Professional Documents
Culture Documents
II-2017
Abstract-A Prediction is a vital tool in engineering used of geo-materials used in the infrastructure. CBR is an
to take right decisions. Therefore, it is very important important parameter used in designing a pavement. To
for engineers to quickly predict the behavior of geo- determine the shear strength and stiffness modulus of
materials used in the infrastructures. California subgrade to be used in design of pavement, California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a common laboratory test, Bearing Ratio (CBR) is performed on subgrade
performed to evaluate the shear strength and stiffness material. CBR value can be directly assessed by
modulus of sub grade for the design of pavement. CBR California Bearing Ratio test. CBR test is laborious and
test is a laborious test, therefore, it is vital to develop the tedious. It usually takes four days to complete a test. So
models for quick assessment of CBR value. This study for quick assessment of CBR value, it is required to
is an attempt to develop valid models to determine the correlate the CBR value with the quickly assessable
CBR value from index properties of soil which are properties of soils. Different researchers have worked
quicker to estimate from their standard method of in this context. Various studies i.e. Black in 1962,
testing. In this study authors developed predictive Graft-Johnson & Bhatia in 1969, Agarwal and
models using 59 set of soil samples containing both fine Ghanekar in 1970 and NCHRP in 2001 [i-iv] have
grained and coarse grained soil samples. Three models focused the effect of geotechnical characteristics of
were developed and validity of these models was soils and soil types on CBR values. Many researchers
checked on 25 set of soil samples tested separately. have made attempts to develop effective correlations
Authors developed separate models for coarse grained for prediction of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) from
soil and fine grained soils. These models were index properties of soils. Black in 1962aimed to
developed, based on liquid limit and plasticity index for develop an approximate method to quickly predict the
fine grained soil, the coefficient of uniformity and CBR value. He established predictive models to predict
maximum dry density for coarse grained soil. CBR value based on Plasticity index [i]. Agarwal and
Ghanekar in 1970 established a relation between CBR
Keywords-Prediction,California Bearing Ratio, Fine value and different index properties of soil [iii].
Grained Soil, Coarse Grained Soil, Liquid limit, Following prediction model was proposed using liquid
Plasticity index, Coefficient of Uniformity, Maximum limit and optimum moisture content.
Dry Density
CBR = 2 16 log(OMC) + 0.07LL (1)
I. INTRODUCTION
Yildirim & Gunaydin (2011) proposed following
Geotechnical engineers should play a vital role in correlation for CBR soaked value with index properties
planning and designing of infrastructures. A prediction of fine grained soils [iv].
is an important tool in engineering used to take right
decisions. Therefore, it is very important for CBR=0.62OMC+58.9MDD+0.11LL+0.53PL-126.18
Geotechnical engineers to quickly predict the behavior (2)
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE MODELS CORRELATING CBR AND INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOILS
No. of
Equation R2 Remarks Country Reference
Materials
17
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
Fine grained,
cohesive
CBR = 4.5 [(20-GI)/18]2 NA NA Australia [vii]
soils with
CBR ≤ 20%
CBR=96.3–17.8Log[(LSP)(P425)0.7] 28.7Log(P200) 0.69
0.5
CBR=97.7–17.1Log[(PI)(P425) ]–30.7Log(P200) South
NA 0.66 NA [vii]
Africa
CBR=90– 47.4Log (P200) 0.59
CBR = 13.56+1.04 (PL)
CBR = 28.87+0.22 (LL)
CBR = -70.22+50.28 (MMD)
CBR = 10.91+9.42 (SG) lateritic soil Osogbo,
08 NA [viii]
CBRu= 65.31+0.8 (PL) (A-2-4) Nigeria
CBRu= 83.19+0.031(LL)
CBRu= 65.88+8.66 (MMD)
CBRu = 56.19+10.43 (SG)
Log10(CBR) = 0.29(GM) - 0.024( PI) +1.23 NA NA Base course material NA [ix]
CBR=0.064(F)+0.082(S)+0.033(G)-0.069(LL) + 0.157(PL)-1.810
25 0.92 Fine Grained Soil India [x]
(MDD)-0.061(OMC)
CBR=(1.44-4.23PI)[Fs+264PI2-56PI-5] Fine Grained Soils
24 NA (Silty Clay) Sudan [xi]
CBRu=(8.44-16.1PI)[Fi+488PI2-314PI+45]
CBR=-0.889(WLM)+45.616
NA 0.979 NA NA [xii]
where, WLM= LL (1 – P425/100)
Where: CBR = California Bearing Ratio (soaked), %; wPI = Weighted Plasticity index; MDD=Maximum dry density; OMC=Optimum Moisture Content; GI=group
index; CBRu = unsoaked CBR; LL = Liquid limit; PL = Plastic limit; PI=Plasticity index; SG = Specific gravity; LSP = Linear shrinkage P200 = passing No. 200 U.S.
sieve, %; GM = grading modulus; P425 = passing sieve size 0.425 mm; F=Fines, %; S=Sand, %; G=Gravel, %; Fi=initial state factor; Fi=soaking state factor.
Nugroho et.al (2012) compared value of CBR models have their own limitations. Hence, while
given byun-soaked and soaked test and proposed adopting any prediction model, calibration of the
following linear correlation of un-soaked and soaked models based on local materials is essential. Otherwise
CBR value with Index properties of soils [v]. a new model should be developed based on the actual
data. No such attempt is made to develop prediction
CBR = 25+C1 C2LL C3PI + 3.5OMC (3) models for CBR value using locally available geo-
materials in Pakistan. The aim of this study is to
Where C1,C2, C3,are coefficients depend upon the develop valid prediction models using locally available
clay fraction. geo-materials in Pakistan.
Prediction models for CBR value documented in
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program II. METHODOLOGY
(2001) of United States of America through the “Guide
for Mechanical-Empirical Design of New and To achieve the objectives of the research study, soil
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures” are the most cited samples of varying geotechnical characteristics were
models [ii]. Prediction model based on plasticity index collected from different parts of Pakistan as shown in
is quoted for fine grained soil and for coarse grained Fig. 1. Total 84 number of soil samples were collected
soil (wPI = 0)D60,diameter at 60% passing from grain from different projects among which 43 samples were
size distribution is used as predictor. of fine grained soil and 41 were of coarse grained soil.
Fig. 2 shows testing program for the present study.
75
CBR = (4)
1 + 0.728wPI
0.358
CBR = 28.09D60 (5)
18
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
19
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
TABLE II
LABORATORY TEST RESULT DATA
Classification Soaked
Grain Size Compaction
Symbol LL PI CBR
Distribution Characteristics
Value
Number
Fines, γd
Gravel Sand OMC CBRs
(USCS) (%) (%) F200 max
(lb/ft3)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
For coarse grained soil sample relationship was goodness of fit statistics checked according to the the
established between CBRsoaked Value and D60 as conceptual criteria proposed by Pellinen, and shown in
shown in Fig. 7. The value of R2 is very low (R2 = Table III was used to select the best model [xxiii].
0.019) indicating high scatter in data and very poor Linear Regression estimates the coefficients of the
relationship. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value linear equation, involving one or more independent
and coefficient of uniformity Cu was also established variables that best predict the value of the dependent
as shown in Figure 8. It was observed that with increase variable. Regression analysis gives the different
in the value of coefficient of uniformity Cu, equations by correlating CBR values with different
CBRsoaked Value tends to increase. A high value of R2 groups of soil properties.
was observed (R2 = 0.810) indicating less scatter in
data and good strength of correlation between Cu and TABLE III
CBRsoaked value. CRITERIA FOR GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTICAL
PARAMETERS [XXIII]
V. DEVELOPMENT OF PREDICTION MODELS Criteria R
2
20
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
Fig. 3. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value (%) and Percentage Fines (%)
Soaked California Bearing Ratio, CBRs (%)
15 R2 = 0.342
12
9
6
3
0
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Maximum Dry Density, MDD (pcf)
Coarse Grained Soil (CGS) Fine Grained Soil (FGS)
Linear (Coarse Grained Soil (CGS)) Linear (Fine Grained Soil (FGS))
Linear (Overall)
Fig. 5. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value (%) and Maximum dry density (pcf)
21
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
15
(%)
6
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Liquid Limit,LL (%)
Fig. 6. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value (%) and Liquid limit (%)
15
Soaked California Bearing Ratio, CBRs
12
CBRs = -0.5746PI + 14.247
R2 = 0.8949
9
(%)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plasticity Index, PI (%)
Fig. 7. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value (%) and Plasticity Index (%)
40
Soaked California Bearing Ratio, CBRs
35
30
20
15
10
0
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
D60
Fig. 8. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value (%) and D60 (%)
22
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
40
25
(%) 20
15
10
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Cu
Fig. 9. Relationship between CBRsoaked Value (%) and Cu
Following correlations were developed for fine described above. It was observed that among all the
grained soils having F200≥50%; developed models equation 6 and equation 7 showed
high degree of scatter around equality line. While
2
CBRs0.43LL20.52 (R =0.85) (6) equations 8, 9 and 10 showed less scatter around
2
CBRs0.58PI 14.25 (R =0.85) (7) equality line as shown in Fig. 8, 9 and 10.
2
CBRs0.10LL 0.425PI + 15.73 (R =0.9) (8) Based on the above discussion three models are
proposed for the prediction of soaked CBR Value. The
Where for coarse grained soil having F200<50%; first model is for fine grained soils having F200≥50%,
Whereas, the next two models are for coarse grained
CBRs0.7Cu8.5 (R2=0.8) (9) soil having F200<50%.
CBRs0.7Cu0.045MDD + 3.4 (R2=0.8) (10) 2
Predictive Model R Percentage
Where; Error
CBRs is soaked value of California Bearing Ratio (%)
LL is Liquid Limit (%) CBRs0.10LL 0.425PI + 1 0.9 ± 8%
PI is Plastic Limit (%) CBRs0.7Cu8.5 0.8 ± 9%
Cuis Coefficient of Uniformity
MDD is Maximum Dry Density (pcf) CBRs0.7Cu0.045MDD + 3.4 0.8 ± 7%
23
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
plotted in Fig. 11 for comparison with the predictive study shows less percentage error than other model in
model developed in the present study for fine grained literature, as shown in Fig. 11.
soil. It appears that the model developed in the present
TABLE IV
VALIDITY DATA FOR FINE GRAINED SOILS
Soil No. of Gravel Sand Fines,
Type Samples (%) (%) F200 (%) LL PI CBRs (%)
TABLE V
VALIDITY DATA FOR COARSE GRAINED SOILS
Soil No. of Gravel Sand Fines, MDD
Type Samples (%) (%) F200 (%) Cu 3 CBRs (%)
(lb/ft )
SP 2 0 91-99 1-9 2-5 110-112 10.6-11
SM 8 0-27 42-91 1-43 0.5-40 110-137 9-34
SC 2 12-21 42-45 42-45 8.4-25 120-140 15-30
32
30 CBRs = 0.7C u + 8.5
28 e
Percentage Error = ± 9% Lin
26 1:1
24
Predicted CBRs (%)
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
ope
8 vel
6 En
4 ±9%
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Experimental CBRs (%)
Fig. 10. Validity check for Eq. 9
32
30 CBRs = 0.7C u + 0.045 MDD+3.414
28 e
Percentage Error = ± 7% Lin
26 1:1
24
Predicted CBRs (%)
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
Present Study, Eq 10
6 ope
vel
4 En NCHRP (2001), Eq 3
2 ±7%
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
24
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
VII. MODEL IMPLICATION performing the laboratory CBR tests. The prediction of
shear strength and stiffness modulus of sub grade
Because of the involvement of more than one material will help in the selection of suitable subgrade
variable in the predictive models the accurate material. Predictive curves are the graphical
prediction of the values of soaked CBR (%) becomes calculating chart, a 2D diagram designed to perform the
generally difficult. However, the predictive model approximate graphical computation of a mathematical
presented in the present study are simple and can be model or function, used for the quicker estimation. For
effectively used for the prediction of the CBRS values quick and easy computation, predictive curves are
for fine grained as well as coarse grained soils with presented based on the models developed for fine
reasonable accuracy. These models would be very grained and coarse grained soils, as shown in Fig. 12
useful in the quick evaluation of shear strength and and 13.
stiffness modulus of sub grade at the site without
2
24
4
0 14
CBRs (%)= -0.10LL - 0.452PI + 15.773
16
12
80 lb/ft 3
150 lb/ft 3 22
27
CBRs (%)= 0.7C u + 0.045 MDD+3.414
Fig. 13. Predictive Curve for Coarse grained soils (Eq. 10)
25
Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan Vol. 22 No. II-2017
26