Cote, B; Robinson, B; Gabr, M A and Borden, R H (2013) Performance-cost analysis of stabilized undercut subgrades. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(2), pp. 121-127. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
An approach for comparatively evaluating the performance cost of undercut subgrade stabilization measures is presented. The performance-cost analysis coupled results from laboratory cyclic load testing with material prices and estimated cost factors for stabilization alternatives. The study utilized data from 22 simulated undercut sections with different stabilization configurations over a soft subgrade with a California bearing ratio of approximately 2.0%. The computed cost factors are normalized with respect to the rut-depth magnitude and subgrade strength. Sections with lime-stabilized subgrade were the most economical with respect to initial and postrut repair cycles. Unreinforced aggregate based course (ABC) sections between 356 and 508 mm (14 and 20 in.) in thickness were economical during initial cycles. Sections with geosynthetic reinforcement showed that once enough rut depth is induced to mobilize the strength of the reinforcement, economical performance was comparable with other stabilization measures excluding lime-stabilized subgrade. When the ABC layer was thicker [between 457 and 508 mm (18 and 20 in.)], differences in the reinforcement type were less significant. Tests with 914 mm (36 in.) select fill overlaid by 76 mm (3 in.) ABC stabilization exhibited a high unit cost but were moderately economical. This study shows the advantage of including performance aspects, such as rut depth and subgrade strength, when considering the overall cost of stabilization.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; cost; cyclic; geosynthetics; lime; rutting; soil; stabilization; strength; subgrade |
| Index terms: | stabilization, testing, reinforcement, aggregate, cost factor, geosynthetic reinforcement, repair, unit cost, configuration, lime, thickness, cost analysis, laboratory |
| Subjects: | building materials, financial and cost management, economic analysis, professional practice, materials science, geotechnical engineering, research management, systems engineering, maintenance engineering, economics |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here