Subgrade under the Pavement

Term Project for ECI281A Advanced Soil Mechanics Part A

Yi Bian
1. Abstract
The word subgrade refers to the in-situ materials (soil in most cases) under the
pavement structures (Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003). Subgrades properties can
be overriding factors to the pavements performance, and it is vital to investigate the
subgrades material characteristics thoroughly to design a pavement with adequate
service life.

In this report, the tests used to determine the subgrades engineering

properties, the techniques used to analyze the subgrade, as well as the common failure
modes of the pavement subgrades are introduced.

Finally, the methods to prevent

subgrades failures are provided.

2. Introduction
Subgrade is defined as the soil prepared and compacted to support a pavement
system (American Concrete Pavement Association, 2003).

Typical layout for rigid

pavement is shown in Figure 1. A reasonably uniform subgrade, i.e., with no abrupt

changes in support, is desirable for concrete pavement.

Subgrade with adequate

properties provides uniform support to the pavement and a stable platform for
construction equipment. A picture of the subgrade failure crack is shown in Figure 2.
Concrete slab
Base and subbase
Subgrade
Figure 1 Typical Rigid Pavement Layout

Figure 2 Subgrade Failure Crack (After WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)

Subgrade materials are typically described by stiffness (i.e., the deformation
resistance under external load) or by strength (i.e., load carrying capacity). In general,
more resistant to deformation a subgrade has, more loads it can bear before approaching a
critical deformation value. Although there are other factors involved when evaluating
subgrade materials (such as shrink/swell in the case of certain clays and ash), stiffness
and strength are the characterizations being used most commonly (Hawaii Asphalt
Paving Industry, 2003).
A subgrades performance generally depends on three of its basic characteristics
(WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003):
1) Strength. The subgrade must be able to support loads transmitted from the
pavement structure. This load bearing capacity is often affected by degree of compaction,
moisture content, and soil type. A subgrade which can support a high amount of loading
without excessive deformation is considered good.

2) Moisture content. Moisture tends to affect a number of subgrade properties

including load bearing capacity, shrinkage and swelling. Moisture content can be
influenced by a number of things such as drainage, groundwater table elevation,
infiltration, or pavement porosity (which can be affected by cracks in the
pavement). Generally, excessively wet subgrades will deform excessively under load.
3) Shrinkage and/or swelling. Some soils shrink or swell depending upon their
moisture content. Additionally, soils with excessive fines content may be susceptible to
frost heave in northern climates. Shrinkage, swelling and frost heave will tend to deform
and crack any pavement type constructed over them.

3. Soil Tests for Pavement Design

Subgrade materials are typically characterized by their strength and stiffness.
Three basic subgrade stiffness/strength characterizations are commonly used in the
United States: California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Resistance Value (R-value) and elastic
(resilient) modulus (Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003). Although there are other
factors involved when evaluating subgrade materials (such as swell in the case of certain
clays), stiffness is the most common characterization and thus CBR, R-value and resilient
modulus are discussed here (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
3.1 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a simple strength test that compares
the bearing capacity of a material with that of a well-graded crushed stone (thus, a high
quality crushed stone material should have a CBR of 100%). It is primarily intended for,
but not limited to, evaluating the strength of cohesive materials having maximum particle

sizes less than 19 mm (0.75 in.) (AASHTO, 2000). It was developed by the California
Division of Highways around 1930 and was subsequently adopted by numerous states,
counties, U.S. federal agencies and internationally. As a result, most agency and
commercial geotechnical laboratories in the U.S. are equipped to perform CBR tests
(WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
The basic CBR test involves applying load to a small penetration piston at a rate
of 1.3 mm (0.05") per minute and recording the total load at penetrations ranging from
0.64 mm (0.025 in.) up to 7.62 mm (0.300 in.). Figure 3 is a sketch of a typical CBR
sample. Values obtained are inserted into the following equation to obtain a CBR value
(WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003):
x
CBR (%) = 100
y
where: x

material resistance or the unit load on the piston (pressure)

for 2.54 mm (0.1") or 5.08 mm (0.2") of penetration

standard unit load (pressure) for well graded crushed stone

= 6.9 MPa (1000 psi)for 2.54 mm (0.1") penetration

= 10.3 MPa (1500 psi)for 5.08 mm (0.2") penetration

Figure 3 CBR Sample (After WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)

Some typical CBR ranges are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Typical CBR Ranges (After WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)
General Soil Type
USC Soil Type
CBR Range
GW
40 - 80
GP
30 - 60
GM
20 - 60
GC
20 - 40
Coarse-grained soils
SW
20 - 40
SP
10 - 40
SM
10 - 40
SC
5 - 20
ML
15 or less
CL LL < 50%
15 or less
OL
5 or less
Fine-grained soils
MH
10 or less
CH LL > 50%
15 or less
OH
5 or less
3.2 Resistance Value (R-value)
The Resistance Value (R-value) test is a material stiffness test. The test procedure
expresses a material's resistance to deformation as a function of the ratio of applied
vertical pressure to the lateral pressure. It is essentially a modified triaxial compression
test. Materials tested are assigned an R-value (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
The R-value test was developed by F.N. Hveem and R.M. Carmany of the
California Division of Highways and first reported in the late 1940s. During this time
rutting in the wheel tracks was a primary concern and the R-value test was developed as
an improvement on the CBR test. Currently, the R-value is used mostly by State
Highway Agencies (SHAs) on the U.S. west coast (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
The test procedure to determine R-value requires that the laboratory prepared
samples are fabricated to a moisture and density condition representative of the worst

possible in situ condition of a compacted subgrade. The R-value is calculated from the
ratio of the applied vertical pressure to the developed lateral pressure and is essentially a
measure of the materials resistance to plastic flow. The testing apparatus used in the Rvalue test is called a stabilometer (identical to the one used in Hveem HMA mix design)
and is represented schematically in Figure 4 (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).

Figure 4: R-Value Stabilometer (After WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)

Values obtained from the stabilometer are inserted into the following equation to
obtain an R-value (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003):

Where:

100

R = 100

2.5 Pv 1 + 1
D P
h

R
Pv
Ph
D

=
=
=
=

resistance value
applied vertical pressure (160 psi)
transmitted horizontal pressure at Pv = 160 psi
displacement of stabilometer fluid necessary to increase horizontal
pressure from 5 to 100 psi.

Some typical R-values are:

Well-graded (dense gradation) crushed stone base course: 80+.

MH silts: 15 30.

3.3 Resilient Modulus (MR)

The Resilient Modulus (MR) is a subgrade material stiffness test. A material's
resilient modulus is actually an estimate of its modulus of elasticity (E). While the
modulus of elasticity is stress divided by strain (e.g., the slope of the Figure 5 plot within
the linear elastic range) for a slowly applied load, resilient modulus is stress divided by
strain for rapidly applied loads like those experienced by pavements (WSDOT
Pavement Guide, 2003).

Figure 5 Stress-Strain Plot Showing the Elastic Range (After WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)
The resilient modulus test applies a repeated axial cyclic stress of fixed magnitude,
load duration and cycle duration to a cylindrical test specimen. While the specimen is
subjected to this dynamic cyclic stress, it is also subjected to a static confining stress
provided by a triaxial pressure chamber. It is essentially a cyclic version of a triaxial
compression test; the cyclic load application is thought to more accurately simulate actual
traffic loading. Resilient modulus is basically a measure of stiffness. Some typical CBR
7

and modulus of elasticity values for different materials are shown in Table 2 (WSDOT
Pavement Guide, 2003 WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
Table 2 Typical CBR and Modulus of Elasticity Values for Various Materials (After
WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)
Material
Elastic or Resilient
CBR
R-Value
(USC given where appropriate)
Modulus (psi)
Diamond

170,000,000

Steel

30,000,000

Aluminum

10,000,000

Wood

1 - 2,000,000

Crushed Stone
(GW, GP, GM)

20 - 100

30 - 50

20,000 - 40,000

Sandy Soils
(SW, SP, SM, SC)

5 - 40

7 - 40

7,000 - 30,000

Silty Soils
(ML, MH)

3 - 15

5 - 25

5,000 - 20,000

Clay Soils
(CL, CH)

3 - 10

5 - 20

5,000 - 15,000

Organic Soils
1-5
<7
< 5,000
(OH, OL, PT)
There are many different correlation equations between CBR, R-value and
resilient modulus. Each one has its limitations, which should be headed. Table 3
presents some of the popular correlation equations (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
Table 3: Selected Subgrade Strength/Stiffness Correlation Equations (After WSDOT
Pavement Guide, 2003)
Equation
MR = (1500)(CBR)
MR = 1,000 + (555)(Rvalue)

Origin
Heukelom & Klomp (1962)

Only for fine-grained non-expansive soils with

a soaked CBR of 10 or less.

1993 AASHTO Guide

Only for fine-grained non-expansive soils with

R-values of 20 or less.

R-value = [1500(CBR) HDOT

1155]/555
MR = 2555 x CBR0.64

Limitations

Only for fine-grained non-expansive soils with

a soaked CBR of 8 or less.

AASHTO 2002 Design Guide

A fair conversion over a wide range of values.
(not yet released)
8

A widely used empirical relationship developed by Heukelom and Klomp (1962)

and used in the 1993 AASHTO Guide is:
ESG (or MR) = (1500) (CBR)
This equation is restricted to fine grained materials with soaked CBR values of 10
or less. Like all such correlations, it should be used with caution. The proposed new
AASHTO Design Guide will likely use the following relationship:
MR = 2555 x CBR0.64
The 1993 AASHTO Guide offers the following correlation equation between Rvalue and elastic modulus for fine-grained soils with R-values less than or equal to 20
(WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).
ESG (or MR) = 1,000 + 555(R-value)
3.4 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)
The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is used as one of primary inputs for rigid
pavement design. It estimates the subgrade support below a concrete pavement slab. The
k-value can be determined by performing field tests or by calculating from other test
results. There is no direct laboratory test for k-value determination.
The modulus of subgrade reaction came about because work done by Westergaard
during the 1920s developed the k-value as a spring constant to model the support beneath
the slab (Figure 6). The reactive pressure to resist a load is thus proportional to the spring
deflection (which is a representation of slab deflection) and k (Figure 7) (WSDOT
Pavement Guide, 2003):
where:

P
k

=
=
=

P = k
reactive pressure to support deflected slab
spring constant = modulus of subgrade reaction
slab deflection

Figure 6: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) (After WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)

Figure 7: Relation of Load, Deflection and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) (After
WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003)
The value of k is in terms of pressure/length and ranges from about 13.5 MPa/m
(50 pci) for weak support, to over 270 MPa/m (1000 pci) for strong support. Typically,
the modulus of subgrade reaction is estimated from other strength/stiffness tests; however,
in situ values can be measured using the plate bearing test (WSDOT Pavement Guide,
2003).

4. Subgrade Analysis
After obtaining the testing results for subgrade soils, it is necessary to connect
these data with subgrades quality classification. General ratings of soil quality are
shown in Table 4 (Maryland Asphalt Association, 2003).

10

Relative quality
High quality
Good
Weak
Very poor

Table 4 General Ratings of Soil Quality

Highway soil
R value
CBR
classification
80
70
A-1
55 80
20 70
A-2, A-3
25 55
5 20
A-4, A-5
25
5
A-6, A-7

Unified soil
classification
GW, SW, GP, GM
SW, SP, SM, SC
ML, OL, MH
OH, CH, CL

However, if laboratory test equipment is not available, designs may be made on

the basis of a careful field evaluation by an engineer who can assign the subgrade soils to
one of the following categories (Maryland Asphalt Association, 2003):
(G) Good subgrad soilsGood subgrade soils retain a substantial amount of their
load bearing capacity when wet. Included are the clean sands and sandy gravels and soils
free of detrimental amounts of plastic materials. A good subgrade will have a CBR value
of 20 or higher.
(M) Medium subgrade soilsThese retain a moderate degree of firmness under
adverse moisture conditions. Included are such soils as loams, silty sands and sandy
gravels containing moderate amounts of clay and fine silt. A medium classification will
have a CBR value of 6 through 20.
(P) Poor subgrade soilsThese soils become quite soft and plastic when wet.
Included are those soils having appreciable amounts of clay and fine silt. The coarser silts
and sandy loams also may exhibit poor bearing properties in areas where frost penetration
in to the subgrade is a factor. A poor classification will have a CBR value of 5 or less.
Soils with a CBR value of less than 5 should be stabilized or removed and replaced using
suitable material. A stable subgrade is always required.

11

5. Typical Subgrade Distresses

Poor subgrade level can cause various pavement distresses:
(1) Fatigue cracking (Figure 8). Fatigue crackings are a series of interconnected
cracks caused by fatigue failure of the HMA surface under repeated traffic loading. As
the number and magnitude of loads becomes too great, longitudinal cracks begin to form
(usually in the wheelpaths). After repeated loading, these longitudinal cracks connect
forming multi-sided sharp-angled pieces that develop into a pattern resembling the back
of an alligator or crocodile. Fatigue cracking can be caused by poor subgrade support
(Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003).

Figure 8 Fatigue Cracking near the Stop Line at a Major Arterial Intersection (After
Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003)
(2) Potholes (Figure 9). Potholes are small, bowl-shaped depressions in the
pavement surface that penetrate all the way through the HMA layer down to the base
course. They generally have sharp edges and vertical sides near the top of the hole
(Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003). Potholes can result in serious vehicular damage
12

and moisture infiltration. One of the possible causes for potholes formation is weak
subgrade layer.

Figure 9 Pothole Forming from a Badly Fatigued Wheelpath Area on an Arterial (After
Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003)
(3) Depressions (Figure 10). Depressions are localized pavement surface areas
with slightly lower elevations than the surrounding pavement. This type of distress is
very noticeable after a rain when they are filled with water. Depressions result in the
problems of roughness and the depressions filled with substantial water can cause vehicle
hydroplaning. The major reason for depressions is subgrade settlement resulting from
inadequate compaction during construction (Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003).

Figure 10 Depression in an Access Roadway (After Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003)
13

(4) Rutting (Figure 11).

Rutting is surface depression in the wheelpath.

Pavement uplift (shearing) may occur along the sides of the rut. Ruts are particularly
evident after a rain when they are filled with water. There are two basic types of rutting:
mix rutting and subgrade rutting. Mix rutting occurs when the subgrade does not rut yet
the pavement surface exhibits wheelpath depressions as a result of compaction/mix
design problems.

Subgrade rutting occurs when the subgrade exhibits wheelpath

depressions due to loading. In this case, the pavement settles into the subgrade ruts
causing surface depressions in the wheelpath. Ruts filled with water can cause vehicle
hydroplaning and can be hazardous because ruts tend to pull a vehicle towards the rut
path as it is steered across the rut (Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003).

Figure 11 Pavement Rutting (After Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003)

14

6. Methods to Improve Subgrade Performance

Poor subgrade should be avoided if possible, but when it is necessary to build
over weak soils there are several methods available to improve subgrade performance
(WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003):

Removal and replacement (over-excavation). Poor subgrade soil can simply be

removed and replaced with high quality fill. Although this is simple in concept, it can be
expensive. Table 5 shows typical over-excavation depths recommended by the Colorado
Asphalt Pavement Association (CAPA).
Table 5 Over-Excavation Recommendations (After CAPA, 2000)
Depth of Over-Excavation Below Normal Subgrade
Subgrade Plasticity Index
Elevation
10 - 20
0.7 meters (2 ft.)
20 - 30
1.0 meter (3 ft.)
30 - 40
1.3 meters (4 ft.)
40 - 50
1.7 meters (5 ft.)
More than 50
2.0 meters (6 ft.)

Stabilization with a cementitious or asphaltic binder. The addition of an

appropriate binder (such as lime, portland cement or emulsified asphalt) can increase
subgrade stiffness and/or reduce swelling tendencies. Table 6 summarizes the Colorado
Asphalt Pavement Association recommendations.
Table 6: Some Stabilization Recommendations (After CAPA, 2000)
Stabilization Material

Conditions Under which it is Recommended

Lime

Subgrades where expansion potential combined with a

lack of stability is a problem.

Portland Cement

Subgrades which exhibit a plasticity index of 10 or less.

Asphalt Emulsion

Subgrades are sandy and do not have an excessive

amount of material finer than the 0.075 mm (#200) sieve.

15

Additional base layers. Marginally poor subgrade soils may be compensated for

by using additional base layers. These layers (usually of crushed stone either stabilized
or unstabilized) serve to spread pavement loads over a larger subgrade area. This option
is rather perilous; when designing pavements for poor subgrades the temptation may be
to just design a thicker section with more base material because the thicker section will
satisfy most design equations. However, these equations are at least in part empirical and
were usually not intended to be used in extreme cases. In short, a thick pavement
structure over a poor subgrade will not necessarily make a good pavement.
In sum, subgrade characteristics and performance are influential in pavement
structural design. Characteristics such as load bearing capacity, moisture content and
expansiveness will influence not only structural design but also long-term performance
and cost (WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003).

7. Conclusions
The properties of subgrade layer influence the pavement performance
significantly. Three basic subgrade stiffness/strength characterizations are used broadly
in the United States: California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Resistance Value (R-value) and
resilient (elastic) modulus.
characterizations.

Subgrade can be classified according to the measured

Poor sugbrade layers can result in severe pavement distresses;

however, these distresses can be prevented or delayed by adopting adequate procedures

during pavement construction or maintenance.

16

8. References:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO),
1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2000.
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Twentieth Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. Washington, D.C.
American Concrete Pavement Association, 2003, http://www.pavement.com/PavTech/
Tech/Glossary/S.html.
Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association (CAPA), 2000. Guideline for the Design and
Use of Asphalt Pavements for Colorado Roadways, CAPA, Englewood, Colorado.
Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry, 2003, http://www.hawaiiasphalt.com/.
Heukelom, W. and Klomp, A.J.G. Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling Pavement
During and After Construction. Proceedings. First International Conference on Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI, 1962.
Maryland Asphalt Association, 2003, http://www.mdasphalt.org/.
WSDOT Pavement Guide, 2003, http://hotmix.ce.washington.edu/wsdot.

17