A STUDY ON LABORATORY SOAKED CBR OF SOIL SUBGRADE OF

RURAL1 ROADS 2
Somnath Khanra , Tapobrata Sanyal
1
Junior research fellow, Department of Civil engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, India
2
Chief Consultant, National Jute Board, Ministry of Textiles Govt. of India, Kolkata, India

ABSTRACT:
INTRODUCTION:
LITERATURE REVIEW:
CBR value of soil may depend on many factors like maximum dry density (MDD), optimum
moisture content (OMC), liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), plasticity index (PI), type of soil,
permeability of soil etc. (Dr. D.K. Talukdar, 2014). Dr. D.K. Talukdar had developed a
correlation between laboratory soaked CBR and other properties of soil (year, 2014); P.G.
Rakaraddi, Vijay Gomarsi (year, 2015) also had developed a simple correlation and a multi
linear regression analysis between soaked CBR and properties of soil like liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index, optimum moisture content , maximum dry density and percentage
fineness. CBR test in laboratory requires a large soil sample and is laborious as well as time
consuming; the results sometimes are not accurate due to poor quality of skill of the technicians
testing the soil samples in the laboratory (Roy, Chattapadhyay & Roy, 2010).

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY:
The basic objectives of this study are:

[1] To determine the simple statistical relationship developed between laboratory soaked
CBR(%) value with compaction factors like maximum dry density (MDD), optimum
moisture content (OMC) of soil sub-grade and plasticity index(PI) of that soil.

[2] To develop a multiple statistical relationship between laboratory soaked CBR (%) and those
parameters by using multiple linear regression analysis with the help of data analysis tool of
Microsoft excel-2007.

METHODS OF WORK:
The programme was carried out by following steps--
Collection of soil samples for laboratory test:
Twenty-ninth numbers of disturbed soil samples at different Chain age were collected from
different districts of West Bengal and Karnataka in India for the preparation of Detailed Project
Report of Rural roads, under an international project (CFC/IJSG/21) funded by the Common
Fund for Commodities (CFC), a financial unit of the UN. The location and chain-age of
samples are given in Table-1.
Computation of soil parameters in laboratory:
The laboratory tests were carried out by following ways--

[1] The percentage of different size of soil particles in all the samples were obtained by
sieve analysis, recommended in IS: 2720 (part 4)-1985.The tests results are given in
Table-1.
[2] The consistency limit of soil samples were performed as per IS: 2720(part 5)-1985.The
test results are shown in Table-2.
[3] The optimum moisture content was determined by standard Proctor test as per IS: 2720
(Part VII).The test was performed in a cylindrical mould of 1000 ml capacity. Soaked
CBR values of soil samples were determined as per IS: 2720 (Part 16) - 1987. The values
are given in Table-2.

Determination of soil type:

From the above tests the classification of soil samples were obtained as per IS (IS: 1498-1970).
All the soil samples were found to be of Clay of intermediate compressibility (CI) and silt of
highly compressibility (MH), given in Table-2
Table-1 Table-2
Location of samples & Results of sieve analysis Results of compaction, consistency limit & classification of soil
Chain Silt & Type
Name of Gravel Sand OMC MDD CBR LL PL PI
Sample - age clay Sample of soil
road (%) (%) (%) (gm/cc) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(Km.) (%)
S1 0.988 0.00 11.47 88.53 S1 20.56 1.643 2.6 38.21 18.95 19.26 CI
Dakshindinajpur, West

S2 1.97 0.00 10.9 89.1 S2 21.05 1.64 2.5 38.98 19.26 19.72 CI
Kansa to Bati,

S3 2.939 0.00 12.1 87.9 S3 20.09 1.647 2.7 37.58 18.7 18.88 CI
Bengal, India

S4 3.915 0.00 11.47 88.53 S4 20.56 1.643 2.6 38.25 18.97 19.28 CI
S5 4.852 0.00 12.65 87.35 S5 19.57 1.65 2.8 37.81 18.76 19.05 CI
S6 5.785 0.00 10.87 89.13 S6 20.06 1.646 2.7 38.61 19.08 19.53 CI
S7 6.775 0.00 12.66 87.34 S7 19.57 1.65 2.8 37.78 18.7 19.08 CI
S8 7.668 0.00 13.08 86.92 S8 19.1 1.643 2.9 37.22 18.43 18.79 CI
S9 8.021 0.00 12.63 87.37 S9 19.56 1.65 2.8 37.8 18.78 19.02 CI
S10 0.54 14.40 26.5 59.1 S10 19.3 1.68 2.8 44.2 25.8 18.4 CI
S11 1.23 6.70 28.8 64.5 S11 18.9 1.68 2.9 45.4 26.2 19.6 CI
District, Karnataka,
Gundur, Harveri
Devarahospet to

S12 1.4 7.50 20.6 71.9 S12 18.4 1.65 2.7 45.1 27.1 18 CI
S13 1.9 6.50 28.8 64.7 S13 18.8 1.68 2.9 45.3 26.1 19.2 CI
India

S14 2.5 6.50 28.9 64.6 S14 18.9 1.69 2.9 45.8 26.9 18.9 CI
S15 3.4 2.00 15.3 82.7 S15 20.1 1.6 2.8 46.4 26.6 19.8 CI
S16 3.9 2.50 15 82.5 S16 23.4 1.52 2.2 49.5 28.1 21.4 CI
S17 5.2 1.00 15 84 S17 23.4 1.65 2.5 47.8 27.6 20.2 CI
S18 6.7 5.80 29.5 64.7 S18 20.5 1.71 2.6 39.8 23.6 16.2 CI
S19 0.5 0.00 0.25 99.75 S19 22.64 1.529 2.41 50.9 28.44 22.46 MH
.,W.B,In
Jhaparar
a,E.Med
Balpi to

S20 1.5 0.00 0.22 99.78 S20 22.33 1.523 2.36 51.4 29.24 22.16 MH
-dia.

S21 2.5 0.00 0.19 99.81 S21 22.03 1.517 2.31 51.9 30.04 21.86 MH
S22 3.3 0.00 0.25 99.75 S22 22.7 1.53 2.42 50.8 28.28 22.52 MH
S23 0.5 0.00 0.17 99.83 S23 21.91 1.515 2.29 52.1 30.36 21.74 MH
Chakdamusen,E.

W.Bengal, India

S24 1.5 0.00 0.19 99.81 S24 22.09 1.518 2.32 51.8 29.88 21.94 MH
Ruinan to

S25 2.5 0.00 0.19 99.81 S25 22.03 1.517 2.31 51.9 30.04 21.86 MH
Med

S26 3.5 0.00 0.16 99.84 S26 21.79 1.512 2.27 52.3 30.68 21.62 MH
S27 4.5 0.00 0.25 99.75 S27 22.7 1.53 2.42 50.4 28.28 22.52 MH
S28 5.5 0.00 0.2 99.8 S28 22.21 1.521 2.34 51.6 29.56 22.04 MH
S29 6.5 0.00 0.17 99.83 S29 21.85 1.514 2.28 52.2 30.52 21.68 MH
RESULT & DISCUSSION:

Simple statistical relationship: The relation between laboratory soaked CBR value and OMC,
MDD, PI are presented in Fig.1- Fig.3. The Fig.1-3 highlights that the best fitted curves (trend
line) are third degree polynomial. The polynomial equations and corresponding R2 (coefficient
of determination) are given in Table-3.

Table-3
Sl.
Relation between Simple statistical equation R2
No.
1. CBR & OMC CBR(%) = 0.023OMC3-1.442OMC2+29.65OMC-199.0 0.904
2. CBR & MDD CBR(%) = 61.63MDD3-313MDD2+530.6MDD-297.4 0.792
3 2
3. CBR & PI CBR(%) = 0.018PI -1.091PI +21.37PI-135.5 0.816

Fig.-1 Fig.-2
3
CBR Vs OMC CBR Vs MDD
3
2.9 2.9
2.8 2.8
2.7 2.7
2.6 2.6
CBR(%)
CBR(%)

2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4
2.3 2.3

2.2 2.2
y = 61.63x3 - 313x2 + 530.6x - 297.4
y = 0.023x3 - 1.442x2 + 29.65x - 199.0 2.1
2.1 R² = 0.792
R² = 0.904 2
2
1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75
18 20 OMC(%) 22 24 MDD (gm/cm3)
 Fig.-3

CBR Vs PI
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
CBR(%) 2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1 y = 0.018x3 - 1.091x2 + 21.37x - 135.5
R² = 0.816
2
15 17 19 21 23
PI(%)

From Table-3 it is observed that the soaked CBR can be correlated to OMC with polynomial
trend line having highest R2 whereas the minimum R2 with MDD.

Multiple statistical relationship: From the above curves (Fig.1- Fig.3) we have seen that
soaked CBR value approximately increases with increase in the value of MDD whereas
decreases with increase in the value of OMC and PI. So, based on the all test data a multiple
linear statistical model has been developed by using multiple linear regression analysis is given
below.

CBR (%) = 2.263×MDD – 0.105×OMC + 0.056×PI ............. (1)

To know the efficiency of the model, the value of coefficient of determination (R Square) and
standard error of the equation (Eqn.1) has been determined and corresponding values are given
in Table-4
Table-4
Regression Statistics Standard Error
Multiple R 0.999667 MDD 0.075
R Square 0.999334 OMC 0.0141
Adjusted R Square 0.960821 PI 0.013
Standard Error 0.070252
Observations 29
In Eqn.1 laboratory soaked CBR has linear relationship with OMC, MDD and PI, with co-
efficient of determination of 0.9993; so if we know the value of other parameters of soil i.e.
OMC, MDD and PI, we can easily compute the predicted CBR value which gives us an
approximate idea about CBR value before laboratory CBR test.

Variation between laboratory soaked CBR in laboratory and predicted CBR (Obtained from
eqn.1) is shown in Table-5 and Fig. 4.

Table-5
Comparison of CBR Values

CBR (%)
CBR Variation
Sample from
(%) (%)
eqn.1
S1 2.6 2.64 -1.46
S2 2.5 2.61 -4.22
S3 2.7 2.67 0.93
S4 2.6 2.64 -1.50
S5 2.8 2.75 1.93
S6 2.7 2.71 -0.45
S7 2.8 2.75 1.87
S8 2.9 2.76 4.66
S9 2.8 2.75 1.95
Fig.-4
S10 2.8 2.81 -0.21 3.5
S11 2.9 2.91 -0.52
S12 2.7 2.81 -4.07
S13 2.9 2.90 -0.10 3
S14 2.9 2.90 0.06
S15 2.8 2.62 6.46 2.5
S16 2.2 2.18 0.86
S17 2.5 2.41 3.67
S18 2.6 2.62 -0.94 2
S19 2.41 2.34 2.88
S20 2.36 2.34 0.73 1.5
S21 2.31 2.34 -1.47
S22 2.42 2.34 3.31
S23 2.29 2.35 -2.42 1
S24 2.32 2.34 -1.05
S25 2.31 2.34 -1.47
0.5
S26 2.27 2.34 -3.28 LABORATORY CBR(%)
S27 2.42 2.34 3.31
CBR(%) FROM EQN.-i
S28 2.34 2.34 -0.18 0
S29 2.28 2.35 -2.90
5

16

27
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29

From Table-5 we have seen that the maximum difference between laboratory CBR and
predicted CBR is 6.46% but in most cases the difference is <5%.
CONCLUSIONS:
From present study the following conclusions can be sawn:

[1] There is a slight difference between laboratory soaked CBR value and predicted CBR value
computed by using multiple statistical model.

[2] The type of soil used in this study is CI and MH. Further study is needed with other types of
soil.

REFERENCES:

[1] Roy, T.K; Chattapadhyay, B. C and Roy, S. K. 2010. California Bearing Ratio, Evaluation
and Estimation: A Study of Comparison. IGC-2010, IIT, Mumbai, pp 19-22.
[2] Rakaraddi, P.G; Gomarsi, Vijay; 2015.Establishing relationship between CBR with different
soil properties, IJRET, eISSN: 2319-1163 pISSN: 232 I1-7308.
[3] IS: 2720 (Relevant) Methods of Test for soils, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[4] IS: 1498-1970, Classification and Identification of soils for general engineering purposes,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
[5] Dr. Talukdar, D.K .A Study of Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value
With Other Properties of Soil, ijetae, volume 4, Issue 1, January 2014.