[Home] [Session index] [Author index] [Presenter index]

24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

EVALUATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF

EMBANKMENT FILL AND SUB-GRADE MATERIALS
Mohd Hizam Harun, Public Works Department, Malaysia
Fazleen Hanim Ahmad Kamar, Public Works Department,
Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Excessive sub-grade deformation and settlement of embankment and back fill are major
contributors to premature pavement failures and to surface irregularities in Malaysia. Current
Public Works Department (JKR) specifications for earthworks are not optimised in terms of
composition and strength of sub-grade materials. Currently, JKR uses traditional methods for
determining soil moisture content and density, as well as soaked CBR testing which are time
consuming and cumbersome. A simplified sub-grade material testing and analysis program is
proposed to provide essential input for the development of JKR Pavement Design Manual. The
extension of this program is to generate sufficient research data for the statistical analysis and
the formulation of recommendation for inclusion in future revisions of JKR specifications. This
paper focuses on reviewing and improving specifications for embankment fill and sub-grade
materials and investigates different methods of testing and evaluation of the materials strength
and density.

INTRODUCTION
Excessive sub-grade deformation and settlement of embankment and back fill form one of the
major contributions to premature failures and to surface unevenness in Malaysia. This type of
distress decreases safety and comfort of road users, and requires frequent resurfacing and other
repairs.

Current Public Works Department of Malaysia (JKR) specifications for earthworks are not
optimized in terms of composition and strength of sub-grade soils; also the damage that
construction traffic causes through remolding of wet cohesive sub-grade soil is not adequately
addressed when compared to current European standards and practices. Arahan Teknik (Jalan)
5/85 - a technical instruction produced by JKR, which has been used in Malaysia for the last
twenty five years as guideline for structural design of flexible pavement, for instance, uses
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) to solely characterize sub-grade materials.

Many pavement engineers, however, have come to the conclusion that CBR testing can lead to
serious misjudgment of the strength of the sub-grade, sub-base and granular base for the
following reasons:

Applied stress and strain are not representative of traffic loading.

The volume of sub-grade material evaluated is very small as the conduct CBR testing is time
consuming, thus limiting the number of the test results that are available for quality
acceptance.
Correlation between CBR values and mechanistic design parameters are weak, thus further
decreasing the probability that granular or cohesive materials are precisely characterized
when using CBR as sole basis for evaluating strength and stiffness.

Most European countries have twenty or more years ago discontinued using CBR. The new
AASHTO 2002 Pavement Design Guide recommends using elastic stiffness values obtained
through resilient modulus or falling weight deflectometer testing.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 1

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were;

1. To investigate different methods of testing and evaluation of embankment fill and sub-grade
strength and density.
2. To evaluate test results from three on-going road construction project sites and determine
tentative embankment fill and sub-grade input parameters for the new JKR pavement design
manual.

METHODOLOGY

Field and Laboratory Tests

The following field and laboratory tests complying to established methods for evaluation and
characterization of sub-grade soil were considered:

1. Determination of soil moisture content through Oven-Drying (AASHTO T 265 and ASTM D
2216) and Calcium Carbide Gas Pressure or Speedy Moisture Method (AASHTO T 217 and
ASTM D 4994).
2. Determination of soil in-place density through Sand Cone Method (AASHTO T 191 and
ASTM D 1556) and through drive or cutting cylinders (ASTM D 2937).
3. Modulus measurement using a hand-held falling weight deflectometer (HH-FWD). As a
control, a DYNATEST or similar standard FWD was used, with operations adjusted to direct
measurement of sub-grade soil.
4. In-situ CBR value measurement using Clegg Impact Hammer, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) and JKR Probe.
Notes on JKR Probe:
Light dynamic cone penetrometer is widely used in Malaysia as a tool for preliminary site
investigation works. In 1972, JKR introduced a light dynamic cone penetrometer, known as
JKR probe, based on the principles outlined by Hvorslev (1949) for driving rods as sounding.
The geometry of the JKR Probe is derived from the recommended method for static and
dynamic penetrometer tests by the European Group Sub-Committee (1968).

Unlike the DCP which has 60 and 20 mm diameter cone, the probe consists of a cased
harden steel pointer of 25 mm diameter and 60 cone. The pointer is screwed onto the lower
end of the rod. The rod is of 12 mm diameter.

In contrast to the DCP which has 8 kg hammer with a free fall height of 575 mm, JKR Probe
is driven with a hammer of 5 kg in weight, falling through a fixed height of 280 mm.

The limitation of the JKR Probe is that it has a limited driving energy because the hammer is
light and the fall is small. It is unable to penetrate through hard layers and problem may arise
when softer layers underlie these hard layers. It is also unable to penetrate deeply into
medium strength material and gravelly ground. When probing at great depths in the soft
soils, a further problem is that the wall of the probe hole may collapse and the side friction on
the rod is measured together with the resistance, thus giving results, which may be
misleading. It is not suitable to be used in stony grounds as the pointer and rod would be
damaged.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 2

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Photo 1: Test site. Photo 2: Carrying out various tests at

the test site.

Scope of Works
For this study, the scope of works encompassed the following items;
1. Selection of three on-going different road projects.
2. Designation of six lots of testing area, each lot representing about 3000 to 5000 m2 of sub-
grade for each site (18 lots).
3. Within each lot, the following tests were carried out;
Soil moisture content test using Oven-Drying and Speedy Moisture Methods.
Soil in-place density test using Sand Cone and Core Cutter Methods.
Modulus measurement using hand-held and standard falling weight deflectometer
(FWD).
In-situ CBR value measurement using the Clegg Impact Hammer, DCP and JKR Probe.
Soaked CBR and soil classification test (laboratory).

Sampling of Soil for Laboratory Testing

Six numbers of bulk samples of about fifty kilograms of sub-grade materials were collected at
each site for laboratory testing. The bulk samples that were collected were carefully sealed and
covered to avoid losses in moisture content. Each lot of sample was labeled and transported to
laboratory for testing.

Analysis of Test Results (Field and Laboratory)

All test results were analyzed according to the present standards and guidelines. Suitable
correlation between the different test methods would then be made for each test parameter.

1. Field Density (Sand Cone and Core Cutter Methods).

2. Moisture Content (Oven-Drying and Speedy Moisture Methods).
3. Modulus (hand-held and standard FWD).
4. In-situ CBR (Clegg Impact Hammer, DCP and JKR Probe).

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 3

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

CURRENT PRACTICE

Typical Engineering Parameters Used for Characterization and

Quality Control of Sub-Grade and Embankment Fill
Generally, the following properties are specified and controlled during construction to ensure
adequate sub-grade support:

1. Soil composition.
2. Soil classification.
3. Density (and moisture content).
4. Laboratory soaked CBR.
5. Elastic stiffness (determined using static plate load testing or FWD).

Current JKR Practice on Characterization and Quality Control of

Sub-Grade and Embankment Fill
Standard Specification for Road Works of JKR (JKR/SPJ/1988) defines sub-grade as that part of
the embankment or existing ground in cutting which is immediately below the sub-base or lower
sub-base of the road pavements and shoulders. It specifies that materials for embankment fill or
for the top 300 mm of sub-grade shall be of suitable materials. For the sub-grade, the material
shall have a minimum designed CBR value of 5% when compacted to 95% of the maximum dry
density in the BS 1377 Compaction Test (4.5 kg rammer method) under 4 days soaked
condition.

Suitable materials shall mean those materials other than unsuitable materials defined below:
i. Running silt, peat, logs, stumps, perishable or toxic material, slurry or mud; or
ii. Any material;
a. consisting of highly organic clay and silt;
b. which is clay having a liquid limit exceeding 80% and /or a plasticity index
exceeding 55%;
c. which is susceptible to spontaneous combustion;
d. which a loss of weight greater than 2.5% on ignition;
e. containing large amounts of roots, grass and other vegetable matter.
Generally, soils and aggregates should only require visual examination by an experienced
earthwork inspector to determine whether it is suitable or unsuitable material for use in
embankment, fill and backfill construction. However, in some cases determination of Atterberg
limits, swelling/shrinkage characteristics, organic content, plasticity index and gradation are
carried out.
For top 300 mm of sub-grade, comprehensive testing are required for each 1,500 m3 of material
to be placed. The tests include:
i. Atterberg limits and plasticity index.
ii. Gradation analysis.
iii. Compaction test.
iv. Soaked CBR test.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 4

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

However, these test methods do not yield results in a short period of time and because only a
small number of tests are carried out within a lot, acceptance is rarely based on a meaningful
statistical analysis.

The substantial delay associated with getting the test results would affect the overall work
progress and in some cases the test results were subjected to manipulation to ensure
compliance with the specification criteria.

Table 1: Methods of determining sub-grade properties (JKR).

Item Type of Test Laboratory/Field Control Parameter
1 Soil Composition Laboratory Suitable/Unsuitable Material
2 Liquid Limit Laboratory Suitable/Unsuitable Material
3 Plastic Limit Laboratory Suitable/Unsuitable Material
4 CBR (Soaked) Laboratory Strength
5 Density Field Compaction
6 Moisture Content Laboratory Compaction

Current International Practice (Europe, USA, Australia)

Most countries use at least two (2) different test methods for specification and quality control of
embankment fill and sub-grade soils:

1. Dry density expressed as a percentage of a reference density (which requires determination

of moisture content), and
2. Elastic stiffness or some indication of strength (such as CBR).
In addition, the suitability of sub-grade soil of embankment fill is expressed in terms of gradation
and other compositional parameters, and included in the material specifications. All European
countries use dry density expressed as relative compaction (or relative density in the case of
granular cohesionless soil) as an important acceptance criteria and quality control parameter. To
determine dry density, the moisture content of the sampled soil must be determined. For
characterization of elastic stiffness, either a stiffness modulus derived from static plate load
testing (for example in Germany, Austria, Switzerland) or a dynamic modulus derived from FWD
testing is used.

In some European countries, continuous methods of checking compaction (vibratory proof

rolling) are used as an additional construction control measure. In Germany, specifications have
been issued for this type of continuous and real time compaction control. When properly
calibrated, this method provides instant information about the degree of compaction. For final
acceptance, additional tests such as density and modulus are carried out. However, a diligent
use of continuous compaction control based on measuring acceleration of the roller frame greatly
reduces incidents of not meeting compaction criteria after compaction has been completed.

In the USA, density and CBR are key parameters for control of sub-grade properties. In the new
AASHTO 2002 mechanical-empirical pavement design methodology, CBR has been replaced by
resilient modulus testing. Based on NCHRP 1-37, a hierarchical level of design inputs is
recommended. Level 1 is for primary highways that are of strategic importance to the economy.
For Level 1 pavement design, the use of the best available technology (direct dynamic testing) is
recommended for the determination of input parameter. In contrast, a Level 3 approach will rely
upon engineering judgment, such as correlation models or simple empirical relationships to
arrive at the design input parameters.

In general, the following methods of characterizing sub-grade soil for input into the AASHTO
2002 pavement design method can be considered;

1. Laboratory repeated load (resilient modulus) test.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 5

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

2. Analysis of FWD data.

3. Correlation of design input parameter (elastic modulus) with physical properties of sub-grade
material (composition, density, etc)

Sub-Grade Physical Properties

Sub-grade materials are typically characterized by their resistance to deformation under load
(stiffness) and their bearing capacity (strength). In general, the more resistant to deformation a
sub-grade is, the more loads it can support before reaching a critical deformation value. Although
there are other factors involved when evaluating sub-grade materials, stiffness is the most
common characterization. There are two basic sub-grade stiffness/strength characterizations
commonly used:

California Bearing Ratio (CBR). A simple 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%). CBR is basically a measure of strength. It is
primarily intended for, but not limited to, evaluating the strength of cohesive materials
having maximum particle sizes less than 0.75 inches (AASHTO, 2000). It was developed
by the California Division of Highways around 1930 and was subsequently adopted by
numerous state, countries, U.S federal agencies and internationally. Most agency and
commercial geotechnical laboratories in the world are equipped to perform CBR tests.

Resilient Modulus. A test used to estimate elastic modulus (a materials stress-strain

relationship). The resilient modulus test applies a repeated axial cyclic stress of fixed
magnitude, load duration and cyclic 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.

Development of Test Methods and Devices for Characterization

of Sub-Grade
Many methods have been developed to enable the precise evaluation of sub-grade properties at
high precision and quality. The advancement of science and technologies has also contributed to
the invention of new devices. Table 2 presents the properties used to characterize sub-grade in
different countries/region whilst Table 3 shows methods and devices used to evaluate the
respective sub-grade properties.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 6

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Table 2: Methods of determining sub-grade properties in various countries.

Countries Methods
Malaysia 1.SoakedCBR
2.Density
3.MoistureContent
4.SoilComposition
Europe 1.ElasticStiffness
2.Density
3.MoistureContent
4.SoilComposition
Australia 1.SoakedCBR
2.Density
3.MoistureContent
4.SoilComposition
USA(NewAASHTO2002) 1.ElasticStiffness
2.Density
3.MoistureContent
4.SoilComposition

Table 3: Methods of evaluating sub-grade properties.

Stiffness&Strength
SoilDensity MoistureContent
Measurements
1.SandCone 1.OvenDrying 1.StandardFWD
2.Radiometric 2.CalciumCarbideGasPressure 2.HandheldFWD
3.WaterBalloon (SpeedyMoistureTester) 3.DynamicConePenetrometer
4.CoreCutter 3.Radiometric 4.JKRProbe
4.Microwave 5.PlateBearing
6.HumboltGeogauge
7.SoilStiffnessGauge

Factors that Determine Effectiveness of Sub-Grade

Characterization and Quality Control
There are several factors that determine the usefulness of a test procedure for providing data for
design, specifications and quality control of road pavements. The method and type of test used
to determine the sub-grade properties depend on the following criteria;

1. Ease of testing;
Time required to carry out the test and to get the required test results.
Complexity of equipment and the test method used.
Manpower required to operate the test equipment.

2. Reliability and consistency of test results;

Limitation/restriction of test method in relation to type of sub-grade material

and stiffness.
Ability to generate within a reasonable period of time a sufficiently large
number of random test results for statistical analysis (which should form the
basis for acceptance or rejection of materials).
Susceptibility of test procedure to manipulation of test results.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 7

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

3. Reproducibility of test results.

4. Cost of test equipment.

Many traditionally used test methods, including soil density and moisture content, and especially
soaked CBR, are time consuming and cumbersome. Also, because of the many manual
measurement and recording steps, they are susceptible to manipulation of the test results.

A summary of the advantages and limitations of the various tests for sub-grade characterization
are given in Table 4.

Table 4: Limitation and advantages of each test method/equipment.

Time to Complete Test

Cost of Equipment

Maintenance
Restriction
Manpower

Reliability
Testing
Ease of
(Hour)
(RM)
Test
Test Device
Parameter

Field Density Test Sand Cone 3,000-5,000 1 M 2 M M M

Core Cutter 1,000 1 E 2 M M H
Radiometric 30,000-50,000 Immediate E 2 M M H
Water Balloon 1,000 1 M 2 L L M

Nuclear Gauge 50,000-70,000 Immediate E 1 H H H

Moisture Content Oven Dry 5,000-10,000 2 E 1 G G M

Speedy Moisture 3,000 Immediate E 1 M M L
Radiometric 30,000-50,000 Immediate E 2 M M H

Microwave 1,000-2,000 2 E 1 M M M

Modulus/Stiffness/CBR FWD 500,000 Immediate E 3 H H H

HH-FWD 70,000-100,000 Immediate E 2 H H L
DCP 2,000-3,000 1 E 3 H H L
Clegg Impact 12,000-15,000 Immediate E 1 M M L
JKR Probe 2,000-3,000 1 E 3 M M L
Plate Bearing 15,000-20,000 Immediate E 2 M M L

Stiffness Gauge 20,000-50,000 Immediate E 2 M M L

HHigh,MModerate,LLow,GGood,QQuick,SSlow,EEasy

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

General
Field and laboratory tests were carried out at three (3) selected sites. The tests comprised of
field density, moisture content, modulus and CBR. Bulk samplings were also carried out for
laboratory test purposes such as sieve analysis, Atterberg limit and soaked CBR.

Laboratory Test
Based on the soil classification analysis, it was found that generally the sub-grade materials for
all three sites were considered as suitable material. However the soaked CBR values range from
3% to 15% for Site 1, 2% to 7% for Site 2, and 2% to 10% for Site 3.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 8

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Field Density
The field dry density as measured by Sand Cone method was found to be ranging between
1.500 Mg/m3 2.014 Mg/m3 with an average value of 1.938, 1.828 and 1.807 Mg/m3 for Site 1,
Site 2 and Site 3 respectively. Correspondingly, the field density measured using Core Cutter
method resulted in values that range from 1.521 Mg/m3 1.940 Mg/m3 with an average of 1.862,
1.800 and 1.656 Mg/m3 for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3 respectively. Values from the Sand Cone
method and the Core Cutter method correlate quite well, especially for Site 1 and Site 2 where a
correlation coefficient, r2 of 0.79 and 0.84 were obtained. Figure 1 shows the correlation between
Sand Replacement and Core Cutter methods. A summary of the correlation equations and r2
values are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of equation and r2 value

(dry density).

Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = 0.6695x + 0.5648 0.79
Site 2 y = 1.2586x - 0.5004 0.84
Site 3 y = 0.4276x + 0.8839 0.54
Combined y = 0.6756x + 0.5181 0.58

Figure 1: Plot of Sand Cone and Core Cutter

methods for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

Moisture Content
The moisture content as measured by Speedy Moisture Tester was found to be ranging between
10.4%-24.4% and the corrected speedy moisture content range from 11.6% - 32.3%. The Oven
Dry method yields results which range from 9.2% - 24.2%.

The results of Speedy Moisture method and Oven Dry method are as shown in Figure 2. The
correlation equations and r2 were established for each site and are shown in Table 6.

Except for Site 2, the correlation coefficient between the moisture content as determined by the
Oven Dry method to that as determined by the Speedy Moisture method are more than 0.8.
Another important point to note is that the Speedy Moisture method always over estimated the
moisture content by between 2% - 38% when compared with the Oven Dry method.

Table 6: Summary of equation and r2

value (moisture content).

Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = 0.5332x + 3.2312 0.82
Site 2 y = 0.6238x + 4.7556 0.63
Site 3 y = 0.8864x 1.8296 0.89
Combined y = 0.806x + 0.2303 0.85

Figure 2: Plot of Speedy Moisture and Oven Dry

methods for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 9

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Modulus
The modulus values measured using the standard FWD range from 95 MPa 1284 MPa.
Correspondingly, the modulus measured using by hand-held FWD range from 54 MPa 370
MPa. The results show that the hand-held FWD tends to be lower than the standard FWD values
by 5% to 88%. The correlation between the hand-held FWD and the standard FWD modulus are
plotted in Figure 3 and the corresponding correlation coefficients are shown in Table 7.

FWDvsHHFWDSite1,2and3
400
Table 7: Summary of equation and r2
D 350 value (modulus).
W
F
H 300
H
250 Site Equation r2
)a
P
200 Site 1 y = 0.2383x + 44.368 0.69
(M
s
l 150
u
Site 2 y = 0.2595x + 47.116 0.68
u
d 100
o
M
E 50 Site 3 y = 0.5541x + 16.973 0.69
0 Combined y = 0.2279x + 63.368 0.65
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
EModulus(MPa) FWD

Figure 3: Plot of standard FWD and hand-held

FWD for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

The correlation of modulus obtained by the hand-held FWD when compared to the standard
FWD is fairly good, therefore one may be used to substitute the other.

California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

The CBR values measured using the DCP range from 16% - 82%. Correspondingly, the CBR
values measured using the Clegg Impact Hammer range from 10% - 133.6%. A summary of
CBR test results are plotted and tabulated in Figure 4 and Table 8 respectively.

Table 8: Summary of equation and r2

value (CBR)
Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = -0.0465x + 43.121 0.045
Site 2 y = 0.2873x + 48.07 0.031
Site 3 y = 0.8084x + 9.9277 0.951
Combined y = -0.0192x + 41.619 0.001

Figure 4: Plot of Clegg Impact Hammer and

DCP for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

Correlation Between Various Test Parameters

The correlation between the various tests parameters as carried out at three selected sites are
as follows;

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 10

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Correlation between Modulus (Hand-held FWD) and CBR (Clegg Impact

Hammer)

Table 9: Summary of equation and r2

value.
Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = -0.013x + 93.602 0.002
Site 2 y = -0.0135x + 33.893 0.004
Site 3 y = 0.0328x + 23.834 0.048
Combined y = -0.1073x + 58.771 0.040

Figure 5: Plot of hand-held FWD and Clegg

Impact Hammer for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

Correlation between DCP and JKR Probe

Table 10: Summary of equation and r2 value.

Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = 0.0837x + 14.205 0.384
Site 2 y = 0.998x + 7.9747 0.602
Site 3 y = 0.3719x + 10.866 0.303
Combined y = 0.0221x + 23.891 0.009

Figure 6: Plot of JKR Probe and DCP for Site 1,

Site 2 and Site 3.

Correlation between Bulk Density and Modulus (FWD)

Table 15: Summary of equation and r2

value.
Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = -363.84x + 1015 0.219
Site 2 y = 151.09x 229.76 0.156
Site 3 y = 6.4234x + 45.75 0.005
Combined y = -55.479x + 245.02 0.092

Figure 11: Plot of Bulk Density and Modulus

(FWD) for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 11

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Correlation between Bulk Density and Modulus (Hand-held FWD)

Table 16: Summary of equation and r2

value.
Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = -363.84x + 618.84 0.219
Site 2 y = 289.18x 459.5 0.133
Site 3 y = 42.844x + 9.9514 0.024
Combined y = 152.56x 186.42 0.016

Figure 12: Plot of Bulk Density and Modulus

(HH-FWD) for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

Correlation between Bulk Density and CBR (DCP)

Table 17: Summary of equation and r2

value
Site Equation r2
Site 1 y = 27.611x 20.96 0.291
Site 2 y = 116.51x 189.55 0.187
Site 3 y = 5.8013x + 38.892 0.026
Combined y = 7.6626x + 24.398 0.005

Figure 13: Plot of Bulk Density and CBR (DCP)

for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the study and analysis carried out, the following concluding remarks may be made;
It was observed that soil classification (AASHTO Classification) for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3
are consistence (silt clay materials A-7-5 or A-7-6), except for CH4800 and CH5320 at Site
1 that consisted of silty or clayey gravel and sand (A-2-7).
The results of Sand Cone and Core Cutter methods are found to correlate quite well, with
two sites achieving r2 values around 0.8. However, the Core Cutter method generally
provides more consistent density values with mean standard deviation ranging from 0.09 to
0.11 for all three sites.
While the measurement of moisture content by both Speedy Moisture and Oven Dry
methods correlate quite well (r2 = 0.85), the Oven Dry method tends to provide more
consistent results. The Speedy Moisture method always over-estimates the moisture content
when compared with the Oven Dry method.
Although some technical/procedural errors were detected during testing such as testing on
different day at different moisture condition and at different applied load pulse, the modulus

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 12

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

values as obtained by both the standard FWD and the hand-held FWD correlate quite well
with r2 values for all three sites greater than 0.6.
For the measurement of the in-situ CBR values, poor correlation is observed between the
Clegg Impact Hammer and DCP methods (r2 < 0.1). The DCP method however provides
more consistent results with mean standard deviation of between 8 and 21.
The results of DCP and JKR Probe correlate fairly well with r2 value of 0.6 for one site.
However, the correlation for the other two sites is weak with r2 values between 0.3 and 0.4.
There is no correlation between modulus obtained using FWD and CBR obtained using
Clegg Impact Hammer.
There is no correlation between bulk density and modulus obtained using FWD.
There is no correlation between bulk density and CBR obtained using DCP.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings from this study, the following recommendations should be considered;
The Speedy Moisture Tester, Clegg Impact Hammer and hand-held FWD are potential
methods to determine the moisture content, in-situ CBR and stiffness of the embankment fill
or sub-grade respectively quite accurately and speedily. However, a further study involving
more samples and detailed statistical analysis should be carried out if a good correlation with
standard test methods is to be established.
Since Poissons ratio is an important input parameter in mechanistic analysis, laboratory
testing to establish the value for local material should be carried out.
Pending further detailed study, the following input parameters for embankment fill and sub-
grade materials could be used;
Soaked CBR : 3.5% - 8.0% (mean 5.0%)
Stiffness : 60 MPa - 190 MPa (mean 110 MPa)

Irrespective of the method used to measure mechanistic embankment fill and sub-grade
parameters, minimum strength requirements are now defined based on bearing capacity
needed during construction (SETRA/LCPC: French Design Manual for Pavement
Structures, 1997) and on modulus values and modulus ratios for structural design and long-
term performance of pavements. In many European countries, dynamic sub-grade modulus
values of at least 100 MPa are now specified for the top three classes of roads. For silty
sand and sandy sand (which represent about half of all naturally occurring sub-grade soils),
this modulus would approximately correspond to minimum CBR values of 10% - 12%. Sub-
grade materials of lower stiffness and strength must either be replaced with a capping layer
of granular material, or adequately stabilized to increase stiffness and decrease moisture
sensitivity.

REFERENCES

1. American AASHTO (2002). Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and

Method of Sampling and Testing, (22nd Edition). Washington D.C., USA.

2. Guidelines for Inspection and Testing of Road Works. Public Works Department of
Malaysia, JKR 20407-0001-90. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

3. Standard Specification for Road Works (1988). Public Works Department of Malaysia,
JKR/SPJ/1988. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 13

 24th ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010

4. Manual on Pavement Design. Public Works Department of Malaysia, Arahan Teknik

(Jalan) 5/85. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

5. Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1997). American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). Section 4: Construction, Volume 04.04. Philadelphia, USA.

6. Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1993). American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). Section 4: Road and Paving Materials, Paving Management Technologies,
Volume 04.03. Philadelphia, USA.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
MOHD HIZAM HARUN is currently with the Road Facilities Maintenance Branch, Public Works
Department (PWD), Malaysia. He has been with the PWD for 25 years. He graduated from
University of Leeds, United Kingdom in 1984 and has Masters Degree in Highway Engineering
from University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. His past designations include as a pavement
research engineer at the Public Works Institute (IKRAM), and as a resident engineer in the KLIA
project whereby his main responsibility then was to implement quality assurance programme on
the field production of polymer modified binders and asphalt for the runways and taxiways.

FAZLEEN HANIM AHMAD KAMAR is currently with the Road Facilities Maintenance Branch,
Public Works Department (PWD), Malaysia. She graduated in University Putra Malaysia,
Selangor in 2003 in Civil Engineering and has Master Science in Construction Management from
University of Technology Malaysia, Johor. She has experience in road maintenance and
responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring road maintenance program for Federal
Roads in Malaysia.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2010 14