International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2014)
A Study of Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) Value With Other Properties of Soil
Dr. Dilip Kumar Talukdar1
1
Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, Nowgong Polytechnic, Nagaon, Assam. India. 782001.
Abstract-- California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value is an
important soil parameter for design of flexible pavements
and runway of air fields. It can also be used for
determination of sub grade reaction of soil by using
correlation. It is one of the most important engineering
properties of soil for design of sub grade of rural roads.
CBR value of soil may depends 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. Besides, soaked or
unsoaked condition of soil also affects the value.
Determination of CBR is a very lengthy and time
consuming process. An attempt has been made here to
correlate soaked CBR value with MDD, OMC, LL, PL and
PI of some soil sample collected from different locations of
Nogaon District of Assam, India. These tests can easily be
performed in the laboratory. Soaked CBR is considered as
Assam is a flood prone state and some rural roads remain
under water for two or three days. Correlation coefficient
(r) of each of these properties with CBR is determined and
their significance is tested by using statistical t- test. Finally
a linear multiple regression model was developed by using
linex statistics of Microsoft Excel (version 13.0) for
determination of CBR value involving the above mentioned
soil parameters.
Keywords-- California Bearing Ratio, Coefficient of
correlation, t-test, soaked, significant.
I. INTRODUCTION
Most of the Indian highways system consists of
flexible pavement. There are different methods of design
of flexible pavement. The California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) test is an empirical method of design of flexible
pavement. It is a load test applied to the surface and used
in soil investigations as an aid to the design of
pavements. The CBR value obtained in this test forms an
integral part of several flexible pavement design methods
(ASTM, 2007). For applications where the effect of
compaction water content on CBR is small, such as
cohesionless, coarse-grained materials, or where an
allowance is made for the effect of differing compaction
water contents in the design procedure, the CBR may be
determined at the optimum water content of a specified
compaction effort. The dry unit weight specified is
normally the minimum percent compaction allowed by
the using agency’s field compaction specification.
559
For applications where the effect of compaction water
content on CBR is unknown or where it is desired to
account for its effect, the CBR is determined for a range
of water contents, usually the range of water content
permitted for field compaction by using agency’s field
compaction specification. The design for new
construction should be based on the strength of the
samples prepared at optimum moisture content (OMC)
corresponding to the Proctor Compaction and soaked in
water for a period of four days before testing. In case of
existing road requiring strengthening, the soil should be
moulded at the field moisture contentand soaked for four
days before testing. But, Bindra (1991) reported that,
soaking for four days may be very severe and may be
discarded in some cases. This test method is used to
evaluate the potential strength of subgrade, subbase, and
base course material, including recycled materials for use
in road and airfield pavements. Bindra (1991) reported
that design curves (based on the curve evolved by Road
Research Laboratory, U.K) are adopted by Indian Road
Congress (IRC: 37-1970). As per IRC, CBR test should
be performed on remoulded soil in the laboratory. In-situ
tests are not recommended for design purpose (Bindra,
1991). Most of the rural roads in Assam, constructed
under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) are
designed on the basis of CBR value. For a given soil, the
CBR value, and consequently the design, will depend
largely on the density and the moisture content of the
soil. It is also depends on type of soil. CBR is more for
sandy soil than clayey soil. But, CBR test is laborious
and time consuming; Furthermore, the results sometimes
are not accurate due to poor quality of skill of the
technicians testing the soil samples in the laboratory
(Roy, Chattopadhyay and Roy, 2010). To overcome these
difficulties, an attempt has been made in this study to
correlate CBR value statistically with the liquid limit
(LL). Plastic limit (PL), plasticity index (PI), maximum
dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content
(OMC) of soil, because these tests are simple and can be
completed with less period of time.
II. EXPERIMENTAL W ORKS
Collection of soil sample
Sixteen numbers of disturbed soil samples were
collected from different sites of Nagaon district of
Assam, India.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2014)
Determination of particle size Determination of Compaction Property and CBR value
The percentages of various sizes of particles in all the Compaction properties are determined by standard
soil samples were obtained by wet sieve analysis and the Proctor test as per IS:2720 (PartVII).The test was
percentages of different fractions are presented in performed in a cylindrical mould of 1000 ml capacity
Table 1. using a rammer of weight 2.6 kg with 310 mm height of
free fall. Soaked CBR values of soil sample were
Determination of Consistency limit
determined as per procedure laid down in IS: 2720 (Part
The consistency is largely related with the amount of XVI) - 1979. The values are shown in Table 3.
water content of soil and mostly used for fine grained
soils. Liquid limit was determined by using cone Classification of Soil
penetrometer and plastic limit was obtained by thread Considering the soil properties from Table 1 and 2 the
rolling method. Shrinkage limit was not determined here. soils are then classified according to grain size and as per
The test results are shown in Table 2. IS (IS: 1498-1970). All the soil samples were found to be
Table 1 of silts of low compressibility (ML) and of silts of
Test results of sieve analysis intermediate compressibility (MI).
Sample Gravel Sand Silts & Type of soil Table 3
Compaction properties and CBR values
No. (%) (%) clay (%)
1 0.00 27.15 72.85 Fine grained Sample MDD OMC CBR
2 2.35 28.94 68.71 Fine grained No. (gm/cc) (%) (%)
3 1.31 28.94 68.71 Fine grained 1 1.65 14.56 5.56
4 0.64 30.14 69.22 Fine grained 2 1.7 15.11 5.62
5 4.71 36.52 58.77 Fine grained 3 1.71 15.2 5.77
6 2.39 35.23 62.38 Fine grained 4 1.69 15.35 5.69
7 1.44 35.01 63.55 Fine grained 5 1.72 15.62 5.81
8 0.35 29.44 70.21 Fine grained 6 1.77 14.39 6.12
9 2.35 28.94 68.71 Fine grained 7 1.76 14.92 6.1
10 1.87 26.92 71.21 Fine grained 8 1.64 15.82 5.72
11 0.00 25.94 74.06 Fine grained 9 1.75 14.42 6.2
12 2.65 18.12 79.23 Fine grained 10 1.74 14.16 6.05
13 1.25 27.64 71.11 Fine grained 11 1.73 15.62 5.95
14 3.81 26.92 69.27 Fine grained 12 1.62 15.76 5.67
15 3.35 13.44 83.21 Fine grained 13 1.66 15.52 5.92
16 2.38 28.21 69.41 Fine grained 14 1.68 15.62 5.88
15 1.71 15.4 5.98
Table 2
Results of consistency tests and classification of soil.
16 1.74 14.65 6.02

Sample LL PL PI Type of Graphical Analysis of Soil Properties

No. (%) (%) (%) soil The relation of CBR value with respect to different
1 28.46 20.24 8.22 ML soil properties are presented in Fig.1 through Fig.3. From
2 34.62 26.65 7.97 ML Fig.1, 2 and 3, it has been observed that CBR value
3 34.92 27.4 7.52 ML decreases with increase in the value of plasticity index
4 35.2 27.51 7.69 MI and optimum moisture content of soil. On the other hand,
5 34.42 27.47 6.95 ML it is increases with increase in the value of maximum dry
6 29.35 23.23 6.12 ML density.
7 30.34 23.78 6.56 ML Statistical Analysis of Soil Properties
8 36.78 28.32 8.46 MI The variations shown by tables and graphs do not
9 32.21 25.69 6.52 ML provide quantitative information regarding prediction,
10 34.25 27.53 6.72 ML judgement or decision making. Basic trends of property
11 35.69 28.54 7.15 MI required for design and construction purpose of a project
12 36.29 28.18 8.11 MI work generally lie hidden in the data generated.
13 35.23 27.88 7.35 MI
14 36.23 28.98 7.25 MI
15 34.56 26.44 8.12 ML
16 35.36 28.34 7.02 MI
560
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2014)
A mathematical description of the sets of variables is
the best way of scientific explanation, because in a 9
graphical presentation, prior to this, there is always an 8
element of biasness or misleading presentation (Barua
7
and Patgiri, 1996). To know the association of CBR
value with other properties of soil, correlation coefficient 6

CBR (%)
(r) between the CBR value and LL, PL, PL, PI, MDD and 5
OMC are determined. Goon, Gupta and Dasgupta (1993) 4
reported that it is customary in common statistical work;
3
the level of significance to be tested. The significance of
the correlation ratio has been tested by t- test (Saxena, 2
1962). The value of correlation coefficients is shown in 1
Table 4. 0
Table 4 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4
Value of r between CBR and other properties.
Plasticity Index (%)
Soil LL PL PI MDD OMC
Property (%) (%) (%) (gm/cc) (%) Fig.1 Effect of Plasticity Index,PI ( %) on CBR

Value of r -0.084 0.07 -0.613 0.695 -0.317

6.3
Level of >50% >50% <5% <1% <50%
signify- 6.2
cance 6.1

6
CBR (%)

From Table 4, it is observed that CBR value has

significant correlation with PI, MDD and OMC only. 5.9
The study of regression enables us to get a close 5.8
functional relation between two or more variables (Kapur
5.7
and Saxena, 1982). Babu and Ramakrishna (2005)
reported that statistical regression technique is used in 5.6
Environmental Engineering applications. Correlation 5.5
based on regression technique is frequently used in Heat 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8
Transfer application. As the main aim of this study is to
MDD (gm/cc)
establish a relation of CBR value of soil with LL, PL, PI,
MDD and OMC, a multiple linear regression model was
developed by using Linex function of Microsoft Excel Fig.2 Effect of MDD (gm/cc on CBR.
software. The Mathematical relationship is shown in
equation (1). 6.3
CBR (soaked) = 0.127(LL) + 0.00 (PL) – 0.1598(PI) 6.2
+1.405(MDD) -0.259(OMC) + 4.618
6.1
--------- (1).
6
The comparison of the value of CBR determined from
CBR (%)

laboratory test and obtained from equation (1) is shown 5.9

in Table 5 and fig. 5.
5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5
14 14.5 15 15.5 16
OMC (%)

Fig.3 Effect of OMC (%) on CBR

561
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2014)
Table 5 III. CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of CBR values
From the above study the following conclusions can
Sample CBR (%) CBR (%) % be made:
No. From From variation
labotarory test mathematical  CBR value of fine grained soil (ML and MI) bears
relation significant correlation with PI, MDD and OMC.
1 5.56 5.60 -0.71  CBR value decreases with the increase in the
2 5.62 5.78 -2.84 plasticity index and optimum moisture content of
3 5.77 5.87 -1.73 soil but increases with the increase in the maximum
4 5.69 5.81 -2.10 dry density.
5 5.81 5.95 -2.40  There is a slight difference between the CBR value
6 6.12 6.12 0 determined in the laboratory and computed by using
7 6.1 6.04 0.98 multiple linear regression model involving LL, PL,
PI, MDD and OMC.
8 5.72 5.62 1.74
 The type of soil used in this study is ML and MI.
9 6.2 6.07 2.09
Further study may be made on other type of soil.
10 6.05 6.05 0
11 5.95 5.95 0 REFERENCES
12 5.67 5.657 0.22 [1] ASTM Designation D1883, 2007. Standard Test Method for CBR
13 5.92 5.82 1.68 (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils,
14 5.88 5.87 0.17 PP 2-3.
15 5.98 5.76 3.67 [2] Bindra, S.P. 1991. A Course in Highway Engineering” 1991,
Dhanpat Rai & Sons.
16 6.02 6.01 0.16
[3] 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.
Laboratory CBR Computed CBR
[4] IS: 2720. 1964067. Methods of Test for soils, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi.
6.3
[5] IS: 1498-1970, Classification and Identification of soils for
6.2 general engineering purposes, Bureau of Indian Standard, New
6.1 Delhi.
[6] Baruah, T.C & Patgiri, D.K. (1996). Physics and Chemistry of
6
CBR (%)

Soil. New Age International Publishers-1996.

5.9 [7] Goon, A.M, Gupta, M.K and Dasgupta, B. Fundamentals of
5.8
Statistics (vol.-I), 1993, The World Press Pvt. Ltd.
[8] Saxena, H.C. Elementary Statistics, 1993. S. Chand & Company
5.7 Ltd. New Delhi.
5.6 [9] Kapur, J.N and Saxena, H. C. Mathematical Statistics, 1982. S.
Chand & Company Ltd. New Delhi.
5.5
0 5 10 15 20 [10] Babu, B.V & Ramakrishna, V. Applicability of Regression
Technique for Physical Modeling: A case study on Adsorpt ion in
Sample No. Waste Water Treatment . ht tp:/www.terischool.ac.in

Fig. 4 Comparison of Laboratory and computed CBR value.

Comparison of CBR value (Table 5) shows that in

some soil samples, the laboratory and computed value of
CBR have no difference. The maximum difference is
3.67% but in most cases the differences are < 3%.

562