Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subgrades and Subbases For Concrete Pavements
Subgrades and Subbases For Concrete Pavements
EB204P
Subgrades and
Subbases for
Concrete Pavements
90000
AMERICAN CONCRETE
Keywords: AASHTO, ASTM, asphalt-treated, cement-treated, cement-stabilized, chemical modification, concrete pavement, cross-
hauling, cut-fill transition, daylighted, drainable subbase, econocrete, edge drainage, expansive soil, faulting, free-draining, frost
heave, frost-susceptible soil, granular subbase, lean concrete, pavement structure, permeable subbase, pumping, reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP), recycled concrete, separator, sieve analysis, soil, soil classification system, spring subgrade softening, stabilized
subbase, subbase, subgrade, unstabilized subbase, volume stability.
Abstract: This engineering bulletin provides the necessary background information for the proper selection and application of
subbases and the appropriate consideration of subgrade variables for concrete pavements used for streets, roads and highways. It
emphasizes the major objective of obtaining long-lasting uniform support for a concrete pavement. Subgrade soil material classifica-
tion and problems (expansion, heaving, etc.) are discussed in detail along with many various options for stabilized and unstabilized
subbases, and the materials that they are composed of. Multiple reasons for avoiding the use of permeable subbases (a.k.a.
drainable or open-graded subbases) also are presented.
© 2007 American Concrete Pavement Association This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROFES-
SIONAL PERSONNEL who are competent to evaluate the
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be significance and limitations of the information provided
reproduced in any form without permission in herein, and who will accept total responsibility for the appli-
writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer cation of this information. The American Concrete Pavement
who wishes to quote brief passages in a review Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY and
written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper. LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the application of the
information contained in this publication to the full extent
permitted by law.
ISBN 978-0-9800251-0-1
EB204P
ii
Table of Contents
iii
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Selective Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Chemical Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Material Selection and Dosage Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Constructing Modified/Stabilized Subgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Special Methods for Controlling Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Frost Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Frost Heave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Frost-Susceptible Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Spring Subgrade Softening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Control of Frost Heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Grade and Water Table Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Selective Grading and Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Removal of Silt Pockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Compaction and Moisture Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Protection for Utilities Located in the Subgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Non-Frost-Susceptible Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Wet Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Special Considerations of the Subgrade During Reconstruction
Due to Intersection Replacement, Utility Cuts or Inlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 4 – Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Pumping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
When to Use a Subbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Subbase Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Unstabilized (Granular) Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Material Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Gradation Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Discussion on Drainage of Unstabilized (Granular) Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Consolidation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Thickness and Compaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Unstabilized (Granular) Subbase Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Paving Precautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Stabilized Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Cement-Stabilized Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Cement-Treated Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Material Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
iv
Lean Concrete Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Material Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Strength Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Asphalt-Treated Subbases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Design & Material Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Stabilized Subbase Precautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Alternative Subbase Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Recycled Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Aggregate Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Precautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Waste Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Permeable Subbases: Reasons to Avoid Their Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Loss of Support Due to Breakdown of the Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Loss of Support Due to Infiltration of the Subgrade into the Subbase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Early Age Cracking Due to Penetration of Mortar from the
Concrete Pavement into the Subbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Instability as a Construction Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Overall Field Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Special Considerations of the Subbase During Reconstruction
Due to Intersection Replacement, Utility Cuts or Inlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Chapter 5 – References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
AASHTO Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
ASTM Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
v
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
vi
Summary/Overview
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
2 Design Principles
Analysis of the Federal Highway Administration’s structures, which has led to poor field performance
(FHWA’s) Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) of some concrete pavement sections. It is equally
data reveals that a pavement’s foundation (base or important not to over design the permeability of a
subbase and subgrade) is one of the most critical subbase layer. Overzealous engineering of a perme-
design factors in achieving excellent performance for able subbase will most likely lead to a foundation
3 Subgrades
any type of pavement.* For concrete pavements, the that does not provide the requisite stability for long-
design and construction requirements of a roadbed term pavement performance. Where stability has
or foundation structure may vary considerably, de- been sacrificed for drainage, concrete pavements
pending upon subgrade soil type, environmental have performed poorly and have experienced unac-
conditions, and the amount of anticipated heavy ceptable numbers of faulted joints and cracked slabs
traffic. In any case, the primary objective for building within a relatively short period. Free-draining and
a roadbed or foundation for concrete pavement is to daylighted subbases are the reasonable alterna-
4 Subbases
obtain a condition of uniform support for the pave- tives to rapidly draining permeable subbases
ment that will prevail throughout its service life. with an edge drainage system that often lack sta-
bility for long-term performance or cause other
Drainage considerations are also important in the performance problems.
proper design and construction of a roadbed or foun-
dation for concrete pavement. It is important not to In northern or cold climates, the influence of frost
build a supporting layer system that holds water and freezing of the roadbed is an important consid-
5 References
underneath the pavement slabs. This has been a eration. Certain subgrade soils are particularly sus-
common mistake in the design of concrete pavement ceptible to frost action, which raises the foundation
and concrete pavement layer(s) vertically during
freezing periods (commonly referred to as heaving
or frost heaving). Generally, frost heave is limited to
areas of freezing climates with silty soils. If the
* The use highly open-graded or permeable subbases for concrete
pavement is not recommended. This conclusion was reached through heaving is uniform along a pavement section it is not
experiences with poorly performing pavements built on permeable detrimental, but if heaving is localized, it upsets the
Appendices
vii
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
concrete, etc.), as well as the decision of a natural Finally, it is likely that as this document is printed
or a treated subgrade. In some cases, as for most and distributed, some new and emerging technolo-
clays and some silty soils, it may be most econom- gies are advancing within the grading and paving
1 Introduction
ical and advantageous to treat the subgrade soil and industries. This guide captures the fundamental
then to provide a unstabilized (granular) subbase as parameters, recommendations, and considerations
a construction platform. In the case of a road for a for subgrades and subbases for concrete pavement.
relatively low level of traffic it is likely that a natural Emerging technologies, such as intelligent compac-
subgrade may suffice, as long as it is evaluated to tion and GPS-guided grading/placing equipment, are
be acceptable as a roadbed. The optimal subbase likely to become more commonplace in the future.
2 Design Principles
and subgrade design or selection must balance both These improvements to existing methods are not a
cost and performance considerations. The same replacement for the necessary consideration of the
combination of subbase and subgrade treatment fundamentals. By the same token, we encourage
used for heavily-trafficked highways is likely not agencies and contractors to advance their construc-
necessary for a low-volume roadway, even in the tion methods and improve the quality of their work
same area and subject to the same climate. using advanced technology.
3 Subgrades
4 Subbases
5 References
Appendices
Index
viii
Summary/Overview
Executive Overview
1 Introduction
2 Design Principles
For quick reference, key concepts for each chapter are listed as follows and indexed to the tabs on the page
edges of this publication.
3 Subgrades
Key Point Page
● Roadbed (subgrade and subbase) design is key to long-term performance and 1
smoothness of concrete pavements.
● The pavement structure of a concrete pavement typically consists of a concrete sur- 1
face and subbase(s) placed upon a prepared subgrade (a “base” is part of an
asphalt pavement structure, while a subbase is an optional element of a concrete
4 Subbases
pavement structure).
5 References
● Every foundation for a concrete pavement structure should be free from abrupt 3
changes in character of the materials (should be uniform), should resist erosion,
and be engineered to control subgrade soil expansion and frost heave.
● Above all other design concerns, uniformity is of utmost importance. 3
● Because of the rigid nature of concrete pavements, loads are distributed over rela- 4
tively large areas, greatly reducing stresses on the subgrade/subbase; thus, con-
Appendices
ix
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
● Recommended minimum subbase thicknesses are 4 in. (100 mm) for unsta- 4
bilized subbases, 4 in. (100 mm) for cement-stabilized subbases (i.e.,
cement-treated subbases and lean concrete subbases), and 2 in. (50 mm)
for asphalt-stabilized subbases.
●
2 Design Principles
the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), but
the engineer must be mindful of the preferred soil classification method for each
project because conversion between methods is not intuitive.
● A minimum CBR of 6 in the top 24 in. (610 mm) of subgrade provides an adequate 25
working platform for construction, while limiting subgrade rutting under construction
traffic to ½ in. (13 mm) or less.
5 References
Frost heave can be mitigated by controlling the grade and water table elevation,
selectively grading and mixing the subgrade, removing silt pockets and refilling with
select borrow materials. It also can be mitigated by covering the existing subgrade
with a non-frost-susceptible cover and/or compacting the subgrade at the proper
moisture content.
Index
x
Summary/Overview
Executive Chapter Overview
1 Introduction
● For pumping of a subbase to occur, several conditions must exist. They are: 41
■ the pavement must have undoweled joints or joints with poor load
transfer,
■ water must be present,
■ the roadway must have fast moving, heavy loads to deflect the slabs
2 Design Principles
(trucks, not automobiles),
■ and the subgrade must be a fine-grained material or the subbase must
be an erodible material.
Eliminating one or more of these casual factors should mitigate pumping.
● Pavements that are expected to carry 200 trucks or fewer per day (or less 43
than 1,000,000 18-kip (80 kN) ESAL’s over the course of the service life of
the pavement) do not typically require a subbase to prevent pumping.
3 Subgrades
● Unstabilized subbases must have a maximum particle size of no more than 45
1
⁄3 the subbase thickness, less than 15 percent passing the No. 200 (75 µm)
sieve, an in-place density of 95 percent according to AASHTO T99, a Plas-
ticity Index of 6 or less, a Liquid Limit of 25 or less, a L.A. abrasion resis-
tance of 50% or less, and a target permeability of no more than 350 ft/day
(107 m/day) in laboratory tests. Of these, limiting the percent of fines
passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve is of utmost importance to creating a
4 Subbases
good unstabilized subbase.
● The higher degree of support offered by a stabilized subbase will not alter 50
the required concrete pavement slab thickness appreciably, but it will add
pumping resistance and increase the overall strength of the pavement struc-
ture, spreading loads over larger areas and reducing strains.
● There is typically no strength requirement for cement-treated subbases 53
5 References
(CTB) because a CTB is best controlled using compaction and/or density
requirements. However, when specified, a target compressive strength
range of 300 to 800 psi (2.1 to 5.5 MPa) is typical to ensure long-term dura-
bility to repeated cycles of wetting and drying or freezing and thawing, while
keeping the layer from getting too stiff.
● Material requirements oftentimes may be relaxed for cement-stabilized sub- 53
bases (i.e., cement-treated subbases or lean concrete) when compared to
Appendices
xi
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
base, early age cracking caused from penetration of concrete mortar into
the subbase voids during paving, instability as a construction platform, cost
effectiveness, and various other overall field performance problems. Thus,
permeable subbases are no longer recommended for concrete pavement
structures. Free-draining subbases (subbases with a permeability between
50 and 150 ft/day (15 and 46 m/day) in laboratory tests) and daylighted
subbases are the reasonable alternative to rapidly draining permeable
4 Subbases
subbases.
5 References
Appendices
Index
xii
Summary/Overview
Chapter 1.
1 Introduction
Introduction and Terminology
2 Design Principles
The design and construction of the roadbed for any • Pavement Structure — The combination of
pavement structure is key to its long-term perfor- asphalt/concrete surface course(s) and
mance and smoothness over time. A roadbed is base/subbase course(s) placed on a prepared
characterized by the layer(s) that provide the foun- subgrade to support the traffic load.
dation for the riding surface. For concrete pavement, • Base — A layer within an asphalt pavement struc-
3 Subgrades
the foundation is typically comprised of a subbase ture; usually a granular or stabilized material,
layer on top of the subgrade soil. A variety of engi- either previously placed and hardened or freshly
neered subbase materials and subgrade treatment placed, on which the pavement surface is placed
methods exist for use with concrete pavement. in a later operation.
Careful attention to the design and construction of • Base Course — The layer(s) of hot mix asphalt
subgrades and subbases is essential to ensure the immediately below the surface course, generally
consisting of less asphalt and larger aggregates
4 Subbases
structural capacity, stability, uniformity, durability, and
smoothness of any concrete pavement over the life than the surface course. Also known as binder
of that pavement. Of utmost importance is the uni- course (AI 2007).
formity of the foundation. This bulletin publication • Subbase — The layer(s) of select or engineered
discusses each essential factor and provides the material of planned thickness placed between the
necessary background information for the proper subgrade and a concrete pavement that serve
selection and application of subbases and the one or more functions such as preventing
5 References
appropriate consideration of subgrade variables pumping, distributing loads, providing drainage,
for concrete pavements used for streets, roads, minimizing frost action, or facilitating pavement
and highways. construction. Common subbase types include
unstabilized (granular) subbase, cement-treated
Because the terminology for engineered roadbeds
subbase, lean concrete (econocrete) subbase and
is unique and sometimes unfamiliar to pavement
apshalt-treated subbase.
design engineers, an extensive glossary of terms is
included as an Appendix of this publication. (Refer • Subgrade — The natural ground, graded and com-
Appendices
to the tabs at the edge of this publication for quick pacted, on which a pavement structure is built.
reference.) Thus, this section is not intended to be a
In practice, subbase layers are commonly referred to
comprehensive glossary, but a means of distinguish-
as base courses. Strictly speaking, however, a base
ing between foundation components for concrete
course is a layer of material beneath an asphalt sur-
and asphalt pavement structures. The key terms
face; thus, base courses exist only under asphalt
necessary for discerning between concrete and
pavements and subbases exist only under concrete
asphalt pavement structures are:
pavements. The pressures imposed on a base
Index
1
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
course underneath an asphalt pavement are dramat- may be relaxed in comparison to what is required for
ically different than those imposed on a subbase a base. The distinction in terminology (base versus
beneath a concrete pavement. Because of this dif- subbase) recognizes these basic differences. This
1 Introduction
ference, material quality requirements for a subbase publication discusses concrete pavement subbases,
and the reader is encouraged to adopt this term into
their common or local terminology. Figure 1 illus-
trates concrete and asphalt pavement structures.
Asphalt Surface Course
2 Design Principles
Ba
Concrete Pavement
se
Co
Subbase 2
u rs
es
Subbase 1
Subgrade Subgrade
Asphalt Pavement Structure Concrete Pavement Structure
Figure 1. Cross-sectional illustration of the relative difference in design terminology and layout between asphalt and concrete
3 Subgrades
pavement structures.
4 Subbases
5 References
Appendices
Index
2
Summary/Overview
Chapter 2.
1 Introduction
Design Principles
2 Design Principles
Understanding the basic premise and principle of design starts with the in-situ natural soils, the chal-
foundation design for concrete pavement requires a lenge always begins with the subgrade. In practical
knowledge of how concrete slabs transfer loads from terms, the subgrade must, at least, provide a stable
vehicles to the subgrade. Compared to asphalt working platform for constructing the subsequent
pavements, concrete pavements spread a given layers of the pavement structure.
3 Subgrades
load over a larger area of the roadbed or foundation
which, in-turn, reduces the pressure on the support The potential for frost heaving and/or shrinkage and
layer materials and subgrade. The importance is that swelling of subgrade materials must be assessed by
the foundation strength is not as important to the the engineer during the design phase. The methods
performance of concrete as it is to asphalt pave- available to address expansive subgrade materials
ment, even when considering pavements for heavy are selective grading and/or chemical modification
loads. (commonly referred to as soil stabilization) of the in-
4 Subbases
situ soils. Both of these subgrade conditions (e.g.
Although subbase and subgrade strength are impor- frost heave and shrink/swell) should be considered
tant factors in pavement design, other foundation separately from providing pavement support, but are
properties besides strength need to be considered in inherently part of the primary goal of providing a uni-
the design of a foundation for concrete pavement. form foundation. In other words, even though a sub-
Every foundation for use in a concrete pavement grade can be compacted and prepared to provide
structure should provide the following characteristics: adequate support for construction activities and
5 References
• Uniformity; no abrupt changes in character of the future traffic loading, it may be a poor foundation for
materials (i.e., weak spots or stiff spots). a concrete pavement if the subgrade is prone to
volume change from swelling, shrinking, or heaving.
• Control of expansive subgrade materials to Therefore, the expansive potential of the subgrade
ensure uniform support through wet and dry sea- must be evaluated and controlled.
sons.
• Resistance to frost heave during winter and cold Preparation of the subgrade includes:
temperatures. • Compacting soils at moisture contents and densi-
Appendices
• Resistance to erosion by slabs that deflect under ties that will ensure uniform and stable pavement
heavy loads. support.
• Whenever possible, setting the profile gradeline at
Of these characteristics, uniform support is of utmost an elevation that will allow adequate depth in the
importance. Providing uniformity is also one of the side ditches to protect the pavement structure
largest challenges in the design and construction of from the water table.
any pavement structure. Because every foundation
Index
3
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
• Improving expansive or weak soils by treatment • Selecting subbase materials and combinations of
with portland cement, fly ash, cement kiln dust layers that adequately prevent pumping of sub-
(CKD), lime, or alternatively, importing better soils. grade soils for the life of the pavement.
1 Introduction
• Cross-hauling and mixing of soils to achieve uni- • Specifying gradation controls that will ensure a
form conditions in areas where there are abrupt reasonably constant subbase gradation for indi-
horizontal changes in soil types. vidual projects.
• Using selective grading in cut-and-fill areas to • Specifying a minimum density of 95 percent of
place the better soils closer to the top of the final AASHTO T99 (ASTM D698) for unstabilized
2 Design Principles
which may include fly ash and/or slag) and and 2 in. (50 mm) for asphalt-treated subbases.
■ asphalt-treated subbases.
UNIFORM SUPPORT
For light traffic pavements, such as residential Paving concrete typically has a 28-day flexural
streets, secondary roads, parking lots, and light-duty strength ranging from 550 to 750 psi (3.8 to 5.2
airports, a subbase may not be required if proper MPa), or greater, and a modulus of elasticity ranging
subgrade preparation techniques will minimize from 4 to 6 million psi (28,000 to 41,000 MPa),
shrink, swell, and/or heave potential, provide an ade-
Appendices
4
Summary/Overview
Chapter 2 — Design Principles
7,000lb Maximum
(3,200 kg) Subgrade Pressure
Loading Position psi MPa
1 Introduction
1. Slab Interior 3 0.02
2. Outside Edge 6 0.04
3. Outside Corner 7 0.05
8 in. (200 mm) 4. Transverse Joint Edge 4 0.03
Concrete Slab Doweled Joint 1 3
4 2
8 in. (200 mm)
Concrete Slab
2 Design Principles
Clay Loam
Subgrade
Pressure Only
3 psi (0.02 MPa)
16 ft (4.9 m)
Subbase
Figure 2. The rigidity of concrete helps a concrete pavement
distribute wheel loads over large areas, keeping sub-
base/subgrade pressures low. A 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) load is placed on a 12 in. (380 mm) plate.
3 Subgrades
This yields a pressure of 106 psi (0.73 MPa) on the pavement surface
and the resultant subgrade pressures listed above.
4 Subbases
through each layer and ultimately to the subgrade.
applied pressure of 106 psi (0.73 MPa) was reduced
to subgrade pressures of only 3 to 7 psi (0.02 to The importance of the principle of uniform subgrade
0.05 MPa) because the applied load is distributed support is best explained by anomalies in pavement
over more than 20 ft (6 m). Other studies (Childs, performance from the field. Performance surveys
Colley, Kapernick 1957; Childs and Nussbaum 1962; have been conducted over many miles of old con-
Childs and Kapernick 1963) confirm that the sub- crete pavements that were constructed without
5 References
grade pressures below a concrete pavement struc- proper subgrade compaction control and without
ture are quite low and, in fact, considerably less than subbases. Where the subgrade was naturally uni-
the bearing strengths of almost all subgrades. form, many of these old pavements are still in excel-
lent condition. Distress is limited to cut-fill transitions
For a concrete pavement structure, it is extremely and other locations where there are abrupt changes
important that the support be reasonably uniform in subgrade materials and moisture conditions. Sur-
with no abrupt changes or isolated weak or stiff spots veys show that low-strength soils where construction
in the character of the foundation. This is in contrast methods provided reasonably uniform support per-
Appendices
to the principle of design for asphalt pavements, form better than stronger soils lacking uniformity
where successively stronger base layers are re- (ACPA 1995).
quired closer to the surface layer to distribute the
Index
5
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
the subgrade beneath a concrete pavement struc- inclusion of a subbase in the design of the pave-
ture is that it be uniform. This is the fundamental ment system depends on the subbase material and
reason for specifications on subgrade compaction. whether the subbase is treated or untreated. Normal
While a uniform, good-quality, and properly-com- variations from an estimated subgrade or composite
pacted subgrade will improve the performance of the k-value will not appreciably affect pavement thick-
pavement, it is not necessarily true that a stronger ness in typical k-value ranges, as shown in Figure 4.
subgrade will do the same; most of the structural
capacity of a concrete pavement structure is sup- Note that it is not economical to use an over-
3 Subgrades
plied by the concrete slab and not by the foundation designed subbase system for the sole purpose of
(subgrade and/or subbase). increasing the composite k-value; increasing the
slab thickness, concrete strength, edge support
The strength of the foundation for a concrete pave- and many other variables often proves to be more
ment structure is often quantified as the modulus of economical. Figure 4 shows an increase in the
subgrade reaction (k-value). The modulus of sub- k-value from 100 psi/in. (27 MPa/m) to 500 psi/in.
grade reaction is determined by the plate load test (135 MPa/m), which will only decrease the required
(AASHTO T222 or ASTM D1196). The plate load concrete slab thickness by about 20 percent.
4 Subbases
6
Summary/Overview
Chapter 2 — Design Principles
1 Introduction
STRAINS IN CONCRETE analysis, showing the combining of support modulus
PAVEMENT SLABS (stiffness) in layers under the concrete pavement.
Although concrete pavement is commonly referred
to as ‘rigid,’ because of its relatively high modulus of Counter to intuition, the stronger and stiffer the foun-
elasticity when compared to asphalt pavement dation becomes, the more problematic it may be for
(commonly referred to as ‘flexible’), the modulus of concrete pavement performance. If the concrete slab
2 Design Principles
elasticity of concrete is not so high that a concrete is in full contact with the foundation, a stiffer support
pavement does not deflect under a heavy load. In system will reduce deflections and, thus, stresses
fact, once a crack initiates in a concrete pavement under heavy loads. If a concrete pavement could be
(top-down at a corner or mid-slab, bottom up at the constructed on a perfectly rigid foundation (infinite
mid-slab, etc.), the zone immediately around the modulus of elasticity) and remain perfectly planar,
crack tip is more appropriately modeled as pseudo- there would be zero deflection and zero flexural
elastic than brittle as the term rigid might suggest.
stress, the primary mode of fatigue failure in con-
The subsequent opening and propagation of the
crete pavements. Stiffer support systems, however,
crack tip is the origin of concrete pavement fatigue,
3 Subgrades
which can result in distresses such as mid-slab will increase deflections and stresses under envi-
transverse cracks. ronmental loading (thermal curling and moisture
warping); if a concrete pavement is constructed on a
When a concrete pavement is placed either on the very rigid foundation, the foundation is not capable
subgrade or on any number of subbase layers, the of conforming to the shape of the slab so support
properties of these foundation layers will directly from the foundation might be lost upon environ-
influence the stresses and strains of the concrete mental loading. The converse is true for a concrete
slabs and, in turn, have some bearing on the long-
4 Subbases
pavement built upon a very flexible foundation, with
term performance of the system. The most often higher stresses resulting from applied loads due to
utilized common material property used in quanti- free deformation and lower stresses under environ-
fying this interaction between the foundation and the mental loading because the foundation conforms to
concrete slab is the modulus of elasticity, often mea-
the slab shape. These two extremes of foundation
sured indirectly by the compressive strength in stabi-
5 References
Concrete Pavement
Subbase 2 Concrete Pavement Econcrete
Subbase 1
Compacted Subgrade Composite Subbases Esubbase
Effective k-value
Appendices
7
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Case 1: The foundation is perfectly rigid. The pavement design engineer must recognize
that subbase thickness and stiffness (by way of
Applied Load Loss of support results in
compressive strength) are important on a concrete
1 Introduction
Higher curling stresses have a more damaging plate with ditches and adequate horizontal and ver-
impact when the concrete is relatively young, when tical sloping; however, consideration of drainage in
the slab has not yet developed the strength and subbase layers is also important.
fracture toughness necessary to resist cracking.
Strength is important to prevent the initiation of a Sources of Moisture in a Pavement
crack and fracture toughness is important to prevent Structure
propagation of a crack. If the stiffness of a stabilized The sources of moisture to a pavement structure are
Appendices
subbase becomes too great, not only will the curling shown in Figure 7. The significance of the influence
stresses in the pavement slabs increase, but the of moisture on the performance of pavements
probability of reflective cracks from a stabilized sub- cannot be ignored. However, an engineer must also
base will also increase (assuming drying shrinkage recognize that even though there may be some con-
cracking has occurred in the subbase). Also, the trols possible, drainage systems such as subsurface
thicker a subbase layer is constructed, the greater edge drains, edge ditches, and culverts are never an
the increase in support stiffness. absolute control for preventing moisture from gaining
Index
8
Summary/Overview
Chapter 2 — Design Principles
Concrete Pavement few inches because the pores are large enough to
1 eliminate almost all capillary action.
Treated Subgrade
1 Introduction
The water table beneath a pavement will rise and
3 fall due to seasonal and annual differences in preci-
1
pitation (i.e., number 5 in Figure 7 is dependent on
number 1). A higher water table will result in a greater
2 4
driving force for capillary suction and vapor move-
Water Table
5 ment near the subgrade (i.e., numbers 2 and 4 are
2 Design Principles
dependent on number 5). Thus, the design of the
1. Precipitation and entry from the pavement edge pavement structure must assume the highest water
2. Capillary suction from the water table
3. Drainage from natural high ground table expected during the life of the pavement, be-
4. Vapor movement through the soil cause that is when the subgrade and subbase will
5. Water table rise in elevation contain the moist moisture and be the weakest. The
Figure 7. Sources of moisture to a pavement structure. highest water table during the life of a pavement
should be expected around the most major precipi-
tation event, making runoff from areas of higher ele-
access to the pavement. Instead, drainage systems
3 Subgrades
vation most detrimental to a local water table (so
are tools for minimizing moisture variations in the
number 3 is dependent on number 1).
confines of a pavement structure to within reason-
able limits (maintain equilibrium). Extremes in mois- In an effort to minimize moisture levels in the pave-
ture variation (non-uniformity) contribute more to ment structure, roadway engineers often concentrate
pavement distresses and problems than the pres- on the easiest sources of moisture to isolate, which
ence of moisture alone. are numbers 1, 3, and 5. Often, highways are ele-
vated with respect to their surroundings, a configur-
4 Subbases
Capillarity is the action by which a liquid (water) rises
ation that forces water to run downhill to ditches
or wicks in a channel above the horizontal plane of (mitigating numbers 1 and 3) while, at the same
the supply of free water (water table). The number time, increasing the distance between the pavement
and size of the channels in a soil determine its pore structure and the water table (mitigating number 5
size distribution and thus its capillarity. This soil and, in turn, minimizing numbers 2 and 4). Since an
property is measured as the distance (ranging from elevated roadway is typically not possible for street
zero to 30 ft (9.1 m) or more) moisture will rise above or road applications, edge drains and sewers are
5 References
the water table by this action. Moisture in clay soils used to collect any surface runoff (mitigating num-
may be raised by capillarity for vertical distances as bers 1, 3, and 5).
great as 30 ft (9.1 m), considered by highway en-
gineers to be a “high capillarity” material. However, Free-Draining Subbases
a long period of time is often required for water to Free-draining subbases are preferred over perme-
rise the maximum possible distance in clay soils able subbases because of their more durable, more
because the channels are very small and frequently stable nature (Figure 8). The recommended target
interrupted. Silts also have high capillarity, but maxi-
Appendices
9
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
paving on marbles” to describe paving on a perme- considerably more expensive. Trenches are back-
able subbase. filled with highly permeable material to easily draw
moisture from the subbase. A filter fabric (geotextile)
Though free-draining subbases drain slower than lines the trench to prevent the fine particles from
permeable subbases (because of the increased intruding into the trench area; the filter fabric is
fines content) they still drain more quickly than con- extended across the pavement section to prevent
ventional, dense-graded subbases. Stability is fine particles in the subgrade from intruding into the
enhanced by the use of aggregate that is angular free-draining subbase. The recommended detail for
Appendices
10
Summary/Overview
Chapter 2 — Design Principles
Concrete Pavement Concrete Shoulder the periodic maintenance that is required for a pipe
Free-draining Subbase drain system. Furthermore, studies found that flex-
Separator Layer (Geotextile) Geotextile
ible pavements sections with daylighted bases (with-
1 Introduction
out edge drains) performed as well as (or better
than) any other flexible pavement section (NCHRP
Subgrade 2002). Similar performance should be expected with
concrete pavements. The recommended details for a
Minimum offset distance of 3 ft (1 m) Collector
Pipe daylighted subbase are shown in Figure 10.
2 Design Principles
Figure 9. Detail for edge drain piping. Note that the filter
Concrete Pavement Concrete Shoulder
fabric (geotextile) does not completely surround the trench,
Free-draining Subbase
which prevents the fabric from being clogged by leachates or Drainable Material
other fine particles carried by water flowing through the sub- Reaches Daylight
base, and the drain is offset at least 3 ft (1 m) from the edge
of paving whenever possible, which protects it from construc-
tion traffic.
Subgrade
3 Subgrades
edge drain system. Instead, it is accepted that some local
ensure proper drainage. Outlets should also be clogging of the permeable layer will take place, but overall
placed at the bottom of all vertical curves. The pipes drainage will not be lost since the entire depth of the layer is
should be placed on a 3 percent grade with the exposed for the entire length of the pavement.
outlet at least 6 in. (150 mm) above the 10 year
design flow in the ditch. Concrete headwalls are
important to protect pipe outlets. Outlets should be
Separators
Separators are geotextile fabrics or filter layers that
equipped with rodent screens.
prevent the migration of fines from the subgrade into
4 Subbases
For crowned pavements, edge drains are installed the free-draining subbase. Geotextile fabrics are
along both the inner and outer pavement edge. This commonly used (and strongly suggested) directly
shortens the drainage path and reduces the time for below a free-draining subbase layer to prevent fines
the subbase to drain. However, for pavement lanes from infiltrating and plugging the subbase.
built as an uncrowned section, only one edge drain
is installed, at the low side, which is considerably Some agencies also place a filter layer (4 to 6 in.
less expensive. (100 to 150 mm) thick layer of dense-grade unstabi-
5 References
lized granular material) below a drainable subbase.
It is important to place the longitudinal edge drain This is not considered a necessity when a free-
outside of the paver trackline or any location that is draining subbase material is employed in the design.
expected to receive loads by heavy construction Where used, the filter layer serves as a construction
equipment. A minimum offset distance of 3 ft (1 m) platform and as a barrier to prevent water from
is recommended whenever possible. entering the subgrade as it flows through the sub-
base to the ditch or edge drain piping.
Daylighting the Subbase
Appendices
Though often disregarded in the past due to the The following criteria for filter layers are recom-
mindset that overgrowth along the ditch line would mended. It will be necessary to evaluate both the
clog the system, daylighting a subbase directly into filter layer/subgrade and the subbase/filter layer
the side ditches may yield better long-term perfor- interfaces (FHWA 1990, US ACoE 1941):
mance than edge drains, because it does not rely on
Index
11
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
1. The 15 percent size (D15) of subbase should not Note: The Dx size means that x percent of the parti-
be more than 5 times larger than the 85 percent cles are smaller than this size.
size (D85) of the filter.
1 Introduction
be more than 5 times larger than the 85 percent Various filter design criteria for both aggregate and
size (D85) of the subgrade soil. fabric are available elsewhere (FHWA 1990, US
ACoE 1991).
4. The 50 percent size (D50) of the filter should not
be more than 25 times larger than the 50 percent
size (D50) of the subgrade soil.
3 Subgrades
4 Subbases
5 References
Appendices
Index
12
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3.
1 Introduction
Subgrades
2 Design Principles
SOIL BASICS FOR PAVEMENT directly in arctic areas, whereas chemical modifica-
tion of soils will be greatest in tropical areas.
CONSTRUCTION
Note: This section, Soil Basics for Pavement Con- Regardless of the method of formation or the source
struction, is taken predominately from the Portland of the soil, long-term subgrade performance
3 Subgrades
Cement Association’s EB007 “PCA Soil Primer.” depends heavily on three interdependent factors:
Soil forms when rock, marine shell, coral, etc. breaks • Moisture content and density.
into smaller and smaller size particles through the • Load bearing capacity.
processes of abrasion and/or fracturing (physical • Volume stability.
weathering). Events that contribute to or accelerate
this break-down process include wind weathering, The following sections provide an overview of test
erosion, freezing, rock impact, root growth, wetting methods used to quantify the previously mentioned
4 Subbases
and drying, heating and cooling, glacial action, and performance factors. Knowledge of these properties
human factors. and their interdependence is necessary to under-
stand the classification systems presented at the
Of far greater significance for fine-grained soils, end of this section.
although less intuitive than the physical breakdown
process, are modifications by chemical processes
Moisture Content and Density
(chemical weathering), plant and animal additions,
As mentioned, uniformity of support is of utmost con-
5 References
and man’s impact as the soils are transported by
cern to a pavement engineer. Also of interest is soil
flowing water or are subject to moist-to-wet condi-
strength. Because soil consists of solid particles,
tions in place.
water and air, the moisture condition and, to a lesser
Recognition of these soil forming processes (break- degree, the density or unit weight are also of con-
down and modification) is valuable to both the pre- cern because they directly influence strength. This
liminary site surveys and the extension of limited section describes various properties relating to mois-
subgrade sampling information across a project. ture and density of soils.
Appendices
13
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
relative amounts of soil, air, and water in a soil 2. Capillary Water — Water held in the soil pores or
mass: “capillaries” by “capillary action.” This is the result
of an attraction between fluids and solid surfaces,
1 Introduction
of air or water contained in the voids. Porosity is above. Note that capillary water cannot exist
typically expressed as a percentage. directly in the presence of gravitational water.
• Void Ratio — The ratio of the volume of voids to Effects of gravity on a mass of water result in
the volume of soil particles. The porosity and void pressure or compression from the water weight.
ratio of a soil depend upon the degree of com- This overrides the tension and relieves the capil-
paction or consolidation. Therefore, for a particular lary attractions. Capillary water is not generally
soil in different conditions, the porosity and void considered to be “free” water since it is, at least
ratio will vary and can be used to judge relative weakly, bound by the surface tension action.
3 Subgrades
stability and load carrying capacity with these fac- However, because it is not strongly bound to soil
tors increasing as porosity and void ratio particles directly, it has sometimes been des-
decrease. cribed as free water in older and especially in
• Degree of Saturation — The ratio of the volume of agriculturally-oriented soil references.
water to the volume of voids, usually expressed
3. Hygroscopic Water — Moisture retained by soil
as a percentage.
after gravitational and capillary moisture are
4 Subbases
The moisture or water content of a soil is normally removed. It is held by each soil grain in the form
expressed as a percentage of the oven-dry weight of of a very thin film adsorbed on the surface by
the soil. It is determined by first taking the difference molecular attractions involving both physical and
in weights between a moist soil sample and the chemical affinity. This film is in equilibrium with
same sample dried in an oven at 230 deg F (110 the moisture content of the air and increases or
deg C) until it reaches a constant weight. This differ- decreases with changes in humidity; it can be
ence divided by the oven-dry soil weight (expressed described as the water associated with the air-dry
5 References
14
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
• Field Moisture Equivalent — The field moisture For a soil with measurable soil moisture suction, cap-
equivalent (FME) is the minimum moisture content illarity ranges from zero at saturation to quite large
at which a smooth surface of soil will absorb no values when the soil is relatively dry. Thus, soil mois-
1 Introduction
more water in 30 seconds when the water is ture suction is dependent not only of the overall driving
added in individual drops. It shows the moisture force of the soil but also the current moisture state.
content required to fill all the pores in sands, when
the capillarity of cohesionless expansive soils is The suction can be expressed in units of (negative)
completely satisfied and when cohesive soils pressure. Relation between the suction and moisture
approach saturation. This test is no longer content is very dependent on the soil type. A test
2 Design Principles
common and both standard procedures used to standard for measurement of soil suction is pre-
conduct it, AASHTO T93 and ASTM D426, are sented as AASHTO T273 and ASTM D3152.
discontinued.
■ Plastic Soils
• Centrifuge Moisture Equivalent — The centrifuge Most soils include a fine fraction of silt or clay, or a
moisture equivalent (CME) is the moisture content combination of the two. The consistency of these
of a soil after a saturated sample is centrifuged for soils can range from a dry, solid state to a wet, liquid
one hour under a force equal to 1,000 times the state with the addition of water. Introducing water
force of gravity. This test, ASTM D425, is used to
3 Subgrades
into a matrix of soil particles, air and water allows
assist in structural classification of soils. Low empty pore space (space currently occupied by air)
values, such as 12 or less, indicate permeable to fill with water. Eventually, all of the empty pores
sands and silts; high values, such as 25, indicate will be occupied by water and the addition of any
impermeable clays. High values indicate soils of more water will cause the system to expand. If the
high capillarity, and low values indicate soils of addition of water occurs in small enough steps, the
low capillarity. consistency of silts and clays can be seen passing
from solid to semisolid to plastic and to liquid, as
4 Subbases
When both the FME and CME are more than 30 and illustrated in Figure 11.
the FME is greater than the CME, the soil probably
expands upon release of load and is classified as The shrinkage limit (SL) separates solid from semi-
elastic. solid, the plastic limit (PL) separates semisolid from
plastic state and the liquid limit (LL) separates plastic
■ Soil Moisture Suction (Capillary Action) from liquid state. The plasticity index (PI) is the width
FME and CME have origins in agricultural soil tech- of the plastic state (LL minus PL), expressed in
5 References
nology, but they found early applications in relation terms of moisture content. The PI is an important
to highway subgrade assessment and right-of-way indicator of the plastic behavior a soil will exhibit; a
soil surveys. They continue in some use, but the low PI is indicative of a very moisture-sensitive soil.
technology concerned with subgrade moisture-
strength in place is now more focused on “soil mois- Standard procedures have been developed so that
ture suction.” This is the moisture tension associated consistent determinations to establish the dividing
with capillarity, and thus, it is often called “capillarity” limits can be made by anyone employing these pro-
cedures. Since it is the more plastic or finer soils that
Appendices
or “capillary action.”
reflect this pattern of response to moisture variation,
Water in soil above the water table has a pressure the standard tests are performed on the portion of a
less than atmospheric. It rises above the water table soil that will pass a No. 40 (425 µm) mesh sieve.
because of the surface tension (capillary forces) and
adsorption forces by which the water is bound or
held in the soil.
Index
15
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
PI
Plasticity Index
1 Introduction
SL PL LL
Increasing Moisture
This limit separates the solid state from the semisolid state. It is represented by the point in a drying
process at which no further shrinkage takes place while drying continues. Standard test procedures can
Shrinkage Limit (SL)
be found in ASTM D427. While this limit is an element of the soil-water consistency pattern, it has less
significance or application than the other limits in relation to soil engineering.
This limit separates the semisolid state from the plastic state. It is represented by the moisture content at
Plastic Limit (PL) which the soil, when rolled into a 1⁄8 in. (3.2 mm) cylindrical ribbon, will begin to break into short sections.
Standard test procedures are described in AASHTO T90 and ASTM D4318.
3 Subgrades
This limit separates the plastic state from the liquid state. It is represented by the moisture content at
which the soil, when separated by a standard groove [0.04 in. (1 mm)] in a standard cup, will flow back
Liquid Limit (LL) together [0.4 in. (1 cm) length] under 25 standard taps or blows [0.4 in. (1 cm) fall impacts]. Standard test
procedures are described in AASHTO T89 and ASTM D4318. The liquid limit is considered to relate
directly to soil compressibility; the higher the LL, the greater the compressibility.
The PI is the numerical difference between the LL and the PL, each expressed as moisture content in
percent. AASHTO T90 and ASTM D4318 are standards for PI determination. This index is a significant
Plasticity Index (PI) indicator of soil behavior. The higher the index number, the more plastic the soil will be. Low PI soils are
4 Subbases
very sensitive to moisture change since only a few percent (equal to the PI) moisture can change the soil
from a plastic to a liquid state.
Figure 11. Soil states and consistency limits (Atterberg limits) with descriptions.
The soils considered in the previous section had imum slopes at their “angle of repose.” Moist sands
compositions including a fine fraction of silt and clay, are bound by capillary moisture films at contact
which provided them with a plastic consistency. Soils points between grains. Thus, bonding is zero when
composed almost entirely of sand sizes, gravel or dry, increases through a maximum as moisture is
coarse silt, or any combinations of these, have a increased, and returns to zero on complete satura-
nonplastic consistency. tion. This moisture variation does not cause swelling
or shrinkage in undisturbed sands, but when moist
Coarse sands and fine gravels, which include little or
Appendices
16
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
vented the direct use of shear strength of a soil for
applied load. There are several methods of esti-
design. Design methods were devised based on
mating the resilient modulus, both in the labora-
tests that provided an index number related to soil
tory and in the field, and thus, they are excluded
strength that was most commonly, but not always,
here for brevity. The standard resilient modulus
considered to represent shear strength. Several of
test is given in AASHTO T307.
these tests and methods which are still employed in
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) — This
2 Design Principles
modern design include:
is a bearing test, conducted in the field, which pro-
• California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test — This is a
vides an index to rate the support provided by a
test that measures the force required to penetrate
soil or subbase layer directly beneath a concrete
a soil surface by a round piston with a 3 in.2
slab. Practically all concrete pavement design is
(19 cm2) end round piston area. The index (CBR)
based on the modulus of subgrade reaction, k, as
value is the percent of an established reference
used in the Westergaard formulas. The k-value is
value for 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) and 0.2 in. (5.0 mm)
defined as the reaction of the subgrade per unit of
penetration. The reference value of 100 was origi-
area of deformation and is typically given in psi/in.
3 Subgrades
nally considered to represent the resistance of a
(MPa/m).
well-graded crushed stone. Typical CBR values
may range from 2 to 8 for clays and 70 to 90 for The determination of k for concrete pavement
crushed stones. design is made in the field on the subgrade in
place, or on the subbase, if used, under condi-
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and some
tions that will approximate reasonable mean ser-
highway departments use the CBR principle in
vice conditions. A 30 in. (760 mm) diameter plate
conducting tests to evaluate the bearing value of
4 Subbases
is recommended standard, although variations of
materials. Methods of preparing specimens and
the test with smaller plates have been introduced
conducting the test are given in AASHTO T193
to ease testing. The plate size influences bearing-
and ASTM D1883. Several agencies have their
test results because the forces resisting deforma-
own modifications of the CBR test.
tion consist of shear around the plate perimeter as
• Resistance Value (R-value) — This is essentially well as consolidation under the area of the plate.
a measure of the stiffness of the material by way With plates of 30 in. (760 mm) diameter and
of resistance to plastic flow. This test was devel-
5 References
greater, the shear-resisting forces around the
oped as an improved CBR test and must be con- perimeter are negligible. Figure 12 shows a plate
ducted in a laboratory. Samples are prepared so bearing test.
they will represent the worst case scenario during
Details for plate-bearing field tests are given in
testing and are confined on all sides in the testing
AASHTO T221 and T222 or in ASTM D1195 and
apparatus, resulting in a triaxial stress state. The
D1196. The elastic k-value (k e ) as determined
R-value is the ratio of the vertical load applied to
from the repetitive plate-bearing test (ASTM D1195)
the resultant lateral pressures. Typical R-values
Appendices
17
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
1 Introduction
2 Design Principles
• Cone Penetrometers — Cone Penetrometers, eral consensus on which equations are best, none
such as the WES Cone Penetrometer and the are included here, but suggested correlation equa-
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), are devices tions should be readily available in any design pro-
used to measure the strength of in place soil. Test cedure or design software documentation.
results can be used to estimate the soil shear
It should be noted that although stiffness is often
strength, CBR and k-value. Since the tests are
inferred through strength measurements, stiffness
rapid and essentially nondestructive, they are ide-
and strength are not synonymous and, therefore,
ally suited for on-site construction evaluation and
should not be treated as such in soil mechanics.
Appendices
18
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
age of soils, because this overall volume change
(or a differential volume change from point-to-point SE = sand reading/clay reading x 100
along the pavement) can cause serious damage to Concrete sands and crushed stone have SE
a pavement structure, particularly in regions where values of about 80; very expansive clays have SE
soils remain relatively dry until wetted by an infre- values of zero to 5. Details of the test procedure
quent rainy period. Tests used to quantify potential are given in AASHTO T176 and ASTM D2419.
volume stability problems by way of shrinking and
2 Design Principles
swelling include: Classification Systems
• Index Tests for Expansion and Shrinkage of Soils Soil particle sizes range from cobbles/boulders, to
— Several simple tests that indicate the volume gravel, to sand, to silt, to clay and, ultimately, to col-
change potential of soils are given in ASTM D427. loids. It has become the practice to define these var-
ASTM D4829 gives an expansive index of soils ious particle size ranges for purposes of describing
and, based on the test results, evaluates soils moisture characteristics and for identification and
from very low to very high expansion potential. classification of the material as a whole. The Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) and American
3 Subgrades
• California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Resistance
Association of State Highway and Transportation
(R-Value) Tests — Expansion tests are usually Officials (AASHTO) systems are two widely used
conducted in conjunction with the CBR (AASHTO engineering classifications. Other classifications sys-
T193 or ASTM D1883) and R-Value (AASHTO tems exist, such as the group index system pre-
T190 or ASTM D2844) tests. In both instances, sented in ASTM D3282, but they are not as widely
the test specimen is compacted to a predeter- accepted. The AASHTO method (AASHTO M145)
mined density at a proper moisture content in a grew from needs and developments in the highway
mold and a supply of water is made available. engineering field and the USCS method (ASTM
4 Subbases
Surcharges, equal to the weight of the cover D2487) was formulated in support of developing soil
material that will overlay the soil in the ultimate engineering technology (geotechnology). The USCS
pavement structure, are applied to the top of the began, however, with a system devised for use in
specimen. The expansion that occurs during classification of materials for military airfields. It has
some given soaking period is measured as the since been subject to minor adjustments and has
actual change in length of the specimen, or the been adopted by many other organizations around
pressure exerted by the expanding soil can be the world.
5 References
measured by means of a calibrated restraining
gage. The same specimen is then used for the A clear understanding of the relationship between
soil identification and soil classification is necessary
CBR or R-value determination.
to prevent confusion about many factors involved in
• Sand Equivalent Test — A rapid field method, soil work. For example, a gradation test might be
known as the sand equivalent test, has been used to identify a specific soil sample in a lab, but
developed to detect the presence of undesirable the classification of that sample will depend on which
claylike materials in soils and aggregate materials. classification system (AASHTO, USCS, soil texture
Appendices
This method tends to magnify the volume of clay method, etc.) is employed. Once a soil sample is
present in a sample somewhat in proportion to its classified in one classification system, it is likely diffi-
detrimental effects. cult to classify that soil in a different system without
knowledge of the soil properties. There are 11 classi-
The sand equivalent test is a sedimentation-type fications in the AASHTO system and 15 in the USCS
test in which a sample of the test material, in a system, so if a soil is classified in the USCS system
prepared solution, is thoroughly agitated in a 100- in a group that does not have an obvious correlation
ml glass cylinder. After setting for 20 minutes, the to a group in the AASHTO system, the properties of
sand and clay fractions settle into layers. The
Index
19
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
the material would be needed to classify it in the tain materials with a greater load-carrying capacity
AASHTO system. Thus, a pavement design engi- than an A-1 soil and, under unusual conditions, may
1 Introduction
neer must be mindful of the preferred classification be inferior to the best materials classified in the A-6
method for each project. or A-7 soil groups. Hence, if the AASHTO soil group
is the only fact known about a soil, only the broad
Although soil classification using the AASHTO or limits of load-carrying capacity can be stated. As a
USCS method might aid a pavement design engi- result, the seven basic soil groups were divided into
neer in determining factors such as the California subgroups, with a group index devised to approxi-
Bearing Ratio (CBR) value or modulus of subgrade mate within-group evaluations.
2 Design Principles
performance of highways. This system groups soils construction should state whether boulders, retained
of comparable load carrying capacity and resultant on a 3 in. (75 mm) sieve, are permitted.
service level in seven basic groups, designated A-1
through A-7. The best soils for road subgrades are
Group Index (GI) = (F-35) [0.2+0.005(LL-40)]+0.01(F-15)(PI-10)
classified as A-1, the next best A-2, and so on, with where F = % Passing No. 200 (75 µm) sieve, LL = Liquid Limit, 15
the poorest soils classified as A-7. and PI = Plasticity Index.
40
groups. For example, a borderline A-2 soil may con-
x
50 Inde
60
60
60
0
y
18
icit
40 Plast
50 20
it 40
Lim 1
Plasticity Index
70
30
uid 0
Liq 10
40
L-
=L
80
30
PI
70
A-7-6
30
60
80
50
10
40
A-6
20
20
Appendices
A-7-5
18
30
A-2-6
90
16
A-2-7
20
14
10
A-4 A-5
12
10
A-2-4 A-2-5
10
0
0 1000
8
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Example: Then:
6
Liquid Limit 82% Passing No. 200 (75 µm) sieve PGI = 8.9 for LL
LL = 38 PGI = 7.4 for PI
4
Note: A-2 soils contain less than 35% finer than 200 (75 µm) sieve. PI = 21 GI = 16
2
Figure 14. Liquid limit and plasticity index ranges for AASHTO
0
soil classes. See the section titled, Plastic Soils, earlier in this
chapter for more on the liquid limit and plasticity index. Figure 15. Group index chart.
Index
20
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
Granular Materials 35% or less Silt-Clay Materials >35% passing
General Classification
passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve
A-1 A-2 A-7
Group Classification A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-5
A-1-a A-1-b A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7
A-7-6
Sieve Analysis, % passing
2 Design Principles
No. 10 (2.00 mm) 50 max — — — — — — — — — —
No. 40 (0.425 mm) 30 max 50 max 51 max — — — — — — — —
No. 200 (75 µm) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min
Characteristics of fraction
passing No. 40 (0.425 mm)
Liquid Limit — — 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min
Plasticity Index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min*
Usual types of significant Stone fragments, Fine
Silty or clayey gravel and sand Silty soils Clayey soils
constituent materials gravel and sand sand
3 Subgrades
General rating
Excellent to Good Fair to Poor
as a subgrade
* Plasticity Index of the A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity Index of the A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30.
ASTM (Unified) Soil Classification System The ASTM system groups are easily identified by the
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a descriptive names and letter symbols, as shown in
4 Subbases
classification system that uses texture as the des- Table 3.
criptive terms (see Table 2), such as “GW: gravel,
well-graded”; “GC: gravel, clayey fines”; and “GP:
Table 2. ASTM D2487 Descriptors.
gravel, poorly-graded.” Since its inception, this clas-
sification system was expanded in cooperation with 1st Letter
the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Symbol Description
and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). It is now
5 References
G Gravel
referred to as the Unified Soil Classification System
S Sand
(ASTM D2487).
M Silt
The ASTM Soil Classification System identifies soils C Clay
according to their textural and plasticity qualities and O Organic
their grouping with respect to their performances as
PT Peat
engineering construction materials. The following
properties form the basis of soil identification: 2nd Letter
Appendices
Symbol Description
1. Percentages of gravel, sand, and fines (fraction
passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve). W Well-graded
P Poorly-graded
2. Shape of the grain-size distribution curve.
M Silty fines
3. Plasticity characteristics. C Clayey fines
Each soil is classified into the group that most H High plasticity
appropriately identifies its principal characteristics. L Low plasticity
Index
21
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Group
1 Introduction
Clean Gravels
Poorly-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures,
Gravels GP
little or no fines
50% or more of coarse
2 Design Principles
fraction retained on
No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Coarse-Grained Soils
Gravels with
Fines
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Sands SP
no fines
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes on
No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Sands with Fines
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
ML
4 Subbases
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils
22
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
Classification Criteria
D10 x D60
2 Design Principles
Classification on basis of percentage of fines
Fines classify as ML or MH
Atterberg limits plotting in hatched area are
borderline classifications requiring use of dual
symbols
Fines classify as CL or CH
More than 12% pass No. 200 (75µm) sieve
Less than 5% pass No. 200 (75 µm) sieve
3 Subgrades
CZ = (D30) 2 Between 1 and 3
D10 x D60
Fines classify as ML or MH
4 Subbases
Atterberg limits plotting in hatched area are
borderline classifications requiring use of dual
symbols
Fines classify as CL or CH
60
Plasticity Chart
50 For classification of fine-grained
soils and fine fraction of coarse- i ne ne
grained soils. ”L Li
“U “A”
5 References
H
Plasticity Index (PI)
40 O
Hatched area is borderline or
classification requiring CH
30 use of dual symbols.
20 OL
or
CL MH or OH
10
7
CL-ML ML or OL
4
0
0 10 18 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Appendices
23
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
designate soil particle size ranges, soils found in the use to determine the textural name.
field are much too varied to be limited to these spe-
The texture of a soil is given to tell as much as pos-
cific particle size ranges. A sand soil, for instance,
sible about that soil in just a few words. With texture
can include limited quantities of silt, clay, or gravel
determined, approximations and estimates of soil
sizes, or combinations of these, and still be classi-
properties can be made, such as bearing value,
fied merely as sand. The same is true for silt, clay or
water-holding capacity, susceptibility to frost heave,
2 Design Principles
Consists largely of sand, but has enough silt and clay present to give it a small amount of stability. Individual
sand grains can be seen and felt readily. Squeezed in the hand when dry, this soil will fall apart when the pres-
5 References
Silty-sand sure is released. Squeezed when moist, it forms a cast that will not only hold its shape when the pressure is
released but will also withstand careful handing without breaking. The stability of the moist cast differentiates
this soil from sand.
Consists of a large quantity of silt particles with none to small amounts of sand and clay. Lumps in a dry,
undisturbed state appear quite cloddy, but they can be pulverized readily; the soil then feels soft and floury.
Silt When wet, silt loam runs together and puddles. Either dry or moist casts can be handled freely without
breaking. When a ball of moist soil is pressed between thumb and finger, its surface moisture will disappear,
and it will not press out into a smooth, unbroken ribbon but will have a broken appearance.
Consists of plastic (cohesive) fines mixed with a significant quantity of silt. It is a fine-textured soil that breaks
Appendices
into hard clods or lumps when dry. When a ball of moist soil is pressed between the thumb and finger, it will
Silty-clay
form a thin ribbon that will break readily, barely sustaining its own weight. The moist soil is plastic and will form
a cast that will withstand considerable handling.
A fine-textured soil that breaks into very hard clods or lumps when dry and is plastic and unusually sticky when
Clay
wet. When a ball of moist soil is pressed between the thumb and finger, it will form a long ribbon.
Fat or
Highly plastic clay; strongly exhibits the characteristics indicated for clay.
Heavy Clay
Lean or
Moderately plastic clay; shows the characteristics indicated for clay, but to a lesser degree.
Lighter Clay
Index
24
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
The feel and appearance of the textural groups illus- Soils that are compacted to a given density at dryer
trate factors used in determining the texture of soil than optimum moisture contents will lose strength if
in the field and also assist in field classification work. the soils become saturated over time. Under normal
1 Introduction
Note: forming two casts of soil, dry and moist, in the conditions, this loss of strength is not an issue for
hand and pressing or rolling a moist ball of soil be- support of the pavement, but may be an issue for
tween the thumb and finger constitute two significant providing a stable working platform. When sub-
field tests to judge soil texture. grades are compacted and accepted weeks or
months in advance of the construction of the sub-
SUBGRADE STRENGTH AND base or pavement, the once stable working platform
2 Design Principles
WORKING PLATFORM may be inadequate to support construction equip-
ment due to saturation.
Due to the ability of a concrete pavement to spread
loads over large areas, the highest subgrade Depending upon the soils that occur on a project
stresses will normally occur during the construction and the density requirement in the specifications,
phase of a concrete pavement or subbase layer. strict conformity to a specified density can be ineffi-
Once in place, the subbase and concrete pavement cient. For example, if a stable working platform can
protect the subgrade from high-stress contact by be achieved at 90 percent density, further com-
3 Subgrades
loads. Thus, the required strength of a subgrade paction efforts to meet an arbitrarily specified density
is typically dictated by providing a stable working of 95 percent is wasteful; this additional density is
platform to construct successive layers. Research not necessary for uniform support of the pavement.
conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Trans-
portation has concluded that a minimum California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 6 in the top 24 in. (610 mm)
OBTAINING UNIFORM SUPPORT
To obtain a subgrade that provides uniform support,
of subgrade provides an adequate working platform,
the four major causes of non-uniformity must be
while limiting subgrade rutting under construction
4 Subbases
addressed:
traffic to 1⁄2 in. (13 mm) or less (Crovetti and Scha-
belski 2001). • Expansive soils.
• Frost-susceptible soils (frost heave).
Compacting the subgrade to a density that provides
an adequate working platform for construction equip- • Pumping (from erodible layers underneath the
ment will provide adequate subgrade strength for the pavement slabs).
in-service concrete pavement. The AASHTO T99 • Wet soils.
5 References
(standard proctor) field test is recommended to char-
acterize a subgrade for acceptance. The target per- Effective control of expansive soils and frost heave
centage of compaction will vary by soil type and is most economically achieved through appropriate
local conditions. State departments of transportation subgrade preparation techniques; the inclusion of
recommend values ranging from 84 to 100 percent thick subbase layers in an attempt to control expan-
of the standard proctor, but a value of 95 percent is sive soils and frost heave is expensive and not as
by far the most specified and, thus, is the recom- effective as proper subgrade preparation. In cases
mended value for most applications (ACPA 2005).
Appendices
25
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
control of subgrade compaction. No matter which enough to cause pavement problems are generally
techniques are applied, particular attention is neces- clays falling into the AASHTO A-6 or A-7 groups, or
sary to control expansive soils and excessive differ- classified as CH, MH, or OH by the Unified Classifi-
1 Introduction
ential frost heave. cation System, and with a Plasticity Index greater
than about 25 by ASTM D4318. Knowledge of the
A subbase layer also helps provide uniform support, volume-change potential of soils and the resulting
but its primary purpose is to prevent pumping or effects on pavement performance has been gained
erosion of the subgrade. Whether or not a subbase through experience and research. Simple tests pro-
is used in a concrete pavement structure, proper vide indices that serve as useful guides to identify
2 Design Principles
subgrade preparation is the best means of obtaining approximate volume-change potential of soils
uniform support. (Snethen 1984; Wisemen, Komornik, Greenstein
1985). For example, Table 5 shows the approximate
Selection of an appropriate means to mitigate
relationships.
expansive soils, frost-susceptible soils and pumping
is heavily dependent on the in-situ subgrade soil It should be noted that the percent expansion data
conditions, extent of improvement necessary, envi- listed in Table 5 represent the change from a dry to a
ronmental concerns and construction requirements saturated condition. In reality, much less expansion
3 Subgrades
[MNDOT 2003]. Of particular concern, due to its diffi- would occur because these extreme moisture varia-
culty to estimate prior to construction, is in-situ mois- tion would not take place and the subgrade will have
ture content of the soil. If wet soils are encountered been compacted to the appropriate density.
during construction, mitigation methods might not be
as effective as planned. Experience shows that the volume changes of clays
with a medium or low degree of expansion (Plasticity
The following sections provide detailed explanations Index below 25) are not a significant concern for
of the design and construction issues regarding concrete pavements, especially if selective grading
4 Subbases
expansive soils, frost-susceptible soils and wet soils; operations such as cross-hauling and blending of
pumping is addressed in Chapter 4. soil types minimize or eliminate abrupt changes in
soil character along the alignment.
Expansive Soils However, experience also shows that uncontrolled
Expansive soils change volume with changes in shrinking and swelling of expansive soils can lead
moisture content. Expansive soils that may swell to increased stresses in a concrete pavement due
5 References
Table 5. Relation of Soil Index Properties and Probable Volume Changes for Highly Plastic Soils (after Earth Manual 1985)
26
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
to non-uniform support, which accelerates pave- underlying subgrade as long as the soil is not
ment degradation and negatively impacts pavement capable of drawing moisture from below through
smoothness. Although changes in soil moisture capillary action.
1 Introduction
content are inevitable over the life of a pavement,
• Surcharge — the effect of the weight of the soil,
expansive soils can be effectively addressed through
subbase, and pavement above the expansive soil;
selective grading operations or chemical modification
tests indicate that soil swell can be reduced by
(stabilization).
surcharge loads (Holtz and Gibbs 1956).
Construction factors that can further aggravate per- • Moisture and density conditions of the expansive
2 Design Principles
formance issues related to expansive soils include: soil at the time of paving.
• Compacting expansive soils while too dry,
Knowledge of the interrelationship of these factors
resulting in the likelihood that the soil will absorb
leads to the selection of economical and effective
moisture and expand after preparing the control methods.
subgrade.
• Placing a pavement on a subgrade with widely Compaction and Moisture Control
varying moisture contents, allowing differential of Expansive Soils
volume change of the soil to take place along the To reduce volume changes of highly expansive
3 Subgrades
road’s alignment. soils, it is critical to compact them at 1 to 3 percent
• Creating non-uniform support by ignoring abrupt above optimum moisture content (AASHTO T99).
Research has shown that compacting expansive
changes between soil types with different capaci-
soils at moisture contents exceeding AASHTO T99
ties for volume change along the road’s align-
optimum will produce a subgrade that absorbs less
ment.
water, provides slightly higher strength, and will not
Certain expansion test procedures such as ASTM expand or swell as much as if the soils that are com-
4 Subbases
D4546, ASTM D4829, Caltrans Test Method No. pacted dry of optimum moisture at the time of prepa-
3548 (CALTRANS 1978) and soil suction tests ration (Dubose 1952; Felt 1953; Holtz 1959; Parcher
(AASHTO T273 or ASTM D3152) are especially suit- and Lie 1965; McDowell 1959).
able for evaluating the volume change of subgrade Figure 16 shows the strong influence of compaction
soils. Some of the important factors determined by moisture and density on volume change. Lower
these tests, which are not indicated by simple index compactive efforts (lower dry densities) will result in
tests, are: considerably less expansion, but this is not recom-
5 References
• The effects of compaction, moisture and density mended in practice. At lower compactive efforts
on soil swell characteristics. there may be practical difficulties in achieving a rea-
sonably uniform degree of compaction and there is a
• The effect of surcharge loads.
high risk of secondary compaction of the subgrade
• The expansion for the total sample gradation once the pavement structure is placed onto it. Con-
rather than only for a finer gradation fraction of sequently, a properly compacted subgrade is best
the soil. achieved by increasing the moisture content and
Appendices
The volume change that may occur with a potentially compactive efforts near that of AASHTO T99.
expansive soil depends upon several factors: It is also important not to assume that higher degrees
• Climate — the degree of moisture variation that of compaction produce a better subgrade when
will take place in the subgrade throughout the dealing with fine, expansive soils. The U.S. Army
year or from year to year. It is generally true that a Corps of Engineers and various other agencies use a
pavement will protect the grade to some degree modified moisture-density test, AASHTO T180, which
and reduce the degree of moisture variation in an was developed to represent a higher degree of com-
Index
27
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
8 0) 0)
2,0 1, 92
0( 0( N. Dak. silt loam
13 Volume Change (%) 12
A - 6(10)
1 Introduction
2 0)
( 1,9 0) LL 38
120 1, 84 PI 16
0) 5(
76 11
1,
Dry Density [lb/ft3 (kg/m )]
Zer Predic
3
o-A ted E
6
0 0) ( 1,7
ir-V
(1,6 110 95%
0
oid pansio
10 10%
2 Design Principles
sC
0) 8% 0)
x
44 68
ur v
1, 1,
0( 5(
e
9 6% 10
n
8 0) 4% 0%
2
(1, 2% 00
)
80 (1,
6
T99
1% 0
2 0) 10
1
(1,
70 0)
95%
52
0) (1,
(96 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 95
60
3 Subgrades
bases beneath concrete pavements because uniform To illustrate the effect of moisture content on soil
support is more important than support strength. swell, Figure 18 shows that, when compared to the
high expansion obtained when compacted dry of
To better illustrate the difference between the AASHTO T180 with the extra compaction effort, the
AASHTO T99 and T180 test methods, consider expansion for an A-6 soil is reduced when it is com-
Figure 17. To obtain the maximum density of approxi- pacted slightly wet of AASHTO T99 optimum. The
mately 114 lb/ft3 (1,830 kg/m3) for the AASHTO T180 research results also show that, for soil compacted
test, the moisture content during compaction must be
Appendices
28
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
Swell (%)
2 Design Principles
12 content (above optimum). The depth of subgrade
Moisture Gain (%)
3 Subgrades
compaction moisture content can be increased
4 from slightly below optimum in the lower part of the
CBR Strength (%)
2 Selective Grading
If expansive soils are not the predominant soil type
along the roadway alignment, selective grading is
4 Subbases
typically the most cost-effective method of treatment.
0 Selective grading operations also may be adequate
DRY OF WET OF
for controlling the shrink and swell potential when
T180 T99
the profile grade can be designed to keep expansive
Figure 18. Strength, moisture gain and swell of soil com- soils out of the top of the subgrade. Tests indicate
pacted dry of AASHTO T180 and wet of AASHTO T99 that soil swell is reduced by surcharge loads (Holtz
optimum moistures.
and Gibbs 1956). Field measurements show that
5 References
excessive swell at depths of 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m)
On the other hand, pavement distortion has occurred gradually decreases to a negligible amount at depths
for pavements placed on expansive subgrade soils of 15 ft (5 m) or more. Thus, excessive swell can be
of lower moisture contents. Experience also demon- controlled by placing more expansive soils in the
strates that subgrade soils compacted slightly wet lower parts of embankments. Cross-hauling or selec-
offer greater resistance to water gain by absorption tive grading operations that effectively blend or mix
or water loss by evaporation than do soils com- soil types, resulting in less expansive soils being
pacted under any other condition. placed in the upper part of the subgrade, can pro-
Appendices
29
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
absorption of additional moisture. Since this expan- the properties of a soil. A significant contributor to the
sion takes place slowly, it is essential to excavate stabilizing effect of the materials is calcium. Stabiliza-
these deep cuts well in advance of other grading tion materials react with expansive clay in two ways
1 Introduction
work, whenever possible. When the excavation and (Bhatty, Bhattacharja, Todres 1996; FHWA 2003):
embankment operations do not lend themselves to
• Ion Exchange Stabilization (chemical mechanism)
this early excavation, these sections should be
— flocculation and agglomeration of clay particles
chemically modified to control shrink and swell.
results in granular particles with a lower PI and
Many projects no longer lend themselves to selec- lower sensitivity to moisture fluctuation.
2 Design Principles
tive grading operations due to project phasing and • Pozzolanic Stabilization (physical mechanism) —
scheduling requirements. However, selective grading direct cementitious effects of bonding soil grains
is usually more economical than chemical modifica- together.
tion. Therefore, engineers are encouraged to eval-
uate the soil conditions along the project alignment Each of the materials used for subgrade modification
carefully before choosing which method to select. that are described in this document (lime, portland
Selective grading is an excellent technique for cement, CKD, Class C fly ash and Class F fly ash
controlling the volume change of expansive soils with lime) react with clay materials in both ways, but
for isolated pockets of these materials that occur to different degrees. The chemical composition of
3 Subgrades
portland cement, cement kiln dust (CKD), Class C both reaction types. Class F fly ash is not self-
fly ash or Class F fly ash in conjunction with lime. cementing, so it requires lime as an activator;
Modification provides a positive means to control the together, Class F fly ash and lime create a cementi-
shrink-swell potential of a soil. In addition, modified tious product through a pozzolanic reaction (ACAA
subgrade soils provide an ideal working platform, 2006).
and the time savings associated with subgrade
modification can prove to be more economical than ■ Material Selection and Dosage Rates
selective grading operations. Lab tests should be performed to determine appro-
5 References
Modifying Material (ASTM D4318) (ASTM D4829) (ASTM D1883) (ASTM D1633)
Lime ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Portland Cement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Cement Kiln Dust ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Class C Fly Ash ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Class F Fly Ash with Lime ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Index
30
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
Any of the modifying materials can be used for con- ■ Constructing Modified/Stabilized Subgrades
trolling the volume change of expansive soils. How- The process for constructing a lime-modified sub-
ever, the effectiveness of each modifying material is
1 Introduction
grade is slightly different than for portland cement,
a function of the soil properties and the dosage rate. CKD and fly ash modified subgrades. Lime requires
Soil modification material selection should be based a mellowing period to react with the soil. In contrast,
upon lab test results and economic factors. For the cementitious materials must be completely incor-
example, lab test results of ASTM D4318 may show porated into the natural soil and fully compacted as
that 4 percent lime modification will reduce the PI of quickly as is reasonable to take full advantage of the
a soil to 10 and that 16 percent fly ash modification pozzolanic reaction.
2 Design Principles
will reduce the expansion index to 30 when tested in
accordance with ASTM D4829. Based on these The pozzolanic reaction bonds soil particles
results, a comparison between the estimated costs together, which restricts their potential to change
of the lime and the fly ash material can be made to volume. Disturbing the portland cement, CKD, Class
determine which material is most cost effective. In C fly ash or Class F fly ash with lime and soil mix-
cases where the material costs for each alternative ture after the soil particles have bonded together
are similar, one can assume that construction costs essentially breaks those bonds and decreases the
for lime modified subgrade will be slightly higher modifying material’s capability to control the expan-
3 Subgrades
than the other materials because the lime-soil mix- sive soil. A requirement that the modified soil mixture
ture must be manipulated twice (see Figure 19). be fully compacted within 1 hour of the soil-water-fly
ash mixing process is common in specifications for
This document is not intended to define appropriate Class C fly ash subgrade modification. While port-
dosage rates for soil modification materials. These land cement, CKD and Class F fly ash with lime do
decisions are project/soil specific and should be not react as quickly as Class C fly ash, it is advis-
based on lab testing procedures using soil samples able that a compaction requirement time of not more
that are anticipated to be found in the upper layers than 2 hours be applied to these stabilized materials.
4 Subbases
of the subgrade. A geotechnical engineer should pro- Details of the subgrade preparation process, with
vide guidance on the material dosage rate that will special considerations and steps for chemical modifi-
adequately control the volume change of an expan- cation, are shown in Figure 19.
sive subgrade soil. Reference documents published
by cement, lime, and fly ash industry organizations Special Methods for Controlling
often include normal ranges for dosage rates. These Expansive Soils
suggested dosage ranges should not be used in lieu Where the potential exists for extreme soil volume
5 References
of lab testing of the soil to be modified. For most soil changes, several special treatments have been used
types, more than one type of modifying material will with success. These include ponding (pre-swelling),
adequately control the volume change. Thus, the membrane encapsulation, horizontal geomem-
cost of each available material at the lab tested branes, and vertical moisture barriers (Gordon and
dosage rate should be estimated and compared to Waters 1984; Luttrell and Reeves 1984; Picornell
optimize the design. and Lytton 1987 and 1989; Ramaswamy and Aziz
1987; Reed 1987; Snethen 1979; Steinberg 1981;
NOTE: Modifying sulfate bearing soils with any of Watt and Steinberg 1972; Weston 1980). Electro-
Appendices
the above materials can result in a detrimental osmotic chemical stabilization and pressure injection
volume change of the soil. Soils with sulfate levels of chemicals have also been used, with mixed
above 0.3 percent may react with the calcium in the results (TRB 1990, Petry and Armstrong 1989).
modifying materials (NLA 2000). Consult with a geo- Information on these specialized treatments is
technical engineer for projects that may potentially beyond the scope of this publication; details of the
have soils containing sulfate. techniques are given in the cited references.
Index
31
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Steps/Description
Unstabilized Subgrades
Initial Grading, Compaction, and Finish Grading
1 Introduction
Grade the subgrade soil to the line and grade required by the roadway plans. Cross haul materials to avoid
abrupt changes in subgrade character. Compact the subgrade soil, adding water, as needed to achieve the
optimum moisture content for compaction (density).
Identify excessively soft spots and then, either undercut and replace the soils, or pre-treat with a stabilizing
agent. Compact the subgrade again in areas where soft pockets are replaced with improved fill.
Initial Trimming
Protect the subgrade from rain by “tight blading” and finishing with a smooth drum roller.
Fine grade the subgrade to the shape of the typical section and to plan elevation within grade tolerance.
Finish grading operations, which may take place anytime after final compaction occurs.
2 Design Principles
change of expansive soils and to achieving uniform support for the subbase and pavement layers. As
dosage rates decrease, uniform spreading becomes even more critical with respect to constructing a consis-
tent and uniform subgrade.
For Soil Modification with Lime:
• Use either pebble quicklime spread in a dry state or hydrated lime, slaked and spread as a slurry. Regard-
less of which form is used, metering the application from the equipment is preferable.
Spreading Materials
• Mix and add water simultaneously to ensure complete hydration of the lime before final mixing occurs.
Target a moisture content from optimum to optimum plus 5 percent.
• Lightly compact the modified soil and grade to drain excess water.
4 Subbases
• Let the stabilized soil sit idle for a 24 to 72 hour mellowing period.
• Re-mix the grade, adding water as necessary and recompacting. Target a moisture content of optimum
plus 3 percent.
• When prepared properly, a minimum of 60% of the modified soil mixture should pass a #4 (4.75 mm)
sieve.
For Soil Modification with Cement:
Mixing in Modifying Agent • Mix, add water, and compact the stabilized soil mixture in a continuous operation to assure that final
compaction is achieved in 2 hours or less.
5 References
Figure 19. Construction processes for subgrades, with special considerations for lime and cement modified soils.
32
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
cally all surface soils undergo some frost action, the concern if the pavement has been designed to pre-
magnitude of which is dependent upon the locally vent pumping.
prevailing climate and precipitation. Frost action
divides into two phases: 1) freezing of the soil water Frost design for concrete pavements is concerned
and 2) thawing of the soil water. For pavements, with providing uniform subgrade conditions. This is
frost action becomes critical when either: achieved by eliminating the moisture conditions that
2 Design Principles
• The freezing phase is accompanied by noticeable lead to objectionable differential frost heave:
heaving of the road surface, or • Where subgrade soils vary abruptly from non-
• The thawing phase is accompanied by a notice- frost-susceptible sands to highly frost-susceptible
able softening of the roadbed. silts.
• At cut-fill transitions or at silt pockets.
It is important to understand that the design consid-
erations for controlling frost heave are not neces- • Where ground-water is close to the surface.
sarily identical to those for controlling subgrade • Where water-bearing strata are encountered.
softening. For example, a soil with high frost-heave
3 Subgrades
potential will not necessarily exhibit the maximum
Frost Heave
degree of subgrade softening. Even though both
mechanisms are typically present in frost-susceptible Heaving of the road from frost action is termed “frost
soils, it is important to recognize how their affects on heave.” Frost heave, particularly when in isolated
the performance of concrete pavements differ. Field areas, induces uneven support of a pavement. When
experience with concrete pavements has shown that heavy loads pass over the area of uneven support, a
frost action damage due to frost heave, in the form crack may form in the pavement surface layer.
4 Subbases
of abrupt differential heave, has affected perfor-
mance more than subgrade softening. A typical There are at least three conditions that must exist
crack from frost heaving is shown in Figure 20. before frost heaving can occur. They are:
Subgrade softening due to frost action is not a pri- 1. A sufficiently cold climate to allow freezing tem-
mary concern for subgrade design because uniform peratures to penetrate below the road surface
support from a subgrade is more important than its and into the subbase and subgrade.
strength. However, subgrade softening can aggra-
2. A supply of water from below, above and/or later-
5 References
ally into the freezing zone.
3. A soil material that is frost susceptible and is lying
within the freezing zone.
33
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
( WN
free water freezes and expands. Once started, ice (a) Ice lens begins to form from free moisture in the soil.
lenses continue to grow as long as a source of free
water is available. Free water migrates through the Crack may form from
soil to a forming ice lens by capillary action. This uneven support.
migration of water can be as far as 30 ft (9 m) for
certain frost-susceptible soils. If the rate of frost
penetration into the subgrade is slow, thicker ice
lenses will be developed because there is more time
Appendices
34
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
the freezing zone. Other soils considered frost-sus- 3% smaller than 0.8 mils (0.02 mm) in non-uniformly
ceptible will also promote formation of ice lenses. graded soils. However, these methods seldom differ-
entiate between frost heave and thaw softening. One
1 Introduction
Frost heave is most often found at the following method that differentiates the two factors is the
locations: freeze-thaw test of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
• Transitions from cut to fill. neers (Chamberlain 1987), but the test and equip-
• Where ditches are inadequate or non-existent. ment are not simple.
• Over culvert pipes. In general, the degree of frost susceptibility can be
2 Design Principles
• Adjacent to driveways that dam roadside ditches explained by two hydraulic properties of soils:
and/or collect water. • Capillarity — the soil’s ability to pull moisture by
• Where there is an abrupt change in subgrade capillary forces. The smaller the pore size distribu-
material. tion of a pore network, the greater the driving
force (capillary action) and the greater the capil-
Not all frost heaving is detrimental to a pavement.
larity.
Uniform heaving will likely not be noticeable to the
eye or to vehicle passengers. If uniform heaving • Permeability — the soil’s ability to transmit water
occurs, there are no bumps or rolls in the pavement through its voids. The permeability of any material
3 Subgrades
surface and, therefore, uniform heaving does not is heavily dependent on the connectivity of its
present a maintenance problem. Heaving is destruc- pore network. For example, if a material contains
tive and troublesome only during the freezing or many tortuous pores that abruptly end, it will have
frozen phase, when it varies sharply, causing less permeability than a material with very open
uneven support to the pavement. pores that pass completely and directly through
the material. The more connected and the larger
To prevent frost heave, highly susceptible soils the pore network is, the greater the permeability.
4 Subbases
should be replaced or stabilized. Susceptible areas
should be drained with tile drains and/or ditches The relation of these properties to frost susceptibility
should be kept clean and free of clutter that prevents is visualized in Figure 23. Heavy clays have a very
flow of water away from the pavement.
Frost-Susceptible Soils s
Criteria and soil classifications for identifying frost- lay
s
C lay
yC dy
av San
5 References
susceptible soils usually reflect susceptibility to soft- He
Negl
y&
ening on thaw as well as to heaving (Army 1985, ravel
.
s, G
ASCE 1984, Chamberlain 1981, and TRB 1953 and C lay
Le an
Mo
w
ev
Ve San
er
e
T
IO M G rav G rav
N od an n d s
There is a wide diversity in frost susceptibility deter- era
t e Cle S a
mination methods; almost all of the methods are Negl
.
unique for individual state, provincial, and federal
agencies. Most of the methods are based on soil Permeability
particle size determination, and several have criteria Figure 23. The relationship between frost action and hydraulic
similar to that of Casagrande (1931) — more than properties of soils.
Index
35
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
0.7 0.69
larity and permeability occur in a soil, such as with
silty materials, severe frost heaving may occur. 0.6
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Low-plasticity, fine-grained soils with a high per- Figure 24. Typical loss in bearing value on thaw.
centage of silt-size particles (in the range of 0.02 to
2 mils (0.0005 to 0.05 mm)) are particularly suscep-
tible to frost heave. Other soils considered frost-sus- The period of reduced subgrade support that accom-
ceptible include loams, sandy loams, clayey loams, panies thawing has little effect on concrete pave-
3 Subgrades
fine sands, clayey gravel, and rock flour. Moderately ments. This is because concrete reduces pressures
frost-susceptible soils include dirty sands and to safe limits by distributing loads over large areas
gravels and glacial tills. The only soils that can be and because concrete pavements are designed for
considered to be non-frost-susceptible are very fatigue stresses due to load repetitions. Fatigue
clean mixtures of sand and gravel. effects during the period of reduced subgrade
strength are offset by reduced fatigue during the
Spring Subgrade Softening longer period that the subgrade is frozen and offers
4 Subbases
layer cannot drain downward because of the frozen reductions in subgrade support of 25 to 45 percent
zone below. In addition, expansion due to heaving
during spring thaw periods (PCA 1975). When these
has caused a temporary loss in density. Under these
reduced values are used in design analyses, the
conditions, there is a sharp reduction in subgrade
results show that additional pavement thickness is
support during the thaw period. Studies by the Mate-
not required. Because of their inherent load carrying
rial Committee of the Highway Research Board
capacity and ability to distribute loads over larger
show that the period of greatest strength loss is brief
areas, concrete pavements are exempted from load
— usually two to three weeks — followed by a
Appendices
period of recovery after thawing is completed and restriction during periods of spring thaw, unlike many
the subgrade material is recompacted. Figure 24 asphalt pavements.
shows a typical increase of subgrade strength on
Field experience and design analyses verify that
freezing and loss of subgrade strength on thawing
subgrade softening is not a factor in design consid-
over the course of a year.
erations for the control of frost action for concrete
pavements. Instead, it is the abrupt, differential frost
heave that must be controlled.
Index
36
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
Control of Frost Heave in soil character and type. Where soils vary widely
The performance of older concrete pavements in or frequently in character, mixing them is effective in
preventing differential frost heave. Figure 25 illus-
1 Introduction
frost-susceptible areas under today’s increasingly
heavy traffic shows that extensive, costly controls trates a typical cut-fill section; the transition section
are not necessary to prevent frost damage. Surveys is removed and mixed with the fill section only to
of these pavements indicate that control is needed promote uniformity of the finished subgrade surface.
only to reduce excessive heave and, more critically,
With modern construction equipment, the mixing of
to prevent differential heave by achieving reasonably
non-uniform soils to form a uniform subgrade is often
uniform subgrade conditions. As in the case of ex-
2 Design Principles
more economical than importing select materials
pansive soils, a large degree of frost heave control is
from borrow pits. Chemical modification will also
attained most economically by appropriate grading
impart some benefit towards the goal of uniformity
operations and by controlling subgrade compaction
of the subgrade, but it also is likely less economical
and moisture.
than select grading and mixing.
■ Grade and Water Table Elevation
■ Removal of Silt Pockets
The most fundamental design aspect of controlling
When the grade includes only a few pockets of silt
frost heave potential is to set the grade lines high
3 Subgrades
or other frost-susceptible soils, the best option is to
enough and construct side ditches deep enough so
excavate and backfill these pockets with soils similar
that highly frost-susceptible soils are always above
to the surrounding subgrade. To ensure that a condi-
the capillary range of groundwater tables. If possible,
tion of uniform support will be created for the pave-
where groundwater is near the surface, the grade
ment, it will be important to compact the backfill
should be kept 4 or 5 ft (1.2 or 1.5 m) above the
materials to the same moisture and density condi-
ditch bottom in cut sections and natural ground in
tions of those found in the adjacent soils. The
fills (embankment sections). Since elevation of the
replacement soil should be mixed with the sur-
4 Subbases
grade is not typically possible for streets and road-
rounding soil to form a tapered transition zone at the
ways, as it is with highways, other frost heave miti-
edges of the pocket, just as in cut-fill transitions.
gation techniques should be considered for these
applications. ■ Compaction and Moisture Control
Once reasonable soil uniformity is created through
■ Selective Grading and Mixing
grading operations, compaction at controlled mois-
Selective grading operations are beneficial to place
ture levels will further improve the subgrade. As
5 References
highly frost-susceptible soils in the lower portions of
previously discussed, subgrade uniformity can be
embankments, and to cross-haul less frost-suscep-
obtained by compacting the subgrade materials
tible soils form the lower portion of the subgrade
slightly wet of the AASHTO T99 optimum moisture
towards the top. Cross-hauling and mixing are also
content. Treating most fine-grained soils in this
useful at cut-full transitions to correct abrupt changes
e
Lin 75 to 10
0 ft
rade
G
ting
Exis
Figure 25. Tapered transition used when embankment material differs from the natural subgrade in the cut section.
Index
37
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
manner substantially reduces soil permeability, which The backfill placed around and above pipe under-
retards the rate of moisture flow to the frozen zone. drains should be open-graded to permit rapid flow
Research confirms that less frost heave occurs into the slotted pipe. Underdrain trenches should be
1 Introduction
when soils are compacted at higher moisture con- wrapped with a geotextile fabric to prevent infiltration
tents (Beskow 1947, Springenschmid 1965). and clogging by adjacent soils.
Furthermore, compaction at slightly wet of AASHTO ■ Protection for Utilities Located in the Subgrade
T99 optimum moisture makes the subgrade less Placing a utility such as a culvert, drain or duct
susceptible to nonuniform moisture changes under a concrete pavement with a frost-susceptible
2 Design Principles
(changes due to saturation and drying) at the pave- subgrade can be problematic and should be avoided
ment edges and joints. if possible. If, however, it is necessary to place a
utility into the pavement structure then special con-
Experience shows that, over time, subgrade mois- sideration should be taken to protect the utility and
tures will naturally increase to slightly above opti- the pavement structure above it.
mum moisture for frost-susceptible soils in the
climates where frost action is a problem. Resistance Figure 26 shows several examples of frost heave
to frost heave is enhanced when subgrades are ini- protection methods for a culvert at various depths
tially compacted at moisture contents above with respect to the frost line (boundary of the freezing
3 Subgrades
optimum, rather than when compacted dry and later zone). If a culvert is located above the freezing zone
saturated by natural forces. (cases a and b in Figure 26), measures should be
taken to adequately isolate the culvert from the
■ Drainage potential expansion of the surrounding frost-suscep-
Where elevating the pavement grade is impractical, tible subgrade material. As the depth of a culvert
underdrains may be used to lower groundwater increases with respect to the freezing zone, less pro-
tables. The drains must be placed so that the tection is necessary. If a culvert is placed completely
4 Subbases
groundwater level is lowered beyond the subgrade in the unfrozen zone, no isolation is necessary
soil's capillary range since capillary water cannot be because all of the expansion of the frost-susceptible
effectively drained. soil will occur above the culvert, in the frozen and
Where wet spots are encountered in the grade, due freezing zones.
to seepage through a permeable stratum underlain
by an impervious material, intercepting drains may
be considered.
5 References
Concrete Pavement
Subbase 2
Subbase 1
Subgrade
Appendices
Frozen Zone
(<30ºF)
Freezing Zone
(30-31.8ºF)
Unfrozen Zone Granular Granular
(>32ºF)
Material Bedding Culvert
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 26. Freezing sequence in a typical pavement profile and example frost heave protection methods for culverts at various
depths.
Index
38
Summary/Overview
Chapter 3 — Subgrades
1 Introduction
heave, but they are not required for this purpose if
frost heave can be mitigated by proper grading means of preventing frost heave and should not be
operations. treated as such.
2 Design Principles
imal since coarse-grained soils permit somewhat for reasons ranging from a naturally high water table
deeper frost penetration than do fine-grained soils to seasonal rainfall, and even changes in drainage
because of a difference in thermal properties due to conditions due to construction. Regardless of the
the higher in-place moisture contents of the fine- cause, in-situ wet soils must be addressed before
grained soils. constructing a subbase or concrete pavement on the
subgrade.
An example of the effect of subbase thickness on
frost heave for a road in Minnesota is shown in The simplest ways to mitigate problems due to wet
soils are to construct drains before construction or to
3 Subgrades
Figure 27 (Nowlen 1959). Although the amount of
heave is not great, the data shows that it is not elimi- let the subgrade dry out prior to constructing a sub-
nated at subbase thickness up to 18 in. (460 mm). base or concrete pavement on the subgrade. How-
Subbase layers are more effective in preventing loss ever, construction scheduling and costs may make
in subgrade support on thaw, which is not a primary these solutions ineffective [Burak 2007]. Other pro-
design consideration for concrete pavements. cedures that may be used fall into three categories:
• Enhancement – A method of removing excessive
Proper grade design, selective grading and com- moisture in wet soils by providing drainage via
4 Subbases
paction control will produce uniform support and trenches or toe drains at the lowest point(s); com-
resistance to rapid moisture flow into the upper part pacting the subgrade using heavy equipment,
of the subgrade. These are effective methods for which forces the excess moisture out of the sub-
preventing differential or excessive heaving. If a grade due to high applied pressures; or adjusting
the moisture content through chemical modifica-
tion (soil stabilization). (See the section entitled
5 References
1.8 (45) Chemical Modification earlier in this chapter for
Average Upward Movement [in. (mm)]
)
(0
25
50
75
00
(1
(2
(3
(5
5
10
20
15
lation techniques.
Thickness of Unstabilized (Granular) Subbase [in. (mm)]
Figure 27. Effect of unstabilized (granular) subbase thickness
• Substitution – A method of removing excessive
on frost heave. moisture in wet soils is removing unsuitable,
Index
39
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
unstable or excessively wet soils and replacing the subgrade surface slightly, additional compaction
it with select borrow material or, alternatively, rolling is usually necessary after trimming.
covering the wet soil with a suitable material to
1 Introduction
develop the necessary uniformity and stability. The soil moisture content should be reasonably
(See the sections entitled Selective Grading and uniform during compaction; excessively wet or dry
Selective Grading and Mixing earlier in this chap- spots require correction to produce reasonable uni-
ter for more discussion on cross-hauling and formity. For most soils, compaction should be done
selective grading.) at moisture contents at or slightly above optimum,
as previously discussed.
2 Design Principles
40
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4.
1 Introduction
Subbases
2 Design Principles
A subbase provides benefits to both design and con-
struction. From the design perspective, the essential
function of a subbase is to prevent pumping of fine-
grained soils. From the construction perspective, the
function of a subbase is to provide a stable working
3 Subgrades
platform for construction equipment, which enables
a contractor to provide a smoother pavement and
achieve a more consistent pavement thickness than
might be possible if constructing on just a subgrade. Figure 28. Photograph of pumping.
4 Subbases
excessive differential frost heave. However, these
factors can most likely be more economically and
better controlled through proper subgrade prepara-
tion treatments. Subbases can also be used as a
drainage layer; however, when doing this, the right
balance of drainage and stability must be obtained.
5 References
PUMPING Figure 29. Stains on shoulders due to pumping.
tion often results in premature cracking at slab cor- 1930’s and 1940’s first determined the basic factors
ners and pavement roughness, generally in the form necessary for pumping to occur. Further experience
of faulted transverse joints. In the worst case, loads determined that all of the following conditions must
deflect concrete slabs enough to pump water and be present:
fine soil particles through joints and onto the surface
• Fast moving, heavy loads to deflect the slabs
of the pavement, where visible stains become evi-
(trucks, not automobiles).
dent. Figures 28 and 29 show a pumping joint in
• Undoweled joints or joints with poor load transfer.
Index
41
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
• The presence of water between the pavement meeting AASHTO M155 requirements will effectively
and the subgrade or subbase. prevent pumping in pavements carrying even the
highest volumes of traffic, assuming that other
1 Introduction
Direction
of Travel slab.
Soil Movement
Figure 30. Mechanics of pumping. Figure 32. Faulted joint.
Index
42
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
often used because it isolates the two causal factors port fine materials in suspension. Pavements
that are the easiest and most reliable to address by may be built directly on natural subgrade soils
choices in pavement design. with this character as long as the soil is satis-
1 Introduction
factory in other critical regards (e.g., frost action
WHEN TO USE A SUBBASE and expansion).
Engineered subbases are appropriate when a stable • Qualified Subgrade Soils — Subgrade soils with
and uniform construction platform will benefit con- less than 45% passing a No. 200 (75 µm) sieve
struction and/or when the combination of subgrade and with a PI of 6 or less are adequate for mod-
soil type, water availability, and high-speed, heavy
2 Design Principles
erate volumes of heavy truck traffic without the
vehicle traffic are at a level that is conducive to use of a subbase layer. In these cases, it is advis-
cause pumping and any associated distresses. able to use dowelled joints — even in slabs less
Therefore, a subbase is a required element for con- than 8 in. (200 mm) — to prevent differential
crete pavements designed for major, heavily-traveled deflections at slab joints.
pavements, particularly those carrying large numbers
of trucks. It should be noted that these exceptions, which allow
for a concrete pavement to be placed directly on a
Pavements for slow-moving trucks or light-traffic subgrade, are extremely dependent on the designer’s
3 Subgrades
pavements, such as residential streets, secondary estimate of heavy truck-traffic volumes over the life
roads, parking lots, and auto-only high-speed road- of the pavement.
ways, are not prone to the development of pumping.
A subbase is not warranted for pumping protection in In no case is increasing the thickness of a concrete
such applications because these facilities are not pavement slab an acceptable measure to prevent
subject to the pavement deflection and rebound that pumping. Without proper preventive measures,
high-speed, heavy wheel loads cause. Specifically, pumping occurs on even the thickest of pavement
4 Subbases
there are several exceptions to the advice on using slabs if the right combination of factors exists. A non-
a subbase to prevent pumping as presented earlier erodible subbase and load transfer dowels at the
in this chapter: transverse joints are necessary whenever heavy
truck volumes are anticipated.
• Traffic* — A pavement expected to carry 200
trucks† per day or fewer generally does not To further define when a subbase is warranted,
require a subbase to prevent pumping. Also, Table 7 gives serviceability data and pumping factors
pavements that are designed to carry less than from the AASHO Road Test for sections with no sub-
5 References
1,000,000 18-kip (80 kN) ESAL’s over the course base versus a 6 in. (150 mm) subbase. In this data,
of their service life do not require subbases to pre- loops 2 and 3 are typical of many city streets, county
vent pumping damage. roads, and light-traffic highways. As can be seen,
under these low volume conditions, the pavements
• Natural Drainage — A subgrade soil that is natu- without subbases gave similar performance as those
rally free draining typically will not pump because pavements with subbases. Table 7 also shows that a
water percolates through the subgrade and does 6 in. (150 mm) subbase provides adequate protec-
Appendices
not remain under the pavement where it can trans- tion against pumping for very heavy loadings.
* These guidelines were developed from the AASHO Road Test and cooperative surveys with state agencies covering more than 2,000 miles of con-
crete pavements in ten states representing a wide range of climates, soils, traffic conditions. While developed many years ago, these guidelines
remain applicable today. Included in the studies were pavements with and without joint load transfer devices and projects carrying as may as 700
axle loads per day of more than 18,000 lb (80 kN) and projects with tractor-semi-trailer counts of 1,000 to 2,000 per day.
† Two-way traffic, not including panel and pickup trucks, and other four-tire single units.
Index
43
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Table 7. Performance and Heavy Pumping Factor for No-subbase and 6 in. (150 mm) Subbase Sections,
3rd Level Concrete Design — All Traffic Loops
Loop Axle Axle load Slab thick. Subbase thick. P at end Repetitions at Heavy pumping
1 Introduction
No. type [kips (kN)] [in. (mm)] [in. (mm)] of tests P = 1.5 (in 1,000s) factor 1
0 (0) 4.1 — 0
22 Single 2 (9) 5.0 (130)
6 (150) 4.1 — 0
0 (0) 4.1 — 0
2 Single 6 (27) 5.0 (130)
6 (150) 4.0 — 0
0 (0) 4.2 — 0
33 Single 12 (53) 6.5 (165)
6 (150) 4.1 — 0
2 Design Principles
0 (0) 4.5 — 0
4 Single 18 (80) 8.0 (200)
6 (150) 4.4 — 0
0 (0) 3.9 — 25
5 Single 22.4 (100) 9.5 (240)
6 (150) 3.7 — 15
0 (0) 4.2 — 0
6 Single 30 (130) 11.0 (280)
6 (150) 4.2 — 0
0 (0) 4.0 — 0
33 Tandem 24 (110) 6.5 (165)
6 (150) 4.1 — 0
0 (0) 2.4 — 100
4 Tandem 32 (140) 8.0 (200)
3 Subgrades
6 (150) 4.2 — 12
0 (0) — 658 907
5 Tandem 40 (180) 9.5 (240)
6 (150) 40 — 148
0 (0) — 907 925
6 Tandem 48 (210) 11.0 (280)
6 (150) 43 — 0
1 Pumping data obtained from AASHO Road Test Data System 4243, “Rigid Pavement Pumping Surveys”
2 Loop 2 data for Design 1 sections
3 Loops 3 – 6 data for Design 3 sections
4 Subbases
44
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
■ cement-stabilized subbases (cement-treated Unstabilized subbases have long been the most
subbases or lean concrete subbases, both of common type of subbase, but they fell out of favor
which may include fly ash) and with some highway agencies at a time when jointed
1 Introduction
■ asphalt-treated subbases. reinforced concrete (JRC) pavements and undow-
elled (plain) concrete pavements were the norm.
With any subbase, it is possible to utilize recycled Both of these pavement designs were subject to
concrete (either from an existing concrete pavement deterioration by pumping and faulting — at the
or another source) or a variety of waste materials as cracks that occurred by design between dowelled
aggregate. joints in JRC pavements and at each transverse joint
2 Design Principles
in plain undowelled pavements. The faulting, corner
Regardless of specific subbase considerations, the cracking and roughness that developed on the pave-
best results are obtained by: ments designed in this era is primarily attributable to
• Selecting subbase materials and combinations of a lack of positive joint (or crack in the case of JRC
layers that adequately prevent pumping of sub- pavements) load transfer and the unanticipated
grade soils for the life of the pavement. increase in truck traffic experienced on the road net-
• Selecting subbase materials that will not con- work, and not due to any general negative character-
tribute to excessive pavement deflections under istic of unstabilized subbases.
3 Subgrades
traffic loadings, and will remain stable over time.
Since the 1980’s, however, the practice of dowelling
• Treating the subbase surface to ensure that it transverse joints has become the norm for plain con-
does not cause excessive friction or induce crete pavements and the use of JRC pavement
bonding to the pavement slabs. designs for roadways or highways has fallen out of
• Specifying gradation or material controls that will favor. Thus, unstabilized subbases have once again
ensure a reasonably consistent subbase material become a preferred means of mitigating pumping
4 Subbases
quality across an individual project. for most highway agencies.
• Building the subbase to grade controls that When designed and constructed properly, unstabi-
foster a pavement of consistent thickness and lized subbases make an outstanding support layer
smoothness. for concrete pavements for all types of roadways
and highways. Their primary advantage is their rela-
Unstabilized (Granular) Subbases tively low cost when compared to stabilized sub-
Unstabilized subbases, also known as granular sub- bases.
5 References
bases, are the most common type of subbase for
applications such as streets, roadways and high- Material Requirements
ways. A wide variety of soils and aggregates make As a minimum, an unstabilized subbase material
excellent constituents for unstabilized subbases. The must meet the requirements of AASHTO M147
types of materials that have been used successfully (alternatively, AASHTO M155 might be used if
include crushed stone, bank run sand-gravels, sands, pumping is of significant concern). The following
soil-stabilized gravels, bottom ash, crushed or granu- factors generally define materials that make a good
Appendices
lated slag, and local materials such as crushed wine unstabilized subbase:
waste and sand-shell mixtures. Any number of com- • Maximum particle size of no more than one third
binations of all these materials that would provide the subbase thickness.
a proper subbase could alternatively be used. Re-
• Less than 15% passing the No. 200 (75 µm)
cycled crushed concrete is also an excellent source
sieve.
material for an unstabilized subbase.
• Plasticity Index of 6 or less.
• Liquid limit of 25 or less.
Index
45
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
• Los Angeles abrasion resistance (AASHTO T96 or for the subbase to have a reasonably constant gra-
ASTM C131) of 50% or less. dation that allows compaction equipment to produce
the uniform and stable support that is essential for
1 Introduction
fines, the unstabilized subbase may hold water more shows typical unstabilized subbase material grada-
readily and will be prone to erosion, pumping and tions (ASTM D1241 is similar). AASHTO M147
frost action. If the local climate and soil dictates that divides various unstabilized subbase materials into
it is necessary to prevent damage by frost action, it six separate gradations that all permit a wide range
is better to use materials at or near the minimum in the percentage passing the various sieves. As a
fines content defined by the material specification. result, all gradations encompass unstabilized gran-
ular subbases that can be either open-graded and
Soft aggregate materials also are not satisfactory for slightly-to-moderately permeable, or dense-graded
3 Subgrades
Percent passing
5 References
Sieve size
Grading A Grading B Grading C Grading D Grading E Grading F
2 in. 50 mm 100 100 — — — —
1 in. 25 mm — 75 – 95 100 100 100 100
3
⁄8 in. 9.5 mm 30 – 65 40 – 75 50 – 85 60 – 100 — —
No. 4 4.75 mm 25 – 55 30 – 60 35 – 65 50 – 85 55 – 100 70 – 100
No. 10 2.00 mm 15 – 40 20 – 45 25 – 50 40 – 70 40 – 100 55 – 100
No. 40 425 µm 8 – 20 15 – 30 15 – 30 25 – 45 20 – 50 30 – 70
Appendices
† It is important to understand that it is possible for an unstabilized subbase material to pump if it is a poorly graded material that erodes easily
and/or it contains an excess of fine material. Pumping of unstabilized subbase materials may also occur on structurally under-designed pavements
due to excessive deflections caused by frequent loads on slabs of inadequate thickness. This was observed at the AASHO Road Test (HRB 1962)
and the recommendations in this publication are predicated on adequate structural design.
Index
46
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
mance due to the resultant non-uniform character ated with ‘permeable’ or ‘drainable’ subbases, a form
along the grade of the project. of very porous subbase that became a popular
1 Introduction
design element through the 1990’s. Permeable sub-
Careful examination of the allowable percentage bases — unstabilized subbases with the amount of
passing each sieve for gradings A through F in Table fines reduced to a level that increases the perme-
8 reveals that only Grading A and C limit the max- ability of the subbase to 500 to 20,000 ft/day (152 to
imum percentage passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve 6,100 m/day) in laboratory tests — are no longer
to less than 15%. It is important to bear in mind that recommended for concrete pavement because these
AASHTO M147 gradings were developed for general subbases are not stable over time and violate the
2 Design Principles
pavement construction including both concrete and fundamental requirement to maintain a uniform,
asphalt pavements. Therefore, the application of stable foundation for the life of the pavement. See
AASHTO M147 for use with concrete pavement is the section entitled Permeable Subbases: Reasons
likely to require more careful development of the to Avoid Their Use later in this publication or the
granular material combination in order to limit the section entitled Pavement System Drainage earlier
percent passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve to a lower in this publication for more discussion on permeable
requirement (again, the recommended maximum subbases.
percent passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve is 15%).
3 Subgrades
■ Quality Control
■ Discussion on Drainage of Unstabilized Project specifications should clearly identify the
(Granular) Subbases
grading option(s) for any specific project, or allow the
It is important to draw a distinction between open- contractor to select an unstabilized subbase source
graded and free-draining subbases. In this publica- that complies with any of the gradings in AASHTO
tion, the term free-draining designates materials M147 that also meets the specifier’s criteria (such as
similar to that shown as grading A in Table 8, where percentage passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve). An
the percent of fines passing the No. 200 (75 µm)
4 Subbases
effective way to ensure gradation control is to allow
sieve is considerably below 15%, but the fines are wide latitude in the selection of an unstabilized sub-
not eliminated altogether. The recommended target base from gradation limits known to be satisfactory.
permeability of a free-draining subbase is around
150 ft/day (45 m/day) in laboratory tests, which is all Prior to construction, the contractor should submit a
that is necessary for an effectively draining subbase. target gradation that fits within the specified grada-
Although materials as coarse and open-graded as tion band. For quality control, plus and minus toler-
5 References
ASTM No. 57 stone have been used as draining ances should be established from the submitted
layers, they are not recommended for concrete target gradation. Typical job control tolerances from
pavement due to their lack of adequate stability for the target gradation are:
construction operations and their susceptibility to • ±10% for materials 1 in. (25 mm) and larger.
long-term settlement under heavy truck traffic. It is
better to design the gradation of the unstabilized • ±8% for materials between 1 in. and No. 4
granular subbase to include more fines for the sake (25 mm and 4.75 mm).
of stability than to omit the fines for the sake of • ±5% for materials No. 4 (4.75 mm) and smaller.
Appendices
drainage.
Consolidation
The term ‘free-draining’ used to be synonymous with Granular materials are subject to some consolidation
an older term — open-graded — that persists in from the action of heavy traffic once a pavement is
literature and specifications. However, the reader is placed into service. Thorough compaction of the
cautioned that, in practice, unstabilized subbases unstabilized subbase will minimize post-construction
designated as ‘open-graded’ are also often associ- consolidation, keeping it within a tolerable range
Index
47
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
(less than about 10 percent). Figure 34 shows a subbase thickness is 4 in. (100 mm) for regular con-
localized failure from inadequate compaction. struction projects. This recommendation is a prac-
tical means of securing the thickness of 2 to 3 in.
Research results document the need for a high
(50 to 75 mm) that is necessary to prevent pumping.
degree of compaction for unstabilized subbases
with heavy-duty pavements, as shown in Figure 35 Another matter of practical concern in considering
(Colley and Nowlen 1958). The research shows that the required unstabilized subbase thickness is the
as few as 50,000 load repetitions can produce
4 Subbases
0 (0) 0 (0)
Sand-gravel + 4% cement 4 in. (102 mm)
Consolidation [in. (mm)]
0.10 (2.5) 0.10 (2.5) 12 in. (305 mm) 6 in. (152 mm)
99%*
0.15 (3.8) Sand-gravel 0.15 (3.8)
Figure 35. Subbase consolidation under repetitive loading. Figure 36. Influence of unstabilized subbase thickness on
Index
consolidation.
48
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
base that are 4, 6 and 12 in. (100, 150 and 300 mm) For these reasons, the following two guidelines
thick, placed on a clay-loam subgrade and com- should be followed with respect to unstabilized
pacted to 100 percent AASHTO T99 density. After subbases for concrete pavements:
1 Introduction
450,000 load repetitions, there was more than twice • A minimum of 95 percent of AASHTO T99 density
as much consolidation on the 12 in. (300 mm) unsta- should be developed for unstabilized subbase
bilized subbase as on the 4 or 6 in. (100 or 150 mm) materials. On projects that will carry large vol-
unstabilized subbases. The least amount of com- umes of heavy traffic, a minimum specified den-
bined subgrade-subbase consolidation occurred on sity of 98 percent of AASHTO T180 is warranted.
the 4 in. (100 mm) unstabilized subbase.
2 Design Principles
• Unstabilized subbase thicknesses should not
Full-scale static load tests of slabs on various types exceed about 4 in. (100 mm). The additional
and thicknesses of unstabilized subbases also material and construction cost of providing thicker
unstabilized subbases is not justified. When
reveal that strains and deflections are not affected
unstabilized subbase thicknesses are increased
appreciably by the unstabilized subbase thickness
beyond 4 in. (100 mm), there is an increased risk
(Childs, Colley, Kapernick 1957). For a load posi-
of poor pavement performance due to post-con-
tioned at transverse joint edges, these tests show
struction consolidation due to heavy traffic.
only slight reductions in strains and deflections when
3 Subgrades
unstabilized subbase thicknesses are greater than
Unstabilized (Granular) Subbase
4 to 6 in. (100 to 150 mm). Repetitive load tests
Construction
have also demonstrated that the slight reductions in
Figure 37 shows the basic steps in constructing an
strain and deflection possible from the use of a 9 to
unstabilized (granular subbase). The construction of
15 in. (225 to 450 mm) thick unstabilized subbase
unstabilized subbases can be accomplished in many
will be offset by the excessive consolidation of these
ways. The keys to proper consolidation, however,
thick layers (Colley 1958).
are to ensure a homogeneous blending of the unsta-
4 Subbases
Steps/Description
Mixing
The key to proper unstabilized subbase construction is placing a uniformly moist material that is homoge-
nously blended. The water and aggregate may be mixed using many different methods, including using a
standard mixer or a pugmill mixer. The unstabilized subbase could alternatively be mixed on the roadway
using motorgraders.
5 References
Placing
Grading
The unstabilized subbase should be trimmed to the shape of the typical cross section and to plan elevation
within grade tolerance. The moisture in the unstabilized subbase must be monitored and kept near
optimum before, during and after finish grading operations. Obtaining the optimum moisture content
immediately before paving is extremely important (especially if recycled concrete aggregates are used) to
Rewetting Immediately prevent early-age cracking.
before Paving
49
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
bilized subbase material and to have all material uni- The final unstabilized subbase surface should be
formly moist prior to and during compaction. smooth and uniform, free from ruts, humps, or other
1 Introduction
water during the mixing operation. this finish-grading process are suitable for salvage
Once mixed, it is acceptable for unstabilized sub- and re-use.
base material to be placed by the following means:
Paving Precautions
• Placed from trucks, spread with a blade on a
The contractor should wet a unstabilized subbase
motor-grader, and then cut to grade and cross-
prior to paving. A dry, unstabilized subbase may con-
slope with an auto-trimmer.
tribute to early age, uncontrolled cracking in the con-
• Placed and trimmed with a hopper-converted crete pavement. A dry subbase draws moisture from
3 Subgrades
auto-trimmer. the concrete, which may dry the lower portion of the
• Placed to elevation with a paving machine. slab before the middle or the top. This condition
induces differential shrinkage (warping) similar to
After placing the unstabilized subbase material, the surface drying from high winds except at the bottom
contractor must shape the layer to the desired cross of the slabs and not the top of the slab. Any subbase
section, condition with water to develop the optimum that has the potential to absorb water from the fresh
moisture content and compact the subbase to the concrete should be moistened prior to paving. Moist-
specified density. ening efforts are especially important with slag and
4 Subbases
gation problems in several ways: they shake the Compared to unstabilized subbases, stabilized sub-
aggregate, causing fine particles to migrate to the bases provide a higher degree of support to the
bottom of the layer, and they remove the top, rela- pavement slabs (i.e., higher k-value). While this does
tively coarse aggregate and leave behind finer not alter the required pavement slab thickness for
aggregate. Aggregate placement and spreading a given load appreciably (see the section entitled
operations are also likely contributors to segregation Influence of Foundation Strength of Concrete
of fines and, therefore, a contractor’s operational Pavement Thickness earlier in this publication),
consistency is the key to producing a layer with con- it does strengthen the overall pavement structure.
sistent properties (White 2004). Plate-bearing tests on stabilized subbases produce
Index
50
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
120
Table 9. Erosion Potention of Various Stabilized Subbase Free edge
Materials (after Ray and Christory 1989) 8 in. (203 mm) slab
5 in. (127 mm) subbase
1 Introduction
Erosion
Strain (microns)
80
Potential Material Types
Lean concrete with 7-8% cement.
Extremely
resistant Asphalt-treated subbase with 6% asphalt
or greater. 40
2 Design Principles
Resistant Cement-treated subbase with 3-5% cement. 0
under
certain Asphalt-treated subbase with about 600 (163)
conditions 3% asphalt.
3 Subgrades
extremely high k-values and these high k-values 0 (0)
Clay Unstabilized Cement-
reduce stresses, strains and deflections from vehicle Subgrade Subbase Treated
loadings in the overlying concrete slab. As an ex- Subbase
ample, Figure 38 shows the strains measured in con-
Figure 38. Measured strains and computed k-values, 9-kip
crete slabs under a 9,000-lb (40-kN) load on a clay (4,100 kg) plate load.
4 Subbases
subgrade, an unstabilized subbase and a cement-
treated subbase, and the k-values computed from
these data. Computed k-values are in close agree-
ment with those determined by the plate-bearing Initial joint effectiveness
tests made directly on subgrades and subbases. It Joint effectiveness after 1 million load applications
should be noted that although increased foundation 100
stiffness via increased strength is beneficial from
Joint Effectiveness (%)
5 References
an applied loads point-of-view, it could potentially 80
have a negative impact on environmentally induced
60
stresses and strains. (See the section, Influence
of Foundation Stiffness on Stresses and Strains in 40
Concrete Pavement Slabs, for more information
on this concept.) 20
that they improve load transfer at pavement joints, Subgrade Subbase Subbase
especially for pavements with undowelled joints and Figure 39. Joint effectiveness for a plain subgrade, an unsta-
plain concrete slabs (Colley and Nowlen 1967; bilized subbase, and a cement-treated subbase (based on a
Henrichs, et al. 1989; Ionnides and Korovesis 1990). 9 in. (250 mm) concrete slab).
Research results for plain concrete slabs cast on
the plain subgrade, an unstabilized subbase and a
cement-treated subbase are shown in Figure 39. As
load applications accumulate on a slab supported by
Index
51
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
the plain subgrade or an unstabilized subbase, load aggregates and savings in material and hauling
transfer (joint effectiveness) gradually decreases. costs (FHWA 2004, PCA 2003, Yrjanson 1989).
On the cement-treated subbase, however, the loss
1 Introduction
occurs at a much slower rate and stabilizes around The mixture design for stabilized-material layers is
one-half million load applications; even after 1 million driven by the property or properties that are desired.
loads, joint effectiveness remains at a level of almost Sometimes, stabilized subbases are required simply
80 percent (Figure 39). These results indicate that to provide a construction platform, and are not
a cement-treated subbase will contribute more to intended to provide additional long-term strength.
maintaining effective load transfer over a longer When this is the case, the minimum additive per-
2 Design Principles
period than will the plain subgrade or an unstabilized centage that will result in the required performance
subbase, when all other factors are the same.* Sim- is determined and it is not necessary to test for
ilar results would be expected for lean concrete sub- strength or durability requirements (FAA 1999).
bases and asphalt-treated subbases, although the
level of contribution will likely be different than that Cement-Stabilized Subbases
indicated for a cement-treated subbase due to their Subbases that are stabilized with portland cement
differences in strength, modulus of elasticity and fall into two general categories: cement-treated sub-
resistance to erosion. bases (CTB) and lean concrete subbases (LCB).
3 Subgrades
port for the concrete forms or the slipform paver’s ments instead of strength requirements. Each mate-
trackline. rial also requires different placement techniques.
CTB placement is similar to other unstabilized sub-
Other benefits of stabilized subbases include: mini- base materials.
mizing post-construction subbase consolidation
Contractors can elect to mix the cement with the
under traffic; minimizing intrusion of hard granular
granular material using a pugmill or standard central
particles into the bottom of pavement joints; pro-
mix plant and then haul it to the paving site. To
5 References
viding a more erosion resistant subbase material; achieve adequate final results, CTB materials,
and permitting greater use of local materials, sub- because of their drier consistency, require compac-
standard aggregates, and recycled materials (recy- tion by rollers for density. LCB materials, however,
cled concrete from either an existing concrete are placed with a slipform paver or modified-concrete
pavement or another source, reclaimed asphalt spreader in essentially the same manner as con-
pavement, etc.), which can result in conservation of ventional concrete mixtures, requiring no additional
compaction effort. As a result of these fundamental
differences, the specification requirements for each
Appendices
52
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
1 Introduction
and 100 percent of the maximum density. The
maximum density (determined by AASHTO T134 or 60
ASTM D558) is determined by a representative field
sample taken from the moist mixture at the time 40
compaction begins. Although there is typically no
strength requirement on CTB material, targeting a 20
2 Design Principles
7-day compressive strength from 300 to 800 psi
(2.1 to 5.5 MPa) assures long-term durability (PCA 0
2006). Contractors may elect to build a test strip to
4”
1. ”
0”
5”
#1 0
40
0
#30
5
1/ 4
4
0
#6
#4
#1
#1
3/
1.
#2
demonstrate that their construction methodology Sieve Size
meets the required density specification and that
Figure 40. Gradation for minimum cement requirements of
the resultant compressive strength falls within the cement-treated subbases (from PCA IS029).
desired target strength range.
■ Cement-Treated Subbases
3 Subgrades
acceptance testing should be based on the field
MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS measured percent of maximum density.
Cement-treated subbases (CTB) typically require
about 2 to 5% cement by weight. Granular materials, When specified, a 7-day compressive strength of
as specified in AASHTO M147 or Soil Classification 300 to 800 psi (2.1 to 5.5 MPa) (PCA 2006) is the
Groups A-1, A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3 work well for a CTB. typical target strength range for CTB layers. At this
strength, the long-term durability of the CTB subject
The granular material typically has no more than to repeated cycles of wetting and drying or freezing
4 Subbases
about 35 percent passing the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve, and thawing is virtually assured (i.e., Figure 41
a Plasticity Index of 10 or less, and may be either
pit-run or manufactured. A maximum particle size of
3
⁄4 to 1 in. (19 to 25 mm) is preferable to permit accu-
rate grading of the subbase. 1,000 (6.9)
7-Day Compressive Strength [psi (MPa)]
5 References
97% of specimens pass at 750 psi (5.2 MPa)
for unstabilized subbase specifications because of
excess fines or plasticity, but such materials may be
acceptable to use as a subbase if they are treated 600 (4.1)
118 Samples
with cement (PCA 2003). These inexpensive mate- 0-50% Passing No. 200
rials often require less cement than the cleaner, (75 µm) sieve
400 (2.8)
more expensive aggregates. Gradations falling
within the broad band shown in Figure 40 usually
require minimal cement contents. Also, the use of
Appendices
200 (1.4)
materials within the band will result in cost savings 529 Samples
0-15% Passing No. 200
due to lower material and cement costs. (75 µm) sieve
0 (0)
To determine the optimal cement content for a CTB 0 20 40 60 80 100
requires standard laboratory wet-dry and freeze-thaw Percent of Samples Passing
ASTM Freeze-Thaw & Wet-Dry Tests
tests and PCA weight-loss criteria or lab molded
compressive strength results (PCA EB052). No Figure 41. Relationship between strength and durability for
CTB. (PCA EB052).
matter the derivation of the cement content, CTB
Index
53
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
shows that about 97 percent of test specimens is hauled in dump trucks, where the contractor
passed ASTM D559 and D560 freeze-thaw and wet- dumps it onto the grade and then spreads it with a
dry testing with a strength of 750 psi (5.2 MPa)).
1 Introduction
processed on the subgrade. The proper quantity of ness and width, the contractor must compact the
cement is spread onto the soil/aggregate with a material with rollers, followed closely by a trimmer,
cement spreader and mixed either with a multiple- which will finish the material to grade. Any surface
pass mixer or a single-pass mixer. Multiple-pass moisture lost through evaporation during finishing
mixers require one pass for dry mixing the cement operations must be replenished by a light fog spray.
and soil/aggregate and a second pass for moist
mixing the materials. Single-pass mixers complete A reasonable surface grading tolerance for cement-
the operation simultaneously, in one pass. treated subbase after trimming is ±0.5 in. (±12 mm),
3 Subgrades
Steps/Description
4 Subbases
Curing
Cement-treated subbases are typically cured with a light fog spray of water (to replenish any water that
has evaporated from the surface since placement) followed by an application of bituminous curing mate-
rial at a rate between 0.15 and 0.25 gal/yd2 (0.68 and 1.1 l/m2).
Curing (PCA EB003)
54
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
cementitious nature of CTB, time influences finishing lack of abrasion resistance, popouts, surface scaling,
and trimming to some extent. To gain full advantage or other undesirable qualities for a pavement surface
of the benefits imparted by the cement, about are acceptable for lean concrete as a lower course
1 Introduction
4 hours of working time are available for placing and in the pavement structure. Lean concrete is de-
finishing CTB once the cement comes into contact signed for use as a subbase only and, in general,
with water. High winds and extreme heat may reduce makes use of aggregates that do not necessarily
the working time available, so the contractor is meet quality standards* for unstabilized subbases or
encouraged to be mindful of the working conditions. conventional concrete, thus some engineers have
adopted the term “econocrete” when referring to lean
2 Design Principles
CTB requires a curing application once finishing
concrete (ACPA 1975).
operations are completed. A light fog spray of water
and an application of a bituminous curing material Data from laboratory test programs and lean con-
help contain moisture so the cement may hydrate crete construction projects indicate that a rather wide
properly. Typical applications rates for the bituminous
range of aggregates will work well in LCB mixtures
curing agent are from 0.15 to 0.25 gal/yd2 (0.68 to
(ACPA 1975). Some of these aggregates are mate-
1.1 l/m2).
rials not processed to the same degree as normal
In some cases, trimming CTB subbases prior to concrete aggregates. Most have more fine material
3 Subgrades
paving disturbs the subbase’s surface character. passing the No. 100 (150 µm) and No. 200 (75 µm)
After trimming, the surface may be rough in certain sieves than is acceptable for normal concrete, but
locations, creating an unwanted condition that pro- this is not necessarily objectionable for lean concrete
motes bonding between the CTB and the pavement. because the extra fines supply needed workability.
One of the following methods will minimize bonding
On some projects, existing concrete and asphalt
in trimmed areas:
pavements have been recycled and used as aggre-
• Reapplication of asphalt curing agent and gates for lean concrete subbases. In fact, the slight
4 Subbases
spreading of a thin layer of sand before paving. decrease in flexural and compressive strength, as is
• An application of two coats of wax-based curing typically observed when using recycled aggregates
compound before paving. over virgin, is of no concern for a lean concrete sub-
base. A special precaution might be warranted, how-
■ Lean Concrete Subbases ever, for the gradation of the recycled aggregate
MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS because the recycled fines have a much higher
absorption capacity than typical fine aggregates; if a
5 References
Lean concrete subbase mixtures contain more
cement and water than cement-treated subbase concern, the fines from the recycled aggregate may
materials, but they contain less cement than conven- be removed during the crushing and sorting process
tional concrete. Lean concrete has the same appear- and replaced by virgin fine aggregate (Cho and Yeo
ance and consistency as conventional concrete, and 2004).
it also requires consolidation by vibration like con-
ventional concrete.
Appendices
55
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Normal procedures and tests for concrete mixtures The strength of LCB layers is also important to the
are applicable for lean concrete, with the following performance of the pavement over time. Counter to
exceptions: intuition, the stronger an LCB layer becomes, the
1 Introduction
• A single aggregate may be used rather than a more problematic it may become for pavement per-
combination of coarse aggregate and fine aggre- formance. Long-term performance studies reveal
gate, stockpiled separately. increased levels of cracking on LCB layers com-
pared to unstabilized subbases. This result is attrib-
• The cement content may be considerably less utable to the stiffness of the LCB, which becomes
than that for conventional concrete, and must be excessive if the strength of the lean concrete is not
2 Design Principles
controlled to keep the compressive strength of the kept in check. Also, cracks may reflect from the LCB
lean concrete between 750 and 1,200 psi (5.2 and subbase into the pavement slabs if the LCB strength
8.3 MPa), as detailed later. becomes excessive and drying shrinkage cracks
• Material combinations must produce lean con- exist in the LCB.
crete that is workable, capable of adequate con-
solidation by vibration and cohesive enough to Higher LCB strength generally increases the layer
resist excessive edge slumping when placed with stiffness and, although this might lower the stresses
a slipform paver. and strains due to applied loads, this typically leads
3 Subgrades
strength of LCB to 1,500 psi (10.3 MPa) while cur- the strength and fracture toughness necessary to
rent recommendations limit strength to 1,200 psi (8.3 resist cracking. For more on this, see the section,
MPa) (ACPA 1975). The purpose of limiting strength Influence of Foundation Stiffness on Stresses and
is to avoid problems associated with high curling and Strains in Concrete Pavement Slabs, earlier in this
warping stresses in the pavement slabs. Where the publication or the section, Stabilized Subbase Pre-
stiffness or strength of an LCB subbase becomes cautions, later in this chapter.
excessive, a fabric interlayer may be used to mitigate
5 References
average 7-day compressive strength between 750 base stiffness is not from a misapplication of the
and 1,200 psi (5.2 and 8.3 MPa) and air contents specification, but only as a matter of the passage of
somewhat greater than normal concrete (6% to 8% time. Project sequencing and strength development
air for concrete made with a maximum size aggre- must be properly factored into the LCB mixture
gates of 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm) in freeze-thaw design.
areas).
Index
56
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
1 Introduction
lean concrete subbase. A lean concrete subbase
permits the concrete paving contractor to use his pavement. In the event the strength of the LCB is of
own mixing and placing equipment for the subbase, concern (i.e., strength of the LCB is too high), joints
thus spreading out move-in (mobilization) costs over could be scored or sawed into the lean concrete
a greater volume of work. The scheduling of the subbase surface at the location where joints will be
paving contractor’s work would be more definite than placed in the concrete pavement. If reflective crack-
when a subbase of a different type (e.g., asphalt- ing is of concern, tar paper or any other applicable
2 Design Principles
treated) is sublet to another contractor. In some material may be placed over any shrinkage cracks
cases, the work schedule maintained by the sub- before application of a bond breaker to further
base subcontractor does not fit with the paving con- reduce the likelihood of reflective cracking.
tractor’s schedule, possibly resulting in delays.
The recommended interlayer treatment is to leave
Lean concrete subbases are constructed in essen- the surface of the lean concrete untextured to pre-
tially the same manner and with the same equip- vent a mechanical bond to the concrete surface. A
ment as normal concrete pavements. The only two further step to preventing bond is to apply two heavy
3 Subgrades
differences are jointing practice and treatment of the coats of wax based curing compound as a bond
lean concrete subbase surface. breaker. The first coat is applied immediately, as a
cure coat, and the second coat is applied shortly
Installing joints is generally not necessary in a lean before the surface concrete is placed, to refresh the
concrete subbase. Shrinkage cracks will develop, coverage.
but experience has shown that, for LCB strengths
4 Subbases
Steps/Description
Mixing
Because lean concrete is of a comparable consistency as conventional concrete, lean concrete sub-
bases are typically mixed in a central-plant mixer.
5 References
Placing Again, because of the similarities in properties between lean concrete and conventional concrete,
it is typically placed in the same manner as conventional concrete: usually by slipformed paving.
Due to its consistency, it is relatively easy to keep the surface finish within the typical specified tol-
erance of 0.25 in. (6 mm) by a 10 ft (3 m) straightedge. There is no need for additional finishing
work as with conventional concrete because the surface is not a riding surface; the surface of the
lean concrete subbase also should not be textured: this helps prevent it from developing a
mechanical bond with the concrete pavement.
Typical curing procedures for lean concrete subbases include the application of two heavy coats
of wax based curing compound. This procedure prevents evaporation of water from the subbase
surface to promote thorough hydration of the mixture and mitigates uncontrolled cracking in the
subbase layer. The curing compound also serves as a bond breaker between the subbase and the
concrete pavement.
57
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
In Germany, current practice is to use a 0.2 in. (5 mm) gate is moisture susceptible and to measure the
thick non-woven geotextile fabric to separate the effectiveness of anti-stripping additives.
concrete pavement and lean concrete subbase. This
1 Introduction
practice has considerable merit and is currently The thickness requirement for an asphalt-stabilized
being used in portions of the United States and else- subbase depends upon the support from the sub-
where in the world. grade. A thicker subbase is necessary for weak soil
conditions to prevent construction equipment from
The surface finish tolerances for lean concrete deforming the asphalt layer, especially on softer or
subbases are better on average than for any other more yielding subgrades. A 2 in. (50 mm) thick
2 Design Principles
type of subbase due to the placement techniques; asphalt stabilized subbase may be sufficient for
tolerances are often specified as low as ±0.25 in. stiffer foundations, such as those modified with lime,
(±6 mm), longitudinal or transverse, by a 10 ft (3 m) fly ash or cement, or if the ATB is being placed on
straightedge. This minimizes the occurrence of con- an unstabilized subbase.
crete overruns (yield losses) because of the con-
tractor’s need to meet minimum pavement depth The following considerations and stipulations are
requirements (ACPA 1975). advisable for using asphalt-treated subbases under
concrete pavements:
3 Subgrades
58
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
• Because the surface of an asphalt-treated sub- Lokken 1985; Voigt 1992 and 1994). Cores exam-
base can reach 140°F (60°C) or more, it should ined from these projects typically revealed that the
be sprinkled with water or whitewashed with a cracks traveled around coarse aggregate particles,
1 Introduction
water-lime solution prior to concrete paving to indicating very early formation. These cracks are
reduce the surface temperature (IPRF 2003). usually due to two factors:
2 Design Principles
Contractors place the material using an asphalt causing the concrete pavement to slide along the
paving machine and compact the layer to a specified subbase. As the stiffness of the subbase
density with rollers. The layer must conform to the increases, the coefficient of friction between the
typical section in the plans, and provide for uniform subbase and the slab increases, which induces
support and resistance to erosion or stripping. higher tensile stresses and increases the risk of
cracking. Table 10 shows a typical coefficient of
Grade control with an asphalt-treated subbase is friction for various subbase materials.
also a primary factor in construction. Surface devia-
3 Subgrades
tions that do not exceed ±0.25 in. (±6 mm), longitu- 2. Increased curling stress in the pavement —
dinal or transverse, by a 10 ft (3 m) straightedge are Stabilized subbase materials increase stresses in
acceptable for an asphalt-treated subbase. Often, it the concrete slab because they cause the value
more difficult to place an asphalt-treated subbase of the radius of relative stiffness* of the pavement
close to the desired grade than a cement- treated to decrease. This reduces the ability of the slabs
subbase, resulting in unnecessary cost overruns in to spread out stress from the load and, for equiv-
the concrete paving portion of the job. alent panel sizes, it increases the stress condi-
tions in the pavement. Due to this effect, curling
4 Subbases
Further details on constructing asphalt-treated sub- stresses on stabilized subbases may be up to
bases can be found in other sources.
Stabilized Subbase Precautions Table 10. Coefficient of Friction for Various Subbase Materials
Despite the advantages of stabilized subbases, one
can not simply substitute a stabilized subbase for an Coefficient
Subbase
of Friction
unstabilized subbase and expect enhanced perfor-
5 References
mance. There are well-documented occurrences of Natural subgrade 1.0
erratic uncontrolled cracking on projects with lean Chemically-modified clay soil 1.5
concrete, cement-treated, asphalt-treated and per-
Unstabilized granular subbase 1.5
meable treated subbases that were known to have
bonded to the concrete pavement (Halm, Yrjanson, Bituminous surface treatment 3.0
Unstabilized crushed stone subbase 6.0
Asphalt-treated subbase (smooth) 6.0
Appendices
* The radius of relative stiffness, ˜, is affected by the modulus of elas- Cement-treated subbase 10.0
ticity of the concrete (Ec ), the thickness of the pavement (h), the
Poisson’s ratio of the concrete (υ ), and the modulus of subgrade
Asphalt-treated subbase (rough) 15.0
reaction (k-value). As the strength and thickness of the subbase
Asphalt-treated open-graded subbase 15.0
increase, the k-value increases, and the radius of relative stiffness
decreases. A lower radius of relative stiffness causes higher stresses Cement-treated open-graded subbase 15.0
in the pavement.
E c h3 Lean concrete subbase (econocrete) 15.0
=4
12 (1 – 2 ) k
Index
59
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
bined with other factors such as improper materials tation, provides a strong and durable platform for
selection, poor concrete mixture design and/or too construction and improves load carrying capacity
much distance between transverse joints, the risk for over the life of the pavement. Furthermore, the
unwanted cracking increases. crushing and sizing operations can be modified to
accommodate any desired aggregate gradation
To minimize the potential for random, uncontrolled (FHWA 2004).
cracking, the following three factors must be consid-
• Economics: Savings are realized in the cost of
ered in selecting materials for stabilized subbases,
transporting new aggregates, and in the cost of
3 Subgrades
Material Comments
4 Subbases
60
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
• Resource Conservation: Reusing existing mate- concrete pavements are the same as for virgin
rial is helpful where quality aggregate supplies are aggregates, with only a few exceptions.
scarce (Yrjanson 1989). Also, using recycled con-
1 Introduction
crete aggregates in either a subbase or in the A contractor can produce nearly any desired gra-
concrete mix conserves virgin aggregates. dation using crushed, recycled concrete. Table 12
provides typical recycled unstabilized subbase layer
• Environmental Consideration: Recycling gradations (ACPA 1993). A lower yield of recycled
existing pavement materials as an aggregate sub- coarse material will result when the target gradation
base reduces dumping and land disposal (FHWA requires smaller top-size material. Coarse aggre-
2004). Using valuable landfill space for disposal of
2 Design Principles
gates are those particles which are at least 3⁄8 in.
concrete would be questionable when it can easily
(9.5 mm) at their narrowest width. The gradation of
be recycled.
the fine aggregate portion depends upon the type
The cost of using recycled aggregates for sub- of crushing operation employed. The material will
base material includes only the cost of crushing be very angular, requiring somewhat more effort to
operations. The costs for breaking, removal, steel place than virgin-based granular material.
separation, and transport are incidental to any
A small amount of fine particles cling to coarse
reconstruction project.
3 Subgrades
aggregates during crushing and sizing operations.
Although the aforementioned construction processes Studies of this condition conclude that, for most
used for unstabilized or stabilized subbases do not cases, the aggregates do not need washing to
change, there are some precautions that must be remove this fine material. However, some agencies
considered when using a recycled concrete as require washing to reduce the potential of leaching
aggregate. calcium carbonate or calcium oxide when the aggre-
gate is used for unstabilized subbase.
■ Aggregate Characteristics
4 Subbases
Recycled aggregates produced from all but the
Research and experience has established the
poorest quality material should be able to meet the
various physical properties of coarse and fine
L.A. Abrasion Test (AASHTO T96 or ASTM C131)
aggregates made by recycling in-place concrete
requirement of 50% or less for subbase materials.
pavements. The properties have also been verified
through agency testing where recycled concrete Normally, on a highway project that employs recy-
aggregates have been specified for reuse. Generally, cled concrete into the subbase, the source material
5 References
the tests performed on materials made from recycled
1 in. 25 mm — —
3
⁄8 in. 9.5 mm 40 – 75 —
No. 4 4.75 mm 25 – 60 35 – 70
No. 10 2.00 mm — —
No. 40 425 µm 15 – 45 —
No. 200 75 µm 3 – 12 3 – 10
Index
61
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
is the old pavement at the project site, which is to small regions surrounding the outlets (MNDOT
processed without any contaminants or inclusions. In 1995). Furthermore, some states (including Min-
urban areas, the concrete that is to be recycled may nesota, Virginia, California and Texas) have taken a
1 Introduction
be from a variety of sources and can include mate- proactive stance by lowering regulatory burdens on
rials such as plaster, soil, wood, gypsum, plastic and recycled concrete aggregates to effectively promote
vinyl, or rubber. Tests for contaminants are particu- their use. These states realize the environmental
larly important for generally recycled source mate- benefits of not having the expired concrete pave-
rials. Agencies should apply the contamination ment placed in a landfill and the subsequent conser-
percentage limits normally permitted for virgin coarse vation of virgin aggregates (FHWA 2004).
2 Design Principles
base, water that seeps through the recycled con- (RAP), mill tailings, and other rock can be used as
crete particles may wash the dust off the large a unstabilized subbase in concrete pavement
aggregates over time. The water and fine material construction applications.
sometimes drains through the layer and, if an edge • RAP — Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) will
drainage system exists along the pavement, the perform satisfactorily as a subbase aggregate
fines may be expelled from it. Some agencies report (TFHRC 2007). The materials must be processed
observing leachate at drain outlets due to this action properly, and in most cases it must be blended
(TRB 1993). The fine material may also settle on
4 Subbases
pletely surround the trench (see the section entitled trated from the host rock.
Daylighting the Subbase, earlier in this publication). • Other Rock — Other rock, sometimes called
In either case, there is no potential obstruction to the waste rock, includes igneous or metamorphic
free flow of water and fine material, which allows it to rocks, as well as properly consolidated limestone,
flow through the subbase to the outlet pipes or side sandstone, and dolomitic rocks, that are generally
ditches. acceptable for granular subbase even if not classi-
fied for use in concrete (TFHRC 2006).
Although the leachate from a recycled concrete
Appendices
62
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
are generally characterized as a crushed aggregate concrete pavement, there is no way to justify the high-
(often stabilized with cement or asphalt) with a cost of these rapid-draining systems. Studies show
reduced amount of fines to increase the permeability the cost of concrete pavement increases as much as
1 Introduction
of the subbase up to levels from 500 to 20,000 ft/day 25% with rapid-draining permeable subbases systems
(152 to 6,100 m/day) in laboratory tests. Despite the compared to a design with a conventional unstabilized
intuitive advantage of an ability of the permeable subbase (Cole and Hall 1996).
subbase to remove excess water from the pavement
rapidly, permeable subbases have had a problematic The following sections discuss the mechanism
history due to: behind several of the aforementioned problems with
2 Design Principles
permeable subbases, as well as results from the
• Instability as a construction platform during con-
most comprehensive review of the performance of
struction.
concrete pavement structures that include perme-
• Inherent instability and associated destructive able subbases.
deflection of concrete slabs under repeated loads.
• Early mid-panel cracking on properly sized slabs. Loss of Support Due to Breakdown
of the Aggregate
• Early erratic pavement cracking due to high fric-
Starting in 1996, cracks started to appear in the field
tion between the subbase and the pavement.
on pavements placed on unstabilized permeable
3 Subgrades
• Early faulting from non-uniform support caused by subbases that with coefficients of permeability
consolidation of unstabilized permeable layers. around 1,000 ft/day (305 m/day) or higher. The
• Intrusion of concrete into the voids in the perme- cause of this cracking was the breakdown of mate-
able subbase, altering the structural section and rial at the joints, which created a non-uniform sup-
the required jointing pattern. port condition between the ends of the slab (joints)
and the center of slab. The mechanism for the dete-
• Infiltration of fines from underlying layers into the
rioration is crushing of the aggregate in the subbase
permeable subbase voids, clogging the system,
4 Subbases
below pavement joints because of high deflections*
and trapping water within the subbase.
and high point-to-point contact pressure between the
• Settling, crushing, and plugging of retrofitted edge particles of the unstabilized permeable subbases
drain pipes during and after installation. (Figure 44). When this occurs, the crushed aggre-
• Deferred or no planned maintenance to the drain gate particles fall into the open void structure of the
pipe system, causing water to be trapped within permeable subbase and, after enough repetitions,
the pavement structure. the subbase at the joint consolidates, leaving the
5 References
ends of the slab unsupported.
• An initial cost of up to 25 percent more than other
conventional subbases. Though this phenomenon has primarily occurred on
unstabilized permeable bases, it has also occurred
Permeable subbases — permeability greater than
about 350 ft/day (107 m/day) in laboratory tests — are on asphalt-treated permeable subbases that have
no longer considered a cost effective design element stripped. Theoretically, it could also occur on a
for concrete pavement. This conclusion was reached cement-stabilized permeable subbases if the
through experiences with poorly performing pave- cementing action between particles were to break
Appendices
ments built on permeable subbase layers. It is further down, although this has yet to be recorded in
supported by several performance evaluation studies the field.
that concluded that these systems do not have a sig-
nificant positive influence on concrete pavement per-
formance for many design conditions (Elfino and
Hossain 2007; Hall and Crovetti 2007; NCHRP 2002).
Without contributing appreciably to the performance of * Deflections at slab joints are typically between 2 and 5 times higher
than the deflections at the slab center.
Index
63
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Concrete
Pavement
After
Permeable Sufficient
Subbase Load
Applications
2 Design Principles
Subgrade
High Point Bearing
Permeable Subbase without a Separator Layer
Pressure Locations
Traffic loads distributed through
a permeable subbase may be
Separator
channeled through small Layer
contact areas. Heavy loads over
a small area causes high pressures
at bearing points.
3 Subgrades
draining subbase materials will mitigate this mecha- Permeable Subbase with a Separator Layer
nism of support loss by increasing the points of
4 Subbases
the entire slab consolidates, causing the entire slab the Subbase
to settle (Figure 45). The most common reason for Early age cracking due to penetration of mortar from
this is having a poor or no filter-separator layer that the concrete pavement into the subbase is a
does not prevent the migration of fines (minus No. problem that can occur on permeable subbases.
200 (75 µm) material) into the permeable subbase Because of the openness of the permeable subbase
from the subgrade. When this infiltration occurs, the structure, mortar works its way into the voids as the
pavement section settles to a degree that matches concrete is vibrated and consolidated. This penetra-
Appendices
the infiltration. Though this can occur with both tion into the subbase restricts slab movement, which
unstabilized and stabilized permeable subbases, sta- increases the risk of both early-age and long-term
bilized subbases can worsen the effect by “cheese cracking in the pavement.
grading” themselves into the subgrade material as
the pavement system expands and contracts due to Instability as a Construction Platform
temperature changes throughout the year. Subbase material stability is another important con-
sideration. Dense-graded or free-draining granular
materials and materials stabilized with cement or
Index
64
Summary/Overview
Chapter 4 — Subbases
asphalt create firm support for construction equip- • For non-doweled, jointed concrete pavements,
ment. Unstabilized permeable layers, however, have joint faulting in general is much higher and a
caused some placement problems. permeable subbase has a significant effect in
1 Introduction
reducing joint faulting. However, the permeable
The profile pan (the part of a slipform paver that con- subbase must be well designed or it can become
trols the pavement surface) typically references its contaminated by fines, allowing faulting to develop.
position from sensors following stringlines placed The edgedrains must also be maintained properly
along the grade, usually on both sides of the paver. or they will clog and any potential benefits in
The stringlines are not necessarily parallel to the pavement performance will be lost.
2 Design Principles
grade, but rather are set to form the surface regard-
• A significant reduction in D-cracking was identified
less of the grade elevation. A well-positioned string-
line can help to overcome some minor surface
at an experimental site in Michigan that contained
deviations in a subbase or track line, but it is not a
an asphalt-treated permeable subbase (0-, 6-, and
substitute for smooth, stable track lines built to a tol-
12-percent deteriorated joints on three sections),
erance. The hydraulic systems that control a slipform
as compared with sites with dense-graded,
paving machine’s profile pan cannot adjust quickly
asphalt-treated subbases and full depth AC shoul-
enough to significant variations in the machine’s ver-
ders (79- to 100-percent deteriorated joints on
two). When observed over the entire database,
3 Subgrades
tical position caused by settlement of an unstable
subbase or track line. An unstable track line causes
concrete sections with permeable subbases aver-
the profile pan to continually attempt to adjust its
aged less than one-half of the deteriorated joints
position relative to the machine’s frame. If too abrupt
of concrete sections with dense-graded subbases.
or frequent, these types of mechanical adjustments
A likely reason is that a concrete slab with a per-
are known to cause bumps or dips in the pavement
meable subbase may be less saturated than with
surface.
a dense-graded subbase, resulting in a lower
amount of freeze-thaw during saturation to cause
4 Subbases
Layers with high permeability coefficients do not D-cracking. This finding is based on very limited
have the in-place stability necessary to enable con- data, but, if valid generally, it would have signifi-
tractors to build consistently smooth surfaces. Also, cant implications for concrete pavements con-
agencies must consider if specifying an unstabilized structed in freeze thaw areas with aggregates that
permeable subbase will limit the option to haul con- are susceptible to D-cracking *.
crete to the paving site due to the high potential of
rutting of the surface. Cost Effectiveness
5 References
The final consideration is the cost of permeable sub-
Overall Field Performance bases versus the incremental improvement in pave-
The most comprehensive study of the performance ment performance. Figure 46 shows the relative cost
of permeable subbases and concrete pavement comparisons for different types of subbases that are
drainage systems came to the following conclusions used under concrete pavements (Cole and Hall
(NCHRP 2002): 1996). On average, unstabilized permeable sub-
bases add approximately 15% to the cost of con-
• For properly designed, doweled, jointed concrete
Appendices
pavements, joint faulting in general is fairly low crete pavement relative to a traditional dense-graded
and a permeable subbase has a relatively small
effect on reducing joint faulting further. When a
dense-graded subbase exists, edgedrains were
not found to have a significant effect on reducing
doweled joint faulting. Dowel bars greatly mini-
* The importance of material selection, in particular aggregate selec-
mize differential deflections across joints, thus tion, for durable concrete cannot be overemphasized. Design feature
reducing the potential for pumping and erosion. selection, such as permeable subbases, is no substitute for appro-
priate control and selection of materials.
Index
65
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Dense-Graded Crushed
90
INTERSECTION REPLACEMENT,
Cement-Treated OGB
Asphalt-Treated OGB
80
UTILITY CUTS OR INLAYS
Unstabilized OGB
70
Lime Treated Soil
60
Lean Concrete
50
Once the subgrade has been prepared with the
40 special considerations for the subgrade discussed
30 earlier in this publication, a new or replacement
2 Design Principles
None
20
10
subbase must be placed. All placement techniques,
0 compaction requirements, trimming tolerances, etc.
Figure 46. Effects base type have on total construction are the same as for a new construction, but some
cost, with dense-graded crushed aggregate base assigned consideration must be taken for the size of the
the relative cost of 100 percent. work area.
years in a life cycle cost analysis to be considered not be practical to use automatic trimming equip-
cost effective. Experience over the past two decades ment and the contractor will probably trim the grade
indicates that permeable subbases do not provide with a motor grader or small loader.
that level of impact, and the positive impacts of
drainage can be provided more effectively with a Because final trimming disturbs the subbase surface
free-draining subbase layer. Therefore, installation slightly, additional compaction rolling is usually nec-
of a permeable subbase design carries with it a essary after trimming.
5 References
66
Summary/Overview
Chapter 5.
1 Introduction
References
2 Design Principles
ACAA, Soil Stabilization and Pavement Recycling Beskow, G., “Soil Freezing and Frost Heaving with
with Self-Cementing Coal Fly Ash, American Coal Special Attention to Roads and Railroads,” The
Ash Association, 2006. Swedish Geological Society, Book n3, Series n 375.
ACPA, Econocrete: Report No. 1, American Con- Translated by J. O. Osterberg, Northwestern Univer-
sity, Published by the Technological Institute, North-
3 Subgrades
crete Pavement Association, 1975.
western University, 1947.
ACPA, Making the Grade – Grade Preparation is
Important in Achieving Pavement Performance, R&T Bhatty, J.; Bhattacharja, S.; and Todres, H., Use of
Update 6.02, American Concrete Pavement Associa- Cement Kiln Dust in Stabilizing Clay Soils, RP343,
tion, 2005. Portland Cement Association, 1996.
ACPA, Recycling Concrete Pavement, TB014P, Burak, R., “Handling Wet Soils,” Interlocking Con-
American Concrete Pavement Association, 1993. crete Pavement Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, May 2007.
4 Subbases
ACPA, Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pave- CALTRANS, Method of Test for Evaluating the
ments, TB011P, American Concrete Pavement Asso- Expansive Potential of Soils Underlying Portland
ciation, 1995. Cement Concrete Pavements, California Test 354,
State of California, Department of Transportation,
AI, Asphalt Industry Glossary of Terms, Asphalt Insti- Sacramento, 1978.
tute, http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/ai_pages/FAQs/
PDFs/Asphalt_Industry_Glossary_of_Terms.pdf, Casagrande, A., “Discussion of Frost Heaving,”
June 2007. Highway Research Board, Proceedings, Vol. 11, p.
5 References
163-172, 1931.
Army, Pavement Design for Seasonal Frost Condi-
tions, Technical Manual No. 5-818-2 (Army), Air Chamberlain, E. J., A Freeze-Thaw Test to Deter-
Force Manual No. 88-6, Chapter 4, Departments of mine the Frost Susceptibility of Soils, Special Report
the Army and the Air Force, January 1985. 87-1, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, 1987.
Army, Soil Stabilization for Pavements, Technical
Manual No. 5-822-14 (Army), Air Force Manual Chamberlain, E. J., Frost Susceptibility of Soils,
No. 32-1019, Departments of the Army and Air Review of Index Tests, DOT/FAA/RD-81/91, U.S.
Appendices
ASCE, Frost Action and Its Control, American Childs, L. D.; Colley, B. E.; and Kapernick, J. W.,
Society of Civil Engineers, 1984. “Tests to Evaluate Concrete Pavement Subbases,”
Bulletin D11, Research and Development Laborato-
ries, Portland Cement Association, Reprinted from
Paper 1297, Proceedings, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 83, HW3, July 1957.
Index
67
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Childs, L. D., and Kapernick, J. W., “Tests of Con- FAA, Stabilized Base Courses for Advanced Pave-
crete Pavements on Crushed Stone Subbases,” Pro- ment Design - Report 1: Literature Review and Field
ceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Proc. Performance Data, U.S. Department of Transporta-
1 Introduction
Paper 3497, Vol. 89, HWI, pages 57-80, April 1963. tion, Federal Aviation Administration, September
Childs, L. D., and Kapernick, J. W., “Tests of Con- 1999.
crete Pavements on Gravel Subbases,” Paper 1800, Felt, E. J., Influence of Soil Volume Change and
Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vegetation on Highway Engineering, Bulletin D1,
Vol. 84, HW3, October 1958. Research and Development Laboratories, Portland
Childs, L. D., and Nussbaum, P. J., “Pressures at Cement Association, 1953.
2 Design Principles
Foundation Soil Interfaces Under Loaded Concrete FHWA, Drainable Pavement Systems, FHWA-SA-
and Soil-Cement Highway Slabs,” Proceedings, 92-008, Federal Highway Administration, 1992.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Vol. 62, FHWA, Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers,
pages 1243-1263, 1962. FHWA-IF-03-019, Federal Highway Administration,
Cho, Y. H., and Yeo, S. H., “Application of Recycled http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/
Waste Aggregate to Lean Concrete Subbase in fafacts.pdf, 2003.
Highway Pavement,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engi- FHWA, “Pavement, Subbase, and Shoulder Designs
neering, Volume 31, Number 6, 1, pp. 1101-1108(8), Using Econocrete and the Initiation of NEEP,” Pro-
3 Subgrades
Research Record No. 189, Highway Research ment Division, October 1990.
Board, National Research Council, 1967. FHWA, Transportation Applications of Recycled Con-
Colley, B. E., and Nowlen, W. J., Performance of crete Aggregate, Federal Highway Administration,
Concrete Pavements Under Repetitive Loading, Bul- September 2004.
letin D23, Research and Development Laboratories, Fredrickson, F. C., “Frost Action Related to High-
Portland Cement Association, 1958. ways,” Proceedings, Fourth Annual Conference on
Crovetti, J., and Schabelski, J., Comprehensive Sub- Soils Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Uni-
5 References
grade Deflection Acceptance Criteria – Phase III versity of Minnesota Center for Continuous Study.
Final Report, WI/SPR 02-01, January 2001. Gordon, R. G., and Waters, T. J., “Case Study of
Dubose, L. A., Evaluating Taylor Marl Clay for Performance of Pavements on an Expansive Soil
Improved Use in Subgrades, Research Report 35, Subgrade,” Fifth International Conference on Expan-
Texas Engineering Experiment Station, March 1952. sive Soils, Institute of Engineers, Barton, Australia,
Earth Manual, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Government Printing Hall, K.T., and Crovetti, J.A., “Performance of
Appendices
68
Summary/Overview
Chapter 5 — References
Henrichs, K. W., et. al., “Rigid Pavement Analysis McKeen, R. G., and Nielsen, J. P., Characterization
and Design,” FHWA-RD-88-068, Federal Highway of Expansive Soils for Airport Pavement Design,
Administration, June 1989. FAA-RD-78-59, Federal Aviation Administration,
1 Introduction
Holtz, W. G., “Expansive Soils – Properties and August 1978.
Problems,” Quarterly of the Colorado School of MNDOT, Special Practices for Design and Construc-
Mines, Vol. 54, No. 4, October 1959. tion of Subgrades in Poor, Wet, and/or Saturated
Holtz, W. G., and Gibbs, H. J., “Engineering Proper- Soil Conditions, MN/RC – 2003-36, Minnesota
ties of Expansive Clays,” Transactions, ASCE, Paper Department of Transportation, 2003.
No. 2814, Vol. 121, 1956. MNDOT, Use of Crushed Concrete Products in
2 Design Principles
Hoerner, T. E.; Smith, K. D.; and Bruinsma, J. E., Minnesota Pavement Foundation, MN/RC – 96/12,
Incremental Cost and Performance Benefits of Var- Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1995.
ious Features of Concrete Pavements, FHWA-HRT- Mou, C. H., and Chu, T. Y., “Soil-Suction Approach
04-044, Federal Highway Administration, February for Evaluation of Swelling Potential,” Shales and
2004. Swelling Soils, Transportation Research Record 790,
HRB, “The AASHO Road Test, Report 5, Pavement Transportation Research Board, 1981.
Research,” Highway Research Board Special Report NCHRP, Guide for Mechanistic Empirical Design of
61E, 1962. New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures – Final
3 Subgrades
Ioannides, A.M., and Korovesis, G.T., “Aggregate Report – Part 3. Design Analysis – Chapter 1.
Interlock: A Pure-Shear Load Transfer Mechanism,” Drainage, National Cooperative Highway Research
Paper No. 89-0189, presented to the 1990 Annual Program, http://www.trb.org/mepdg/Part3_Chapter1_
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Subdrainage.pdf, March 2004.
March 1990. NCHRP, Performance of Pavement Subsurface
IPRF, “Best Practices for Airport Portlane Cement Drainage, Project 1-34, National Cooperative High-
Concrete Pavement Construction (Rigid Airport way Research Program, 2002.
4 Subbases
Pavement),” Report IPRF-01-G-002-1 or ACPA NLA, Technical Memorandum Guidelines for Sta-
JP007P, Innovative Pavement Research Foundation, bilization of Soils Containing Sulfates, Austin White
April 2003. Lime, Chemical Lime, Texas Lime, National Lime
Johnson, L. D., An Evaluation of the Thermocouple Association, http://www.lime.org/sulfate.pdf, August
Psychrometer Technique for the Measurement of 2000.
Suction in Clay Soils, Technical Report No. S-71-1, NMDOT, Classification of Soil and Soil-Aggregate
U.S. Army engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Mixtures For Highway Construction Purposes
5 References
January 1974. AASHTO M-145-91 (2004), New Mexico Technician
Luttrell, B., and Reeves, I. N. R., “Experience and Training and Certification Program, http://nmshtd.
Development with Road Construction on Expansive state.nm.us/upload/images/State_Material_Bureau/S
Clay Soils in Northwest Queensland,” Fifth Interna- oil/M-145.pdf, October 2006.
tional Conference on Expansive Soils, Institute of Nowlen, W. J., Report of Field Testing in Wisconsin,
Engineers, Barton, Australia, 1984. State Highway 30, Unpublished Report, Portland
McDonald, E. B., “Construction Methods to Control Cement Association, 1959.
Appendices
Expansive Soils in South Dakota,” Geotechnical Parcher, J. B., and Lie, P. C., “Some Swelling Char-
Engineering, Transportation Research Record 1089, acteristics of Compacted Clays,” Journal Soil
Transportation Research Board, 1986. Mechanics and Foundation Division, Proceedings of
McDowell, C., “The Relationship of Laboratory the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No.
testing to Design for Pavements and Structures on SM3, Part 1, May 1965.
Expansive Soils,” Quarterly of the Colorado School PCA, PCA Soil Primer, EB007S, Portland Cement
of Mines, Vol. 54, No. 4, October 1959. Association, 1992.
Index
69
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
PCA, Properties and Uses of Cement-Modified Soil, Snethen, D. R., Technical Guidelines for Expansive
IS411.02, Portland Cement Association, 2003. Soils in Highway Subgrades, FHWA-RD-79-51, Fed-
eral Highway Administration, June 1979.
1 Introduction
PCA, The Road Recycled: Full-Depth Reclamation Steinberg, M. L., “Deep-Vertical-Fabric Moisture bar-
with Cement, CD032, Portland Cement Association, riers in Swelling Soils,” Shales and Swelling Soils,
2006. Transportation Research Record 790, Transportation
Petry, T. M., and Armstrong, J. C., “Stabilization of Research Board, 1981.
Expansive Clay Soils,” Geotechnical Engineering, TFHRC, Application Description – Granular Base,
Transportation Research Record 1219, Transporta- Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center,
tion Research Board, 1989. http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/app3.htm,
Picornell, M., and Lytton, R. L., “Field Measurement Accessed December 2006.
3 Subgrades
of Crack Depth in Expansive Soils,” Geotechnical TFHRC, Reclaimed Asphalt Concrete – User Guide-
Engineering, Transportation Research Record 1219, line – Granular Base, Turner-Fairbank Highway
Transportation Research Board, 1989. Research Center, http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/
Picornell, M., and Lytton, R. L., “Behavior and recycle/waste/rap134.htm, Accessed June 2007.
Design of Vertical Moisture Barriers,” Soil Mechanics TRB, Frost Action in Roads and Airfields, A Review
Considerations in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas, Trans- of Literature 1765-1951 – TRB Special Report No. 1,
portation Research Record 1137, Transportation Transportation Research Board, 1953.
4 Subbases
ommendations,” Proceedings, Fourth International TRB, Roadway Design in Seasonal Frost Areas,
Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Rehabilitation, Purdue University, 1989. Synthesis of Highway Practice 26, Transportation
Research Board, 1974.
Reed, R. F., “Roadway Performance on an Expan-
sive Clay,” Soil Mechanics Consideration in Arid and US ACoE, Engineering and Design, Rapid Drainage
Semi-Arid Areas, Transportation Research Record Base Courses for Pavements, Engineering Technical
1137, Transportation Research Board, 1987. Letter, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1991.
Appendices
70
Summary/Overview
Chapter 5 — References
1 Introduction
Watt, W. G., and Steinberg, M. L., Measurements of
a Swelling Clay in a Ponded Cut, Texas Highway
Department Research Report No. 118-b, Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program, Center for
Highway Research, University of Texas, Austin,
1972.
2 Design Principles
Weston, D. J., “Expansive Roadbed Treatment for
Southern Africa.” Proceedings, Fourth International
Conference on Expansive Soils, Denver, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. I, June 1980.
White, D., Optimum Pavement Base Characteristics,
Tech Transfer Summary, Concrete Pavement Tech
Center, http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/t2
summaries/optimum_base.pdf, May 2004.
3 Subgrades
Wiseman, C.; Komornik, A.; and Greenstein, J.,
“Experience with Roads and Buildings on Expansive
Clays,” Evaluation and Control of Expansive Soils,
Transportation Research Record 1032, Transporta-
tion Research Board, 1985.
Yrjanson, W., “Recycling of Portland Cement Con-
crete Pavements,” Synthesis of Highway Practice
4 Subbases
154, National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-
gram, Transportation Research Board, December
1989
5 References
Appendices
Index
71
Index Appendices 5 References 4 Subbases 3 Subgrades 2 Design Principles 1 Introduction Summary/Overview
72
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Summary/Overview
Appendix
1 Introduction
Glossary
2 Design Principles
Because the terminology used in regards to subgrades and subbases is unique and often unfamiliar to pave-
ment design engineers, this extensive Glossary has been included as a means to quickly define many of the
terms used inside of this publication. This Glossary is, however, not intended to cover all terms used in the
vernacular of subgrades and subbases but several other extensive sources of terms are readily available,
such ACI Committee 116 and ASTM standards.
3 Subgrades
gravel, crushed stone, crushed hydraulic-cement
AASHTO Soil Classification System – A soil clas-
concrete, or iron blast furnace slag, used alone in an
sification system developed to categorize soils
unstabilized subbase or with a hydraulic cementing
according to their load carrying capacity and resul-
medium or asphalt binder in a stabilized subbase.
tant service life when used as part of a pavement
structure. Aggregate Blending – The process of intermixing
two or more aggregates to produce a different set of
Absorbed Moisture – The moisture held in a mate-
properties, generally, but not exclusively, to improve
rial and having physical properties not substantially
grading.
4 Subbases
different from those of ordinary water at the same
temperature and pressure. Aggregate Gradation – The distribution of particles
of granular material among various sizes, usually
Absorption – The amount of water absorbed under
expressed in terms of cumulative percentages larger
specific conditions, usually expressed as a per-
or smaller than each of a series of sizes (sieve
centage of the dry weight of the material; the process
openings) or the percentages between certain
by which the water is absorbed.
ranges of sizes (sieve openings).
Adsorbed Water – Water held on surfaces of a
Asphalt-Treated Subbase (ATB) – A stabilized sub-
5 References
material by physical and chemical forces, and having
base that is bound by asphalt binder.
physical properties substantially different from those
of absorbed water or chemically combined water at ASTM (Unified) Soil Classification System – A soil
the same temperature and pressure. Essentially, it is classification system developed to categorize soils
water retained by soil after gravitational and capillary according to their textural and plasticity qualities with
moisture are removed; it can be described as the respect to their performance as engineering con-
water associated with the air-dry moisture content. struction materials.
Adsorption – Development at the surface of a solid B
Appendices
73
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Base Course – (also known as Binder Course) – Centrifuge Moisture Equivalent (CME) – The
The layer(s) of hot mix asphalt immediately below moisture content of a soil after a saturated sample is
the surface course, generally consisting of less centrifuged for one hour under a force equal to 1,000
1 Introduction
asphalt and larger aggregates than the surface times the force of gravity. Low values, such as 12 or
course. less, indicate soils of low capillarity such as perme-
Binder Course – See Base Course. able sands and silts; high values, such as 25, indi-
cate soils of high capillarity such as impermeable
C clays.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) – The ratio of the Chemical Modification – Treatment of a sub-ideal
2 Design Principles
force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass subgrade material with lime, portland cement,
with a 3 in.2 (19 cm2) circular piston. The index cement kiln dust, Class C fly ash, or Class F fly ash
(CBR) value is the percent of an established refer- in conjunction with lime to provide shrink-swell resis-
ence value for 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) and 0.2 in. (5.0 mm) tance and the uniform stability necessary for an ideal
penetration. The reference value of 100 was origi- working platform.
nally considered to represent the resistance of a Clay – A soil texture method classification category.
well-graded crushed stone. Typical CBR values may A fine-textured soil that breaks into very hard clods
range from 2 to 8 for clays and 70 to 90 for crushed or lumps when dry and is plastic and unusually
stones. sticky when wet. When a ball of moist soil is pressed
3 Subgrades
Capillarity – (also known as Capillary Action or between the thumb and finger, it will form a long
Capillary Absorption) – The action by which a liquid ribbon.
(water) rises or wicks in a channel above the hori- Classification Systems – See Soil Classification
zontal plane of the supply of free water (water table) Systems.
by way of surface tension forces and without appre-
ciable external pressures. The number and size of Cone Penetrometers – Devices used to measure
the channels in a soil determine its pore size distrib- the strength of in place soil; examples include the
ution and thus its capillarity. This soil property is WES Cone Penetrometer and the Dynamic Cone
4 Subbases
measured as the distance (ranging from zero to 30 ft Penetrometer (DCP). The penetrometers are driven
(9.1 m) or more) moisture will rise above the water into the ground at either a constant rate (WES) or by
table by this action. dropping a specific hammer weight over a given dis-
tance (DCP). Measured values are correlated to
Capillary – Void space in a sample (i.e., in soil) with CBR, shear strength, or soil modulus value.
microscopic channels small enough to draw liquid
water through them by way of molecular attraction of Cross-hauling – Replacement of sub-ideal soils
the water adsorbed on the inner surfaces. with ideal soils at critical points in a pavement struc-
ture by either preferentially relocating the sub-ideal
5 References
74
Summary/Overview
Appendix – Glossary
Crusher-run Aggregate – Aggregate that has been Expansive Soil – Soils that change volume with
broken in a mechanical crusher and has not been changes in moisture content; expansive soils that
subjected to any subsequent screening process. may swell enough to cause pavement problems are
1 Introduction
Cut-fill Transition – A location in which an area of generally clays falling into the AASHTO A-6 or A-7
isolated non-uniformity is eliminated by blending or groups, or classified as CH, MH or OH by the Uni-
cross-hauling the sub-ideal subgrade material with a fied Classification System, and with a Plasticity
more ideal material to yield a more gradual and uni- Index greater than about 25 by ASTM D4318.
form transitional area. F
D Faulting – Differential vertical displacement of a slab
2 Design Principles
Daylighted Subbase – (also known as Daylighting) or other member adjacent to a joint or crack; often
– An edge drainage system in which a subbase is caused by pumping.
extended through the edge of the pavement system Fat Clay – A soil texture method classification cate-
to a point where it is capable of freely carrying water gory. Highly plastic clay; strongly exhibits the charac-
to side ditches, hence being daylighted. teristics indicated for clay.
Daylighting – See Daylighted Subbase. Field Moisture Equivalent (FME) – The minimum
Degree of Saturation – The ratio of the volume of moisture content at which a smooth surface of soil
water in a material (i.e., in aggregate) to the volume will absorb no more water in 30 seconds when the
3 Subgrades
of voids, usually expressed as a percentage. water is added in individual drops; the FME reports
the moisture content required to fill all the pores in
Density – The weight of a unit volume of soil. It may sands, when the capillarity of cohesionless expan-
be expressed either as a wet density (including both sive soils is completely satisfied and when cohesive
soil and water) or as a dry density (soil only). soils approach saturation.
Drainage – The interception and removal of water Fine Aggregate – Aggregate passing the 3⁄8 in.
from, on, or under an area or roadway; the process (9.5 mm) sieve and almost entirely passing the No. 4
of removing surplus ground or surface water artifi- (4.75 mm) sieve and predominantly retained on the
4 Subbases
cially; a general term for gravity flow of liquids in No. 200 (75 µm) sieve.
conduits.
Fineness Modulus – A measure of the fineness or
Drainable Subbase – See Permeable Subbase. coarseness of an aggregate sample, usually the fine
aggregate (sand). It is determined by adding the
E cumulative percent retained on each of a specified
Econocrete – See Lean Concrete. series of sieves, and dividing the sum by 100.
Edge Drainage System – A system designed to
5 References
Fly Ash – The finely divided residue resulting from
carry water that has infiltrated the pavement surface the combustion of ground or powdered coal and
to a side ditch. The two most common types of edge which is transported from the fire box through the
drainage systems are collector pipes with redundant boiler by flu gasses; used as mineral admixture in
outlets and daylighted subbases. cement-treated subbases.
Enhancement – A method of removing excessive Flowable-fill – Controlled low-strength fill materials
moisture in wet soils by providing drainage via that do not need compaction and flow easily to fill a
trenches or toe drains at the lowest point(s); trench. The mixtures contain portland cement, sand,
Appendices
compacting the subgrade using heavy equipment, fly ash and water and typically develop 28-day com-
which forces the excess moisture out of the sub- pressive strengths of about 50 to 100 psi (0.35 to
grade due to high applied pressures; or adjusting 0.70 MPa). Flowable-fill materials provide enough
the moisture content through chemical modification strength to prevent settlement, but are easy to
(soil stabilization). remove using a bucket on a back hoe or front-end
loader if future excavation is necessary.
Index
75
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Free-draining Subbase – A subbase with a target Grading – The distribution of particles of granular
permeability between 50 and 150 ft/day (15 and 46 material among various sizes, usually expressed in
m/day) in laboratory tests; the maximum permeability terms of cumulative percentages larger or smaller
1 Introduction
for a free-draining subbase is approximately 350 than each of a series of sizes (sieve openings) or
ft/day (107 m/day) in laboratory tests and any mate- the percentages between certain ranges of sizes
rials that provide higher permeability rates should be (sieve openings).
considered permeable subbases. Granular Subbase – See Unstabilized Subbase.
Free Moisture – (also known as Free Water) – Gravel – Granular material predominantly retained
Moisture having essentially the properties of pure on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve and resulting from
2 Design Principles
water in bulk; moisture not absorbed by aggregate. natural disintegration and abrasion of rock or pro-
Free Water – See Free Moisture. cessing of weakly bound conglomerate.
Frost Action – A phenomenon in which freezing and Gravitational Water – Water free to move under the
thawing of a soil in winter and early springtime might influence of gravity. This is the water that will drain
cause uneven support below a pavement surface. from a soil. For in-situ soils it is water at and below
The freezing phase of frost action might cause the ground water table and is often termed “ground-
noticeable heaving of the road surface (see Frost water.”
Heave) and the thawing phase of frost action might
cause noticeable softening of the roadbed (see Sub- H
3 Subgrades
tible are very clean mixtures of sand and gravel. lower sensitivity to moisture fluctuation.
G J
Geosynthetics – Thin pliable sheets of textile K
material of varying permeability. The varieties of
geosynthetics include geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, k-value – See Modulus of Subgrade Reaction.
geocells and geomembranes. The usefulness and L
effectiveness of geosynthetics directly depends
Appendices
on the type of geosynthetic, the intended function Lean Clay – A soil texture method classification cat-
(filtration, separation and/or reinforcement), in-situ egory. Moderately plastic clay; shows the character-
soil conditions and installation techniques. istics indicated for clay, but to a lesser degree.
Gradation – See Grading.
Index
76
Summary/Overview
Appendix – Glossary
Lean Concrete Subbase – A subbase that is bound Nominal Maximum Size – In specifications for and
by portland cement and with higher cement and descriptions of aggregate, the smallest sieve
water contents than cement-treated subbases, but opening through which the entire amount of the
1 Introduction
they less cement than conventional concrete and an aggregate is permitted to pass; sometimes referred
average 7-day compressive strength between 750 to as maximum size (of aggregate).
and 1,200 psi (5.2 and 8.3 MPa). The aggregates Nonplastic Soil – A soil that is composed almost
used in lean concrete subbases do not necessarily entirely of sand sizes, gravel or coarse silt that will
meet conventional quality standards for aggregates show no significant consistency variations with
used in pavements. moisture variations.
2 Design Principles
Lighter Clay – See Lean Clay.
O
Liquid Limit (LL) – This limit separates the plastic
state from the liquid state. It is represented by the Open-graded Subbase – See Permeable Subbase.
moisture content at which soil, when separated by a
P
standard groove [0.04 in. (1 mm)] in a standard cup,
will flow back together [0.4 in. (1 cm) length] under Pavement Structure – The combination of asphalt/
25 standard taps or blows [0.4 in. (1 cm) fall impacts]. concrete surface course(s) and base/subbase
The liquid limit is considered to relate directly to soil course(s) placed on a prepared subgrade to support
compressibility; the higher the LL, the greater the the traffic load.
3 Subgrades
compressibility. Pea Gravel – Screened gravel the particle sizes of
M which range between 3⁄16 and 3⁄8 in. (4.75 and 9.5
mm) in diameter.
Maximum Size Aggregate – See Nominal
Percent Fines – Amount, expressed as a per-
Maximum Size.
centage, of material in aggregate finer than a given
Mill Tailings – A mineral processing waste that may sieve, usually the No. 200 (75 µm) sieve.
be used as a partial addition to unstabilized subbase
layers. However, only the coarser-sized particles are Permeable Subbase – (also known as Drainable
4 Subbases
acceptable as long as there are no harmful or reac-
Subbase or Open-graded Subbase) – Unstabilized
layer consisting of crushed aggregates with a
tive chemical components concentrated from the
reduced amount of fines to promote drainage and
host rock.
increase the permeability of the subbase above
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) – A 350 ft/day (107 m/day) in laboratory tests, although
bearing test, conducted in the field, which provides typical levels range from 500 to 20,000 ft/day (152
an index to rate the support provided by a soil or to 6,100 m/day) in laboratory tests. Despite their
subbase layer directly beneath a concrete slab; the intuitive advantage to quickly be able to remove ex-
5 References
reaction of the subgrade per unit of area of deforma- cess water, permeable subbases are no longer con-
tion typically given in psi/in. (MPa/m). sidered a cost effective design element for concrete
Moist – Slightly damp but not quite dry to the pavements due to their very problematic history.
touch; the term wet implies visible free water, damp Permeability – A soil’s ability to transmit water
implies less wetness than wet, and moist implies through its voids. The permeability of any material is
not quite dry. heavily dependent on the connectivity of its pore net-
Moisture Content – The ratio of the mass of water work; the more connected and the larger the pore
network is, the greater the permeability.
Appendices
77
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Plastic Soil – A soil that contains a fine fraction of Relative Humidity – The ratio of the quantity of
silt or clay, or a combination of the two, that will pass water vapor actually present to the amount present
from a solid to semisolid to plastic and eventually to in a saturated atmosphere at a given temperature;
1 Introduction
and pavement roughness, generally in the form of hold its shape when the pressure is released but will
faulted transverse joints. crumble when touched.
Q Sand Equivalent (SE) – A means to quantify the
presence of undesirable claylike materials in soils
R and aggregate materials; this method tends to mag-
R-value – See Resistance Value. nify the volume of clay present in a sample some-
what in proportion to its detrimental effects. Concrete
Radius of Relative Stiffness – A character or prop-
5 References
78
Summary/Overview
Appendix – Glossary
Selective Grading – Grading operations in which Silty-sand – A soil texture method classification cat-
highly frost-susceptible soils are moved to lower por- egory. Consists largely of sand, but has enough silt
tions of embankments and less susceptible soils are and clay present to give it a small amount of stability.
1 Introduction
cross-hauled to from the lower portion of the sub- Individual sand grains can be seen and felt readily.
grade towards the top. Squeezed in the hand when dry, this soil will fall
Separation – A method of removing excessive mois- apart when the pressure is released. Squeezed
ture in wet soils by using geosynthetics. when moist, it forms a cast that will not only hold its
shape when the pressure is released but will also
Separator – (also known as Separator Fabric) Geot- withstand careful handing without breaking. The
extile fabrics and dense-graded granular layers that stability of the moist cast differentiates this soil
2 Design Principles
prevent the migration of fines from the subgrade into from sand.
a free-draining subbase.
Shrinkage Limit (SL) – This limit separates the
Separator Fabric – See Separator. solid state from the semisolid state. It is represented
Sieve – A metallic plate or sheet, a woven-wire by the point in a drying process at which no further
cloth, or other similar device, with regularly spaced shrinkage takes place while drying continues.
apertures of uniform size, mounted in a suitable Soil Classification Systems – Systems created to
frame or holder for use in separating granular group soil materials in categories according to their
material according to size. physical properties. Two widely used soil classifica-
3 Subgrades
Sieve Analysis – The classification of particles, par- tion systems are the ASTM Unified Soil Classifica-
ticularly of aggregates, according to sizes as deter- tion System (USCS) and the American Association
mined with a series of sieves of different openings. of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) system.
Silt – A soil texture method classification category.
Consists of a large quantity of silt particles with none Soil Moisture Suction – See Capillarity.
to small amounts of sand and clay. Lumps in a dry, Specific Gravity – The ratio of the weight in air of a
undisturbed state appear quite cloddy, but they can given volume of material at a stated temperature to
be pulverized readily; the soil then feels soft and
4 Subbases
the weight in air of an equal volume of distilled water
floury. When wet, silt loam runs together and pud- at the same temperature.
dles. Either dry or moist casts can be handled freely
without breaking. When a ball of moist soil is Specific Gravity Factor – The ratio of the weight of
pressed between thumb and finger, its surface mois- aggregates (including all moisture), as introduced
ture will disappear, and it will not press out into a into the mixer, to the effective volume displaced by
smooth, unbroken ribbon but will have a broken the aggregates.
appearance. Stabilized Subbase – A subbase layer that is bound
5 References
Silty-clay – A soil texture method classification cate- by either portland cement or asphalt binders. Stabi-
gory. Consists of plastic (cohesive) fines mixed with lized subbases fall into three general categories:
a significant quantity of silt. It is a fine-textured soil cement-treated, lean concrete and asphalt-treated.
that breaks into hard clods or lumps when dry. When The primary benefit of stabilized bases is that they
a ball of moist soil is pressed between the thumb provide relatively strong, uniform support and are
and finger, it will form a thin ribbon that will break resistant to erosion (pumping).
readily, barely sustaining its own weight. The moist Subbase – The layer(s) of select or engineered
soil is plastic and will form a cast that will withstand material of planned thickness placed between the
Appendices
79
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
Subgrade Softening – The sharp reduction in sub- Untreated Subbase – See Unstabilized Subbase.
grade support that occurs when a subgrade thaws
both from the surface downwards and from the V
1 Introduction
bottom upward. Typically of little concern for a con- Void Ratio – The ratio of the volume of voids to the
crete pavement structure that is adequately volume of soil particles. The porosity and void ratio
designed to resist frost heave. of a soil depend upon the degree of compaction or
Substitution – A method of removing excessive consolidation. Therefore, for a particular soil in dif-
moisture in wet soils is removing unsuitable, unstable ferent conditions, the porosity and void ratio will vary
or excessively wet soils and replacing it with select and can be used to judge relative stability and load
carrying capacity with these factors increasing as
2 Design Principles
80
Summary/Overview
Appendix – Standards
AASHTO Standards
All American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) documents references in
1 Introduction
the text of this publications are listed as follows and can be obtained at www.aashto.org; please consult the
AASHTO website to ensure that you have obtained the most recent version of any AASHTO standard before
using it.
M145 Standard Specification for Classification of Soils T176 Standard Method of Test for Plastic Fines in
2 Design Principles
and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Con- Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of the
struction Purposes Sand Equivalent Test
M147 Standard Specification for Materials for Aggre- T180 Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density
gate and Soil-Aggregate Subbase, Base, and Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb)
Surface Courses Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop
M155 Standard Specification for Granular Material to T190 Standard Method of Test for Resistance R-Value
Control Pumping under Concrete Pavement and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils
M252 Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyeth- T193 Standard Method of Test for The California
3 Subgrades
ylene Drainage Pipe Bearing Ratio
M278 Standard Specification for Class PS46 Poly T221 Standard Method of Test for Repetitive Static
(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Pipe Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement
Components for Use in Evaluation and Design
T89 Standard Method of Test for Determining the of Airport and Highway Pavements
Liquid Limit of Soils
T222 Standard Method of Test for Nonrepetitive
T90 Standard Method of Test for Determining the Static Plate Load Test of Soils and Flexible Pave-
Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils ment Components for Use in Evaluation and
4 Subbases
T93 Standard Specification for Determining the Design of Airport and Highway Pavements
Field Moisture Equivalent of Soils (Discontinued) T265 Standard Method of Test for Laboratory Deter-
T96 Standard Method of Test for Resistance to mination of Moisture Content of Soils
Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by T273 Standard Method of Test for Soil Suction
Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles
Machine T283 Standard Method of Test for Resistance of
Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-
T99 Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density
5 References
Induced Damage
Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb)
Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop T307 Standard Method of Test for Determining the
Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Mate-
T103 Standard Method of Test for Soundness of rials
Aggregates by Freezing and Thawing
T134 Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density
Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures Appendices
Index
81
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
ASTM Standards
All American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) documents references in the text of this publication are
1 Introduction
listed as follows and can be obtained at www.astm.org; please consult the ASTM website to ensure that you
have obtained the most recent version of any ASTM standard procedure before using it.
C131 Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degra- D1883 Standard Test Method for CBR (California
dation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils
Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles
2 Design Principles
D427 Test Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identifica-
the Mercury Method tion of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)
D558 Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density D2844 Standard Test Method for Resistance R-Value
(Unit Weight) Relations of Soil-Cement Mix- and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils
tures
D3152 Standard Test Method for Capillary-Moisture
D559 Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Relationships for Fine-Textured Soils by Pres-
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures sure-Membrane Apparatus
4 Subbases
D560 Standard Test Methods for Freezing and D3282 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and
Thawing Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construc-
tion Purposes
D698 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Com-
paction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard D4253 Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index
Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)) Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibra-
tory Table
D1195 Standard Test Method for Repetitive Static Plate
Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Com- D4254 Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index
5 References
ponents, for Use in Evaluation and Design of Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calcula-
Airport and Highway Pavements tion of Relative Density
D1196 Standard Test Method for Nonrepetitive Static D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic
Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
Components, for Use in Evaluation and Design
of Airport and Highway Pavements D4546 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional
Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils
D1241 Standard Specification for Materials for Soil-
Aggregate Subbase, Base, and Surface Courses D4829 Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of
Appendices
Soils
D1633 Standard Test Methods for Compressive
Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders
Index
82
Summary/Overview
Index
Index
1 Introduction
A Water, 14, 38, 74
2 Design Principles
AASHTO soil classification system, see Soil classifi- Cement kiln dust (CKD), 4, 30-31, 67, 74
cation system, AASHTO Cement-stabilized subbase, see Subbase, Cement-
Abrasion resistance, 46, 55 stabilized
Adhesion, 58 Cement-treated subbase, see Subbase, Cement-
treated
Aggregate
Centrifuge moisture equivalent (CME), see Moisture
Coarse-grained, 14, 22, 39
equivalent
3 Subgrades
Dense-graded, 10, 28, 46, 48, 64-66, 79
Chemical modification, 3, 13, 27, 30, 37, 74, 76, 78
Fine-grained, 13, 22, 36, 37, 39, 41-42, 76, 78
Chemical weathering, see Weathering, Chemical
Gradation, 4, 10, 19, 27, 45-47, 53, 55, 58, 60-
Clay, 9, 15-16, 19, 21-22, 24, 26, 30, 34, 36, 49,
62,73, 76
51,59, 67-69, 70-71, 74-79
Open-graded, 10, 38, 46-47, 59-60, 62, 77
Heavy, 24, 76
Well-graded, 17, 21-22, 74, 78, 80
Light, 24, 77
Asphalt-treated subbase (ATB), see Sub-
4 Subbases
Coarse-grained, see Aggregate, Coarse-grained
base,Asphalt-treated
Cobbles, 19
ASTM soil classification system, see Soil classifi-
cation system, ASTM (Unified) Cohesionless, 15, 48, 75
ATB, see Subbase, Asphalt-treated Collector pipe, 10
5 References
Base course, 1, 74
Cone penetrometer, 18, 74
Bond, 16, 30, 45, 54-55, 57-58, 60, 78
Consolidation, 14, 17, 47-49, 52, 55-56, 63, 80
Bond-breaker, 60
Construction, 1, 3-5, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24-27,29,
Boulders, 19, 21, 74 31-32, 37, 40-41, 43-44, 46-49, 52, 54-66,68-
Bulking, 16 70, 73, 79, 81-82
Cost effectiveness, 65
C
Appendices
83
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
D G
Daylighting, 10-11, 62, 75 Geosynthetics, 39, 76, 78-79
1 Introduction
Gravel, 10, 16, 19, 21-22, 24, 36, 39, 68, 73-74,76-
E 77
Econocrete, see Subbase, Lean concrete Gravitational water, 14, 76
Edge drain, 10-11, 62-63, 66, 75 Groundwater, 14, 37-38, 76
Enhancement, 39, 75
H
Environmental loading, 7, 56
see also Curling and Warping Heavy clay, see Clay, Heavy
Expansive soil, 3-4, 15, 19, 25-31, 37, 41, 67-71, Inlay, 40, 66,
75,78 Instability, 63-64
F Ion exchange stabilization, 30, 76
Faulting, 45, 63, 65, 75 K
Field moisture equivalent (FME), 15, 75, 81-82 k-value, see Modulus of subgrade reaction
4 Subbases
Fly ash, 4, 30-31, 40, 45, 52, 56, 58, 67-68, 74-75
Liquid limit (LL), 15-16, 20-22, 45, 77-78, 81-82
Class C, 30-31
Load bearing capacity, 13, 17-18
Class F, 30-31
Los Angeles abrasion (L.A. abrasion), 46
Foundation, 1, 3, 5-9, 18, 47, 50-51, 56, 59, 68-69
Free-draining subbase, see Subbase, Free-draining M
Friction, 45, 58-59, 60, 63 Modulus of elasticity, 4, 7, 17, 52, 60, 78
Appendices
84
Summary/Overview
Index
N S
Non-frost-susceptible soil, 33, 36, 39 Sand, 16, 19, 21-22, 24, 34, 36, 39-40, 45, 55,
1 Introduction
Non-uniform support, 26-27, 41-42, 63 60,73, 75-82
2 Design Principles
Shrinkage limit (SL), 15-16, 26, 79
P Shrinking, 3, 19, 26
Pad-line, see Track-line Sieve analysis, 21, 79
Particle size, 19, 24, 35, 45, 53, 80 Silt, 15-16, 19, 21-22, 24, 33, 36-37, 76-79
Pavement structure, 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 19, 26-27, Soil
33,38, 50, 55, 63, 73-74, 77, 79-80
Nonplastic, 77
Paving machine, 44, 49-50, 59, 65-66
Plastic, 78
3 Subgrades
Permeability, 9, 10, 14, 35-36, 38, 46-47, 50, 63,
65,76-77 Wet, 40, 80
Permeable subbase, see Subbase, Permeable Soil classification system
Physical weathering, see Weathering, Physical AASHTO, 20, 73
Plastic limit (PL), 15-16, 28-29, 77-78, 81-82 ASTM (Unified), 19, 21, 79-80, 82
Plastic soil, see Soil, Plastic Soil texture method, 19-20, 24, 74-76, 78-79
Soil-cement, 24, 68, 70, 81-82
4 Subbases
Plasticity Index (PI), 15-16, 20-21, 26, 30, 45, 53,75,
78, 81-82 Specification, 4, 6, 21, 25, 31, 46-47, 52-53, 55-
Porosity, 14, 78, 80 56,77, 81-82
Portland cement, 1, 4, 13, 30-31, 40-41, 52, 67- Spring subgrade softening, 36
71,74-75, 77, 79 Subbase, 1-12, 17, 25-27, 29, 33, 39, 41-58
Pozzolanic stabilization, 30, 78 Asphalt-treated (ATB), 4, 8, 45, 50-52, 57-60,
63,65, 73, 79
5 References
Pumping, 1, 10, 25-26, 33, 39, 41-46, 48, 50, 65,
70,75, 78-81 Cement-treated (CTB), 4, 45, 50-55, 59-60, 74-
75,77, 79
R
Cement-stabilized, 4, 8, 45, 52, 60, 63, 74
R-value, see Resistance value
Free-draining, 9-11, 47, 50, 62, 64, 66, 76, 79
Reconstruction, 40, 61, 66
Lean concrete (LCB, Econocrete), 1, 4, 45, 50-
Recycled concrete, 10, 45, 49-50, 53, 60-62, 68, 52,54-60, 68, 74-75, 77, 79
78,80
Appendices
85
Summary/Overview
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements
86
ENGINEERING BULLETIN
EB204P
Subgrades and
Subbases for
Concrete Pavements
90000
AMERICAN CONCRETE