This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 100-103
Moisture and Compaction Based Statistical Model for Estimating CBR of Fine Grained Subgrade Soils
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd Street, Room 334, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, 73019, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
K. S. Reddy
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India, Email: email@example.com
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Raipur, India, 492010, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
ABSTRACT: The present study was undertaken to develop regression-based models for estimating soaked and unsoaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for fine-grained subgrade soils. Five locally available soils were collected from different zones of West Bengal. The samples were compacted at four different levels of compaction (i.e., 50, 56, 65, and 75 blows) and at five different levels of moisture contents on dry and wet sides of an optimum moisture content (OMC) of a soil (i.e., ± 2% OMC, ± 1% OMC, and OMC). A total of 100 samples were prepared in the laboratory. Soaked and unsoaked CBR tests were conducted on each sample. Regression models were developed considering different independent parameters namely, index properties of soils, degree of compaction, and moisture content. The models were validated using a soil that was not used in the development phase of the models. Analyses of the results show that the developed models give a reasonable estimate of CBR values. Furthermore, it was observed that variation in the moisture content and compaction efforts has significant effect on the soaked and unsoaked CBR of a soil.
KEY WORDS: CBR, Subgrade, OMC, Compaction, Fine-grained soils. INTRODUCTION A proper compaction of subgrade soil is necessary for building long last lasting pavements (Huang, 1993). California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is considered as an indication of strength of subgrade soil. Furthermore, CBR value is used to estimate the resilient modulus of a soil. Recognizing the importance of this test, several prediction models were developed to estimate CBR value of a soil (Black, 1962; Agarwal and Ghanekar, 1970; Kin et al., 2006; NCHRP, 2001). First, Black (1962) correlated CBR with grain size distribution of soil and plasticity index (PI). A graph was developed to estimate CBR value using liquid limit (LL) and PI of a soil. In another study, Agarwal and Ghanekar (1970) developed a CBR model considering optimum moisture content (OMC) and LL of soils. Similarly, the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (NCHRP, 2001) proposed a CBR model based on soil passing on a 75 micron sieve and PI. Recently, Kin et al. (2006) developed a model for Malaysian soils. A total of 65 different soils samples of coarse and fine grained soils were collected. The CBR was corrected with OMC and maximum dry density (MDD) of soils. All above mentioned models are based on the index properties of soil, MDD, and OMC of a soil. So far, limited studies have been conducted to consider the effect of degree of compaction (i.e., no. of blows) and moisture content on CBR. OBJECTIVE The main objective of the present study was to develop regression-based models for estimating CBR value of fine grained subgrade soils, considering degree of compaction, moisture content, and various index properties of a soil. MATERIAL Five fine grained subgrade soils were collected from different zone of West Bengal (i.e., Kharagpur, Nachipur, Narayangarh, Amarda). Preliminary laboratory tests, such as grain size distribution, LL, and plastic limit (PL) were conducted in accordance with Indian Standard Codes (IS: 2720). Table 1 summarizes index properties and classification of the soils. Five soils: Kharagpur Reddish, Nachipur Reddish, Narayangrah Reddish, Narayangrah Blackish, and Amarda Blackish were classified as CL, CL, CI, CH, and CH, respectively (Table 1). The classification of the soils was done as per Indian standard soil classification system (IS: 1498-1970). The PI of soils varied from 14% to 44%. The moisture-density relationship for each soil was determined in accordance with IS 2720-Part 8: 1983 (Table 1). OMC and MDD values of the soils vary from 7.8% to 15.5%; and from 17.22 to 20.90 kN/m3, respectively. Table 1 Properties of Different Types of Soils
Soil Sample CL-1 CL-2 CI CH-1 CH-2 Soil Source Kharagpur Reddish Nachipur Reddish Narayangarh Reddish Narayangarh Blackish Amarda Blackish LL (%) 26 33 46 65 55 PI (%) 14 19 34 44 36 Soil Type CL CL CI CH CH OMC (%) 7.8 11.2 15.5 16.0 16.5 MDD (kN/m3) 20.90 18.98 17.62 17.22 17.49
#020410125 Copyright © 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved
91 40 Predicted UCBR (%) 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Measured UCBR (%) Fig. MC = Moisture Content (%).750).001).846.055 × × 100 − 1. PL. p<0. ± 1% OMC. It was found that percentage passing on a 75 micron sieve is highly correlated with LL (Pearson correlation = 0.48) Density MC SCBR = −2. actual moisture content (MC) of each compacted sample was determined to check any variability from the pre-determined water content.71 − 0. Similarly. A commercial software. The regression models developed for unsoaked CBR and soaked CBR are shown in Equation (1) and Equation (2). A total of four soils (i. and PL = Plastic Limit of soil (%). The compaction efforts used in present study were: 50. SCBR = Soaked CBR (%). The presence of collinearity among the independent variables was measured using Pearson’s correlation (Rahim. In addition. This soil was not used in the development phase of the models. LL and PL are highly correlated (Pearson correlation = 0. while the moisture levels were ± 2% OMC. 65. Each CBR sample was compacted in five layers of soil using predetermined number of blows and water content. 2005). and 75 blows. and OMC. respectively.70). 56. The model developed for unsoaked CBR has correlation coefficient (R2) = 0.48).70 Predicted SCBR (%) 4 (1) (R2=0.e. Density.671 × OMC MDD 101 where.70. CL-2. MC.70) 3 where. The outliers from the data were eliminated using a box plot method. Figure 2 shows the plot of the measured and the predicted soaked CBR values (R2=0. Figure 4 depicts the graph of the predicted and the measured soaked CBR values for all the soils (R2 = 0. OMC = Optimum Moisture Content (%). MDD = Maximum Dry Density (gm/cc).515.910). Unsoaked and soaked CBR values of the compacted sample was determined in accordance with IS 2720-Part 16:1987. Figure 1 shows the graph between the predicted and the measured unsoaked CBR values (R2= 0.001). CL-1.004 × PL UCBR = 104. 2 The Measured and the Predicted Soaked CBR values for CH-1 Soil International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904. called Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) was used to develop the models. The developed models were further checked for all the soils.328 × MDD OMC 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Measured SCBR (%) (2) Fig. respectively. indicating a reasonable fit to the data. Unsoaked CBR Model MC Density × 100 + 0. The MC and density values were normalized by dividing them with OMC and MDD. MDD. The model predictions show a good agreement with the measured CBR values.239 × × 100 − 2.Moisture and Compaction Based Statistical Model for Estimating CBR of Fine Grained Subgrade Soils SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND TESTING The modified proctor procedure was used to prepare CBR samples. Furthermore. CI. Soaked CBR Model (R2=0. LL. Therefore. Density = Measured or calculated density (gm/cc).147 × PL × 100 + 0. A fair correlation was obtained for a model developed for soaked CBR (R2 = 0. The dry density of the compacted sample was estimated using bulk density and moisture content of the sample. pp 100-103 . Similarly.40 x R2 = 0. and PI. October 2011.60). Volume 04. UCBR = Unsoaked CBR (%). only PL of the soils was considered for developing the regression models. 50 y = 1. and CH-2) (Table 1) were used to develop the models. VALIDATION OF MODELS The developed models (Equations (1) and (2)) were validated using CH-1 soil (Table 1). DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS Soaked and unsoaked CBR models were developed considering various independent variables: OMC. p<0. A total of 100 soil samples were prepared for CBR testing (20 samples each soil x 5 soils). Similarly. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the predicted and the measured unsoaked CBR values (R2 = 0. 1 The Measured and the Predicted Unsoaked CBR value for CH-1 Soil 6 5 y = 0.213 − 0.036 x R2 = 0. The degree of compaction was calculated as ratio of measured dry density and MDD. No 06 SPL. models were checked using a combined database of all the soils.
K. Similarly. October 2011. No 06 SPL. Volume 04. the unsoaked CBR value decreases approximately 38% compared to CBR value at OMC. Reddy. 5 Variation of Unsoaked CBR value with Compaction and Moisture Content for CH-1 Soil 16 80 % MDD 90 % MDD 100 % MDD 0 0 5 10 Measured SCBR (%) 15 20 14 12 SCBR (%) 10 8 6 4 2 0 70 80 90 100 Fig. the soaked CBR values of soil decreases for each level of compaction. 110 120 (MC/OMC) (%) Fig.75 60 Effect of Degree of Compaction At constant moisture content. resulted in approximately 18% increase in unsoaked CBR (Figure 5).01 x R2 = 0. increase in degree of compaction from 80% to 100%. For example. sample prepared at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC) resulted approximately 19% higher unsoaked CBR compared to sample compacted at OMC. CH-1) (Table 1) soil was selected. S. Predicted UCBR (%) 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 70 60 50 UCBR (%) 40 30 20 10 80 % MDD 90 % MDD 100 % MDD Measured UCBR (%) Fig. For example.102 Dharamveer Singh. Laxmikant Yadu 80 y = 0. at 110% of OMC (wet side of OMC). 3 The Measured and the Predicted Unsoaked CBR Values for all Soils 20 y = 1. at a constant degree of compaction say 90%.99 x R2 = 0. Unsoaked CBR Effect of Moisture Content It can be seen from Figure 5 that as moisture content increases the unsoaked CBR value of soils decreases. 6 Variation of Soaked CBR value with Compaction Moisture Content for CH-1 Soil Soaked CBR Effect of Moisture Content Figure 6 shows the effect of moisture and the degree of compaction on soaked CBR. the soaked CBR value International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904.60 15 Predicted SCBR (%) 10 0 70 80 90 100 110 120 (MC/OMC) (%) 5 Fig. if soil is compacted at 120% of OMC (wet side of OMC). 4 The Measured and the Predicted Soaked CBR Values for all Soils VARIATION OF CBR WITH MOISTURE AND COMPACTION: The developed models (Equations (1) and (2)) were used to evaluate the effect of moisture content and the degree of compaction on CBR. if a sample is compacted at 120% of OMC (wet side of OMC). Similarly. For example.8% higher soaked CBR compared to soil compacted at OMC.e.. It is evident that as moisture content increases. a sample prepared at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC) resulted approximately 6. For brevity. at a constant degree of compaction say 90%. as compaction effort increases the unsoaked CBR values also increases (Figure 5). Similarly. only soil Narayangarh Blackish (i. at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC). increase in compaction effort from 80% to 90% would result in 6% increase in unsoaked CBR value. pp 100-103 .
June 11-15. No 06 SPL.  National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2001). Proceeding of 2nd South-east Asian Conference on Soil Engineering.  Black. Vol.M.M. Effect of Degree of Compaction At constant moisture content. pp 100-103 . CONCLUDING REMARKS The present study was undertaken to develop regressionbased models to estimate soaked and unsoaked CBR values of fine grained subgrade soils. Similarly. New Jersey).  Huang. Pavement Analysis and Design. an increase in degree of compaction from 80% to 100%. Singapore. increase in compaction effort from 80% to 90% would result in 62% increase in soaked CBR value. Inc. K.P. as compaction effort increases. at 110% of OMC (wet side of OMC). Malaysia. (1962). M. A. would result approximately 156% increase in soaked CBR (Figure 6).Design for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. and Ghanekar. Subgrade soil index properties to estimate resilient modulus for pavement design. For example. Master of Engineering Thesis.W. the soaked CBR values also increases (Figure 6). 571-576. A good agreement was observed between the measured and the predicted CBR values. (1970). Prediction of CBR from Plasticity Characteristics of Soil. Geotechnique.  Rahim. The effect of both moisture and compaction effort is more significant on the soaked CBR value. The International Journal of Pavement Engineering.6% compared to soaked CBR value at OMC (Figure 6). Effect of compaction on soaked CBR is more dominant compared to unsoaked CBR. 2006. W. A total of 100 samples were tested for soaked and unsoaked CBR values for five different soils. both soaked and unsoaked significantly affected by change in moisture content and compaction effort. California Bearing Ratio Correlation With Soil Index Properties.B. 3. No. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904. It is recommended that the developed regression models be validated on large range of soils.. REFERENCES 103  Agarwal. 6. at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC). Guide for Mechanistic and Empirical.. it was observed that the CBR value. 1970.D. University of Technology. 1993 (Prentice-Hill.H. Regression-based models were developed and validated. A Method of Estimating the CBR of Cohesive Soils from Plasticity Data. K. Furthermore.Moisture and Compaction Based Statistical Model for Estimating CBR of Fine Grained Subgrade Soils decreases approximately 13. Y. Volume 04. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. October 2011.  Kin. September 2005. 12: 271-272. Vol. 163-169.