Zelalem - Worku CBR

ADDIS ABAB UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PREDICTION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) VALUE FROM INDEX

PROPERTIES OF SOIL
By
Zelalem Worku Ferede
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in

Partial fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree of Master of Science in Civil
Engineering (Geotechniques)
ADVISOR: Dr Hadush Seged
April 2010
Prediction of CBR value from Index properties of soil
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... III
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... IV
ABBREVIATION ............................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. VI
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................VII
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................................ 1
1.3 OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 DEFINITION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) .............................................................. 3
2.2 TEST METHODS....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Field Test ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.2.1.1 Significance and Use ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1.2 Scope of Field CBR Test ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Laboratory Test .................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 APPLICATION OF CBR VALUE ................................................................................................ 8
2.4 INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOIL .................................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Sieve Analysis .................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.2 Moisture Content ................................................................................................................ 8
2.4.3 Atterberg Limit................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.4 Moisture –Density Relationship (Compaction Test)........................................................ 10
2.5 EXISTING CORRELATIONS ..................................................................................................... 11
2.5.1 Universal Approaches ...................................................................................................... 11
2.5.1.1 Typical Values Based On the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) .......................... 11
2.5.1.2 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide ................................................................................... 14
2.5.1.3 Soil Strength Signature Concept ........................................................................................... 15
2.5.2 Relationships for Region Specific Soils ........................................................................... 17
2.5.2.1 De Graft – Johnson and Bhatia (1969) .................................................................................. 17
2.5.2.2 Agarwal and Ghanekar (1970) .............................................................................................. 18
2.5.3 CBR Correlation with DCP .............................................................................................. 19
2.5.4 Relationship between CBR and Shear Strength ............................................................... 20
3 DATA COLLECTION, LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS.......................................... 21
4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 27
i
4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 27

4.2 SCATTER PLOT ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REGRESSOR VARIABLES AND THE RESPONSE ......................... 36
4.3.1 Relationship between CBR and OMC (Granular Soils) .................................................. 38
4.3.2 Relationship between CBR and D60 (Granular Soils) ..................................................... 38
4.3.3 Relationship between CBR and M DD (Granular Soils) ................................................. 39
4.3.4 Relationship between CBR and MDD (Silty-Clay) ......................................................... 43
4.3.5 Relationship between CBR and OMC (Silty-Clay) ......................................................... 43
4.3.6 Relationship between CBR and LL (Silty-Clay) ............................................................. 44
4.3.7 Relationship between CBR and PL (Silty-Clay) .............................................................. 44
4.3.8 Relationship between CBR and PI (Silty-Clay) ............................................................... 45
4.3.9 Relationship between CBR and P200 (Silty-Clay) .......................................................... 45
4.4 COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND THE DEVELOPED EQUATIONS.......................... 49
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 50
5.1 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... 50
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 50
REFERENCE ..................................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 53
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Primarily I would like to thank the almighty GOD, as everything is of his will.
My deepest gratitude goes to Dr.Hadush Seged for his valuable guidance and encouragement in
completing the research work.
I am also grateful to all the Geotechnical Department staffs of Core Consulting Engineers
PLC, Saba Engineering, Transport Construction and Design Share Company for providing me all
the necessary data that I need for my research work.
iii
ABSTRACT
With the objective of predicting CBR value from index properties of soil, granular and silty-clay
soils data, having all the associated test results with corresponding CBR values, were collected from
consulting firms and control laboratory tests were done from subgrade soils around Addis Ababa.
For granular soils, the independent variables considered are optimum moisture content (OMC),
maximum dry density (MDD) and 60% passing sieve size (D60). A strong correlation was
established between CBR, OMC and MDD with coefficient of determination of 0.863 for a sample
size of 53.
For the case of silty-clay soils, the considered independent variables were the liquid limit (LL),
plastic limit (PL), plasticity index (PI), optimum moisture content (OMC), percent passing sieve
number 0.075mm (P200) and Maximum dry density (MDD). A reliable strong correlation as for the
granular soils couldn’t be established .The maximum value attained for the coefficient of
determination is 0.564 for a sample size of 106 for a correlation between CBR, LL and P200
iv
ABBREVIATION
1.AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
2.OMC Optimum Moisture Content
3.MDD Maximum Dry Density
4.P200 Percent Passing Sieve NO.200 or Sieve Opening of 0.075mm
5. LL Liquid Limit
6. PL Plastic Limit
7. PI Plasticity Index
8. D60 The Sieve Opening on Which 60% of The Material Passed.
9. ASTM American Society For Testing and Materials
10.CBR California Bearing Ratio
11.NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
12. coefficient of determination
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Penetration corresponding to standard unit load applied to standard gravel[1]. .................. 3
Table 2.2 The number of blows and corresponding number of layers for different grade of soils[1]. 5
Table 2.3 Letter Symbols in the Unified Soil Classification System[5, 6, 7]. ................................... 12
Table 2.4 Summary of Typical California Bearing Ratio Values by Unified Soil Type[8]. .............. 13
Table 2.5 summary of correlation between CBR and DCPI by various authors [13] ........................ 19
Table 3.1 Summary of laboratory test results conducted for control purpose (granular materials) ... 24
Table 3.2 Sub-grade data collected from Saba Consult for granular materials .................................. 25
Table 4.1 Correlation coefficients (R) between variables for granular soils ...................................... 36
Table 4.2 Correlation coefficients (R) between variables for silty-clay soils .................................. 37
Table 4.3 Result of regression analysis between CBR and MDD ...................................................... 38
Table 4.4 Result of regression analysis between CBR and D60 ........................................................ 38
Table 4.5 Result of regression analysis between CBR and MDD ...................................................... 39
Table 4.6 Summary of the model that includes all the significant terms at first trial......................... 40
Table 4.7 Improved model summary of the final regression analysis ............................................... 41
Table 4.8 Relationship between CBR and MDD (silty-clay) ............................................................. 43
Table 4.9 Relationship between CBR and OMC (silty-clay) ............................................................. 43
Table 4.10 Relationship between CBR and LL (silty-clay) ............................................................... 44
Table 4.11 Relationship between CBR and PL (silty-clay) ............................................................... 44
Table 4.12 Relationship between CBR and PI (silty-clay)................................................................. 45
Table 4.13 Relationship between CBR and P200 (silty-clay) ............................................................ 45
Table 4.14 Summary of model after including all the parameters from relationship study. .............. 46
Table 4.15 Final improved model summary ....................................................................................... 47
Table 4.16 Comparisons between the actual and developed relation for granular soils .................... 49
Table 4.17 Comparisons between actual value newly developed and Mechanistic-Empirical
method for granular soils. ........................................................................................................... 49
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Typical results from the CBR test ....................................................................................... 7

Figure 2.2 A representative Moisture-Density relationships from a Standard Compaction Test. [5] 10
Figure 2.3 Soil Strength Signatures Showing the Relationship among Moisture Content, Density,
and Strength for an SC-SM Material (from [11]). .................................................................... 16
Figure 2.4 Relationship between suitability index and soaked CBR values [from12] ....................... 17
Figure 2.5 Relationship between the ratio of maximum dry density to plasticity index and CBR for
laterite-quartz gravels [from 12] ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3.1 Gradation curve for sieve analysis result of sample 1. ..................................................... 22
Figure 3.2 Graph for determination of liquid limit test ...................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3 Compaction curve for determination of MDD and OMC of sample 1. ............................ 23
Figure 3.4 Graph showing load vs. penetration for determination of one point CBR value .............. 23
Figure 4.1 Scatter diagram of CBR versus OMC for granular soils................................................... 31
Figure 4.2 Scatter diagram of CBR versus MDD for granular soils .................................................. 32
Figure 4.3 Scatter diagram of CBR versus D60 for granular soils ..................................................... 32
Figure 4.4 Scatter diagram of CBR versus OMC for silty-clay soils ............................................... 33
Figure 4.5 Scatter diagram of CBR versus MDD for silty-clay soils ................................................. 33
Figure 4.6 Scatter diagram of CBR versus LL for silty-clay soils ..................................................... 34
Figure 4.7 Scatter diagram of CBR versus PL for silty-clay soils ..................................................... 34
Figure 4.8 Scatter diagram of CBR versus PI for silty-clay soils....................................................... 35
Figure 4.9 Scatter diagram of CBR versus P200 for silty-clay soils .................................................. 35
Figure 4.10 Monograph for the finally developed relation (granular soils) ....................................... 48
vii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is commonly used by civil engineers particularly

those involved in pavement construction to assess the stiffness modulus and shear strength of
subgrade [1]. It is actually an indirect measure, which represents comparison of the strength of
subgrade material to the strength of standard crushed rock referred in percentage values. The method
was originally developed at California Division of Highways in 1930s to provide an assessment of
the relative stability of fine crushed rock base material [1].
Usually, the CBR values are used by road material engineers to design the thickness
of pavement that will be laid on top of the subgrade. Subgrade that has lower CBR value will have
thicker pavement compared with the subgrade that has higher CBR value. In other words, the design
of pavement is very much dependent on the CBR value of subgrade. Different soil types give
different values of CBR although it is compacted at the same amount of energy and rate of
penetration. Conventionally, CBR value can be measured directly from field test in accordance with
BS1377:1990, ASTM D4429 and AASHTO T193.
The soil sample will be compacted as required in a standard mould and then a plunger is
made to penetrate the soil at a specified penetration rate. Load versus penetration curve will be
plotted from the result of the penetration and will be compared with the bearing resistance of
standard crush rock [1]. Apart from CBR test carried out in laboratory, engineers frequently conduct
indirect measurement of CBR value at project site. Various attempts, which take less time and are
easier to perform as compared to the standard procedure of CBR testing, have been made to predict
the CBR of a particular type of soil.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Soil is diverse in formation and in character and hence accurate prediction of its engineering
behavior is of research interest in civil engineering area. As the Engineering behavior of soils vary
from place to place and even with time, accurate prediction of parameters that properly characterize
it depends on how much representative samples in terms of both space and time are gathered.
Though various attempts have been made to predict the CBR value by different researchers from
1
samples of their locality, adopting those developed prediction methods without adjustment leads us
to misinterpretation of soil behavior.
Therefore, identification of factors that influence the soil strength, studying their
relationship with CBR value and performing necessary tests on local representative soil sample can
be considered as good insight of soil behavior.
1.3 Objective
The purpose of the research is to develop empirical relationship between CBR values and
soil index properties (indices related to gradation characteristics, maximum dry density, optimum
moisture content, and Atterberg limit) that can be used for the prediction of CBR values of granular
and silt-clay soils.
1.4 Methodology
In order to accomplish the proposed objectives basic concepts of California bearing ratio
and relationship between index properties and CBR values has been reviewed. The prediction
(correlation) methods previously developed were being assessed. In order to have sufficient data,
records of already tested results of CBR values together with associated soil indices ( sieve analysis
results , MDD, OMC, and atterberg limit) were collected from selected road material consulting
offices, road contractors and Road authorities. Statistical regression analysis of the test results
obtained was made and has been tested by taking trial samples. Comparisons were made with the
previously existing developed similar correlations. Finally, Conclusion and recommendation was
made.
2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definition of California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
The California bearing ratio test was first developed by California division of highways in
1929 as a means of classifying the suitability of a soil for use as subgrade or base course material in
highway construction. During World War II, the US corps of engineers adopted the test for use in
airfield construction [1].
The CBR test (ASTM terms the test simply as a bearing ratio test) measures the shearing
resistance of a soil under controlled moisture and density conditions. The test yields the bearing
ratio number, but from previous statement, it is evident this number is not a constant for a given soil
but applies only for the tested state of the soil.
The CBR number is obtained as the ratio of the unit load (in KN/m2) required to effect a
certain depth of penetration of the penetration piston (with an area of 19.4cm2) in to a compacted
specimen of soil at some water content and density to the standard unit load required to obtain the
same depth of penetration on a standard sample of crushed stone. In equation form
100 …………………………………….. (2.1)
From the above equation, it can be seen that the CBR number is a percentage of the standard unit
load. In practice, the percentage symbol is dropped and the ratio is simply a number, such as 3, 45,
and 60. Values of standard unit loads to use in equation 2.1 are listed in Table 2.1 below (the values
are from ASTM standards, part 19, and test D1883-73).
Table 2.1 Penetration corresponding to standard unit load applied to standard gravel[1].
Penetration (mm) Standard unit load (MPa)

2.5 6.9
5.0 10.3
7.5 13.0
10.0 16.0
12.7 18.0
3
The CBR number is usually based on the load ratio for a penetration of 2.5mm. However,
if the CBR value at penetration of 5mm is larger, the test should be redone. If a second test yields
also a larger CBR number at 5.0mm penetration, the CBR for 5.0mm should be used. [1]
2.2 Test Methods

California bearing ratio (CBR) test can be done at both field and laboratory according
to the test method ASTM D 4429 and ASTM D1883-73 respectively.
2.2.1 Field Test
2.2.1.1 Significance and Use
Field in-place CBR tests are used for evaluation and design of flexible pavement
components such as base course, sub base course, subgrade and for other applications (such as
unsurfaced roads) for which CBR is the desired strength parameter. If the field CBR is to be used
directly for evaluation or design without consideration for variation due to change in water content,
the test should be conducted under one of the following conditions [ASTM D4429]:
(a) when the degree of saturation (percentage of voids filled with water) is 80 % or greater,
(b) when the material is coarse grained and cohesion-less so that it is not significantly affected by
changes in water content, or
(c) When the soil has not been modified by construction activities during the two years preceding
the test. In this case, the water content does not actually become constant, but generally
fluctuates within a rather narrow range. Taking account the above conditions, the field in-place
test data may be used to satisfactorily indicate the average load-carrying capacity.
Any construction activities, such as grading or compacting, carried out subsequent to the
bearing ratio test will probably invalidate the results of the test.
The field test is applicable to determine the relative strength of soils, sub-base, and some
base materials in the condition at which they exist at the time of testing. Such results have direct
application in test section work and in some expedient construction, military, or similar operations.
In addition, field in-place tests can be used for design under conditions of nominal stability of water,
4
density, and general characteristics of the material tested. However, any significant treating,
disturbing, handling, compaction, or water change can affect the soil strength and make the previous
test determination inapplicable, leading to the need for retest and reanalysis.
2.2.1.2 Scope of Field CBR Test
This test method covers the determination of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of soil tested in
place by comparing the penetration load of the soil to that of a standard material. The method is used
for evaluation of the relative quality of subgrade, subbase and some base-course in-situ materials
corresponding to test Method ASTM D 4429.
2.2.2 Laboratory Test
CBR test in the laboratory is carried out as per the procedure outlined in AASHTO T193-
63 or ASTM D1883-73.CBR tests are usually made on test specimens at the optimum moisture
value for the soil as determined using the standard ( or modified ) compaction test using method 2 or
4 of ASTM D698-70 or of D1557-70 (for the 15.2cm diam.mold ). The specimens are made using
compaction energy shown in Table 2.2below.
Table 2.2 The number of blows and corresponding number of layers for different grade of soils [1].
Method Blows Layers Hammer weight (N)
D698:2(fine grained soil ) 56 3 24.5
D698:4(coarse grained soil) 56 3 24.5
D1557:2(fine grained soil ) 56 5 24.5
D1557:4(coarse grained soil) 56 5 24.5
5
Two molds of soil are often compacted-one for immediate penetration testing and one for
testing after soaking for a period of 96 h. The second specimen is soaked for a period of 96h with a
surcharge approximately equal to the pavement weight used in the field but in no case the surcharge
weight is less than 4.5kg. Swell readings are taken during this period at arbitrary selected times. At
the end of the soaking period, the CBR penetration test is made to obtain a CBR value for the soil in
saturated condition.
In both penetration tests for the CBR values, a surcharge of the same magnitude as for the swell test
is placed on the soil sample. The test on soaked sample accomplishes two things:
I) It gives information concerning expected soil expansion beneath the pavement when the soil
becomes saturated.
II) It gives an indication of strength loss from field saturation.
Penetration testing is accomplished in a compression machine using a strain rate of

1.27mm/min. reading of load vs. penetration are taken at each 0.5mm of penetration to include the
value of 5.08 mm ,and then at 2.54 mm increment thereafter until the total penetration is 12.7mm.
Typical test results are illustrated in Figure 2.1. It sometimes happens that the plunger is still not
perfectly bedded in the specimen and, because of this and other factors, a load-penetration curve
with a shape similar to that of the curve for Test 2 in Figure 2.1 may be obtained instead of the more
normal shaped curve illustrated by the curve for Test 1. When this happens, the curve must be
corrected by drawing a tangent at the point of greatest slope and then transposing the axis of load so
that zero penetration is taken as the point where the tangent cuts the axis of penetration. The
corrected load-penetration curve is the tangent from the new origin to the point of tangency and then
the curve itself as illustrated in Figure 2.1
6
Figure 2.1 Typical CBR test results
The CBR is then determined by reading from the curve the load that causes a penetration of
2.54 mm and dividing this value by the standard load (6.9 MPa) required to produce the same
penetration in the standard crushed stone as
Unit load for 2.54 mm penetratio n in test specimen

CBR = × 100 …………. (2.2)
Unit load for 2.54 mm penetratio n in sandard crushed roack
Similarly, the CBR at 5.08 mm penetration is obtained by dividing the load causing a
penetration of 5.08mm with the load of 10.3MPa required to produce the same penetration in
standard crushed stone. The two values are then compared and if the 2.54 mm value is greater than
the 5.08mm value, it is the CBR of the material and used for design purposes. If on the other hand
7
the 5.08 mm value is larger, the test is entirely repeated on a fresh specimen. If the new percentage
value at 5.08 mm penetration is still greater, then this is taken as the CBR value.
2.3 Application of CBR Value

Many paving design procedures are published in which one enters a chart with the CBR
number together with design traffic and reads directly the thickness of sub base, base-course, and /or
flexible pavement thickness based on expected wheel loads [2].Sometimes the CBR is converted to
a subgrade modulus (also using charts) before entering the paving design charts using the formula
[3, 4].
2.4 Index Properties of Soil
Index properties of soil are properties, which are used to characterize soils and determine
their basic properties such as moisture content, specific gravity, particle size distribution,
consistency and moisture-density relationships.
2.4.1 Sieve Analysis
The purpose of sieve analysis is to determine the percentage of various grain sizes. The
grain size distribution is used to determine the textural classification of soils (i.e., gravel, sand, silty
clay, etc.) which in turn is useful in evaluating the engineering characteristics such as permeability,
strength, swelling potential, and susceptibility to frost action. The laboratory test is conducted as per
AASHTO T 88, or ASTMD 422, D 1140
2.4.2 Moisture Content
Moisture content of soil describes the amount of water present in a quantity of soil in terms of its dry
weight. In equation form
100---------- (in percent) …………………………………………………………... (2.3)
Where:
=mass of water contained in soil.
=mass of dry soil
8
The purpose of moisture content test is to determine the amount of water present in a
quantity of soil in terms of its dry weight and to provide general correlations with strength,
settlement, workability and other properties.
The moisture content of soils, when combined with data obtained from other tests, produces
significant information about the characteristics of the soil. For example, when the in situ moisture
content of a sample retrieved from below the phreatic surface approaches its liquid limit, it is an
indication that the soil in its natural state is susceptible to larger consolidation settlement.
The moisture content test is carried out in the laboratory as per the procedure of AASHTO
T 265 or ASTM D 2216 and in the field according to AASHTO T217.
2.4.3 Atterberg Limit
Atterberg limit describes the consistency and plasticity of fine-grained soils with varying
degrees of moisture content. For the portion of the soil passing the No. 40(0.425 mm) sieve, the
moisture content is varied to identify three stages of soil behavior in terms of consistency. These
stages are known as the liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and shrinkage limit (SL) of soils.
I) The liquid limit (LL) is defined as the water content at which 25 blows of the liquid limit machine
(casagrande cup) closes a standard groove cut in the soil pat for a distance of 12.7 cm. The test is
carried out as per the procedure of AASHTO T 89 or ASTM D 4318.
II) The plastic limit (PL) is as the water content at which a thread of soil, when rolled down to a
diameter of 3 mm, will crumble. The test is carried out as per the procedure of AASHTO T 90 or
ASTM D 4318
III) The shrinkage limit (SL) is defined as that water content below which no further soil volume
change occurs with further drying. The test is carried out as per the procedure of AASHTO T 92 or
ASTM D 427.
The Atterberg limits provide general indices of moisture content relative to the consistency
and behavior of soils. The LL defines a liquid/semi-solid change, while the PL is a solid boundary.
The difference is termed as the plasticity index (PI = LL - PL). The liquidity index LI = (w-PL)/PI is
an indicator of how the natural water content of a soil is in relation to the soil’s liquid and plastic
limit as described below.
LI >1, indicates that the soil is in the liquid state
9
LI =1, indicates that the soil is at the liquid limit.

LI =0, indicates that the soil is at the plastic state.
Mostly, these are approximate and empirical values. They were originally developed for
agronomic purposes. Their widespread use by engineers has resulted in the development of a large
number of rough empirical relationships for characterizing soils [5].
2.4.4 Moisture –Density Relationship (Compaction Test)
Compaction tests are performed using disturbed, prepared soils with or without additives.
Normally, soil passing the No. 4 (4.75mm) or 19mm sieve is mixed with water to form samples at
various moisture contents ranging from the dry state to wet state. These samples are compacted in
layers in a mold by a hammer in accordance with specified nominal compaction energy. Dry density
is determined based on the moisture content and the unit weight of compacted soil. A curve of dry
density versus moisture content is plotted on Figure 2.2 and the maximum ordinate on this curve is
referred to as the maximum dry density (γdmax). The water content at which this dry density occurs is
termed as the optimum moisture content (OMC). The test is done in the laboratory according to
AASHTO T 99 (Standard Proctor), T 180 (Modified Proctor) or ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor), D
1557 (Modified Proctor).
Figure 2.2 A representative Moisture-Density relationships from a Standard Compaction Test. [5]
10
2.5 Existing Correlations
Some correlation methods do exist to estimate the California bearing ratio of a soil, based on
soil classification, other index test values, and/or physical property measurements of the soil. A few
of these methods take a general approach and attempt to encompass many or all possible soil types,
however most attempts have been limited in scope to a specific soil and only apply to one region,
soil type, or specialized material.
2.5.1 Universal Approaches
2.5.1.1 Typical Values Based On the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
The simplest approach to approximate the CBR value for a soil centers on typical values
associated with soil classification. The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is a standardized
technique for classifying soils for engineering purposes that is widely used in the geotechnical
community [6] .Within this system; soils are classified based on the distribution of their grain sizes
and the cohesive properties of their fine material. The system was adopted in 1952 by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, with Professor A. Casagrande as consultant. Soils are
categorized in groups, each of which has distinct engineering properties [7].
In the USCS system, soils are divided into three major categories: coarse-grained materials, fine-
grained materials, and highly organic soils. These categories are further divided into soil groups—
the coarse-grained soils as either gravel or sand and the fine-grained soils as either silt or clay. A
letter symbol represents each of these four main soil groups, as shown in Table 2.3.These soil group
letters are combined with a second letter, (shown in the lower half of Table 2.3) which is used to
further describe the soil’s characteristics. These descriptors include symbols to differentiate among
grain size distribution, plasticity characteristics that describe cohesive behavior, and the nature of
the organic material in a soil. For example, a sandy soil with few fines and a uniform grain size
would be classified as a SP, or poorly graded sand. Fifteen classes of these two letter combinations
comprise the major soil types defined under the USCS system. Further designation for “borderline”
soils are described by combinations of two of these fifteen major soil types. This occurs in cases
where the fine material may be a combination of a clay and a silt (for example SC-SM designates a
11
silty-clayey sand) or cases in which the amount of fines in a coarse-grained soil fall between 5 and
12 percent (for example GW-GM is a well-graded gravel with silt).
Eleven of these combinations for borderline soils are generally recognized by the USCS system. It
should be stressed that the USCS is a systematic and strictly based on test measurement values
defined in the ASTM standard [6] and not a qualitative assessment of a soil based on subjective
judgments. As such, the USCS class of a soil is inherently tied to the soil properties by which it is
defined, and in the absence of these original classification test results can give some indication as to
the range of grain sizes and plastic behavior that the soil is bounded by.
Table 2.3 Letter Symbols in the Unified Soil Classification System[5, 6, 7].
Soil groups Symbol
Gravel G
Sand S
Silt M
Clay C
Soil Characteristics Symbol

Well-graded W
Poorly-graded P
Low plasticity (liquid limit under 50) L
High plasticity (liquid limit over 50) H
Organic (silts and clays) O
Organic (peat) Pt
Guidelines for choosing CBR values based solely on USCS soil type are found throughout the
literature. A summary of reported values from several of these sources is shown in Table 2.4.
Generally; these are consistent for each soil type, with minor differences among the reported values.
12
Table 2.4 Summary of Typical California Bearing Ratio Values by Unified Soil Type[8].
USACE, US
USCS Soil US Army, Air Rollings &
Army, and US Yoder & NCHRP
Type Force & Navy Rollings
Army & Air Witczak
and PCA
Force
GW 40 – 80 60 – 80 60 – 80 60 – 80 60 – 80
GP 30 – 60 35 – 60 25 – 60 35 – 60 35 – 60
GM 20 – 60 40 – 80 20 – 80 40 – 80 30 – 80
GC 20 – 40 20 – 40 20 – 40 20 – 40 15 – 40
SW 20 – 40 20 – 40 20 – 40 20 – 50 20 – 40
SP 10 – 40 15 – 25 10 – 25 10 – 25 15 – 30
SM 10 – 40 20 – 40 10 – 40 20 – 40 20 – 40
SC 5 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20
ML 15 or less 5 – 15 5 – 15 5 – 15 8 – 16
CL 15 or less 5 – 15 5 – 15 5 – 15 5 – 15
OL 5 or less 4–8 4–8 4–8 --
MH 10 or less 4–8 4–8 4–8 2–8
CH 15 or less 3–5 3–5 3–5 1–5
OH 5 or less 3–5 3–5 3–5 --
Pt -- -- -- <1 --
CL-ML -- -- -- -- --
GW-GM -- -- -- -- 35 – 70
GW-GC -- -- -- -- 20 – 60
GP-GM -- -- -- -- 25 – 60
GP-GC -- -- -- -- 20 – 50
GC-GM -- -- -- -- --
SW-SM -- -- -- -- 15 – 30
SW-SC -- -- -- -- 10 – 25
SP-SM -- -- -- -- 15 – 30
SP-SC -- -- -- -- 10 – 25
SC-SM -- -- -- -- --
13
2.5.1.2 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide
Another general approach to the problem of estimating CBR has been developed as a part
of the highway pavement community’s recently released Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures [9]. The design guide methodology includes three
levels of confidence in the resulting pavement designs, depending on the quality of input data
provided to the model. This ranges from the highest level, where the design is based on a detailed,
project-specific series of laboratory characterization tests on the construction materials, to the lowest
level where default values based on simple material characterization tests and/or regional norms are
used as model inputs. One of the parameters needed to perform a flexible pavement design using
this system is the resilient modulus, which is a specific type of modulus of elasticity that is based on
the recoverable strain instead of total strain [10]. In order to provide an estimate of the resilient
modulus parameter, an appendix to the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide was developed that
relates resilient modulus to much simpler soil characterization tests by way of CBR as an
intermediary step. The correlation between soil index properties and California bearing ratio for this
method is based on a simple regression approach. Separate relationships were determined for
coarse-grained soils that exhibit no cohesive behavior (GW, GP, SW, and SP) and for soils with
more than 12 percent fines that exhibit plastic behavior (GM, GC,SM, SC, ML, MH, CL, and CH).
The CBR values were selected by choosing average values for each USCS soil type based upon
sources that provide typical CBR values by classification, as illustrated in the previous section. The
index property values were selected by examining the USCS classification criteria for each soil type,
and choosing a typical value for that USCS soil type. The index properties chosen to correlate with
CBR included:
D = Diameter on the cumulative size distribution curve where 60 percent of particles are finer (in
millimeters)
P = Percent passing (finer than) the number 200 sieve size (in decimal form)
PI= Plasticity index (in percent)
The last two properties were combined into a composite index called the weighted
Plasticity index. This term, denoted by is defined in the method by:
0 …………………………………………………….. (2.4)
14
For clean, coarse-grained, non-plastic soils such as GW, GP, SW, SP and A-1-a, A-1-b, and
A-3 soils where 0 the CBR were correlated with . The method provides the following
prediction relationship below [9].
5 0.01
. 30 … … … … … … … … … … . . 2.5
28.091 0.01
95 30
For the second group of soils that exhibit plastic behavior, such as GM, GC, SM, SC, ML,
MH, CL, and CH a different correlation for CBR was determined. In cases where the soil has a fines
content (P200) greater than twelve percent and the weighted plasticity index ( ) is nonzero, the
prediction equation is
75
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . 2.6
1 0.728
The R2 value of the regression for these two resulting equations was reported as 0.84 for the coarse-
grained materials and 0.67 for the plastic materials [9].
2.5.1.3 Soil Strength Signature Concept
Another generalized CBR prediction technique grew out of efforts to develop an analytical
model to assess the impact of soil-moisture variations on unpaved road performance [11]. Most
pavement design procedures characterize the strength of each layer in terms of a single, generally
conservative value that represents the worst-case, fully saturated state of the material. For California
bearing ratio, this involves testing lab-prepared samples soaked for four days so they reach a
moisture condition close to full saturation, commonly referred to a “soaked CBR.” However, most
of the time, the circumstances in the pavement layers are actually much more favorable and the soil
can carry higher loads without damage.
In order to capture the effect that higher in situ strengths could have on accommodating
greater traffic volumes, researchers developed an integrated performance prediction model including
an element that correlates CBR to soil type, moisture content, and density. A literature search
gathered fifty-three sets of test results for twenty-one USCS classification groups representing
materials ranging from high plasticity clays to well-graded gravels and sands. These datasets are
typical of the type of laboratory test suites that are usually performed to characterize the
15
relationships between moisture & density, density & strength, and moisture & strength. These
include moisture-density curves (known as Proctor curves) and moisture-CBR curves, both over a
range of different compaction energies. The method developed here in effect generalized these
relationships for each soil type, and then proceeded to combine these two test results into a single
plot. In this way a series of curves, representing different levels of compaction (i.e., density), were
drawn in a CBR-moisture content space for a single USCS soil type. This allows the prediction of a
CBR value based on known moisture content and density for each USCS soil type.
One example of this method, termed a “soil strength signature,” for silty-clayey sand (SC-
SM) is provided in the report describing the integrated performance prediction Model [11]. This plot
is shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 Soil Strength Signatures Showing the Relationship among Moisture Content, Density,
and Strength for an SC-SM Material (from [11]).
16
Predictionn of CBR vallue from Indeex propertiess of soil
2.5.22 Relatioonships foor Region Specific Soils
Severall efforts of predicting the Californnia bearingg ratio of sooils for a sppecific soil can be
foundd in literatuure. Some exxamples aree given beloow.
2.5.22.1 De Graaft – Johnsoon and Bhaatia (1969)
De Graaft-Johnson and Bhatiaa (1969) deeveloped a correlation of CBR with

w plasticiity and
gradiing using thhe concept of suitablyy index [122]. The corrrelation is shown as below
b and Figure
2.4.Inn this case, the suitabillity index iss defined as::
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 2.7
2
log
Where:
A = Percent
P passing 2.4mm
m BS sieve
LL = Liquid Lim
mit
PI = Plasticity Inndex
It is w ote that the soil samples were compacted tto maximum
worth to no m dry dennsity at
mum moistuure content and soakedd for 4 dayys accordingg to the Ghhana standaard of comppaction
optim
ndard CBR mould
whicch is equivaalent to T 180 (Modifiied Proctor)). This speccifies the usse of a stan
and a 4.5kg ram
mmer with 450mm
4 dropp height to compact thhe soil in fivve layers ussing 25 blow
ws per
layerr.
Figurre 2.4 Relattionship bettween suitabbility index and soakedd CBR valuees [from12]]
1
17
Furtherr work on lateritic

l graavels (de Grraft-Johnson
n et al19799) led the establishmen
e nt of a
relatiionship betw
ween CBR
R and the raatio of max
ximum dry density to pplasticity in
ndex as sho
own in
Figurre 2.5.
Figurre 2.5 Relattionship bettween the raatio of maxiimum dry density

d to plasticity indeex and CBR
R for
lateriite-quartz gravels [from
m 12]
2.5.22.2 Agarwaal and Ghaanekar (19770)
Based on their ressearch on 48

4 samples of fine-graained soils ffound in In
ndia, Agarw
wal and
Ghan
nekar (1970
0) had tried
d to develop a correlaation betweeen CBR vaalues and either liquid
d limit,
plasttic limit or pplasticity in
ndex[12]. Ho
owever, theey failed to find any siggnificant co
orrelation beetween
them
m. Instead, they
t did fo
ound an imp
proved corrrelation wh
hen they incclude the optimum
o mo
oisture
conteent and liqu
uid limit. Th
he correlatio
on is defined
d as below.
2 log 0
0.07 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 2.8
2
Where
OMC
C = Optimum
m Moisturee Content
LL = Liquid Lim
mit
1
18
The 48 soil samples tested by them had CBR values of not more than 9% and the standard
deviation obtained was 1.8. Hence, they suggested that the correlation is only of sufficient accuracy
for preliminary identification of material. They also recommended that this correlation may be of
more use of derived for specific geological regions.
2.5.3 CBR Correlation with DCP
Extensive research has been performed to develop empirical relationship between DCP
(Dynamic Cone Penetrometer) resistance and CBR measurements. (e.g.Kleyn, 1975; Harison, 1987;
Livneh, 1987; Livneh and Ishai, 1988; Chua, 1988; Harison, 1983; Van Vuuren, 1969; Livneh, et.
al., 1992; Livneh and Livneh, 1994; Ese et. al., 1994; and Coonse, 1999). Based on the results of
past studies, many of the relationships between DCP and CBR have the following form
Log (CBR) = a + b log (DCPI) ……………………………………………………….…… (2.9)

Where:-
DCPI = DCP penetration resistance (mm/blow);
a = constant that ranges from 2.44 to 2.60;
b = constant that ranges from 1.07 to 1.16.
A summary of some of these correlations with corresponding authors is presented in Table 2.5
Table 2.5 summary of correlation between CBR and DCPI by various authors [13]
Correlation Equation Material tested Reference
log(CBR) = 2.56 - 1.16 log (DCPI) Granular and cohesive Livneh (1987)
log(CBR) = 2.55 -1.14 log (DCPI) Granular and cohesive Harison (1987)
log (CBR) = 2.45 -. 1.12 log (DCPI) Granular and cohesive Livneh et al. (1992)
log(CBR) = 2.46 - 1.12 log (DCPI) Various soil types Webster et al. (1992)
log(CBR) = 2.62 -1.27 log (DCPI) Unknown Kleyn (1975)
log(CBR) = 2.44 -1.07 log (DCPI) Aggregate base course Ese et al. (1995)
Log(CBR) = 2.60 -1.07 log (DCPI) Aggregate base course and cohesive NCDOT (Pavement, 1998)
Log(CBR) = 2.53 - 1.14 log (DCPI) Piedmont residual soil Coonse (1999)
19
2.5.4 Relationship between CBR and Shear Strength
Treating CBR test as a bearing capacity problem in which the standard plunger acts as a
small foundation, the following relation can be obtained [12].
Terzaghi‘s bearing capacity equation for circular foundation is
1.3 0.3
Where
=is the cohesion of the soil
=the bulk density of the soil
=the overburden pressure at the base of the plunger
=the diameter of the plunger
And , , are terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors
For a saturated clay in undrained condition, the angle of shearing resistance,φ, (in terms of
total stress ) is zero. This gives bearing capacity factors of 5.14 2 , 1 and
0,thus the third term in the equation disappears and, since overburden pressure is equal
only to the relatively light pressure exerted by the surcharge weights, the second term can also be
neglected. The equation thus reduces to
6.68
This agrees with experience that the number of surcharge weights used affect the CBR value of
sands, for which is much greater, but not for clays.
Using SI units, the CBR value is 100% for plunger pressure of 6900KN/m2 at penetration of 2.5mm,
giving
0.097
Where:
and are in KN/m2
20
3 DATA COLLECTION, LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS
Data had been collected from Saba Engineering PLC .The data consist of subgrade one
point CBR with corresponding consequent Atterberg limit test, compaction test, and necessary
classification based on AASHTO standard, for various geographical locations in Ethiopia. The test
result is for both granular and silty-clay soils. From the consulting firm, tests that are based on
standard compaction with corresponding CBR test are selected.
The different kinds of tests carried out by the firm are listed as below.
I) Sieve analysis (AASHTO T27)
II) Atterberg limit test (AASHTO T89-90)
III) Compaction test (AASHTO T99)
IV) California bearing ratio test (AASHTO T193)
To check the data collected from the consulting firm, the above tests have been conducted
on 12 different samples consisting of granular materials and 10 different samples of silty-clay soils
using corresponding AASHTO procedure. From all those specimens the corresponding lab result of
the four samples of granular soils are rejected because of their unexpected outcome and uncertainty
on the procedure followed. The various kinds of laboratory tests conducted on these samples and
their summary are shown in Table 3.1 for granular soils.
For the sake of illustration, the resulting graph of detailed tests for sample 1 of granular soil
is presented from Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.4. For the rest of the samples summary of tests with detailed
sample demonstrations have been attached at appendix part of this thesis.
21
sieve anaalysis
100
90
80
70
percent passing
60
50
sieve analysiss
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
01 0.1 1 1
10
s
sieve size (m
mm)
Figurre 3.1 Grad

dation curve for sieve annalysis resuult of samplee 1.
waterr content vs
v No.of blows
64
water content(%)
62
waater content vss No.of blowss
60
Liinear (water coontent vs No.oof
bloows )
58
0 10 20 30
0 4
40
N
Number of blows
b N
2
22
Figure 3.2 Graph for determination of liquid limit test
Dry density vs moisture content
1.85
1.80
MDD(g/cm3)
1.75
1.70
Dry density vs moisture
1.65
content
1.60
1.55
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
water content (%)
Figure 3.3 Compaction curve for determination of MDD and OMC of sample 1.
load vs penetration
6000
5000
4000
load (kpa)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
Figure 3.4 Graph showing load vs. penetration for determination of one point CBR value
23
Table 3.1 Summary of laboratory test results conducted for control purpose (granular materials)
Atterberg compaction CBR

percent passing % test
Sample
Limit Test AASHTO TEST
classifi value
cation OMC MDD at
75 63 50 37.5 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 2 0.6 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI (%) (g/cm3)
2.54mm
Sample 1 100.0 100.0 95.4 87.5 70.2 57.9 30.3 14.1 8.3 7.1 4.5 4.3 3.5 61.00 31.74 29.26 A-2-7(0) 13.50 1.83 32.54
Sample 2 100.0 100.0 96.9 87.5 70.9 64.4 52.3 46.5 42.6 41.3 36.4 35.0 29.1 55.20 32.09 23.11 A-2-7(2) 27.52 1.35 11.36
Sample 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.5 82.9 72.5 48.0 33.2 27.3 26.1 22.1 21.5 18.9 70.00 43.71 26.29 A-2-7(1) 21.00 1.51 6.93
Sample 4 100.0 100.0 97.9 89.8 80.3 72.8 56.0 40.7 27.7 24.2 6.0 4.5 0.5 49.75 26.49 23.26 A-2-7(0) 12.10 1.86 34.46
Sample 5 100.0 100.0 96.7 88.9 76.5 66.9 42.6 26.4 16.6 15.3 7.4 6.0 2.3 37.50 22.51 14.99 A-2-6(0) 6.60 1.87 31.16
Sample 6 100.0 95.6 90.2 78.4 70.0 63.5 49.6 37.6 26.5 23.6 9.3 5.6 0.7 50.60 30.65 19.95 A-2-7(0) 20.50 1.56 19.64
Sample 7 100.0 100.0 89.3 78.7 64.7 58.9 43.2 30.3 19.8 18.0 6.1 4.2 1.2 51.50 30.95 20.55 A-2-7(0) 22.50 1.56 11.17
Sample 8 86.3 78.1 67.3 62.9 51.6 45.8 32.1 19.9 10.9 8.8 2.5 1.8 0.3 42.40 27.86 14.54 A-2-7(0) 10.50 1.84 19.25
24
The data collected from the consulting firm is categorized in to granular and fine (silty -clay soils) materials. Accordingly,
Table 3.2 Below shows list of data for granular soils.
Table 3.2 Sub-grade data collected from Saba Consult for granular materials
SIEVE ANALYSIS, PERCENT PASSING (%) ATTERBERG AASHTO COMPACTION TEST

sample
CBR
75 63 50 38 25 19 9.50 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI Classification OMC (%) MDD(g/cm3)
HD1 - - 100 81 73 46 32 22 19 17 42 28 14 A - 2 - 7(0) 12.60 1.95 31
HD2 - - 100 75 67 60 59 55 39 28 31 19 12 A - 2 - 6(0) 23.20 1.71 24
HD3 - - - - - 99.7 93 82 77 30 21 18 3 A - 2 - 4(0) 10.9 2.06 74.0
HD4 - - - - 100 97 86 75 71 28 16 13 3 A - 2 - 4(0) 6.50 2.19 64.0
HD5 - - - - - 99 91 78 65 21 NP NP NP A - 1 - b(0) 9.00 2.15 75.00
HD6 - - - - - - - 100 91.8 18 NP NP NP A - 1 - b(0) 8.50 2 39.0
HD7 - - - - - 99 95 93 91 23 17 15 2 A - 1 - b(0) 10.00 2.06 43.0
HD8 - - - - 100 96 89 84 82 17 NP NP NP A - 1 - b(0) 8.80 2.05 61.0
HD9 - - - - 100 94 84 78 75 21 NP NP NP A - 1 - b(0) 8.00 2.09 53.0
HD10 - - - - - - - 100 93 30 18 13 5 A - 2 - 4(0) 9 2.1 50
HD11 - - - - - 100 97 95 87 35 NP NP NP A - 2 - 4(0) 9.50 2.11 57.0
HD12 - - - - - 100 96 88 81 22 17 16 1 A - 1 - b(0) 8.00 2.08 77.0
HD13 - - - - - 98 92 88 72 23 16 12 4 A - 1 - b(0) 7.00 2.16 88.0
HD14 - - - - - - - 100 92 30 17 13 4 A - 2 - 4(0) 8.20 2.14 81.0
HD15 - - 100 97 96 79 67 58 56 21 17 15 2 A - 1 - b(0) 8.00 2.13 72.0
HD16 - - - - - 100 99 97 87 23 18 12 6 A - 1 - b(0) 8.00 2.1 90.0
HD17 - - - 100 98 91 83 71 67 21 18 14 4 A - 1 - b(0) 8.10 2.16 82.0
HD18 - - - - 100 99 95 93 85 26 18 14 4 A - 2 - 4(0) 9.50 2.1 88.0
HD19 - - - - 100 91 56 42 40 17 21 15 6 A - 1 - b(0) 8.00 2.18 88.0
HD20 - - - 100 97 79 73 69 69 17 21 13 8 A - 2 - 4(0) 7.80 2.12 83.00
HD21 - - - - 100 95 88 84 79 19 18 14 4 A - 1 - b(0) 8.00 2.14 76.0
SSE1 100 91 91 88 84 69 59 45 25 13 57 40 17 A-2-7(0) 26 1.44 12
SSE2 10 60 60 56 56 55 53 50 44 38 31 53 35 18 A-2-7(0) 26 1.45 15
SSE3 100 95 92 91 80 53 38 33 30 60 43 17 A-2-7(1) 24.5 1.54 7
SSE4 100 97 92 69 48 34 25 20 65 40 25 A-2-7(1) 31.1 1.44 16
25
SSE5 100 96 83 70 42 28 19 15 14 79 49 30 A-2-7(0) 21 1.65 17

SSE6 100 84 79 73 43 25 17 13 11 71 44 27 A-2-7(0) 23 1.55 13
SSE7 100 75 75 73 71 52 34 24 19 16 80 52 28 A-2-7(0) 30.4 1.33 8
SSE8 100 94 85 74 50 33 22 16 14 70 42 28 A-2-7(0) 24.8 1.47 14
SSE9 100 97 90 82 61 45 27 19 17 66 43 23 A-2-7(0) 19.4 1.76 24
SSE10 100 95 91 66 45 30 22 19 74 41 33 A-2-4(0) 16.78 1.66 14
AG1 10 84 67 56 39 28 19 13 10 55 32 23 A-2-7(0) 20 1.73 22
AG2 10 77 68 49 40 31 23 10 6 40 23 17 A-2-7(0) 20 1.71 35
AG3 10 84 65 51 29 16 9 4 2 57 31 26 A-2-7(0) 21 1.68 18
AG4 10 88 85 81 66 52 35 17 10 53 33 20 A-2-7(0) 19.7 1.67 39
AG5 10 90 70 62 49 42 37 31 28 53 32 21 A-2-7(0) 20.4 1.59 21
AG6 10 98 88 80 68 58 49 42 34 55 31 24 A-2-7(3) 18.5 1.64 17
AG7 10 69 60 56 48 42 36 29 25 50 33 17 A-2-7(2) 20.5 1.65 36
AG8 10 89 87 82 75 66 58 46 30 53 32 21 A-2-5(4) 29.5 1.42 20
SG1 100 96 86 56 26 16 34 23 11 A-2-6(0) 17 1.88 25
SG2 100 96 91 82 71 54 34 19 38 29 9 A-2-4(0) 25.5 1.585 26
SG3 100 97 90 74 53 35 20 15 55 33 22 A-2-7(0) 24 1.57 25
SG4 100 98 90 78 57 31 35 28 7 A-2-4(0) 19.6 1.742 23
SG5 100 92 68 45 24 14 39 30 9 A-2-4(0) 23.3 1.62 21
SG6 10 91 82 71 54 48 33 27 22 19 16 53 35 18 A-2-7(0) 21.6 1.67 27
Sample codes are described as

HD=sample collected from Hargele-Dolobay road project sub-grade data
SSS= sample collected from Sawla- South Ethiopia road project sub-grade data
AG= sample collected from Ambo -Gedo road project sub-grade data
SG= sample collected from Debark –Gonder road project sub-grade data
For the case of silty-clay soils, the conducted laboratory tests and collected data have been attached at appendix part.
26
4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS
4.1 General Overview
Regression analysis is a statistical technique for modelling and investigating the relationship
between two or more variables. A variable whose value is predicted is called dependent variable or
response. A variable(s) used to predict the value of dependent variable is termed independent or
regressor variable (s)
A regression model that contains more than one regressor variable is called multiple
regression models. Alternatively, Regression model containing one independent variable or
regressor is termed as simple regression model.
Fitting a regression model requires several assumptions. Estimation of the model parameters
requires the assumption that, the residuals (actual values less estimated values) corresponding to
different observations are uncorrelated random variables with zero mean and constant
variance .Tests of hypotheses and interval estimation require that the errors be normally
distributed. In addition, we assume that the order of the model is correct; that is, if we fit a simple
linear regression model, we are assuming that the phenomenon actually behaves in a linear or first-
order manner [14].
This is indeed fundamental assumption of any tests of hypothesis and interval estimation.
A number of techniques can be used to indicate the adequacy of a multiple regression model,
some of which are standard error, the multiple regression R-squared values, and the t-test.
The standard error of a statistic gives some idea about the precision of an estimate. Estimated
standard errors are computed based on sample estimates, as population values are not obtainable
using sample surveys.
The estimated standard error of a variable with mean and standard deviation of SD is given by [14]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (4.1)
√
Where: =estimated standard error of a sample.
27
n=sample size
During modelling, a variable that shows the least standard error of estimates is the one to be
relatively chosen.
The coefficient of determination, R2, shows the percentage of variation of the dependent
variable explained by regression is often used to judge the adequacy of a regression model and is
given by the quantity [14]
1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------(4.2)
Where:
And = regression sum of squares

=error sum of squares
=total sum of squares
=ith value of the response variable
=ith value of the fitted response variable.
=average value of the response variable
Another useful criterion used to check the adequacy of a regression model is using a modified
that accounts the usefulness of a variable in a model. This statistic is called the adjusted defined
as:
1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4.3)
Where: =number of regressors in the regression model

=Sample size
=adjusted coefficient of determination.
Maximizing the value of R2 by adding variables is inappropriate unless variables are added
to the equation for sound theoretical reason. At an extreme, when n-1 variables are added to a
28
regression equation, R2 will be 1, but this result is meaningless. Adjusted R2 is used as a

conservative reduction to R2 to penalize for adding variables and is required when the number of
independent variables is high relative to the number of cases or when comparing models with
different numbers of independents
During regression analysis, a regression model with higher value of adjusted is usually accepted.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient or simply correlation coefficient, R, measures the strength of linear
association between two measurement variables.
It is calculated as: [14]
,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(4.4)
Where:
, ∑ =covariance of x and y variable
∑ =standard deviation of variable x
∑ =standard deviation of variable y
The value of R ranges from -1 to +1. A value of the correlation coefficient close to +1
indicates a strong positive linear relationship (i.e. one variable increases with the other) A value
close to -1 indicates a strong negative linear relationship (i.e. one variable decreases as the other
increases).A value close to 0 indicates no linear relationship; however, there could be a nonlinear
relationship between the variables.
Many problems in engineering require that we decide whether to accept or reject a statement
about some parameter. The statement is called a hypothesis, and the decision-making procedure
about the hypothesis is called hypothesis testing. This is one of the most useful aspects of statistical
inference, since many types of decision-making problems, tests, or experiments in the engineering
world can be formulated as hypothesis-testing problems
The t-test is one of the methods used to accept or reject a given hypothesis. The t- value is
simply calculated as
29
----------------------- (4.5)
Suppose we want to test the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be formulated as
follows:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------(4.6)
:
For an arbitrary population value of , here and are the null hypothesis and
alternative hypothesis, respectively. Let denote the probability of rejecting a true hypothesis
(level of significance of the test), then the tabulated t-value (t-tab) that is used to test the importance
of a variable in the model is obtained by reading from the t-table with /2 as column an as row,
and as row and -1 as column for two and one-sided hypothesis, respectively. Here -1 denotes
the degree of freedom.
After doing so, it will be decided on the importance of each regression variable in the
model. If t-cal exceeds t-tab, then is accepted; otherwise, the null hypothesis is accepted. If
=0, for instance, accepting means the particular variable has no importance in explaining.
Nowadays, commercial statistical software can provide p-values. Hence, we may not need
t-tables for our particular decision. The P-value is the smallest level of significance at which a
variable is significant. If p- value is smaller than , the particular variable is important in explaining
the variation of the response in the model. If is the computed value of the test statistics, then the
p- value is 2 1-φ for two-tailed test. Here, φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution
at .
4.2 Scatter Plot

In this work, the CBR value is the dependent variable where as OMC, MDD, and D60 are
the regressor variables for granular soils and LL, PL, PI, P200, MDD and OMC for silty-clay soils.
In carrying out the whole statistical analysis, a statistical software program called SPSS
software (both online using URL http://www.wessa.net/ website and readily available software)
were used.
30
Using the 45 granular soil samples collected from the consulting firm and making use of
the results of the eight laboratory tests as a control, different kinds of relationships between CBR
and other soil index properties were studied. The scatter plot of the dependent variable CBR with the
regressor variable for the case of Granular soils is shown below from Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.3 ,and
for silty-clays from Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.9.
100.00
90.00
80.00
SCATTER PLOT OF CBR VS. OMC
70.00
CBR VS OMC LAB
60.00
CBR(%)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
OMC(%)
Figure 4.1 Scatter diagram of CBR versus OMC for granular soils
31
100.00
90.00 scatter plot of CBRvs MDD
80.00 CBRvs MDD lab
70.00
60.00
CBR(%)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
MDD(g/cm3)
Figure 4.2 Scatter diagram of CBR versus MDD for granular soils
100.00
90.00
80.00 scatter plot of CBR vs D60
70.00 CBR vs D60

60.00
CBR(%)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
D60(mm)
Figure 4.3 Scatter diagram of CBR versus D60 for granular soils
32
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
CBR(%)
15.00 CBR vs OMC

CBR VS OMC LAB
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
OMC(%)
Figure 4.4 Scatter diagram of CBR versus OMC for silty-clay soils
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
CBR(%)
15.00 CBRVSMDD
10.00 CBR vs MDD lab
5.00
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
MDD
Figure 4.5 Scatter diagram of CBR versus MDD for silty-clay soils
33
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
CBR(%)
15.00 CBRVS LL
10.00 CBR vs LL lab
5.00
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00
LL(%)
Figure 4.6 Scatter diagram of CBR versus LL for silty-clay soils
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
CBR(%)
15.00 CBRVS PL
CBR VS PL LAB
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
PL(%)
Figure 4.7 Scatter diagram of CBR versus PL for silty-clay soils
34
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
CBR(%)
15.00 CBRVSPI
10.00 CBR VS PI LAB
5.00
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
PI(%)
Figure 4.8 Scatter diagram of CBR versus PI for silty-clay soils
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
CBR(%)
15.00 CBRVS P200

CBR VS P200 LAB
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
P200(%)
Figure 4.9 Scatter diagram of CBR versus P200 for silty-clay soils
The plots for both soil categories indicate that a linear correlation does not exist between
the dependent variable and each independent variable except between CBR and MDD of the
granular soil category.
35
4.3 Relationship between the Regressor Variables and the Response
Polynomial regression models are widely used when the response is curvilinear. They are
generalized as:
(4.7)
Where:-
, , , … =coefficients of the independent variables
, , ,…, =the independent variables (regressors)
=the response (dependent variable)
In order to know the influence of one variable on the other, correlation coefficients and
level of significance have been calculated as shown in Table 4.1 for granular soils and Table 4.2
for silty –clay soils.
Table 4.1 Correlation coefficients (R) between variables for granular soils
OMC MDD CBR D60

OMC Pearson 1 -0.956 -0.814 0.419
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.002
N 53 53 53 53
MDD Pearson -0.956 1 0.892 -0.524
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 53 53 53 53
CBR Pearson -0.814 0.892 1 -0.541
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 53 53 53 53
D60 Pearson 0.419 -0.524 -0.541 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.000 0.000
N 53 53 53 53
As we see Table 4.1, there is strong correlation between the variables considered
36
Table 4.2 Correlation coefficients (R) between variables for silty-clay soils
P200 LL PL PI OMC MDD CBR

P200 Pearson Correlation 1 0.421 0.355 0.434 0.246 -0.301 -0.468
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
LL Pearson Correlation 0.421 1 0.939 0.929 0.695 -0.725 -0.656
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
PL Pearson Correlation 0.355 0.939 1 0.746 0.757 -0.773 -0.600
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
PI Pearson Correlation 0.434 0.929 0.746 1 0.533 -0.575 -0.627
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
OMC Pearson Correlation 0.246 0.695 0.757 0.533 1 -0.966 -0.402
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
MDD Pearson Correlation -0.301 -0.725 -0.773 -0.575 -0.966 1 0.433
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
CBR Pearson Correlation -0.468 -0.656 -0.600 -0.627 -0.402 0.433 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
As we see Table 4.2 there is linear inter-relation between LL, PL, PI, OMC, MDD, and
CBR .However it seems that linear relationship between CBR and P200, OMC, MDD seems weak.
In order to study the relationship between the dependent variable CBR and the predictors,
each predictor variable was transformed up to degree five polynomial terms and using step-wise
method of multiple linear regression analysis, the following results were observed.
37
4.3.1 Relationship between CBR and OMC (Granular Soils)
Table 4.3 Result of regression analysis between CBR and MDD
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model R R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
Square
1 0.851 0.723 0.712 14.29584
a. Predictors: (Constant), OMC2, OMC
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Model t Sig.( )
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 121.444 11.569 10.498 0.000
1 OMC -7.940 1.545 -2.237 -5.138 0.000
2
OMC 0.148 0.045 1.444 3.317 0.002
a. Dependent Variable: CBR
As the coefficient with least standard error is considered best, the relationship resulted is then
expressed as:
121.444 7.94 0.148 With =0.712
4.3.2 Relationship between CBR and D60 (Granular Soils)
Table 4.4 Result of regression analysis between CBR and D60
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 0.779 0.607 0.574 17.40197
a. Predictors: (Constant), D604, D60, D602, D603
38
Coefficients(a)
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.( )
1 (Constant) 68.789 4.296 16.011 0.000
D60 -11.925 2.266 -4.711 -5.263 0.000
D602 0.897 0.258 13.489 3.476 0.001
D603 -0.025 0.010 -17.103 -2.622 0.012
D604 0.000 0.000 7.585 2.150 0.037
The model equation is expressed as:

68.789 11.925 0.897 0.025 with =0.574
4.3.3 Relationship between CBR and M DD (Granular Soils)
Table 4.5 Result of regression analysis between CBR and MDD
Model Summary
Std. Error of
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate
1 0.922 0.851 0.848 10.39704
2 0.931 0.867 0.861 9.92498
a. Predictors: (Constant), MDD4
b. Predictors: (Constant), MDD4, MDD3
39
Coefficients(a)
Standardized
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.( )
1 (Constant) -6.145 2.999 -2.049 0.046
MDD4 3.765 0.221 0.922 17.053 0.000
2 (Constant) 31.144 15.532 2.005 0.050
MDD4 14.305 4.320 3.505 3.311 0.002
MDD3 -26.138 10.700 -2.586 -2.443 0.018
Selecting model 2 as a better model than model 1, the model equation is expressed as:
31.144 26.138 14.305 With =0.861
Employing all the terms, which are significant during the study of relationship between the
predictors and the regressors, and carrying out regression analysis, the following result is obtain.
Table 4.6 Summary of the model that includes all the significant terms at first trial
Model Summary
Model
R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 0.934 0.872 0.849 10.36799
a. Predictors: (Constant), MDD4, D604, D60, OMC2, OMC, D602, MDD3, D603
40
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
1 (Constant) -1.005 40.980 -0.025 0.981
OMC 1.076 1.800 0.303 0.598 0.553
OMC2 -0.009 0.050 -0.090 -0.185 0.854
D60 -1.115 1.764 -0.441 -0.632 0.531
D602 0.103 0.175 1.556 0.590 0.558
D603 -0.003 0.006 -2.176 -0.515 0.609
D604 0.000 0.000 1.021 0.455 0.651
MDD3 -18.367 19.661 -1.817 -0.934 0.355
MDD4 11.856 7.593 2.905 1.561 0.126
As we see in Table 4.6 all the terms that are significant at first trial become insignificant (
>0.05) when they are employed together. However using step-wise linear regression better result in
Table 4.7 can be achieved.
Table 4.7 Improved model summary of the final regression analysis
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 0.922 0.851 0.848 10.39704
2 0.932 0.868 0.863 9.88365
b. Predictors: (Constant), MDD4, OMC2
41
ANOVA(c)
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.(
1 Regression 31,434.926 1 31,434.926 290.799 0.000
Residual 5,513.019 51 108.098
Total 36,947.945 52
2 Regression 32,063.620 2 16,031.810 164.115 0.000
Residual 4,884.325 50 97.686
Total 36,947.945 52
b. Predictors: (Constant), MDD4, OMC2
c. Dependent Variable: CBR
Coefficients(a)
Standardized
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.(
1 (Constant) -6.145 2.999 -2.049 0.046
MDD4 3.765 0.221 0.922 17.053 0.000
2 (Constant) -27.998 9.073 -3.086 0.003
MDD4 4.796 0.458 1.175 10.481 0.000
OMC2 0.029 0.011 0.284 2.537 0.014
After consideration of all the three independent variable (i.e., CBR, and D60) the equation
of the improved model can be expressed as:
. . . Where =0.863
The result displayed in Table 4.7 model 2 has larger as compared to model 1, moreover
the value of the calculated (sig.columns) in model 2 show that all the variables are important in
explaining the model, because the value is less than 0.05 . This indicates that there is a strong
relationship between CBR and the predictors and . Consequently, the model equation
42
is able to express 86.3% of the variation of CBR .that means 13.7 % of the variation of the problem
remains Unexplained.
Following similar procedure to the analysis for granular soils the following relationships
between CBR and the predictors for silty-clay soils is observed.
4.3.4 Relationship between CBR and MDD (Silty-Clay)
Table 4.8 Relationship between CBR and MDD (silty-clay)
Model Summary
1 0.434 0.189 0.181 5.95728
Coefficients(a)
Model t Sig.( )
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 0.712 2.511 0.284 0.777
2
MDD 3.918 0.797 0.434 4.917 0.000
The model equation is:

0.712 3.918 With adjusted =0.181
4.3.5 Relationship between CBR and OMC (Silty-Clay)
Table 4.9 Relationship between CBR and OMC (silty-clay)
Model Summary
1 0.402 0.161 0.153 6.05705
a. Predictors: (Constant), OMC
Coefficients(a)
1 (Constant) 20.232 1.779 11.375 0.000
OMC -0.381 0.085 -0.402 -4.471 0.000
43
20.232 0.381 With =0.153
4.3.6 Relationship between CBR and LL (Silty-Clay)
Table 4.10 Relationship between CBR and LL (silty-clay)
Model Summary
1 0.656 0.431 0.425 4.99063
2 0.675 0.456 0.446 4.90090
a. Predictors: (Constant), LL
b. Predictors: (Constant), LL, LL2

1 (Constant) 26.220 1.597 16.419 0.000
LL -0.341 0.039 -0.656 -8.868 0.000
2 (Constant) 36.135 4.771 7.574 0.000
LL -0.823 0.222 -1.582 -3.705 0.000
2
LL 0.005 0.002 0.940 2.201 0.030
36.135 0.823 .005 With =0.446
4.3.7 Relationship between CBR and PL (Silty-Clay)
Table 4.11 Relationship between CBR and PL (silty-clay)
Model Summary
1 0.600 0.360 0.354 5.28953
a. Predictors: (Constant), PL
44
Coefficients(a)
Model t Sig.( )
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 27.061 1.942 13.935 0.000
PL -0.562 0.073 -0.600 -7.654 0.000
The model equation becomes:

27.061 0.562 With =0.354
4.3.8 Relationship between CBR and PI (Silty-Clay)
Table 4.12 Relationship between CBR and PI (silty-clay)
Model Summary
1 0.627 0.393 0.387 5.15216
a. Predictors: (Constant), PI
Coefficients(a)
1 (Constant) 21.614 1.193 18.120 0.000
PI -0.634 0.077 -0.627 -8.208 0.000
21.614 0.634 With =0.387
4.3.9 Relationship between CBR and P200 (Silty-Clay)
Table 4.13 Relationship between CBR and P200 (silty-clay)

Model Summary
1 0.529 0.279 0.265 5.64125
2
a. Predictors: (Constant), P200 , P200
45
Coefficients(a)
1 (Constant) 0.643 8.717 0.074 0.941
P200 0.582 0.260 1.541 2.241 0.027
P2002 -0.005 0.002 -2.024 -2.943 0.004
0.643 0.582 200 0.05 200

With =0.265
Employing all the terms and carrying out multiple linear regression the following model
summary is obtained.
Table 4.14 Summary of model after including all the parameters from relationship study.
Model Summary
1 0.712 0.507 0.471 4.78593
a. Predictors: (Constant), MDD2, P200, PI, PL, OMC, P2003, LL2
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
1 (Constant) 43.311 14.603 2.966 0.004
P200 -0.012 0.135 -0.031 -0.086 0.931
P2003 0.000 0.000 -0.221 -0.585 0.560
PI -0.838 0.251 -0.829 -3.344 0.001
PL -0.840 0.255 -0.897 -3.294 0.001
2
LL 0.006 0.002 1.027 2.331 0.022
OMC -0.032 0.248 -0.034 -0.131 0.896
MDD2 -1.176 2.391 -0.130 -0.492 0.624
46
As we see from Table 4.14 some of the terms (variables) that were significant ( <0.05)
during the relationship study between the regressor and CBR from Table 4.8 to Table 4.13 are not
significant ( >0.05) when they are employed together. Therefore, we need to carryout step-wise
regression analysis and determine the improved model. The improved model summary is as shown
in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15 Final improved model summary

Model Summary
1 0.720 0.518 0.513 0.42043
2 0.757 0.572 0.564 0.39785
b. Predictors: (Constant), LL, P200
ANOVA(c)
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.( )
1 Regression 19.738 1 19.738 111.665 0.000
Residual 18.383 104 0.177
Total 38.122 105
2 Regression 21.818 2 10.909 68.920 0.000
Residual 16.304 103 0.158
Total 38.122 105
b. Predictors: (Constant), LL, P200
c. Dependent Variable: LNCBR
Coefficients(a)
1 (Constant) 3.742 0.135 27.813 0.000
LL -0.034 0.003 -0.720 -10.567 0.000
2 (Constant) 4.175 0.175 23.914 0.000
LL -0.029 0.003 -0.611 -8.607 0.000
P200 -0.009 0.002 -0.257 -3.625 0.000
47
a. Dependent Variable: LNCBR
The improve model equation is expressed as:
. . . With =0.564
From the result displayed in Table 4.15, model 2 has larger as compared to model 1,
moreover the value of the calculated (sig.columns) in model 2 show that all the variables are
important in explaining the model, because the value is less than 0.05. This indicates that there is
a relationship between and the predictors and .
Consequently, the model equation is able to express 56.4% of the variation of CBR and
43.6% of the variation of the problem remains Unexplained. Therefore, the resulting prediction
formula is only able to explain the weak relationship.
Monograph for the finally developed relation for granular type of soils is shown in Figure 4.10.
120
100
OMC=30%
80
OMC=25%
CBR(%)
OMC=20%
60
OMC=15%
OMC=10%
40
OMC=5%
20
0
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
MDD(g/cm3)
Figure 4.10 Monograph for the finally developed relation (granular soils)
48
4.4 Comparisons between the Existing and the Developed Equations
Laboratory tests were conducted in order to have control points for the collected data from
consulting firms and for verification of the developed prediction formula for both granular and silty-
clay soils. The samples were collected from the site located at Bole- Bulbula and road construction
sites around Addis Ababa for the case of Granular soils and from Hageremariam Woldia, and Addis
Ababa for the case of silty-clay soils. Comparisons have been made with the actual value in Table
4.16 and previously developed relationships in Table 4.17 for granular soils. As we see Table 4.17,
the newly developed relation is better as compared to the Mechanistic empirical method. However
the relationship obtained for silty-clay soils is not compared as it is not strong.
Table 4.16 Comparisons between the actual and developed relation for granular soils
Sample Code OMC MDD Actual CBR Developed Variation

(%) (g/cm3) Value Relation (%)
Sample 1 13.50 1.83 32.54 31.07502 4.491032
Sample2 27.52 1.35 11.36 9.895106 14.79837
Sample 3 21.00 1.51 6.93 9.724713 28.71889
Sample 4 12.10 1.86 34.46 33.65041 2.417085
Sample 5 6.60 1.87 31.16 31.91221 2.358948
Sample 6 20.50 1.56 19.64 12.88557 52.41161
Sample 7 22.50 1.56 11.17 15.37957 27.38853
Sample 8 10.50 1.84 19.25 30.17238 36.18662
Table 4.17 Comparisons between actual value newly developed and Mechanistic-Empirical
method for granular soils.
Sample Actual From From

OMC MDD
Code CBR D60 Mechanistic-Empirical Developed
(%) (G/Cm3)
Value Method Relation
Sample 1 13.50 1.83 32.54 20.00 82.10 31.08
Sample2 27.52 1.35 11.36 15.00 74.06 9.90
Sample 3 21.00 1.51 6.93 14.00 72.25 9.72
Sample 4 12.10 1.86 34.46 11.00 66.28 33.65
Sample 5 6.60 1.87 31.16 16.00 75.79 31.91
Sample 6 20.50 1.56 19.64 16.00 75.79 12.89
Sample 7 22.50 1.56 11.17 20.00 82.10 15.38
Sample 8 10.50 1.84 19.25 34.00 95.00 30.17
49
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
From the statistical analysis made on the previous section the following conclusion can be
made.
1. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture level of the soil affects the resulting California
bearing ratio value of granular soils.
2. The liquid limit and the percent passing sieve number 200 (0.075mm sieve opening) have
relation with the resulting California bearing ratio of silty-clay soils. However, the strength of
the developed regression equation is not as such satisfactory.
3. From the comparisons made between the newly developed and the Mechanistic-Empirical
method, the newly developed one approximates California bearing ratio value of Granular soils
in a better way.
5.2 Recommendations
1. Further works are required to determine the extent of applicability of the developed relation
2. As the data collected and the laboratory tests are of from the results of the standard compaction
test, future works can be done for the case of the modified proctor one.
50
REFERENCE
[1] Bowles Joseph E, Engineering Properties of Soils and Their Measurement, McGraw-Hill,
Singapore, second edition, 1984.
[2] Ethiopian Road Authority ,Pavement Design Manual,Volume1,Flexible Pavement and Gravel
Road,chapter10,Brehanenaselam Printing Enterprise, Addis Ababa,2002
[3] National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final Report part 2 Design inputs chapter 2
material characterizations. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC. 2004.
[4] T.F.Fwa, The Handbook of Highway Engineering, Taylor and Francis, Florida, 2006.
[5] Paul W. M. and et.al, Subsurface Investigations (Geotechnical Site Characterization), FHWA-
NHI-01-031, technical report, National Highway Institute Federal Highway Administration U.S.
Department of Transportation, Ryan R. Berg & Associates Inc., Woodbury, USA, May 2002.
[6] American Society for Testing and Materials. D 2487 – 00, Standard Practice for Classification
of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). In Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Volume 04.08. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM, May 2000.
[7] Fu Hua Chen, Soil Engineering Testing, Design and Remediation, CRC press, USA, 2000
[8] Semen, P.M. A generalized approach to soil strength prediction with machine learning
methods. ERDC/CRREL Technical Report 06-15, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover, NH, USA, 2006
[9] National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final Report for Project 1-37A, Appendix CC-1:
Correlation of CBR Values with Soil Index Properties. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC. 2004.
[10] Yang H.Huang, Pavement Analysis and Design, second edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, USA, 2004.
[11]Rada, G.R., C.W. Schwartz, M.W. Witczak, and S. Jafroudi. “Analysis of Climate Effects on
Performance of Unpaved Roads.” Journal of Transportation Engineering 115.4 (1989): 389–410.
51
[12] M.carter and S.P.Bentley, correlation of soil properties, Pentech Press, London , 1991
[13]Farshad Amini, Potential Applications of Dynamic and Static Cone Penetrometers in Mdot
Pavement Design and Construction, final report, Mississippi Department of Transportation And
The U.S. Department Of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Jackson State University,
Mississippi, September 2003
[14]Douglas C. M. George C. Runger, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.USA,third edition ,2003
52
APPENDIX
53
The various kinds of laboratory experimental tests that were

Sieve Analysis
performed on the soil samples were recorded.
100
Sample 1 (granular sample) 90
percent passing
80
70
Experiment 1.1 sieve analysis 60
50
40
Sieve weight wt of wt Percent cumulative Percent 30
opening of sieve sieve retained retained percent passing 20
(mm) (gms) +weight (gms) retained 10
retained 0
75 1057 1057 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.01 0.1 1 10
63 1197 1197 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
50 1199 1693 494 4.65 4.65 95.35 sieve size (mm)
37.5 1084 1922 838 7.88 12.52 87.48
25 1186 3023 1837 17.27 29.80 70.20
19 1419 2730 1311 12.33 42.13 57.87 Experiment 1.2 Atterberg limit test
9.5 1171 4106 2935 27.60 69.72 30.28
4.75 568 2286 1718 16.15 85.88 14.12 1.2.1Liquid Limit Determination
2.36 521 1138 617 5.80 91.68 8.32
Can NO. C20 75 A31 D29
2 557 690 133 1.25 92.93 7.07
0.6 507 776 269 2.53 95.46 4.54 wt of wet soil +can 31.22 37.24 34.98 37.31
0.425 292 323 31 0.29 95.75 4.25 wt of dry soil +can 24.72 29.1 27.63 28.81
0.075 453 538 85 0.80 96.55 3.45 wt of can 13.78 15.66 15.77 15.45
pan 423 427 367 3.45 100.00 0.00 wt of dry soil 10.94 13.44 11.86 13.36
total = 10635 100.00
wt of moisture 6.5 8.14 7.35 8.5
Water content (w %) 59.41 60.5655 61.973 63.6228
No. of blows 36 29 20 14
54
water content vs No.of blows

64
water content(%)
62 Experiment 1.3 Compaction test
Blows /layer 25 No. of layers 3 weight of hammer 24.5KN

60
Mold dimension: Diameter 10.3cm, Height 12cm Volume 1000cm3
58
0 10 20 30 40 1.3.1 water content determination
Number of blows N
Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
Moisture can no 49 29 34 41 62
From the graph LL=61.3 % wt of can +wet soil(g) 389 365 328 365 365
wt of can +dry soil(g) 372 345 305 332 326
1.2.2 plastic limit determination
wt. of water(g) 17 20 23 33 39
Can No. C21 A17 wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt of wet soil +can 16.32 18.03 wt.of dry soil(g) 367 340 300 327 321
Wt of dry soil +can 15.8 17.49 water content (w %) 4.63 5.88 7.67 10.09 12.15
wt of can 14.16 15.79 1.3.2 Dry density determination
wt of dry soil 1.64 1.7
Water content (w %) 4.63 5.88 7.67 10.09 12.15
wt of moisture 0.52 0.54
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7317 7343 7451 7542 7651
water content (w%=PL) 31.71 31.76
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1676 1702 1810 1901 2010
Plastic limit= (31.71+31.76)/2=31.74 Wet density (g/cm3) 1.68 1.70 1.81 1.90 2.01
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.60 1.61 1.68 1.73 1.79
Therefore plasticity index (PI) =LL-PL=61.3-31.74=29.3 %
55
Experiment 1.4 CBR test

1.85 CBR test
Area of plunger = 1935 mm2
1.80
penetration rate = 1.27 mm/min
1.75 piston load multiplying Bearing
penetration
Dry Density
dial reading factor load N (kPa)

1.70 0 0 25.707 0 0
0.64 70 25.707 1799.49 929.969
1.65 1.27 110 25.707 2827.77 1461.38
1.91 142 25.707 3650.394 1886.509
1.60
2.54 169 25.707 4344.483 2245.211
1.55 3.81 209 25.707 5372.763 2776.622
5.08 242 25.707 6221.094 3215.036
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
7.62 296 25.707 7609.272 3932.44
Moisture Content (%) 10.16 337 25.707 8663.259 4477.136
12.7 369 25.707 9485.883 4902.265
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain Load Vs Penetration
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density 6000
Load (Kpa)
(MDD) as 13.5% and 1.83 g/cm3 respectively. 5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 2.54mm= 2245.21Kpa 6900kPa 32.5362 CBR=32.54%
load at 5.08mm= 3215.04Kpa 10300Kpa 31.2136
56
Sample 2 (granular sample)

sieve analysis
Experiment 2.1 sieve analysis
110
100
90
percent passing
80
weight wt of 70
wt
Diameter of sieve 60
retained %retained cumulative % passing
(mm) sieve +wt 50
(gms) percent
(gms) retained 40
retained 30
75 1057 1057 0 0 0 100 20
63 1197 1197 0 0 0 100 10
50 1199 1431 232 3.09 3.09 96.91 0
37.5 1084 1786 702 9.36 12.45 87.55 0.01 0.1 1 10
25 1186 2438 1252 16.69 29.14 70.86
19 1419 1904 485 6.47 35.61 64.39 sieve size(mm)
9.5 1171 2075 904 12.05 47.66 52.34
4.75 568 1009 441 5.88 53.54 46.46
2.36 521 814 293 3.91 57.45 42.55 Experiment 2.2 Atterberg limit test
2 557 649 92 1.23 58.67 41.33
0.6 507 878 371 4.95 63.62 36.38
0.425 292 398 106 1.41 65.03 34.97
2.2.1liquid limit determination
0.075 453 895 442 5.89 70.92 29.08 Can NO. 107 C2 31 45
pan 423 427 4 29.08 100.00 0.00 wt of wet soil +can 35.73 34.49 37.89 37.7
total = 5324 100
wt of dry soil +can 28.8 27.13 29.85 29.59
wt of can 15.8 13.7 15.43 15.42
wt of dry soil 13 13.43 14.42 14.17
wt of moisture 6.93 7.36 8.04 8.11
Water content (w %) 53.30769231 54.80268 55.75589 57.23359
No.of blows 35 29 20 15
57

water content VS NO of blows
58 Mold dimension: Diameter 10.3cm, Height 12cm Volume 1000cm3
water content (%)
57
56 2.3.1 water content determination
55
54
53
wt of can +wet soil(g) 321 265 283 320 300
0 10 20 30 40
No.of blows N
wt. of water(g) 32 35 60 79 75
wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
From the graph LL=55.2% wt.of dry soil(g) 284 225 218 236 220
water content (w %) 11.27 15.56 27.52 33.47 34.09
2.2.2plastic limit determination
Can No. A22 53 2.3.2 Density Determination

wt of wet soil +can 17.59 16.53
Wt of dry soil +can 17.08 15.85 water content (w%) 11.27 15.56 27.52 33.47 34.09
wt of can 15.52 13.69
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7044 7056 7361 7335 7313
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
wt of moisture 0.51 0.68 wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1403 1415 1720 1694 1672
water content (w%=Wp) 32.69230769 31.48148 Wet density (g/cm3) 1.40 1.42 1.72 1.69 1.67
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.26 1.22 1.35 1.27 1.25
Plastic limit= (32.69+31.48)/2=32.1
Experiment 2.3 Compaction test
58

compaction curve
CBR test
1.36 Area of
1.34 plunger = 1935 mm2
1.32 penetration
rate = 1.27 mm/min
dry density
1.30 piston load multiplying Bearing

penetration
1.28 dial reading factor load N (kPa)
0 0 25.707 0 0
1.26
0.64 12 25.707 308.484 159.4233
1.24 1.27 31 25.707 796.917 411.8434
1.22 1.91 49 25.707 1259.643 650.9783
2.54 59 25.707 1516.713 783.831
1.20
3.81 75 25.707 1928.025 996.3953
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 5.08 84 25.707 2159.388 1115.963
moisture content 7.62 95 25.707 2442.165 1262.101
10.16 101 25.707 2596.407 1341.812
12.7 107 25.707 2750.649 1421.524
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain load Vs penetration
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density
load(kpa)
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 1116Kpa 10300Kpa 10.83495
59
sieve analysis
Sample 3(granular) 110
100
percent passing
80
70
weight wt of
wt cumulative 60
diameter(mm)
of sieve
retained %retained percent
% 50
sieve +wt passing 40
(gms) retained 30
(gms) retained
75 1057 1057 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 20
10
63 1197 1197 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0
50 1199 1199 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
37.5 1084 1691 607 5.47 5.47 94.53 0.01 0.1 1 10
25 1186 2483 1297 11.68 17.14 82.86 sieve size(mm)
19 1419 2569 1150 10.35 27.50 72.50
9.5 1171 3896 2725 24.53 52.03 47.97
4.75 568 2206 1638 14.75 66.78 33.22
2 557 691 134 1.21 73.88 26.12
0.6 507 954 447 4.02 77.91 22.09 3.2.1liquid limit determination
0.425 292 361 69 0.62 78.53 21.47
Can NO. D20 69 95 47
0.075 453 743 290 2.61 81.14 18.86
pan 423 429 6 18.86 100.00 0.00 wt of wet soil +can 32.05 29.56 31.07 32.46
total = 9018 100.00 wt of dry soil +can 25.46 23.93 24.6 25.1
wt of can 15.49 15.66 15.59 15.39
wt of dry soil 9.97 8.27 9.01 9.71
wt of moisture 6.59 5.63 6.47 7.36
water content(w%) 66.098295 68.07739 71.8091 75.79815
No.of blows 36 29 21 14
60

water content Vs No. of blows
78 Blows /layer 25 No. of layers 3 weight of hammer 24.5KN
76
water content (%)

72
70 3.3.1 water content determination
68
66
64
0 10 20 30 40
wt of can +wet
NO. of blows N soil(g) 329 320 319 312 319
wt of can +dry
soil(g) 298 290 281 259 258
From the graph LL=70.0% wt. of water(g) 31 30 38 53 61
wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt.of dry soil(g) 293 285 276 254 253
Can No. 56 D33
Water content (w %) 10.58 10.53 13.77 20.87 24.11
Wt of dry soil +can 17.5 17.26
wt of can 15.77 15.49 3.3.2 Density Determination
wt of moisture 0.75 0.78 water content (w%) 10.58 10.53 13.77 20.87 24.11
water content (w%=Wp) 43.352601 44.0678 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7160 7200 7267 7466 7458
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
Plastic limit= (43.35+44.07)/2=43.7 wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1519 1559 1626 1825 1817
Wet density (g/cm3) 1.52 1.56 1.63 1.83 1.82
Therefore plasticity index (PI) =LL-PL=70-43.7=26.3 % Dry density(g/cm3) 1.37 1.41 1.43 1.51 1.46
61
CBR test
Area of plunger
= 1935 mm2
penetration rate
compaction curve = 1.27 mm/min
piston multiplying
1.52 penetration load dial factor Bearing
reading load N (kPa)
1.5 0 0 25.707 0 0
1.48 0.64 9 25.707 231.363 119.5674
1.27 19 25.707 488.433 252.4202
dry density
1.46 1.91 29 25.707 745.503 385.2729

1.44 2.54 36 25.707 925.452 478.2698
3.81 47 25.707 1208.229 624.4078
1.42 5.08 49 25.707 1259.643 650.9783
1.4 7.62 59 25.707 1516.713 783.831
10.16 68 25.707 1748.076 903.3984
1.38 12.7 76 25.707 1953.732 1009.681
1.36 load vs penetration
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
1200
moisture content 1000
load(kpa)
800
600
400
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(MDD) as 21% and 1.51 g/cm3 respectively
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 650.9Kpa 10300Kpa 6.31
62
Sample4 (granular)
sieve analysis
110
weight wt of 100
of sieve wt cummulative 90
sieve +wt retained percent % 80
percent passing
diameter(mm) (gms) retained (gms) %retained retained passing
70
75 1057 1057 0 0 0 100 60
63 1197 1197 0 0 0 100 50
50 1199 1441 242 2.08 2.08 97.92 40
37.5 1084 2028 944 8.13 10.21 89.79
30
20
25 1186 2288 1102 9.49 19.70 80.30
10
19 1419 2292 873 7.52 27.22 72.78 0
9.5 1171 3123 1952 16.81 44.03 55.97
0.01 0.1 1 10
4.75 568 2341 1773 15.27 59.30 40.70
2.36 521 2031 1510 13.00 72.30 27.70
sieve size(mm)
2 557 963 406 3.50 75.80 24.20
0.6 507 2621 2114 18.21 94.01 5.99
Experiment 4.2 Atterberg limit test
0.425 292 467 175 1.51 95.51 4.49
0.075 453 913 460 3.96 99.47 0.53
pan 423 449 26 0.53 100.00 0.00
Can NO. 56 D33 D29 26
total = 11577 100.00
wt of wet soil +can 42.45 37.91 34.74 38.41
wt of dry soil +can 33.77 30.53 28.3 30.65
wt of can 15.78 15.5 15.46 15.68
wt of dry soil 17.99 15.03 12.84 14.97
wt of moisture 8.68 7.38 6.44 7.76
water content(w%) 48.24903 49.1018 50.15 51.837
No.of blows 35 29 22 15
63

water content VS NO. of blows
53
52
water content (%)

51
50 4.3.1water content determination
49
48 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
47 Moisture can no 10 29 49 78 74
wt of can +wet
0 10 20 30 40
soil(g) 285 245 345 264 376
No . Of blows N wt of can +dry
soil(g) 268 229 316 236 335
wt. of water(g) 17 16 29 28 41
From the plot LL=49.8
wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt.of dry soil(g) 263 224 311 231 330
7.1 9.3 12.1 12.4
Can No. 53 72 water content (w %) 6.46 4 2 2 2
wt of can 13.69 15.66 4.3.2Density determination
wt of moisture 0.55 0.61 water content (w%) 6.46 7.14 9.32 12.12 12.42
water content (w%=Wp) 26.69903 26.2931 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7395 7452 7593 7720 7710
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
Plastic limit= (26.69+26.29)/2=26.49
Wet density (g/cm3) 1.75 1.81 1.95 2.08 2.07
Therefore plasticity index (PI) =LL-PL=49.8-26.49=23.26 % Dry density(g/cm3) 1.65 1.69 1.79 1.85 1.84
64

compaction curve
CBR test
1.90
dry density (g/cm3)
1.85 penetration rate = 1.27 mm/min

1.80 piston multiplying
penetration
load dial factor Bearing
1.75 reading load N (kPa)
1.70 0 0 25.707 0 0
compaction curve
0.64 81 25.707 2082.267 1076.107
1.65
1.27 118 25.707 3033.426 1567.662
1.60 1.91 151 25.707 3881.757 2006.076
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 2.54 179 25.707 4601.553 2378.064
3.81 223 25.707 5732.661 2962.616
moisture content(w%) 5.08 258 25.707 6632.406 3427.6
7.62 309 25.707 7943.463 4105.149
10.16 352 25.707 9048.864 4676.416
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 12.7 393 25.707 10102.85 5221.112

(MDD) as 12.1% and 1.86 g/cm3 respectively.
load vs penetration
6000
load (kpa)
4000
2000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 2.54mm= 2378Kpa 6900kPa 34.46 CBR=34.46%
load at 5.08mm= 3428Kpa 10300Kpa 33.28
65
Sample5 (Granular)
sieve analysis
110
wt of 100
weight wt cumulative
diameter(mm) of sieve
sieve
% 90
+wt passing 80
percent passing
(gms) (gms) retained
retained
70
75 1057 1057 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
60
63 1197 1197 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 50
50 1199 1581 382 3.27 3.27 96.73 40
37.5 1084 2003 919 7.87 11.15 88.85 30
25 1186 2626 1440 12.34 23.48 76.52 20
19 1419 2546 1127 9.65 33.14 66.86
10
0
9.5 1171 4001 2830 24.24 57.38 42.62
4.75 568 2460 1892 16.21 73.59 26.41
0.01 0.1 1 10
2.36 521 1663 1142 9.78 83.37 16.63 sieve size (mm)
2 557 708 151 1.29 84.67 15.33
0.6 507 1432 925 7.92 92.59 7.41
0.075 453 891 438 3.75 97.71 2.29
pan 423 643 220 2.29 100.00 0.00 5.2.1 liquid limit determination
total = 11626 100.00 Can NO. 72 74 24 32
wt of wet soil +can 34.43 34.1 32.73 32.29
wt of dry soil +can 29.38 29.14 28.02 27.65
wt of can 15.67 15.81 15.59 15.6
wt of dry soil 13.71 13.33 12.43 12.05
wt of moisture 5.05 4.96 4.71 4.64
water content(w%) 36.83443 37.2093 37.8922 38.50622
No.of blows 32 27 22 16
66

water content VS No. of blows
38.5
38
5.3.1Water content determination
37.5
37 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
36.5 Moisture can no 66 21 77 42 cmc-3
0 10 20 30 40 wt of can +wet soil(g) 310 370 341 328 387
wt. of water(g) 13 19 23 20 31
From the plot LL=37.5%
wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
5.2.2plastic limit determination wt.of dry soil(g) 292 346 313 303 351
Can No. 82 26 water content (w %) 4.45 5.49 7.35 6.60 8.83
5.3.2Density determination
wt of can 15.37 15.68
water content (w%) 4.45 5.49 7.35 6.60 8.83
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7411 7514 7582 7630 7621
water content (w%=Wp) 22.47191 22.54902
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
Plastic limit= (22.47+22.55)/2=22.51% Wet density (g/cm3) 1.77 1.87 1.94 1.99 1.98
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.69 1.78 1.81 1.87 1.82
67

compaction curve
CBR test
1.90
dry density(g/cm3)
piston load multiplying

1.80 penetration
dial factor Bearing
1.75 0 0 25.707 0 0
0.64 4 25.707 102.828 53.14109
1.70 1.27 40 25.707 1028.28 531.4109
1.91 95 25.707 2442.165 1262.101
1.65 2.54 126 25.707 3239.082 1673.944
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 3.81 172 25.707 4421.604 2285.067
5.08 206 25.707 5295.642 2736.766
moisture content(w%) 7.62 258 25.707 6632.406 3427.6
10.16 301 25.707 7737.807 3998.867
12.7 360 25.707 9254.52 4782.698
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density load vs penetration
(MDD) as 6.6% and 1.87g/cm3 respectively. 6000
5000
load(kpa)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration (mm)
standard ratio
load at 2.54mm= 2150Kpa 6900kPa 31.16 CBR=31.16%
load at 5.08mm= 3000Kpa 10300Kpa 29.12
68
Sample 6 (Granular)
sieve analysis
100
90
percent passing
weight wt of
wt cumulative
diameter(mm)
of sieve
% 80
sieve +wt
(gms) retained
passing 70
(gms) retained 60
75 1057 1057 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 50
63 1197 1637 440 4.42 4.42 95.58 40
30
50 1199 1732 533 5.35 9.77 90.23
20
37.5 1084 2265 1181 11.86 21.62 78.38 10
25 1186 2025 839 8.42 30.05 69.95 0
19 1419 2061 642 6.45 36.49 63.51 0.01 0.1 1 10
9.5 1171 2556 1385 13.90 50.40 49.60
4.75 568 1765 1197 12.02 62.41 37.59 sieve size (mm)
2.36 521 1627 1106 11.10 73.52 26.48
2 557 845 288 2.89 76.41 23.59
0.6 507 1932 1425 14.31 90.71 9.29
0.425 292 658 366 3.67 94.39 5.61
pan 423 465 42 0.73 100.00 0.00
total = 9930 100.00 6.2.1 liquid limit determination
Can NO. C29 95.00 48.00 107.00
wt of wet soil +can 32.77 35.97 35.60 35.66
wt of dry soil +can 26.59 29.19 28.90 28.84
wt of can 14.03 15.60 15.66 15.82
wt of dry soil 12.56 13.59 13.24 13.02
wt of moisture 6.18 6.78 6.70 6.82
water content(w%) 49.20 49.89 50.60 52.38
No.of blows 35.00 28.00 23.00 16.00
69
water content vsNo f blows

53.00 Experiment 6.3 Compaction test
water content (%)
52.00
51.00
50.00 Mold dimension: Diameter 10.3cm, Height 12cm Volume 1000cm3
49.00
6.3.1water content determination
48.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
NO of blows Moisture can no 34 62 41 77 CMC-5
From the plot LL=50.6% wt of can +dry soil(g) 265 269 215 211 255
wt. of water(g) 33 36 38 49 67
6.2.2plastic limit determination wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
Can No. D25 C31 wt.of dry soil(g) 260 264 210 206 250
wt of wet soil +can 17.93 15.99 water content (w %) 12.69 13.64 18.10 23.79 26.80
wt of can 15.87 14
wt of dry soil 1.58 1.52 6.3.2Density Determination
water content (w%=Wp) 30.379 30.921 water content (w%) 12.69 13.64 18.10 23.79 26.80
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7299 7338 7480 7567 7520
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
Wet density (g/cm3) 1.66 1.70 1.84 1.93 1.88
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.47 1.49 1.56 1.56 1.48
70
dry density vs moisture content Experiment 6.4 CBR test
1.58 CBR test

Area of plunger
1.56 = 1935 mm2
dry density
penetration rate
1.54 = 1.27 mm/min
1.52 penetration
multiplying
piston load Bearing
factor
1.50 dial reading load N (kPa)
0 0 25.707 0 0
1.48 0.64 45 25.707 1156.815 597.8372
1.46 1.27 70 25.707 1799.49 929.969
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 1.91 89 25.707 2287.923 1182.389
2.54 102 25.707 2622.114 1355.098
5.08 139 25.707 3573.273 1846.653
7.62 159 25.707 4087.413 2112.358
10.16 175 25.707 4498.725 2324.922
12.7 185 25.707 4755.795 2457.775
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density load vs penetration
load (kpa )
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 1846.65Kpa 10300Kpa 17.93
71
Sample 7(granular)
sieve analysis
110
weight wt of 100
of sieve wt cumulative
sieve +wt retained percent %
90
diameter(mm) (gms) retained (gms) %retained retained passing 80
percent passing
75 1057 1057 0 0 0 100 70
63 1197 1197 0 0 0 100
60
50 1199 2240 1041 10.65 10.65 89.35
37.5 1084 2129 1045 10.69 21.35 78.65
50
25 1186 2551 1365 13.97 35.32 64.68 40
19 1419 1983 564 5.77 41.09 58.91 30
9.5 1171 2703 1532 15.68 56.77 43.23 20
4.75 568 1829 1261 12.91 69.68 30.32
10
2.36 521 1552 1031 10.55 80.23 19.77
0
2 557 726 169 1.73 81.96 18.04
0.6 507 1674 1167 11.94 93.90 6.10 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.425 292 482 190 1.94 95.84 4.16
sieve size(mm)
0.075 453 741 288 2.95 98.79 1.21
pan 423 445 22 1.21 100.00 0.00
total = 9675 100
7.2.1 liquid limit determination

Can NO. 86.00 GHI 74.00 33.00
wt of wet soil +can 35.38 37.22 35.02 36.91
wt of dry soil +can 28.75 29.89 28.50 29.64
wt of can 15.79 15.60 15.82 15.70
wt of dry soil 12.96 14.29 12.68 13.94
wt of moisture 6.63 7.33 6.52 7.27
water content(w%) 51.16 51.29 51.42 52.15
No.of blows 36.00 27.00 21.00 15.00
72

water content Vs No of blows
water content (%)
52.00
7.3.1Water content determination
51.50
51.00 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5

Moisture can no B3 38 49 78 10
50.50
wt of can +wet
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 soil(g) 311 315 328 259 367
No. of blows N wt of can +dry
soil(g) 279 273 269 209 289
wt. of water(g) 32 42 59 50 78
From the plot LL=51.5% wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt.of dry soil(g) 274 268 264 204 284
7.2.2 plastic limit determination water content (w %) 11.68 15.67 22.35 24.51 27.46
Can No. D26 38 7.3.2Density Determination
water content (w%) 11.68 15.67 22.35 24.51 27.46
wt of can 15.76 15.59
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7286 7360 7534 7586 7520
wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
Wet density (g/cm3) 1.65 1.72 1.89 1.95 1.88
Plastic limit= (31.29+30.61)/2=30.95
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.47 1.49 1.55 1.56 1.47
73
CBR test
Area of
plunger = 1935 mm2
penetration
dry density vs moisture content rate = 1.27 mm/min
piston load multiplying Bearing
penetration
0 0 25.707 0 0
1.56 0.64 25 25.707 642.675 332.1318
1.27 39.5 25.707 1015.427 524.7682
1.54
dry density
1.91 50 25.707 1285.35 664.2636

2.54 58 25.707 1491.006 770.5457
1.52 3.81 70 25.707 1799.49 929.969
5.08 76 25.707 1953.732 1009.681
1.50 7.62 89 25.707 2287.923 1182.389
10.16 99 25.707 2544.993 1315.242
1.48 12.7 107 25.707 2750.649 1421.524
1.46
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 load vs penetration
moisture content 1500
loads(kpa)
1000
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 1009.68Kpa 10300Kpa 9.803
74
Sample 8(granular)
sieve analysis
100
90
weight wt of 80
wt cumulative
of sieve %
percent passing
diameter(mm)
sieve +wt
passing 70
(gms) retained
(gms) retained 60
50
75 1057 2705 1648 13.74 13.74 86.26
40
63 1197 2178 981 8.18 21.92 78.08 30
50 1199 2491 1292 10.77 32.69 67.31 20
37.5 1084 1611 527 4.39 37.09 62.91 10
25 1186 2538 1352 11.27 48.36 51.64 0
19 1419 2115 696 5.80 54.16 45.84 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
9.5 1171 2821 1650 13.76 67.92 32.08
4.75 568 2032 1464 12.21 80.13 19.87
sieve size
2.36 521 1599 1078 8.99 89.12 10.88
2 557 808 251 2.09 91.21 8.79
0.425 292 381 89 0.74 98.22 1.78
0.075 453 631 178 1.48 99.70 0.30 8.2.1liquid limit determination
pan 423 450 27 0.30 100.00 0.00 Can NO. 16.00 102.00 5.00 82.00
total = 11984 100 wt of wet soil +can 35.31 34.38 37.38 35.02
wt of dry soil +can 29.71 28.93 30.21 28.99
wt of can 15.67 15.65 13.85 15.40
wt of dry soil 14.04 13.28 16.36 13.59
wt of moisture 5.60 5.45 7.17 6.03
water content(w%) 39.89 41.04 43.83 44.37
No.of blows 36.00 27.00 22.00 16.00
75

water content Vs No of blows
45.0 Blows /layer 25 No. of layers 3 weight of hammer 24.5KN
44.5
water content (%)
44.0
43.0
42.5 8.3.1water content determination
42.0
41.5
41.0 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
40.5
40.0 Moisture can no 100 cmc-1 B2 42 66
39.5
39.0 wt of can +wet soil(g) 352 334 353 329 351
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 wt of can +dry soil(g) 336 313 326 298 316
No. of blows N
wt. of water(g) 16 21 27 31 35
wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt.of dry soil(g) 331 308 321 293 311
From the plot LL=42.4% water content (w %) 4.83 6.82 8.41 10.58 11.25

Can No. 69 24 8.3.2 Density Determination
wt of can 15.66 15.59 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7400 7509 7569 7636 7642
wt of dry soil 1.49 1.09 wt of mold (g) 5641 5641 5641 5641 5641
Plastic limit= (28.19+27.52)/2=27.86 Dry density(g/cm3) 1.68 1.75 1.78 1.80 1.80
76

1.82 CBR test
1.80 Area of
1.78 plunger = 1935 mm2
dry density
penetration
1.76 rate = 1.27 mm/min
1.74 multiplying
penetration piston load Bearing
1.70 0 0 25.707 0 0
1.68 0.64 51 25.707 1311.057 677.5488
1.66 1.27 72 25.707 1850.904 956.5395
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 1.91 88 25.707 2262.216 1169.104
2.54 100 25.707 2570.7 1328.527
5.08 138 25.707 3547.566 1833.367
7.62 172 25.707 4421.604 2285.067
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 10.16 205 25.707 5269.935 2723.481
12.7 240 25.707 6169.68 3188.465
load vs penetration
4000
load(kpa)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 2.54mm= 1328.53.3Kpa 6900kPa 19.254 CBR=19.25%
load at 5.08mm= 1833.37Kpa 10300Kpa 17.799
77
Fine grained soils

sieve analysis
Sample1 (silty-clay soils) 110.00
100.00
Experiment 1.1 sieve analysis 90.00
80.00
percent passing
70.00
weight wt of
of sieve wt cummulative 60.00
sieve +wt retained percent % 50.00
diameter(mm) (gms) retained (gms) %retained retained passing 40.00
75 396 396 0 0 0 100 30.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 20.00
50 418 418 0 0 0 100 10.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 0.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100
0.01 0.1 1 10
19 438 438 0 0 0 100
9.5 446 520 74 1.85 1.85 98.15 sieve size(mm)
4.75 432 564 132 3.3 5.15 94.85
2.36 390 594 204 5.1 10.25 89.75
2 378 458 80 2 12.25 87.75
0.425 294 1410 1116 27.9 40.15 59.85
0.075 260 1158 898 22.45 62.6 37.4
pan 240 270 30 37.4 100 0 1.2.1liquid limit determination
total = 2534 100 Can NO. 47 D361 76 33
wt of wet soil +can 41.37 36.95 37.72 36.78
wt of dry soil +can 31.84 28.9 29.28 28.71
wt of can 15.64 15.56 15.56 15.7
wt of dry soil 16.2 13.34 13.72 13.01
wt of moisture 9.53 8.05 8.44 8.07
Water content(w%) 58.827 60.34 61.51 62.029
No.of blows 35 28 21 16
78

water content (%)
62
61
59
58 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
0 10 20 30 40 Moisture can no 44 88 74 29 31
No.of blows N wt of can +wet soil(g) 204 250 198 256 260
wt. of water(g) 21 35 32 47 54
1.2.2 plastic limit determination wt.of dry soil(g) 178 210 161 204 201
Water content (w %) 11.80 16.67 19.88 23.04 26.87
Can No. 36 8
Wt of dry soil +can 15.44 17.15 1.3.2 Density Determination
wt of can 13.87 15.65
water content (w%) 11.80 16.67 19.88 23.04 26.87
wt of moisture 0.51 0.48 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 6998 7180 7346 7346 7320
water content (w%=Wp) 32.48 32 wt of mold (g) 5640 5640 5640 5640 5640
Plastic limit= (32.48+32)/2=32.24 wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1358 1540 1706 1706 1680
Therefore plasticity index (PI) =LL-PL=60.6-32.24=28.36 % Wet density (g/cm3) 1.36 1.54 1.71 1.71 1.68
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.21 1.32 1.42 1.39 1.32
79

Chart Title
CBR test
1.44 Area of
1.42 plunger = 1935 mm2
1.40 penetration
rate = 1.27 mm/min
1.38
1.36 penetration
dry density
1.34 0 0 25.707 0 0
1.32 0.64 2 25.707 51.414 26.57
1.30 1.27 4 25.707 102.82 53.14
1.91 6 25.707 154.24 79.71
1.28 2.54 7.8 25.707 200.51 103.62
1.26 3.81 9.5 25.707 244.21 126.21
1.24 5.08 11 25.707 282.77 146.13
1.22 7.62 14 25.707 359.89 185.99
10.16 16.5 25.707 424.16 219.20
1.20
12.7 19 25.707 488.43 252.42
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
moisture content
load Vs penetration
300
load(kpa)
200
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density 100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 146.14Kpa 10300Kpa 1.42
80
Sample 2(silty-clays soil)

sieve analysis
100.00
weight wt of 90.00
80.00
percent passing
of sieve wt cummulative
diameter(mm) (gms) retained (gms) %retained retained passing 60.00
75 396 396 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00
63.5 442 442 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 40.00
50 418 418 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 30.00
37.5 442 442 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 20.00
25 446 446 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 10.00
19 438 438 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
9.5 446 446 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.01 0.1 1 10
4.75 432 432 0 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.36 390 394 4 0.14 0.14 99.86 sieve size(mm)
2 378 398 20 0.69 0.82 99.18
0.425 294 1084 790 27.07 27.90 72.10
0.075 260 1266 1006 34.48 62.37 37.63
pan 240 270 30 37.63 100.00 0.00
total = 1850 100.00
Can NO. D22 33.00 74.00 15.00
wt of wet soil +can 31.48 33.48 32.55 35.58
wt of dry soil +can 26.25 26.77 26.66 28.35
wt of can 15.77 14.07 15.83 15.49
wt of dry soil 10.48 12.70 10.83 12.86
wt of moisture 5.23 6.71 5.89 7.23
water content(w%) 49.90 52.83 54.39 56.22
No.of blows 35.00 28.00 22.00 15.00
81

56.00
water content (%)

54.00
53.00 2.3.1 water content determination
52.00
51.00
50.00
49.00 Moisture can no 26 6 CMC-5 8 78
wt of can +wet
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
soil(g) 230 270 194 256 260
No.of blows N wt of can +dry
soil(g) 196 220 152 192 185
wt. of water(g) 34 50 42 64 75
wt.of dry soil(g) 191 215 147 187 180
Water content (w
Can No. C29 71 %) 17.80 23.26 28.57 34.22 41.67
wt of wet soil +can 17.32 18.09 2.3.2Density Determination
wt of can 14.03 15.57 water content (w%) 17.80 23.26 28.57 34.22 41.67
wt of dry soil 2.42 1.85 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 6990 7210 7396 7410 7350
wt of moisture 0.87 0.67 wt of mold (g) 5640 5640 5640 5640 5640
water content (w%=Wp) 35.95041322 36.21622 wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1350 1570 1756 1770 1710
Plastic limit= (35.95+36.22)/2=36.08 Wet density (g/cm3) 1.35 1.57 1.76 1.77 1.71
82

Chart Title
CBR test
1.38 Area of
1.36 plunger = 1935.00 mm2
1.34
1.32 penetration
1.30 rate = 1.27 mm/min
dry density
1.28 piston
multiplying
1.26 penetration load dial Bearing
factor
1.22 0.00 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
1.20 0.64 18.00 25.71 462.73 239.13
1.18 1.27 25.00 25.71 642.68 332.13
1.16
1.14 1.91 31.00 25.71 796.92 411.84
1.12 2.54 38.00 25.71 976.87 504.84
3.81 45.00 25.71 1156.82 597.84
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
5.08 50.00 25.71 1285.35 664.26
moisture content 7.62 53.00 25.71 1362.47 704.12
10.16 56.00 25.71 1439.59 743.98
12.70 60.00 25.71 1542.42 797.12
load Vs penetration
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 1000.00
load(kpa)
500.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 664.26Kpa 10300Kpa 6.449
83
Sample 3(silty-clay soil)

sieve analysis
100.00
weight wt of 90.00
percent passing
sieve +wt retained percent %
70.00
60.00
75 396 396 0 0 0 100
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
50.00
50 418 418 0 0 0 100
40.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
30.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100
20.00
19 438 458 20 0.30 0.30 99.70
10.00
9.5 446 492 46 0.69 0.99 99.01 0.00
4.75 432 514 82 1.23 2.22 97.78 0.01 0.1 1 10
2.36 390 480 90 1.35 3.57 96.43
2 378 404 26 0.39 3.96 96.04 sieve size(mm)
0.425 294 572 278 4.17 8.13 91.87
0.075 260 1038 778 11.67 19.80 80.20
pan 240 280 40 80.20 100.00 0.00 Experiment 3.2 Atterberg limit test
total = 1360 100
Can NO. C15 56.00 100.00 24.00

wt of wet soil +can 32.06 34.75 35.71 38.41
wt of dry soil +can 25.74 28.03 28.37 30.00
wt of can 13.91 15.78 15.44 15.62
wt of dry soil 11.83 12.25 12.93 14.38
wt of moisture 6.32 6.72 7.34 8.41
Water content (w %) 53.42 54.86 56.77 58.48
No.of blows 33.00 26.00 21.00 15.00
84

58.00
water content (%)

56.00
55.00 3.3.1Water content determination
54.00
53.00
52.00 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 Moisture can no 62 77 CMC-4 40 49
wt of can +wet
No.of blows N
soil(g) 220 240 252 266 240
wt of can +dry
soil(g) 182 188 189 195 168
From the plot LL=55.6% wt. of water(g) 38 52 63 71 72
3.2.2plastic limit determination wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt.of dry soil(g) 177 183 184 190 163
Can No. D29 33 Water content
wt of wet soil (w %) 21.47 28.42 34.24 37.37 44.17
+can 18.21 17.74
Wt of dry soil
3.3.2Density Determination
+can 17.54 17.24
wt of can 15.45 15.71
wt of dry soil 2.09 1.53 water content (w%) 21.47 28.42 34.24 37.37 44.17
wt of moisture 0.67 0.5 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7128 7262 7390 7420 7390
water content (w%=Wp) 32.057 32.67 wt of mold (g) 5640 5640 5640 5640 5640
Wet density (g/cm3) 1.49 1.62 1.75 1.78 1.75
85

compaction curve
1.32 CBR test
Area of
plunger = 1935.00 mm2
1.30
penetration
rate = 1.27 mm/min
1.28 multiplying
dry density
penetration piston load Bearing

1.26 0.00 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
0.64 5.00 25.71 128.54 66.43
1.24 1.27 12.00 25.71 308.48 159.42
1.91 17.00 25.71 437.02 225.85
1.22 2.54 20.00 25.71 514.14 265.71
3.81 24.00 25.71 616.97 318.85
1.20 5.08 28.00 25.71 719.80 371.99
7.62 32.00 25.71 822.62 425.13
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 10.16 36.00 25.71 925.45 478.27
load Vs penetration
load(kpa)
400.00
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density 200.00
(MDD) as 35% and 1.3 g/cm3 respectively. 0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 371.99Kpa 10300Kpa 3.61
86
Sample4 (Silty-clay soil)

sieve analysis
100.00
weight wt of
90.00
percent passing
60.00
75 396 396 0 0 0 100
50.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
40.00
50 418 418 0 0 0 100
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
30.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100 20.00
19 438 464 26 0.74 0.74 99.26 10.00
9.5 446 708 262 7.45 8.19 91.81 0.00
4.75 432 716 284 8.08 16.27 83.73 0.01 0.1 1 10
2.36 390 578 188 5.35 21.62 78.38
2 378 420 42 1.19 22.81 77.19 sieve size(mm)
0.425 294 636 342 9.73 32.54 67.46
0.075 260 618 358 10.18 42.72 57.28
pan 240 272 32 57.28 100.00 0.00
total = 1534 100 Experiment 4.2 Atterberg limit test

Can NO. 97 A10 75 A14
wt of wet soil +can 32.23 31.28 31.65 33.24
wt of dry soil +can 24.88 24.08 24.19 24.89
wt of can 15.85 15.55 15.68 15.65
wt of dry soil 9.03 8.53 8.51 9.24
wt of moisture 7.35 7.2 7.46 8.35
water content(w%) 81.394 84.41 87.667 90.36
No.of blows 37 29 22 16
87

90
water content (%)
89
88 4.3.1Water content determination
87
86
85
84
83 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
82
81 Moisture can no TA-1 28 21 10 100
80
wt of can +wet
0 10 20 30 40 soil(g) 212 260 204 259 240
No.of blows N wt of can +dry
soil(g) 176 205 153 188 168
wt. of water(g) 36 55 51 71 72
wt.of dry soil(g) 171 200 148 183 163
Water content (w %) 21.05 27.50 34.46 38.80 44.17
Can No. 20 70 4.3.2Density Determination
Wt of dry soil +can 17.32 17.18 Water content (w%) 21.05 27.50 34.46 38.80 44.17
Plastic limit= (34.88+33.33)/2=34.11
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.17 1.23 1.27 1.25 1.18
88

Compaction curve
1.28 CBR test
Area of
1.26 plunger = 1935.00 mm2
penetration
dry density
1.24 rate = 1.27 mm/min

penetration
0.00 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
1.20 0.64 8.00 25.71 205.66 106.28
1.27 11.50 25.71 295.63 152.78
1.18 1.91 13.50 25.71 347.04 179.35
2.54 14.50 25.71 372.75 192.64
1.16 3.81 16.00 25.71 411.31 212.56
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 5.08 17.00 25.71 437.02 225.85
7.62 19.00 25.71 488.43 252.42
12.70 21.00 25.71 539.85 278.99
load Vs penetration
300.00
load(kpa)
200.00
(MDD) as 35% and 1.26 g/cm3 respectively.
100.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 225.85Kpa 10300Kpa 2.19
89
Sample5 (silty–clay soil)

sieve analysis
110.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
percent passing
weight wt of wt cumulative
Diameter % 70.00
of sieve sieve +wt retained %retained percent
(mm)
(gms) retained (gms) retained
passing 60.00
75 396 396 0 0 0 100
50.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 40.00
50 418 418 0 0 0 100 30.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 20.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100 10.00
19 438 512 74 3.822314 3.82 96.18 0.00
9.5 446 588 142 7.334711 11.16 88.84 0.01 0.1 1 10
4.75 432 516 84 4.338843 15.50 84.50
2.36 390 448 58 2.995868 18.49 81.51 sieve size(mm)
2 378 390 12 0.619835 19.11 80.89
0.425 294 414 120 6.198347 25.31 74.69
0.075 260 832 572 29.54545 54.86 45.14
pan 240 270 30 45.14463 100 0
total = 1092 100
Can NO. 56 38 100 D34
wt of wet soil +can 41.12 40.67 42.04 42.99
wt of dry soil +can 31.87 31.36 32.05 32.36
wt of can 15.78 15.6 15.43 15.35
wt of dry soil 16.09 15.76 16.62 17.01
wt of moisture 9.25 9.31 9.99 10.63
Water content (w %) 57.489 59.07 60.11 62.49
No.of blows
38 29 22 17
90

water content (%)
62
60
58
57
56 Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
0 10 20 30 40 Moisture can no 47 88 77 TA-2 29
No.of blows N wt of can +wet soil(g) 204 218 176 215 198
wt. of water(g) 34 43 37 51 54
5.2.2 plastic limit determination wt.of dry soil(g) 165 170 134 159 139
Water content (w %) 20.61 25.29 27.61 32.08 38.85
Can No. C15 98.00
Wt of dry soil +can 16.08 17.58 5.3.2Density Determination
wt of can 13.91 15.77
water content (w%) 20.61 25.29 27.61 32.08 38.85
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 6924 7060 7128 7190 7120
water content (w%=Wp)
42.86 43.09 wt of mold (g) 5640 5640 5640 5640 5640
Wet density (g/cm3) 1.28 1.42 1.49 1.55 1.48
91

compaction curve
1.20 CBR test
1.18 Area of plunger
= 1935.00 mm2
1.16 penetration rate
dry density
1.14 = 1.27 mm/min

1.12 piston load dial multiplying Bearing
penetration
reading factor load N (kPa)
1.10
0.00 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
1.08 0.64 3.00 25.71 77.12 39.86
1.06 1.27 5.00 25.71 128.54 66.43
1.04 1.91 8.00 25.71 205.66 106.28
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 2.54 12.00 25.71 308.48 159.42
3.81 14.00 25.71 359.90 185.99
7.62 23.00 25.71 591.26 305.56
10.16 25.00 25.71 642.68 332.13
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 12.70 26.00 25.71 668.38 345.42
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density load Vs penetration
400.00
load(kpa)
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 225.85Kpa 10300Kpa 2.19
92

sieve analysis
100.00
weight wt of
wt cummulative
90.00
percent passing
of sieve % 80.00
diameter(mm) retained %retained percent
sieve +wt passing 70.00
(gms) retained
(gms) retained
60.00
75 396 396 0 0 0 100
50.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
50 418 418 0 0 0 100
40.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 30.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100 20.00
19 438 438 0 0 0 100 10.00
9.5 446 512 66 3.09 3.09 96.91 0.00
4.75 432 530 98 4.59 7.68 92.32 0.01 0.1 1 10
2.36 390 456 66 3.09 10.77 89.23
2 378 394 16 0.75 11.52 88.48 sieve size(mm)
0.425 294 454 160 7.49 19.01 80.99
0.075 260 564 304 14.23 33.24 66.76
pan 240 260 20 66.76 100.00 0.00
total = 730 100 Experiment 6.2 Atterberg limit test

Can NO. C13 85.00 C19 C20
wt of wet soil +can 31.15 35.26 30.97 31.80
wt of dry soil +can 24.22 27.08 23.58 23.75
wt of can 14.30 15.86 13.98 13.80
wt of dry soil 9.92 11.22 9.60 9.95
wt of moisture 6.93 8.18 7.39 8.05
water content(w%) 69.86 72.91 76.98 80.90
No.of blows 36.00 27.00 21.00 15.00
93

water content (%)
80.00
76.00
72.00
70.00
68.00
Moisture can no 42 18 CMC-3 21 TA-1
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
No.of blows N wt of can +dry soil(g) 165 176 166 190 175
wt. of water(g) 33 44 48 65 75
From the plot LL=75% wt. of can (g) 5 5 5 5 5
wt.of dry soil(g) 160 171 161 185 170
6.2.2 plastic limit determination Water content (w %) 20.63 25.73 29.81 35.14 44.12
Can No. 36.00 D20 6.3.2 Density Determination
Wt of dry soil +can 16.05 17.08 Water content (w%) 20.63 25.73 29.81 35.14 44.12
Plastic limit= (22.48+22.44)/2=22.46 Dry density(g/cm3) 1.17 1.26 1.29 1.27 1.14
Therefore plasticity index (PI) =LL-PL=75-22.46=52.54 %
94

compaction curve
1.30 CBR test
1.28 Area of
1.26
dry density
plunger = 1935.00 mm2

1.24 penetration
1.22 rate = 1.27 mm/min
1.20 piston load
multiplying
Bearing
penetration
1.18 dial reading
factor
load N (kPa)
1.16 0.00
1.14 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.64 6.00 25.71 154.24 79.71
1.27 8.50 25.71 218.51 112.92
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
1.91 10.50 25.71 269.92 139.50
3.81 14.00 25.71 359.90 185.99
5.08 16.00 25.71 411.31 212.56
7.62 20.50 25.71 526.99 272.35
From the plot of Dry density versus moisture content we can obtain 10.16 22.00 25.71 565.55 292.28
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density 12.70 24.00 25.71 616.97 318.85
(MDD) as 31% and 1.28 g/cm3 respectively.

load Vs penetration
400.00
load(kpa)
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 212.56Kpa 10300Kpa 2.06
95

sieve analysis
weight
of
wt of wt cumulative
%
110.00
diameter(mm)
sieve
sieve +wt retained %retained percent
passing
100.00
retained (gms) retained 90.00
percent passing
(gms)
80.00
75 396 396 0 0 0 100
70.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 60.00
50 418 418 0 0 0 100 50.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 40.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100 30.00
19 438 438 0 0 0 100 20.00
9.5 446 542 96 2.87 2.87 97.13 10.00
4.75 432 644 212 6.33 9.19 90.81
0.00
2.36 390 624 234 6.99 16.18 83.82 0.01 0.1 1 10
2 378 436 58 1.73 17.91 82.09
0.425 294 734 440 13.13 31.04 68.96 sieve size(mm)
0.075 260 556 296 8.84 39.88 60.12
pan 240 264 24 60.12 100.00 0.00

Can NO. 45.00 24.00 97.00 57.00
wt of wet soil +can 33.30 36.23 32.45 33.38
wt of dry soil +can 25.76 27.40 25.25 25.41
wt of can 15.43 15.61 15.85 15.28
wt of dry soil 10.33 11.79 9.40 10.13
wt of moisture 7.54 8.83 7.20 7.97
Water content (w %) 72.99 74.89 76.60 78.68
No.of blows
33.00 26.00 21.00 15.00
96

water content (%)
78.00
76.00
74.00
73.00
72.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
No.of blows N wt of can +dry soil(g) 170 172 160 169 155
wt. of water(g) 34 43 42 51 55

wt.of dry soil(g) 165 167 155 164 150
7.2.2 plastic limit determination water content (w %) 20.61 25.75 27.10 31.10 36.67
Can No. 33.00 80.00 7.3.2Density Determination
water content (w%=Wp) Wet density (g/cm3) 1.35 1.51 1.60 1.68 1.48
36.36 36.91
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.12 1.20 1.26 1.28 1.08
Plastic limit= (36.36+36.91)/2=36.64%
97

compaction curve
1.32 CBR test
1.30
1.28
1.24
dry density
piston
1.22 penetration
load multiplying
dial factor Bearing
1.18
1.16 0 0 25.707 0 0
1.14 0.64 4 25.707 102.828 53.14108527
1.12 1.27 7 25.707 179.949 92.99689922
1.10
1.08 1.91 10 25.707 257.07 132.8527132
1.06 2.54 11.5 25.707 295.6305 152.7806202
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 3.81 14 25.707 359.898 185.9937984
5.08 16 25.707 411.312 212.5643411
10.16 20 25.707 514.14 265.7054264
12.7 22 25.707 565.554 292.275969
load Vs penetration
(MDD) as 30% and 1.28 g/cm3 respectively. 400
load(kpa)
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
penetration(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 212.56Kpa 10300Kpa 2.06
98

Sieve analysis
percent passing (%)

100.00
weight wt of
wt cumulative
diameter(mm)
of sieve
% 80.00
sieve +wt passing
(gms) retained 60.00
(gms) retained
75 396 396 0 0 0 100 40.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
50 418 418 0 0 0 100 20.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 0.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100
19 440 440 0 0 0 100 0.01 0.1 1 10
9.5 448 448 0 0 0 100
4.75 432 436 4 0.16 0.16 99.84
sieve size (mm)
2.36 390 878 488 19.24 19.40 80.60
2 378 480 102 4.02 23.42 76.58
0.075 260 454 194 7.65 57.57 42.43
pan 240 284 44 42.43 100.00 0.00
total = 1504 100.00
Can NO. 24.00 98.00 c15 c18
wt of wet soil +can 35.31 38.60 36.95 32.66
wt of dry soil +can 26.83 28.83 27.31 25.14
wt of can 15.63 15.55 13.90 13.54
wt of dry soil 11.20 13.28 13.41 11.60
wt of moisture 8.48 9.77 9.64 7.52
water content(w%) 75.71 73.57 71.89 64.83
No.of blows 15.00 21.00 27.00 39.00
99

Liquid limit determination
water content (%)
76.00
72.00
68.00
66.00
64.00 Sample No. 1 2 3 4
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Moisture can no 28 43 25 26
Number of blows (N) wt of can +wet soil(g) 194 186 524 625
wt of can +dry soil(g) 170 152 444 524
wt. of water(g) 24 34 80 101
From the plot LL=71.6% wt. of can (g) 5.32 5.15 186 248
wt.of dry soil(g) 164.68 146.85 258 276
water content (w %) 14.57 23.15 31.01 36.59
Can No. 76.00 D34
8.3.2 Density Determination
wt of can 15.55 15.35
Water content (w%) 14.57 23.15 31.01 36.59
Wt. of soil +mold(g) 7052 7238 7396 7383
wt of mold (g) 5662 5662 5662 5662
Plastic limit= (33.22+32.65)/2=32.94%
wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1390 1576 1734 1721
Therefore plasticity index (PI) =LL-PL=71.6-32.94=38.66 % Wet density (g/cm3) 1.39 1.58 1.73 1.72
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.21 1.28 1.32 1.26
100
CBR test
compaction curve Area of plunger = 1935.00 mm2
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.32 penetration
1.30 0.00 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
0.64 16.00 25.71 411.31 212.56
1.28
1.27 29.00 25.71 745.50 385.27
1.26 1.91 35.50 25.71 912.60 471.63
1.24 2.54 40.50 25.71 1041.13 538.05
3.81 47.00 25.71 1208.23 624.41
1.22
5.08 51.00 25.71 1311.06 677.55
1.20 7.62 58.00 25.71 1491.01 770.55
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 10.16 62.50 25.71 1606.69 830.33
12.70 67.50 25.71 1735.22 896.76
moisture content(%)
Load Vs penetration
1000.00
Load (kpa)
optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density 600.00
200.00
0.00
0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00
penetration (mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 677.55Kpa 10300Kpa 6.58
101
Sample9 (silty-clay soil)

sieve Analysis
Percent passing (%)

100.00
weight wt of
wt cumulative
of sieve % 80.00
diameter(mm) retained %retained percent
sieve +wt passing
(gms) retained 60.00
(gms) retained
75 396 396 0 0 0 100 40.00
63.5 442 442 0 0 0 100
50 418 418 0 0 0 100 20.00
37.5 442 442 0 0 0 100 0.00
25 446 446 0 0 0 100
19 440 440 0 0 0 100 0.01 0.1 1 10
9.5 448 448 0 0 0 100
4.75 432 590 158 5.99 5.99 94.01
Sieve opening
2.36 390 1258 868 32.93 38.92 61.08
2 378 488 110 4.17 43.10 56.90
0.075 260 280 20 0.76 56.90 43.10
pan 240 244 4 43.10 100.00 0.00 9.2.1 liquid limit determination
total = 1504 100
Can NO. D25 D15 C18 24.00
wt of wet soil +can 28.95 27.73 22.16 27.06
wt of dry soil +can 21.08 20.60 17.28 20.61
wt of can 15.87 15.59 13.54 15.63
wt of dry soil 5.21 5.01 3.74 4.98
wt of moisture 7.87 7.13 4.88 6.45
water content(w%) 151.06 142.32 130.48 129.52
No.of blows 6.00 12.00 21.00 29.00
102

liquid limit determination
150.00
Water content (%)

145.00
135.00
130.00 Sample No. 1 2 3 4
125.00 Moisture can no 50 29 21 38
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 wt of can +wet soil(g) 212 214 219 213
Number of blows (N)
wt of can +dry soil(g) 169 160 154 140
wt. of water(g) 43 54 65 73
wt. of can (g) 5.16 5.16 5.3 5.31
From the plot LL=130% wt.of dry soil(g) 163.84 154.84 148.7 134.69
Water content (w %) 26.25 34.87 43.71 54.20
Can No. C15 76
wt of wet soil +can 15.28 16.7 9.3.2 Density Determination
wt of can 13.9 15.56 water content (w%) 26.25 34.87 43.71 54.20
wt of dry soil 0.96 0.8 Wt. of soil +mold(g) 6982 7198 7260 7089
wt of moisture 0.42 0.34 wt of mold (g) 5604 5604 5604 5604
water content (w%=Wp) 43.75 42.5 wt of soil in mold ,(g) 1378 1594 1656 1485
Plastic limit= (43.75+42.5)/2=43.13% Wet density (g/cm3) 1.38 1.59 1.66 1.49
Dry density(g/cm3) 1.09 1.18 1.15 0.96
103

compaction Curve
1.40 CBR test
1.20 Area of plunger = 1935.00 mm2
Dry density (g/cm3)
penetration rate = 1.27 mm/min

1.00 piston
multiplying
0.80 penetration load dial Bearing
factor
0.60 0.00 0.00 25.71 0.00 0.00
0.40 0.64 3.00 25.71 77.12 39.86
1.27 4.00 25.71 102.83 53.14
0.20
1.91 5.00 25.71 128.54 66.43
0.00 2.54 6.00 25.71 154.24 79.71
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 3.81 6.00 25.71 154.24 79.71
5.08 6.70 25.71 172.24 89.01
Moisture content(%) 7.62 7.00 25.71 179.95 93.00
10.16 8.00 25.71 205.66 106.28
12.70 9.00 25.71 231.36 119.57
Load Vs penetration Curve
load (Kpa)
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00
penetration in(mm)
standard ratio
load at 5.08mm= 89.01kpa 10300Kpa 0.864
104
Collected data for silty-clay soils, HG, &SG =data from road stretching along Hargele-Dolbay, and sawla-gondar respectively
Sieve Analysis,% Passing Atterberg limits Max.

CBR
OMC Dry
SAMPLE CODE 63.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI Value
% Density
(%)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (%) g/cm3
HG1 - - - - - - 100 99 95 85 74.00 37.00 25.00 12.00 23.00 1.69 9.00
HG2 - - - - - - - 100 99 91 83.00 41.00 26.00 15.00 21.00 1.66 9.00
HG3 - - - - - - 100 99 94 83 69.00 33.00 22.00 11.00 15.60 1.76 13.00
HG4 - - - - - - 100 99 98 90 82.00 41.00 25.80 15.20 29.00 1.53 9.00
HG5 - - - - - 100 99 95 86 72 64.00 38.00 24.00 14.00 24.30 1.67 6.00
HG6 - - - - - - - - 100 99 71.00 36.00 24.00 12.00 15.80 1.76 22.00
HG7 - - - - - - - - 100 86 76.00 39.00 13.00 26.00 18.00 1.70 14.00
HG8 - - - - - - - 100 100 86 77.00 37.00 24.00 13.00 17.00 1.83 13.00
HG9 - - - - - - - 100 99 83 72.00 35.00 22.00 13.00 13.20 1.94 16.00
HG10 - - - - - - - - 100 70 57.00 35.00 22.00 13.00 13.20 1.94 16.00
HG11 - - - - - - - 100 99 69 59.00 36.00 23.00 13.00 13.20 1.94 16.00
HG12 - - - - - - - - 100 68 59.00 38.00 24.00 14.00 12.50 1.92 15.00
HG13 - - - - - - - - 100 83 71.00 35.00 24.00 11.00 13.80 1.92 12.00
HG14 - - - - - - - - 100 74 62.00 36.00 24.00 12.00 14.20 1.94 15.00
HG15 - 100 96 89 86 83 80 76 73 61 51.00 47.00 32.00 15.00 21.00 1.69 8.00
HG16 - - - - 100 97 95 91 87 76 61.00 23.00 19.00 4.00 22.70 1.58 17.00
HG17 100 96 96 96 95.7 94 92 87 79.00 35.00 25.00 10.00 17.00 1.77 13.00
HG18 - - 100 97 95 92 88 80 72 54 45.00 21.00 18.00 3.00 20.00 1.60 16.00
HG19 - - - 100 97 96 95 93 90 87 81.00 30.00 21.00 9.00 20.50 1.69 18.00
HG20 - - - - - - - 100 98 80 67.00 37.00 23.00 14.00 15.00 1.92 17.00
HG21 - - - - - - 100 99 95 75 62.00 33.00 23.00 10.00 14.70 1.93 16.00
HG22 - - - - 100 99 98 90 82.00 41.00 26.00 15.00 17.00 1.81 16.00
HG23 - - - - - - - 100 99 93 83.00 35.00 23.00 12.00 16.20 1.83 11.00
HG24 - - - - - - 100 99 96 92 82.00 37.00 23.00 14.00 18.00 1.86 13.00
HG25 - - - - - - - 100 99 91 82.00 39.00 27.00 12.00 18.10 1.82 13.00
105
Max.
Sieve Analysis,% Passing Atterberg limits CBR
SAMPLE OMC Dry
Value
CODE 63.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI % Density
(%)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (%) g/cm3
HG26 - - - - - - - 100 98 89 77.00 39.00 29.00 10.00 15.00 1.80 8.00
HG27 - - - - - - - - 100 97 88.00 41.00 24.00 17.00 13.30 1.81 15.00
HG28 - - - - - - 100 99.1 99 98 89.00 25.00 21.00 4.00 25.00 1.64 16.00
HG29 - - - - - - - - 100 97 82.00 37.00 21.00 16.00 15.40 1.87 6.00
HG30 - - 100 95 93 87 84 79 74 62 52.00 44.00 29.00 15.00 33.00 1.26 18.00
HG31 - - - - - - - - 100 100 98.00 55.00 29.00 26.00 20.60 1.70 4.00
HG32 - - - - - - - - 100 96 86.00 39.00 25.00 14.00 17.30 1.83 12.00
HG33 - - - - - - 100 100 97 82 67.00 33.00 24.00 9.00 22.50 1.75 22.00
HG34 - - - - - - - - 100 92 76.00 33.00 22.00 11.00 14.80 1.90 12.00
HG35 - - - - - - 100 100 98 89 73.00 28.00 18.00 10.00 14.42 1.91 20.00
HG36 100 93 91 88 86 83 81 76 64.00 27.00 17.00 10.00 14.00 1.99 17.00
HG37 - - - - - - - - 100 85 71.00 34.00 21.00 13.00 14.10 1.90 17.00
HG38 - - - - - - - - 100 100 98.00 49.00 34.00 15.00 18.60 1.73 7.00
HG39 - - - - - - - - 100 100 92.00 49.00 27.00 22.00 16.00 1.76 9.00
HG40 - - - - - - - - 100 100 98.00 50.00 29.00 21.00 18.80 1.72 14.00
HG41 - - - - - - - - 100 98 79.00 31.00 20.00 11.00 13.90 1.85 15.00
HG42 - - - - - - - 100 96 79 63.00 28.00 19.00 9.00 14.00 1.96 15.00
HG43 - - - - - 100 99 98 94 79 63.00 34.00 22.00 12.00 15.00 1.90 13.00
HG44 - - - - - - 100 99 91 76 61.00 35.00 22.00 13.00 13.70 1.91 6.00
HG45 - - - - - 100 99 97 89 80 70.00 26.00 20.00 6.00 12.50 1.99 9.00
HG46 - - - - - - 100 99.5 96 84 65.00 31.00 21.00 10.00 15.00 1.90 18.00
HG47 - - - - - - - - 100 99 83.00 36.00 24.00 12.00 16.90 1.81 15.00
HG48 - - - - - - - - 100 91 73.00 33.00 21.00 12.00 13.50 1.99 7.00
HG49 - - - - - - - - 100 99.7 99.00 71.00 38.00 33.00 23.87 1.59 5.00
HG50 - - - - 100 99 98 96 94 91 87.00 43.00 33.00 10.00 25.50 1.59 5.00
HG51 - 100 79 78 75 74 73 68 63 60 47.00 28.00 21.00 7.00 13.03 2.00 22.00
HG52 - - - - - 100 99 96 92 83 72.00 25.00 20.00 5.00 25.00 1.59 25.00
106
Max.
Sieve Analysis,% Passing Atterberg limits CBR
SAMPLE OMC Dry
Value
CODE % Density
(%)
63.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI g/cm3
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (%)
HG53 - - - - - - - - 100 99.7 97.00 38.00 24.00 14.00 16.00 1.78 12.00
HG54 - 100 87 87 87 85 84 83 79 71 58.00 32.00 29.00 3.00 19.00 1.76 26.00
HG55 - - - - 100 99 98 97 96 93 86.00 22.00 21.00 1.00 26.00 1.55 27.00
HG56 - - - - - - 100 98 85 76 55.00 34.00 19.00 15.00 13.00 1.96 22.00
HG57 - - - - - - - 100 97 82 67.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 11.00 2.05 6.00
HG58 - - - - - - - 100 98 93 87.00 32.00 22.00 10.00 23.53 1.54 8.00
HG59 100 92 82 77 74 70 69 66 61 47 38.00 27.00 19.00 8.00 23.60 1.70 27.00
HG60 - - - - 100 99 98 93 77 63 45.00 30.00 22.00 8.00 12.00 2.01 9.00
HG61 - - 100 98 97 96 94 88 70 56 44.00 24.00 18.00 6.00 10.00 2.14 12.00
HG62 - - - - 100 98 96 89 81 70 55.00 24.00 16.00 8.00 11.68 2.05 14.00
HG63 - - - - 100 99.4 98.6 95 86 64 56.00 31.00 24.00 7.00 15.60 1.88 26.00
HG64 - - - - - - - - 100 99.8 96.00 38.00 25.00 13.00 19.50 1.76 6.00
HG65 - - - - - - 100 99 96 93 76.00 23.00 15.00 8.00 14.00 1.91 16.00
HG66 - - - - - - - - 100 98 76.00 42.00 27.00 15.00 19.40 1.71 4.00
HG67 - - - - - - - - 100 99.6 99.00 67.00 40.00 27.00 24.50 1.63 3.00
HG68 - - - - - - 100 99 91 83 49.00 24.00 17.00 7.00 12.50 1.99 14.00
HG69 - - - - - - - - 100 99.2 94.00 38.00 24.00 14.00 18.00 1.75 7.00
HG70 - - - - - - - - 100 99.7 96.00 38.00 24.00 14.00 18.00 1.75 5.00
HG71 - - - - - - - - 100 99.8 78.00 27.00 19.00 8.00 14.00 1.92 26.00
HG72 - - - - - - - - 100 99.7 55.00 25.00 16.00 9.00 11.00 2.00 31.00
HG73 - - - - - - - - 100 99.7 94.00 40.00 28.00 12.00 17.50 1.81 6.00
HG74 - - - - - - - - 100 97 91.00 51.00 30.00 21.00 19.00 1.68 5.00
HG75 - - - - - - 100 99 96 75 53.00 29.00 19.00 10.00 12.00 2.01 18.00
HG76 - - - - - - - 100 94 72 51.00 24.00 16.00 8.00 9.00 2.07 27.00
107
Sieve Analysis,% Passing Atterberg limits Max. Dry CBR

SAMPLE OMC
Density Value
CODE 63.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI %
g/cm3 (%)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (%)
HG77 - - - - - - 100 96 87 76 48.00 36.00 21.00 15.00 12.50 1.97 17.00
HG78 - - - - - - 100 96 85 76 43.00 30.00 22.00 8.00 12.70 1.92 20.00
HG79 - - - - - - - 100 98 86 44.00 22.00 13.00 9.00 10.00 2.12 22.00
HG80 - - - - - - - 10 98 79 44.00 26.00 16.00 10.00 10.50 2.05 17.00
HG81 - - - - - 100 99.3 98.5 98 97 79.00 25.00 17.00 8.00 18.20 1.79 20.00
HG82 - - - - - - - 100 99.9 99 89.00 43.00 28.00 15.00 20.00 1.68 7.00
HG83 - - - - 100 99 98 96 92 76 69.00 46.00 31.00 15.00 31.00 1.53 16.00
HG84 - - - - - - - - 100 99.9 73.00 33.00 20.00 13.00 16.00 1.82 14.00
SG1 - - - - - - 100 99 98 96 94.00 59.00 33.00 26.00 24.30 1.54 3.00
SG2 - - - - - - 100 99.3 98.8 96 92.00 69.00 39.00 30.00 27.70 1.45 2.00
SG3 - - - - - - 100 99 98 96 92.00 65.00 43.00 22.00 31.00 1.36 2.00
SG4 - - - - - - - - 100 99 98.00 73.00 42.00 31.00 33.50 1.40 3.00
SG5 - - - - - - - - 100 99.4 98.70 79.00 46.00 33.00 26.00 1.36 3.00
SG6 - - - 100 99 97 96 95 93 88 75.00 49.00 30.00 19.00 27.00 1.46 7.00
SG7 - 100 88 78 70 63 59 54 52 50 42.00 47.00 32.00 15.00 27.50 1.48 10.00
SG8 - - - 100 99 96 95 94 89 76 64.00 46.00 28.00 18.00 24.00 1.55 9.00
SG9 - - - - - - - 100 99 94 72.00 35.00 23.00 12.00 22.20 1.60 7.00
SG10 - - - - - - - 100 99 94 82.00 52.00 30.00 22.00 31.50 1.41 6.00
SG11 - - 100 92 82 79 76 71 69 64 53.00 47.00 27.00 20.00 27.00 1.50 8.00
SG12 - 100 80 76 70 64 60 54 48 40 36.00 52.00 34.00 18.00 24.30 1.55 9.00
SG13 - - - - - - 100 98 96 93 88.00 57.00 33.00 24.00 33.00 1.41 4.00
SG14 - - - - - - 100 9 98 95 86.00 58.00 37.00 21.00 34.30 1.32 7.00
SG15 - - - - 100 97 97 95 94 92 88.00 63.00 40.00 23.00 38.50 1.25 6.00
SG16 - 100 76 70 68 67 65 58 50 44 39.00 63.00 41.00 22.00 29.50 1.44 10.00
SG17 - - 100 95.4 95 89 81 68 60 55 49.00 48.00 31.00 17.00 26.00 1.55 18.00
SG18 100 68 68 67 67 65 63 58 53 47 37.00 49.00 35.00 14.00 31.00 1.43 8.00
SG19 - - - 100 94 88 84 77 71 63 51.00 59.00 35.00 24.00 29.60 1.45 12.00
SG20 - 100 90 86 84 83 82 81 80 75 64.00 54.00 35.00 19.00 36.00 1.31 7.00
SG21 - - - - - - - 100 98 93 86.00 55.00 36.00 19.00 32.50 1.39 10.00
SG22 - - - - - - - 100 99 96 93.00 60.00 37.00 23.00 32.50 1.38 13.00
108
109
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been
presented for a degree in any other university, and that all sources of material used
for the thesis have been duly acknowledged.
Name: Zelalem Worku Ferede

Signature: ________________
Place: Faculty of Technology
Addis Ababa University
Date of submission: April, 2010

Zelalem - Worku CBR

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

Zelalem - Worku CBR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABAB UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

PREDICTION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) VALUE FROM INDEX

Zelalem Worku Ferede

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in

ADVISOR: Dr Hadush Seged

4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 27

1.AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

2.OMC Optimum Moisture Content

3.MDD Maximum Dry Density

4.P200 Percent Passing Sieve NO.200 or Sieve Opening of 0.075mm

8. D60 The Sieve Opening on Which 60% of The Material Passed.

9. ASTM American Society For Testing and Materials

10.CBR California Bearing Ratio

11.NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

12. coefficient of determination

Figure 2.1 Typical results from the CBR test ....................................................................................... 7

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is commonly used by civil engineers particularly

1.2 Statement of the Problem

2.1 Definition of California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

100 …………………………………….. (2.1)

Penetration (mm) Standard unit load (MPa)

2.2 Test Methods

2.2.1 Field Test

2.2.1.1 Significance and Use

2.2.1.2 Scope of Field CBR Test

2.2.2 Laboratory Test

Method Blows Layers Hammer weight (N)

D698:2(fine grained soil ) 56 3 24.5

D698:4(coarse grained soil) 56 3 24.5

D1557:2(fine grained soil ) 56 5 24.5

D1557:4(coarse grained soil) 56 5 24.5

Penetration testing is accomplished in a compression machine using a strain rate of

Figure 2.1 Typical CBR test results

Unit load for 2.54 mm penetratio n in test specimen

2.3 Application of CBR Value

2.4 Index Properties of Soil

2.4.1 Sieve Analysis

2.4.2 Moisture Content

2.4.3 Atterberg Limit

LI =1, indicates that the soil is at the liquid limit.

2.4.4 Moisture –Density Relationship (Compaction Test)

2.5 Existing Correlations

2.5.1 Universal Approaches

Soil groups Symbol

Soil Characteristics Symbol

Low plasticity (liquid limit under 50) L

High plasticity (liquid limit over 50) H

Organic (silts and clays) O

2.5.1.2 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide

2.5.1.3 Soil Strength Signature Concept

2.5.22 Relatioonships foor Region Specific Soils

2.5.22.1 De Graaft – Johnsoon and Bhaatia (1969)

De Graaft-Johnson and Bhatiaa (1969) deeveloped a correlation of CBR with

Furtherr work on lateritic

Figurre 2.5 Relattionship bettween the raatio of maxiimum dry density

2.5.22.2 Agarwaal and Ghaanekar (19770)

Based on their ressearch on 48

2.5.3 CBR Correlation with DCP

Log (CBR) = a + b log (DCPI) ……………………………………………………….…… (2.9)

Correlation Equation Material tested Reference

log(CBR) = 2.62 -1.27 log (DCPI) Unknown Kleyn (1975)

2.5.4 Relationship between CBR and Shear Strength