Defence Works

Functional Standards
09
Geotechnical Investigations
for Design and Construction
of Airfield Pavements

Defence Works Services

London: HMSO Ministry of Defence
 Crown copyright 1994
Applications for reproduction should be made to HMSO
First published 1994

ISBN 011 772813 6

NOTE: This standard reflects the current practices in Ground Investigation and supercedes
Airfield Liaison Memorandum No. 64 (1987) published by Directorate of Civil
Engineering Services, Property Services Agency (DOE). The Standard is intended
for use throughout MOD and shall be used as a guide only.
DEFENCE WORKS FUNCTIONAL STANDARD

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

CONTENTS PAGE No

SECTION ONE - GENERAL

1 Introduction 1
2 Definitions 1
3 Scope 2
4 Responsibilities of the Designer 2
5 Design Principles 3
6 Design Practice 4

SECTION TWO - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 5

7 Primary Objectives of Site Investigations for New

and Existing Airfield Pavements 5
8 Design Standards 6
9 Extent and Sequence of Geotechnical Investigations 7
9.1 General 7
9.2 Desk Study 7
9.3 Ground Investigations and field testing
for Maintenance and Reconstruction of
Existing Pavements 8
10 Ground Investigation and Field Testing Techniques 11
10.1 General 11
10.2 Drilling, In situ Testing and Sampling 11
10.3 Recommendations for Exploratory Hole Depths
and Spacing 15
10.4 Design Considerations 16
10.5 Remote Methods of Investigation (including Geophysical) 18
11 Design of Instrumentation and Monitoring 19
12 Geotechnical Investigation Reporting Requirements 20
12.1 General 20
12.2 Factual Reporting 20
12.3 Interpretative Reporting 20
13 Soils Classification and Evaluation 21
13.1 General 21
13.2 Soils Classification and Evaluation of Subgrade Strength 22
13.3 General Classification Tests in the Laboratory 23
13.4 Notes on Special Requirements for Testing Contaminated Soils 26
DEFENCE WORKS FUNCTIONAL STANDARD

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE No

SECTION THREE - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 27

14 Design Parameters 27
14.1 The Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 27
14.2 The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) 27
14.3 Compaction of Subgrade 28
15 Design Guidance 31
15.1 Subsoil and Subgrade Drainage 31
15.2 Very Weak Subgrade (Except Peat) 32
15.3 Subgrade Improvement 33
15.4 Expansive Soils 33
15.5 Frost Susceptibility 34
15.6 Peat 34
15.7 Spring thaw and permafrost 35
15.8 Construction Practice 35
16 Aggregates for the Construction of Pavements 35
17 References

Tables

1 General Methods of Drilling and Sampling Techniques 12

2 Recommended Sampling Techniques 13
3 Class of Sample Quality 13
4 Recommended Chemical Sample Preservation and Storage Details 15
5 Spacing of Exploratory Holes 16
6 Sampling Frequencies 17
7 Minimum Sample Mass Required for Testing 17
8 Geophysical Methods of Investigation 18
9 Commonly Used Instrumentation 19
10 Recommended Testing 24
11 List of General Soils Testing 25
12 Relative Compaction Requirements for Subgrade 30
13 List of Recommended Aggregate Testing 36
DEFENCE WORKS FUNCTIONAL STANDARD

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

FIGURES

1 Effect of Granular Sub-Base on the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) for Rigid
Pavements

APPENDICES

A Extended Casagrande Soil Classification and CBR/k Relationship

Table A1 - The Extended Casagrande Soil Classification

Table A2 - Extended Soil Classification with Material Characteristics
Figure 2 - California Bearing Ratio versus Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

B Standard Cone Penetrometer Interpretation Charts

C Interpretation of Pavement Visual Survey Data

D CBR versus Soil Suction Curve and Soil Desiccation Potential

DEFENCE WORKS FUNCTIONAL STANDARD

SECTION ONE - GENERAL

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Defence Works functional standard deals with the investigation of sites for
assessing the suitability for the construction of Airfield Pavements and their
associated structures (such as culverts, bridges, concrete trunking boxes,
maintenance areas, hangers and embankments) and of acquiring the geotechnical
and ground contamination characteristics of the site. The objectives of such
investigations are to provide information to ensure an economical design and
construction of the works by reducing to an acceptable level the uncertainties and
risk that the ground poses and ensuring the security of neighbouring land and
property.

1.2 The detailed design of ground investigation is very important for the accurate
identification and evaluation of the site conditions and pavement formations and
cannot be overemphasized.

1.3 This standard does not attempt to cover the wider economic considerations
affecting the selection of the site, neither does it cover the structural design of the
airfield pavement.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 Any investigation in advance of construction works, including earthworks shall

involve considering what is a soil and/or rock and their mechanics. Definitions in
terms of soils and their testing are given in BS 5930, BS 1377 and BS 6031.
Engineering geological descriptions of rocks including the recommended testing are
also given in BS 5930. Unless otherwise stated reference shall always be made to
the latest editions.

2.2 The following terms are specific to this document:

2.2.1 Site Investigation: Determination of physical characteristics of sites as they affect

design and construction of building and civil engineering works and stability of
neighbouring structures.

2.2.2 Ground Investigation: Exploration and recording of the location and characteristics
of soil and rock, and groundwater conditions.

2.2.3 Designer - The Designer of the site investigation, may be an engineer with a
 consultant or a contractor. The Designer shall fulfil the requirements of the
definition of a Geotechnical Specialist in terms of qualifications and experience
(ICE Site Investigation in Construction).

2.2.4 Geotechnical Specialist - A Chartered Engineer or a Chartered Geologist with a

postgraduate qualification in geotechnical engineering or engineering geology,
equivalent to at least a MSc and with three years post chartered experience in
geotechnics or a Chartered Engineer or Chartered Geologist with at least 5 years
post-chartered experience in geotechnics. Additional specialist advice on ground
contamination should be provided by an environmental scientist, chemist or
environmental engineer with a minimum of five years relevant professional
experience.

3.0 SCOPE

3.1 This standard sets out detailed guidance, formal procedures, technical standards
and gives standard practices (where not covered by other existing standards) for
the assessment, design and construction of Airfield Pavements.

3.2 For the purpose of this standard, ground investigation shall include the following:

a) desk study
b) site reconnaissance
c) geomorphological mapping
d) procurement of ground investigation contract
e) exploratory fieldwork
f) in situ testing and sampling
g) laboratory test scheduling
h) instrumentation and monitoring
i) factual reporting
j) interpretative reporting
3.3 The use of soil and rock as construction materials is treated only briefly; and
reference should be made to BS 6031: Code of Practice for Earthworks.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DESIGNER

4.1 Designers shall be responsible for implementing the requirements of this standard
in conjunction with current British Codes, Standards and Practices. The Designer
should ensure that:-

a) an adequate desk study with geotechnical / ground contamination site

inspection is carried out;
b) following the desk study the ground investigation is then planned, designed
and directed;
c) appropriate standards of work are then specified;
d) the work shall be properly supervised to ensure that the technical standards
are met;
e) the work is reported in accordance with technical standards.

2
4.2 The Designer shall always consult with the Airfield Property Manager before
starting any works on an existing airfield and before writing any Safety
requirements specific to a particular site. The Designer shall also consider safety
aspects in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations
1994, throughout the design process and develop these in the design of the site
investigation. These shall include but not be limited to:

(a) Effect of work on neighbouring land and structures.

(b) Protection of site staff and the public around the site.
(c) Access for materials.
(d) Access and manoeuvring space for plant.
(e) Protection of aircraft and permanent accesses during all stages of the works.
(f) Locations of existing services, including drainage, tunnels, electrical,
communication and signalling equipment.
(g) Temporary works including shoring of trial pits, scaffolding platforms for
boring rigs.
(h) Backfilling of exploratory holes and pits.
(i) Protection of monitoring installations

4.3 The Designer shall consult with all Statutory Authorities with regard to the
determination of the presence or absence of services and any special requirements
of Statutory Authorities (ie: The National Rivers Authority (NRA)).

4.4 Where Made Ground (possibly contaminated) ground is likely to be encountered,

the Designer shall carry out a Risk Assessment and COSHH Assessment in
accordance with the Management of health and safety at work regulations (1992).
Both statements shall be forwarded to the contractor at the tender stage who shall
prepare a separate and detailed COSHH statement for the site work. The Designer
shall provide the contractor with all available information concerning the
contamination of the site and development history of the site.

4.5 The British Drilling Association (BDA) Guidance Notes for the Safe Drilling of
Landfills and Contaminated Land65, DD 175 Code of Practice for the identification
of potentially contaminated land and its investigation 57, CIRIA report "A Guide
to Safe Working Practices for Contaminated Sites", and the ICE Site Investigation
in Construction Volume 455 can be used to assist in the preparation of the above
information.

5.0 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.1 All pavements are relatively thin constructions, in terms of civil engineering
construction, in intimate contact with the ground. The importance of the proper
application of soil mechanics principles depends upon the pavement type and their
life expectancy. For thin flexible pavements with a thin granular base the
influence of the soils is very large, whereas for a substantial reinforced concrete
pavement with a thick sub-base it will be much less so.

3
5.2 Pavement design requires the knowledge of the application of soil mechanics
principles in the design of soil subgrade and granular base layers, together with
concrete and asphalt technology for the bound layers when used. It also requires
the understanding of the response to repeated wheel loadings (cyclic loadings) and
the influences of environmental effects, notably of ground water changes and
climatic variations (temperature and humidity).

6 DESIGN PRACTICE

6.1 In the late 1970's concrete pavements constructed in the 1950's were reaching the
end of their design life. Observation of airfield pavements refined a more
comprehensive fatigue model for calculating the allowable stress in rigid
pavements. The designer shall use the model defined in 'A Guide to Airfield
Pavement Design and Evaluation58 ', which predicts the appropriate failure
mechanism and also allows pavement thicknesses to be related more accurately to
load repetitions (cyclic loading).

6.2 The analysis of stresses in rigid pavements shall be based on Westergaard's

theories, and shall have regard to factors such as fatigue by repeated wheel
loadings, growth in concrete strength with age and thermal effects such as
temperature warping stress. The deterioration with age of lean concrete bases shall
also be considered in line with recent experience.

6.3 Flexible pavement design shall be based on the current UK accepted CBR
method 13,80 and may use Equivalency Factors in order to take into account
improved pavement performance given by cement-, lime- and bitumen-bound base
courses77.

6.4 The conventional definitions of rigid and flexible pavements become quite blurred
when pavements consist of layers of different materials. Mixed constructions are
equated to model either rigid or flexible pavement construction on the basis of
more recent experience of pavement performance. The assessment of multiple slab
construction is based on an empirical design method developed by the US Army
Corps of Engineers.

4
 SECTION TWO - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATIONS

7 PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS FOR NEW AND

EXISTING AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

7.1 Adequate ground investigation of a site is essential prior to construction or

reconstruction or maintenance of any engineering works especially for airfield
pavements.

7.2 Investigations for existing pavements may be required when any of the following
circumstances apply:

i) A mid/end of life reassessment of the pavement to plan future maintenance

work
and/or rehabilitation;
ii) The pavement has been disused for some time and is to be rehabilitated;
iii)The pavement is to be strengthened for regular use by heavier aircraft;
iv) After several years service it has become apparent that the pavement's strength
has been reduced and it is showing signs of premature failure;
v) There has been a change in the classification of the airfield pavement.

7.3 Investigations for airfield pavements can therefore be classified in three different
categories:

i) for maintenance of existing pavements

ii) for reconstruction of existing pavements
iii) for new construction of pavements

7.4 The investigation of existing pavements for either reconstruction or for the purpose
of designing a maintenance program shall be considered in one section of this
Standard.

7.5 The primary objectives of the investigation are to obtain the necessary soils
information, distribution and physical properties/characteristics and may be
summarised as follows:

i) for existing pavement evaluation the details of the pavement design are
required;
ii) the underlying subsoil condition and characteristics;
iii) for the construction or reconstruction of new pavements the suitability of the
site;
iv) to provide geotechnical data including chemical and environmental data for
an economic, safe and reliable design of the works including any temporary
works and interaction/effects of any previous land use;

5
 v) assessment of problems and constraints associated with the works, which may
include:

Pavement (foundation) design

Subgrade (soil) conditions and characteristics
Groundwater conditions and seasonal variations
Earthworks, trafficability and temporary works
Effects of previous land use
Buried structures or cavities
Ground and groundwater contamination

8.0 DESIGN STANDARDS

8.1 All site investigation shall be in accordance with BS 5930 and all laboratory testing
in accordance with BS 1377. Chemical testing of soils and groundwaters for
contamination shall be in accordance with methods published by the Standing
Committee of Analysts (DOE), or the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). All analytical and soils laboratories shall be NAMAS accredited, or be
able to demonstrate compliance with an equivalent quality standard. Reference
should also be made to the CIRIA Site Investigation Manual56 for detailed
descriptions of site investigation techniques.

8.2 The ground investigation specification shall be in general accordance with the ICE
Specification for Ground Investigation.

8.3 The Designer shall use a formal documented quality management system
complying with the principles of the British Standard for Quality Systems BS 5750.
9.0 EXTENT AND SEQUENCE OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

9.1 GENERAL

9.1.1 Geotechnical investigation is an essential part of all civil engineering projects,

which will provide information to evaluate and characterise the interaction of the
proposed and or existing airfield pavements and the sub-surface soils. In some
instances an evaluation of sub-surface contamination will also be appropriate.

9.1.2 It is essential that an adequate investigation of the on site soil conditions and their
characteristics is carried out prior to the design and construction or reconstruction
of new airfield pavements and associated structures together with establishing the
design details of any existing pavements or structures. For new or reconstructed
pavements any investigation shall include:

A desk study of all existing information, including a literature and statutory

archives searches and any existing pavement details (if available)
Site Reconnaissance survey (walk-over), including visual condition surveys
of existing pavements and any contamination
Topographical and structural surveys (where necessary)
A ground investigation to determine the sub-surface soil profile of different
layers with relation to the proposed earthworks and subgrade evaluation.
Obtain sufficient representative disturbed and undisturbed samples of each
layer of the soil profile.
Carry out sufficient in-situ and laboratory tests on representative samples
to determine the physical, geotechnical and chemical characteristics of the
various soil types, with respect to the in-situ density, compressibility, shear
strength, drainage properties contaminative potential and whether the soils
are susceptible to expansion or frost heave.
A survey to determine the availability and suitability of materials for re-use
in construction.

9.2 DESK STUDY

9.2.1 The desk study is an essential part of the investigation for new work,
reconstruction or repairs/maintenance to existing airfields and their associated
structures, when developing an understanding of ground conditions and possible
geotechnical, constructional or environmental problems.

9.2.2 Desk studies shall search for all existing relevant information on the site and 'as-
built' drawings of any existing pavements. A detailed list of sources for obtaining
information may be found in BS 5930, section 4.2 and appendices A and B and
DD 17557. In addition the following authoritative bodies shall be consulted;
Airfield Properties Manager, National Rivers Authority (NRA), Waste Regulation
Authority (WRA), Environmental Health Department records for any previous
known pollution incidents, Department of Environment Cavities Database, County
Records Offices and Land Agent Landfill Registers.

7
9.2.3 Aerial photographs shall be consulted as an important method in evaluating new
construction sites and may assist in studying existing sites often identifying
problems not visible at ground level, for a detailed description of their use refer
to TRRL report81 and Working Party Report QJEG82.

9.2.4 Careful appraisal of a desk study in conjunction with the proposed development or
reconstruction shall be undertaken. This will often indicate the types and amounts
of subsurface investigation required, and is a very cost effective way of designing
a ground investigation.

9.2.5 The Designer shall carry out a site reconnaissance at an early stage in the design
which should aim to cover as large an area as possible in the time allowed. The
adjacent structures may yield valuable information with regard to the behaviour of
soil-structure interaction. Should any nearby structures show signs of distress, it
is highly recommended that information with regard to their design is obtained and
analyzed. Guidance on site reconnaissance in respect of contaminated land is given
in BS: DD 175 section 4.3.

9.2.6 The Designer shall prepare a desk study report which shall supply a proposed
contents list similar to but not restricted to:

a) introduction
b) the site and proposed construction works
c) geology (including available existing borehole information)
d) topography and geomorphology
e) drainage and hydrogeology
f) present land-use and site history
g) potential for ground contamination
h) walk over survey and/or visual condition survey
i) laboratory testing when available (from previous ground investigations)
j) engineering considerations
k) conclusions with recommendations for the detailed site investigation where
necessary
l) all as-built data and drawings of existing airfield pavements if available
9.3 GROUND INVESTIGATIONS AND FIELD TESTING FOR MAINTENANCE
AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING PAVEMENTS

9.3.1 Evaluation of existing pavements shall include the following:

i) Ascertaining the existing construction details

ii) Ascertaining the condition of the existing pavement
iii) Ascertaining the material properties of subsoils and the pavement
construction materials

9.3.2 Evaluation of the existing construction details shall be by review of 'as-built'

drawings together with the 'specification' and 'feed-back' reports. If records are
not available then field work will be required in the form of exploratory holes, to
investigate:

8
 Techniques Parameters to be assessed
Pavement Construction :
- Rotary Cores Dimensions/thickness of pavements layers
- Falling Weight
Deflectometer
- Plate Bearing Test Elastic Modulus
- Deflection Beam
(Benkelman Principle)
Subgrade Construction :
Trial pits/Boreholes Thickness of subgrade and material quality
Soils profile

9.3.3 Evaluation of the condition of the existing pavement shall follow the guidelines
detailed in the 'Design Manual for Roads and Bridges', Volume 7, Section 3, Part
2, "Visual Condition Surveys". All defects such as ruts and cracking shall be
noted and sketched. Surveys of concrete pavements shall whenever possible be
carried out in cooler months, when cracks are more noticeable and when the
efficiency of joint seals can be better assessed (see Appendix C). The use of non-
destructive deflection tests can be used in the assessment of pavement bearing
capacity and support condition; with tests carried out at slab centres and along the
joints, a fair appraisal/evaluation may be made, which may allow the design of
remedial measures or any necessary maintenance measures.

9.3.4 Evaluation of material properties within the pavement construction and subsoils,
shall be by review of 'as-built' drawings together with the 'specification' and 'feed-
back' reports. If records are not available then field work will be required in the
form of exploratory holes, to investigate:

9
 Techniques Type of Parameters to be assessed
pavement
Pavement Construction
Rotary Cores Flexible Marshall Test
* see section 16 Bitumen Content
Particle Size Distribution
Rigid Visual Description
Petrographical Analysis
Subsoils / Subgrade
Trial Pits / Boreholes Flexible and Soil Material Characteristics
Plate Bearing Test Rigid Degree of Compaction
Falling Weight Deflectometer Subgrade Reaction (Modulus)
Deflection Beam Compressibility

* see section 10.2

Instrumentation and Monitoring
* see section 11 Flexible and Groundwater
Rigid
See section 10 for a more detailed descnption of the evaluation of subsoils.

9.3.5 Evaluation of the subsoils by exploratory holes (fieldwork) is described in detail

in the following sections:

Methods of Investigation
Design of Instrumentation and Monitoring
Soils Classification and Evaluation

9.3.6 Evaluation of aggregate properties for pavement construction is described in

section 16.
10 GROUND INVESTIGATION AND FIELD TESTING TECHNIQUES

10.1 GENERAL

10.1.1 If a ground investigation is required it shall be designed to verify and expand on

the previously collected information reported in the Desk Study. The report shall
be a means of providing the information necessary for a safe and economical
design, to identify potential construction problems and hazards. In addition
consideration shall be given to acquisition and assessment of geotechnical and
ground contamination data throughout the construction period, in order to check
that actual ground conditions are as assumed during the design.

10.2 DRILLING, IN SITU TESTING AND SAMPLING

10.2.1 The Designer shall consider all appropriate methods of investigation, when
designing a site investigation. The following Table 1 gives the most commonly
used methods of forming exploratory holes, sampling methods and in situ testing.
Table 2 gives recommendations for appropriate methods of sampling for different
types of soils and rocks based upon the classification of sample quality given in
Table 3.

10.2.2 Some of the methods of ground investigation are classed as engineering operations
and therefore come within the definition of "development" as defined in the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990". However, in the vast majority of cases these
activities are likely to be small scale/low key engineering operations which would
normally be regarded as "de minimimis" in town planning terms and not require
planning clearance under DOE Circular 18/84 (or it's equivalent in Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland). In cases of doubt, it is always open to the
Designer, after first consulting the local Defence Land Agent, to approach the local
planning authority for confirmation that the proposed investigation works do not
require planning clearance.
 TABLE 1 - General Methods of Drilling and Sampling Techniques

IN SITU SAMPLING IN SITU TESTING REFERENCE

Boreholes Light Cable U 100mm Standard Penetration Test BS 1377: Part 9
Percussion Piston Borehole shear vane BS 1377: Part 9
Disturbed Borehole Plate Bearing BS 1377: Part 9
(Rotary Pendant Cores) test strength,
Bishop Sand Sampler Permeability BS 5930

Rotary Flight (U 100mm) Standard Penetration Test BS 1377: Part 9

Auger (Piston) Permeability BS 5930
Disturbed
(Bishop Sand Sampler)

Rotary Coring (U 100mm) Standard Penetration Test BS 1377: Part 9

Cores Permeability BS 5930

Rotary Percussion (U 100mm) Standard Penetration Test BS 1377: Part 9

(Openhole/Wash (Disturbed)
Boring) Chippings

Static Cone Gas/Water sampler, Pressuremeter BS 5930

Penetrometer Continuous Soil Piezocone CIRIA83

Continuous Soil U(35-50mm) Description Only CIRIA56

Sampler

Slotted Standpipe Water sampler Gas, water and soil BS DD175

(50mm int. diam.) analyzers
Trial Pits Machine or hand Disturbed Hand Shear Vane BS 1377: Part 7
dug

(Piston) Hand Penetrometer CIRIA56

U(38mm) hand driven Mexe-probe ref85

California Bearing Ratio BS 1377: Part 4

Block Samples California Bearing Ratio BS 1377: Part 4

Plate Bearing Test BS 1377: Part 9
Soakaway /Permeability BS 5930
Hand (Disturbed) Description only BS 5930
Augering
Pressuremeter Selfboring, Shear Moduli CIRIA90
attached to CPT Porewater Pressure
Dynamic Relative Densities BS 1377: Part 9
Probing
Contaminates Glass/tin Jars (Disturbed Gas Analyzers BS (DD 175)
Tests soil) Portable soil/gas/water
Glass Jars (water) chronograph BS (DD 175)

12
 TABLE 2 - Recommended Sampling Techniques

Type of Cohesive Class of Non-Cohesive Class of

Samples (strength values Cu) Sample Sample
(size)
U(l00mm) Strength <50kN/m2 1 Silts and fine 3
Undisturbed < 100kN/m2 1-2 sands
> 100kN/m2 3-4
Thin wall piston
(100mm) < 100kN/m2 1 Silts and fine 1
(250mm) <75kN/m2 1 sands
Bishop Sand not applicable - Silts and sands 2-3
Samples
Disturbed 3-5 3-5
(<1kg)
Disturbed Bulk 2-5 2-5
(<25kg)
Rotary Cores Dependent upon bit 2-5 -
and technique
U(38mm) <50kN/m2 1 Clayey silts and -
>50kN/m2 2-3 clayey sands
Block samples >75kN/m2 1-2 Clayey silts 2-5
(> 400mm)
Standard Its use is difficult in 4-5 Beware of piping 4-5
Penetration Test fills and made ground and water table

See BS 593053 and CIRIA56 for further explanation of the above techniques.

TABLE 3 - CLASS of Sample Quality

Class 1 Index tests, natural moisture content(NMC), density, strength and deformation
characteristics
Class 2 Index tests, NMC, particle size distribution(PSD), density and remoulded
strength
Class 3 Index tests, NMC, PSD
Class 4 Index tests
Class 5 Strata identification only

See BS 593053 and CIRIA56 for further explanation.

13
10.2.3 The general investigation techniques used for airfield pavements are light cable
percussion and trial pits. It should be noted that backfilling of trial pits must be
carefully backfilled in thin layers with suitable compaction by the excavator or
compaction equipment in order to avoid long term settlement of the reinstatement.
For a detailed description of the most commonly used techniques and in situ testing
methods see CIRIA SP25 'Site Investigation Manual'56, and BS 593053 'Code of
Practice for Site Investigation'

10.2.4 Where samples are being collected specifically to identify and measure the
presence and concentrations of contaminants the issues of cross contamination and
sample disturbance should also be considered. For example, although trial pits
provide a good visual examination of ground conditions, the excavation process
will tend to mix materials, particularly if groundwater is present, and so lead to
cross contamination. Similarly if volatile organic compounds are of interest the
disturbance to the ground caused by trial pitting may cause significant losses of
these compounds prior to sampling. The appropriate use of pressure washers or
steam cleaners should also be considered on contaminated sites to minimise the
potential for cross contamination both between exploratory holes and within
individual holes.

10.2.5 On contaminated sites the characterisation of the hydrogeology and groundwater

chemistry is often a fundamental requirement. This is generally undertaken by the
use of borehole into which piezometers or standpipes are subsequently installed.
Depending on the geological context, a number of groundwater bodies may be
present at different depths and the investigation technique selected should ensure
that cross contamination between separate water bodies does not occur. This is
important both to ensure that representative samples are collected and to prevent
the creation of migration routes by which contamination of groundwater may
occur.

10.2.6 Samples of soils for chemical analysis should be of a minimum volume of 1 litre
and in most circumstances glass or plastic (polypropylene or polyethylene)
containers will be suitable for storing samples prior to analysis. All containers
should be clean and dry prior to use and filled with air/water tight lid. Where
subsequent analysis is to include volatile organics' a sealed steel or aluminium
container should be used. Containers should be completely filled with the soil
sample to minimise the opportunity for oxidation of contaminants during transit to
the laboratory. The chemical composition of ground and surface water samples
can alter relatively following collection. To minimise this effect water samples
should always be analyzed as soon as is practicable after collection.

10.2.7 Deterioration of water samples can be reduced by chemical preservation of the

sample immediately after sampling. Details of appropriate preservatives, sample
containers and sample volumes are given in table 4. In addition, wherever possible
an unfixed one litre sample should be collected in an amber glass bottle.

10.2.8 Water samples, both fixed and unfixed, should be maintained at a cool temperature
(approximately 4C) prior to arrival at the analytical laboratory. The use of cool
boxes and ice packs is a practicable means of ensuring that samples are kept at an

14
 appropriate temperature during transit.

10.2.9 In situ testing for contaminants is generally restricted to the use of portable
instruments to identify and measure soil gases. These range from relatively simple
hand held instruments for measuring the principal components of landfill gas to the
use of mobile gas chromatographs for determining the concentrations of individual
volatile organic compounds (VOC's).

10.2.10 In addition a range of portable test kits are available which can be used in the field
to provide indication of certain contaminants in soil and water samples (ex situ on-
site testing). Generally such kits are used to provide a preliminary indication of
the presence of contaminants and are combined with the use of conventional
laboratory analysis.

TABLE 4 - Recommended Chemical Sample Preservation and Storage Details

Bottle type and size Analytical Parameter Fixative

Polyethylene 1000ml ammonical nitrogen, nitrate Addition of H2SO4 until pH is
less than 2
chemical oxygen demand,
total organic carbon,
phenols
Polyethylene 150ml sulphide Addition of 2.5ml of 5ml/l
NaOH solution with zinc acetate
crystals added at a concentration
equivalent to 1g per litre of
sample
Polyethylene 150ml cyanide Addition of NaOH until pH is
greater than 12
Borosilicate glass with metals Addition of to filtered
PTFE sealed cap sample until Ph is less than 2
500ml

10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPLORATORY HOLE DEPTHS AND SPACING

10.3.1 Exploratory hole depths and spacings should be considered only after evaluating
the past site history and desk study report. Exploratory holes should target areas
of special interest, however a suggested minimum spacing is given in Table 5.
Monitoring of groundwater and its movement is an essential part of any
investigation. Observations over several months may be necessary to establish any
seasonal variations and preferably over a period of at least one year.

15
 TABLE 5 - Spacing of Exploratory Holes

Location Frequency
Runways and Taxiways Boreholes 1 every Trial pits 1 every
50 Linear metres * 50 Linear metres *

(Staggered across (Staggered as a chequered pattern

the proposed alternatively at sides of proposed
centre line) pavements)

Aprons and other areas Boreholes and Trial Pits positioned on a 60m square grid
trial pits positioned on a 30m square grid
Borrow areas Positioned on a grid defined as 2% of the total square
area, for a preliminary investigation. Otherwise
positioned to sample at 1000m2 square grid spacings

* Boreholes or Trial Pits may both be used depending on the ground conditions.
** Table revised from PSA, " A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and
Evaluation" 58.

10.3.2 The spacing of exploratory holes for the purposes of assessing ground
contamination should relate to both the objectives of the study and known
information on site history and geology. Some limited guidance on spacings for
a detailed investigation of contaminated land and appropriate sampling patterns is
given in British Standards Institution, Draft for Development DD:175.

10.4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

10.4.1 The Designer shall consider the in situ testing, sampling frequency and type and
quality of samples required in each anticipated stratum to achieve the adequate
characterisation of the material and determination of the required geotechnical
properties for use in the temporary and permanent works design.

10.4.2 Ground investigations involving exploratory holes will require in-situ representative
sampling of the subsoils. The type of sampling and frequency will depend upon
the characteristics of the sub-soils and type of construction proposed. Generally,
all soils whether within the United Kingdom can be subdivided into seven groups
(see Appendix A, Table Al). Table 6 - shows typical sampling frequencies for
various subsoil conditions and should be used in conjunction with Table 7 -
'Minimum sample mass required' when designing an investigation.

10.4.3 For contaminated sites, British Standards Institution Draft for the Development
DD: 175 recommends a minimum of three samples to be taken from each sampling
location (ie: trail pit, borehole etc). In practice it is better to over sample at the
time of the investigation even if not all the samples collected are subsequently
analyzed. At least one sample shall be collected of each type of material
encountered and generally samples shall be collected at 0.5m intervals.
Groundwater shall always be sampled when encountered.

16
 TABLE 6 - Sampling Frequencies

SOILS GROUP SAMPLE TYPE BOREHOLES TRIAL PITS

Cohesionless Soils Disturbed (<1kg) Every 1m and change in 3 to 5 no per pit

stratum
Disturbed (<25kg) Every 1.5 linear metre 3 to 5 no per pit
Water Sample Every water strike Every water strike
Standard Penetration test Every 1m depth
Permeability One in 2 boreholes (3 for 500m3 earthworks)
Cohesive Soils Disturbed (<1kg) Every 1m and change in 3 to 5 No per pit
stratum
Disturbed (<25kg) Every failed undisturbed 3 to 5 no per pit
Undisturbed (100mm/piston or Every 1 linear metre (3 for 500m3) in weak
block) rocks or cohesive material
Standard Penetration test Every other undisturbed
sample when recovering
less than 65 %
Permeability 1 per borehole (3 for 500m3 earthworks)
Water Sample Every water strike Every water strike
Made-Ground (Fill) (As per cohesive
or non-cohesive soils)

Specialist Chemical testing (water) 3 per water table 3 per watertable

(soil) 3 for 1000m3 earthworks 3 for 1000m3 earthworks
Moisture content Disturbed (<1kg) Every 0.5 linear metre Every 0.25 linear metre
(*when tree/shrub
clearance or when
soils may be
saturated or subject
to drying out

TABLE 7 - Minimum Sample Mass Required For Testing

PURPOSE OF SAMPLE SOIL TYPE MASS OF SAMPLE

REQUIRED

Soil identification (including Atterberg limits, sieve Fine grained 2.5kg

analysis, moisture content, sulphate, chloride, Ph Medium grained 7.0kg
value, organic content). Coarse grained 40.0 kg
Compaction tests (Maximum Dry ALL 80.0 kg
Density/MCV/CBR)
Frost heave ALL 80.0 kg
Comprehensive examination of construction, Fine grained 100kg
materials, including soil stabilisation Medium grained 130kg
Coarse grained 160kg
Specialist Chemical Tests All Soils 200 gm
Water 2 Litres

17
10.5 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

10.5.1 Investigations for new airfield and maintenance of existing pavements may be made
more cost effective when the traditional boreholes and trial pits are used in
conjunction with recent advances in investigation methods such as remote sensing
(Geophysics) and static cone penetrometer techniques to investigate anomalies in
the subsoil or existing pavement structural conditions. A modified version of the
SCPT rig can also be used for collecting discrete samples of soils, groundwater
and soil gases for chemical analysis.

10.5.2 The following Table 8 - Geophysical methods of Investigation summarises the

recommended use of maximum probable depths of penetration and the probability
of success for the technique, in defining the extent and type of any anomaly
investigated.
TABLE 8 - Geophysical Methods of Investigation

RECOMMENDED ADVANCED METHOD OF MAXIMUM PROBABILITY

USE/PROBLEM INVESTIGATION DEPTH OF OF SUCCESS
PENETRATION

Buried obstructions and cavities Geophysical - Magnetometer 5m to 20m 40%

- Induced
Conductivity 5m to 10m 35%
Ground radar 5m to 6m 70%
Identifying boundaries to landfill or Geophysical - Refraction 5m to 10m 40%
made ground - Resistivity 5m to 6m 40%
- Magnetometer 5m to 20m 30%
- Induced
Conductivity 5m to 10m 45%
Ground Radar 5m to 6m 55%
Identifying Bedrock interface with Geophysical - Refraction <20m 70%
superficial deposits - Resistivity <15m 55%
(ie:- Clays/bedrock) - Induced
Conductivity 5m to 10m 40%
Static cone penetrometer 20m to 35m 95%
Subsurface interface between soil Geophysical - Refraction <20m 70%
layers - Resistivity <15m 55%
(ie:- Peat/Sand) - Induced
Conductivity <30m 35%
Ground Radar < 6m 70%

Groundwater boundary Geophysical - Resistivity 5m to 10m 50%

Existing pavement Ground Radar <5m 90%

Notes: *1 Depth of penetration depends upon reaction weight and stiffness of the materials penetrated.
*2 Dependent upon the contrast in resistance of the materials and type of fluid medium
*3 Subject to interpretation between exploratory hole locations

10.5.3 The use of these methods involves investigating the area of interest by traversing
the area usually on grid basis. The spacings are very dependant upon the nature
of the problem being investigated. It is highly recommended that on site
interpretation of geophysical techniques is always carried out, in order for them to
be most economically cost effective and to determine whether any additional

18
 traverses are required to investigate anomalies before the Contractor leaves site.

10.5.4 The use of geophysical techniques will require exploratory holes for the calibration
of the equipment and to assist in the interpretation of the results.

10.5.5 It is recommended that when considering the use of recent advanced techniques
these should be planned to be used in conjunction with and at a very early stage
in the field/site works. This will allow for input and fine tuning of the positioning
of exploratory holes investigating anomalies within the subsoil and existing
structures.

11 DESIGN OF INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING

11.1 The designer shall consider the necessity for and purpose of the instrumentation
and then select the most appropriate type based upon the reliability and
applicability of the various instrumentation methods. The following Table 9. gives
a short summary of commonly used instruments for airfield pavements and
earthworks together with their most suitable applications.

TABLE 9 - Commonly used Instrumentation

Instrument Application Type of Instrument Comments

Groundwater Pneumatic Piezometer Gas powered may be
Monitoring monitored remote from the
(see note below) Borehole
Hydraulic Piezometer Water filled and subject to
freezing. Can carry out
Permeability tests at a later
date
Electrical Piezometer Can be monitored remote of
the site by radio transmission
Open Standpipe Allows water samples to be
taken at a later date, and most
(minimum 50mm Int. cost effective
Diam.)
Settlement Monitoring Hydraulic plates and Measures settlement under
tubes embankments
Magnetic Extensometer Measures settlements within
and below large embankments
Pneumatic Settlement Measures settlement under
Gauges embankments

19
11.2 For groundwater monitoring the Designer shall determine the anticipated
permeability of the various strata likely to be encountered based on the findings of
the desk study, then consider the likely response times of any groundwater
monitoring instruments and the appropriate types of instrument that should be
installed to enable detection of groundwater fluctuations.

11.3 The Designer shall consider the commissioning of the instruments (base readings)
and determine the frequency of monitoring of the instruments. The frequency shall
take into account the stability of the readings including any seasonal or diurnal
fluctuation in the measurements. The requirements for long term monitoring shall
be determined by the Designer after consultation with all relevant Authorities
(NRA, Local Waste Department, Airfield Property Manager, etc).

11.4 For ground deformation monitoring, the strength of the surrounding ground shall
be closely reflected by the strength of any grouting around the installation of
instruments. The desk study should also provide the required length of fixity to
ensure a good stable datum or base to the instrument is provided.

11.5 For gas monitoring, the Designer shall refer to CIRIA Report N 13167 The
measurement of methane and other gases from the ground'

12 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

12.1 GENERAL

The results of the ground investigation shall be presented in two reports

a) factual report
b) interpretative report

12.2 FACTUAL REPORTING

12.2.1 The Contractor shall be instructed to supply the ground investigation data in digital
form in accordance with the ACS publication "Electronic transfer of geotechnical
data from ground investigations"64.

12.2.2 The contents list of the factual report shall include but not be restricted to:

a) introduction with project details and reference

b) the site details, referenced to OS grid reference
c) fieldwork, including details of methods of investigation, in situ testing
and sampling, groundwater level monitoring and observations,
exploratory hole ground levels and national grid coordinates
d) laboratory testing
e) drawings, including key plan, exploratory hole location plans and
geological sections, where appropriate

20
12.3 INTERPRETATIVE REPORTING

12.3.1 The Designer shall whenever possible prepare the interpretative report. The
contents list of the interpretative report shall have a contents list which shall
include but not be restricted to:

a) introduction - purpose of report, participants, scope of work

b) the site referenced to OS grid reference and proposed construction
works
c) general geology, site conditions and history (brief summary of desk
study report)
d) fieldwork
e) laboratory testing
f) ground and groundwater conditions including environmental/chemical
aspects
g) geotechnical parameters for design
h) monitoring results
i) methods of analysis
j) engineering considerations, including results of slope stability analysis,
interpretation of failure mechanisms, possible remedial measures,
ground improvement, tunnelling, foundation design, site preparation,
sources, re-use of materials and identification of environmental effects
k) provide a range of design solutions and recommendations with
guidance on which might be most appropriate in terms of cost, timing,
ease of construction, future maintenance etc.
1) recommendation and conclusions
m) references
n) drawings, including exploratory hole location plans and interpretated
geotechnical sections.

12.3.2 A separate section shall also report any ground contamination test results and
conclusions; indicating the following:

a) any significant contaminants

b) environmental liabilities with the site
c) any necessary constraints on construction
d) remedial options
e) health and safety issues

12.3.3 Copies of all calculations shall be included as an appendix to the report.

13.0 SOILS CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION

13.1 GENERAL

13.1.1 Thorough evaluation of the subgrade is very important, especially for flexible
pavements where the required thickness depends greatly on the shear strength of
the soil. This evaluation of the subgrade includes the determination of subgrade
strength and the assessment of factors which can affect the stability of the subgrade

21
 with time: e.g. shrinkage and swelling, frost action and mud pumping. It is also
important to ascertain the vertical profile of the soil types, densities and moisture
contents.

13.2 SOILS CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF SUBGRADE STRENGTH.

13.2.1 The soils classification by visual method is described in detail in BS 5930: Section
8, clause 42 and is based upon the Casagrande System (1942). A summary table
is included in Appendix A. For classification the group symbols used for coarse
grained soils are derived by particle size distribution and those for fine-grained
soils are mainly derived from the plasticity index and liquid limit. The tests used
to determine these groups are described fully in BS 1377. The BS 5930, Soils
Classification System enables the soils to be assessed for its likely behaviour as a
subgrade, including its shear strength, shrinkage, drainage properties and
susceptibility to frost heave. Although an experienced engineer can often estimate
the shear strength and load-deflection values for a subgrade from the classification
tests, it is often necessary to carry out further tests specifically to measure these
characteristics.

13.2.2. The subgrade strength characteristics required for pavement design are the
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) and the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for
rigid and flexible pavements respectively. The design values chosen must be
representative of the soil under the pavement after construction. Therefore, they
should be based upon a relevant moisture content and density.

13.2.3 In selecting a design moisture content, consideration must be given to seasonal

variations and likelihood of the post-construction moisture content being higher
than the pre-construction in situ value.

There are some useful guidelines for certain conditions:

(i) A method of ascertaining the post-construction moisture content is to

examine the subgrade under an existing adjacent pavement. The accuracy
of the assessment will depend upon the similarity of pavement widths,
subsoil drainage and permeability of the surface layers.

(ii) In very dry climatic conditions, if no water is present, the in situ value of
the natural subgrade is likely to be representative.

(iii) In cohesive soils which are homogeneous with depth, TRRL suggest Ref 18
that the moisture content at 1m below ground level may be representative,
but that a moisture content profile to prove any desiccation of the upper
layers is carried out to confirm.

(iv) In the absence of any other information the moisture content of cohesive
UK soils, except those containing a high proportion of montmorillonite,
seldom exceeds the plastic limit plus 3 %.

22
13.2.4 Selection of a representative density will depend on the in situ density, and the
degree of compaction likely during construction (see Section 14.3).

13.2.5 The test for the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) is a large scale in situ test,
which measures the behaviour of the subgrade as a whole and therefore tends to
compensate for variations of the density and moisture content with depth. The
CBR test only measures the properties of a very small volume of the subgrade and
it is more difficult to find a representative design value. However, in practice the
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction test is difficult to carry out and in some situations
it may be sufficient to assess k from the CBR value. Appendix A includes an
approximate relationship between CBR and k. Use this with caution, particularly
when considering soils uncommon in the UK (e.g. Laterites, corals and volcanic
clinker/ash).

13.2.6 The Shear Modulus of subgrade/subsoils may also be determined by pressuremeters

and self-boring pressuremeters; which are recommended by this standard in
preference to pressure tests in boreholes, due to the general ground disturbance
around boreholes. Pressuremeters may also be used in combination with static
cone penetrometers (CPT).

13.2.7 The Elastic Shear Modulus90 (G) of soils may be derived from the unload-reload
cycle of the test, which may be converted to Young's Modulus (E), for either
drained or undrained conditions. The drainage conditions shall be for design/field
conditions not those of the test and the value calculated is independent of test
conditions. The test cycle should be conducted at a late stage in the test, at a test
pressure in excess of the in situ pressures, in order to obtain a good representative
value for Elastic Modulus.

13.2.8 In most cases soils and weak rocks are assumed to behave in an isotropic manner
for the determination of vertical behaviour and deformation, however, moduli
determined from pressuremeter tests obtained in the horizontal plane (attitude);
shall be carefully reviewed90 when considering either highly over-consolidated soils
or weak rocks, both of which display high degrees of anisotropic behaviour.

13.3 GENERAL CLASSIFICATION TESTS IN THE LABORATORY

13.3.1 All samples should be visually described prior to testing, and upon each subsequent
specimen taken from the sample.

13.3.2 When designing a laboratory testing sequence a list of required design parameters
and representative tests for each soil type should be drawn up. It is essential to
check the amount of material available before testing in case there is insufficient,
see Table 7.

23
13.3.3 A summary of the basic tests for Airfield Pavement Design is given in Table 10
below:
TABLE 10 - Recommended Testing

SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS OTHER LABORATORY TESTS REMARKS

TYPE

Soft to firm Moisture content liquid, plastic,
clays shrinkage limits. Bulk density
Firm to stiff Moisture content liquid, plastic,
clays shrinkage limits. Bulk density
Gravelly Moisture content, liquid and
clays plastic limits on material passing
a 425 micron sieve. Bulk
density. Particle size distribution
and sedimentation
Sands Maximum and minimum densities
and particle size distribution. In
situ density
Gravels As Above
Weak Rocks Bulk density, specific gravity,
moisture content, point load tests,
disc test, petrological examination
Quick undrained triaxial
compression test and vanes in soft
clays. Consolidation oedometer
(Swell test)
Quick undrained or consolidated
undrained triaxial compression test
with pore pressure measurement for
effective stress parameters.
Consolidation oedometer.
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial
test on 100mm specimen
Direct shear box for range of
densities
As Above
Uniaxial compression tests and
quick undrained triaxial
Refer to in situ CPT
and Pressuremeter
Refer to in situ CPT
and Pressuremeter
Refer to in situ tests
of SPT, static cone,
plate test, CBR.
As Above
Shear box tests on
cut or natural planes
/ discontinuities may
be useful

13.3.4 Together with the standard recommended tests for soils summarised in the Table
11 the following tests listed below are essential for the design of airfield
pavements:

Atterberg Limits and Soil Classification

Compaction test (with hand vane values at each Proctor point in cohesive
soils)
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) / Resilient Modulus
Permeability tests
Moisture Condition test (MCV)
Frost Susceptibility

For detailed descriptions of the tests the reader should refer to BS 1377, "British

24
 TABLE 11 - List of General Soils Testing
Test Recommended Standard for Design Statistical Number required for
Description Test Parameters confidence Limits
from Test Low Medium High
Laboratory Tests
Natural Moisture Content BS 1377:Part 2, nmc 1 2 3
Clause 3.2
Atterberg Limits BS 1377:Part 2, LL,PL,PI,LI 3 6 9
Clauses 4 and 5
Organic Matter BS 1377:Part 3, 1 3 6
Clause 3
Total Sulphates and Soluble BS 1377:Part 3, Potential aggregate and 1 3 6
Sulphates Clause 5 concrete attack
Ph value BS 1377:Part 3, Potential aggregate and 1 2 4
Clause 9 concrete attack
Chloride Content BS 1377:Part 3, Potential aggregate and 1 3 6
Clause 7 concrete attack
Compaction dry density /moisture BS 1377: Part 4, Maximum Dry Density,
content relationship Clause 3 Optimum Moisture 3 6 9
Content
Bulk Density BS 1377:Part 2, Bulk Density, Dry 1 3 6
Clause 7 Density
California Bearing Ratio BS 1377:Part 4, CBR%, Optimum
Clause 7 Moisture Content, 3 6 9
Maximum Dry Density
1-D Consolidation Properties BS 1377:Part 5, 1-3 6 9
Clause 3
Unconfined Compressive Strength BS 1377:Part 7, 1-3 6 9
Clause 7
Consolidated Drained Tnaxial BS 1377:Part 8,
Compression Clause 7 (with ru) 1-3 6 9
Clause 8 (without ru)
Permeability (Constant Head) BS 1377:Part 5, 1-3 6 9
Clause 5
Dispersibility BS 1377:Part 5,
Pinhole test Clause 6.2 Degree of Dispersibility 1-3 6 9
Crumb test Clause 6.3
Dispersion Value test Clause 6.4
Frost Susceptibility BS 1377:Part 4, Clause 7 and Frost Susceptibility 9 18 27
BS 812:Part 124
Chalk Crushing Value BS 1377:Part 4, CCV 1-3 6 9
Clause 6
Moisture Condition Value BS 1377:Part 4, MCV Value, 1-3 6 9
Clause 5 Relative Density
Particle Size Distribution (PSD) BS 1377:Part 2, Grading Curve,
Clause 9 sizes of aggregate 1-3 6 9
panicles
Hand Vane BS 1377:Part 7, cu 5 10 15
Clause 3
In Situ
California Bearing Ratio BS 1377:Part 9, CBR Value % 1-3 6 9
Clause 4.3
In situ Density BS 1377:Part 9, Relative Density, 1-3 6 9
Clause 2 (nmc)
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) BS 1377:Part 9, N Value, 3 6 9
Clause 3 (Relative Density)
Plate Bearing Test BS 1377:Part 9, Modulus of Subgrade 1 3
Clauses 4.1 Reaction (k) "
Pressuremeter CIRIA90 Shear Modulus 1 - 3

25
 Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes"16.

13.4 NOTES ON SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING CONTAMINATED

SOILS

13.4.1 General guidance on the selection of appropriate testing requirements for

contaminated land is given in ICRCL 59/8370. In practice the testing requirements
shall be related to both the historical use of the site and the observations made
during the course of the investigation. Depending on these factors a very wide
range of contaminants could be of interest including inorganic and organic
chemicals, asbestos, radioactive materials and pathogenic organisms.

26
 SECTION THREE - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

14 DESIGN PARAMETERS

14.1 THE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (k)

14.1.1 The Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) covers the determination of the vertical
deformation and strength characteristics of soil in situ by assessing the force and
amount of penetration with time when a rigid plate is made to penetrate the soil.
See British Standard BS 1377: Part 9: 1990, test 4.1 for a full description of the
test method.

14.1.2 Interpretation of the results is carried out by plotting the pressure on the plate
against settlement and the k value is taken as the slope of the line passing through
to the origin and the point on the curve corresponding to 1.27mm (0.05in)
deflection.

14.1.3 The plate loading test is carried out in situ and it is difficult to ensure that the
density and moisture content of the soils are appropriate to the post-construction
conditions17. It is best to do this test on a section prepared to the appropriate
density (e.g. during compaction trials).

14.2 THE CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR)

14.2.1 The strength of the subgrade for the design of flexible pavements is measured in
terms of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the soil. The CBR test compares
the force required to drive a plunger into the test material to a set penetration at
a given rate, with the force required to cause the same penetration in a standard
crushed limestone. A full description of the test is given in BS 1377: Part 4,
section 7. CBR tests may also be carried out in the field during the investigation
stage (In situ), which is more desirable for soils of coarse granular nature and
glacial tills.

14.2.2 The laboratory CBR test shall be carried out at a range of densities, which shall
cover the range to be achieved during the construction and for each density, at a
range of moisture contents 15% of the design optimum moisture content. This
gives a series of curves of CBR against moisture content from which a value
applicable to the required construction/design condition can be obtained. It should
be noted that the soils resistance to penetration measured by the CBR test is
dependent on the soil type and soil suction level. The soil suction potential can
greatly effect the CBR value, when tests are carried out on materials with moisture
contents of less than the Plastic Limit91. For high moisture contents or low soil
suction levels the CBR test will show low values, rapidly increasing in value with
the further reduction in the moisture content, until the soil approaches the
shrinkage limit or wilting point of vegetation (see appendix D).

14.2.3 In conditions where it is difficult to choose a design moisture content due to

variable ground water conditions, the test can be done on 4-day soaked samples in

27
 order to give a reasonably conservative value 19,20. These conditions could include:

i) Subgrade where there is a considerable variation of moisture content with

depth, in an otherwise homogenous soil. This is likely when the water table
lies near to or within the depth of soil being considered.
ii) Areas where there is a large annual variation in moisture content due to a
fluctuating water table, or possibly a spring thaw.

14.2.4 Laboratory tests on granular materials can give unrealistically high results because
of the confining effect of the test mould. In situ tests may give lower figures but
are often inappropriate because of the difficulty in testing at the relevant density
and moisture content. The British Soil Classification System can be used as a
guide to selecting a design CBR value. This Standard also recommends a
maximum design value of CBR should be restricted to 30% for unbound
constructions.

14.2.5 Selecting a representative design CBR value can be difficult if the CBR varies
considerably with depth. There is no problem if the CBR increases with depth as
the critical value is the lowest one, i.e. at the formation. If the CBR decreases
with depth (eg. a layer of sand or gravel overlying a clay), designing on a high
CBR value representative of the top layer could overstress the weaker underlying
layer, but designing for the CBR of the lower layer will lead to an uneconomic
pavement. In this situation Figs 3 and 4 can be used to obtain an equivalent CBR
for the two layer system.

14.3 COMPACTION OF SUBGRADE

14.3.1 The compaction of subgrade to a uniform profile and at a consistent density and
shear strength should be achieved to provide a formation for the subsequent
construction of the pavement layers. Compaction of the subgrade will increase its
density and shear strength characteristics and prevent excessive settlements under
traffic which may otherwise lead to the premature failure of the pavement.
Preparation of the subgrade may only require trimming and rolling (compaction),
however, it is frequently necessary to dig-out (remove) localised soft spots and
reduce the water content.

14.3.2 Control of settlement due to repetitive loading by traffic is achieved by obtaining

specific relative compaction levels in the subgrade. (See Table 12). As the
subgrade under a rigid pavement is less highly stressed than under a flexible one,
the relative compaction requirements are less stringent under rigid pavements21,22,23.

14.3.3 If the relative compaction required cannot be achieved for the natural subgrade
materials, the subgrade may be either treated by chemical mixing, see subsection
15.3 or should be removed and replaced with suitable (preferably granular) fill or
overlaid with an additional layer of suitable fill referred to as either sub-base or
base material. The aim is that the un-compacted subgrade should be at a depth
beneath the formation where the in situ relative compaction is equal to or greater
than that required. This additional material can be taken as enhancing the
subgrade, as long as the relative compactions still comply with those required at

28
 the new subgrade strength.

14.3.4 The amount of compaction possible in a soil will largely depend on the natural
density and moisture content, but certain soils raise particular problems.

These are:
i) High and Medium plasticity clays;
ii) Silts and very fine sands with a moisture content at or approaching
saturation level;
iii) Uniformly graded non-cohesive materials.

14.3.5 High plasticity and some medium plasticity clays (see the revised British Standard
Soil Classification) are liable to show a serious decrease in strength when
compacted at high moisture contents, especially when over-consolidated. In the
UK the natural moisture content of these soils is normally well above the optimum
for heavy compaction so their undisturbed densities and strengths can rarely be
improved by further compaction. In their undisturbed state, these soils give
relative compactions ranging from 85-92% and CBR's ranging from 2-5% at
typical moisture contents. From Table 12, these relative compactions are similar
to or slightly lower than those required immediately under the pavement.
However, experience in the UK has shown that rigid pavements with lean concrete
bases constructed on medium and high plasticity clays provide good long-term
performance without excessive settlement. It is recommended that construction
shall cause the least possible disturbance when constructing on these soils. Once
exposed, the subgrade shall be covered with the next construction layer as soon as
possible to protect it from the weather and to provide a working platform area for
further construction operations.

29
 TABLE 12 - Relative Compaction Requirements for Subgrade

Fill/Embankment Areas Cut Areas

Pavement Type
Cohesive Non-Cohesive Cohesive Non-Cohesive
Rigid incorporating 90% 95% The top 150 The top 600 mm
a strong cement- mm If k > 5 0 - 9 5 %
bound base If k >40-90% If k <50-90%
If k <40-85%
Rigid without 90% The top 150 mm - 98% The top 150 The top 150 mm
strong cement- The remainder - 95% mm If k >50-98%
bound base I f k >40-85% If k <50-95%
Ifk <40-80% Between 150 mm
and 600 mm
If k >50-95%
If k <50-90%
Flexible The top 225 mm - 95% The top 225 mm - 98% Ref58 Ref58
The remainder - 90% The remainder - 95%

Notes to Table 12 (table revised from reference 58)

(i) For the purpose of determining relative compaction requirements non-cohesive soils are
those for which the fraction passing 425 micron sieve size has a plasticity index (PI) of less
than 6.
(ii) The density requirements are expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density given
by BS 1377: Part Jest
(iii) See Section on Weak Subgrade if CBR value less than CBR 2%.
(iv) Subgrade which cannot realistically be compacted to the requirements in Table 12, should
be removed and replaced with fill or overlaid with additional depth of fill, sub-base or base
material. This additional depth of construction should be sufficient to ensure that the
requirements for relative compaction with depth beneath the pavement are achieved.

14.3.6 In dry climatical conditions the compaction of high plasticity and some medium
plasticity soils can present different problems (see also subsection 15.4). In the
dry season these soils will generally have a natural moisture content well below the
optimum for heavy compaction, and thus if too highly compacted they are likely
to swell in a later wet season. But if compacted at too high a moisture content,
a low dry density will be achieved and the soil is likely to shrink during a dry
period. Special care is therefore needed to achieve a moisture content and degree
of compaction which reduces subsequent swelling or shrinkage to acceptable levels.
In general the appropriate moisture content for compaction will be just above the
optimum moisture content. Chemical treatment of the soils by mixing the top layer
with either cement, bitumen or lime can frequently help reduce long term
movements within the subgrade (see subsection 15.3).

14.3.7 Silts and very fine sands with moisture contents at or approaching saturation level
cannot be compacted. If it is not practical to drain these areas or remove and
backfill them, the pavement design should be based on a very poor subgrade
strength which reflects a saturated condition. With the pavement designs being
based on a low CBR the density requirement is unlikely to be critical. To reduce

30
 the effect of poor and variable subgrade support a flexible or a rigid pavement
design may incorporate a lean concrete base, or the formations (subgrade) may be
treated by chemical stabilisation.

14.3.8 It is difficult to achieve compaction of uniformly graded non-cohesive materials.

One method of overcoming this is to compact through a thin layer (75-100mm) of
a well-graded material or capping layer. This layer will have no significant effect
on the subgrade strength (CBR or k), which should be taken as that of the
compacted underlying material.

15.0 DESIGN GUIDANCE

15.1 SUBSOIL AND SUBGRADE DRAINAGE

15.1.1 This standard that has already indicated the strength of the subsoil may be greatly
affected by the influence of excessive moisture content, high groundwater table,
artesian pressures, springs and issues. Protection of the subgrade by drainage is
therefore highly recommended and desirable for several reasons:

i) To increase subgrade strength by reducing the moisture content of the soils

ii) To reduce the chances of the moisture content increasing above that
assumed in the selection of a design subgrade strength.
iii) To drain the formation and pavement layers during construction.
iv) To drain any unpaved shoulders after construction.
v) To drain granular layers in an unbound pavement structure after
construction. In this case the drainage is more likely to be essential rather
than desirable as explained in paragraph 15.1.5.

15.1.2 There are a number of reasons for changes in the moisture content of subgrade,
including:

Seepage flow from higher ground adjacent to the pavement.

ii) Changes in the water table level.
iii) Transfer of moisture to and from soil adjacent to the pavement.
iv) Percolation of moisture through the pavement.

15.1.3 Maximum benefit can be obtained from subsoil drainage if it is designed to reduce
the moisture content of the soils prior to and during construction (e.g. by stopping
seepage flow or lowering the water table). After construction the drainage should
work to maintain the moisture content at or below that achieved during
construction (e.g. by continuing to stop seepage flow, by preventing a rise in the
water table or by removing water entering through the pavement or from the
adjacent soil).

15.1.4 It is possible to drain the formation and pavement layers during construction by
shaping and by protecting the formation and installing subsoil drains before
construction starts.

31
15.1.5 The large width of runways and other airfield pavements often make it uneconomic
to lower or control the water table because the shape of the drawdown curve would
require drains to be installed at impracticable depths. In this case the pavement
should be designed for a high water table. However, it is important that the water
table is kept at least 300mm below granular pavement layers to prevent them
becoming saturated and to minimise the pumping of fines into the layers by
repetitive aircraft loading. A geotextile fabric can also be used as a separator to
control the latter problem72. Ideally the same control of the water table level
should be applied to other pavements to prevent undue deterioration of their
materials. If necessary, the formation should be elevated to raise the pavement far
enough above the highest likely water table.

15.1.6 In assessing whether to install subsoil drainage, careful consideration should be

given to the economic gains from potential benefits as compared to the cost of the
system. Factors to be considered include the actual effectiveness of the system
which will partly depend on the permeability of the soil, the availability of a
convenient outfall and the problems of installing drainage before the main
construction starts.

15.2 VERY WEAK SUBGRADE (EXCEPT PEAT)

15.2.1 Very weak subgrade may be considered to have CBR values of less than 3% or a
modulus of subgrade reaction of less than 20 MN/m2/m and generally include high
plasticity clays and silts either saturated or nearly saturated. The support to the
pavement provided by these soils is non-uniform. In the long-term the
performance of the pavements will therefore be unpredictable and likely to be
subject to premature localised failure.

15.2.2 Wherever practical these soils should be removed and backfilled with suitable fill
material. As a lesser alternative sub section 15.3, sets out a procedure for
improving subgrade support by overlaying with suitable fill material.

15.3 SUBGRADE IMPROVEMENT

15.3.1 On poor subgrade an economic option may be to use suitable fill material which
is available locally to improve the effective subgrade support to the pavement and
thereby reduce the thickness of pavement required. The use of geotextiles72
incorporated within fill layers may increase stability of the fill, increasing the shear
strength and providing a more uniform support to the pavement. A thick layer of
fill will provide a more uniform support to the pavement, although high plasticity
clays may suffer long term consolidation and loss of pavement shape.

15.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS

15.4.1 Some soils can show large volume changes when the moisture content changes.
This can lead to loss of uniform support to the pavement, a reduction of bearing
capacity of the soil, and bumps, hollows and cracks in the pavement. Generally
the problem is only severe in climates where a long hot dry period is followed by
a rainy season; the subgrade dries and shrinks during the hot season, but then

32
 expands rapidly as the rainy season increases the moisture content. As an
approximate guide, the Plasticity Index gives a good indication of the expansive
nature of a soil; values less than 20 are non-expansive nature of a soil; between
20 and 40 are moderately expansive; and above 40 can be highly expansive. For
a more accurate assessment a technique related to the shrinkage limit and expected
range of moisture content is described in Reference 18 and 59. Problems can also
occur if an expansive soil is compacted in too dry a condition or allowed to dry out
during construction.

15.4.2 The effect of expansive soils can be much reduced by careful control of moisture
content during construction and the degree of compaction achieved, (see paragraph
14.3). If future expansion is still likely to be excessive, soil swell can be limited
by, for example, providing sufficient fill/overburden.

15.4.3 The support to pavements may be improved by the use of chemical stabilisation
increasing the soils strength by mechanical mixing (generally only 5 % by volume)
with cement or lime this technique can generate tenfold increases in the strength
of the materials. Careful consideration must be given to the fluctuations and levels
of the groundwater table. Highly plastic soils may have their plastic behaviour
reduced by the addition of lime, whereas volcanic soils frequently benefit from
cement or lime additions. For less plastic soils bitumen stabilisation may give
better results. Special consideration should be given to soils of the andosol group,
which generally have a loosely cemented soil fabric that quickly collapses when
used as fill and dried out.

15.5 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY

15.5.1 For the United Kingdom and similar temperate climates, material placed within
450mm of the surface of the pavement may be subject to freezing. Hence in areas
where frost susceptible soils will lie immediately below the formation a minimum
of 450mm of pavement construction shall be provided irrespective of all other
considerations.

15.5.2 Tests for frost susceptibility have been carried out by TRRL on a variety of
materials used as subgrade, sub-bases and bases both in research and during
routine testing for motorway and trunk road project.s Test results and other
aspects of frost susceptibility are contained in TRRL Report No LR9025 . The
Frost Test method described in LR90 has been superseded by that in a
Supplementary Report 82926 and BS 812, Part 124.

15.5.3 Soils which commonly exhibit a tendency to be frost susceptible include:

Cohesive soils with plasticity index less than 15% (well drained soils) or
20% (poorly drained soils - within 600mm of the water table)
crushed chalk
Burnt colliery shale
Limestone gravels with aggregate saturation moisture content greater than
2 percent.
Hard limestones with more than 2% aggregate saturation moisture content.

33
 Oolite and Magnesium Limestones with more than 3 % aggregate saturation
moisture content.
Pulverised fuel ash with more than 40% passing a 200 micron sieve.

15.6 PEAT

15.6.1 Subgrades of peat are highly compressible and have very little bearing capacity.
Pavements constructed on them can suffer from serious differential settlement, so
peat should usually be removed and replaced with a suitable fill. A possible option
is to surcharge the peat with fill to reduce the short term consolidation
substantially. But this may make a long and phased construction necessary and in
the long term the performance of the pavement will be less certain; there may be
localised failures and general loss of shape. This alternative should not be used
for pavements whose longitudinal and transverse profiles are critical; eg. runways
and major taxiways. Consider it, however, for stopways73.

15.7 SPRING THAW AND PERMAFROST

15.7.1 In certain parts of the world where frost conditions are severe, pavements must be
designed for the effects of spring thaw and permafrost. Both the spring thaw and
intermittent or partial melting of a permafrost layer can considerably reduce the
subgrade's bearing capacity which reduces the load-carrying capacity of the
pavement74.

15.8 CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

15.8.1 Experience has shown that if the moisture content of the subgrade is allowed to
increase during construction the final equilibrium strength will be lower than if it
had not. It is therefore important that the specification requirements for protecting
the formation are complied with, or the design CBR value should be reduced
accordingly.

15.8.2 Construction traffic can damage or reduce the natural strength of the subgrade.
The use of the formation in areas of cut should be restricted to the minimum plant
and equipment essential for the overlying construction. For subgrade particularly
prone to damage (e.g. high plasticity clays and silts) a working course of dry lean
concrete or granular sub-base/capping layer should be placed on the subgrade
before construction continues. In fill areas construction traffic should be restricted
to prevent damage to compacted layers and the subgrade. To allow reshaping and
recompaction, rut depths in granular layers should not exceed about 40 mm.24

16.0 AGGREGATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS

16.1 Aggregates are the basic material for pavement construction, and are prepared
from natural rock or from granular sedimentary deposits (Gravels).

16.2 The properties of gravels depend upon the parent rock constituent materials and
crystalline structure.

34
16.3 The use of aggregates in either flexible or rigid pavements design calls for a range
of different characteristics. The tests will allow prediction of the "inservice"
performance and will enable materials from different sources to be compared.

16.3 Table 13 Aggregate testing summarises the recommended tests for pavement
construction.

TABLE 13 - List of Recommended Aggregate Testing

Test Recommended Statistical Number required for

Description Standard for Test confidence Limits
Low Medium High
Physical Tests
Grading Curves (PSD) BS 812:Part 103 1-3 6 9
and BS 882
Shape Index BS 812:Part 105 3 6 9
Density BS 812 2 5 8
Water Absorption BS 812 3 6 9
Petrographic Examination BRE Digest 35 5 10 15
(ASTM C295)
Mechanical Tests
Impact Value (AIV) BS 812:Part 112 3-6 8 12
Crashing Value (ACV) BS 812:Part 110 3-6 8 12
Ten Percent Fines Value BS 812:Part 111 3-6 8 12
Franklin Point Load Test Franklin (1970) 3-6 8 12
Schmidt Rebound Number Duncan (1969) 3-6 8 12
Durabililty Tests
Abrasion Value (Aabv) BS 812:Part 113 3 6 12
Attrition BS 812 3 6 12
Los Angeles Abrasion Value ASTM-C131 3 6 12
Polished Stone Value BS 812:Part 114 3 6 12
Slake Durability Value Franklin (1970)
Rock Characterisation 3 6 12
Testing and Monitoring,
ISRM
Sulphate Content BS 812:Part 121
(Magnesium) 2 6 12
Sulphate Soundness ASTM - C88
(Sodium)
Frost Susceptibility BS 812:Part 124 3 9 18
Chemical Tests
Chloride Test BS 812:Part 117 3 9 18
Sulphate Test BS 812:Part 118 3 9 18
Organic Content BS 1377:Part 3, 3 9 18
Clause 3
Adhesion TRRL 1962 3 9 18

35
17.0 REFERENCES
1. Air Ministry Works Department. Design and Construction of Concrete Pavements. Air Publication No AP 3129A. 1945.

2. Air Ministry Works Department. Load Classification of Runways and Aircraft. Technical Publication 102. 1948.

3. Air Ministry Works Department. Airfield Evaluation. Technical Publication 104. 1952.

4. Air Ministry Works Department. The Fundamentals of Airfield Pavement Design. Technical Publication 107. 1953.

5. Air Ministry Works Department. Airfield Design and Evaluation. Technical Publication 109. 1959.

6. JL Dawson and RL Mills. Undercarriage Effects on (a) Rigid Pavements (b) Flexible Pavements. ICE Proceedings of
Symposium on Aircraft Pavement Design. 1970.

7. FR Martin, AR Macrae. Current British pavement Design. ICE Proceedings of Symposium on Aircraft Pavement Design.
1970.

8. H Jennings, FLH Straw. Strengthening of pavements. ICE Proceedings of Symposium on Aircraft Pavement Design. 1970.

9. Department of the Environment. Design and Evaluation of Aircraft Pavements 1971.

10. International Civil Aviation Organisation. Aerodrome Design Manual Parts 1-3, First Edition 1977, Second Edition 1983.

11. Bums et al. Multiple Heavy Wheel Gear Load Pavement Tests; Design, Construction and Behaviour under Traffic.
Technical Report S-71-17, Vol II, Nov 1971, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

12. Barns et al. Comparative Performance of Structural Layers in Pavement Systems. FAA Report No FAA-RD-73-198,
volume I,II,III.
13. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Procedures for Development of CBR Design Curves-Instruction Report
S-77-1. 1977.

14. International Civil Aviation Organisation. Annex 14. Aerodromes-International Standards and Recommended Practices.
Eigth Edition. 1983.

15. Civil Aviation Authority. United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication. London. 1982.

16. British Standards Institution. Methods of Tests for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes. BS1377: 1990, Parts 1 to 9.

17. Road Research laboratory. Soil Mechanics for Road Engineers. HMSO. 1952.

18. D Croney. The Design and Performance of Road Pavements. HMSO. London. 1977.

19. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Field Moisture Content Investigation, October 1945-November 1952
Phase. Report No 2. 1955.

20. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Field Moisture Content Investigation, November 1952-May 1956 Phase.
Report No.3. 1961.

21. WA Lewis. Full Scale Compaction Studies at the British Road Research Laboratory. Highways Research Board Bulletin
254. Washington. 1960.

22. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Compaction Requirements for Soil Components of Flexible Airfield
Pavements. Technical Report No 3-529. 1959.

23. WJ Tumbull and Charles R Foster. Proof Rolling of Subgrade. Highway Research Borad Bulletin 254. Washington.
1960.

24. WD Powell, JF Potter, HC Mayhew and ME Nunn. The Structural Design of Bituminous Roads. Report LR 1132.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthome, Berks. 1984.

25. D Croney and JC Jacobs. The Frost Susceptibility of Soils and Road Materials. RRL Report LR 90. Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks. 1967.

26. PG Roe and DC Webster. Specification for the TRRL Frost Heave Test, Supplementary Report 829. Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks. 1984.

27. RG Packard. Fatigue Concepts for Concrete Aircraft Pavement Design. Transportation Engineering Journal. 1974.

28. A Guide to the Testing of Airfield Pavements using the PSA Plate Bearing Test. Property Services Agency DCES Airfields
Branch. 1984.
 29. RL Hutchingson. Basis for Rigid Pavement Designs for Military Airfields. Miscellaneous Paper No 5-7. US Army Corps
of Engineers, Ohio River Institute. Washington DC. 19S8.

30. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Validation of Soil Strength Criteria for Aircraft Operations
on Unprepared Landing Strips. Technical Report No 3-554. July 1960.

31. Military Engineering Experimental Establishment. Sinkage of a Dual Aircraft Wheel Assembly. Report No 925.
Christchurch October 1965.

32. DN Brown and OO Thompson. Lateral Distribution of Aircraft Traffic. Miscellaneous Paper S-73056 July 1973. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg. 1973.

33. HM Westergaard. Stresses in Concrete Pavements Computed by Theoretical Analysis. Public Roads. Vol 7 No2. 1926.

34. G Pickett, ME Raville, WC Jones, FJ McCormick. Deflections, Movements and Reactive Pressures for Concrete
pavements. Kansas State College Bulletin 65. October 1951.

35. RG Packard. Computer Programme for Airport Pavement Design. Portland Cement Association. Chicago, Illinois. 1967.

36. G Pickett. Concrete Pavement Design, Appendix HI: A Study of Stresses in the Comer Region of Concrete Pavement
Slabs under Large Comer Loads. Portland Cement Association, Skorkie. 1946.

37. US Army Corps of Engineers. Final Report on the Dynamic Loading of Concrete Test Slabs - Wright Field Slab Tests.
Ohio River Division Laboratories, Mariemont, Ohio. August 1943.

38. R H Ledbetter. Pavement response to Aircraft Dynamic Loads. FAA Report No FAA-RD-74-39-m. June 1973.

39. Highway Research Board. Joint Spacing in Concrete Pavements: 10 year Reports on Six Experimental Projects. Research
Report 17-B. 1956.

40. BE Colley and HA Humphrey. Aggregate Interlock in Joints in Concrete Pavements. Highway Research Record Number
189. 1967.

41. LD Childs. Effect of Granular and Soil-Cement Sub-bases on Load Capacity of Concrete Slabs. Journal of the PCA
Research and Development Laboratories, Vol 2, No 2. 1960.

42. LD Childs and JW Kaperick. Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on Gravel Sub-bases. Proceedings ASCE, Vol 84 (HW3).
October 1958.

43. LD Childs. Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on Cement Treated Sub-bases. Highway Research Record 60, Highway
Research Board. 1964.

44. LD Childs. Cement Treated Sub-bases for Concrete Pavements. Highway Research Record 1989, Highway Research
Board. 1967.

45. Air Ministry Works Department. Investigation into the Value of Lean Concrete as a Base in Rigid Pavements. Air Ministry
Tech Memo No 4. 1955.

46. RD Bradbury. Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Wire Reinforcement Institute. Washington DC. 1938.

47. LW Teller and EC Sutherland. The Structural Design of Concrete Pavements. Public Roads Vol 16, No 8,9 and 10, 1935;
Vol 17 No 7 and 8, 1936; and Vol 23, No 8, 1943.

48. J Thomlinson. Temperature Variations and Consequent Stresses Produced by Daily and Seasonal Temperature Cycles in
Concrete Slabs. Road Research Laboratory. June 1940.

49. US Army Corps of Engineers. Lockbourne No. 1 Test Track. Final Report. Ohio River Division Laboratories, Mariemont,
Ohio. March 1946.

50. Charles R Foster and R G Ahlvin. Notes on the Corps of Engineers CBR Design Procedures. Highways Research Board
Bulletin 210, Washington, 1959.

51. FR Martin. A Heavy-Duty Airfield pavement Embodying Soil Stabilisation. ICE. Airport Paper 34.

52. MA Napier. A Report on the Testing of Stabilised Soil Airfield Pavements 1955-60. MEXE Report No 592.

53. British Standards Institution, "Code of Practice for Site Investigation", BS 5930: 1981.

54. British Standards Institution "Code of Practice for Earthworks", BS 6031: 1981.
29. RL Hutchingson. Basis for Rigid Pavement Designs for Military Airfields. Miscellaneous Paper No 5-7. US Army Corps
of Engineers, Ohio River Institute. Washington DC. 1958.

30. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Validation of Soil Strength Criteria for Aircraft Operations
on Unprepared Landing Strips. Technical Report No 3-554. July 1960.

31. Military Engineering Experimental Establishment. Sinkage of a Dual Aircraft Wheel Assembly. Report No 925.
Christchurch October 1965.

32. DN Brown and OO Thompson. Lateral Distribution of Aircraft Traffic. Miscellaneous Paper S-73056 July 1973. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg. 1973.

33. HM Westergaard. Stresses in Concrete Pavements Computed by Theoretical Analysis. Public Roads. Vol 7 No 2. 1926.

34. G Pickett, ME Raville, WC Jones, FJ McCormick. Deflections, Movements and Reactive Pressures for Concrete
pavements. Kansas State College Bulletin 65. October 1951.

35. RG Packard. Computer Programme for Airport Pavement Design. Portland Cement Association. Chicago, Illinois. 1967.

36. G Pickett. Concrete Pavement Design, Appendix HI: A Study of Stresses in the Corner Region of Concrete Pavement
Slabs under Large Comer Loads. Portland Cement Association, Skorkie. 1946.

37. US Army Corps of Engineers. Final Report on the Dynamic Loading of Concrete Test Slabs - Wright Field Slab Tests.
Ohio River Division Laboratories, Mariemont, Ohio. August 1943.

38. R H Ledbetter. Pavement response to Aircraft Dynamic Loads. FAA Report No FAA-RD-74-39-III. June 1973.

39. Highway Research Board. Joint Spacing in Concrete Pavements: 10 year Reports on Six Experimental Projects. Research
Report 17-B. 1956.

40. BE Colley and HA Humphrey. Aggregate Interlock in Joints in Concrete Pavements. Highway Research Record Number
189. 1967.

41. LD Childs. Effect of Granular and Soil-Cement Sub-bases on Load Capacity of Concrete Slabs. Journal of the PCA
Research and Development Laboratories, Vol 2, No 2. 1960.

42. LD Childs and JW Kaperick. Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on Gravel Sub-bases. Proceedings ASCE, Vol 84 (HW3).
October 1958.

43. LD Childs. Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on Cement Treated Sub-bases. Highway Research Record 60, Highway
Research Board. 1964.

44. LD Childs. Cement Treated Sub-bases for Concrete Pavements. Highway Research Record 1989, Highway Research
Board. 1967.

45. Air Ministry Works Department. Investigation into the Value of Lean Concrete as a Base in Rigid Pavements. Air Ministry
Tech Memo No 4. 1955.

46. RD Bradbury. Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Wire Reinforcement Institute. Washington DC. 1938.

47. LW Teller and EC Sutherland. The Structural Design of Concrete Pavements. Public Roads Vol 16, No 8,9 and 10, 1935;
Vol 17 No 7 and 8, 1936; and Vol 23, No 8, 1943.

48. J Thomlinson. Temperature Variations and Consequent Stresses Produced by Daily and Seasonal Temperature Cycles in
Concrete Slabs. Road Research Laboratory. June 1940.

49. US Army Corps of Engineers. Lockbourne No. 1 Test Track. Final Report. Ohio River Division Laboratories, Mariemont,
Ohio. March 1946.

50. Charles R Foster and R G Ahlvin. Notes on the Corps of Engineers CBR Design Procedures. Highways Research Board
Bulletin 210, Washington, 1959.

51. FR Martin. A Heavy-Duty Airfield pavement Embodying Soil Stabilisation. ICE. Airport Paper 34.

52. MA Napier. A Report on the Testing of Stabilised Soil Airfield Pavements 1955-60. MEXE Report No 592.

53. British Standards Institution, "Code of Practice for Site Investigation", BS 5930: 1981.

54. British Standards Institution "Code of Practice for Earthworks", BS 6031: 1981.
55. Institution of Civil Engineers. Site Investigation Steering Group. Site Investigation in Construction (1993)
Volume 1 - Without Site Investigation Ground is a Hazard
Volume 2 - Planning Procurement and Quality Management
Volume 3 - Specification for Ground Investigation
Volume 4 - Guidelines for the Safe Investigation of Drilling of Landfills and Contaminated Land

56. CIRIA (Weltman AJ and Mead JM). Site Investigation Manual. Special Publication 25 PSA Civil Engineering Technical
Guide 35, 1983.

57. British Standards Institution, Draft of Code of Practice for the Identification of Potentially Contaminated Land and its
Investigation, DD175: 1988.

58. Property Services Agency, A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evolution, 1989.

59. Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party Report, Tropical Residual Soils, Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 1990, Volume 23, No.l.

60. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, USA, Advisory Circular 150/5320-6C, Airfield Pavement Design and
Evaluation, 1978.

61. AC Meigh, Cone Penetration Testing, Methods and Interpretation, CIRIA, Ground Engineering Report: In-situ Testing,
1987.

62. N Ashford and PH Wright, Airport Engineering, J Wiley and Sons, 1979.

63. MP O'Reilly and RS Millard, Roadmaking Materials and Pavement Design in Tropical and Sub-tropical Countries, LL
Report LR 279, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1969.

64. Association of Geotechnical Specialists. The Electronic Transfer of Geotechnical Data from Ground Investigations (1992).

65. British Drilling Association. Guidance Notes for the Safe Drilling of Landfills and Contaminated Land (1992).

66. Proceedings of the Geotechnology Conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Penetration testing in the UK,
Thomas Telford, 1988.

67. CIRIA Report No. 131 (1993). The Measurement of Methane and other Gases from the Ground, D Crowhurst and SJ
Manchester.

68. Geological Society Engineering Geology Special Publication No.9, Aggregates, 1993.

69. British Standards Institute, Quality Systems, 1987

70. British Standards Institute, Code of Practice for Safety Precautions in the Construction of Large Diameter Boreholes for
Piling and other Purposes, 1978

71. IK Nixon, The Standard Penetration Test - A State-of-the-Art Report, Proc. European Symp. on Penetration Testing n,
Amsterdam, 1982, Vol 1, 3 to 24.

72. R Veldhuijzen Van Zanten, Geotextiles and Geomembranes in Civil Engineering, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 1986

73. GP Raymond, Design of Embankments on Peat, Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering Vol I, 1974, University
of Texas, American Society of Civil Eng. - Geotech. End. Div.

74. FG Bell, Ground Engineer's Reference Book, 1987, Butterworth.

75. Department of Transport, Specification and Method of Measurement for Ground Investigation, 1987.

76. ICRCL 59/83 Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of contaminated land, 2nd Edition 1987.

77. PT Sherwood, Soil Stabilisation with Cement and Lime, State of the Art Report, HMSO, 1993

78. The Influence of Trees on House Foundations, BRE Digest 298, 1987

79. A Method of Determining the State of Dessiccation in Soils, BRE IP4/93, 1993

80 WD Powell, JF Potter,HC Mathew and ME Nunn, The Structual Design of Bituminous Roads, TRRL LR1132, 1984

81 M J Dumbleton, G West, Air photograph interpretation for road engineers in Britain., TRRL LR369, 1970

82 Working Party Report: Land Surface Evaluation for Engineering Purposes, Quat. Journal of Eng. Geol., vol 15, No 4

83 CIRIA Ground Engineering Report: In-situ Testing, Cone Penetration Testing Methods and Interpretation, A.C Meigh,
1987
84 Working Party Report: The Description of rock masses for engineering purposes, Quat. Journal of Eng. Geol., vol 10, No 4

85 N Wright, Assessment of Road Surface Hardness, TRRL SR573, 1980

86 Working Party Report: The Logging of rock cores for Engineering Purposes, Quat. Journal of Eng. Geol., vol 3, No 1

87 A Sorensen, M Hayven, The Dynatest 8000 Falling Weight Deflectometer Test System, Int. Sym. on Bearing Capacity of
Roads and Airfields, Proceedings, Trondheim, 1982

88 PJ Norman, RA Snowdon, JC Jacobs, Pavement Deflection Measurements and their Application to Structural Maintenance
and Overlay Design, TRRL LR571, 1973

89 Department of Transport, Advise Note HA 25/83, Deflection Measurement of Flexible Pavements. Analysis, Interpretation
and Application of Deflection Measurements, DOT, 1983

90 CIRIA Ground Engineering Report: In-situ Testing, Pressuremeter Testing methods and interpretation, Butterworths, 1987

91 SF Brown, MP O'Reilly, The relationship between California Bearing Ratio and Elastic Stiffness for Compacted Clays,
Ground Engineering, October, 1990

92 AAB Williams, JT Pidgeon, Evapotranspiration and heaving clays in South Africa, Geotechnique, vol 33, pp 93-105

93 MJ Dumbleton, G West, Soil Suction by Rapid Method: An apparatus with extended range, Journ. of Soil Science, Vol 19,
No 1, pp 40-46
FIGURES
Appendix A Extended Casagrande Soil Classification
and CBR/k Relationship

TABLE A1 - The Extended Casagrande Soil Classification

TABLE A2 - Extended Soil Classification with Material Characteristics

Note: The use of this classification system is described in section 9.

Figure 2 - California Bearing Ratio verses Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Note: The size of plate used in the correlation was 762 mm (30 inches) diameter.
 Thickness of granular sub-base (mm)

Effect of granular sub-base on

the modulus of subgrade reaction
(k) for rigid pavements
Table A1 Extended Casagrande classification
Table A2 - Extended Soils Classification with Material Characteristics
160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Log Linear CBR (%)

CBR/k Relationship
Appendix B Standard Cone Penetrometer Charts
Identification of soils using the Dutch mechanical friction sleeve penefromefer
(from

Identification of soils using the reference test penetrometer tip ( R ) .

(a) Full scheme (after Douglas and
(b) Working version (after Roberfson and Campanella, 1983).
Appendix C Interpretation of Pavement Visual
Survey Data
OBSERVATION INTERPRETATION

Single longitudinal Indicates the onset of structural failure in a thick (> 200mm approx)
wheelpath cracks in pavement or one with a cement bound base. If cracks are narrow, then
bituminous surface this probably represents the 'critical condition of the pavement. Such cracks do not
normally 'heal in any way and deterioration is likely to progress.
Multiple wheelpath If cracks are narrow as defined in Table 3.2 then the structure is likely to be thin
cracking and crazing in and the condition may not be near failure. Wider cracks mean advanced failure of
bituminous surface a thicker structure, particularly if rutting is also present.

Longitudinal cracking Probably the location of a construction joint in one of the pavement layers.
outside the wheelpath in
bituminous surface

Short transverse cracks Unlikely to be structurally significant. Cracking has probably initiated at the surface,
in bituminous surface possibly due to faults built in during construction, e.g. roller cracks. Such cracks
will develop slowly under thermal and traffic loading, and may allow longitudinal
cracks to develop.

Long transverse cracks Indicative of a discontinuity in a lower layer. This can be a thermal crack in a
in bituminous surface cement bound roadbase, a joint in an overlaid concrete carriageway or a construction
joint in bituminous material.

In the case of cement bound roadbase, the frequency and severity of transverse
cracking gives an indication of the state of the material. Widely spaced cracks are
typical of a strong or newly laid material. The following is a guide to interpreting
crack frequency:-

Interpretation of Visual Survey Data

 Similarly, the amount of cracking is indicative of the traffic carried, as follows: -

Non Structural (narrow) ruts
Structural (wide) ruts
Longitudinal cracks in concrete pavements Represents either the onset of structural failure, differential
Mid bay/third by cracks in concrete
pavements
Joint damage in concrete pavements
The upper layers, probably the wearing course, are deforming
(rather than simply densifying) under traffic. No effect on lower
layers will usually result.
Deformation is taking place at depth within the pavement.
Significant ruts indicate structural damage, possibly due to excess
moisture in unbound materials and/or overstressing of the
subgrade.
settlement, or compression at joints. Deterioration is likely to be
rapid but sealing and stitching of cracks can reduce the crack
propagation rate. Such cracking tends to occur in underdesigned
(thin) pavements.
Thermally induced cracks in URC
pavements, a consequence of joint malfunction. They can, if left
unsealed, result in more serious distress. If sealed, then little
detriment to the pavement may result. In JRC pavements, where
cracks are expected and act as warping joints, sealing is only
necessary if the cracks are wide.
Spalling, sealant damage, stepping etc. are all indications that there
is excess movement at the joint. Load transfer is probably poor;
damage to the foundations and possibly voiding may have occurred.

Interpretation of Visual Survey Data

 VISUAL CONDITION SURVEYS
WEATHER SHEET NO OF
TEMPERATURE DATE BY
VISUAL CONDITION SURVEY OF SECTION IDENTIFIER
START NODE FINISH NODE
TOTAL LENGTH SURVEYED Km
Running
Chainage
0 10 20 30 40 50 (m)
0

Offset
(m)

10

15
Appendix D CBR versus Soil Suction Curve and Soil
Desiccation Potential
 Determination of potential expansiveness of soils
(after Van der Merwe, D.H., The prediction of
Moisture content-suction relationships for
heave from the plasticity index and percentage
Onderstepoort. Vereeniging and Welkom clays
clay fraction of soils'. The Civil Engr in S. Afr.,
(from Williams and Pidgeon).
S. Afr. Inst. Civil Engrs., 6, 103-16 (1964).

USAEWES classification of swell potential (from O'Neill and Poormoayed)

Liquid limit Plastic limit Initial (in situ) Potential swell Classification
(%) (%) suction (kPa) (%)

Less than 50 Less than 25 Less than 145 Less than 0.5 Low
50-60 25-35 145-385 0.5-1.5 Marginal
Over 60 Over 35 Over 385 Over 1.5 High

Printed in the United Kingdom for HMSO

Dd298008 8/94 C6 G3397 10170