Madhu - Corelation Between CBR and Index Properties

A PROJECT REPORT ON
CO-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CALIFORNIA BEARING

RATIO AND
INDEX PROPERTIES OF SUBGRADE SOIL
Project Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

Award of the Degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
B. MADHU KUMAR (18031A0103)
Under the esteemed Guidance of

Mr. L. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY, M. Tech.
Assistant professor, UCEN,JNTUK
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING NARASARAOPET
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY KAKINADA
Narasaraopet – 522601
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
2018-2022
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
University College of Engineering Narasaraopet

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada
Narasaraopet – 522601,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
2018-2022
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “CO-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO AND INDEX PROPERTIES OF
SUBGRADE SOIL” that is being submitted by B. MADHU KUMAR bearing Roll
No. 18031A0103 in partial fulfilment for the award of Bachelor of Technology in Civil
Engineering from the University College of Engineering Narasaraopet, Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University Kakinada during the years 2018 – 2022 is a record of
bonafide work carried out by them under my guidance and supervision.
PROJECT GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the work described in this project work, entitled “CO-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO AND INDEX
PROPERTIES OF SUBGRADE SOIL” which is submitted by us in partial
fulfilment for the award of Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech) in the Department of
Civil Engineering to the University College of Engineering Narasaraopet, Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, is the result of work done
by us under the guidance of L. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy (Assistant Professor). The work
is original and has not been submitted for any Degree/Diploma of this or any other
University.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are very thankful to our Principal Prof. Ch. SRINIVASA RAO for his
encouragement and facilities provided during the course of our project.
We extend our sincere thanks to Vice Principal Prof. K. SOBHAN BABU for his
valuable suggestions and permitting us to utilize all the necessary facilities in the
institution.
We would like to articulate our profound gratitude and indebtedness to our Head of the
Department Dr. Y .S. KISHORE BABU for his valuable support and encouragement.
We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to Mr. L. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY,
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering for his valuable guidance and encouragement
which helped in the successful completion of the project.
We are very thankful to Dr. G. VENU GOPALA KRISHNA, Assistant Professor of

Mathematics and Mr. SYED. MAHABOOB RABBANI, Lab Assistant of Civil
Engineering department and all the staff members who have rendered help to us
directly or indirectly in the completion of project.

ABSTRACT
Pavement design is considered to be the most important parameter in the construction

of a road network. Generally, pavement, a relatively stable crust, is constructed over
the natural soil in order to support the wheel and traffic loads as well as to provide a
hard, durable and abrasion resistant surface. Basically, subgrade is not the physical part
of the pavement but it is considered as the functional part of the pavement. It is
necessary that the subgrade soil should be properly compacted to fully utilize its
strength while carrying the loads of the above layers of pavements as well as the moving
loads of traffic. For this purpose, it is necessary to evaluate the strength of subgrade soil
on which the whole structure of the pavement rests and for this, CBR is one of the most
widely used methods. If the subgrade has higher CBR value, this means that it has more
strength and will be able to bear more traffic load coming over it and ultimately the
thickness of pavement layers will be small and vice versa.
Subgrade is a most important part of a pavement structure, which should have a

reasonable stiffness modulus and shear strength. CBR (California Bearing Ratio) test
is performed to evaluate stiffness modulus and shear strength of subgrade soils.
However, CBR test is laborious and time consuming, particularly when soil is highly
plastic. In order to overcome this limitation, it may be appropriate to correlate CBR
value of soil with its index properties like grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, and
compaction characteristics such as MDD (Maximum Dry Density) and OMC
(Optimum Moisture Content). This work expresses the correlations between CBR value
of Subgrade soil and its index properties. SLRA (Single Linear Regression Analysis)
and MLRA (Multiple Linear Regression) based Models were utilized. It is an attempt
to predict the Soaked and Unsoaked CBR values from LL (Liquid Limit), PL (Plastic
Limit), PI (Plasticity Index) and percent finer.
Key Words: Subgrade Soil, Index Properties, Single Linear Regression Analysis,
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, Predicted California Bearing Ratio, Coefficient
of Determination.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title of project……………………………………………………………….. i
Certificate……………………………………………………………………. ii
Declaration…………………………………………………………………… iii
Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………….. iv
Abstract………………………………………………………………………. v
1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 1
2 Literature Review……………………………………………………………. 4
3 Materials and Methodology………………………………………………….. 6
3.1 Material Collection……………………………………………………………6
3.1.1 Soil……………………………………………………………………............ 6
3.2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………. 7
3.2.1 Grain Size Analysis………………………………………………………….. 7
3.2.2 Plastic Limit………………………………………………………………….. 9
3.2.3 Liquid Limit………………………………………………………………….. 10
3.2.4 Standard Proctor Test………………………………………………………… 11
3.2.5 CBR Test…………………………………………………………………….. 13
4 Observations and Results…………………………………………………….. 15
4.1 Observations…………………………………………………………………. 15
4.1.2 Plastic Limit…………………………………………………………………. 16
4.1.3 Liquid Limit…………………………………………………………………. 16
4.1.4 Standard Proctor Test………………………………………………………... 16
4.1.5 CBR Test…………………………………………………………………….. 17
4.2 Results……………………………………………………………………….. 17
4.2.2 Plastic Limit…………………………………………………………………. 22
4.2.3 Liquid Limit…………………………………………………………………. 22
4.2.4 Standard Proctor Test………………………………………………………... 27
4.2.5 CBR Test…………………………………………………………………….. 30
4.2.6 Regression Analysis…………………………………………………………. 44
5 Conclusions………………………………………………………………….. 51
6 References……………………………………………………………............ 52
Photo Visuals………………………………………………………………… 53
LIST OF FIGURES
SI. NO. Fig. No. Description Page

No.
1 1.1 Pavement Structure……………………………………. 1
2 3.1.1 Sample Locations……………………………………… 6
3 3.2.1 % Finer Model graph…………………………………... 8
4 3.2.2 Plastic Limit Apparatus………………………………... 9
5 3.2.3 Liquid Limit Apparatus………………………………... 10
6 3.2.4 Compaction Test Apparatus…………………………… 12
7 3.2.5 CBR Apparatus………………………………………… 14
8 4.2.1.1 Sieve Analysis Sample 1………………………………. 18
15 4.2.3.1 Liquid Limit Graph sample 1………………………….. 23
22 4.2.4.1 Compaction Test Graph sample 1……………………… 27
29 4.2.5.1(A) CBR Graph Sample 1………………………………….. 30
30 4.2.5.1(B) CBR Graph Sample 1………………………………….. 31
40 4.2.5.6(B) CBR Graph Sample 6…………………………………...41
41 4.2.5.7(A) CBR Graph Sample 7…………………………………...42
43 4.2.6.1.1 CBR vs % Finer………………………………………... 44
44 4.2.6.1.2 CBR vs Plastic Limit…………………………………... 45
45 4.2.6.1.3 CBR vs Plasticity Index………………………………... 46
46 4.2.6.1.4 CBR vs MDD…………………………………………... 46
47 4.2.6.1.5 CBR vs OMC…………………………………………... 47
48 4.2.6.2.1 Actual CBR vs Predicted CBR………………………… 50
49 4.2.6.2.2 Sample No. vs CBR……………………………………. 50
LIST OF TABLES
SI. NO. Table No. Description Page

No.
1 4.2.1.1 Sieve Analysis Sample 1……………………………….. 17
8 4.2.2 Plastic Limit Test Results……………………………….22
9 4.2.3.1 Liquid Limit Results sample 1…………………………. 22
16 4.2.4 Compaction Test Results………………………………..29
17 4.2.5.1(A) CBR Test Results Sample 1……………………………. 30
18 4.2.5.1(B) CBR Test Results Sample 1……………………………. 31
31 4.2.6.2.1 Co-relation Table………………………………………. 48
32 4.2.6.2.2 Comparison of Actual & Predicted CBR…..................... 49
LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS
CBR California Bearing Ratio

%F % Finer
LL Liquid Limit
PL Plastic Limit
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
MDD Maximum Dry Density
SLRA Single Linear Regression Analysis
MLRA Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
Co-relationship between CBR and Index Properties of Subgrade Soil
CHAPTER 01
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION:
The pavement structure is a combination of subbase, base course and surface course
placed on a subgrade to support the traffic load and distribute it to the roadbed.
Pavement structure is required to spread loading to a pressure intensity tolerable by

subgrade. Since the load from the pavement is transferred to the subgrade, the subgrade
plays an important role in pavement design.
Pavement design is considered to be the most important parameter in the construction

of a road network. A flexible pavement consists of a number of layers including sub-
base, base coarse, surfacing, etc. which ultimately lies on subgrade. Basically,
subgrade is not the physical part of the pavement but it is considered as the functional
part of the pavement.
It is necessary that the subgrade soil should be properly compacted to fully utilize its
strength while carrying the loads of the above layers of pavements as well as the
moving loads of traffic. For this purpose, it is necessary to evaluate the strength of
subgrade soil on which the whole structure of the pavement rests subgrade strength is
mostly evaluated by CBR. This method is mainly used to determine the stiffness
modulus and shear strength of the subgrade soil and helps in designing the thickness
of each layer of pavement. If the subgrade has higher CBR value, this means that it has
Figure -1.1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 1| P a g e

more strength and will be able to bear more traffic load coming over it and ultimately
the thickness of pavement layers will be small and vice versa.
Though this conventional method helps in evaluating the strength of the subgrade soil
by obtaining its CBR value, but it is quite time-consuming and laborious method
moreover, this test is costly as it involves a high-level technical supervision and quality
control assessment. And difficult to perform test on highly plastic soil.
Therefore, more samples are required to be tested in order to achieve better accuracy
and to obtain proper idea about the CBR value of subgrade materials over the entire
length of the road which is quite difficult because it is difficult to take large number of
samples. This would result in serious delay in the progress of the project. Since in most
situations the materials for earth work construction comes from highly variable
sources. Any delay in construction inevitably leads to rise of project cost.
This research paper is written on Narasaraopet soil. Narasaraopet is a District

headquarters of Palnadu District of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The soil is black
in colour and mostly contains clay. By keeping in view, the above problems of
Narasaraopet soil and the above-mentioned factors as well as the present condition of
infrastructure development in the province, there arises a need to develop suitable
correlations between CBR value and the index properties of Narasaraopet soil which
includes Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index, OMC, MDD, percentage passing
of soil fines (%F) by the help of SLRA and MLRA which is the main theme of this
research work.
This paper mentions important correlations which have been developed through SLRA
and MLRA on CBR and index properties of various soil samples in Narasaraopet. Index
properties and CBR values of these samples have been determined through laboratory
testing according to AASHTO and ASTM procedures. Though a smaller number of
samples have been analysed but this paper provides a way of developing relationship
between the properties. The major benefit from this research outcome is that the
developed correlations will be utilized for directly obtaining strength of Narasaraopet
soil instead of performing tests on this highly plastic soil, thus avoiding unnecessary
consumption of time and delay in project construction. Moreover, this will provide an

advantage to the designers and constructors as they will be knowing already that which
important properties are required to be determined for knowing the accurate strength of
soil and thus, they will only perform those tests which will determine those important
properties instead of performing all tests.
1.1. ADVANTAGES OF USING CO-RELATION

The significant advantages of correlation are explained below.
• CBR can be determined easily.

• We can save a lot of time.
• Project cost will be reduced.
1.2. DISADVANTAGES OF USING CO-RELATION

• It will provide only predicted CBR values.
• Regression analysis involves a very complicated and lengthy procedure that is
composed of several calculations and analysis.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
❖ Faisal Iqbal, Anil Kumar and others from Mehran university of engineering &
technology, Jamshoro Pakistan gave the journal named Mehran university research
journal of engineering & technology. This journal is based on Jamshoro soil. They
gave an overview to drive relationship between California bearing ratio & index
properties of soil for both unsoaked & soaked. The methods used are both single
linear regression analysis (SLRA) and multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA).
The highest coefficient of determination obtained for Soaked CBR is 0.1806 while
correlating Soaked CBR with % finer, and the highest coefficient of determination
obtained for Un-Soaked CBR is 0.4413 while correlating Unsoaked CBR with
MDD. The correlation of Un-Soaked CBR with LL, PI and MDD by utilizing
MLRA approach gives a good relationship with R2 = 0.971, CBR (Unsoaked) =
17.3174(LL) - 42.5467(PI) - 102.9336(MDD) + 455.5159. The correlation of
Soaked CBR with LL, PI and %Finer by utilizing MLRA approach gives a good
relationship with R2 = 0.984 which is CBR (Soaked) = 11.2525(LL) - 26.4144(PI) -
0.3024(%F) + 153.7175. From the developed correlation, it can be seen that the
Soaked CBR value is largely dependent on LL and PI of soil whereas, the effect of
% Finer is minor. For Unsoaked CBR, the values are largely dependent on LL, PI
and MDD.
❖ Z. U. Rehman et al. gave the relationship between California Bearing Ratio (Soaked)
and index properties of soil. It is observed that with an increase in fines, optimum
moisture content the CBR value tends to decrease and increases with the increase in
maximum dry density of soil.
❖ Ravichandran et al. determined the relation between liquid limit, plastic limit,
shrinkage limit, plasticity index, maximum dry density, Optimum moisture content
and the California bearing ratio for the soaked samples of soil and obtained the
variation of CBR values with each index property of the subgrade soil.

❖ Okon Bassey et al. from Akwa Ibom State University Ikot Akpaden, Nigeria
suggested that this study aims to establish correlation between CBR and
geotechnical properties of the soil with respect to the location of study. They
recommended that a good measure of quality control of PI, MDD, OMC and LL
variables are significant during field compaction and incorporation of these variables
into a measure of quality control and specification will help to achieve during road
pavement.
❖ Yimam Mohammed et al. given empirical relationships for calculating California

bearing ratio value from consistency limit and compaction test results in the form of
linear, polynomial and multiple linear regression analysis. The values of correlation
in terms of coefficient of determination(R2) are relatively weaker for linear than
polynomial regression.

CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
3.1. MATERIAL COLLECTION

3.1.1. SOIL
The material which is used in this research is the soil which is locally available in
Narasaraopet. A total number of 7 samples were collected from different locations of
Narasaraopet. The locations are:
1. NGO’s Colony
2. Islam pet
3. Near ZP High School
4. Palapadu Road
5. VR Grounds
6. Near Check Post
7. Pedda Cheruvu
Figure 3.1.1

3.2. METHODOLOGY
The step-by-step procedure to be followed to achieve the co-relation is given below.
Sieve Analysis
Atterberg Limit test
Compaction Test
CBR Test
Regression Analysis
3.2.1. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
This test is specified in IS: 2720 (Part 4) – 1985 – Method of test for soil (Part 4- Grain
size analysis).
Apparatus:
• Sieves of sizes: 4.75 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.0 mm, 600 µm, 300 µm, 150 µm and 75 µm.
That is, I.S 460-1962 is used.
• Thermostatically controlled oven.
• Trays, sieve brushes, etc.
Procedure:
• Take a representative sample of soil received from the field and dry it in the oven.
• Use a known mass of dried soil with all the grains properly separated out. The
maximum mass of soil taken for analysis may not exceed 500g.

• Prepare a stack of sieves. Set the sieves one over the other with an ascending order
(sieves having larger opening sizes i.e., lower numbers are placed above the one
with smaller opening sizes i.e., smaller numbers). The very last sieve is #200 (75μm
sieve). A pan is attached to the lowest 75μm sieve to collect the portions passing
#200 sieve and fit the nest to a mechanical shaker.
• Make sure sieves are clean. If many soil particles are stuck in the openings try to
poke them out using brush.
• The whole nest of sieves is given a horizontal shaking for 10 min manually till the
soil retained on each reaches a constant value.
• Determine mass of soil retained on each sieve including that collected in the pan
below.
Graph:
Draw graph of log sieve size vs % finer. The graph is known as grading curve.
Corresponding to 10%, 30% and 60% finer, obtain diameters from graph these are D10,
D30, D60, using these obtain Cc and Cu which further represent how well the soil is
graded i.e., whether the soil is well-graded, gap-graded or poorly graded.
Figure 3.2.1

3.2.2. DETERMINATION OF PLASTIC LIMIT
Soil sample:
A sample weighing about 20g from the thoroughly mixed portion of the material
passing 425-micron IS Sieve, obtained shall be taken.
Apparatus: Porcelain dish, spatula, squeeze bottle, ground glass plate, containers,
balance, oven, glass rod (3mm in diameter and 10cm in length).
Figure 3.2.2
Procedure:
• A sample weighing about 20 g from the thoroughly mixed portion of the material
passing 425-micron IS Sieve, obtained shall be taken.
• A ball shall be formed with about 8 g of this plastic soil mass and rolled between
the fingers and the glass plate with just sufficient pressure to roll the mass into a
thread of uniform diameter throughout its length.
• The rate of rolling shall be between 80 and 90 strokes/min counting a stroke as one
complete motion of the hand forward and back to the starting position again.
• This process of alternate rolling and kneading shall be continued until the thread
crumbles under the pressure required for rolling and the soil can no longer be rolled
into a thread.
• The crumbling may occur when the thread has a diameter greater than 3 mm.
• This shall be considered a satisfactory end point, provided the soil has been rolled
into a thread 3 mm in diameter immediately before.

• At no time shall an attempt be made to produce failure at exactly 3 mm diameter

by allowing the thread to reach 3 mm, then reducing the rate of rolling or pressure
or both, and continuing the rolling without further deformation until the thread falls
apart.
• The pieces of crumbled soil thread shall be collected in an air-tight container and
the moisture content determined as described in IS: 2720 (Part 2)-1973.
3.2.3. DETERMINATION OF LIQUID LIMIT
Soil sample:
A sample weighing about 120 g shall be taken from the thoroughly mixed portion of
material passing 425-micron IS Sieve.
If this is done and stones are present, only the material passing 425-micron IS Sieve
shall be used for the test; this can be obtained by rubbing the wet soil through the sieve
until a sufficient quantity of the size passing 425-micron IS Sieve is obtained.
Apparatus:
Mechanical liquid limit device, grooving tool, weigh balance, hot air oven, evaporating
dish, spatula and containers.
Figure 3.2.3
Procedure:
• About 120 gm. of air-dried soil from thoroughly mixed portion of material passing
425 micron I.S sieve is to be obtained.
• Distilled water is mixed to the soil thus obtained in a mixing disc to form uniform
paste. The paste shall have a consistency that would require 30 to 35 drops of cup
to cause closer of standard groove for 12 mm length.

• For clayey soil leave it for 24 hours prior to test to ensure distribution of Moisture
throughout the soil mass.
• The soil should then be remixed thoroughly before the test. A portion of the paste
is placed in the cup of Mechanical Liquid Limit device and spread into portion with
few strokes of spatula as possible.
• At the same time, trim it to a depth of 1 cm at the point of maximum thickness and
return excess of soil to the dish.
• The soil in the cup shall be decided by the firm strokes of the grooving tool along
the diameter through the centre line of the follower so that clean sharp groove of
proper dimension is formed.
• Lift and drop the cup by turning crank at the rate of two revolutions per second
until the two halves of soil cake come in contact with each other for a length of
about 12 mm by flow only.
• The number of blows required to cause the groove close for about 12 mm shall be
recorded.
• A representative portion of soil is taken from the cup for water content
determination.
• Repeat the test with different moisture contents at least three more times for blows
between 15 and 35.
3.2.4. STANDARD PROCTOR TEST

Soil sample:
A representative portion of air-dried soil material and large enough to provide about
6kg of material passing a '20-mm IS sieve (for soils not susceptible to crushing during
compaction), or about 15kg of material passing a 20-mm IS sieve (for soil. Susceptible
to crushing during compaction), shall be taken. This portion shall be sieved on a 20-
mm IS sieve and the coarse fraction rejected after its portion of the total sample has
been recorded.

Apparatus: Cylindrical metal mould, weigh balance, oven, containers, steel

straightedge, sieves, mixing tools, rammer.
Figure 3.2.4
Procedure:
• The mould with base plate is cleaned and dried and weighed it to measure the
nearest 1 gm.
• Grease is applied on the mould along with base plate and collar completely.
• About 16- 18 kg of air-dried pulverised soil is taken.
• 4% of water is added to the soil if the soil is sandy and about 8% if the soil is clayey
& mixed it thoroughly. The soil is kept in air tight container and allowed it to
mature for about an hour.
• About 3 kg of the processed soil is taken and divided into approximately three
equal portions.
• One portion of the soil is put into the mould and compacted it by applying 25
number of uniformly distributed blows.
• The top surface of the compacted soil is scratched using spatula before filling the
mould with second layer of soil. The soil is compacted in the similar fashion as
done in for the first layer and scratched it.
• The same procedure for third layer is also repeated.
• The collar is removed & trimmed off the excess soil projecting above the mould
using straight edge.
• The mould is cleaned and also the base plate from outside & weighed in to the
nearest gram.
• The soil is removed from the top, middle and bottom of the case and the average
of water content is determined.

• About 3% water or a fresh portion of the processed soil is added and the steps from
5 to 12 are repeated.
3.2.5. CBR TEST

Soil sample:
The material used in the remoulded specimen shall pass a 19-mm IS Sieve. Allowance
for larger material shall be made by replacing it by an equal amount of material which
passes a 19-mm.IS Sieve but is retained on 4.75-mm IS Sieve. A representative sample
of the soil weighing approximately 4.5 kg or more for fine-grained soils and 5.5 kg or
more for granular soils shall be taken and mixed thoroughly with water. If the soil is to
be compacted to the maximum dry density at the optimum water content determined in
compaction test, the exact mass of soil required shall be taken and the necessary
quantity of water added so that the water content of the soil sample is equal to the
determined optimum water content.
Apparatus:
• CBR Test Apparatus consisting of loading machine with capacity of at least 5000
kg and equipped with a movable head or base which enables Plunger of 50 mm
dia. to penetrate into the specimen at a rate of 1.25 mm/ minute.
• CBR Mould with Base Plate, Stay Rod and Wing Nut
• Cylindrical mould:
Inside dia. 150mm and height 175mm with a detachable perforated base plate of
235mm dia. and 10mm thickness. Net capacity - 2250 ml; conforming to IS-
9669:1980 (Reaffirmed-2016).
• Collar
A detachable extension collar of 60 mm height.
• Spacer Disc
148 mm in diameter and 47.7 mm in height along with handle.
• Weights
One annular metal weight and several slotted weights weighing 2.5 kg each, 147
mm in diameter, with a central hole 53 mm in diameter.

• Compaction Rammer
Figure 3.2.5
Procedure:
• The mould with extension collar attached is clamped to the base plate. The spacer
disc is inserted over the base plate and a disc of coarse filter paper placed on the
top of the spacer disc.
• The soil water mixture is compacted into the mould in accordance with the methods
specified in light compaction test or heavy compaction test.
• The mould containing the specimen with the base plate in position but the top face
exposed is placed on the lower plate of the testing machine.
• Surcharge weights, sufficient to produce an intensity of loading equal to the weight
of the base material and pavement is placed on the specimen.
• To prevent upheaval of soil into the hole of the surcharge weights, 2.5 kg annular
weight is placed on the soil surface prior to seating the penetration plunger after
which the remainder of the surcharge weight is placed.
• The plunger is to be seated under a load of 4 kg so that full contact is established
between the surface of the specimen and the plunger.
• The stress and strain gauges are then set to zero. Load is applied to the penetration
plunger so that the penetration is approximately 1.25 mm per minute.
• Readings of the load are taken at penetrations of 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 4.0, 5.0
and 7 mm.
• The plunger is then raised and the mould detached from the loading equipment.

CHAPTER 4
OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

All the tests mentioned in previous chapter are performed on the soil and the
observation and calculations of the tests will be seen in this chapter.
4.1. OBSERVATIONS
The test results obtained from a sample of soil are given below.
Mass of soil taken for analysis W= _____gm
Sl IS Particle Mass Corrected Cumulative Cumulative %

No. Sieves Size Retained Mass Mass % Retained
(mm) (mm) (g) Retained Retained Finer
(g) (g)
1 4.75 4.75
2 2.00 2.00
3 1.00 1.00
4 0.600 0.600
5 0.300 0.300
6 0.150 0.150
7 0.075 0.075
8 pan
%𝐹𝑖𝑛ⅇ𝑟 = 100 − (𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣ⅇ % 𝑟ⅇ𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛ⅇ𝑑)
𝐷60
𝐶𝑢 =
𝐷10

2
𝐷30
𝐶𝑐 =
𝐷10 × 𝐷60
4.1.2. PLASTIC LIMIT

Plastic limit is the water content at which a thread of soil just crumbles when it is
carefully rolled out to a diameter of 3 mm (1/8”).Then the crumbled parts are kept
in an oven for the water content determination.
Empty Wet wt. + Dry wt. + Water Plastic

S. Containe
Wt. Container wt. Container Content Limit
No. r No.
(g) (g) wt. (g) (%) (%)
1
2
3
4
4.1.3. LIQUID LIMIT

In liquid limit test, the number of blows required to cause the groove close for about
12 mm is recorded and a representative portion of soil is taken from the cup for water
content determination and the observation and results are seen as below:
S. Container Empty No. of Wet wt. + Dry wt. + Water

No. No. Wt. (g) blows Container Container Content
wt. (g) wt. (g) (%)
1
2
3
4
Plot the relationship between water content (on y-axis) and number of blows (on x-
axis) on semi-log graph. The curve obtained is called flow curve. The moisture
content corresponding to 25 drops (blows) as read from the graph represents liquid
limit. It is usually expressed to the nearest whole number in percentage.

Light compaction test is carried out on natural soil, trail mixes of lime, trail mixes with
soil, lime and fly ash. The test has to be stopped when the weight of the sample reduces
after a consistent increase.

Calculations
Mass of dry sample taken: 2.5 Kg
Empty Mass of the mould: 4.467 Kg
Diameter of the mould: 10 cm
Height of the mould: 12.73 cm
Volume of the mould: 𝑉 = πr2h = 𝜋52 (12.73) = 999.8 cm3
Formulas used are as follows:
Mass of Compacted soil (Kg) = (Mass of Mould + Soil) – Empty weight of the mould
Bulk Density, γ (g/cc) =Wet Mass/Volume
Dry Density, γd (g/cc) = γ/ (1+w)
Where ω = Water Content (%)
4.1.5. CBR TEST
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑡 2.5 𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐵𝑅2.5 =
1370 𝑘𝑔
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑡 5 𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐵𝑅5 =
2055 𝑘𝑔
4.2. RESULTS
Sample 1:
Table 4.2.1.1
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 96.8 87.2 68.4 56.4 31.8 14.6 2.4 0
Finer

120
96.8 100
100 87.2
80 68.4
% Finer
60 56.4
60
40 30 31.8
14.6
20 10
2.4
0
0.122 0.284 0.720 1
0.01 0.1 10
Grain size
Figure 4.2.1.1
Cu = 5.915
Cu = 0.922
Sample 2:
Table 4.2.1.2
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 93.8 78.4 55.2 42.6 23.8 11.2 0.8 0
Finer
120
100
100 93.8
78.4
80
% Finer
60
55.2
60
42.6
40 30
23.8
20 10 11.2
0.8
0 1.152
0.01 0.1 0.141 0.374 1 10
Grain size
Figure 4.2.1.2
Cu = 8.153
Cc = 0.858

Sample 3:
Table 4.2.1.3
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 93 83.4 66.8 57.6 34 14.8 2 0
Finer
Cu = 5.779
Cc = 0.841
120
100
100 93
83.4
80
66.8
% Finer
60 57.6
60
40 30 34
20 10 14.8
2
0
0.01 0.1 0.122 0.269 0.704 1 10
Grain size
Figure 4.2.1.3
Sample 4:
Table 4.2.1.4
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 94.6 81.8 57.6 43.2 17.8 7.8 0.6 0
Finer

120
100
100 94.6
81.8
80
% Finer
60 57.6
60
43.2
40 30
17.8
20 10 7.8
0.6
0 1.067
0.01 0.1 0.183 0.444 1 10
Grain size
Figure 4.2.1.4
Cu = 5.829
Cc = 1.010
Sample 5:
Table 4.2.1.5
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 93.6 77.2 50.6 39 20.2 9 1.2 0
Finer
120
100
100 93.6
77.2
80
% Finer
60 50.6
39
40
20.2
20
9
1.2
0
0.01 0.1 0.163 0.456 1 1.353 10
Grain size
Figure 4.3.1.5

Cu = 8.283
Cc = 0.942
Sample 6:
Table 4.2.1.6
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 77.4 54 28.2 19.4 8.6 3.4 0.4 0
Finer
120
100
100
77.4
80
% Finer
60 54
40 28.2
19.4
20 8.6
0.4 3.4
0
0.339 1.070 2.705
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain size
Figure 4.2.1.6
Cu = 7.982
Cc = 1.248
Sample 7:
Table 4.2.1.7
Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

No.
% 100 93 80.2 57.6 43.2 15 4.8 0.4 0
Finer

120
100
100 93
80.2
80
% Finer
57.6
60
43.2
40
15
20
4.8
0.4
1.067
0
0.01 0.1 0.226 0.460 1 10
Grain size
Figure 4.2.1.7
Cu = 4.710
Cc = 0.874
4.2.2. PLASTIC LIMIT
Table 4.2.2
Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Plastic 29.588 30.549 21.958 29.588 29.078 30.828 23.137
Limit (%)
4.2.3. LIQUID LIMIT

Sample 1:
Table 4.2.3.1
S. No. No. of blows Water Content (%)

1 55 44.418
2 43 47.095
3 38 47.910
4 18 48.780

Liquid Limit = 48.208

50.000
48.780
49.000 48.208 48.208
Water Content (%)
47.910
48.000
47.095
47.000
46.000
45.000 44.418
44.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.1
Sample 2:
Table 4.2.3.2

1 48 53.310
2 38 56.974
3 30 58.811
4 21 59.551

61.000
59.551
60.000 59.118 59.118
58.811
Water Content (%)
59.000
58.000 56.974
57.000
56.000
55.000
54.000 53.310
53.000
52.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.2

Sample 3:
Table 4.2.3.3

1 59 23.180
2 34 29.727
3 27 32.286
4 12 35.596

38.000 35.596
36.000
Water Content (%)
34.000 32.286
32.000 31.166 29.727
30.000
28.000
26.000
23.180
24.000
22.000
20.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.3
Sample 4:
Table 4.2.3.4

1 47 43.753
2 27 47.899
3 21 49.219
4 10 49.917


52.000
51.000 49.917
50.000 49.219
Water Content (%)
49.000 47.899
48.000 47.329
47.000
46.000
45.000
43.753
44.000
43.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.4
Sample 5:
Table 4.2.3.5

1 53 28.785
2 49 33.092
3 29 50.821
4 13 56.098

65.000
60.000 56.098
Water Content (%)
55.000 50.821
50.000 46.595
45.000
40.000
33.092
35.000
28.785
30.000
25.000
20.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.5

Sample 6:
Table 4.2.3.6

1 47 45.048
2 39 53.106
3 28 57.417
4 17 60.153

65.000
60.153
60.000 56.614 57.417
Water Content(%)
55.000 53.106
50.000
45.048
45.000
40.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.6
Sample 7:
Table 4.2.3.7

1 59 40.520
2 38 59.508
3 25 62.824
4 15 65.490


80.000
70.000 65.490
Water Content(%) 62.824
60.348 59.508
60.000
50.000
40.520
40.000
30.000
20.000
1 10 25 100
No. of blows
Figure 4.2.3.7
Sample 1:
17.500
16.908
16.925
Dry unit weight (kNm-3)
17.000
16.627
16.500 16.247
16.000 15.721
15.500
15.125
15.000 14.687
14.500 15.55
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.1
Sample 2:
19.000
18.55 18.548
18.500
18.000 17.741
17.569
17.500
17.026
17.000
16.500 16.293
16.000 11.26
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.2

Sample 3:
19.000
18.360
Dry unit weight (kNm-3) 18.500 18.36
18.000
17.432 17.543
17.500
17.000
16.500 16.108 16.117

16.000
15.500
0.000 5.000 10.000 12.52815.000 20.000 25.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.3
Sample 4:
18.500
17.928 17.928
18.000
17.500
17.059
16.949
17.000
16.411
16.500
15.956
16.000
15.500 14.744
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.4
Sample 5:
16.000
15.326 15.316
15.500 15.38
14.941
15.000 14.766
14.552
14.500 14.154
14.000
13.521
13.500
13.000 19.7
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.5

Sample 6:
17.000
Dry unit weight (kNm-3) 16.379
16.500 16.385
15.845
16.000
15.511
15.500 15.313
15.000 14.729
14.537
14.500
14.000 19.15
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.6
Sample 7:
16.500 16.285
16.300 16.3
16.034
16.100
15.900
15.605
15.700
15.500
15.300
15.100
14.790
14.900
14.606
14.700
14.500 18
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.2.4.7
Table 4.2.4
Sample No. MDD (kNm-3) OMC (%)

1 16.925 15.55
2 18.550 11.26
3 18.360 12.528
l4 17.928 14.744
5 15.380 19.70
6 16.385 19.15
7 16.300 18.00

4.2.5. CBR TEST

Sample 1:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.1 (A)
SI. No. Penetration Total load

1 0 0
2 0.5 88.2
3 1 105.84
4 1.5 111.72
5 2 123.48
6 2.5 129.36
7 3 135.24
8 3.5 141.12
9 4 147
10 4.5 152.88
11 5 158.76
12 5.5 164.64
13 6 170.52
14 6.5 170.52
15 7 176.4
200.000
176.400
180.000 170.520
170.520
164.640
158.760
160.000 152.880
147.000
141.120
135.240
129.360
140.000 129.360
123.480
120.000 111.720
105.840
Load
100.000 88.200
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.1(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (129.36/1370)*100 = 9.442

CBR @ 5 mm = (158.76/2055)*100 = 7.726

Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.1(B)

1 0 0
2 0.5 76.44
3 1 94.08
4 1.5 99.96
5 2 111.72
6 2.5 117.6
7 3 123.48
8 3.5 129.36
9 4 135.24
10 4.5 141.12
11 5 147
12 5.5 152.88
13 6 158.76
14 6.5 158.76
15 7 164.64
200.000
176.400
180.000 170.520
170.520
164.640
158.760
160.000 152.880
147.000
141.120
135.240
140.000
129.360 129.360
123.480
120.000 111.720
105.840
Load
100.000 88.200
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.1(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (117.6/1370)*100 = 8.584

CBR @ 5 mm = (147/2055)*100 = 7.153
Average CBR = (9.442+8.584)/2 = 9.013

Sample 2:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.2(A)

1 0 0
2 0.5 35.28
3 1 41.16
4 1.5 47.04
5 2 52.92
6 2.5 52.92
7 3 64.68
8 3.5 64.68
9 4 70.56
10 4.5 70.56
11 5 76.44
12 5.5 76.44
13 6 84.672
14 6.5 88.895
15 7 93.118
100.000 93.118
88.895
90.000 84.672
80.000 76.44076.440
70.56070.560
70.000 64.68064.680
60.000
52.920 52.92052.920
Load
47.040
50.000
41.160
40.000 35.280
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.2(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (52.92/1370)*100 = 3.863

CBR @ 5 mm = (76.44/2055)*100 = 3.720

Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.2(B)

1 0 0
2 0.5 47.04
3 1 52.92
4 1.5 58.8
5 2 64.68
6 2.5 64.68
7 3 76.44
8 3.5 76.44
9 4 82.32
10 4.5 82.32
11 5 88.2
12 5.5 88.2
13 6 96.432
14 6.5 100.655
15 7 104.878
120.000
104.878
100.655
96.432
100.000
88.20088.200
82.32082.320
76.44076.440
80.000
64.680 64.68064.680
58.800
Load
60.000 52.920
47.040
40.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.2(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (64.68/1370)*100 = 4.721

CBR @ 5 mm = (88.2/2055)*100 = 4.292
Average CBR = (3.862+4.721)/2 = 4.292

Sample 3:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.3(A)

1 0 0
2 0.5 70.56
3 1 76.44
4 1.5 88.2
5 2 94.08
6 2.5 105.84
7 3 111.72
8 3.5 117.6
9 4 123.48
10 4.5 129.36
11 5 135.24
12 5.5 152.88
13 6 170.52
14 6.5 182.28
15 7 188.16
200.000 188.160
182.280
180.000 170.520
152.880
160.000
135.240
140.000 129.360
123.480
117.600
120.000 111.720
105.840 105.840
Load
94.080
100.000 88.200
76.440
80.000 70.560
60.000
40.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.3(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (105.84/1370)*100 = 7.726

CBR @ 5 mm = (135.24/2055)*100 = 6.581

Sample 3:
Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.3(B)

1 0 0
2 0.5 70.56
3 1 76.44
4 1.5 88.2
5 2 94.08
6 2.5 105.84
7 3 111.72
8 3.5 117.6
9 4 123.48
10 4.5 129.36
11 5 135.24
12 5.5 152.88
13 6 170.52
14 6.5 182.28
15 7 188.16
250.000
199.920
194.040
200.000 182.280
164.640
147.000
141.120
150.000 135.240
129.360
123.480
Load
117.600 117.600
105.840
99.960
100.000 88.200
82.320
50.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.3(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (105.84/1370)*100 = 8.584

CBR @ 5 mm = (135.24/2055)*100 = 7.153
Average CBR = (7.726+8.584)/2 = 8.155

Sample 4:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.4(A)

1 0 0
2 0.5 41.16
3 1 52.92
4 1.5 70.56
5 2 76.44
6 2.5 78.38
7 3 82.32
8 3.5 82.32
9 4 82.32
10 4.5 88.2
11 5 88.2
12 5.5 94.08
13 6 94.08
14 6.5 94.08
15 7 99.96
120.000
99.960
100.000 94.08094.08094.080
88.20088.200
82.32082.32082.320
78.380 78.380
76.440
80.000 70.560
Load
60.000 52.920
41.160
40.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.4(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (78.38/1370)*100 = 5.721

CBR @ 5 mm = (88.2/2055)*100 = 4.292

Sample 4:
Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.4(B)

1 0 0.00
2 0.5 29.40
3 1 41.16
4 1.5 58.80
5 2 64.68
6 2.5 66.62
7 3 70.56
8 3.5 70.56
9 4 70.56
10 4.5 76.44
11 5 76.44
12 5.5 82.32
13 6 82.32
14 6.5 82.32
15 7 88.20
100.000
88.200
90.000 82.32082.32082.320
76.44076.440
80.000 70.56070.56070.560
66.620 64.68066.620
70.000
58.800
60.000
Load
50.000 41.160
40.000
29.400
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
0.000
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.4(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (66.62/1370)*100 = 4.863

CBR @ 5 mm = (76.44/2055)*100 = 3.720
Average CBR = (5.721+4.863)/2 = 5.292

Sample 5:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.5(A)

1 0 0
2 0.5 14.700
3 1 26.460
4 1.5 38.220
5 2 44.100
6 2.5 46.040
7 3 46.452
8 3.5 47.040
9 4 47.040
10 4.5 49.980
11 5 49.980
12 5.5 49.980
13 6 49.980
14 6.5 49.980
15 7 55.860
60.000 55.860
49.98049.98049.98049.98049.980
46.040
50.000 46.04046.45247.04047.040
44.100
38.220
40.000
Load
30.000 26.460
20.000 14.700
10.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.5(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (46.04/1370)*100 = 3.361

CBR @ 5 mm = (49.98/2055)*100 = 2.432

Sample 5:
Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.5(B)

1 0 0
2 0.5 32.340
3 1 44.100
4 1.5 55.860
5 2 61.740
6 2.5 63.680
7 3 64.092
8 3.5 64.680
9 4 64.680
10 4.5 67.620
11 5 67.620
12 5.5 67.620
13 6 67.620
14 6.5 67.620
15 7 73.500
80.000 73.500
67.62067.62067.62067.62067.620
70.000
63.680 64.09264.68064.680
61.74063.680
60.000 55.860
50.000 44.100
Load
40.000
32.340
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.5(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (63.68/1370)*100 = 4.648

CBR @ 5 mm = (67.62/2055)*100= 3.291
Average CBR = (3.361+4.648)/2 = 4.004

Sample 6:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.6(A)

1 0 0
2 0.5 32.34
3 1 38.22
4 1.5 49.98
5 2 49.98
6 2.5 61.74
7 3 67.62
8 3.5 67.62
9 4 73.5
10 4.5 79.38
11 5 85.26
12 5.5 85.26
13 6 91.14
14 6.5 91.14
15 7 97.02
120.000
97.020
100.000 91.14091.140
85.26085.260
79.380
80.000 73.500
67.62067.620
61.740 61.740
Load
60.000 49.98049.980
38.220
40.000 32.340
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.6(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (61.74/1370)*100 = 4.508

CBR @ 5 mm = (85.26/2055)*100 = 4.149

Sample 6:
Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.6(B)

1 0 0
2 0.5 49.98
3 1 55.86
4 1.5 67.62
5 2 67.62
6 2.5 79.38
7 3 85.26
8 3.5 85.26
9 4 91.14
10 4.5 97.02
11 5 102.9
12 5.5 102.9
13 6 108.78
14 6.5 108.78
15 7 114.66
140.000
120.000 114.660
108.780
108.780
102.900
102.900
97.020
100.000 91.140
85.26085.260
79.380 79.380
80.000
67.62067.620
Load
55.860
60.000 49.980
40.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.6(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (79.38/1370)*100 = 5.794

CBR @ 5 mm = (102.9/2055)*100 = 5.007
Average CBR = (4.508+5.794)/2 = 5.150

Sample 7:
Trail 1:
Table 4.2.5.7(A)

1 0 0
2 0.5 108.78
3 1 120.54
4 1.5 132.3
5 2 144.06
6 2.5 149.94
7 3 155.82
8 3.5 167.58
9 4 167.58
10 4.5 173.46
11 5 179.34
12 5.5 185.22
13 6 191.1
14 6.5 191.1
15 7 196.98
250.000
191.100 196.980
191.100
200.000 185.220
179.340
167.580 173.460
167.580
149.940 155.820
149.940
144.060
150.000 132.300
120.540
Load
108.780
100.000
50.000
0.000
0.000
0 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.7(A)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (149.94/1370)*100 = 10.495

CBR @ 5 mm = (179.34/2055)*100 = 8.727

Sample 7:
Trail 2:
Table 4.2.5.7(B)

1 0 0
2 0.5 126.42
3 1 138.18
4 1.5 149.94
5 2 161.7
6 2.5 167.58
7 3 173.46
8 3.5 185.22
9 4 185.22
10 4.5 191.1
11 5 196.98
12 5.5 202.86
13 6 208.74
14 6.5 208.74
15 7 214.62
250.000
208.740 214.620
208.740
202.860
196.980
185.220 191.100
185.220
200.000
167.580 173.460
167.580
161.700
149.940
150.000 138.180
126.420
Load
100.000
50.000
0.000
0.000
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration
Figure 4.2.5.7(B)
CBR @ 2.5 mm = (167.58/1370)*100 = 12.232

CBR @ 5 mm = (196.98/2055)*100 = 9.585
Average CBR = (10.495+12.232)/2 = 11.588

4.2.6. REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The table of laboratory test results along are presented in chapter 5. Now,
correlations/models are developed in the form of linear equations between CBR values
and various index properties first by SLRA and then collectively by MLRA using MS
Excel.
4.2.6.1 CO-RELATION BY SINGLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The correlations by SLRA were developed and are described in the following figures
indicating linear relationship between the variables. Some models gave very low values
of reliability R2. However, in this paper, all models are shown:
Model-1: Co-relation of CBR with % Finer:

Fig. 4.2.6.1.1 represents a graph which shows a correlation between CBR and % finer
passing from 75µm sieve for all soil samples. The mathematical relation between the
two parameters is shown in Equation 6.1.1. It can be seen that the reliability factor R2
obtained from this equation is 0.7545.
14.000
12.000
10.000
CBR (%)
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
% Finer
Figure 4.2.6.1.1
CBR=18.248-1.72(%F) R2 = 0.7545 (6.1.1)

Model-2: Co-relation of CBR with Plastic Limit:

Fig. 4.2.6.1.2 represents a graph, which shows a correlation between CBR and PL for
all soil samples. The mathematical relation between the two parameters is shown in
Equation (6.1.2). It can be seen that the reliability factor R2 obtained from this equation
is only 0.5024.
14.000
12.000
10.000
CBR (%)
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Plastic Limit (%)
Figure 4.2.6.1.2
CBR=22.12-0.5513(PL) R2 = 0.5024 (6.1.2)
Model-3: Co-relation of CBR with Plasticity Index:

Fig. 4.2.6.1.3 represents a graph, which shows a correlation between CBR and PI for
all soil samples. The mathematical relation between the two parameters is shown in
is only 0.08.

14.000
12.000
10.000
CBR (%)
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
PI
Figure 4.2.6.1.3
CBR=4.8372+0.0882(PI) R2 = 0.08 (6.1.3)
Model-4: Co-relation of CBR with MDD:

Fig. 6.2.6.1.4 represents a graph, which shows a correlation between CBR and MDD
for all soil samples. The mathematical relation between the two parameters is shown in
is only 0.0048.
14.000
12.000
10.000
CBR (%)
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MDD (kNm-3)
CBR=9.6095-0.165(MDD) R2 =0.0048 (6.1.4)
Figure 4.2.6.1.4

Model-5: Co-relation of CBR with OMC:

Fig. 4.2.6.1.5 represents a graph, which shows a correlation between CBR and OMC
for all soil samples. The mathematical relation between the two parameters is shown
in Equation (6.1.5). It can be seen that the reliability factor R2 obtained from this
equation is only 0.0014.
14.000
12.000
10.000
CBR (%)
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25
OMC (%)
Figure 4.2.6.1.5
CBR=6.2632+0.0329(OMC) R2=0.0014 (6.1.5)
4.2.6.2 Co-relation by Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

This analysis has been performed by taking CBR as function of more than one
independent variables. Now, the equations which have been obtained through MLRA
by adopting Microsoft Excel solutions are given in Table 4.2.6.2.1 along with their
model number.

Table 4.2.6.2.1
MODEL Correlation/Model R2
NO.
1 CBR=20.994-1.426(%F)-0.169(PL) 0.780
2 CBR=16.25-1.786(%F)+0.049(LL) 0.783
3 CBR=16.473-1.692(%F)+0.072(PI) 0.808
4 CBR=27.587-1.79(%F)-0.518(MDD) 0.800
5 CBR=16.397-1.759(%F)+0.133(OMC) 0.777
6 CBR=20.323-0.673(PL)+0.104(LL) 0.613
7 CBR=20.323-0.569(PL)+0.104(PI) 0.613
8 CBR=28.512-0.564(PL)-0.353(MDD) 0.524
9 CBR=20.673-0.564(PL)+0.114(OMC) 0.519
10 CBR=20.323-0.569(LL)+0.673(PI) 0.613
11 CBR=5.292+0.091(PI)-0.033(OMC) 0.081
12 CBR=19.669-1.322(%F)-0.292(PL)+0.081(LL) 0.846
13 CBR=19.669-1.322(%F)-0.211(LL)+0.292(PI) 0.846
14 CBR=23.954-1.751(%F)+0.058(PI)-0.396(MDD) 0.832
15 CBR=66.679-1.831(%F)-2.198(MDD)-0.635(OMC) 0.839
16 CBR=19.669-1.322(%F)-0.211(PL)+0.081(PI) 0.846
17 CBR=30.29-1.498(%F)-0.168(PL)-0.517(MDD) 0.825
18 CBR=19.181-1.451(%F)-0.178(PL)+0.141(OMC) 0.805
19 CBR=24.777-1.828(%F)+0.036(LL)-0.444(MDD) 0.815
20 CBR=15.199-1.804(%F)+0.04(LL)+0.101(OMC) 0.795
21 CBR=15.492-1.72(%F)+0.064(PI)+0.085(OMC) 0.816
22 CBR=23.366-0.574(PL)+0.099(PI)-0.163(MDD) 0.617
23 CBR=36.748-0.561(PL)-0.712(MDD)-0.137(OMC) 0.526
24 CBR=23.366-0.673(PL)+0.099(LL)-0.163(MDD) 0.617
25 CBR=19.842-0.674(PL)+0.1(LL)+0.043(OMC) 0.615
26 CBR=19.842-0.573(PL)+0.1(PI)+0.043(OMC) 0.615
27 CBR=23.366-0.574(LL)+0.673(PI)-0.163(MDD) 0.617
28 CBR=19.842-0.573(LL)+0.674(PI)+0.043(OMC) 0.615
29 CBR=33.917-0.57(LL)+0.67(PI)-0.623(MDD)-0.176(OMC) 0.620
30 CBR=18.68-1.348(%F)-0.286(PL)+0.073(LL)+0.088(OMC) 0.855
31 CBR=26.612-1.391(%F)-0.272(PL)+0.068(LL)-0.374(MDD) 0.868
32 CBR=63.635-1.602(%F)-0.129(PL)-1.977(MDD)-0.552(OMC) 0.853
33 CBR=65.889-1.878(%F)+0.041(LL)-2.217(MDD)-0.675(OMC) 0.859
34 CBR=26.612-1.391(%F)-0.204(LL)+0.272(PI)-0.374(MDD) 0.868
35 CBR=18.68-1.348(%F)-0.213(LL)+0.286(PI)+0.088(OMC) 0.855
36 CBR=59.898-1.494(%F)-0.233(PL)+0.068(LL)-1.831(MDD)-0.551(OMC) 0.896

From the above developed MLRA models for Unsoaked CBR, based on the values of
coefficient of determination (R2), it can be noted that Model-36 provides a better
correlation of CBR with %Finer, PL, LL, MDD and OMC with value of R2=0.896.
The predicted CBR values were obtained by using this model relation. The comparison
of predicted CBR and actual CBR with percentage error is mentioned in table 4.2.6.2.2.
Table 4.2.6.2.2
Sample No. Actual CBR Predicted CBR Difference % Error

1 9.013 7.887 1.126 12.489
2 4.292 4.450 0.158 3.686
3 8.155 7.747 0.408 5.001
4 5.292 6.564 1.272 24.031
5 4.004 4.901 0.897 22.403
6 5.150 4.087 1.063 20.638
7 11.588 11.811 0.223 1.922
Now, the graph between predicted and actual CBR along with line of equality is
presented in Fig. 4.2.6.2.1. It is observed that predicted CBR values of Sample 2 and 3
slightly deviate from the line of equality while the remaining samples predicted CBR
values scatters near the line of equality. Moreover, the predicted CBR values of
Sample2, 4, 5 and 7 are higher than their actual CBR values while the predicted CBR
values of Sample 1, 3 and 6 are lower than their actual CBR values (Table 4.2.6.2.2).
The difference between experimental/actual and predicted CBR values is shown
graphically below:

14.000
Sample 7
12.000
10.000
Predicted CBR
Sample 1
8.000 Sample 4
Sample 3
6.000 Sample 5
4.000
Sample 6
Sample 2
2.000
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000
Actual CBR
Figure 4.2.6.2.1
Fig. 4.2.6.2.2 represents difference in values of predicted and actual CBR value in
unsoaked condition for each soil sample in a graphical format. It can be clearly seen
that predicted CBR values of Sample 1,3 and 6 under estimate their actual CBR values,
but for Sample 2, 4, 5 and 7, predicted CBR values over estimate their actual CBR
values.
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
CBR
6.000 Actual CBR

Predicted CBR
4.000
2.000
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sample No.
Figure 4.2.6.2.2

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
From the results of the research, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The correlation of CBR with %Finer by utilizing SLRA approach gives a good
relationship with R2=0.7545, CBR=18.248-1.72(%F).
• CBR value provides a relationship with MDD and OMC through SLRA with
coefficient of determination R2values 0.0048 and 0.0014 respectively, which are
not suitable.
• The correlation of CBR with PL, LL, MDD and OMC by utilizing MLRA
approach gives a good relationship with R2 = 0.896,
CBR=59.898-1.494(%F)-0.233(PL)+0.068(LL)-1.831(MDD)-0.551(OMC).

CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES
• Faisal Iqbal, Aneel Kumar, Ali Murtaza., “Co-Relationship between California

Bearing Ratio and Index Properties of Jamshoro soil”, Mehran University
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Mehran University of
Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan, 2018.
• Okon Bassey Bassey, Imoh Christopher Attah, EdidiongEseme Ambrose,
Roland KufreEtim., “Correlation between CBR Values and Index Properties of
Soils: A Case Study of Ibiono, Oron and Onna in Akwa Ibom State”, Department
of Civil Engineering, Akwa Ibom State University, Ikot Akpaden, Nigeria, 2017.
• Ravichandra, Shivakumar, Vinaykumar, Md. Khalid, Basavaraj.,
“PREDICTION OF CBR VALUE BY USING INDEX PROPERTIES OF
SOIL” , Civil Department BITM Ballari, Karnataka, 2019.
• Z. U. Rehman, U. Khalid, K. Farooq, H. Mujtaba., “Prediction of CBR Value
from Index Properties of different Soils” , Civil Engineering Department,
University College of Engineering & Technology, University of Sargodha,
Pakistan, 2017.
• Yimam Mohammed, A.Paulmakesh, BereketAdamasu, Salihashukri.,

“Relationship between California Bearing Ratio and Other Geotechnical
Properties of subgrade Soils” , Department of Civil Engineering, WolaitaSodo
University, Sodo, Ethiopia, 2021.

PHOTO VISUALS
During Grain Size Analysis
Plastic Limit Test

Liquid Limit Test
Proctor Test

CBR Test


Madhu - Corelation Between CBR and Index Properties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madhu - Corelation Between CBR and Index Properties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A PROJECT REPORT ON

CO-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CALIFORNIA BEARING

Project Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

B. MADHU KUMAR (18031A0103)

Under the esteemed Guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

University College of Engineering Narasaraopet

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “CO-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

PROJECT GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

B. MADHU KUMAR (18031A0103)

We are very thankful to Dr. G. VENU GOPALA KRISHNA, Assistant Professor of

B. MADHU KUMAR (18031A0103)

Pavement design is considered to be the most important parameter in the construction

Subgrade is a most important part of a pavement structure, which should have a

SI. NO. Fig. No. Description Page

SI. NO. Table No. Description Page

CBR California Bearing Ratio

Pavement structure is required to spread loading to a pressure intensity tolerable by

Pavement design is considered to be the most important parameter in the construction

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 1| P a g e

This research paper is written on Narasaraopet soil. Narasaraopet is a District

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 2| P a g e

1.1. ADVANTAGES OF USING CO-RELATION

• CBR can be determined easily.

1.2. DISADVANTAGES OF USING CO-RELATION

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 3| P a g e

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 4| P a g e

❖ Yimam Mohammed et al. given empirical relationships for calculating California

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 5| P a g e

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. MATERIAL COLLECTION

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 6| P a g e

Atterberg Limit test

3.2.1. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 7| P a g e

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 8| P a g e

3.2.2. DETERMINATION OF PLASTIC LIMIT

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 9| P a g e

• At no time shall an attempt be made to produce failure at exactly 3 mm diameter

3.2.3. DETERMINATION OF LIQUID LIMIT

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 10| P a g e

3.2.4. STANDARD PROCTOR TEST

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 11| P a g e

Apparatus: Cylindrical metal mould, weigh balance, oven, containers, steel

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 12| P a g e

3.2.5. CBR TEST

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 13| P a g e

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 14| P a g e

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Sl IS Particle Mass Corrected Cumulative Cumulative %

%𝐹𝑖𝑛ⅇ𝑟 = 100 − (𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣ⅇ % 𝑟ⅇ𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛ⅇ𝑑)

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 15| P a g e

4.1.2. PLASTIC LIMIT

Empty Wet wt. + Dry wt. + Water Plastic

4.1.3. LIQUID LIMIT

S. Container Empty No. of Wet wt. + Dry wt. + Water

4.1.4. STANDARD PROCTOR TEST

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 16| P a g e

4.1.5. CBR TEST

Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UCEN-JNTUK Narasaraopet 17| P a g e

Sieve 10 4.75 2 1 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan