THE EFFECT OF POLYACRYLAMIDE STABILIZATION ON CBR OF

SOIL UNDER FLEXURAL PAVEMENT THICKNESS

Dewi Amalia1, Yullianty Noorlaelasari2*, Ery Radya Juarti3, Agus Suyono4, Salma Oktavania5, Anissa
Puspa Nugraha6, Suliman Badawi7
1,2,3,4,5,6
Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Jl. Gegerkalong Hilir, West Bandung, Indonesia
7
Geotechnical Engineering Program, Department of Civil Engineering, Alzaiem Alazhari University, Sudan

E-mail :
1
dewi.amalia@polban.ac.id, 2yullianty@polban.ac.id, 3eryradya@polban.ac.id, 4asuyono349@gmail.com, 5salma.oktavania.tksi20@polban.ac.id,
6
anissa.puspa.tksi20@polban.ac.id, 7kobrest@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Road is a transport infrastructure that is always used by the community. Roads must have safety and comfort, which can be seen
through the condition of the pavement. A good pavement is influenced by a good bearing capacity of the subgrade. Not
infrequently, road damage that occurs is caused by a lack of bearing capacity of the subgrade (less CBR value). One way to
improve the bearing capacity of the subgrade is to stabilize it with polyacrylamide (PAM) synthetic polymer. Subgrade
stabilization was carried out on local soil at Jalan Cisasawi, Desa Cihanjuang with a percentage of 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, and 12% of
the soil weight. From the CBR laboratory test results, calculations were made to determine their effect on the thickness of flexible
pavement using the SKBI 1987 method. The calculation results observed that, the CBR value affects the thickness of the flexible
pavement layer. The greater subgrade CBR value, the thinner the pavement thickness. This has been proven in the calculation
where PAM managed to increase the bearing capacity of the soil to the maximum at 8% PAM content (soaked CBR 16.4% and
unsoaked CBR 20.5%) and the thickness of the lower foundation layer is 25 cm (the thinnest among other levels).

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Keywords: Subgrade, Supportability, Stabilization, Polyacrylamide, Unit Price

1. INTRODUCTION
Roads are infrastructure used as a medium of transport by the community [1]. Of course, the road must have safety and comfort for
its users. This can be felt through road pavement. According to [2], road pavement is a mixture of binders and aggregates used to
support the traffic load on it, then forwarded to the subgrade [3]. According to [4], road pavement is divided into three types,
namely rigid pavement (for high traffic roads), flexible pavement (for low to medium traffic roads, and composite pavement (a
combination of rigid and flexible pavement) [5]. The comfort of road pavement can be seen from its condition and damage, the less
damage to the road, the more comfortable it is to use. However, in Indonesia there are still many roads that are not suitable for use
because they have damage to the pavement, one of which is located on Jalan Al-Fatih, Desa Cihanjuang, Kabupaten Bandung
Barat. Damage to the pavement occurs due to several factors, one of which is due to the low bearing capacity of the subgrade so
that it is unable to support the load passing over the pavement. The bearing capacity of the soil can be seen from the CBR value.
The Department Pekerjaan Umum has a minimum requirement of CBR value for road construction, which is 6% [6]. One way to
improve the bearing capacity of the subgrade is to carry out improvement or stabilization. According to [7], stabilization is a
method of mixing soil with other materials to improve soil properties. Research [8] proved that one of the stabilization materials
that can increase the bearing capacity or CBR of soil is polyacrylamide (PAM) synthetic polymer. Polyacrylamide is a long-chain
polymer that can strengthen soil [9]. Stabilization of local soil from Jalan Cisasawi, Desa Cihanjuang using PAM at 1% level
which has been done by research [10] proved to increase the CBR value of subgrade soil. According to [11], soil bearing capacity
affects the thickness of the pavement layer, one of which is flexible pavement. The higher and better the soil bearing capacity, the
thinner the pavement layer [12]. Therefore, research was conducted on the stabilization of subgrade soil using PAM levels of 4%,
6%, 8%, 10%, and 12% on the soil at Jalan Cisasawi, Desa Cihanjuang to determine the increase in CBR value used as data for
calculating the thickness of flexural pavement using the SKBI (Indonesian Building Construction Standards) 1987 method.
2. Laboratory Test
This research was conducted in several stages, as shown in Figure 1.
The CBR tests were conducted on the native soil and on stabilised soil with five different PAM levels: 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, and
12%. The soil used for this test was an undisturbed soil sample taken from Jalan Cisasawi. Cihanjuang Village, Parompong
Subdistrict, West Bandung Regency. In addition to laboratory CBR testing, compaction testing was carried out on the original soil
to obtain the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry weight (MDD). The standard methods used for soil testing can
be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Testing Standards
No Testing Standard

1 Compaction SNI 1742:2008

2 CBR Lab SNI 1744:2012

After the CBR value is obtained from the laboratory test, it is then processed into the calculation of flexible pavement thickness
using the SKBI 1987 method. In addition to the CBR value, some other data are also needed, namely LHR (Average Daily Traffic)
data and environmental conditions (rainfall climate and slope) to obtain parameters. The parameters used for this calculation are as
follows:
1. Age of Plan (UR), used 10 years (generally in flexible pavement planning).
2. Plan Distribution Coefficient (C), a value of 1 is used (number of lanes 1 with 1-way light vehicles).
3. Traffic Development (i), 1% or 0.01 annually (rural) is used.
4. Regional Factor (FR), 1.5 is used (based on Table 2).

Table 2. Regional Factor (FR) based on SKBI 1987

Slope I Slope II Slope III
(<6%) (6 to 10 %) (>10%)
% heavy vehicle % heavy vehicle % heavy vehicle
≤ 30% > 30 % ≤ 30% > 30 % ≤ 30% > 30 %
Climate I < 900mm/th 0.5 1.0-1.5 1 1.5-2.0 1.5 2.0-2.5
Climate II > 900mm/th 1.5 2.0-2.5 2 2.5-3.0 2.5 3.0-3.5

5. Surface Index, IP0 = 2.4 (dirt or gravel roads) and IPT = 1 (local roads) are used.
6. Relative Strength Coefficient, 0.25 for lapen (penetrating layer) and 0.12 for Class B sirtu underlayment.

The calculations were carried out after collecting all parameters to obtain LER (Equivalent Traffic Plan), DDT (Soil Support
Capacity), ITP (Pavement Thickness Index), and pavement thickness, with the following formulas:

- Initial Equivalent Traffic (LEP):

n
LEP=∑ LHR j x C x E j (1)
j=1

Notes: j = Vehicle Type

- Leading Cross Equivalent (LEA):

 n
LEA =∑ LHR j x (1+i)UR x C x E j (2)
j =1

Description: i = Traffic Development

- Centre Equivalent Traffic (LET):

n
LEA =∑ LHR j x (1+i)UR x C x E j (2)
j =1

Description: i = Traffic Development

- Plan Equivalent Traffic (LER):

LER = LET x FP
UR (4)
FP= (5)
10

- Soil Supportability (DDT):

DDT = 4,3 log(CBR) + 1,7 (6)

- Pavement Thickness Index (ITP):

log ( LERx 3650 )=9 ,36 log ( 2ITP,54 )−0 ,2+ 0 , 4+G
1094
+log
1
FR ( )
+ 0,372 ( DDT −3 )
(7)

( )
5 ,19
ITP
2, 54
(8)
G = log
(
I P 0−I PT
4 , 2−1 , 5 )
- Calculating Thickness of Flexural Pavement Layer:

ITP = a1. D1 + a2.D2 + a3.D3 (9)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Compaction Test Results

Figure 1 shows the compaction test result of the original soil. As can be seen in Figure 1, the OMC of the original soil is 35.5% and
MDD is 1.275 gr/cm3, and soil specific gravity is 2.66 gr/cm3 (taken from research [8])
 Figure 1. Compaction Curve

3.2 CBR Test Results

The CBR test was conducted under ideal soil density conditions (i.e., with OMC of 35.5%). This test was conducted on native soil
and stabilized soil using 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, and 12% PAM addition levels with one day of curing time. Table 3 illustrates the CBR
test results.

Table 3. CBR test Results for different PAM levels

Mixture Variation
No Testing Unit
0 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
1 CBR
1.1 CBR Unsoaked % 9,2 15,0 18,2 20,5 14,8 8,5
1.1 CBR Soaked % 5,0 11,1 13,0 16,4 10,4 6,2

Based on Table 3, the CBR values increased to the highest of 20.5% (unsoaked) and 16.4% (soaked) at 8% PAM, then decreased at
10% and 12%. It can be concluded that the addition of PAM succeeded in increasing the bearing capacity of the soil to the highest
at 8% PAM addition level. This has also been proven by research [8] where PAM was able to increase the subgrade CBR value
from 5.2% to 8.1% using 1% PAM stabilization.

3.3 Calculation of Flexural Pavement Thickness

The first step in calculation of the thickness of flexible pavement using SKBI 1987 method is to calculate LER (Average
Equivalent Traffic) which will be used for the calculation of pavement thickness. The calculated value can be seen in Table 5 with
the number of vehicles obtained from direct surveys in the field and the equivalent value obtained from the table based on SKBI
1987.
 Table 4. Calculation of LER Value

Number of LHR 10
No Vehicle Type LEP LEA LET LER
Vehicle Years

1 Passenger Car 60 66.277 0.024 0.027

2 Pick Up 46 50.813 0.018 0.02 1.722 1.722
3 Light Truck 2 Axle 26 28.72 1.594 1.761
Total 132 145.81 1.636 1.807

Based on Table 4, the LER value is 1.722, that obtained using equations (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5). The calculation example for
passenger cars is as follows:
Calculation:
total LEP+total LEA 1.636+1.807
- LET = = à 1.722
2 2

After all data were obtained, the calculation of the thickness of flexible pavement on native soil with soaked CBR of 5% was
carried out according to the method in SKBI 1987. Firstly, the soil bearing capacity (DDT) is calculated using formula (6). Then,
the pavement thickness index (ITP) is calculated using formulas (7) and (8). Finally, calculations are made to determine the surface
layer using formula (9), where a is the relative strength coefficient and D is the layer thickness. The calculation of flexural
pavement thickness on native soil is as follows:

Calculation DDT:

- DDT = 4.3 log (CBR) + 1.7 = 4.7056

Calculation ITP:

log ( 1.72 x 3650 ) =9.36 log ( 2.54

ITP
)−0.2+ 0.4 +0.0541
1094
+ log ( 1.51 )+0.372 ( 4.7−3 )
( 2.54 )
5.19
ITP

From the above equation, an ITP value of 3.534 was obtained using trial and error.

Calculation of Pavement Thickness (D1 value is the minimum thickness requirement):

ITP = a1 . D1 + a2 . D2

3.534 = 0.25. 5 + 0.12 . D2

D2= 19.03 cm ≈ 20 cm
Based on the calculation, the thickness of the lower foundation layer is 20 cm. Visualization of the pavement layers with
unstabilized subgrade can be seen in Figure 2.
 Surface, t = 5 cm

Subbase (Sirtu B Class)

t = 20 cm

Subgrade (CBR 5%)

Figure 2: Visualization of Original Soil Pavement Layer

In addition, the calculations for stabilized soil were carried out as same as the original soil using DDT and ITP values. However, in
this calculation, the stabilized soil is used as the lower foundation layer which has different thickness. The coefficient of relative
strength of stabilized soil is determined based on the AASHTO 1993 method. The recapitulation of this calculation can be seen in
Table 5.
Tabel 5. Recapitulation of Stabilized Soil Pavement Thickness Calculation
CBR
CBR
No Description Original Soil DDT ITP a1 D1 (cm) a2 D2 (cm)
(%)
(%)
1 Soil + PAM 4% 11.1 0.25 5 0.084 28
2 Soil + PAM 6% 13 0.25 5 0.089 26
3 Soil + PAM 8% 16.4 5 4.71 3.53 0.25 5 0.094 25
4 Soil + PAM 10% 10.4 0.25 5 0.081 29
5 Soil + PAM 12% 6.2 0.25 5 0.061 39

Based on Table 5, the thickness of lower foundation layer (D 2) is getting thinner until the PAM content of 8% is 25 cm thick, then
increases again. This is because the highest soil CBR value is at 8%, and decreases again at 10% and 12%. An example of
visualization of 8% PAM content is as shown in Figure 3.

Subbase Thickness
C
 Figure 3: Subbase Thickness and CBR Correlation Graph

7. CONCLUSION
As the soil CBR value increases, the thickness of the lower foundation layer decreases. In this study, the thickness of the lower
foundation layer reaches a maximum at 8% PAM addition level because it has the highest CBR value. Based on the calculation
with the thickness of the surface layer taken from the minimum limit, which is 5 cm, the thickness of the foundation layer without
stabilization is 20 cm, while for stabilization it is 28 cm for 4% PAM stabilized soil; 26 cm for 6% PAM; 25 cm for 8% PAM; 29
cm for 10% PAM; and 39 cm for 12% PAM.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] H. Jamaluddin, A. L. Vera and D. Dharmawansyah, “Tinjauan Perbandingan Tebal Perkerasan Jalan Lentur dengan Metode Bina Marga
1987 dengan Manual Desain Perkerasan Jalan 2017 di Jalan Lintas Labuan Bajo-Lembor,” JUTEKS: Jurnal Teknik Sipil, vol. 5 (1), pp. 29-
37, 2020.
[2] M. V. Mohod and K. N. Kadam, “A Comparative Study on rigid and flexible pavement: A review,” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), vol. 13 (3), pp. 84-88, 2016.
[3] S. L. Hendarsin, Perencanaan Teknik Jalan Raya, Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Bandung: Penerbit Politeknik Negeri Bandung, 2000.
[4] K. N. Nur, M. Mahyudddin, E. Bachtiar, M. Tumpu, M. I. Mukrim, I. Irianto, Y. Kadir, T. S. P. Arifin, S. N. Ahmad and M. Masdiana, in
Perancangan Perkerasan Jalan, Media, Yayasan Kita Menulis, 2021, p. 240.
[5] G. W. Flintsch, B. K. Diefenderfer and O. Nunez, “Composite pavement systems: Synthesis of design and Construction practices,” Virginia
Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, 2008.
[6] B. Chairullah, “Stabiliasasi tanah lempung lunak untuk material tanah dasar subgrade dan subbase jalan raya,” Jurnal Teknik Sipil, vol. 1(1),
pp. 61-70, 2011.
[7] S. Chakraborty and S. Nair, “Impact of different hydrated cementitious phases on moisture-induced damage in lime-stabilised subgrade
soils,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, vol. 19 (6), pp. 1389-1405, 2018.
[8] A. Dewi, D. Amalia and L. Z. Mase, “Experimental Study of a Cohesive Soil Modified by Polyacrylamide on Local Soils in West Java,
Indonesia,” Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, pp. 1-24, 2023.
[9] R. N. Georgees and R. Hassan, “Performance-related properties of low-volume roads when stabilised with a sustainable anionic
polyacrylamide: particle and specimen-levels study,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, vol. 23 (3), pp. 565-582, 2022.
[10] S. Zhou, M. Shi, W. Chen, Y. Zhang, W. Wang, H. Zhang and D. Li, “Improved geotechnical behavior of an expansive soil amended with
cationic polyacrylamide,” Journal of Renewable Materials, vol. 9 (11), pp. 1941-1957, 2021.
[11] N. Ariyani and A. C. Nugroho, “Pengaruh Kapur dan abu sekam padi pada nilai CBR laboratorium tanah tras dari Dusun Seropan untuk
stabilitas subgrade timbunan,” in Majalah Ilmiah Ukrim Edisi 1/Th XII, 2007.
[12] R. Septiansyah and I. Aschuri, Sensitivitas Daya Dukung Subgrade dan Beban Lalu-Lintas Terhadap Perencanaan Tebal Perkerasan Jalan
Kaku, FTSP, 2020.