Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALONG THE

CANAL

Daljeet Singh, A.E. PWD,B&R Punjab, daljitsidhu@hotmail.com

J.N.Jha, Professor and Head Deptt.of Civil Engg.,GNDEC,Ludhiana,India, Email: jagadanand@gmail.com
K.S.Gill,, Associate Professor,Deptt. Of Civil Engg.GNDEC,Ludhiana,India, Email:kulbirgillkulbir@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT: Government of Punjab (GOP), in their 10th Five-Year Plan identified road sector as one of
the main component to boost the growth rate in the state. Because of low land to population ratio, land
cost is very high and ribbon development along road sides has further complicated the process of up-
gradation and widening of the existing roads of Punjab. Keeping in view the above , the government of
Punjab has proposed to develop a new road network along the major canals where sufficient land is
available to construct roads. But it has been observed in the past that failure of roads along water bodies
such as canal, lake and pond etc.is very common. Therefore it becomes utmost important to identify the
causes of road failures along the canal and to find their possible solutions. During the construction of
canal embankments, economic considerations compels the designer to utilize the locally available soil
from cutting and only the balance required soil is transported from some borrow areas. Thus the final
embankment always consists of different types of soil which will exhibit different engineering
characteristics when subjected to loads. The index and other engineering properties of such soils which
actually act as subgrade for roads are highly erratic. Paper reports the correlations of CBR value with
DCPI both in the field and laboratory.

INTRODUCTION saturated for an appreciable length of time. During

The fluctuating location of phreatic line, variation
in capillary saturation zone leads to moisture
content variation in the subgrade soil which
adversely affects the physical properties of the soil
causing failure of roads at such locations. As the
canals are aligned keeping in view the irrigation
requirement of any area and the natural slope of the
terrain governs the cutting and filling along that
particular alignment. Basically most of the soil
deposits in Punjab consist of alluvial soils which
are highly heterogeneous in nature both in
horizontal and vertical direction.The design of new
flexible pavements and rehabilitation of existing
pavements needs an accurate estimation of CBR
value. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is a
measure of the strength of the sub- grade and is
used to design the thickness of road pavements
built over the soil. However, the strength of the
sub-grade and hence its CBR value are affected
by the soil moisture content and can decrease
significantly, if the sub-grade soil remains
the design of new pavements or strengthening of
existing one worst possible environmental
condition to be faced by the highway during its
design life should be simulated. Therefore in situ
CBR tests has to be conducted after saturating the
existing subgrade. However, it is very difficult to
conduct a field soaked CBR test and is almost
impractical in many situations where effective
drainage layer is available and water table or
capillary saturation zone is at depth. On the other
hand in case of a laboratory CBR test specimens
after being moulded at insitu density tend to give
higher values of CBR than those obtained in the
field especially for sandy soils [1]. The difference
is due to the confining effect of rigid mould in
laboratory tests. Again in field CBR tests, many
times misleading CBR value is obtained, whenever
piston tip rests on a small stone present in the
subgrade soil. In the design of overlays generally
Benkelmans beam method and Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) are used but these methods

Page 1 of 5
Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha & K.S.Gill
are sophisticated and time consuming. In the
present scenario when roads are to be constructed
along canal banks comprehensive quality control
plan needs to be exercised which can only be
possible by exploring the use of simple, less time
consuming and economical testing techniques. [2]
has successfully used dynamic cone
penetrometer(DCP) for estimating the strength of
soil. The study was mainly in relation to
application in design and strengthening of existing
pavements. Some of the work regarding correlation
between DCPT and CBR has been reported in
literature [3,4] but the conditions considered were
not simulating the actual highway condition.
Keeping in view the above stated limitations of
field as well as laboratory CBR tests, it was
decided to conduct dynamic cone penetration test
(DCPT) and CBR tests at similar conditions both
in laboratory and in field simultaneously to find the
possibility of developing simple relationship that
could be used to evaluate the field CBR. The DCP
test values can be used to estimate the CBR values
provided an acceptable relationship exists between
the CBR and the DCPI value. Development of any
such relationship may become very effective tool
for highway engineers. The other benefits of the
relationship are the following: (a) It may help
enhancing highway construction quality control;
(b) It may help ensuring long-term pavement
performance and stability; and (c) It may help in
achieving more uniform structural properties. In
the present study DCP tests were conducted along
the 8 Km long stretch of the left bank of Sidhwan
canal passing through the southern part of
Ludhiana city (Punjab) for widening and
strengthening of the existing road. Total 8 locations
were earmarked at an interval of one Km after
visiting the site. The interval was decided based on
uniformity of soil available along the whole
stretch. The present study describes a series of
DCP tests conducted at insitu conditions and
soaked in situ condition. In addition to the above
field test, laboratory soaked CBR tests moulded at
insitu density were also carried out and the results
obtained from the tests were presented and
discussed. It is also important to note that by
exercising little extra care some limitations of the
DCP test such as blunting of cone due to its
repeated use and inadequate fall of hammer were
overcomed.
Experimental Work
The DCP tests were conducted according to the
procedure laid down in [5] and [6]. The apparatus
consists of 16mm diameter steel rod in which a
tempered steel cone with a 20 mm base diameter
and a 60 degree point angle is attached. The DCP
is driven into the soil by a 8kg hammer with a free
fall of 575mm. The hammer correction factor is
unity for 8kg hammer. The DCP index or reading
is defined as the penetration depth (D) in mm for a
single drop of hammer. The cone is driven in to the
ground upto the desired depth and average DCP
index is calculated for a single blow. Depth of
penetration considered in the study was 300mm,
two layers of 150 mm each of soil subgrade.
Field and Laboratory Tests
Following tests were conducted during the course
of this study:
Sieve analysis
Atterbergs limit test
Modified Procter compaction test
In situ density test (Sand replacement
method)
DCP test (In situ saturated)
DCP test (mould, in saturated condition)
Laboratory CBR test (at in situ density).
In situ CBR test (saturated condition)
Test Procedure and Sample Preparation
The experimental study involved performing a
number of field and laboratory CBR tests and DCP
tests at artificially saturated condition and insitu
dry density of soil subgrade was also determined.
The dynamic cone penetrometer was directly
placed on the subgrade and the test was started by
sliding the hammer. Soil resistance was measured
in terms of penetration as mm/blow. For every
location three points were tested and average value
was considered for the determination of DCPI.
Since the imprint area of the cone tip for the first
blow is smaller than that of subsequent blows the
penetration of the first blow was discounted. The
number of blows were counted for top 150 mm
(designated as the top layer) penetration of the
Page 2 of 5
 Geotechnical aspects of highway construction along the canal

cone and penetration per blow was calculated and Y1= 0.1943xm2 - 6.7988xm + 71.628 (1)
the same procedure is repeated for lower 150 mm
layer(designated as bottom layer). The second where
layer was tested to study the effect of underneath Yl = Laboratory CBR at field density saturated for
soft layer on field CBR [7]. To conduct soaked in 24 hours
situ DCP test and in-situ saturated CBR, a small and
area of 3mx3m was flooded with water by making xm =DCPI of soil compacted in mould at field
small dykes around that area. As the soil was silty density and saturated for 24 hours in mm/blow .
sand, water was kept flooded for 24 hours before
conducting the tests. Rest of the field and In Figure-2, field DCPI values were plotted against
laboratory tests were conducted as per the relevant field CBR values of the subgrade soil artificially
Indian Standard Codes. saturated for 24 hours . Similarly the variation can
be expressed by a polynomial equation as given
RESULTS and DISCUSSION below
The most important parameter to evaluate subgrade
strength for the pavement design is the CBR value, yf = 0.1918xf2 - 6.4346xf + 68.081 (2)
that would actually be available to support the
pavement and traffic load. In case strata below the where
subgrade is weak the available subgrade is always yf = Field CBR at surface of subgrade with known
less than the anticipated from laboratory test hence dry density and artificially saturated for 24 hours
the term effective CBR is taking place in pavement and
design. In this study efforts has been made to xf = DCPI of soil at surface of subgrade with
correlate DCPI with effective CBR. The results of known dry density and artificially saturated for 24
various tests conducted in the field and laboratory hours in mm/blow .
are given in Table 1.
It can be observed from the results that soil is
sandy in nature for all the 8 locations with sand
content varying from 63.0% to 90%. The
atterbergs limits indicates that soil is either non
plastic or having a low plasticity index in the range
of
1% to 5%.. The in-situ density is different for
different locations varying from 16.20kN/m3 to
20.30kN/m3. In-situ moisture lies between 2.5 to
8.0%. The results further reveals that soaked
laboratory CBR value is higher than the DCP based
soaked in situ CBR value. This is attributed to the
higher confinement pressure of rigid mould in the
laboratory.

Figure-1 shows the relationship between the Fig-1, Showing the relationship between mould
laboratory DCPI value with the corresponding DCPI andLaboratory CBR
Laboratory CBR value of samples compacted at
field dry density and soaked for 24 hours. This
relationship can be expressed by means of a
polynomial equation as given below.

Page 3 of 5
 Daljeet Singh, J.N.Jha & K.S.Gill
Fig-2, Showing the relationship between field
DCPI and field CBR
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the study following conclusions can be
drawn:
1 The in-situ CBR value of sandy soils having
similar degree of saturation can be determined
quickly and with adequate accuracy using the
DCPT results.
2 Once the correlation is established between CBR
and DCP index for tests conducted under different
conditions and compaction level or in-situ density.
The soaked CBR value in the field can be
determined very quickly by conducting the in-situ
DCPT for the similar conditions.
3 Similarly laboratory soaked CBR value can be
evaluated after establishing a correlation between
DCPI and CBR sat at different compaction levels in
the laboratory.
4 Effective CBR of upper layers can be easily
verified with the help of DCPI of individual layers
from top up to intended depth.
5 For construction of new embankments or
strengthening of existing pavements, DCPT
will be a very useful tool for evaluating the
strength of sub grade in terms of CBR value.
6 It may helpful in enhancing highway construction
quality control, ensuring long-term pavement
performance, stability and achieving more uniform
structural property.
REFERENCES
1. Haison, J.A. (1987) Correlation Between
California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils
Proceeding, Institution of civil engineering,
83(2), 833-844.
2. Scala, A. J. (1956) Simple Methods of
Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone
Penetrometer.N.Z.Eng..11, No2
3. Smith,R.B and Pratt D.N. (1983) A Field
Study of In situ California Bearing Ratio and
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing for Road
Investigations. Australian Road Research, 13
No.4, 285-294.
4. Livneh, M. (1989) Validation of Correlations
Between a Number of Penetratin Tests and In
situ California Tests.Transport Research
Record, No1219, 56-67.
5. ASTM D6951/D6951M November 2009
Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement
Applications.
6. IRC SP 72-2007 Guidelines for the Design of
Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural
Roads Indian Roads CONGRESS. 2007.
7. IRC:37-2012 Guidelines for the Design of
Flexible Pavements. (Third Revision). Indian
Roads Congress 2012
8. Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N. & Gill, K.S. (2010)
Utilization of Plastic Waste for Improving the
Subgrades in Flexible Pavements
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE,
No.203.320-326.
9. Cone Penetration Report.GL-93-3.
Department of Army, Washington DC, 19.
10. Sawangsuriya, A., Wachiraporn, S. &
Sramoon, W. (2008) Assessment of Modulas
and CBR of Pavement Materials for Design
and Construction. Seminar:
11. Bureau of Materials-Analysis and Inspection
of Highways, Bangkok, Thailand, 31-50.
Page 4 of 5
 Geotechnical aspects of highway construction along the canal

Table-1: Test results at different locations (Insitu and laboratory)

Av. Sat. Mould DCPI at field density

Sat. Lab CBR @ insitu dry density

Sat. Mould DCPI at field density

OMC Optimum Moisture Content

Av. Sat. Insitu DCPI

Relative compaction
In situ bulk Density

Max. Dry Density

In situ dry density

Sat. Insitu DCPI

Sat. In situ CBR
In situ moisture
Plasticity Index
Sand content

Liquid Limit
Sample No

Silt + Clay
Layer

* % % ** kN/m3 kN/m3 % % mm/blow

4.25 T 90 10 17 NP 18.5 8 17.1 17.6 15.5 97.0 19.5 29 8.82 8.33

10.66 9.93
4.25 B 90 10 17 3 18 8 16.7 17.6 15.5 95.0 21 12.5 11.53
5.25 T 75 25 22 3 18.8 3.2 18.2 19.91 10.5 91.0 14 15 12.5 11.67
14.58 13.34
5.25 B 75 25 22 NP 19 5 18.1 19.91 10.5 91.0 13 16.66 15
6.25 T 88 12 19 NP 17.55 3.4 17 17.7 14.0 96.0 20 22 11.54 10.71
10.77 10.01
6.25 B 88 12 19 5 18 4 17.3 17.7 14.0 98.0 25 10 9.3
7.25 T 63 37 25 5 19.8 3.8 19.1 20.3 10.0 94.0 33.3 35 7.15 6.81
6.99 6.67
7.25 B 63 37 25 4 20.3 5.8 19.2 20.3 10.0 95.0 36.5 6.82 6.52
8.25 T 73 27 23 4 19.2 2.9 18.7 19.87 10.5 94.0 24.8 32 7.9 7.5
11.45 10.57
8.25 B 73 27 23 1 18.5 4 17.8 19.87 10.5 90.0 16 15 13.63
9.25 T 82 18 20 1 18 3.1 17.5 19.76 11.5 89.0 14.6 17 15 13.63
18.21 16.19
9.25 B 82 18 20 NP 17.5 2.5 17.1 19.76 11.5 87.0 12 21.42 18.75
10.25 T 99 1 16 NP 16.85 7 15.7 16 14.0 98.0 22.4 31 8.33 7.89
9.52 8.95
10.25 B 99 1 16 NP 16.2 5 15.4 16 14.0 96.0 20.6 10.7 10
11.25 T 85 15 17 NP 18.1 3.9 17.4 17.9 15.0 97.0 22.7 27 8.33 7.89
9.92 9.30
11.25 B 85 15 17 NP 17.8 4 17.1 17.9 15.0 96.0 22.3 11.5 10.71

where
*T stands for top layer and B stands for bottom layer ** NP stands for non-plastic soil

Page 5 of 5