You are on page 1of 68

A STUDY ON INFLUENCE OF SOAKING ON CBR VALUE OF SOIL IN MADHYA PRADESH

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 Asst. Prof. 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.

Asst. Prof. S. Rokade 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. 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)

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

15 15 PAGE NO . INTRODUCTION 1.CONTENTS TITLES CERTIFICATE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLE LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1.1 NEED OF STUDY 1.3 THESIS ORGANISATION CHAPTER 2.2 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE OF STUDY 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.04 05 06 07 08 09 10 .11 12 .3 QUICK ESTIMATION OF CBR 01 02 03 .1 IMPORTANCE OF CBR OF SOIL SUBGRADE 2.2 DETERMINATION OF CBR VALUE OF SOIL SUBGRADE 2.

ANALYSIS & RESULTS 4.2 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST 3. 1 4.2.1 LIQUID LIMIT TEST 3.1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (The actual laboratory method) 3. 2 4.2 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.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 . CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMANDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY 5.4 IRC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CBR METHOD OF DESIGN 2.5 TYPICAL PREASUMPTIVE VALUE OF CBR CHAPTER 3.1 CONCLUSION 5. 4 CHAPTER 5.3 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO. DETAILS OF LABORATORY STUDIES 3.4 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.2.2. 3 4.3 DETERMINATION OF CBR OF SOIL CHAPTER 4.2 DETERMINATION OF INDEX PROPERTY 3.1 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.

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

2 32 Table 7 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No. 4 51 Table 12 Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4 . 2 33 Table 8 Analysis of Sample No. 1 24 Table 6 Analysis of Sample No. 1 23 Table 5 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No. 3 41 Table 9 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No. Description Page 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 50 Table 11 Grain Size Analysis of Sample No.LIST OF TABLE Table No. 3 42 Table 10 Analysis of Sample No.

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

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

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION .

However. . research aiming at finding the modes of damages to roads under flood has become necessary. The subgrade is always subjected to change in its moisture content due to rainfall. Index and identification tests were performed for classification and for determination of the suitability of the studied soils as subgrade material. It is observed that the CBR decreases and the moisture content increases for high degree of soaking. Subgrade strength is mostly expressed in terms of CBR (California Bearing Ratio). 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. 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 . overflow or rise of water table. Weaker subgrade essentially requires thicker layers whereas stronger subgrade goes well with thinner pavement layers.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 pavement and the subgrade mutually must sustain the traffic volume.CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION 1. For an engineer.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. which need to be confirmed by experiments. it's important to understand the change of subgrade strength due to variation of moisture content. 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. 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.

PL. less time consuming and cheap. This can be from the laboratory CBR test or directly from field CBR test. 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. only limited number of such tests could be performed because of high unit cost and time required for such testing.PI and grain size distribution 2) To study the soil under modified proctor compaction and determine the MDD and OMC for the soil sample 3) 4) To carry out CBR Test for sample soaked in different times To study the influence of soaking on subgrade strength . over the length of roads. 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.in the samples under varying soaking. 1) To collect a particular soil sample and determine its basic physical property such as LL. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of sub grade is used often for design of flexible pavements. it is difficult to reveal detailed variations in the CBR values.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.1. in many cases. to develop large scale connections of rural India within a short period of time. 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. This Thesis objective is to obtain a local correlation between the results of CBR laboratory test without soaked and CBR soaked value. By considering this aspect. The present scope of work for this thesis is to ascertain the CBR value under different soaking time conditions and to study the influence . 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. In practice. As a result. less time consuming and easy to perform tests. In such cases if the estimation of the CBR could be done on the basis of some tests which are quick to perform. The correlation between the result of CBR soaked test and CBR soaked value is hardly found. In this thesis. In MP.

. In Chapter 5 represent Conclusions & Recommendation for Further Study. In Chapter 3 represent Details of Laboratory Studies. In Chapter 2 represent Literature Review.1. In Chapter 4 represent Analysis & Results.3 THESIS ORGANISATION In Chapter 1 represent Introduction.

CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .

and in-situ stresses. and the stress history. providing a suitable foundation for the pavement. changes from time to time and can vary from place to place within a given area. is treated similarly to provide a suitable foundation for the pavement. the cut formation. just beneath the pavement crust. generally of naturally occurring local soil. Further. deformation is primarily dependent upon the soil's properties. airfield runways and other pavement systems is of immense importance to the integrity of the pavement. In addition. assumed to be 300 mm in thickness. highways and other pavement systems is determined in significant part by the load-bearing capacity of the underlying sub pavement) earth or soil. The extent and time-dependence of.CHAPTER -2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. which serves as the subgrade. improved subgrades are provided by way of lime/cement treatment or by mechanical stabilization and other similar techniques. or resilient modulus of soil. and the like. Absent are (a) in-situ overburden stress. laboratory test. subgrade can be defined as a compacted layer. Conventional soil-structure modeling is based on the results of laboratory testing of individual localized soil samples. the objective being to calculate with the stiffness. Soil properties in turn are determined by a variety of complex interrelated factors. for example in Black Cotton soil areas. This load-bearing capacity. However. Where the naturally occurring local subgrade soils have poor engineering properties and low strength in terms of CBR. (b) in-situ soil interactions. In cuttings. 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. usually to a higher standard than the lower part of the embankment. as in the case of the well-known California Bearing Ratio. The stability or load-bearing capacity (capability) of the pavement of airport runways. weight-volume relationships. existing stress conditions. or soil stiffness. tests such as the CBR are severely disadvantaged because the test conditions and the soil sample (specimen) are not representative of in-situ conditions.1 IMPORTANCE OF CBR OF SOIL SUBGRADE The load bearing capacity of the soil supporting highways. which may deteriorate over time due to environmental and stress influences on soil properties. Another known method for determining composite soil stiffness is the use of plate bearing tests on the surface of soil layers. certain pavement systems such as runways and highways typically endure repeated severe loadings on a daily basis. For instance. As per MORT&H Specifications. 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). The subgrade in embankment is compacted in two layers. and the degree of recovery from. Soil stiffness is the degree of resistance to deformation upon loading. changes in soil load-bearing conditions due to changes in moisture content and/or repeated loading over time are well recognized in engineering fields. The proper determination of existing bearing-load capacities of soil-supported pavement systems requires that the existing soil conditions be defined and evaluated. As mentioned herein above. including composition particle size and particle-size distribution. . many if not most soil samples have been disturbed to some degree during sampling and handling. or CBR.

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.96 Load (kN) 13. 1 (Standard crushes rock from California value) 19. The test remains in existence around the world due to its low equipment requirements. The standard crushes rock from California values are as follows: Table No.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 California Bearing Ratio test is to determine the CBR value for a soil under consideration as a pavement foundation. It is important to realize that the CBR test is but one step in the road pavement foundation design process. The CBR value is used to quantify the response of the pavement foundation and subgrade to loading.5 5. This value is a percentage comparison with the standard crushed rock from California. 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. Thus this test is a comparison test. easy of performance and history of use. .24 Penetration (mm) 2.

1 (CBR Apparatus) . Surcharge weight-annular weights each of 2. IS sieve 19mm. 2. 5.2 DETERMINATION OF CBR VALUE OF SOIL SUBGRADE APPARATUS: 1.25mm per minute can be used. Compaction rammer. Fig.5kg and 147mm diameter. balance etc. No. 4. 3. Cylindrical moulds.2. Loading machine-any compression machine can operate at constant rate of 1. coarse filter paper.moulds of 150mm diameter and 175mm height provided with a collar of about 50mm length and detachable perforated base.

subgrade and base course materials for flexible pavements. Remove base plate and invert the mould. The top layer of the compacted soil is scratched. Load is applied such that penetration rate is 1. Test consists of causing a cylindrical plunger of 50mm diameter to penetrate a pavement component material at 1. Mould containing specimen is placed in position on the testing machine. The mould is cleaned and oil is applied. . That layer is compacted by giving 56 evenly distributed blows using a hammer of weight 4.4. 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.5mm are noted. 3.25mm/minute. 2.5. Then soil and water are mixed thoroughly. CBR test may be conducted in remolded or undisturbed sample. Then dial readings are adjusted to zero. Spacer disc is placed over the base plate at the bottom of mould and a coarse filter paper is placed over the spacer disc. Take 5kg of the sample of soil specimen. 2.The California Bearing Ratio(CBR) test was developed by the California Division of Highways as a method of classifying and evaluating soil. 1. Then it is clamped to base plate. Add water to the soil in the quantity such that optimum moisture content or field moisture content is reached. 1.5. The prepared soil water mix is divided into five.5mm and 5mm are recorded.5. collar is also attached to the mould and process is continued.5.25mm per minute. After 3rd layer.10 and 12.5kg are placed on top surface of soil. Then fill one fifth of the mould with the prepared soil.89kg. CBR is a measure of resistance of a material to penetration of standard plunger under controlled density and moisture conditions.5. Surcharge weights of 2.7. Load at penetration of 0. This load is expressed as a percentage of standard load value at a respective deformation level to obtain CBR value. After fifth layer collar is removed and excess soil is struck off. Again second layer is filled and process is repeated. The loads for 2. Sieve the sample through 19 mm IS sieve.

0mm penetration = .0 3180 162 12.5 3600 183 RESULT: California Bearing Ratio at 2. 2 (Standard Load Value) Penetration(mm) Standard Load(kg) Unit Standard Load(kg/cm2) 2.5 2630 134 10.5 1370 70 5 2055 105 7.Standard Load Values Table No.5mm penetration = California Bearing Ratio at 5.

2. By conducting actual CBR tests in the laboratory. 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. Using a Nomo graph based on wet sieve analysis data. Non. Where WPI= weighted plasticity index= P0. 3. 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. 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. Plastic soil CBR= 75/(1+0. Using two sets of equations.075× PI= Plasticity index of soil in % P0.091(D60)0. Soil classification can be used for preliminary report preparation.3581 \Where D60= Diameter in mm of the grain size corresponding to 60% finer. for estimating soaked CBR values on samples compacted to proctor density. based on classification test data.3 QUICK ESTIMATION OF CBR 1.Plastic soil CBR= 28.075 mm sieve in decimal 2.075= % Passing 0. 4. .. for estimating 4-day soaked CBR values on samples compacted to proctor density.

a value of 7. n = number of years between the last count and the year of completion of construction. expected to be achieved in the field. .5% may be assumed for roads in rural areas. the sample should be compacted to field density of sub graded soil (at OMC or at a field moisture content. If the maximum variation in CBR valves of the three specimens exceeds the specified limits.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. 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.) In new constructions the CBR test samples may be soaked in water for four days period before testing. otherwise the soil sample may be compacted to the dry density. 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. 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. A = P(1+r)(n+10). In the case of existing roads. In – Site tests are not recommended for design purpose. 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. The specimens should be prepared by static compaction where ever possible and other wise by dynamic compaction. The standard test procedure should be strictly adhered to. 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.2.4 I R C 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. it is not necessary to soak the soil specimen before carrying out the CBR test. If a reliable value of growth factor r is not available. 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. The value of P in the formula should be the seven day average of heavy vehicles found from 24 hour counts. At least three samples should be tested on each 1 type of soil at the same density and moisture content. Wherever possible the most adverse moisture condition of the sub grade should be determined from the field study.

200 kg and random axle loads upto 14. The suitable design curve should be chosen from the table given in the design chart (fig). 2. This layers of wearing course such as surface dressing or open graded premixed carpet up to 2.3 (Typical presumptive CBR values) CBR VALUE SUBGRADE STRENGTH 3% or less Poor 3% . (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.500 kg.5 cm thickness should not be counted towards the total thickness of pavement as they do not increase the structural capacity as the pavement.5 TYPICAL PREASUMPTIVE VALUE OF CBR Table.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. the CBR value of these materials would not be valid for the design of subsequent layers above them.15% good . For higher axle loads the thickness values should be further increased.5% normal 5% . The design thickness is considered for single axle loads upto 8.

CHAPTER – 3 DETAILS OF LABORATORY STUDIES .

05 in. 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. Though the test originated in California. sub-grade material) at the rate of 0.1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (The actual laboratory method) The CBR test was originally developed by O. . per minute (1. The penetration resistance of the plunger into a standard sample of crushed stone for the corresponding penetration is called standard load. expressed as percentage for a given penetration of the plunger. base. 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. Observations are taken between the penetration resistance (called the test load) versus the penetration of plunger. 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%. Porter for the California Highway Department during the 1920s. In the 1940s.J.CHAPTER -3 DETAILS OF LABORATORY STUDIES 3. abbreviated as CBR is defined as the ratio of the test load to the standard load.. the California Department of Transportation and most other highway agencies have Since abandoned the CBR method of pavement design.25 mm/minute). whose results are then used with an empirical design chart to determine the thickness of flexible pavement. and other layers for a given vehicle loading. It is a load-deformation test performed in the laboratory or the field.e. The California bearing ratio.

Estimation of proctor density and optimum moisture content for each soil sample.Four Lot of soil samples of NH86 Bhopal to Chhatarpur Road taken as per classification. 2. 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. 5. Each soil sample is tested for its soaked CBR and unsoaked CBR strength after being soaked in water for 4 days . 1. Determination of CBR strength of the respective soil samples in moulds using the CBR instrument. liquid limit and plastic limit. On original sample carried out first wet sieve analysis. 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. Thus the process comprises of three parts. 4. 3.

2. 3 days and 4 days.2 Determination of index property  Liquid limit by liquid limit device  Plastic limit  Plastic Index  Shrinkage limit 3. 2 days. The plasticity index is defined as the numerical difference between its Liquid limit and Plastic limit.1 Liquid Limit Test This test is done to determine the liquid limit of soil as per IS: 2720 (Part 5) – 1985. but has small shear strength. Unsoaked CBR is also determined for each sample. 3. Its flow closes the groove in just 25 blows in Casagrande’s liquid limit device.The experimental work comprises in the following parts: 3. . 3.2.2 Plastic Limit Test Plastic limit is defined as minimum water content at which soil remains in plastic state. (iii) Soil sample is tested for its CBR strength after being soaked in water for 1 day. (ii) Determination of CBR strength of the respective soil samples in moulds using the CBR instrument.3 Determination of CBR of Soil (i) 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. The liquid limit of fine-grained soil is the water content at which soil behaves practically like a liquid.

CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS & RESULTS .

) CBR soaked (72Hrs. MDD & OMC 5.14 6. 4 (Analysis & Result of sample No.53 17.05 5. Free Swell Index 4.CHAPTER . 1 The result of CBR test of soil sample performed in the laboratory under different times of soaking are presented in table no.40 20. 4 Table No.87 24.5 1. 1) Atterberg’s Limit CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs. CBR Soaked .1 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO.57 9.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.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.66 7.02 Observation Reports of Sample No.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.9 12 18. Consistency Limit 3. 1 are given below :1. CBR Unsoaked 6. Grain Size Analysis 2. 4.) CBR with 4 day Soaking Liquid Limit (LL) % Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc OMC% 38.

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

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

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

No.) of sample no. 1) . 4 (CBR Test Result (24Hrs.Fig.

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

Fig.) of sample no. 1 . 6 (CBR Test Result (72Hrs. No.

) of sample no. No. 1 Fig. Soaking Sample No. 1 .CBR with 96 Hrs. 7 (CBR Test Result (96 Hrs.

0 Time in Hour's 80.) 9.00 0.0 60.00 C BR in %) 12.05 CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs. 8 (Variation of CBR with Time of Soaking Sample No.66 CBR soaked (48 Hrs. 1) .00 8.00 14.57 CBR soaked (24 Hrs.0 40.0 Fig.00 16.) 5.14 CBR soaked (72Hrs.0 100.02 20.00 4.00 6.) 6.00 2.VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO.00 0.) 18.00 18.) 7. 1 CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs. No.0 120.0 20.00 10.

2 are given below :1.50 20.4.40 7. 2 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.25 13. CBR Soaked .97 29. Grain Size Analysis 2. Consistency Limit 3.) CBR soaked (72Hrs. CBR Unsoaked 6.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs. 6 Table No.) CBR with 4 day Soaking Liquid Limit (LL) % Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % 34. 6 (Analysis of Sample No.9 12 25. Free Swell Index 4.25 1.35 6.2 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO. 2) Atterberg's Limit Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc OMC% CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.53 13.19 Observation Reports of Sample No.37 10. MDD & OMC 5.

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

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

10 (CBR Test Result (0 Hrs.) of sample no. No. 2 .Fig.

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

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

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

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

35 CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.0 120. 2) .00 0.) 10. 15 (Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No.0 Time in Hour's 80.00 10.37 CBR soaked (48 Hrs.0 60.00 5.25 CBR soaked (24 Hrs. 2 CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.0 Fig.) 7.) 25.00 20.) 6.0 40.0 20.40 CBR soaked (72Hrs.00 0.) 13.00 C BR in %) 15.VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO.0 100.19 30. No.00 25.

26 20.3 1.87 9 21.54 12. CBR Soaked .) CBR soaked (72Hrs. 3 The result of CBR test of soil sample performed in the laboratory under different times of soaking are presented in table no.88 10. MDD & OMC 5. Free Swell Index 4.37 Observation Reports of Sample No. 3 are given below :1.40 8. 8 (Analysis of sample no.53 12.4.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.3 ANALYSIS & RESULT OF SAMPLE NO. 8 Table No. CBR Unsoaked 6.) CBR with 4 day Soaking 33. Consistency Limit 3.63 11.73 16. 3) Atterberg's Limit Liquid Limit (LL) % Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc OMC% CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs. Grain Size Analysis 2.

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

Fig. 16 (LL & PL Test Result of sample no. 3 . No.

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

) of sample no.Fig. 18 (CBR Test Result (24 Hrs. No. 3 .

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

) of sample no. 3 .Fig. 20 (CBR Test Result (72 Hrs. No.

Fig. No. 21 (CBR Test Result (96 Hrs.) of sample no. 3

VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO. 3

CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.) 21.54

CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) 12.63

CBR soaked (48 Hrs.) 11.88

CBR soaked (72Hrs.) 10.40

CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.) 8.37

30.00

25.00

20.00

C BR in %)

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Time in Hour's 80.0 100.0 120.0

Fig. No. 22 (Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No. 3)

4.4 ANALYSIS & RESULT 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. 10 (Analysis of sample No. 4)
Atterberg's Limit Free Swell Index Mas Dry Density gm/cc CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs.) CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) CBR soaked (48 Hrs.) CBR soaked (72Hrs.) CBR with 4 day Soaking

Liquid Limit (LL) %

Plastic Limit (PL) %

Plasticity Index (PI) %

OMC%

31.53

20.53

11.00

19.3

1.93

10

17.83

9.66

8.91

7.43

5.31

Observation Reports of Sample No. 4 are given below :1. Grain Size Analysis 2. Consistency Limit 3. Free Swell Index 4. MDD & OMC 5. CBR Unsoaked 6. CBR Soaked

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

4 . No.Fig. 23 (LL & PL Test Result of sample no.

24 (CBR Test Result (0 Hrs. No.) of sample no.Fig. 4 .

4 .Fig. 25 (CBR Test Result (24 Hrs.) of sample no. No.

No.Fig. 4 . 26 (CBR Test Result (48 Hrs.) of sample no.

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

28 (CBR Test Result (96 Hrs. 4 .CBR with 96 Hrs. Soaking Sample No. No.) of sample no. 4 Fig.

) 9.VARIATION OF CBR WITH TIME OF SOAKING SAMPLE NO.31 20.00 4.) 17.00 2.00 8. 4) .00 C BR in %) 12.83 CBR soaked (24 Hrs.) 7.0 20.) 5.00 0.00 18.00 16.66 CBR soaked (48 Hrs.0 Time in Hour's 80.0 Fig.0 100.0 40.) 8.91 CBR soaked (72Hrs.4 CBR Unsoaked (0 Hrs. 29 (Variation of CBR with time of Soaking Sample No.43 CBR with 4 day Soaking (96 Hrs.0 120.00 6. No.00 0.00 10.00 14.0 60.

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. it is observed that the CBR value of the given soil sample decreases rapidly with time of soaking up to 24 hrs.1 CONCLUSION From the results and discussions described earlier. and then decreases slowly. It is observed that the CBR decreases and the moisture content increases for high degree of soaking. . 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.CHAPTER .5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMANDATION FOR FUTHER STUDY 5. 5.

83 9.02 6.66 13.05 7.) 1 2 3 4 18.91 7.88 8.35 10.57 25.37 12.Table No. CBR result (0 Hrs.63 9.) CBR result (96 Hrs.4 11.66 7.) CBR result (24 Hrs.14 10. 30 (Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4) .43 5.91 6.4 11.54 17.) CBR result (48 Hrs.) CBR result (72 Hrs. No.14 10.88 8.) CBR result (48 Hrs.4 7.19 8.37 5. 12 (Variation of CBR with time of soaking of sample no 1 to 4) Sample No.31 Fig.25 21.

R. Inc.  “Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for low volume of Rural road” IRC. India.SP-72.H. R. E. (1943).  Khanna S. Tom . (2009). (1967).B.J.  Sahoo Biswajeet & Nayak Devadatta. "A Text Book of Highway Engineering" Dhanpat Rai Publications. W.  Terzaghi. Chapman and Hall. Roorkee Highway engineering.G. Hohn Wiley & Sons. and C.C. New Delhi  Berry D.B. R. Dry density relation using a heavy Compaction” . (2009) "A Study of Subgrade Strength Related to moisture"  Singhal.P. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. London and John Wiley & Sons. Soil Mechanics in engineering practice. (1967). India. Principles of pavement design. and Goetz Woods. Nem Chand & Bros.  Mathew V. John Wiley and Sons.K. K. Theoretical soil Mechanics.  Punmia B. Justo. K. McGraw Hill Book Co.. “A Text book of Soil Mechanics”  Bindra S.S.E. Highway Engineering Hand Book. India.  Yoder..REFERENCES  Arora K. and Peck.P.  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.  Terzaghi. Ashok Kumar Jain & Arun Kumar Jain “A Text Book of Soil Mechanics & Foundations”. K. Entitled "Pavement materials: Soil Lecture notes in Transportation Systems Engineering. Singhal Publications.

Soil mechanics for road engineers. "Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural Roads" IRC. IRC : 37-2001. 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. DSIR.  Indian Roads Congress.  Road Research Laboratory. New Delhi. HMSO publication. India. Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements (second revision).  IRC-SP 72-2007. .