A CHART TO ESTIMATE CBR OF PLASTIC SOILS

Ivan Gratchev1, Sameera Pitawala2, Netra Gurung3 and Errol Monteiro3

1
Senior Lecturer, Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University
2
Formerly master student, Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University
3
Senior Engineer, Queensland Rail, Brisbane

ABSTRACT
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is an important parameter used in design but it is tedious and time-consuming to obtain.
This technical note presents and discusses the results of laboratory tests which were performed on plastic soils to
identify the soil parameters with a high degree of correlation with CBR. Analysis of the obtained data and the relevant
literature resulted in a chart that can be easily used to estimate the CBR of soil based on its plasticity, maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content.
1 INTRODUCTION
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is an important parameter that is required for pavement design. It can be readily
obtained from standard laboratory tests; however such tests are rather laborious and time-consuming. Not surprisingly,
several attempts (Black, 1962; Agarwal and Ghanekar, 1970; NCHRP, 2001; Look, 2009; McGough, 2010; Patel and
Desai, 2010; Datta and Chottopadhyay, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Talukdar, 2014; Yadav et al., 2014; Nguyen and
Mohajerani, 2015) have been made to establish empirical correlations between CBR and physical properties of soil. For
example, Black (1962) reported relationships between the CBR, plasticity and suction capacity of some British soils.
Semen (2006) examined data from a number of CBR tests conducted in USA and assessed different prediction methods
that can be applicable to various site conditions. McGough (2010) analyzed the results from more than 400 CBR tests in
Australia and South Africa and reported useful correlations between CBR and the Fine Material Factor (a parameter that
considers the soil plasticity and its grading). More recently, several studies were performed to establish correlations
between CBR and plasticity of some Indian soils (Ramasubbarao and Sankar, 2013; Yadav et al., 2014).
Although the aforementioned works presented laboratory data on CBR of several soils, they were generally restricted to
some local areas where the tested soil samples were obtained. It is not yet clear whether these reported correlations
between the CBR and soil properties can be of a wider use and applicable to different locations or site conditions. This
study proposes an engineering chart that can be easily used to estimate the CBR of plastic soils. This paper first reports
the laboratory data obtained for plastic soils from the Thagoona area (Queensland, Australia) and discusses the key
relationships between CBR and soil properties, which serve as a basis for development of the chart. This chart also
includes data reported by different researchers to make it relevant for more general applications.
Table 1: Properties of the studied soils
No. Liquid Plasticity Linear Optimum Maximum Suction California
Limit, % Index, % Shrinkage, Moisture Dry Density, (log kPa) Bearing
% Content, % g/cm3 Ratio, %
1 36.6 18.7 10.1 12.2 1.87 2.8 3.8
2 38.9 19.6 13.8 18.0 1.66 2.9 2.9
3 43.0 23.6 11.7 15.0 1.78 3.1 3.0
4 44.3 23.3 10.2 17.8 1.63 3.5 2.1
5 46.8 23.7 13.0 18.0 1.54 3.8 1.7
6 53.5 31.9 16.9 22.0 1.56 3.3 1.9
7 55.8 28.7 16.1 23.0 1.47 3.8 1.1
8 55.8 31.1 16.1 22.2 1.54 3.1 1.5
9 79.2 46.3 19.5 25.0 1.46 4.2 1.4

2 SOILS USED AND TEST PROCEDURE

Soil samples were collected from a depth of 1m to 1.5m in the Thagoona area (Queensland) as part of an investigation
conducted by Griffith University and Queensland Rail to determine the geotechnical properties of local reactive soils.
Laboratory examination of soil samples included a series of index property and Proctor compaction tests, whose results
are summarized in Table 1. A series of CBR tests (AS 1289.6.1.1:2014) were performed on the studied soils, which
were compacted to its maximum dry density and optimum moisture content and allowed to soak for 4 days. After each
test, soil specimens were retrieved from the mould and a series of suction tests using filter paper (ASTM D 5298-03)
were performed to obtain the relevant value of soil suction.

4 4
California Bearing Ratio, %

California Bearing Ratio, %

y = 7.1754e-0.09x
R² = 0.52
3 3

2 2

y = 0.0224e2.7865x
1 R² = 0.89 1
(a) (c)
0 0
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 8 12 16 20
3
Maximum dry density, g/cm Linear shrinkage, %
4 4
California Bearing Ratio, %
California Bearing Ratio, %

y= 10.818e-0.088x
y = 19.41e-0.67x
R² = 0.78 R² = 0.61
3 3

2 2

1 1

(b) (d)
0 0
10 15 20 25 30 2 3 4 5
Optimum moisture content, % Soil suction (Log), kPa
Figure 1: Experimental data plotted as CBR against a) maximum dry density, b) optimum moisture content, c)
linear shrinkage, and d) soil suction.

4 4
California Bearing Ratio, %

California Bearing Ratio, %

y = 6.49e -0.023x y = 21.197e-0.049x

3 R² = 0.54 3 R² = 0.82

2 2

1 1
(a) (b)
0 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60
Liquid Limit, % Liquid Limit, %
Figure 2: Experimental data plotted as CBR against the liquid limit (a), and laboratory data without the outlier
point (LL=79.2%) (b).
 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Correlations between CBR and soil properties. The obtained data are plotted in Fig. 1 in terms of CBR against a)
maximum dry density (MDD), b) optimum moisture content (OMC), c) linear shrinkage (LS), and (d) soil suction. It is
evident from this figure that a) the CBR correlates with the soil properties to different extents, b) increases in OMC, LS
or soil suction tend to decrease CBR, and c) an increase in MDD results in higher values of CBR. It is noted that similar
correlations were reported by other researchers, indicating the same effect of MDD, OMC, SL and suction on CBR,
regardless of the soil origin or location. The data presented in Fig. 2a show a relatively low degree of correlation
(R2=0.54) between the liquid limit and CBR of soil, compared to what would be expected from the literature. However,
if the outlier point with a very high LL (LL=79.2%) is not considered as shown in Fig. 2b, the degree of correlation (R2)
would significantly increase to 0.82. In summary, the laboratory data from Figs 1 and 2b indicate a higher degree of
correlation (greater R2) between CBR, MDD, LL and OMC, suggesting that these parameters can provide a more
accurate estimation of CBR.
Table 2: Properties of soil from different locations
No. LL, OMC, MDD, CBR, Source No. LL, OMC, MDD, CBR, Source
% % g/cm3 % % % g/cm3 %
10 34.0 18.9 1.52 5.9 Ramasubbarao 27 38.0 11.2 1.78 5.6 Yadav et
11 43.5 21.6 1.61 3.3 and Sankar 28 44.0 16.0 1.88 2.6 al. (2014)
12 56.0 24.8 1.51 3.9 (2013) 29 48.0 16.0 1.86 2.0
13 57.8 22.0 1.58 1.5 30 48.0 12.9 1.92 2.4
14 59.0 26.1 1.47 3.6 31 49.0 12.8 1.77 2.3
15 69.0 26.8 1.55 2.0 32 44.7 20.9 1.72 2.2 Patel and
16 72.7 21.2 1.85 2.1 33 52.9 20.5 1.73 1.5 Desai
17 75.0 28.0 1.47 2.4 34 53.5 23.7 1.63 3.1 (2010)
18 23.5 14.0 1.77 10.9 Datta and 35 58.8 19.8 1.69 1.7
19 27.0 16.4 1.79 5.9 Chottopadhyay 36 63.6 20.7 1.70 1.8
20 28.5 14.5 1.83 7.3 (2011) 37 64.4 24.7 1.58 2.5
21 31.5 14.5 1.79 5.6 38 21.0 10.0 1.92 11.0 Jagar and
22 36.0 17.0 1.75 4.0 39 25.0 9.0 1.87 7.0 Patel
23 37.0 17.8 1.53 3.0 40 29.0 11.0 2.00 6.1 (2013)
24 37.0 21.4 1.55 3.1 41 30.0 19.0 1.78 8.8
25 39.0 20.9 1.63 2.4 42 45.0 13.0 1.80 2.6
26 40.5 17.0 1.65 2.4 43 47.0 15.0 1.73 3.1
Note: LL – liquid limit, OMC – optimum moisture content, 44 29.4 14.4 1.77 6.1 Talukdar
MDD – maximum dry density, CBR – California Bearing Ratio. 45 34.6 15.1 1.70 5.6 (2014)

An engineering chart to estimate CBR. The following observations can be drawn from the obtained laboratory data and
the relevant literature:
- Compared to other properties of soil, there is a higher degree of correlation between CBR, MDD and LL. It is
also noted that there is a greater degree of correlation between CBR and LL when the soil samples are
compacted to OMC (Nguyen and Mohajerani, 2015).
- Regardless of soil origin and location, as soil plasticity or OMC increases, the CBR tends to decrease.
Considering the aforementioned observations, new charts to estimate CBR of plastic soil were proposed (Fig. 3). These
charts summarize the laboratory data from this study (Table 1) as well as the data from other researchers (Table 2). In
total, 45 points were used to demonstrate the distribution of CBR values in regards to the soil LL and OMC (Fig. 3a)
and MDD (Fig. 3b). Some interpolation was performed to define the areas with the same CBR values.
The chart in Fig. 3a is designed to provide an easy and convenient way to estimate soil CBR based on the soil plasticity
and OMC. For example, soil with LL=45% and OMC=20% would likely have a CBR value of 2.2-2.4 while soil with
LL=30% and OMC=15%, a CBR value closed to 6. However, it is noted that this chart only provides an approximation
and it is limited to plastic soils with CBR values ranging from 1 to 10. The chart in Fig. 3b can help engineers to
quickly estimate CBR values of plastic soil based on its maximum dry density.
The proposed charts consider both a fundamental property of soil (LL) and the placement conditions (OMC or MDD).
They can serve as an illustrative tool on the relationship between CBR, LL, OMC and MDD. In addition, these charts
can be used by engineers for initial assessment purposes, thus minimizing the laborious and time-consuming
 experimental work. However, as these charts combine data from different sources/areas, caution must be used when
applying them to specific site conditions.
80 90
(a) 1.4
2.4 (b) - This study
- This study 2.1
- Other studies
70 80 1.4
- Other studies 2.0
2.4
2.1
1.8 2.5
70 2.0

Liquid Limit, %
60 1.7 3.6
Liquid Limit, %

1.5 2.5
1.1 3.9 1.8
1.5 1.9 3.1 60 3.6 1.7
1.5
2.5 1.1 3.9 1.5
50 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.9 3.1 1.5
2.4 3.1 3.1 CBR=2
CBR=2 2.6 3.02.6 2.1 2.2 50 2.3 2.4
3.3 1.7 3.1
2.4 2.6 2.0
40 2.4 2.1
CBR=3 5.6
2.9
3.1 CBR=3 2.2
3.0
2.6
3.8 5.6 3.0 3.3 2.4
4.0 40 3.0 3.1 2.4
2.9 5.6
CBR=5 4.0 3.8
5.6 5.5 5.9 5.6
30 6.1 6.1 8.8 CBR=5 2.4
5.9 5.9 5.6
CBR=7 7.0 7.3
10.9
30 CBR=7 6.18.8 7.3 6.1
10.0
CBR=10 11.0 CBR=10 10.9 5.9 7.0
11.0
20 20
5 10 15 20 25 30 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
3
Optimum moisture content, % Maximum dry density, g/cm
Figure 3: A proposed chart to estimate the CBR of soil based on its plasticity and optimum moisture content (a),
and maximum dry density (b).

4 CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions that can be drawn from this work are as follows:
1. The results of laboratory tests on nine plastic soils from the Thagoona area in Queensland revealed that CBR has a
high degree of correlation with the liquid limit, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content.
2. Two charts were proposed to estimate the CBR of soil based on its plasticity, optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density. These charts provide a CBR estimation for plastic soils that can minimize the laborious
and time-consuming experimental routine.
5 REFERENCES
Agarwal, K.B., and Ghanekar, K.D. (1970). Prediction of CBR from plasticity characteristics of soil. Proceeding of 2 nd
South-East Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, 571-576.
ASTM D 5298-03 (2003). Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction) Using Filter Paper1. ASTM
D 5298-03. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohochen, 21-24.
AS 1289.6.1.1:2014 (2014). Method 6.1.1: Soil strength and consolidation tests—Determination of the California Bearing
Ratio of a soil—Standard laboratory method for a remoulded specimen. Standards Australia, Homebush, NSW.
Black, W.P.M. (1962). A Method of Estimating the California Bearing Ratio of Cohesive Soils from Plasticity Data.
Geotechnique, 12 (4): 271-282.
Datta, T., and Chottopadhyay, B.C. (2011). Correlation between CBR and index properties of soil. Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Kochi, 131-133.
Jagar, S.K., and Patel, A.K. (2013). Comparison between soaked and unsoaked CBR. International Journal of Advanced
Engineering Research and Studies, 2 (3): 132-135.
Look, B. (2009). Spatial and statistical distribution models using the CBR test. Australian Geomechanics, 44 (1): 37-41.
McGough, P.G. (2010). A for the prediction of soaked CBR of remoulded samples from standard classification tests.
Australian Geomechanics, 45 (4): 75-86.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2001). Correlation of CBR values with soil index guide for
mechanistic and empirical – Design for new and rehabilitated pavement structures. Illinois.
Nguyen, B.T., and Mohajerani, A. (2015). Prediction of California bearing ratio from physical properties of fine-grained
soils. International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 9 (2):
136-141.
Patel, R.S., and Desai, M.D. (2010). CBR predicted by index properties of alluvial soils of south Gujarat. Indian
Geotechnical Conference -2010, GEOtrendz, 79-82
Ramasubbarao, G.V., and Sankar, S.G. (2013). Predicting soaked CBR value of fine grained soils using index and
compaction characteristics. Indian Journal of Civil Engineering, 7 (3): 354-360.
Semen, P.M. (2006). A Generalized Approach to Soil Strength Prediction with Machine Learning Methods.
ERDC/CRREL TR-06-15.
Singh, D., Reddy, K.S., and Yadu, L. (2011). Moisture and compaction based statistical model for estimating CBR of
fine-grained subgrade soils. International Journal of Earth Science and Engineering, 4 (6): 100-103.
Talukdar, D.K. (2014). A study of correlation between California bearing ratio (CBR) value with other properties of soil.
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 4 (1): 559-562.
Yadav, D., Jain, P.K., and Kumar, R. (2014). Prediction of soaked CBR of fine-grained soils from classification and
compaction parameters. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, 119-121.