ASTM Paper

Advances in Civil
Engineering Materials
Khusboo Arora,1 Ambika Behl,2 and Pramod Kumar Jain1
DOI: 10.1520/ACEM20170029
Design Approach for

Construction of Rural Roads Using
Nanomaterial-Stabilized Soil
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
CRRI (CRRI) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials
doi:10.1520/ACEM20170029 available online at www.astm.org
Khusboo Arora,1 Ambika Behl,2 and Pramod Kumar Jain1
Design Approach for Construction of Rural

Roads Using Nanomaterial-Stabilized Soil
Reference
Arora, K., Behl, A., and Jain, P. K., “Design Approach for Construction of Rural Roads Using
Nanomaterial-Stabilized Soil,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials
https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20170029. ISSN 2379-1357
ABSTRACT
Manuscript received March 15, Rural roads are an important part of the world’s transportation infrastructure as
2017; accepted for publication
they provide connectivity to the major roads and highways. Long-term performance
November 30, 2017; published
online May 23, 2018. of pavement structures is significantly impacted by enhancement in the stability
1
of the underlying soils. Conventionally, most of the rural roads are composed of
Department of Flexible Pavement,
CSIR-Central Road Research compacted sub-grade layer. On the other hand, for higher volume road design,
Institute, CSIR-CRRI, Delhi- soil subgrades are expected to maintain load bearing strength under wet conditions,
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110025,
Republic of India
resist the weathering effect over its design life, and reduce permeability. The main
objective of this research is to improve the strength of the sub-grade, which helps
2
Department of Flexible Pavement,
CSIR-Central Road Research
to construct stabilized gravel road for low volume traffic and reduce the crust
Institute, CSIR-CRRI, Delhi- thickness of the pavement layers of higher traffic volume using soil stabilized
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110025,
with nanomaterials and cement. In this article, performance improvement and
Republic of India (Corresponding
author), e-mail: behl.ambika@ improved design of a rural road using nanomaterials along with cement
gmail.com, https://orcid.org/ combination is presented. Results showed that clayey sand (SC) treated with
0000-0002-8956-8254
nanomaterials have beneficial effects on their engineering properties, increased
strength and stiffness, and enhanced durability. By using a combination of
nanomaterials and cement, the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the soil increased
to 18 times the original CBR and also improved the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) and durability of the soil. On the basis of these results, an improved
design approach for low traffic and high traffic volume roads was done, and it is
suggested that reduction in the crust thickness of the pavement layers is possible by
using stabilized soil, and only stabilized gravel roads can be constructed for low
traffic volume or rural roads.
Copyright by ASTM
This work Int'l (allto
is not subject rights reserved);
copyright law.Wed JulInternational,
ASTM 4 00:53:38 EDT
100 2018
Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
ARORA ET AL. ON RURAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION USING NANOMATERIALS
Keywords
soil stabilization, rural roads, organosilane nanomaterials, pavement design
Introduction
India is a developing country where 68 % of the total population lives in rural areas. The
rural roads in India form a substantial portion of the Indian road network. India has a rural
road network of about 2.70 million km, which constitutes over 80 % of the total road
network [1]. The development of rural roads has been a prime concern in the economic
planning and development process of country.
Road connectivity is the key component of development of a rural region, because it
promotes access to economic and social services like education, health, and market facili-
ties, thereby stimulating the economic growth of the country. But many of the rural
habitations remained unconnected either to the nearest highways or to the market centers.
The economic benefits of rural road improvement include an increase in agriculture
productions, better prices for agriculture products, reduction in transportation cost,
and creation of new employment opportunities. For the purpose of planning and financ-
ing, the village roads and other district roads together are identified as rural roads. These
are basically low volume roads serving different habitations. The total length of such roads
in India exceeds 3 million km, out of which more than 50 % roads carry traffic less than 50
commercial vehicles per day [1].
Akiije [2] used new brand of portland cement, Powermax (Lafarge Africa Plc,
Ewekoro, Nigeria) as a stabilizer in the study. He found that the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) value of different laterite soil samples increases with an increase in the
dosage of stabilizer from 6 % to 8 % to 10 %. On the other hand, the coefficient of per-
meability, k value decreases with the increase in dosage from 6 % to 8 % to 10 %. He
concluded that Powermax cement can be used as lateritic soil stabilizer when found to
be economical and environmental friendly. Raftari et al. [3] studied the properties of kaolin
slurry using cement as a stabilizer. It was found that Ahmed [4] stated that stabilization of
clay soil with various percentages of fly ash increases the bearing capacity of the soil and
also improves the index properties. Akiije [5] stated that the addition of lateralite stabilizer
to the laterite soils increases the CBR with increasing percentage of stabilizer. He found
that the stabilization of soil with 14 % of lateralite stabilizer increases CBR to 92.6 % com-
pared to unstabilized laterite soil. Prasad and Satyanarayana Reddy [6] carried out a labo-
ratory study to find the strength characteristics of gravelly soil stabilized with cement from
tests on a cube with cement content varying from 0–14 % with 7, 14, and 28 days curing.
The results of study indicated the potential of cement stabilized gravelly soil in preparation
of low-grade concrete for foundation beds of buildings, construction of gravity retaining
structures, and construction of pavements. Satyanarayana et al. [7] performed the study
using crusher dust to stabilize the gravel soils. From their study they found that the ad-
dition of 25 % of crusher dust makes the soil mix low plastic and 35 % of the crusher mix
makes non-plastic, thereby increasing the CBR. Lekha, Ravi Shankar, and Sarang [8] car-
ried out studies on fatigue and engineering properties of chemically stabilized soil for pave-
ments; they found that when zycosoil is added to water and blended with soil, it changes its
designing properties. These chemicals are fluid added substances, which follow up on the
dirt to decrease the voids between soil particles and minimize adsorbed water in the dirt for
most extreme compaction.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Advances in CivilEDT 2018
Bringing such gravel roads to acceptable standards and maintaining the same in
traffic-worthy conditions requires massive capital investment and also a huge recurring
budget for maintaining these assets. Connectivity has a catalytic effect on the economic
and social development and poverty alleviations in rural areas, therefore, there is a need to
develop technologies for more durable low volume village roads at an affordable cost to
reduce the burden of recurring maintenance costs and the initial capital cost.
The main objective of the study is to improve the engineering properties of the soil by
adopting chemical stabilization (using nanomaterials) for better strength and durability,
which could be utilized as a part of asphalt configuration for economy. Pavement design
for high volume traffic is analyzed by IITPAVE software (Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India) as per Indian Roads Congress guidelines [9] and for low volume traffic,
Indian Roads Congress guidelines [10] are used.
Experimental Investigation
MATERIALS
Soil samples were collected from the CSIR-Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) Campus,
Delhi. The percentage of the gravel, sand, silt, and clay were 0 %, 53 %, 16 %, and 31 %,
respectively, as per Indian standard [11]. Soil classification done by sieve analysis, more than
50 % retained and more than 12 % passing on 0.075 mm sieve, which shows it is clayey sand
type of soil. The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of untreated soil were found to
be 23.4%, 16. 6% and 6.8 %, respectively.
Ordinary portland cement of Grade 43 (minimum compression strength of 43 MPa in
28 days) was used for stabilization, along with two types of nanomaterials, i.e., Compound A
and Compound B. Compound A is a water soluble, UV and heat stable reactive soil modifier.
It converts water-loving silanol groups to water-repellent alkylsiloxane groups in soil and
forms strong Si-O-Si bonded nanosiliconized surfaces. It improves the frictional value,
reduces the water permeability, and maintains breathability of soil [12], so we used
Compound A only in the free swelling index test and modified Proctor test. The dosage
is varied from 0.5 kg/m³ to 1.0 kg/m³. Optimum dosage of 0.75 kg/m³ was finalized from
free swelling index results. Compound B is a UV and heat stable cross-linkable soil modifier.
It is an acrylic co-polymer emulsion and imparts resistance to soil erosion and dust control.
It complements conventional stabilization methods by imparting resistance to moisture
damage and gives flexible bonding to the soil. It is blended with Compound A in equal
proportions and showered on compacted soils. The combination of Compound A and
Compound B imparts improved water resistance, dust control, and erosion resistance
[13]. Flow chart for testing is given in Fig. 1.
TEST METHODS
Various tests were performed according to Indian Standards (IS) such as the free swell
index as per IS: 2720 (Part XL), Determination of Free Swell Index of Soils [14]; the modi-
fied Proctor test, as per IS: 2720 (Part VIII), Determination of Water Content–Dry Density
Relation Using Heavy Compaction [15]; the CBR as per IS: 2720 (Part XVI), Laboratory
Determination of CBR [16]; and the UCS as per IS: 2720 (X), Determination of Unconfined
Compressive Strength [17]. The UCS test was performed on the specimen of dimensions
50 mm × 100 mm. The samples were prepared with the combination of soil, cement,
Compound A, and Compound B. UCS samples, which are prepared with cement and

FIG. 1
Flow chart for the study. Soil Sample
Unstabilized Soil Stabilized Soil

Cement and Nanomaterials
Atterberg’s Limit
Free Swelling Index
Engineering Properties
Modified Proctor
California Bearing Ratio
Unconfined Compressive
Strength
Durability Test
Pavement Performance Resilient Modulus
Test
Beam Fatigue
Results and Discussion
Pavement Design Using IITPAVE
Cost Evaluation
Conclusions
Compounds A and B, were kept under the halogen light at 40°C for four days. After the
completion of four days, the top and bottom layers of the samples are sprayed with
the diluted solution of Compound A and B at the rate of 2 L/m2 and again put under
the halogen light for two days.
A durability test (wet and dry) was done as per Indian specification [18]. Preparation of
the sample was similar to the UCS samples prepared at their maximum dry density and
optimum water content (OMC). Each set of stabilized samples was subjected to alternate
wetting and drying cycles; Compound B is an acrylic copolymer emulsion which bonds
the soil particles and imparts strength. To investigate the effect of Compound A and
Compound B on the performance properties of treated soil, the resilient modulus and beam
fatigue tests were performed. A resilient modulus test was performed as per ASTM pro-
cedure [19], Standard Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of Bituminous
Mixtures by Indirect Tension Test. The specimens were subjected to repeated loading pulse
width of 100 ms and a pulse repetition period of 1,000 ms at a Poisson ratio of 0.35:0.25.
Marshall samples were prepared and compacted at OMC with 70 blows on each side to get
the desired density. The flexural fatigue beam test was conducted in accordance with
AASHTO specification [20], Standard Method of Test for Determining the Fatigue Life
of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending. In the present study,
the constant strain mode testing was done. In this method, a repeated sinusoidal loading at
frequency of 10 Hz was applied. The test was conducted in strain control mode with a load-
ing pulse width of 10 ms, and termination stiffness was chosen as 50 % to initial stiffness. The
constant strain of 100 με was maintained throughout the test, and the flexural stiffness was

recorded for each cycle of load with the help of a fatigue apparatus and control data acquis-
ition system. Beam specimens (410-mm long, 65-mm wide, and 50-mm thick) were pre-
pared and compacted at OMC under similar conditions as for UCS or CBR.
Results and Discussions

FREE SWELLING INDEX
A free swelling index (FSI) test was performed on untreated soil and soil treated with
Compound A with 0.5 kg/m³ to 1 kg/m³ with 0.25 kg/m³ increments. The results are given
in Table 1.
It has been observed that there was a 55 % decrease in the index value after the soil
stabilized with dosage of 0.5 kg/m³ and an 85 % and 95 % decrease, respectively, with the
dose of 0.75 kg/m³ and 1.0 kg/m³. Index properties are well improved with increase in
dosage of stabilizer.
MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST

A modified Proctor test was carried out with the dosage of 0.5 kg/m³, 0.75 kg/m³, and
1.0 kg/m³ nanomaterial stabilizer Compound A. The compaction curve of the soil is shown
in Fig. 2. The maximum dry density was found to be 2.0 gm/cm3 and optimum moisture
content was 9.8 % at a dosage of 0.75 kg/m. The results are given in Table 2. Therefore,
from the Proctor test, it was obtained that optimized dosage of Compound A is 0.75 kg/m³.
CBR and UCS tests were carried out using 0.75 kg/m³ optimized dosage.
CBR TEST
The CBR test is carried out on different combinations of soil such as soil stabilized with
cement only, with Compound A only, and with cement and Compounds A and B. The
CBR samples prepared with cement and Compound A and B are kept under the halogen
TABLE 1
Free swelling index of untreated and treated soil.
Soil + 0.5 kg/m³ Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ Soil + 1.0 kg/m³

Property Natural Soil Compound A Compound A Compound A
FSI % 20 9 3 1
FIG. 2
MDD versus OMC for untreated 2.05
and treated soil. Soil + 0.5
Dry Density, gm/cm3
2 kg/m³ Comp. A
Soil + 0.75
1.95 kg/m³ Comp. A
1.9 Soil + 1.0
kg/m³ Comp. A
1.85 Natural Soil
1.8
6.8 7.8 8.8 9.8 10.8 11.8 12.8 13.8
Water content, %

TABLE 2
Test results of Proctor test for treated soil.
Soil + 0.5 kg/m³ Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ Soil + 1.0 kg/m³

Soil Natural Soil Compound A Compound A Compound A
3
Density (gm/cm ) 1.92 1.96 2.00 1.98
OMC (%) 12.0 10.6 9.80 ∼10.8
light at 40°C inside the building (or under the sunlight) for four days. After the completion
of four days, the top and bottom layers of the samples are sprayed with the diluted solution
of Compound A and B with the rate of 2 L/m2 and again put under the halogen light for
two days. After that, the CBR samples were immersed into the water for four days soaking
for testing. The results are shown in Fig. 3.
From the graph it has been observed that, CBR value increases significantly from 7 to
125 after the stabilization of soil by using nanomaterials dosage of 0.75 kg/m3 along with
3 % cement.
UCS
The UCS samples were prepared with the combination of soil, cement, Compound A, and
Compound B. UCS samples that were prepared with cement and Compounds A and B are
subjected to similar conditions as discussed previously. The results are given in Table 3.
From Table 3, it shows that the stabilization of soil with Compound A and
Compound B has a significant increase in UCS value compared to the stabilization of soil
FIG. 3
Variation in CBR results. 140
125 Natural Soil
120
100 Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ Comp. A
CBR
80 67
Soil + 3 % Cement
60
37
40
Soil + 3 % Cement + 0.75
20 7 kg/m³ Comp. A + 0.75
kg/m³ Comp. B
0
4 Days Soak CBR
TABLE 3
UCS test results.
Soil + 3 % Cement +
Natural Soil Soil + 3 % Cement Soil + 3 % Cement + 0.75 kg/m³(A) + 0.75 kg/m³ Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ (A) +
Sample (MPa) (MPa) 0.75 kg/m³ (A) (MPa) (B) (MPa) 0.75 kg/m³ (B) (MPa)
7 Days Desiccator Curing 0.27 0.93 2.01 2.32 2.86

7 Days Desiccator + 7 days Water Curing 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.00

TABLE 4
Wetting and drying test results for stabilized soil.
Sample No. of Cycle Pass Weight Loss
Untreated Soil Fail –

Soil + 3 % cement 4 –
Soil + 3 % Cement + 0.75 kg/m³ (A) + 0.75 kg/m³ (B) 12 <2 %
Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ (A) + 0.75 kg/m³ (B) 2 –
with 3 % cement, Compound A, and Compound B. Stabilization of soil with 3 % cement

and Compound A has nearly same UCS value compared to stabilization of soil with 3 %
cement, Compound A, and Compound B when the samples were cured for seven days in
desiccators and seven days in water. The UCS results show that when the soil is stabilized
with cement along with the nanomaterials, the unconfined compressive strength of the
samples is enhanced.
DURABILITY
The preparation of the samples was similar to the UCS samples prepared at their maxi-
mum dry density and OMC. Each set of stabilized samples were subjected to alternate
wetting and drying cycle, the results of which are given in Table 4.
From the Table 4, it is found that stabilization of soil with 3 % cement, Compound A,
and Compound B passes the criteria in wetting and drying cycle test where the loss of
weight is less than 2 %.
Performance Test
RESILIENT MODULUS
The resilient modulus test was carried out only on soil treated with organosilane-based
nanomaterials along with cement because of the failure of other combinations of treated
soil and plain soil in the durability test. The test was conducted by applying the compressive
load in the form of haversine wave on the samples of soil treated with cement, Compound A,
and Compound B, and the results were found to be 3,087 MPa, which indicates that the
samples are stiff enough for bearing traffic load on rural roads. These findings indicate that
soil treated with nanomaterials along with the cement can lead to better performance of
pavement if it is used as subgrade layer, and the thickness of other layers of the pavement
can also be reduced.
FLEXURAL FATIGUE BEAM TEST

The test was conducted in accordance with AASHTO T321-03, Determining the Fatigue Life
of Compacted Soil Beam Subjected to Repeat Flexural Bending. Beam fatigue properties are
important because one of the principal modes of pavement failure is fatigue related cracking.
Usually failure is defined as 50 % loss in initial beam stiffness, but after 256,000 cycles, stiff-
ness is still 80 % of the initial stiffness, which indicates that development of crack during
fatigue is effectively resisted by the stabilized soil with nanomaterials along with cement. This
is because the nanotechnology-based stabilizers works well with the combination of cement
and makes the soil stiff by forming highly stable, water-repellent alkylsiloxane bonds, which
improves the strength of the soil sub-grade. From Table 5, the results show that stabilized
gravel road alone is sufficient considering the traffic loads in rural areas.

TABLE 5
Result of beam fatigue test.
Initial Stiffness Stiffness Reached No. of

Sample (MPa) (MPa) cycles
Soil + Soil + 3 % Cement + 0.75 kg/m³ (A) + 0.75 kg/m³ (B) 442 360 256,000
Pavement Design
IRC:37-2012, Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements, is based on a “Mechanistic-
Empirical” approach because it relies on both mechanistic and empirical principles. First,
it employs a mechanistic approach by making use of a multi-layer elastic analysis to cal-
culate the permissible stresses and strains in the pavement structure based on the traffic
loading and material characterization. This is done with the use of algorithm-loaded
IITPAVE software supplemented with the guidelines. The climatic effects are explicitly
not considered in the design; rather, they are implicitly incorporated through appropriate
characterization of the materials to be used. In the second stage, the design equations for
both fatigue and rutting are used to determine the adequacy of the trial thickness selected.
Iterations are made until an appropriate thickness is determined for which the computed
strain values are less than the corresponding allowable strain values.
The horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer (εt) and vertical com-
pressive strain at the top of subgrade (εv) have been identified as the critical parameters for
fatigue cracking and rutting, respectively. The guidelines have developed the fatigue and
rutting equations at 90 % reliability levels for traffic more than 30 million standard axles
(msa). The fatigue and rutting equations given in IRC:37-2012 have been reproduced here
and are presented as follows:
3.89 0.854
1 1
N f = 0.711 × 10−4 × × (1)
εt MR
4.5337
1
N r = 1.41 × 10−8 × (2)
εv
where Nf is fatigue life in number of standard axles, Nr is rutting life in number of standard
axles, εt is maximum tensile strain at the bottom of the bituminous layer, εv is maximum
vertical strain at the top of the subgrade layer, and MR is resilient modulus of the bitu-
minous layer.
The resilient modulus of the subgrade layers is calculated using the equation given
below based on effective CBR:
M RSubgrade ðMPaÞ = 10 CBR for CBR < 5 (3)
M RSubgrade ðMPaÞ = 17.6 ðCBRÞ0.64 for CBR > 5 (4)
For design parameters, the resilient modulus of the granular layers (sub-base, granular
sub-base [GSB] and wet mix maccadam [WMM]) is calculated using following equation:
MRGsb = 0.2 × ðHÞ0.45 × MRSubgrade (5)
where H is the thickness of sub-base layer in mm (GSB+WMM).

The parameters adopted for the design of pavement are given in Table 6.
For the input data in Table 7, the computed values of critical strain parameters are
given in Table 8.
The input data for IITPAVE software for unstabilized soil is given in Table 7. The
proposed crust has been checked for horizontal tensile strain and vertical compressive
strain values using the IITPAVE software and Eqs 1 and 2 for 90 % reliability. It was
found that the computed strain values are much lower than the allowable strain values,
and hence, the design is safe.
Similarly, the pavement design was carried out with stabilized soil. The details of the
pavement design with stabilized soil are given below, and input data for IITPAVE using
stabilized subgrade is given in Table 10.
For the input data in Table 10, the values of critical strain parameters are given in
Table 11.
It was observed that in case of stabilized soil, the GSB layer can be replaced with
stabilized subgrade; also, the reduced asphalt layer thickness can be achieved. Table 13
presents the cost comparison for stabilized and unstabilized soil.
TABLE 6
Design parameters considered for the project road.
Design Parameter Suggested / Adopted Value
Effective CBR (%) 7%

Design Life 20 years
Adopted Design Reliability 90 %
Design Traffic (in terms of msa) 150 msa
TABLE 7
Input data for IITPAVE (for unstabilized soil).
Layer Modulus Value (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Thickness (mm)
Bituminous layer (using VG-40) 3,000 0.35 190

Granular Layer 198 0.35 480
Subgrade (unstabilized soil) 61 0.40 –
TABLE 8
Critical strain parameters.
Critical Strain Parameters Calculated Values (microstrain) Allowable Values (microstrain)
Horizontal tensile strain (εt) 148.4 178.0

Vertical Compressive Strain (εz) 235.9 291.0
TABLE 9
Crust composition for pavement using unstabilized subgrade.
Layer Details Thickness (in mm)
Bituminous Concrete (BC) 50

Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) 140
WMM 250
GSB 230

TABLE 10
Input data for IITPAVE (for stabilized soil by using nanomaterials and cement).
Layer Modulus Value (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio Thickness (mm)
Bituminous Layer (Using VG-40) 3,000 0.35 170

Granular Layer 322 0.35 200
Subgrade (Stabilized Soil) 699 0.40 –
TABLE 11
Critical strain parameters.
Critical Strain Parameters Calculated Values (microstrain) Allowable Values (microstrain)
Horizontal Tensile Strain (εt) 101.5 148.4

Vertical Compressive Strain (εz) 203.0 235.9
TABLE 12
Crust composition for pavement using stabilized soil.
Layer Details Thickness (in mm)
BC 50
DBM 120
WMM 200
GSB 0
It can be seen from the Table 13 that the cost for stabilized subgrade has increased due
to usage of nanomaterials along with cement, but the overall cost of the whole pavement is
reduced because GSB is totally replaced with stabilized subgrade and there is a thickness
reduction of WMM and DBM layers. It implies that this technology can be used to save
lot of pavement material, which makes it a cost-effective technique and green technology.
TABLE 13
Cost comparison for stabilized and unstabilized soil.
Cost Evaluation Chart for Unstabilized Soil
S. No Description of Item Length (m) Width (m) Thickness (m) Volume (m3) Price (INR)
1 Soil Sub Grade 1,000 10.4 0.5 5,200 13,00,000

2 GSB 1,000 8.2 0.23 1,886 24,51,800
3 WMM 1,000 7 0.25 1,750 25,37,500
4 DBM 1,000 7 0.14 980 58,80,000
5 BC 1,000 7 0.05 350 22,75,000
Total Price per km 144,44,300
Cost Evaluation Chart for Stabilized Soil
S. No Description of Item Length (m) Width (m) Thickness (m) Volume (m3) Price (INR)
1 Soil Sub Grade 1,000 10.4 0.45 4,680 48,69,540

3 WMM 1,000 7 0.2 1,400 20,30,000
4 DBM 1,000 7 0.12 840 50,40,000
5 BC 1,000 7 0.05 350 22,75,000
Total Price per km 142,14,540

FIG. 4
Pavement design (1 MSA
Traffic) for rural roads as per
IRC:SP-72-2015 (System A for OGPC/SD/Seal Coat OGPC/SD/Seal Coat
unstabilized soil and System B
Stabilized Base, CBR ~100 %, E = 2,000
with stabilized soil).
Gravel Base, WBM Grade-3 75 mm MPa, 150 mm
Gravel Base, CBR = 100 %, 150 mm Stabilized Subbase, CBR ~100 %, E = 2,000
MPa, 150 mm
Gravel Subbase, CBR = 20 %, 200 mm
Subgrade, CBR = 7 %
Subgrade, CBR = 7 %
Fig. 4 presents the design of pavement crust thickness according to IRC:SP-72-2015,

Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural Roads, using un-
stabilized and stabilized soil with nanomaterials and cement for low volume of road. It was
observed that by stabilizing the soil with nanomaterials, a reduction of 50 mm in subbase
layer thickness and 75 mm in WBM (grade 3) layer thickness can be achieved for a low
volume rural road.
Conclusions
• The FSI value of soil treated with 0.75 kg/m³ of nanomaterial Compound A reduces
to 85 %, in comparison to natural soil. This is because absorbed water is significantly
reduced for treated soil, and the surface area reduces, resulting in decreased swelling
capacity.
• CBR values increases 18 times with the combination of cement, Compound A, and
Compound B, which helps in reducing thickness of the pavement layers.
• UCS strength of samples without cement shows good increment, but it fails under
durability tests. The stabilization of soil with 3 % cement, Compound A, and
Compound B has nearly same UCS value while enhancing the durability of the soil.
• In durability tests, the samples with cement and stabilizers passed all the wet and dry
cycles, whereas other soil samples could not withstand the wet and dry cycles.
• Results of the resilient modulus and flexural fatigue beam tests showed that nano-
technology-based stabilizers work well in combination with cement and make the
soil stiff, so in low traffic areas, stabilized gravel road can be a good substitute, and
this combination also improves the physical and mechanical properties of the soil.
• Results of the IITPAVE analysis shows that a 20 mm reduction in DBM and 50 mm
reduction in WMM layer thickness can be achieved. The GSB layer can be replaced by
using stabilized subgrade. It would be imperative to state that such stabilization tech-
nologies optimize the potential improvements to the strength of pavement founda-
tion, thereby increasing the load carrying capacity of a pavement. From the economic
point of view, the benefit associated with the utilization of nanomaterials with cement
is attractive and supports the sustainable development in road construction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to the Director of CSIR-Central Road Research Institute,
New Delhi-110025, for his encouragement during the study. The research-sponsoring
organization and the authors do not endorse any proprietary product or technology
mentioned in this paper. These appear herein only because they are considered essential
to the objective of this paper.
References
[1] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, “Indian Road Network,” http://web.archive.org/
web/20171010063556/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_road_network (accessed
3 Oct. 2017).
[2] Akiije, I., “Strength and Permeability Characteristics of Selected Laterite Stabilized
Using Powermax Cement,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res., Vol. 5, No. 12, 2014, pp. 695–702.
[3] Raftari, M., Rashid, A. S. A., Kassim, K. A., and Moayedi, H., “Evaluation of Kaolin
Slurry Properties Treated with Cement,” Measurement, Vol. 50, 2014, pp. 222–228,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.12.042
[4] Ahmed, A. G. A., “Fly Ash Utilization in Soil Stabilization,” presented at the
International Conference on Civil Biological and Environmental Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey, May 27–28, 2014, International Institute of Chemical, Biological
and Environmental Engineering.
[5] Akiije, I., “Chemical Stabilization of Selected Laterite Soils Using Lateralite for
Highway Pavement,” Int. J. Eng. Tech., Vol. 5, No. 5, 2015, pp. 275–282.
[6] Prasad, A. S. C. V. and Satyanarayana Reddy, C. N. V., “The Potential of Cement
Stabilized Gravelly Soils as Construction Material,” presented at the Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Kochi, India, Dec. 15–17, 2011, Indian Geotechnical
Society, New Delhi, India.
[7] Satyanarayana, P. V. V., Raghu, P., Ashok Kumar, R., and Pradeep, N., “Performance
of Crusher Dust in High Plastic Gravel Soils as Road Construction Material,” IOSR J.
Mech. Civ. Eng., Vol. 10, No. 3, 2013, pp. 1–5, https://doi.org/10.9790/1684-1030105
[8] Lekha, B. M., Ravi Shankar, A. U., and Sarang, G., “Fatigue and Engineering
Properties of Chemically Stabilized Soil for Pavements,” Indian Geotech. J.,
Vol. 43, No. 1, 2013, pp. 96–104, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-012-0031-5
[9] IRC:37-2012, Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements, Indian Roads Congress,
New Delhi, India, http://www.irc.nic.in/
[10] IRC:SP-72-2015, Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume
Rural Roads, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India, http://www.irc.nic.in/
[11] IS: 2720 (Part IV) – 1985, Determination of Grain Size Analysis, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, http://www.bis.gov.in/
[12] Johnson, R. and Rangaswamy, K., “Improvement of Soil Properties as a Road Base
Material Using Nano Chemical Solution,” presented at the 50th Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Dec. 17–19, 2015, Pune, India, Indian Geotechnical Society, New Delhi,
India.
[13] Patel, N. A., Mishra, C. B., Parmar, D. K., and Gautam, S. B., “Subgrade Soil
Stabilization Using Chemical Additives,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 4, 2015.
[14] IS: 2720 (Part XL) – 1985, Determination of Free Swell Index of Soils, Bureau of Indian
[15] IS: 2720 (Part VIII) – 1987, Determination of Water Content–Dry Density Relation
Using Heavy Compaction, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, http://www.
bis.gov.in/
[16] IS: 2720 (Part XVI) – 1997, Laboratory Determination of CBR, Bureau of Indian
[17] IS: 2720 (Part X) – 2006, Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, http://www.bis.gov.in/

[18] IS: 4332 (Part IV) – 1968, Wetting and Drying, and Freezing and Thawing Test for
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India,
http://www.bis.gov.in/
[19] ASTM-D7369, Standard Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of
Bituminous Mixtures by Indirect Tension Test, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org
[20] AASHTO-T321-03, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Fatigue Life of
Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, https://
www.transportation.org/


ASTM Paper

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

ASTM Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Civil

Design Approach for

doi:10.1520/ACEM20170029 available online at www.astm.org

Khusboo Arora,1 Ambika Behl,2 and Pramod Kumar Jain1

Design Approach for Construction of Rural

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Unstabilized Soil Stabilized Soil

Results and Discussion

Pavement Design Using IITPAVE

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Results and Discussions

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST

Soil + 0.5 kg/m³ Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ Soil + 1.0 kg/m³

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Soil + 0.5 kg/m³ Soil + 0.75 kg/m³ Soil + 1.0 kg/m³

7 Days Desiccator Curing 0.27 0.93 2.01 2.32 2.86

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Sample No. of Cycle Pass Weight Loss

Untreated Soil Fail –

with 3 % cement, Compound A, and Compound B. Stabilization of soil with 3 % cement

FLEXURAL FATIGUE BEAM TEST

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Initial Stiffness Stiffness Reached No. of

M RSubgrade ðMPaÞ = 10 CBR for CBR < 5 (3)

M RSubgrade ðMPaÞ = 17.6 ðCBRÞ0.64 for CBR > 5 (4)

MRGsb = 0.2 × ðHÞ0.45 × MRSubgrade (5)

where H is the thickness of sub-base layer in mm (GSB+WMM).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Design Parameter Suggested / Adopted Value

Effective CBR (%) 7%

Layer Modulus Value (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Thickness (mm)

Bituminous layer (using VG-40) 3,000 0.35 190

Critical Strain Parameters Calculated Values (microstrain) Allowable Values (microstrain)

Horizontal tensile strain (εt) 148.4 178.0

Layer Details Thickness (in mm)

Bituminous Concrete (BC) 50

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Layer Modulus Value (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio Thickness (mm)

Bituminous Layer (Using VG-40) 3,000 0.35 170

Critical Strain Parameters Calculated Values (microstrain) Allowable Values (microstrain)

Horizontal Tensile Strain (εt) 101.5 148.4

Layer Details Thickness (in mm)

Cost Evaluation Chart for Unstabilized Soil

1 Soil Sub Grade 1,000 10.4 0.5 5,200 13,00,000

Cost Evaluation Chart for Stabilized Soil

1 Soil Sub Grade 1,000 10.4 0.45 4,680 48,69,540

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Fig. 4 presents the design of pavement crust thickness according to IRC:SP-72-2015,

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Jul 4 00:53:38

You might also like