Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30526
Prediction of California Bearing Ratio from Physical Properties of Fine-Grained Soils

Authors: Bao Thach Nguyen, Abbas Mohajerani

Abstract:

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) has been acknowledged as an important parameter to characterize the bearing capacity of earth structures, such as earth dams, road embankments, airport runways, bridge abutments and pavements. Technically, the CBR test can be carried out in the laboratory or in the field. The CBR test is time-consuming and is infrequently performed due to the equipment needed and the fact that the field moisture content keeps changing over time. Over the years, many correlations have been developed for the prediction of CBR by various researchers, including the dynamic cone penetrometer, undrained shear strength and Clegg impact hammer. This paper reports and discusses some of the results from a study on the prediction of CBR. In the current study, the CBR test was performed in the laboratory on some finegrained subgrade soils collected from various locations in Victoria. Based on the test results, a satisfactory empirical correlation was found between the CBR and the physical properties of the experimental soils.

Keywords: Pavement, California bearing ratio, fine-grained soils, soil physical properties

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099280

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 6011

References:


[1] E. J. Yoder and M. W. Witczak, “Principles of pavement design” 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
[2] Austroads, “A guide to the structural design of road pavements” Austroads, 2012.
[3] M. Aytekin, “Soil mechanics” Academy Publishing house, Trabzon, Turkey, 2000.
[4] BS 1377-4, “Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Compaction-related tests“ British Standard, UK, 1990.
[5] AS 1289.6.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of a soil - Standard laboratory method for a remoulded specimen” Australian Standard, Australia, 1998.
[6] AS 1289.6.1.3, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of a soil - Standard field-in-place method” Australian Standard, Australia, 1998.
[7] American Society for Testing and Materials, “D 1883-05, Standard test method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of laboratory-compacted soils” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2005.
[8] American Society for Testing and Materials, “D 4429-04, Standard test method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of soils in place” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2004
[9] W. R. Day, “Soil testing manual: procedures, classification data, and sampling practices” USA, 2001.
[10] M. P. Rollings and R. S. Rollings, “Geotechnical materials in construction” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
[11] E. G. Kleyn, “The use of the dynamic cone penetrometer” Rep. No. 2/74, Transvaal Roads Department, Pretoria, South Africa, 1975.
[12] M. Livneh, “The use of dynamic cone Penetrometer in determining the strength of existing pavements and subgrades” Proceedings of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 1987.
[13] J. A. Harison, “In situ California bearing ratio determination by dynamic cone penetrometer testing using a laboratory based correlation” Australian Road Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 313-317, 1989.
[14] M. Livneh, I. Ishai and N. A. Livneh, “Effects of vertical confinement on dynamic cone penetrometer strength values in pavement and subgrade evaluations” Transport Research Record 1473, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1992.
[15] D. Ese, J. Myre, P. Noss and E. Vxrnes, “ The use of dynamic cone Penetrometer for road strengthening design in Norway” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, pp. 343-357, 1994.
[16] J. Coonse, “Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive piedmont residual soil using the Scala dynamic cone penetrometer” Thesis (Master), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C, 1999.
[17] M. A. Gabr, K. Hopkins, J. Coonse and T. Hearne, “DCP criteria for performance evaluation of pavement layers” Journal of Performance and Constructed Facilities, Vol. 14, pp. 141-148, 2000.
[18] O. Al-Amoudi, I. Asi, H. Wahhab and Z. Khan, “Clegg hammer – California Bearing Ratio correlations” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 512–523, 2002.
[19] G. H. Gregory, “Correlation of California Bearing Ratio with shear strength parameters” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1989, pp. 148-153, 2007.
[20] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Validation of soil strength criteria for aircraft operation on unprepared landing strips: Vicksburg, Mississippi” Waterways Experiment Station, technical report 3-554, 1960.
[21] National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures” Final Report for Project 1-37A, Appendix CC-1: Correlation of CBR Values with Soil Index Properties. Washington, DC: NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2004.
[22] P. M. Semen, “A generalized approach to soil strength prediction with machine learning methods” Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-06-15. Hanover, NH: Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 2006.
[23] W. P. M. Black, “A method of estimating the CBR of cohesive soils from plasticity data” Geotechnique, Vol. 12, pp. 271–272, 1962.
[24] J. W. S. De Graft-Johnson and H. S. Bhatia, “The engineering characteristics of the lateritic gravels of Ghana” Proceedings of 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Vol. 2, Mexico, pp. 13–43, 1969.
[25] K. B. Agarwal and K. D. Ghanekar, “Prediction of CBR from plasticity characteristics of soil” Proceeding of 2nd south-east Asian conference on soil engineering, Singapore, pp. 571–6, 1970.
[26] S. N. Doshi, M. S. Mesdary and H. R. Guirguis, “Statistical study of laboratory CBR for Kuwaiti soils” The fourth conference of the road engineering association of Asia and Australasia, Vol. 2, Jakarta, pp. 43– 51, 1983.
[27] D. J. Stephens, “Prediction of the California bearing ratio” The Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 No.12, pp. 523–527, 1990.
[28] British Highway Agency, “Design manual for roads and bridges” Vol. 7. London: Stationery Ltd., Section 2, Part 2 HD 25/94, 1994.
[29] National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Guide for mechanistic and empirical – design for new and rehabilitated pavement structures, final document” Appendix CC-1: correlation of CBR values with soil ındex properties, West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois: Ara, Inc, 2001.
[30] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “Development of a new dynamic lightweight penetrometer for the determination of mechanical properties of fine-grained soils” Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 6 No.10, pp. 1417-1422, 2012.
[31] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “A new lightweight dynamic cone penetrometer for laboratory and field application” Journal and News of the Australian Geomechanics Society, Vol. 47 No.2, pp. 41-50, 2012.
[32] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “Determination of CBR for finegrained soils using a dynamic lightweight cone penetrometer” International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2014.
[33] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “A new dynamic cone penetrometer to predict CBR for fine-grained subgrade soils in the laboratory and field conditions” 11th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics: Ground Engineering in a Changing World, Melbourne, Australia, 2012.
[34] AS 1289.5.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil compaction and density tests - Determination of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil using standard compactive effort” Australian Standard, Australia, 2003.
[35] AS 1289.3.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit of a soil - Four point Casagrande method” Australian Standard, Australia, 2009.
[36] AS 1289.3.2.1, “ Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil classification tests - Determination of the plastic limit of a soil - Standard method” Australian Standard, Australia, 2009.
[37] J. Uzan, “Characterization of clayey subgrade materials for mechanistic design of flexible pavements” Transportation Research Record. 1629, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 188–196, 1998.
[38] M. K. Elfino and J. L. Davidson, “Modeling field moisture in resilient modulus testing” Geotechnical Special Publication 24, ASCE, pp. 31– 51, 1989.
[39] G. B. Thadkamalla and K. P. George, “Characterization of subgrade soils at simulated field moisture” Transportation Research Record. 1481, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 21–27, 1995.