You are on page 1of 87

A STUDY ON INFLUENCE OF SOAKING ON CBR VALUE OF SOIL

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirement of the degree of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING by PRIYESH GANGELE Scholar No.: 082111509 Under the guidance of Dr. P. K. AGARWAL Dr. S. ROKADE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BHOPAL (MP) DECEMBER, 2013

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Thesis titled “A STUDY ON INFLUENCE OF SOAKING ON CBR VALUE OF SOIL IN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH” submitted by PRIYESH GANGELE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING is a bonafide work carried out by him under our supervision and guidance.

Dr. S. Rokade Asst. Professor Deptt. of Civil Engineering M.A.N.I.T., Bhopal

Dr. P.K. Agarwal Professor Deptt. of Civil Engineering M.A.N.I.T., Bhopal

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the Thesis entitled “A STUDY ON INFLUENCE OF SOAKING ON CBR VALUE OF SOIL IN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH” submitted by me in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Technology in “Transportation Engineering” of Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology is an authentic record of my own work carried out under the guidance of Professor Dr. P.K. Agarwal & Asst. Prof. Dr. S. Rokade, Department of Civil Engineering M.A.N.I.T. Bhopal. The matter embodied in this project has not been submitted by me for the award of any other degree or diploma.

(PRIYESH GANGELE)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my deep sense of gratitude I am also thankful to Professor Dr. P.K. Agarwal, Deptt. of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal for his invaluable help and guidance. I am highly thankful to him for his continuous support and encouragement in completing this work. I am also thankful to Asst. Prof. S. Rokade Deptt. of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. I am thankful to Dr. Appu Kuttan K.K., Director, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal and Professor Dr. V. Prasad Head of Department, Deptt. of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal for their continuous support and encouragement in completing my M.Tech programme. I am also grateful to Dr. Ganga Agnihotri Dean, Academics, for his guidance and immortal support. Special thanks to Professor Dr. S. K. Katiyar, Deptt. of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal for their guidance and support during my Post Graduation Programme. Thanks is also extended to Mr. Ramanuj Yadav, Lab Assistant and Mr. Mahesh Verma, Office Assistant, Deptt. of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. I also express deep sense of appreciation to the staff of Deptt. of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal for their cooperation and support throughout the session. I am thankful to my friends Rakesh Mehar, Er. Shashank Tiwari, Er. Rahul Sahu, and other well wishers whose names could not mentioned but without their direct or indirect contribution this thesis would never been a success. Last but not the least; my heartiest thanks to my Parents and my brother and my sister for their blessings, keen interest, active support and pains taken by them during the entire duration of my studies. BHOPAL December 2013

PRIYESH GANGELE

1 NEED OF STUDY 06 1.3 QUICK ESTIMATION OF CBR 12 .CONTENTS TITLES CERTIFICATE PAGE NO DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT 01 LIST OF TABLE 02 LIST OF FIGURES 03 .11 2.2 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE OF STUDY 07 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 09 2.3 THESIS ORGANISATION 08 CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION 05 1.1 IMPORTANCE OF CBR OF SOIL SUBGRADE 10 .2 DETERMINATION OF CBR VALUE OF SOIL SUBGRADE 2.15 15 .04 CHAPTER 1.

1 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (The actual laboratory method) 3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS 4.1 LIQUID LIMIT TEST 3.4 IRC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CBR METHOD OF DESIGN 2. 1 4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMANDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY 5.2 DETERMINATION OF INDEX PROPERTY 3.5 TYPICAL PREASUMPTIVE VALUE OF CBR CHAPTER 3. DETAILS OF LABORATORY STUDIES 3.2 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST 3.2.2 RECOMMANDATION FOR FUTHER STUDY REFERENCES 16 17 18 19-20 21 21 21 21 22 23-31 32-39 41-49 50-58 59 59 59-60 61-62 .4 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO. 2 4.2.2. 3 4. 4 CHAPTER 5.2 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.3 DETERMINATION OF CBR OF SOIL CHAPTER 4.3 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.1 CONCLUSION 5.

. that can be excavated readily with power equipment in the field or disintegrated by gentle mechanical means in the laboratory. Thus. Soil is an accumulation or deposit of earth material. Compacted sub grade is the soil compacted by controlled movement of heavy compactors. derived naturally from the disintegration of rocks or decay of vegetation.ABSTRACT Pavements are a conglomeration of materials. Among the various methods of evaluating the subgrade strength. a good understanding of these materials. The supporting soil beneath pavement and its special under courses is called sub grade. This Study is an attempt to understand the influence of soaking on CBR value subjected to different days of soaking and the corresponding variation in moisture content. their associated properties. The performance of pavements depends to a large extent on the strength and stiffness of the subgrade. and how they perform is fundamental to understanding pavement. how they are characterized. but also the binding materials which may be added to improve these pavement features. This requires not only a thorough understanding of the soil and aggregate properties which affect pavement stability and durability. CBR test is important but quick estimate of CBR is very important for highway engineer so this study is focus on compression of soaked and unsoaked CBR value. It is observed that the CBR decreases and the moisture content increases for high degree of soaking. and their interactions determine the properties of the resultant pavement. The materials which are used in the construction of highway are of intense interest to the highway engineer. Undisturbed soil beneath the pavement is called natural sub grade. These materials.

3 42 Table 10 Analysis of Sample No. 1 24 Table 6 Analysis of Sample No. 2 33 Table 8 Analysis of Sample No. Table 1 Standard Crushes Rock from California Value 11 Table 2 Standard Load Values 14 Table 3 Typical presumptive CBR values 17 Table 4 Analysis & Result of Sample No. 4 51 Table 12 Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4 . 3 41 Table 9 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No.LIST OF TABLE Table No. 2 32 Table 7 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No. Description Page No. 4 50 Table 11 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No. 1 23 Table 5 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No.

1 CBR Test Result (48 Hrs. 11 Fig.) of sample no. 14 Fig. 1 CBR Test Result (24Hrs. 8 Fig. 4 Fig.LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 2 Fig. 1 CBR Test Result (72Hrs. 2 CBR Test Result (24 Hrs. 1 LL & PL Test Result of sample no. 1 Variation of CBR with time of soaking sample no. 6 Fig. No.) of sample no. 2 Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No. 2 CBR Test Result (72 Hrs. 1 CBR Test Result (0 Hrs. 2 CBR Test Result (0 Hrs.) of sample no. 2 CBR Test Result (96 Hrs. 12 Fig. 1 CBR Analysis Result (96 hrs. 5 Fig.) of sample no. 1 Fig. 2 Page No.) of sample no.) of sample no. 7 Fig.) of sample no. 10 Fig. 2 CBR Test Result (48 Hrs.) of sample no. 15 Description CBR Apparatus LL & PL Test Result of sample no. 9 Fig. 12 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 . Fig. 3 Fig.) of sample no. 13 Fig.) of sample no.

3 CBR Test Result (72 Hrs. 27 Fig. 17 Fig. 4 CBR Test Result (48 Hrs. 4 CBR Test Result (72Hrs. 4 Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No.) of sample no.) of sample no. 21 Fig. 16 Fig. 3 CBR Test Result (48 Hrs. 4 CBR Test Result (24 Hrs. 3 LL & PL Test Result of sample no. 22 Fig. 28 Fig. 3 CBR Test Result (0 Hrs. 3 Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No. 18 Fig.) of sample no. 26 Fig.) of sample no. 24 Fig. 3 CBR Test Result (96 Hrs.) of sample no. 4 CBR Test Result (0 Hrs. 23 Fig. 29 Fig.) of sample no. 4 Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 . 20 Fig.Fig.) of sample no. 25 Fig.) of sample no. 4 CBR Test Result (96 Hrs. 30 LL & PL Test Result of sample no.) of sample no. 3 CBR Test Result (24 Hrs.) of sample no. 19 Fig.

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION .

Index and identification tests were performed for classification and for determination of the suitability of the studied soils as subgrade material.CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION 1. Weaker subgrade essentially requires thicker layers whereas stronger subgrade goes well with thinner pavement layers. The subgrade is always subjected to change in its moisture content due to rainfall. . However. The pavement and the subgrade mutually must sustain the traffic volume. Subgrade strength is mostly expressed in terms of CBR (California Bearing Ratio). which need to be confirmed by experiments. For an engineer. capillary action. This study aimed at determining the effects of depth of submergence and duration of submergence on the sub grade strength of soil samples collected from the sagar-Chhatarpur National Highway . This project is an attempt to understand the influence of soaking on CBR value subjected to different days of soaking and the corresponding variation in moisture content. Therefore. Design of the various pavement layers is very much dependent on the strength of the subgrade soil over which they are going to be laid. overflow or rise of water table.1 Need of study Damages of roads by floods are common phenomena in MP and a huge Expenditure is required almost after each flood for rehabilitation of the roads.CBR tests were performed with different heights of submergence after normal soaking period and also after prolonged submergence. it was observed that all the three types of soils tested are rated as poor materials for subgrade according to IS soil classification systems. The Indian Road Congress (IRC) encodes the exact design strategies of the pavement layers based upon the subgrade strength which is primarily dependant on CBR value for a laboratory or field sample soaked for four days. Several factors may appear to be responsible for such damages. it's important to understand the change of subgrade strength due to variation of moisture content. It is observed that the CBR decreases and the moisture content increases for high degree of soaking. research aiming at finding the modes of damages to roads under flood has become necessary.

. to develop large scale connections of rural India within a short period of time. This can be from the laboratory CBR test or directly from field CBR test. The correlation is based on the comparison CBR unsoaked test results and CBR soaked value which has the same fraction of sand and clay in soil.1. it is difficult to reveal detailed variations in the CBR values. less time consuming and cheap. only limited number of such tests could be performed because of high unit cost and time required for such testing. a number of investigators in the past made their investigations in this field and developed different methods for determining the CBR value on the basis of results of low cost. As a result. By considering this aspect. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of sub grade is used often for design of flexible pavements. The correlation between the result of CBR soaked test and CBR soaked value is hardly found. This Thesis objective is to obtain a local correlation between the results of CBR laboratory test without soaked and CBR soaked value. In such cases if the estimation of the CBR could be done on the basis of some tests which are quick to perform. In practice. In MP. In this thesis. over the length of roads. then it will be easy to get the information about the strength of subgrade over the length of roads and also will be helpful and important specially for low volume roads being different states of India presently. attempts have been made to seek the validation of the predicted values of CBR determined by different method as per guidelines of IRC: SP: 72-2007. in many cases. less time consuming and easy to perform tests.2 Objective & Scope of Study It is common in the state of MP that the sub grade strength for highway pavement design is determined by CBR test measurement.

PI and grain size distribution To study the soil under modified proctor compaction and determine the MDD and OMC for the soil sample To carry out CBR Test for sample soaked in different times To study the influence of soaking on subgrade strength 1. 1) 2) 3) 4) To collect a particular soil sample and determine its basic physical property such as LL. . In Chapter 3 represent Details of Laboratory Studies.in the samples under varying soaking. In Chapter 5 represent Conclusions & Recommendation for Further Study.3 Thesis Organization In Chapter 1 represent Introduction. In Chapter 2 represent Literature Review.PL. In Chapter 4 represent Analysis & Results.The present scope of work for this thesis is to ascertain the CBR value under different soaking time conditions and to study the influence .

CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .

weight-volume relationships. existing stress conditions. and the stress history. including composition particle size and particle-size distribution. airfield runways and other pavement systems is of immense importance to the integrity of the pavement. Conventional soil-structure modeling is based on the results of laboratory testing of individual localized soil samples. This load-bearing capacity. changes from time to time and can vary from place to place within a given area. laboratory test. tests such as the CBR are severely disadvantaged because the test conditions and the soil . which may deteriorate over time due to environmental and stress influences on soil properties. and the degree of recovery from. The extent and time-dependence of. and in-situ stresses.CHAPTER -2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. or CBR. The stability or load-bearing capacity (capability) of the pavement of airport runways. Soil properties in turn are determined by a variety of complex interrelated factors. changes in soil load-bearing conditions due to changes in moisture content and/or repeated loading over time are well recognized in engineering fields. In addition. The proper determination of existing bearing-load capacities of soil-supported pavement systems requires that the existing soil conditions be defined and evaluated. or soil stiffness. For instance. deformation is primarily dependent upon the soil's properties. However. certain pavement systems such as runways and highways typically endure repeated severe loadings on a daily basis. highways and other pavement systems is determined in significant part by the load-bearing capacity of the underlying sub pavement) earth or soil. Soil stiffness is the degree of resistance to deformation upon loading. as in the case of the well-known California Bearing Ratio.1 Importance of CBR of Soil Subgrade The load bearing capacity of the soil supporting highways.

sample (specimen) are not representative of in-situ conditions. Another known method for determining composite soil stiffness is the use of plate bearing tests on the surface of soil layers. This value is a percentage comparison with the standard crushed rock from California. The CBR value is used to quantify the response of the pavement foundation and subgrade to loading. is treated similarly to provide a suitable foundation for the pavement. usually to a higher standard than the lower part of the embankment. the current most widely used way to determine soil stiffness is by using the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test on soil samples that are prepared in the laboratory. assumed to be 300 mm in thickness. . Where the naturally occurring local subgrade soils have poor engineering properties and low strength in terms of CBR. subgrade can be defined as a compacted layer. As mentioned herein above. The California Bearing Ratio test is to determine the CBR value for a soil under consideration as a pavement foundation. the objective being to calculate with the stiffness. and the like. The subgrade in embankment is compacted in two layers. the cut formation. generally of naturally occurring local soil. In cuttings. Further. providing a suitable foundation for the pavement. many if not most soil samples have been disturbed to some degree during sampling and handling. or resilient modulus of soil. Absent are (a) in-situ overburden stress. improved subgrades are provided by way of lime/cement treatment or by mechanical stabilization and other similar techniques. As per MORT&H Specifications. just beneath the pavement crust. (b) in-situ soil interactions. which serves as the subgrade. Thus this test is a comparison test. A true composite soil stiffness determination can only be determined using actual stiffness data of in-situ soil conditions at varying depths (varying subgrade conditions). for example in Black Cotton soil areas.

the test allows the road Engineer to design the capping layer (if needed) and the sub-base Layer by determining the strength of the underlying soil. The test remains in existence around the world due to its low equipment requirements.24 Penetration (mm) 2. It is important to realize that the CBR test is but one step in the road pavement foundation design process.5 5. easy of performance and history of use. By knowing this the Engineer can determine if this strength is adequate to handle the desired road design or if additional procedures need to be done to increase this strength.0 It should be noted that this test was created by the California Division of Highways in the 1930’s and as such is an empirical test and does not provide any data regarding properties of the soil except as to compare its resistance to penetration to the base crushed rock’s resistance to penetration.The standard crushes rock from California values are as follows: Table No.96 Load (kN) 13. 1 (Standard crushes rock from California value) 19. .

25mm per minute can be used. Loading machine-any compression machine can operate at constant rate of 1.moulds of 150mm diameter and 175mm height provided with a collar of about 50mm length and detachable perforated base. . Cylindrical moulds. balance etc. IS sieve 19mm.5kg and 147mm diameter. Compaction rammer. coarse filter paper.2 Determination of CBR Value of Soil Subgrade Apparatus: 1. 2.2. Surcharge weight-annular weights each of 2. 5. 3. 4.

No.Fig. 1 (CBR Apparatus) .

2.5mm are noted.4. Spacer disc is placed over the base plate at the bottom of mould and a coarse filter paper is placed over the spacer disc. Sieve the sample through 19 mm IS sieve. Take 5kg of the sample of soil specimen.5.5. Add water to the soil in the quantity such that optimum moisture content or field moisture content is reached. Then fill one fifth of the mould with the prepared soil.7. Then soil and water are mixed thoroughly.The California Bearing Ratio(CBR) test was developed by the California Division of Highways as a method of classifying and evaluating soil.25mm per minute. Then it is clamped to base plate. This load is expressed as a percentage of standard load value at a respective deformation level to obtain CBR value. That layer is compacted by giving 56 evenly distributed blows using a hammer of weight 4. . Remove base plate and invert the mould. 2. After 3rd layer. Load at penetration of 0. The penetration plunger is brought in contact with the soil and a load of 4kg (seating load) is applied so that contact between soil and plunger is established. CBR is a measure of resistance of a material to penetration of standard plunger under controlled density and moisture conditions.subgrade and base course materials for flexible pavements. Test consists of causing a cylindrical plunger of 50mm diameter to penetrate a pavement component material at 1.5kg are placed on top surface of soil. The top layer of the compacted soil is scratched.89kg.25mm/minute. 3. The loads for 2. Surcharge weights of 2. Load is applied such that penetration rate is 1.10 and 12. The prepared soil water mix is divided into five.5.5mm and 5mm are recorded. Mould containing specimen is placed in position on the testing machine.5. 1. After fifth layer collar is removed and excess soil is struck off. 1. Again second layer is filled and process is repeated. The mould is cleaned and oil is applied.5. CBR test may be conducted in remolded or undisturbed sample. collar is also attached to the mould and process is continued. Then dial readings are adjusted to zero.

2 (Standard Load Value) Penetration(mm) Standard Load(kg) Unit Standard Load(kg/cm2) 2.0mm penetration = .5mm penetration = California Bearing Ratio at 5.Standard Load Values Table No.5 2630 134 10.0 3180 162 12.5 3600 183 Result: California Bearing Ratio at 2.5 1370 70 5 2055 105 7.

2.075= % Passing 0. Using a Nomo graph based on wet sieve analysis data. Based on soil classification tests and the table given in IRC:SP:72-2007 which gives typical presumptive design CBR values for soil samples compacted to proctor density at optimum moisture content and soaked under water for 4 days. Plastic soil CBR= 75/(1+0.3 Quick Estimation of CBR 1. based on classification test data. 4. one for plastic soils and the other for non-plastic soils.728 WPI). The third and forth method come in handy where adequate testing facilities are not available or the project is of such a size as to not to warrant elaborate testing procedures 2. for estimating 4-day soaked CBR values on samples compacted to proctor density. 3.075× PI= Plasticity index of soil in % P0.075 mm sieve in decimal . for estimating soaked CBR values on samples compacted to proctor density. Using two sets of equations.. By conducting actual CBR tests in the laboratory. Where WPI= weighted plasticity index= P0. For the pavement design of new roads the subgrade strength needs to be evaluated in terms of CBR value which can be estimated by any of the following methods: 1.

otherwise the soil sample may be compacted to the dry density. it is not necessary to soak the soil specimen before carrying out the CBR test. Non. The standard test procedure should be strictly adhered to. The specimens should be prepared by static compaction where ever possible and other wise by dynamic compaction. However in areas with arid climate or when the annual rain fall is less than 50 cm and the water table is too deep to affect the sub grade adversely and when thick and impermeable bituminous surfacing is provided. the sample should be compacted to field density of sub graded soil (at OMC or at a field moisture content.2. 2.4 IRC Recommendations for the CBR Method of Design Some of the important points recommended by IRC for the CBR method of design (IRC:37 – 1970) are given below:  The CBR tests should be performed on remoulded soils in the laboratory.3581 Where D60= Diameter in mm of the grain size corresponding to 60% finer. Soil classification can be used for preliminary report preparation.Plastic soil CBR= 28. In – Site tests are not recommended for design purpose. Wherever possible the most adverse moisture condition of the sub grade should be determined from the field study.)  In new constructions the CBR test samples may be soaked in water for four days period before testing. expected to be achieved in the field.091(D60)0. . In the case of existing roads.  For the design of new roads the sub grade soil sample should be compacted at OMC to proctor density whenever suitable compaction equipment is available to achieve this density in the fields.

 At least three samples should be tested on each 1 type of soil at the same density and moisture content. the design CBR should be the average of at least six samples ( The specified limits of maximum variation in CBR are 3 for CBR values up to 10.  An estimate of the traffic to be carried by the road pavement at the end of expected life should be made keeping in view the existing traffic and probable growth in traffic due to change in the land use. If the maximum variation in CBR valves of the three specimens exceeds the specified limits.5% may be assumed for roads in rural areas. a value of 7.  The traffic for the design is considered in units of heavy vehicles (of laden weight exceeding 3 tons) per day in both directions and are divided into seven categories A to G. If a reliable value of growth factor r is not available. The suitable design curve should be chosen from the table given in the design chart (fig). The design . A = P (1+r)(n+10).5 for values 10 to 30 and 10 for values 30 to 60%)  The top 50-cm of sub grad should be compacted at least up to 95 to 100 percent of proctor density. n = number of years between the last count and the year of completion of construction.  The value of P in the formula should be the seven day average of heavy vehicles found from 24 hour counts. Pavements of major roads should be designed at least for 10days life period and the following formula may be used in such cases for traffic prediction. Where A = Number of heavy vehicles per day for design (laden Weight>3 tonnes) P = number of heavy vehicles per day at least count r = annual rate of increase of heavy vehicles.

For higher axle loads the thickness values should be further increased.3 Typical presumptive CBR values CBR VALUE 3% or less 3% .200 kg and random axle loads upto 14.5 Typical Presumptive Value of CBR Table. 2.5 cm thickness should not be counted towards the total thickness of pavement as they do not increase the structural capacity as the pavement.15% SUBGRADE STRENGTH Poor normal good .500 kg. (This is improvement over earlier mentioned values of 8160 kg and 4080 kg)  When sub-base course materials contain substantial proportion of aggregates of size above 20 mm.5% 5% . This layers of wearing course such as surface dressing or open graded premixed carpet up to 2.thickness is considered for single axle loads upto 8. the CBR value of these materials would not be valid for the design of subsequent layers above them.

CHAPTER – 3 DETAILS OF LABORATORY STUDIES .

CHAPTER -3 DETAILS OF LABORATORY STUDIES 3. the California Department of Transportation and most other highway agencies have Since abandoned the CBR method of pavement design.1 California Bearing Ratio (The actual laboratory method) The CBR test was originally developed by O. sub-grade material) at the rate of 0. The penetration resistance of the plunger into a standard sample of crushed stone for the corresponding penetration is called standard load. whose results are then used with an empirical design chart to determine the thickness of flexible pavement.25 mm/minute). The thickness of different elements comprising a pavement is determined by CBR values. the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) adopted the CBR method of design for flexible airfield pavements.e. Though the test originated in California. . and other layers for a given vehicle loading.. expressed as percentage for a given penetration of the plunger. per minute (1. base. In the 1940s. CBR = (Test load/Standard load)×100 The table gives the standard loads adopted for different penetrations for the standard material with a CBR value of 100%. The California bearing ratio. Observations are taken between the penetration resistance (called the test load) versus the penetration of plunger. It is a load-deformation test performed in the laboratory or the field.J. The CBR test is a small scale penetration test in which a cylindrical plunger of 3 in2 (5 cm in dia) cross-section is penetrated into a soil mass (i.05 in. abbreviated as CBR is defined as the ratio of the test load to the standard load. Porter for the California Highway Department during the 1920s.

2. 4. On original sample carried out first wet sieve analysis. 3. Samples are molded at its optimum moisture content to its proctor density was tested for its soaked and unsoaked CBR strength and also carried out IS classification as per IS 2720 and wet sieve analysis also carried out by four soil sample. 1. Determination of CBR strength of the respective soil samples in moulds using the CBR instrument.2 Determination Of Index Property     Liquid limit by liquid limit device Plastic limit Plastic Index Shrinkage limit . liquid limit and plastic limit. 5.Four Lot of soil samples of NH86 Bhopal to Chhatarpur Road taken as per classification. Each soil sample is tested for its soaked CBR and unsoaked CBR strength after being soaked in water for 4 days The experimental work comprises in the following parts: 3. Thus the process comprises of three parts. Estimation of proctor density and optimum moisture content for each soil sample. Molding the soil sample into standard moulds keeping its moisture content and dry density exactly same as its optimum moisture content and proctor density respectively.

3. 3 days and 4 days. The liquid limit of fine-grained soil is the water content at which soil behaves practically like a liquid. .2. but has small shear strength.2. 2 days. 3.1 Liquid Limit Test This test is done to determine the liquid limit of soil as per IS: 2720 (Part 5) – 1985.2 Plastic Limit Test Plastic limit is defined as minimum water content at which soil remains in plastic state. Unsoaked CBR is also determined for each sample. The plasticity index is defined as the numerical difference between its Liquid limit and Plastic limit.3 Determination of CBR of Soil (i) (ii) Moulding the soil sample into standard moulds keeping its moisture content and dry density exactly same as its optimum moisture content and proctor density respectively. (iii) Soil sample is tested for its CBR strength after being soaked in water for 1 day. Its flow closes the groove in just 25 blows in Casagrande’s liquid limit device. Determination of CBR strength of the respective soil samples in moulds using the CBR instrument.3.

CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS & RESULTS .

4 ANALYSIS & RESULTS FOUR Lot of collected soil samples are moulded at its optimum moisture content to its proctor density was tested for its soaked and unsoaked CBR strength and also carried out IS Classification.1 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.CHAPTER . 4. 1 .

Grain Size Analysis 2. Consistency Limit 3. 1) Atterberg’s Limit CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.5 1.66 7. 4 (Analysis & Result of sample No. 1 are given below :1. Free Swell Index 4.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.57 9. MDD & OMC .14 6.9 12 18. 4 Table No.The result of CBR test of soil sample performed in the laboratory under different times of soaking are presented in table no.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.53 17.02 Observation Reports of Sample No.) CBR with 4 day Soaking Liqui d Limit (LL) % Plasti c Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc OMC % 38.05 5.) CBR soaked (72Hrs.87 24.40 20.

CBR Unsoaked 6.5. CBR Soaked .

1) .Table No.5 (Grain size analysis of sample no.

2 .Fig. No.

) of sample no. 1) . 3 (CBR Test Result (0 Hrs.Fig. No.

No.Fig. 4 .

Fig. No.) of sample no. 1) . 5 (CBR Test Result (48 Hrs.

No. 6 .Fig.

1 . Soaking Sample No.CBR with 96 Hrs.

00 10. 1 CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.0 80.0 40.0 Time in Hour's 100.00 16.) 18.) 7.0 20.66 CBR soaked (48 Hrs.0 .14 CBR soaked (72Hrs.VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO.00 18.00 0.02 20.57 CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) 6.00 2.00 6.00 14.05 CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.0 120.00 4.00 8.00 C BR in %) 12.0 60.) 5.00 0.) 9.

4. 2 The result of CBR test of soil sample performed in the laboratory under different times of soaking are presented in table no. 2) Atterberg's Limit Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc CBR OMC% Unsoaked (0 Hrs. 6 Table No.40 7.37 10.97 29.) CBR with 4 day Soaking Liquid Limit (LL) % Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % 34.35 6.25 1. 2 are given below :1.25 13. 6 (Analysis of Sample No.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) CBR soaked (72Hrs.50 20.53 13.9 12 25.19 Observation Reports of Sample No. Grain Size Analysis .2 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.

CBR Soaked . Consistency Limit 3. Free Swell Index 4. MDD & OMC 5. CBR Unsoaked 6.2.

7 (Grain Size Analysis of sample no.Table No. 2 .

2 . No.Fig. 9 (LL & PL Test Result of sample no.

.

10 . No.Fig.

.

) of sample no. 2 .Fig. No. 11 (CBR Test Result (24 Hrs.

.

) of sample no. 2 . 12 (CBR Test Result (48 Hrs.Fig. No.

.

No. 13 (CBR Test Result (72 Hrs.Fig. 2 .) of sample no.

Soaking Sample No.CBR with 96 Hrs. 2 Fig. No. 14 (CBR Test Result (96 Hrs.) of sample no. 2 .

) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.19 25. 2 30.35 VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO.0 120.) CBR soaked (72Hrs.CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.00 20. 15 (Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No.0 100.00 25.25 13.0 20.40 7. 2) .) CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.37 10.) 6. No.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.00 0.0 40.0 Fig.00 C BR in %) 15.00 0.00 5.0 60.00 10.0 Time in Hour's 80.

3) Atterberg's Limit Liquid Limit (LL) % Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc CBR OMC% Unsoaked (0 Hrs.54 12.87 9 21.63 11. 8 (Analysis of sample no. 3 are given below :- .3 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.) CBR with 4 day Soaking Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % 33.26 20.37 Observation Reports of Sample No.) CBR soaked (72Hrs.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs. 3 The result of CBR test of soil sample performed in the laboratory under different times of soaking are presented in table no.3 1.53 12.40 8.4. 8 Table No.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.88 10.73 16.

CBR Unsoaked 6. MDD & OMC 5. Free Swell Index 4. CBR Soaked . Consistency Limit 3. Grain Size Analysis 2.1.

9 (Grain size analysis of sample no.Table No. 3) .

Fig. 16 . No.

.

No.Fig. 17 .

.

) of sample no.Fig. No. 3 . 19 (CBR Test Result (48 Hrs.

20 .Fig. No.

.

.

) 10.00 0.00 0.00 25. 3 30. 3) .0 40.0 60.0 120.00 5.54 CBR soaked (24 Hrs.0 20.0 Time in Hour's 80.) 12.CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.00 20.) 21.00 C BR in %) 15.0 100.0 Fig.40 CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.) 11. 22 (Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No.) 8.88 CBR soaked (72Hrs.37 VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO. No.63 CBR soaked (48 Hrs.00 10.

93 10 17.3 1.53 11.4 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.31 Observation Reports of Sample No. 4 The result of CBR test of soil sample performed in the laboratory under different times of soaking are presented in table no. 10 Table No.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.91 7. 4) Atterberg's Limit Free Swell Index Mas Dry Densit y gm/cc CBR Unsoake d (0 Hrs.66 8.00 19.) CBR soaked (72Hrs. 4 are given below :- .) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.4.43 5.83 9. 10 (Analysis of sample No.53 20. ) CBR with 4 day Soakin g Liquid Limit (LL) % Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticit y Index (PI) % OMC % 31.

MDD & OMC 5.1. Consistency Limit 3. Free Swell Index 4. CBR Unsoaked 6. Grain Size Analysis 2. CBR Soaked .

Table No. 11 (Grain Size Analysis of sample No 4) .

No.Fig. 23 .

Fig. 24 . No.

Fig. No. 25 .

No. 26 .Fig.

.

Fig. No. 4 . 27 (CBR Test Result (72Hrs.) of sample no.

4 .CBR with 96 Hrs. Soaking Sample No.

.

) 17.) 8.91 CBR soaked (72Hrs.VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO.66 CBR soaked (48 Hrs.43 CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.4 CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.83 CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) 7.31 .) 9.) 5.

00 6.0 120.0 20.00 8.00 C BR in %) 12.0 40. No.00 10.0 100.20. 4) .00 0.00 4.0 Fig.0 60. 29 (Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No.00 14.0 Time in Hour's 80.00 2.00 16.00 18.00 0.

CHAPTER - 5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMANDATION FOR FUTHER STUDY

5.1 CONCLUSION
From the results and discussions described earlier, it is observed that the CBR value of the given soil sample decreases rapidly with time of soaking up to 24 hrs. and then decreases slowly. When soil samples are taken from different points of the CBR sample and tested This Study is an attempt to understand the influence of soaking on CBR value subjected to different days of soaking and the corresponding variation in moisture content. It is observed that the CBR decreases and the moisture content increases for high degree of soaking.

5.2 RECOMMANDATION FOR FUTHER STUDY

It is recommended that more studies on different type of soil prevailing in studies to be conducted involving large number of samples.

Table No. 12 (Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4)

Sample No.

CBR result (0 Hrs.)

CBR result (24 Hrs.)

CBR result (48 Hrs.)

CBR result (48 Hrs.)

CBR result (72 Hrs.)

CBR result (96 Hrs.)

1 2 3 4

18.57 25.25 21.54 17.83

9.66 13.37 12.63 9.66

7.14 10.4 11.88 8.91

7.14 10.4 11.88 8.91

6.05 7.35 10.4 7.43

5.02 6.19 8.37 5.31

Fig. No. 30 (Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4)

REFERENCES
 Arora K.R. “A Text book of Soil Mechanics”  Bindra S.P. "A Text Book of Highway Engineering" Dhanpat Rai Publications, New Delhi  Berry D.S. K.B. and Goetz Woods, W.H. Highway Engineering Hand Book, McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. India.  Khanna S.K. and C.E.G. Justo, Nem Chand & Bros; Roorkee Highway engineering.  Mathew V. Tom , (2009), Entitled "Pavement materials: Soil Lecture notes in Transportation Systems Engineering.  Punmia B.C., Ashok Kumar Jain & Arun Kumar Jain “A Text Book of Soil Mechanics & Foundations”.  Sahoo Biswajeet & Nayak Devadatta, (2009) "A Study of Subgrade Strength Related to moisture"  Singhal, R.P. (1967). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Singhal Publications, India.  Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil Mechanics, Chapman and Hall, London and John Wiley & Sons.  Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in engineering practice, Hohn Wiley & Sons.  Yoder, E.J., Principles of pavement design, John Wiley and Sons, India.

IRC : 37-2001.  IRC-SP 72-2007. Dry density relation using a heavy Compaction”  IS 2720 Part-16 “Methods of test for Soil-Laboratory determination of CBR ”Partha Chakroborty & Animesh Das “Principles of Transportation Engineering” Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Report of the Specifications for Road and Bridge Work in India.  Indian Roads Congress. New Delhi. Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements (second revision). “Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for low volume of Rural road” IRC.SP-72. "Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural Roads" IRC. .  IS 2720 Part-5 “Method of test for Soil-Determination of Liquid limit and Plastic limit”  IS 2720 Part –8 “Method of test for Soil-Determination of Water Content.

 Road Research Laboratory. . DSIR. HMSO publication. Soil mechanics for road engineers. India.