β-Glucan as a Sustainable Alternative to Stabilize Pavement Subgrade
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Preparation
2.2. Methodology
2.3. Experimental Program
2.4. Modeling of Flexible Pavement
Mechanistic Design
- Choosing appropriate thicknesses of individual pavement layers;
- Assigning resilient modulus and Poisson’s ratio for all layers;
- Specifying the type of wheel, number of axles, tire pressure, and load per tire;
- Specifying the vertical coordinates where the critical strains are to be evaluated;
- Selection of interface condition as “fully bonded” for all of the layers;
- Trial-and-error approach until a balanced design for rutting and fatigue is obtained.
2.5. GP
2.6. Micro-Structural Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Compaction Behavior of β-Glucan-Treated Soil
3.2. Subgrade Strength of β-Glucan-Treated Soil
3.3. Micro-Structural Characterization
3.3.1. SEM
3.3.2. FTIR
3.3.3. EDS
3.4. Particle Size Analysis
3.5. Mechanistic Empirical Design
Comparison of Obtained Strains vs. Allowable Strains
3.6. Design Thickness Catalog
3.7. GP
3.8. Cost Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kasapis, S.; Norton, I.T.; Johan, B. Modern Biopolymer Science: Bridging the Divide between Fundamental Treatise and Industrial Application, 1st ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; ISBN 9780123741950. [Google Scholar]
- Kiho, T.; Sakushima, M.; Wang, S.; Nagai, K.; Ukai, S. Polysaccharides in Fungi. XXVI. Two Branched BETA -D-Glucans from Hot Water Extract of Yu Er. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1991, 39, 798–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pérez, I.P.; Rodríguez Pasandín, A.M.; Pais, J.C.; Alves Pereira, P.A. Use of Lignin Biopolymer from Industrial Waste as Bitumen Extender for Asphalt Mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Chung, M.; Park, H.M.; Song, K.-I.; Chang, I. Xanthan Gum Biopolymer as Soil-Stabilization Binder for Road Construction Using Local Soil in Sri Lanka. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 06019012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arab, M.G.; Mousa, R.A.; Gabr, A.R.; Azam, A.M.; El-Badawy, S.M.; Hassan, A.F. Resilient Behavior of Sodium Alginate–Treated Cohesive Soils for Pavement Applications. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04018361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onah, H.N.; Nwonu, D.C.; Ikeagwuani, C.C. Feasibility of Lime and Biopolymer Treatment for Soft Clay Improvement: A Comparative and Complementary Approach. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022, 15, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smitha, S.; Rangaswamy, K.; Keerthi, D.S. Triaxial Test Behaviour of Silty Sands Treated with Agar Biopolymer. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2021, 15, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keshav, N.; Prabhu, A.; Kattimani, A.; Dharwad, A.; Kallatti, C.; Mahalank, S. Enhancing the Properties of Expansive Soil Using Biopolymers—Xanthan Gum and Guar Gum. In Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moradi, G.; Shafaghatian, S.; Katebi, H. Effect of Chemical and Biological Stabilization on the Resilient Modulus of Clay Subgrade Soil. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2022, 15, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakamatsu, J.; Kim, S.; Ayarza, J.; Ramírez, E.; Elgegren, M.; Aguilar, R. Eco-Friendly Modification of Earthen Construction with Carrageenan: Water Durability and Mechanical Assessment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 139, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hataf, N.; Ghadir, P.; Ranjbar, N. Investigation of Soil Stabilization Using Chitosan Biopolymer. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1493–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lekha, B.M.; Goutham, S.; Shankar, A.U.R. Evaluation of Lateritic Soil Stabilized with Arecanut Coir for Low Volume Pavements. Transp. Geotech. 2015, 2, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jameson, G. Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design; Australia, 2013; ISBN 1876592745. [Google Scholar]
- Indian Roads Congress. IRC 37: Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements; New Delhi, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mulandi, J.; Khanum, T.; Hossain, M.; Schieber, G. Comparison of pavement design using AASHTO 1993 and NCHRP mechanistic-empirical pavement design guides. In Airfield and Highway Pavement: Meeting Today’s Challenges with Emerging Technologies; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, R.; Prozzi, J.A. Effect of Measured Three-Dimensional Tire–Pavement Contact Stress on Pavement Response at Asphalt Surface. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2037, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arimilli, S.; Nagabhushana, M.N.; Jain, P.K. Comparative Mechanistic-Empirical Analysis for Design of Alternative Cold Recycled Asphalt Technologies with Conventional Pavement. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2018, 19, 1595–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arshad, M. Development of a Correlation between the Resilient Modulus and CBR Value for Granular Blends Containing Natural Aggregates and RAP/RCA Materials. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selvi, P. Fatigue and Rutting Strain Analysis on Lime Stabilized Subgrades to Develop a Pavement Design Chart. Transp. Geotech. 2015, 2, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karim, A.A.; Bhat, R. Fish Gelatin: Properties, Challenges, and Prospects as an Alternative to Mammalian Gelatins. Food Hydrocoll. 2009, 23, 563–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreekanth, J.; Datta, B. Comparative Evaluation of Genetic Programming and Neural Network as Potential Surrogate Models for Coastal Aquifer Management. Water Resour Manag. 2011, 25, 3201–3218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gandomi, A.H.; Alavi, A.H.; Ryan, C. Handbook of Genetic Programming Applications, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 978-3-319-20882-4. [Google Scholar]
- Anandha Kumar, S.; Sujatha, E.R. An Appraisal of the Hydro-Mechanical Behaviour of Polysaccharides, Xanthan Gum, Guar Gum and β–glucan Amended Soil. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 265, 118083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaeimalek, S.; Nasouri, R.; Huang, J.; Bin-Shafique, S. Curing Method and Mix Design Evaluation of a Styrene-Acrylic Based Liquid Polymer for Sand and Clay Stabilization. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04018200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, I.; Im, J.; Prasidhi, A.K.; Cho, G.-C. Effects of Xanthan Gum Biopolymer on Soil Strengthening. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 74, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM D698–12e2; Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil using Standard Effort. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012. [CrossRef]
- ASTM D1883–16; Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
- Lekha, B.M.; Ravi Shankar, A.U.; Sarang, G. Fatigue and Engineering Properties of Chemically Stabilized Soil for Pavements. Indian Geotech. J. 2013, 43, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burmister, D.M. The General Theory of Stresses and Displacements in Layered Systems. I. J. Appl. Phys. 1945, 16, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Zeng, C.; Gao, X.; Liu, Z.; Qiu, Y. 3D FEM Analysis of Flexible Base Asphalt Pavement Structure under Non-Uniform Tyre Contact Pressure. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2019, 20, 999–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koza, J.R. Genetic Programming II, 1st ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; Volume 17, ISBN 9780262111706. [Google Scholar]
- Ng, C.W.W.; So, P.S.; Lau, S.Y.; Zhou, C.; Coo, J.L.; Ni, J.J. Influence of Biopolymer on Gas Permeability in Compacted Clay at Different Densities and Water Contents. Eng. Geol. 2020, 272, 105631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayeldeen, M.K.; Negm, A.M.; El Sawwaf, M.A. Evaluating the Physical Characteristics of Biopolymer/Soil Mixtures. Arab. J. Geosci. 2016, 9, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, Y.M.; Chang, I.; Lee, M.; Cho, G. Geotechnical Engineering Behavior of Biopolymer-Treated Soft Marine Soil. Geomech. Eng. 2019, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, D.; Bhattacharya, S. Hydrocolloids as Thickening and Gelling Agents in Food: A Critical Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galichet, A.; Sockalingum, G.D.; Belarbi, A.; Manfait, M. FTIR spectroscopic analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell walls: Study of an anomalous strain exhibiting a pink-colored cell phenotype. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2001, 197, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Theng, B.K.G. Clay-Polymer Interactions: Summary and Perspectives. Clays Clay Miner. 1982, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, Y. Gelatin–Clay Nanocomposites of Improved Properties. Polymer 2007, 48, 5369–5375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.H. Pavement Analysis and Design, 1st ed.; Pearson: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993; ISBN 9780131424739. [Google Scholar]
- Asphalt Institute. Asphalt Institute Thickness Design Manual (MS-1), 8th ed.; USA, 1970; ISBN 9781934154014. [Google Scholar]
- Otte, E.; Savage, P.F.; Monismith, C.L. Structural Design of Cemented Pavement Layers. Transp. Engrg. J. 1982, 108, 428–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddique, A.; Rajbongshi, B. An analytical study on design and analysis of stabilised rural roads. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Bangkok, Thailand, 21–24 September 2005; Volume 5, pp. 813–828. [Google Scholar]
- Ekwulo, E.O.; Eme, D.B. Fatigue and rutting strain analysis of flexible pavements designed using CBR methods. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 12, 412–421. [Google Scholar]
- Lav, A.H.; Lav, M.A. Microstructural Development of Stabilized Fly Ash as Pavement Base Material. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2000, 12, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Swaidani, A.; Hammoud, I.; Meziab, A. Effect of Adding Natural Pozzolana on Geotechnical Properties of Lime-Stabilized Clayey Soil. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2016, 8, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moayedi, H.; Mosallanezhad, M. Physico-Chemical and Shrinkage Properties of Highly Organic Soil Treated with Non-Traditional Additives. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2017, 35, 1409–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumari, N.; Mohan, C. Basics of Clay Minerals and Their Characteristic Properties. In Basics of Clay Minerals, 1st ed.; Nascimento, G.M.D., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; ISBN 9781839695650. [Google Scholar]
- Azzaroni, O.; Szleifer, I. Polymer and Biopolymer Brushes: For Materials Science and Biotechnology 2 Volume Set, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-119-45504-2. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, I.; Prasidhi, A.K.; Joo, G.W.; Cho, G.C. An Alternative Method for Soil Treatment Using Environmentally—Friendly Biopolymer. In Proceedings of the Advances in Civil, Environmental, and Materials Research (ACEM’ 12), World Congress, Seoul, Korea, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, X.; Bate, B.; Chen, R.-P.; Yang, W.; Wang, F. Physicochemical and Mechanical Properties of Polymer-Amended Kaolinite and Fly Ash–Kaolinite Mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkafoury, A.; Azzam, W. Utilize Xanthan Gum for Enhancing CBR Value of Used Cooking Oil-Contaminated Fine Sand Subgrade Soil for Pavement Structures. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biju, M.S.; Arnepalli, D.N. Effect of Biopolymers on Permeability of Sand-Bentonite Mixtures. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2020, 12, 1093–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Specific Gravity | Plasticity Index (%) | Soil Classification (ASTM D2487) | OMC * (%) | MDU # (kN/m3) | UCS (kN/m2) | CBR (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.65 | 34.1 | CH | 20 | 15.35 | 140 | 1.39 |
MSA. | CBR (%) | Amount of β-Glucan Added (%) | Grade of Bitumen | EverStressFE, εc (με) | EverStressFE, εt (με) | KENPAVE, εc (με) | KENPAVE, εt (με) | Allowable εt (με) (as per IRC: 37-2018) | Allowable εc (με) (as per IRC: 37-2018) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 573.20 | 251.00 | 613.00 | 238.40 | 266.00 | 617.70 |
10 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 483.30 | 218.00 | 530.00 | 206.00 | 222.60 | 530.10 |
15 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 422.90 | 197.00 | 474.00 | 184.90 | 200.50 | 484.70 |
20 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 390.60 | 184.00 | 444.00 | 172.90 | 186.20 | 454.90 |
25 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 358.00 | 172.00 | 413.00 | 161.60 | 175.90 | 433.10 |
30 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 341.40 | 166.00 | 393.00 | 155.60 | 167.80 | 416.00 |
35 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 325.70 | 160.00 | 383.00 | 150.70 | 161.30 | 402.10 |
40 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 311.00 | 155.00 | 369.00 | 145.70 | 155.90 | 390.40 |
45 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 300.00 | 150.00 | 358.00 | 141.40 | 151.20 | 380.40 |
50 | 7 | 1.5 | VG40 | 300.40 | 147.00 | 359.00 | 138.90 | 147.20 | 371.70 |
5 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 554.60 | 265.10 | 602.80 | 264.10 | 266.00 | 617.70 |
10 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 473.80 | 222.50 | 525.10 | 217.80 | 222.60 | 530.10 |
15 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 414.20 | 192.40 | 468.90 | 187.50 | 200.50 | 484.70 |
20 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 399.00 | 182.80 | 454.40 | 178.00 | 186.20 | 454.90 |
25 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 376.50 | 172.50 | 432.80 | 168.00 | 175.90 | 433.10 |
30 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 358.80 | 163.30 | 415.80 | 159.30 | 167.80 | 416.00 |
35 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 342.40 | 154.10 | 400.00 | 154.00 | 161.30 | 402.10 |
40 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 330.00 | 152.70 | 388.00 | 149.40 | 155.90 | 390.40 |
45 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 321.00 | 148.40 | 379.20 | 145.40 | 151.20 | 380.40 |
50 | 9 | 1.0 | VG40 | 312.20 | 144.50 | 370.70 | 141.50 | 147.20 | 371.70 |
5 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 543.10 | 265.80 | 610.60 | 262.00 | 266.00 | 617.70 |
10 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 452.70 | 220.30 | 525.80 | 214.80 | 222.60 | 530.10 |
15 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 404.90 | 195.30 | 480.90 | 190.40 | 200.50 | 484.70 |
20 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 376.00 | 175.80 | 453.70 | 134.60 | 186.20 | 454.90 |
25 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 352.30 | 162.40 | 430.60 | 159.00 | 175.90 | 433.10 |
30 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 336.50 | 156.50 | 414.70 | 153.80 | 167.80 | 416.00 |
35 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 321.50 | 151.50 | 399.70 | 148.80 | 161.30 | 402.10 |
40 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 309.90 | 146.40 | 388.10 | 144.50 | 155.90 | 390.40 |
45 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 301.20 | 142.30 | 379.30 | 134.50 | 151.20 | 380.40 |
50 | 5 | 0.5 | VG40 | 292.90 | 138.30 | 370.80 | 137.00 | 147.20 | 371.70 |
5 | 7 | 1.5 | VG30 | 562.50 | 263.00 | 602.00 | 247.90 | 266.00 | 617.70 |
10 | 7 | 1.5 | VG30 | 484.40 | 220.00 | 529.00 | 206.70 | 222.60 | 530.10 |
15 | 7 | 1.5 | VG30 | 433.30 | 197.00 | 481.00 | 185.50 | 200.50 | 484.70 |
5 | 9 | 1.0 | VG30 | 568.20 | 260.60 | 614.90 | 254.60 | 266.00 | 617.70 |
10 | 9 | 1.0 | VG30 | 475.40 | 216.20 | 525.80 | 210.60 | 222.60 | 530.10 |
15 | 9 | 1.0 | VG30 | 430.10 | 191.90 | 482.30 | 187.30 | 200.50 | 484.70 |
5 | 5 | 0.5 | VG30 | 552.00 | 259.00 | 617.40 | 252.20 | 266.00 | 617.70 |
10 | 5 | 0.5 | VG30 | 458.80 | 213.40 | 528.30 | 208.40 | 222.60 | 530.10 |
15 | 5 | 0.5 | VG30 | 417.50 | 189.10 | 484.60 | 185.10 | 200.50 | 484.70 |
Traffic Intensity, MSA | CBR (%) | Amount of β-Glucan Added (%) | Modulus of Base + Sub-Base (MPa) | Modulus of Subgrade (MPa) | Thickness of Surface Course (mm) | Thickness of Base + Sub-Base Course (mm) | Grade of Bitumen |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 7 | 1.5 | 98.98 | 41.63 | 160 | 245 | VG40 |
10 | 7 | 1.5 | 98.98 | 41.63 | 180 | 245 | VG40 |
15 | 7 | 1.5 | 99.89 | 41.63 | 195 | 250 | VG40 |
20 | 7 | 1.5 | 99.89 | 41.63 | 205 | 250 | VG40 |
25 | 7 | 1.5 | 100.78 | 41.63 | 215 | 255 | VG40 |
30 | 7 | 1.5 | 101.67 | 41.63 | 220 | 260 | VG40 |
35 | 7 | 1.5 | 102.54 | 41.63 | 225 | 265 | VG40 |
40 | 7 | 1.5 | 103.41 | 41.63 | 230 | 270 | VG40 |
45 | 7 | 1.5 | 103.41 | 41.63 | 235 | 270 | VG40 |
50 | 7 | 1.5 | 99.89 | 41.63 | 240 | 250 | VG40 |
5 | 9 | 1 | 116.97 | 44.91 | 145 | 300 | VG40 |
10 | 9 | 1 | 112.48 | 44.91 | 170 | 275 | VG40 |
15 | 9 | 1 | 106.78 | 44.91 | 195 | 245 | VG40 |
20 | 9 | 1 | 102.77 | 44.91 | 205 | 225 | VG40 |
25 | 9 | 1 | 100.69 | 44.91 | 215 | 215 | VG40 |
30 | 9 | 1 | 97.46 | 44.91 | 225 | 200 | VG40 |
35 | 9 | 1 | 98.55 | 44.91 | 230 | 205 | VG40 |
40 | 9 | 1 | 98.55 | 44.91 | 235 | 205 | VG40 |
45 | 9 | 1 | 97.46 | 44.91 | 240 | 200 | VG40 |
50 | 9 | 1 | 96.36 | 44.91 | 245 | 195 | VG40 |
5 | 5 | 0.5 | 97.88 | 35.29 | 150 | 345 | VG40 |
10 | 5 | 0.5 | 93.96 | 35.29 | 180 | 315 | VG40 |
15 | 5 | 0.5 | 90.52 | 35.29 | 200 | 290 | VG40 |
20 | 5 | 0.5 | 83.91 | 35.29 | 220 | 245 | VG40 |
25 | 5 | 0.5 | 79.12 | 35.29 | 235 | 215 | VG40 |
30 | 5 | 0.5 | 79.94 | 35.29 | 240 | 220 | VG40 |
35 | 5 | 0.5 | 80.75 | 35.29 | 245 | 225 | VG40 |
40 | 5 | 0.5 | 80.75 | 35.29 | 250 | 225 | VG40 |
45 | 5 | 0.5 | 79.94 | 35.29 | 255 | 220 | VG40 |
50 | 5 | 0.5 | 79.12 | 35.29 | 260 | 215 | VG40 |
5 | 7 | 1.5 | 103.51 | 41.63 | 195 | 215 | VG30 |
10 | 7 | 1.5 | 93.33 | 41.63 | 230 | 165 | VG30 |
15 | 7 | 1.5 | 82.85 | 41.63 | 250 | 150 | VG30 |
5 | 9 | 1 | 79.37 | 44.91 | 195 | 195 | VG30 |
10 | 9 | 1 | 88.15 | 44.91 | 230 | 160 | VG30 |
15 | 9 | 1 | 77.45 | 44.91 | 255 | 120 | VG30 |
5 | 5 | 0.5 | 81.56 | 35.29 | 205 | 230 | VG30 |
10 | 5 | 0.5 | 75.72 | 35.29 | 240 | 195 | VG30 |
15 | 5 | 0.5 | 67.29 | 35.29 | 265 | 150 | VG30 |
Statistical Parameters | Horizontal Tensile Strain, εt (με) | Vertical Compressive Strain, εc (με) |
---|---|---|
Coefficient of Determination, R2 | 0.99 | 0.98 |
Maximum Error | 12.410 | 26.153 |
Mean Squared Error (MSE) | 6.195 | 114.878 |
Mean Absolute Error (MAE) | 1.284 | 8.423 |
Coefficients | 4 | 4 |
Complexity | 15 | 13 |
S.No. | CBR of Soil | Cost of Bituminous Surfacing (INR) | Cost of Granular Layer (INR) | Transportation Cost of Granular Layer (INR50/m3) | Transportation Cost of Subgrade Soil (INR) | Total Cost (INR) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.39% | 29,567,732 | 2,156,361 | 102,188 | 137,500 | 31,963,781 |
2 | 9% | 26,487,760 | 850,674 | 40,313 | - | 27,378,747 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
M, V.; Sujatha, E.R. β-Glucan as a Sustainable Alternative to Stabilize Pavement Subgrade. Polymers 2022, 14, 2850. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142850
M V, Sujatha ER. β-Glucan as a Sustainable Alternative to Stabilize Pavement Subgrade. Polymers. 2022; 14(14):2850. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142850
Chicago/Turabian StyleM, Vishweshwaran, and Evangelin Ramani Sujatha. 2022. "β-Glucan as a Sustainable Alternative to Stabilize Pavement Subgrade" Polymers 14, no. 14: 2850. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142850