Section 4

Subgrade Evaluation

PROJECT
SELECTION

SUBGRADE PAVEMENT DESIGN

ENVIRONMENT CROSS SECTIONS
EVALUATION MATERIALS TRAFFIC
Section 2 Section 3
Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Implementation, Feedback,
NEW OR Validation and Refinement
New Rehabilitation
REHABILITATION of Design and
Rehabilitation procedure

FLEXIBLE & SEMI- GRAVEL SMALL ELEMENT EVALUATION & OVERLAYS &
RIGID PAVEMENTS
RIGID PAVEMENTS PAVEMENTS PAVEMENTS MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION
Section 9
Section 7 Section 8 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12

COMPARISON
OF DESIGNS
Section 13
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

CONTENTS

4 SUBGRADE EVALUATION.......................................................................................................................1
4.1 INVESTIGATION .....................................................................................................................................1
4.2 DETERMINATION OF CBR ......................................................................................................................2
4.3 PROBLEM SOILS ...................................................................................................................................5
4.3.1 Low Strength Soils......................................................................................................................5
4.3.2 Expansive Soils ..........................................................................................................................5
4.3.3 Dispersive Soils ..........................................................................................................................7
4.3.4 Organic Soils ..............................................................................................................................7
4.4 IMPROVED SUBGRADES .........................................................................................................................7
4.5 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................9

DRAFT – February 2003 Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation.

Page i
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

4 SUBGRADE EVALUATION
This Section describes the methods for subgrade evaluation for structural pavement design of new and
rehabilitated pavements. Methods of field investigation and determination of subgrade strength may vary for
the purpose of new pavement design, pavement rehabilitation or overlay design (MoW, 1999).
The type of subgrade encountered is largely determined by the location of the road, but where the soils
within the possible corridor for the road vary significantly in strength from place to place, it is clearly desirable
to locate the pavement on the stronger soils if this does not conflict with other constraints. The strength of
road subgrades is commonly assessed in terms of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and this is dependent
on the type of soil, its density, and its moisture content. For designing the thickness of a road pavement, the
strength of the subgrade should be taken as that of the soil at a moisture content equal to the wettest
moisture condition likely to occur in the subgrade after the road is opened to traffic (TRL, 1993).

4.1 Investigation
Soil surveys shall be planned and conducted in a manner that classifies all materials according to their
suitability as load bearing layers. A preliminary vertical alignment shall be assumed at the time of the soil
survey in order to ensure that soil samples for subgrade classifications are actually taken at levels that fall
within the likely subgrade level (MoW, 1999).
Investigations shall be extended deeper as required to detect problems that need special consideration.
These include (MoW, 1999):
ƒ presence of problem soils
ƒ unfavourable subgrade conditions
ƒ features associated with slope and embankment stability
ƒ investigations in cuttings
Evaluation of subgrade strength in embankment areas shall be based on the best possible information about
likely sources of earthworks fill materials.
Identification of sections deemed to have homogenous subgrade conditions is carried out by desk studies of
appropriate documents such as geological maps, followed by site reconnaissance that includes excavation
of inspection pits and initial indicator testing for confirmation of the site observations. Regard for localised
areas that require individual treatment is an essential part of the site reconnaissance. Demarcation of
homogenous sections shall be reviewed and changed as required when the CBR test results of the
investigation are available (MoW, 1999).
There are basically two modes of testing available for estimation of subgrade support values; laboratory
testing and field testing (Austroads, 1992):
ƒ Field testing is only applicable where it is proposed that subgrade support values are to be
extrapolated from an existing pavement and the subgrade soil conditions are similar to those
of the proposed pavement.
ƒ Laboratory testing is applicable both where a suitable existing pavement for extrapolation
exists, or from first principles.
Field testing may be used to determine the design CBR where soils similar to those of the subgrade of the
road being designed have existed under a sealed pavement for at least two years and are at density and
moisture conditions similar to those likely to occur in service. Care must be taken to carry out tests when the
subgrade is in a critical moisture condition or alternatively, seasonal adjustments may be made.
A number of field tests may be used to estimate subgrade CBR such as Insitu CBR test and Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP).
The results of such tests should be analysed statistically and the design CBR shall be calculated as the the
ten percentile level value (mean minus 1.28 times standard deviation) of the CBR results obtained in that
homogeneous section.
Dynamic cone penetrometer tests are described in the AACRA Standard Test Methods and may be used for
fine grained subgrades.

DRAFT – February 2003 Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation.

Page 1
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

CBR results can be calculated from the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) using the relationship shown in
4.1. The relationship given in Figure 4.1 is a general relationship that suits most soil types. When using the
cone penetrometers extensively for subgrade investigation, a limited number of insitu or laboratory CBR
measurements should be carried out on the particular material being tested to confirm that the adopted
relationship is valid.

Figure 4.1 – Correlation of Dynamic Cone Penetration and CBR (Austroads, 1992)
This procedure may be used to determine design CBR or modulus where sufficient samples of the subgrade
material for the new pavement can be obtained for detailed laboratory investigations and where a reasonable
estimate can be made of likely subgrade density and moisture conditions in service.

4.2 Determination of CBR

The aim of subgrade evaluation is to estimate a value of subgrade support to use in design. The measure of
subgrade support used in this Manual is California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The following factors must be
considered in determining the design strength/stiffness of the subgrade:
ƒ Sequence of earthworks construction
ƒ The compaction moisture content used and field density achieved
ƒ Moisture changes during service life
ƒ Subgrade variability
ƒ The total pavement thickness may be governed by the presence of weak layers below the
design subgrade level.
Additional criteria are required to evaluate whether the sub-grade material is suitable as pavement subgrade.
Swelling potential of the soil gives indication whether the material shows considerable volume change or not,
which is a very significant factor in the performance of the road. Sub-grade soils having swelling potential >
2% are not suitable roadbed materials. The black cotton soil present in Addis Ababa fits into this category.
When laboratory test results are not available, it is also possible to estimate the sub-grade soil CBR value
from some supplementary tests.
Table 4.1 describes Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) soil types, provides representative values for
each of the soil types and recommends their suitability as subgrade.
Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation. DRAFT – February 2003
Page 2
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

Table 4.1 – Characteristic Addis Ababa Soil Types and Characteristics

Typical Shrinkage
Typical
Soil Values as Dry or Shear
Typical Name Soaked Permeability
Group Subgrade Density Swelling strength
CBR
(t/m3) Properties
Well graded Gravels or
Almost
GW gravel sands mixtures, Excellent 2.00 – 2.24 40-80 Pervious Excellent
none
with little or no fines
Poorly Graded gravels or
Good to Almost
GP gravel sand mixtures little 1.70-2.24 30-60 Very pervious Good
Excellent none
or no fines
Silty gravels, Gravel silt Good to
GM d1 2.00-2.32 40-60 Very slight Fair to poor Good
sand mixtures Excellent
Poor to
Silty gravels, gravel silt Fair to
GM u1 Good 1.84-2.16 20-30 Slight Practically
sand mixtures Good
impervious
Poor to
Clayey gravels, gravels- Fair to
GC Good 2.08-2.32 20-40 Slight practically
sand clay mixtures good
impervious
Well graded sands or Almost
SW Good 1.76-2.08 20-40 Pervious Excellent
gravely little or no fines none
Poorly graded sands or
Fair to Almost
SP gravely sands, little or no 1.68-2.18 10-40 Pervious Good
good none
fines
Silty sands, sand silt Fair to
SM d1 1.92-2.16 16-40 Very slight Fair to good Good
mixtures good
Poor to
Silty sands, sand silt Slight to
SM u 1 Fair 1.60-2.08 10-20 practically Fair
mixtures medium
impervious
Poor to
Clayey Sands and Sand- Poor to Slight to Fair to
SC 1.60-2.16 5-20 practically
clay mixtures Good medium good
impervious
Inorganic silts and very
16 or Slight to
ML fine sands rock flour, silty Poor to fair 1.44-2.08 Fair to poor Fair
less medium
or clayey fine sands
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, 10 or Practically
CL Poor to fair 1.44-2.08 Medium Fair
gravely, sandy, silty, less impervious
lean.
Organic silts and organic 5 or Medium to
OL poor 1.44-1.68 Poor Poor
silt-clays of low plasticity less high
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, 10 or Fair to
MH Poor 1.28-1.68 High Fair to poor
gravely, sandy, silty, lean less poor
layers
Inorganic clays of high 15 or Practically
CH Poor to fair 1.44-1.84 High Poor
plasticity, fat clay less impervious
Organic clays of medium
Poor to 5 or Practically
OH to high plasticity, organic 1.29-1.70 High Poor
very poor less impervious
silts
Peat and other highly Not Very
PT N.A N.A Very high Fair to poor
Organic soils. suitable poor

Figure 4.2 shows the geological soil types for Addis Ababa. As outlined in Section 2.2 of this Manual the
design CBR for subgrades in Addis Ababa should be based on the results of a 4 day soaked CBR test.

DRAFT – February 2003 Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation.

Page 3
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 4.2 – Geological Soil Types for Addis Ababa (Ministry of Mines and Energy)

Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation. DRAFT – February 2003

Page 4
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

4.3 Problem Soils

Subgrade materials with low strength or other unfavourable properties for use as subgrade are classified as
Problem Soils. Problem Soils include:
ƒ Low strength soils (Section 4.3.1)
ƒ expansive soils (Section 4.3.2)
ƒ dispersive soils (Section 4.3.3)
ƒ organic soils (Section 4.3.4)
These soils require special treatment before acceptance in the pavement foundation. After appropriate
treatment, their revised CBR value shall be determined by appropriate test methods (refer AACRA Soils and
Materials Manual) for the purpose of pavement design (MoW, 1999).

4.3.1 Low Strength Soils

Soils with CBR less than 3% are described as Low Strength Soils. Before acceptance as foundation of the
pavement within the design depth these soils require special treatment that may include one or more of the
following measures:
ƒ removal and replacement of soils
ƒ chemical stabilisation or modification
ƒ mechanical stabilisation
ƒ raising of the vertical alignment to increase soil cover
Further details on the respective methods for treatment of these soils need to be established in the design at
project level and will vary depending on soil properties, site conditions, available equipment, available
materials, experience from other sites with similar conditions and construction economy.

4.3.2 Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are those that exhibit particularly large volumetric changes (swell and shrinkage) following
variations in their in-service moisture contents. Expansive soils shall be assessed also when they occur
below design depth. The chosen measures to minimise or eliminate the effect of expansive soils shall be
economically realistic and proportionate to the risks of potential pavement damage and increased
maintenance costs (MoW, 1999).
Particular problems associated with road construction over expansive soils are commonly the seasonal
volumetric changes in these soils rather than low bearing strength, since expansive soils are often relatively
strong at equilibrium moisture content. Typical distress is from seasonal wetting and drying whereby soils at
the edge of the road wet up and dry out at a different rate than those under a bituminous surfacing. This
mechanism causes differential movements over the cross section of the road and associated crack
developments, first occurring in the shoulder area, subsequently developing in the carriageway.
The stages of the investigation programme are (MoW, 1999):
ƒ Routine investigations are those carried out during surveys of all projects.
ƒ Extended investigations include simple additional indicator testing in the laboratory where
expansive soils are suspected.
ƒ In-depth studies include specialised laboratory testing is employed where the extended
investigations have shown occurrence of expansive soils, and the required countermeasures
have far reaching budgetary consequences.
Cost considerations may prohibit full replacement of expansive soils particularly if they occur over large
areas although this is the technically ideal solution. The following methods are prescribed in the design in
order to minimise seasonal movements in expansive soils and thereby reduce the risk of associated damage
to the pavement. The methods are compromises specified for the purpose of providing the most favourable
conditions possible under the circumstances (MoW, 1999):
ƒ provide nearest possible constant moisture contents over the full width of the carriageway
below the embankment
DRAFT – February 2003 Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation.
Page 5
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

ƒ replace the upper layer of the expansive soil, i.e. the zone where the largest proportion of the
volumetric changes takes place
ƒ provide a minimum cover
ƒ Side drains should be avoided in areas with expansive soils.
Chemical stabilisation normally by the use of lime, to counteract volumetric changes in expansive soils is
technically possible, but requires careful appraisal of the associated construction costs as well as the
potential practical problems in admixing stabilisers into deep layers of clayey soils.
The roadbed of expansive soil shall be kept moist and be covered with earthworks fill without undue delays.
Fill materials used for replacement of expansive soils shall be soils meeting the general requirements for fill,
and be as impermeable as possible. Plastic soils (PI min. 15%) shall be used wherever available at
economical haulage distances.
Processing and compaction of expansive soils does not improve their swell properties, neither is their
strength significantly increased. Attempts to adjust their moisture content or to achieve an optimum by
mixing, is time consuming, operationally impractical and unnecessary. Nominal rolling of the roadbed is
optional to provide a working surface for construction of subsequent layers.
Expansive clays which are commonly known as black cotton soil are present Addis Ababa. The material is
characterised by its high swelling behaviour when saturated and shrinks and cracks when dry. The
development of cracks allows water to enter deep in to the sub-grade material causing considerable
expansion due to change of volume and causes deformation of the pavement surfaces. This has been
causing difficulties in road and airport runway performances in Addis Ababa.
When black cotton soil is saturated, its volume changes and the bearing value decreases to CBR < 2%. In
the dry state, the black cotton soil becomes fissured and affected by soil falls, which gives way to develop
into gullies.
Based on investigations conducted around Bole area, the thickness of black cotton soil in Addis Ababa
varies from 0.3m to as thick as 10m.
Treatment of the expansive soils with about 4% of hydrated lime produces excellent results with respect to
reduction of the plasticity, shrinkage, swelling, and increases the CBR value. The problem with this type of
treatment is that it requires high initial investment cost since it is necessary to treat a minimum compacted
thickness of 300 mm.
The most economical and viable method of treating the expansive soils in Addis Ababa area would be
excavating and spoiling of the expansive soil and replacing it with suitable fill material imported from
economic hauling distances. For medium and heavy traffic roads it is sufficient to excavate and replace the
soil to a depth of about 1m. It is recommended that the backfill material should have minimum CBR of 5%
and swelling < 2%, and be impermeable enough not to allow water in to the underlying soil.
In areas where borrow material is in short supply and hauling distance is uneconomical, black cotton soil
could be used to form shallow embankment up to 3m, provided that a protective blanket is placed on the
slopes to prevent moisture variation in the underlying black cotton soil. The blanketing material should have
at least CBR of 7%, and be impermeable and resist erosion. The blanket thickness should be at least
300mm.
Compacting the material at lower dry density, 97 – 98% MDD (standard compaction), could reduce the
potential volume increase. This can be achieved by using excess moisture, i.e. up to 1.05% OMC for
compaction.
Avoiding moisture changes under the pavement could reduce the swell and shrink effects of the black cotton
soil. This could be achieved through the following practices:
ƒ Construction of impermeable pavement surfacing such as bituminous multiple surface
dressing or dense premix.
ƒ Road shoulders should be sealed or surface dressed and extended to a width of at least 2m.
Moreover steeper camber is required to drain the surface runoff.
ƒ The side ditches shall be lined with masonry stones or paved with concrete pipes.

Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation. DRAFT – February 2003

Page 6
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

4.3.3 Dispersive Soils

A combination of simple indicator tests, observations of erosion patterns in the field, soil colour, terrain
features and vegetation, will together give sufficient indications that dispersive soils are present, and shall
prompt precautions in design and construction of road projects. Dispersive soils cannot be identified by
gradation and Atterberg limit tests only (MoW, 1999).
The general properties of dispersive soils are usually poor and likely to exclude them from use in the
earthworks due to non-compliance with the general material standards. The following is required if dispersive
soils are encountered (MoW, 1999):
ƒ particular attention to erosion protection of cut slopes and in drainage channels is required
ƒ dispersive soils in unmodified form shall not be used for fill .modification with 2 % to 3 % lime
is required if their use in the
ƒ earthworks is unavoidable for whatever reason

4.3.4 Organic Soils

Organic soils, e.g. in swamp areas, require special investigations to assess ground stability and potential for
excessive settlements. A high content of organic matter is undesirable in pavement materials, particularly
when used in cement or lime stabilised layers. Excessive amounts of organic matter causes increased
demands for stabiliser to achieve the required unconfined compression strength (MoW, 1999).
The improvement should be economically feasible and take into account to use the locally available
materials.

4.4 Improved Subgrades

All subgrade shall be brought to a minimum strength of CBR 3% by constructing one or more improved
subgrade layers where necessary. The use of improved subgrade layers has a number of advantages, such
as (MoW, 1999):
ƒ provision of a deeper pavement structure, having advantages under given conditions such as
occurrence of heavy axle loads in the traffic stream
ƒ protection of earthworks below
ƒ provision of a running surface for the traffic during construction
ƒ improved compaction of pavement layers above
ƒ provision of homogenous subgrade strength
ƒ the improved subgrade acts as a filter layer between pavement layers and poorer soils below
ƒ provision of a gravel wearing surface in the case of stage construction for future upgrading to
a bitumen surfaced road
ƒ economical use of local materials
Soils used in improved subgrade layers and fill shall be non-expansive, non-dispersive and free from any
deleterious matter.
Dump rock is un-graded waste rock where the content of fines is sufficiently low so that the larger particles
rest against each other when placed in earthworks layers. Dump rock can be used as improved subgrade
when constructed in sufficiently thick layers, if necessary constructed together with fills in one operation, so
that the maximum particle size does not exceed 2/3 of the compacted layer thickness (MoW, 1999).
Construction of improved subgrade made of dump rock shall be finished off by filling in the voids in the
surface with subgrade soils meeting the requirements of the Contract Documents.
The requirements for geo-textile materials depend on site conditions. Geo-textiles shall not be used as filter
unless cost analysis has shown that alternative use of soils/gravel is uneconomical. Increased bearing
strength of earthworks or pavement shall not be attributed to the presence of geo-textiles in the structure
(MoW, 1999).

DRAFT – February 2003 Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation.

Page 7
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

Situations may arise whereby the filter layer causes ingress of moisture instead of draining the water out of
the subsoil. This may damage the road structure and should therefore be avoided (MoW, 1999).
Sub-grade materials characterised by low CBR values < 3% and swelling potential > 2%, needs to be either
replaced or treated with stabilizing agents. The purpose of improving the sub-grade material is mainly aimed
to get good performance of the pavement. Besides the improved sub-grade material avoids the detrimental
effect caused due to volume change.
For the purposes of pavement design using the CBR method of soil characterisation, subgrade material
which has been stabilised should not generally be assigned a CBR of greater than 15.

Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation. DRAFT – February 2003

Page 8
 GUIDELINE 2
AACRA PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

4.5 References
Austroads, 1992, Pavement Design – A Guide to Structural Design of Road Pavements, Austroads, Sydney,
Australia.
Ministry of Works, 1999, Pavement and Materials Design Manual, The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry
of Works, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Transport Research Laboratory, 1993, Overseas Road Note 31 - A guide to the structural design of bitumen-
surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries, 4th edn, Overseas Centre, Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom.

DRAFT – February 2003 Section 4 Subgrade Evaluation.

Page 9