Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade

on Critical Stresses in Concrete Pavement

Rameshwar J. Vishwakarma and Ramakant K. Ingle

Abstract Rigid pavements are directly supported on foundation soil/sub-base, and

hence, it is necessary to prepare uniform subgrade. The calculation of critical stresses
given by various guidelines like PCA (1984) and IRC 58 (2015) are based on the
assumption of uniform subgrade below the pavement slab. However, practically uni-
form compaction is hard to achieve in newly constructed roads as compared to old
existing roads. Many times, widening of roads is done after few years, and it leads
to non-uniformity in stiffness along width. Moreover, stiffness of the soil foundation
shows variation along the length of the pavement. Recent guidelines do not suggest
any solution for non-uniform stiffness of foundation. The study has been carried out
by performing finite element (FE) analysis of slab with non-uniform soil stiffness.
Portable falling weight deflectometer is used to study the variation of soil stiffness
along the width and length of road. Realistic concrete slab is modeled and performed
analysis for axle load, temperature load, and combined effect of axel and tempera-
ture to obtain critical stress. Stiffness of the spring is varied along the length as well
as the width, and static load response is observed in several FE models. The paper
compares various panel results with variation in subgrade stiffness.

Keywords Concrete pavement · Flexural stress · Edge stress · Slab thickness ·

Radius of relative stiffness · Simplified approach

1 Introduction

Rigid pavements are mostly preferred over flexible pavements due to their long
fatigue life, very low maintenance, and good surface. Dekate and Pajgade [1] state
that rigid pavements are better alternative to flexible pavement in case of high-
density traffic corridors. In India, most of the new constructions are being made using

R. J. Vishwakarma (B)
Department of Civil Engineering, Bajaj Institute of Technology, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
e-mail: rameshwarjv@gmail.com
R. K. Ingle
Department of Applied Mechanics, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
e-mail: rkingle@apm.vnit.ac.in
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 805
T. V. Mathew et al. (eds.), Transportation Research, Lecture Notes
in Civil Engineering 45, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9042-6_64
806 R. J. Vishwakarma and R. K. Ingle

concrete roads. The thickness of jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) is mostly
determined from fatigue ratio (ratio of flexural stress to flexural strength). Flexural
stress depends on many factors like thickness of concrete slab, loading (axle and
temperature), axle load location (edge, interior, or corner), and properties of sup-
porting sub-base. Widely used guidelines suggest different methods or formulas to
calculate critical edge stress developed due to application of axle load on concrete
slab. There is difference in the obtained response (critical stress) because of different
assumptions. Stress calculation as per IRC 58 [2] was given in the form of influ-
ence charts and close form equations based on fundamental concept of Westergaard
and Picket & Ray’s work. Theses equations predict approximate solution; however,
availability of finite element tools has overcome many approximations. IRC 58 [3, 4]
had given charts for the estimation of edge stress developed due to combined effect
of temperature and axle load (single and tandem axle). These charts were prepared
using finite element analysis of single slab panel size (3.5 m × 4.5 m). Portland
Cement Association (PCA) [5] provided tables to determine equivalent flexural edge
stress developed for axle load (single, tandem and tridem) with and without concrete
shoulder. PCA [5] had not considered curling and warping of slab due to tempera-
ture variation. It is important to estimate flexural stress developed in pavement from
realistic finite element models.

2 Critical Stresses in Concrete Pavement

Critical stress developed in JPCP is primarily due to vehicle and temperature loading.
Plain concrete slab is the main structural element that provides bearing capacity to
these loads. However, overall response of the concrete pavement depends on many
factors like axle and temperature load, slab thickness, soil subgrade modulus, and
elastic properties of concrete.
Maximum edge stress developed in the pavement due to vehicle axle load can be
determined by using widely used guidelines like Portland Cement Association (PCA)
[5], Indian Road Congress (IRC58) [3, 4], American Concrete Institute (ACI) [6],
and American association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO
[7].
These guidelines had given either charts or regression equations for the estimation
of critical edge stress. Charts or graphs are represented for particular axle loads and
modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation below concrete slab. Vishwakarma and
Ingle [8] suggested a simple approach of analysis of concrete pavement using radius
of relative stiffness (l). Table 1 gives regression equations provided by Vishwakarma
and Ingle [8]. These equations can be used to determine critical edge stress developed
in the concrete slab without shoulder [9].

P
Maximum flexural tensile stress S = Stress Coefficient (C) × (1)
1000 × h 2
Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade on Critical … 807

Table 1 Regression equations to calculate stress coefficient from radius of relative stiffness (l)
Axle type Stress coefficient (C)
Single C = −0.1052 × l 3 − 0.0805 × l 2 + 1.2292 × l − 0.0296
Tandem C = 0.1888 × l 4 − 0.9629 × l 3 + 1.5232 × l 2 − 0.4627 × l + 0.1828
Tridem C = 0.1735 × l 5 − 1.0117 × l 4 + 2.1808 × l 3 − 2.1755 × l 2 + 1.1632 × l − 0.1016

Stress coefficient in Eq. (1) can be calculated from Table 1. P represents axle load
(single, tandem, or tridem), and h represents thickness of concrete slab in Eq. (1).
All these above-mentioned methods have considered uniform subgrade stiffness
below concrete slab. However, practically most of the times subgrade does not show
uniform subgrade stiffness values below pavement. Variable soil type and its density
after compaction may vary the stiffness of the subgrade soil.
Zokaei Ashtiani et al. [10] stated that magnitude of stress and deflection of con-
crete slab is controlled by the stiffness of underlying compacted subgrade or sub-base
foundation. Maitra et al. [11] reported that slab on higher subgrade strength with-
stands higher peak load as well as higher crack length when compared to weaker
subgrade. Support condition affects cracking performance of slab; Roesler et al. [12]
conducted accelerated pavement full-scale testing on slab panels on different sub-
grade. It was observed by Roesler et al. [12] that for thin slab pavements, lower
subgrade stiffness leads to large deformations. However, the effect of subgrade stiff-
ness has less influence on the slabs with thicker sections. Delatte [13] stated that
concrete pavements distribute loads more widely than asphalt pavements on sub-
grade foundation and thus the pressures on the subgrade are low. As a result, the
bearing capacity of the underlying layers is less critical, and there is no need to use
stiff base materials except for pavements which carry heavy loads. Analytically, it
is observed that for uniform subgrade with low or high subgrade stiffness has less
influence on critical edge stress. Vishwakarma and Ingle [14] reported that most of
the concrete pavements are provided with thickness below 350 mm, and response
of these pavements is greatly affected by the subgrade strength (K-value) of the soil
foundation. Widely used guidelines recommend good and uniform compaction of
subgrade. However, practically uniform compaction is hard to achieve. Stiffness of
the soil foundation shows variation along length as well as width of the pavement. The
study has been carried out by performing FE analysis of slab panels on non-uniform
soil foundation. Realistic concrete slabs are modeled, and analysis is performed for
axle load, temperature load, and combined effect of axel and temperature to obtain
critical response.

3 Study of Variation in Subgrade Strength

Soil below concrete slab shows variation in stiffness. Artificial compaction is always
done to achieve uniform compaction. However, 100% uniformity is very difficult to
attain due to several reasons. It is therefore required to know the effect of non-uniform
808 R. J. Vishwakarma and R. K. Ingle

soil stiffness on pavement response. The study has been carried out to determine the
effect of non-uniform soil subgrade on critical stresses in concrete pavement. Figure 1
shows testing on soil foundation using portable lightweight deflectometer (LWD).
IRC 58 [4] expresses subgrade strength as a pressure per unit deflection of the
foundation. It is determined by using plate load test. Strength of subgrade is also
termed as K-value and determined from the pressure sustained at a deflection of
1.25 mm.
It is necessary to determine appropriate value of modulus of subgrade reaction of
soil foundation so as to calculate flexural and temperature stresses more correctly. Asli
[15] suggested use of portable falling weight deflectometer for the back calculation
of elastic modulus of soil subgrade.
Portable lightweight deflectometer is used to determine deflection (δ), dynamic
deformation modulus (E vd ), and degree of compaction of soil (S/V ). Table 2 gives
the observed readings from LWD. Ayyanchira [16] had given a relation between E vd
and CBR, which is used to determine the stiffness of subgrade. Table 3 represents
the approximate relation between E vd and CBR.
To estimate modulus of subgrade reaction for homogeneous soil subgrade from
CBR data, IRC 58 [4] had given relation between K-value and CBR as given in
Table 4.
IRC 58 [4] recommends frequency of one plate load test per km per lane, but the
readings taken on lightweight deflectometer show a large variation of K-value along
length as well as width.

Fig. 1 Testing of soil

subgrade using lightweight
deflectometer
 Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade on Critical …
Table 2 Readings observed on the output display of data acquisition system
Chainage Inner edge Center Outer/critical edge
Deflection δ (mm) 8820 m 0.678 0.643 0.585
Avg. δ (mm) 0.635
S/V 3.172
E vd (MN/m2 ) 35.43
Deflection δ (mm) 8830 m 0.456 0.418 0.408
Avg. δ (mm) 0.427
S/V 3.041
E vd (MN/m2 ) 52.69
Deflection δ (mm) 8840 m 1.136 0.449 0.368 0.022 1.01 1.011
Avg. δ (mm) 0.651 0.681
S/V 2.826 3.826
E vd (MN/m2 ) 34.56 33.04
Deflection δ (mm) 8850 m 0.779 0.529 0.467
Avg. δ (mm) 0.592
S/V 2.913
E vd (MN/m2 ) 38.01
Deflection δ (mm) 8860 m 0.297 0.259 0.24 0.963 0.9 0.924
Avg. δ (mm) 0.265 0.929
S/V 2.392 3.77
E vd (MN/m2 ) 84.91 24.22

809
810 R. J. Vishwakarma and R. K. Ingle

Table 3 Relation between E vd and CBR

E vd (MN/m2 ) CBR % E vd (MN/m2 ) CBR %
5 2 55 34
10 4 60 37
15 6 65 42
20 10 70 46
25 13 75 50
30 17 80 55
35 19 85 60
40 23 90 65
45 25 95 70
50 30 100 80

Table 4 Relationship between K-value and CBR value for soil subgrade
Soaked CBR % 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 20 50 100
K-value (MPa/m) 21 28 35 42 48 55 62 69 140 220

4 Validation of FE Model

Finite element is powerful and versatile method used to analyze structure with com-
plex geometry as well as loading configurations. Concrete pavements are simple slab
structures with complex joint condition and loading configurations. There are many
types of FE software available which can be used to analyze pavement slab for axle
load and temperature load. However, SAP2000 is used for carrying out this study.
Comprehensive 3D models are prepared in SAP2000 by using shell as well as
solid element as shown in Fig. 2 [8, 9], and finite element analysis is carried out for
static axle loads first. Single axle load of 80 kN (18 kip) and tandem axle load of 160
kN (36 kip) are applied on mathematical model. Realistic FE model without concrete
shoulder is prepared as per PCA document. Analysis results obtained from SAP2000
are compared with the results obtained from simplified approach by Vishwakarma
and Ingle [8]. Model prepared is having slab length 4.572 m (180 in.), slab width
3.666 m (144 in.), slab modulus of elasticity 27,579 MPa (4 Mpsi), Poisson’s ratio
0.15, constant wheel contact area 0.178 × 0.254 m2 (7 × 10 in.2 ), wheel spacing
0.305 m (12 in.), axle spacing 1.273 m (50 in.), axle width 1.833 m (72 in.), and
constant modulus of subgrade reaction 979.64 MPa/m. Soil stiffness is assigned as a
spring below concrete slab at each node. Table 5 gives that the results obtained from
FE analysis are in good agreement with simplified approach.
Same model is also validated for the edge stress developed due to temperature
only loading. The results obtained from FE analysis are also compared with the
method suggested by IRC 58 [2], i.e., using Bradbury’s warping stress coefficients
for thermal stress computations. The comparison is given in Table 6.
Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade on Critical … 811

Single Axle
Dual Wheel Load

Fig. 2 Finite element model showing axle load placed at edge of slab

Table 5 Validation of the mathematical model

Axle type Load (kN) Thickness h (mm) Stress S (MPa) % difference
FE analysis Simplified
approach
Single 80 150 1.17 1.17 −0.1
Tandem 160 1.09 1.09 −0.1
Tridem 240 1.10 1.10 0.4

Temperature differential between the top and bottom of concrete pavement creates
the slab to curl resulting in stresses. Maximum temperature difference is affected by
geographical locations. IRC 58 [4] recommended maximum temperature differen-
tials for concrete slabs according to the slab thickness. Temperature differences in
India in some regions are very high, and hence, IRC 58 [4] guideline considers top-
down and bottom-up cracking conditions while determining the pavement thickness.
Flexural stresses for bottom-up cracking have been computed for nonlinear positive
temperature difference; however, stresses for top-down cracking were computed for
axle loads with linear negative temperature differential in the slab in nighttime.
In concrete pavement, critical stresses are developed due to the combined effect
of wheel load and temperature differential leading to the initiation of cracks; these
cracks propagate through the pavement which leads to the failure of slab. According
to Maitra et al. [17], the pavement slab tries to bend due to the temperature variation
along the depth, but it is arrested due to its self-weight which develops the curling
stresses in the pavement. IRC 58 [2] follows Bradbury’s solutions for the calculations
of curling stresses. This approach assumes the linear variation of temperature along
the depth of the pavement, but actually, the temperature variation is nonlinear.
 812
Table 6 Comparison of stresses in the slab panel for temperature loading
Temperature Thickness h Stress (MPa)
(°C) (mm) Interior Long edge Short edge Corner
FE analysis IRC 58-2002 FE analysis IRC 58-2002 FE analysis IRC 58-2002 FE analysis IRC 58-2002
17.3 150 3.02 2.92 2.50 2.47 2.60 2.58 0.05 1.14
21 300 3.29 3.32 2.96 2.90 2.36 2.31 0.04 1.07

R. J. Vishwakarma and R. K. Ingle

Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade on Critical … 813

Slab size and other properties are considered as per PCA [5] for modeling concrete
slab. Table 5 gives the results obtained for 150- and 300-mm-thick slab. Stresses are
computed at interior, edge, and corner of the slab. The results computed using IRC
58 [2] and FE analysis are in good agreement for interior and edge locations. To
study the effect of temperature and axle loading on non-uniform soil, FE models
were prepared and analyzed.

5 Effect of Uniform and Non-uniform Subgrade

The analysis of pavement slab is done considering uniform as well as non-uniform

soil stiffness. Table 7 gives the variation of critical edge stress developed in the panel
for uniform subgrade stiffness for axle load only. Single, tandem, and tridem axle
load is applied considering dual wheel for each axle. Soil stiffness is applied in the
form of linear spring with stiffness only in vertical (normal to slab area) direction.
Stiffness of the spring is calculated according to the mesh area of the slab.
Table 7 gives that with the increase in modulus of subgrade reaction, critical edge
stress reduces. In this case, only axle load is considered and there is no temperature
load. To model non-uniform subgrade, spring stiffness is varied along width in four
layers. Different subgrade stiffness is assigned to the four equal layers as given in
Table 8. In each layer, spring stiffness is uniform through layer.

Table 7 Critical edge stress (MPa) for different subgrade stiffness below slab
Axle type Load (kN) Thickness h (mm) Modulus of subgrade reaction K
(MPa/m)
40 80 150 300
Single 80 100 4.34 3.70 3.17 2.64
Tandem 160 3.54 3.11 2.80 2.47
Tridem 240 3.59 3.21 2.86 2.48
Single 80 150 2.54 2.16 1.88 1.60
Tandem 160 2.12 1.77 1.54 1.35
Tridem 240 1.90 1.72 1.57 1.39
Single 80 300 0.98 0.87 0.75 0.64
Tandem 160 0.93 0.79 0.66 0.54
Tridem 240 0.67 0.58 0.53 0.48

Table 8 Variation of subgrade stiffness along width from 150 to 300 MPa/m
Width inch (m) 0–36 36–72 72–108 108–144
(0–0.91) (0.91–1.83) (1.83–2.74) (2.74–3.66)
K (MPa/m) 150 200 250 300
814 R. J. Vishwakarma and R. K. Ingle

Edge stress from Table 9 for non-uniform subgrade stiffness is close to the stresses
for the uniform subgrade stiffness 150 MPa/m from Table 7. If the stiffness of soil
spring is assigned as per Table 10, the results are close to the stresses obtained for
300 MPa/m uniform subgrade stiffness from Table 7 and given in Table 11.
Higher subgrade strength is critical when temperature only load is considered.
Table 12 gives edge stress in concrete slab for different load cases and combinations
for uniform modulus of subgrade reaction 300 MPa/m. However, Table 13 represents
same loading and load combinations with non-uniform soil subgrade. Variation of
soil stiffness along width (K) ranges from 150 to 300 MPa/m).

Table 9 Critical edge stress for non-uniform soil stiffness along width from 150 to 300 MPa/m
Axle type Load (kN) Thickness h (mm) Edge stress (MPa)
Single 80 100 3.17
Tandem 160 2.80
Tridem 240 2.86
Single 80 150 1.88
Tandem 160 1.54
Tridem 240 1.56
Single 80 300 0.74
Tandem 160 0.64
Tridem 240 0.52

Table 10 Variation of subgrade stiffness along width from 300 to 150 MPa/m
Width inch (m) 0–36 36–72 72–108 108–144
(0–0.91) (0.91–1.83) (1.83–2.74) (2.74–3.66)
K (MPa/m) 300 250 200 150

Table 11 Critical edge stress

Axle type Load (kN) Thickness h Edge stress
obtained for non-uniform soil
(mm) (MPa)
stiffness along width from
300 to 150 MPa/m Single 80 100 2.64
Tandem 160 2.47
Tridem 240 2.48
Single 80 150 1.60
Tandem 160 1.35
Tridem 240 1.40
Single 80 300 0.64
Tandem 160 0.54
Tridem 240 0.52
Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade on Critical … 815

Table 12 Stresses in
Load type K (MPa/m) Thickness h Stress at edge
concrete slab for uniform
(mm) (MPa)
modulus of subgrade
reaction 300 MPa/m Single Axle 300 150 1.60
Tandem Axle 1.35
Tridem Axle 1.39
Temperature 150 2.50
17.3 °C
Single Axle 150 4.00
+ 17.3 °C
Tandem Axle 1.93
+ 17.3 °C
Tridem Axle 3.45
+ 17.3 °C

Table 13 Stresses in
Load type K (MPa/m) Thickness h Stress at edge
concrete slab for non-uniform
(mm) (MPa)
modulus of subgrade reaction
along width Single Axle 150–300 150 1.87
Tandem Axle 1.54
Tridem Axle 1.56
Temperature 150 2.57
17.3 °C
Single + 150 4.38
17.3 °C
Tandem + 2.15
17.3 °C
Tridem + 3.58
17.3 °C
Single Axle 300–150 150 1.60
Tandem Axle 1.35
Tridem Axle 1.40
Temperature 150 2.50
17.3 °C
Single + 150 4.00
17.3 °C
Tandem + 1.93
17.3 °C
Tridem + 3.45
17.3 °C
816 R. J. Vishwakarma and R. K. Ingle

Uniform subgrade stiffness of 300 MPa/m is considered, and different loading and
load combinations are considered. These results from Table 12 are compared with
the results for non-uniform soil subgrade having similar loads and load combinations
(Table 13).
Higher modulus of subgrade reaction with uniform stiffness below slab increases
thermal stresses in the slab as it increases the restraint. However, from Tables 12
and 13, it can be seen that if the modulus of subgrade reaction is less but non-
uniform, it may develop more stresses than the stress for highest uniform stiffness
from non-uniform stiffness considered. Maximum stress obtained from Table 12 is
4.00 MPa with soil stiffness 300 MPa/m, while maximum for non-uniform stiffness
(150–300 MPa/m) from Table 13 is 4.38 MPa.

6 Observations and Conclusions

Following are the significant observations and conclusions made from the study of
effect of non-uniform soil subgrade on critical stresses in concrete pavement.
• Stresses in non-uniform subgrade are governed by the soil stiffness at the edge
layer when only axle load is considered. It is recommended to do K-value test at
the edge, when axle loads are only considered.
• Lower subgrade stiffness can be considered while analyzing for non-uniform sub-
grade, and it gives critical results for axle load only.
• When temperature loads are also included in the design of pavement, the analysis
should be done by modeling non-uniform subgrade. Higher or lower uniform
subgrade results in the underestimation of critical stresses.
• Guidelines are silent about the analysis of concrete pavement on non-uniform soil
subgrade, and there is no solid method available. It is recommended to do FE
analysis for such cases.

References

1. Dekate MN, Pajgade PS (2016) Bituminous versus cement concrete roads. Indian Concr Inst
17(2):38–41
2. IRC (2002) Guidelines for the design of plain jointed rigid pavements for highways. IRC 58,
2nd revision, Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India
3. IRC (2011) Guidelines for the design of plain jointed rigid pavements for highways. IRC 58,
3rd revision, Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India
4. IRC (2015) Guidelines for the design of plain jointed rigid pavements for highways. IRC 58,
4th revision, Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India
5. PCA (1984) Thickness design for concrete highway and street pavements. PCA manual, Port-
land Cement Assosiation, Skokie, Illinois
6. ACI 325.12R-02 (2002) ACI Committee 325. Guide for design of jointed concrete pavements
for streets and local roads, ACI 325.12R-02, American concrete institute, Detroit, MI
Effect of Non-uniform Soil Subgrade on Critical … 817

7. AASHTO (1993) AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures, vol 1. American Associ-
ation of State Highway & Transportation Officials
8. Vishwakarma RJ, Ingle RK (2017) Simplified approach for the evaluation of critical stresses
in concrete pavement. Struct Eng Mech 61(3):389–396
9. Vishwakarma RJ, Ingle RK (2018) Effect of panel size and radius of relative stiffness on critical
stresses in concrete pavement. Arab J Sci Eng 43(10):5677–5687
10. Zokaei-Ashtiani A, Tirado C, Carrasco C, Nazarian S (2015) Impact of different approaches
to modelling rigid pavement base layers on slab curling stresses. Int J Pavement Eng
17(10):861–869
11. Maitra SR, Reddy KS, Ramachandra LS (2014) Numerical investigation of fatigue character-
istics of concrete pavement. Int J Fract 189(2):181–193
12. Roesler JR, Cervantes VG, Amirkhanian AN (2012) Accelerated performance testing of con-
crete pavement with short slabs. Int J Pavement Eng 13(6):494–507
13. Delatte NJ (2014) Concrete pavement design, construction, and performance, 2nd edn. CRC
Press, Taylor and Francis group
14. Vishwakarma RJ, Ingle RK (2017) Evaluation of subgrade strength of soil below concrete pave-
ment using non-destructive method. In: Conference on numerical modeling in geomechanics.
CoNMiG-2017, Roorkee, pp 21–26
15. Asli C, Feng ZQ, Porcher G, Rincent JJ (2012) Back-calculation of elastic modulus of soil and
subgrade from portable falling weight deflectometer measurements. Eng Struct 34:1–7
16. Ayyanchira MM (2014) Introduction of light weight deflectometer. Int J Eng Res Technol
3(4):303–305
17. Maitra SR, Reddy KS, Ramachandra LS (2013) Estimation of critical stress in jointed concrete
pavement. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 104:208–217