (1972), Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base Course Materials,
Proc., 3rd International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, pp. 161–174.
9. Brown, S.F., (1974) Repeated Load Testing of a Granular Material, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 100, No. 7, pp. 825–841.
10. Brown, S.F., (1996), Soil Mechanics in Pavement Engineering, 36th Rankine Lecture of
the British Geotechnical Society, Geotechnique, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 383–426.
11. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1986), Interim
Design Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Washington, D.C.
12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1993), Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures, Washington D.C.
13. Brickman A., (1989), An Overview of Resilient Modulus Test Systems, Workshop on
Resilient Modulus, Corvallis, Ore.
14. Mohammad L.N., Puppala A.J., and Alavilli P., (1994), Investigation of the Use of
Resilient Modulus for Louisiana Soils in Design of Pavements, Final Report No. 283,
Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development.
15. Maher A., Bennett T., Gucunski N., and Papp W.J., (2000), Resilient Modulus Properties
of New Jersey Subgrade Soils, Report No. FHWA 2000-01, Federal Highway
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC in collaboration with
New Jersey Department of Transportation CN 600 Trenton, NJ 08625.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

16. Hani H. T., Mohammed B. E., and Sam H., (2006), Determination of Typical Resilient
Modulus Values for Selected Soils in Wisconsin, Technical Report, University of
Wisconsin & Wisconsin Department of Transportation
17. Kim D., Yigong J., and Siddiki N. Z., (2010), Evaluation of In-Situ Stiffness of Subgrade
by Resilient and FWD Modulus, Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/17, Journal for
Indiana Department of Transportation, pp. 1-43.
18. George K. P. and Uddin W., (2000), Subgrade Characterization for Highway Pavement
Design, Report No. FHWA/MS-SOT-RD-00-131, Univsersity of Mississipi in
Corpoeration with Mississipi Department of Transaportation and U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration
19. Burnham T., and Johnson D., (1993), In-situ Foundation Characterization using the
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Physical Research Section Office of Materials Research
and Engineering Minnesota Department of Transportation, Study No. PR3001, pp 1-13.
20. Hani H. T., Mohammed B. E. and Sam H., (2006), Determination of Typical Resilent
Modulus Values for Selected Soils in Wisconsin, Winsconsin Highway Research
Program, SPR| 0092-03-11.
21. Mohammad H. S., Somayeh N., Rokibul H. K., and Alireza B., (2013), Evaluation of
New Technologies for Quality Control/ Quality Assurance (QC/QA) of Subgrade and
Unbound Pavement Layer Moduli, Centre of Transportation Engineering & Planning (C-
TEP), University of Alberta, pp. 1-39.
22. Erdem C. (2007) Relationship between Resilient Modulus and Soil Index Properties of
Unbound Materials, Master’s Thesis, Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical
University.
23. Chen D. H., Lin D. F., Pen-Hwang Liau P. H., Bilyeu J., (2005), A Correlation between
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Values and Pavement Layer Moduli, Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 28(1), pp 42-49.
24. Mokwa R., and Akin M., (2009), Measurement and Evaluation of Subgrade Soil
Parameters: Phase I – Synthesis of Literature, Report No. FHWA/MT-09-006/8199,
Montana State University/ Western Transportation Institute sponsored by Montana
Department of Transportation, U.S.A.
25. AASHTO Designation: T 292-91 (1991), Standard Method of Test for Resilient Modulus
of Subgrade Soils and Untreated Base/Subbase Materials, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
26. AASHTO Designation: T 294-94 (1992), Standard Method of Test for Resilient Modulus
of Unbound Granular Base/ Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils – SHRP Protocol
P46, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington
DC.
27. AASHTO Designation: T 307 (1999), Standard Method of Test for Resilient Modulus of
Unbound Granular Base/ Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils – SHRP Protocol P46,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
28. AASHT0 (2012), AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
29. NCHRP (2004), Design Guide 2002: Design of New and Rehabilitation Pavement
Structures, Draft Final Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
NCHRP Study 1-37A, Washington DC.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

30. Papagiannakis A. T. (2013), Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design: A Brief Overview,

Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 44 No. 1, ISSN 0046-
5828, pp 75-81.
31. VonQuintus H. L. and Moulthrop J. S., (2007) Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
Guide Flexible Pavement Perfomance Prediction Models for Montana: Vol. 1 executive
Research Summary, Report No. FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-1, Montana Department of
Transportation in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration.
32. Chukka D., and Chakravarthi V. K., (2012), Evaluation of Properties of Soil Subrade
Using Dynamic Cone Penetration Index – A Case Study, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Development, Vol 4, Issue 4, pp 07-15.
33. Siekmeier J., Pinta C., Merth S., Jensen J., Davich P., Camargo F., and Beyer M., (2009),
Using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer and Light Weight Deflectometer for Construction
Quality Assurance, Report No. MN/RC 2009-12, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, LRRB.
34. Nazzal M., (2003), Field evaluation of In-situ Test Technology for QC/QA Procedures
During Construction of Pavement Layers and Embankments, Master Thesis, Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University U.S.A.
35. Gros, C.1993. Use of a Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer: Loadman, Publications
of Road and Transport Laboratory 20, (University of Oulu: Finland).
36. Steinert B. C., Humphrey D. N., and Kestler M. A., (2005), Portable Falling Weight
Deflectometer Study, Technical Report No. NETCR52, New England Transportation
Consortium
37. Holtz R. D. and Kovacs, W. D., (1981), An Introduction To Geotechnical Engineering,
N.M. Newmark and W.J. Hall, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
38. TERRATEST GmbH (2009), TERRATEST 3000 User Instruction Manual, DianastraBe
4.16565 Lehnitz near Berlin Germany.
39. Tuncer B. E., and Craig H. B., (2005), Investigation of the DCP and SSG as Alternative
Methods to Determine Subgrade Stability, Techincal Report No. 0092-01-05, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
40. Scala, A. J. (1956). Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone
Penetrometers. New Zealand Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 34-44.
41. Chen, D-H., Wang, J-N., and Bilyeu J., (2001), Application of the Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer in Evaluation of Base and Subgrade Layers, Transportation Research
Record 1764, TRB, National Research Council, Washington DC, pp. 1-10.
42. Livneh M., (1989), Validation of Correlations between a Number of Penetration Tests
and In Situ California Bearing Ratio Tests, Transportation Research Record 1219, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington DC, pp. 56-67.
43. Kim H., Prezzi M., and Salgado R., (2010), Use of Dynamic Cone Penetration and Clegg
Hammer Tests for Quality Control of Roadway Compaction and Construction, JTRP
Technical Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/27, Indiana Department of Transportation.
44. ASTM D6951-03 (2003), Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications, American Standard Test Method, U.S.
45. Kleyn E., Maree J., and Savage P., (1982), The Application of a Portable Pavement
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Determine In Situ Bearing Properties of Road Pavement

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

Layers and Subgrades in South Africa. Proceedings of the Second European Symposium
of Penetration Testing, Amsterdam.
46. Farshad A. (2003), Potential Applications of the Static and Dynamic Cone Penetrometers
in MDOT Pavement Design and Construction, Technical Report No., FHWA/MS-DOT-
RD-03-162, Jackson State University, Department of Civil Engineering in collaboration
with Mississippi Department of Transportation Research Division.
47. AASHTO T193-93 (1993), Standard Method of Test for the California Bearing Ratio,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
48. ASTM D1883-99 (1999), Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
Laboratory-Compacted Soils, The American Society for Testing and Materials
International, U.S.
49. ASTM D4429-04 (2004), Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
Soils in Place, The American Society for Testing and Materials International, U.S.
50. BS 1377: Part 4 (1990), Compacted- Related Tests, Bristish Standard Methods of Test for
Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.
51. TMH1 Method A8 (1986), The Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of
Untreated Soils and Gravels, Technical Methods for Highways – Road Construction
Materials, South Africa.
52. Brown, S. F. (1996). “Soil Mechanics in Pavement Engineering.” Géotechnique, Vol. 46,
No. 3, 1996, pp. 383-426
53. Ruttabaporamakul P., (2012), Resilient Moduli Properties of Compacted Unsaturated
Subgrade Materials, Master Thesis, The University of Texaz at Arlington pp 9.
54. BS 1377: Part 9 (1990), In-situ Tests, British Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes.
55. BS 5930 (1999), Code of Practice for Site Investigations, Bristish Standard, BSI©10-
1999
56. Transport Research Laboratory (1993), A guide to the Structural Design of Bitumen-
Surfaced Roads in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Countries, Crowthorne: TRL. (Overseas
Road Note 31).
57. Webster S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams T. P., (1992), Description and application of
Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, Final Report, Department of Army, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksberg, MS.
58. Sampson L. R. (1984), Investigation of the correlation between CBR and DCP, Pretoria:
National Institute for Transport and Road Research, CSIR (Technical Note TS/33/84).
59. Harison J. A. (1986), Correlation of CBR and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength
Measurement of Soils, Australian Road Research, 16 (2), pp 130-136.
60. Hassan A., (1996) The Effect of Material Parameters on Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Results for Fine-grained Soils and Granular Materials, Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater.
61. Chen D. H., Wu, W., He Rong., Bilyeu J., and Arrelano M., (1999), Evaluation of In-
Situ Resilient Modulus Testing Techniques, in Proc. Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting.
62. Abu-Farsakh M., K. Alshibli, M. Nazzal, and E. Seyman, (2004), Assessment of In Situ
Test Technology for Construction Control of Base Course and Embankments, Final
Report No. FHWA/LA.04/385, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

63. De Beer M., and C.J. Van Der Merwe, (1991), Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) in the Design of Road Structures, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St.
Paul.
64. Chai, G. and Roslie N., (1998), The Structural Response and Behavior Prediction of
Subgrade Soils Using Falling Weight Deflectometer in Pavement Construction, Proc., 3rd
International Conference on Road and Airfield Pavement Technology, Beijing, China.
65. Powell W. D., Potter J. F., Mayhew H. C., and Nunn M. E., (1984), The Structural Dsign
of Bituminous Roads, TRRL report LR 113, 62, (TRRL: London).
66. Heukelom W., and Klomp A. J. G., (1962), Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling
Pavements Durinf and After Construction, International Conference on the Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Mich.
67. White D., Thompson M.R., and Vennapusa P., (2007), Field Validation of Intelligent
Compaction Monitoring Technology for Unbound Materials, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University,
Ames.
68. Ministry of Works & Transport (2010), Road Design Manual Volume 3: Pavement
Design: Part I: Flexible Pavements, The Republic of Uganda.
69. Paige-Green P., and Plessis L. D., (2009), The Use and Interpretation of the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test, Version II, CSIR Built Environment, Pretoria.
70. South African Institution of Civil Engineering - SAICE (2010), Site Investigation Code of
Practice, Geotechnical Division, First Edition.
71. Franki A., (2008), A Guide To Practical Geotechnical Engineering in Southern Africa -
Fourth Edition.
72. Shin Wu and Shad Sargand (2007), Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Subgrade and
Base Acceptance, Ohio Department of Transport, Research & Deveplopment in
cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
73. ASTM D3282-93 (2004), Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-
Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes, American Society for Testing
and Materials.
74. AASHTO Designation: M 145-91 (2004), Standard Specification for Classification of
Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes, Washington DC.
75. ASTM D2487-98 (1998), Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), American Society for Testing and
Materials.
76. Murthy V.N.S., (2002), Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil
Mechanistics and Foundation Engineering, Marcel Dekker Inc, 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New Yolk 10016.
77. AASHTO Designation: T 180-93 (1997), Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils Using a 4.54 kg Rammer and a 457 mm Drop, Washington DC.
78. AASHTO Designation: T 193-93 (1999), Standard Method of Test for The California
Bearing Ratio, Washington DC.
79. BS 1377: Part 2 (1990), Classification Tests, British Standard Methods of Test for Soils
for Civil Engineering Purposes.
80. ASTM Designation: D3999-91 (2003), Standard Test Methods for the Determination of
the Modulus and Damping Properties of Soils Using the Cyclic Triaxial Apparatus,
American Society for Testing and Materials.

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Research Proposal By: Ivan Masuba

APPENDINCES
Appendix 1 - Project Budget
The proposed research budget for the duration of the study is given in the Table A.1. The most
expensive item is the CBR that will cost Ug. shillings 3,825,000. PFWD and DCP hiring
including testing will cost Ug. shillings 4,500,000, compaction tests Ug. shillings 1,950,000,
triaxial test will cost Ug. shillings 1,350,000 and the rest of the tests will cost Ug. shillings
1,155,000.
Table A.1: Proposed Research Budget
Activity description Unit Quantity Unit Total Remarks
Rate Price
(Ush) (Ush)
1. Mobilisation + Micellanous Expenses L/S L/S L/S 1,000,000
A - Field Investigations

2. Field work
2.1 Alignment
Excavating and logging test pits up to 1.0m & taking
disturbed samples from tests pits No 30 30,000 900,000

2.2 DCP Testing No 60 25,000 1,500,000

2.3 PFWD Testing No 60 50,000 3,000,000

2.4 Insitu Density Testing No 30 15,000 450,000

Sub-total 6,850,000
3. Lab Work
3.1 Moisture Content Determination No 30 6,500 195,000
B - Laboratory Work

3.2 Particle Size Distribution No 30 8,500 255,000

3.2 Atterberg Limit Tests No 30 8,500 255,000

3.2 Compaction Tests No 30 65,000 1,950,000

3.3 CBR Tests No 45 85,000 3,825,000

3.2 Repeated Load Triaxial Tests No 30 45,000 1,350,000

Sub-total 7,830,000
3. Report
Report

3.1 Printing & Compilation of Reports L/S L/S L/S 500,000

C-

Sub-total 500,000

Summary
A - Field Investigations 6,850,000
B - Laboratory Work 7,830,000
C - Report 500,000
G - Contengencies -
H - Grand Total 15,180,000

Research Proposal Title: PFWD and DCP as Potential Tests to Determine In-Situ Stiffness of Pavement Subgrades
 Appendix 2 - Research Schedule
Details of activities to be conducted are presented in Table A.2 of the proposed research timeline. The literature review began as early
as March 2013 and will continue throughout the course of the research study. The other items are scheduled as planned.
Table A.2: Proposed Research Timeline

Item Detail Description

Allocated Period (Month/ Year)
No.
Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
1.0 Concept Paper Development
2.0 Submission of Concept Paper
3.0 Research Proposal
4.0 Literature Review
5.0 Presentation of Proposal
6.0 Experimental Work
6.1 Field Work
6.1.1 Test Pit Excavation
6.1.2 PFWD Tests
6.1.3 DCP Tests
6.1.4 In-situ Density Tests
6.1.5 Sampling
6.2 Laboratory Work
6.2.1 In-situ Moisture, PSD, and Atterberg Limits
6.2.2 Compaction Tests
6.2.3 CBR Tests and RL Triaxial Tests
7.0 Results Presentation, Analysis & Intepretation
8.0 Conclusion & Recommendations
9.0 Presentation of Thesis
10.0 Report Submission