Prediction of California Bearing Ratio from Physical Properties of Fine-Grained Soils
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) has been
acknowledged as an important parameter to characterize the bearing
capacity of earth structures, such as earth dams, road embankments,
airport runways, bridge abutments and pavements. Technically, the
CBR test can be carried out in the laboratory or in the field. The CBR
test is time-consuming and is infrequently performed due to the
equipment needed and the fact that the field moisture content keeps
changing over time. Over the years, many correlations have been
developed for the prediction of CBR by various researchers,
including the dynamic cone penetrometer, undrained shear strength
and Clegg impact hammer. This paper reports and discusses some of
the results from a study on the prediction of CBR. In the current
study, the CBR test was performed in the laboratory on some finegrained
subgrade soils collected from various locations in Victoria.
Based on the test results, a satisfactory empirical correlation was
found between the CBR and the physical properties of the
experimental soils.
[1] E. J. Yoder and M. W. Witczak, “Principles of pavement design” 2nd
Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
[2] Austroads, “A guide to the structural design of road pavements”
Austroads, 2012.
[3] M. Aytekin, “Soil mechanics” Academy Publishing house, Trabzon,
Turkey, 2000.
[4] BS 1377-4, “Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.
Compaction-related tests“ British Standard, UK, 1990.
[5] AS 1289.6.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the California
Bearing Ratio of a soil - Standard laboratory method for a remoulded
specimen” Australian Standard, Australia, 1998.
[6] AS 1289.6.1.3, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the California
Bearing Ratio of a soil - Standard field-in-place method” Australian
Standard, Australia, 1998.
[7] American Society for Testing and Materials, “D 1883-05, Standard test
method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of laboratory-compacted
soils” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2005.
[8] American Society for Testing and Materials, “D 4429-04, Standard test
method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of soils in place” Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM, 2004
[9] W. R. Day, “Soil testing manual: procedures, classification data, and
sampling practices” USA, 2001.
[10] M. P. Rollings and R. S. Rollings, “Geotechnical materials in
construction” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
[11] E. G. Kleyn, “The use of the dynamic cone penetrometer” Rep. No.
2/74, Transvaal Roads Department, Pretoria, South Africa, 1975.
[12] M. Livneh, “The use of dynamic cone Penetrometer in determining the
strength of existing pavements and subgrades” Proceedings of Southeast
Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 1987.
[13] J. A. Harison, “In situ California bearing ratio determination by dynamic
cone penetrometer testing using a laboratory based correlation”
Australian Road Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 313-317, 1989.
[14] M. Livneh, I. Ishai and N. A. Livneh, “Effects of vertical confinement
on dynamic cone penetrometer strength values in pavement and
subgrade evaluations” Transport Research Record 1473, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 1992.
[15] D. Ese, J. Myre, P. Noss and E. Vxrnes, “ The use of dynamic cone
Penetrometer for road strengthening design in Norway” Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and
Airfields, pp. 343-357, 1994.
[16] J. Coonse, “Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive piedmont
residual soil using the Scala dynamic cone penetrometer” Thesis
(Master), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C, 1999.
[17] M. A. Gabr, K. Hopkins, J. Coonse and T. Hearne, “DCP criteria for
performance evaluation of pavement layers” Journal of Performance and
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 14, pp. 141-148, 2000.
[18] O. Al-Amoudi, I. Asi, H. Wahhab and Z. Khan, “Clegg hammer –
California Bearing Ratio correlations” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 512–523, 2002.
[19] G. H. Gregory, “Correlation of California Bearing Ratio with shear
strength parameters” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1989, pp. 148-153, 2007.
[20] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Validation of soil strength criteria for
aircraft operation on unprepared landing strips: Vicksburg, Mississippi”
Waterways Experiment Station, technical report 3-554, 1960.
[21] 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. Washington, DC: NCHRP,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2004.
[22] P. M. Semen, “A generalized approach to soil strength prediction with
machine learning methods” Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-06-15.
Hanover, NH: Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 2006.
[23] W. P. M. Black, “A method of estimating the CBR of cohesive soils
from plasticity data” Geotechnique, Vol. 12, pp. 271–272, 1962.
[24] J. W. S. De Graft-Johnson and H. S. Bhatia, “The engineering
characteristics of the lateritic gravels of Ghana” Proceedings of 7th
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Vol. 2, Mexico, pp. 13–43, 1969.
[25] K. B. Agarwal and K. D. Ghanekar, “Prediction of CBR from plasticity
characteristics of soil” Proceeding of 2nd south-east Asian conference
on soil engineering, Singapore, pp. 571–6, 1970.
[26] S. N. Doshi, M. S. Mesdary and H. R. Guirguis, “Statistical study of
laboratory CBR for Kuwaiti soils” The fourth conference of the road
engineering association of Asia and Australasia, Vol. 2, Jakarta, pp. 43–
51, 1983.
[27] D. J. Stephens, “Prediction of the California bearing ratio” The Journal
of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 No.12, pp.
523–527, 1990.
[28] British Highway Agency, “Design manual for roads and bridges” Vol. 7.
London: Stationery Ltd., Section 2, Part 2 HD 25/94, 1994.
[29] National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Guide for
mechanistic and empirical – design for new and rehabilitated pavement
structures, final document” Appendix CC-1: correlation of CBR values
with soil ındex properties, West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois:
Ara, Inc, 2001.
[30] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “Development of a new dynamic
lightweight penetrometer for the determination of mechanical properties
of fine-grained soils” Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Vol. 6 No.10, pp. 1417-1422, 2012.
[31] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “A new lightweight dynamic cone
penetrometer for laboratory and field application” Journal and News of
the Australian Geomechanics Society, Vol. 47 No.2, pp. 41-50, 2012.
[32] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “Determination of CBR for finegrained
soils using a dynamic lightweight cone penetrometer”
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2014.
[33] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “A new dynamic cone penetrometer to
predict CBR for fine-grained subgrade soils in the laboratory and field
conditions” 11th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics:
Ground Engineering in a Changing World, Melbourne, Australia, 2012.
[34] AS 1289.5.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
compaction and density tests - Determination of the dry density/moisture
content relation of a soil using standard compactive effort” Australian
Standard, Australia, 2003.
[35] AS 1289.3.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit of a soil - Four
point Casagrande method” Australian Standard, Australia, 2009.
[36] AS 1289.3.2.1, “ Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
classification tests - Determination of the plastic limit of a soil -
Standard method” Australian Standard, Australia, 2009.
[37] J. Uzan, “Characterization of clayey subgrade materials for mechanistic
design of flexible pavements” Transportation Research Record. 1629,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 188–196, 1998.
[38] M. K. Elfino and J. L. Davidson, “Modeling field moisture in resilient
modulus testing” Geotechnical Special Publication 24, ASCE, pp. 31–
51, 1989.
[39] G. B. Thadkamalla and K. P. George, “Characterization of subgrade
soils at simulated field moisture” Transportation Research Record. 1481,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 21–27, 1995.
[1] E. J. Yoder and M. W. Witczak, “Principles of pavement design” 2nd
Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
[2] Austroads, “A guide to the structural design of road pavements”
Austroads, 2012.
[3] M. Aytekin, “Soil mechanics” Academy Publishing house, Trabzon,
Turkey, 2000.
[4] BS 1377-4, “Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.
Compaction-related tests“ British Standard, UK, 1990.
[5] AS 1289.6.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the California
Bearing Ratio of a soil - Standard laboratory method for a remoulded
specimen” Australian Standard, Australia, 1998.
[6] AS 1289.6.1.3, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
strength and consolidation tests - Determination of the California
Bearing Ratio of a soil - Standard field-in-place method” Australian
Standard, Australia, 1998.
[7] American Society for Testing and Materials, “D 1883-05, Standard test
method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of laboratory-compacted
soils” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2005.
[8] American Society for Testing and Materials, “D 4429-04, Standard test
method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of soils in place” Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM, 2004
[9] W. R. Day, “Soil testing manual: procedures, classification data, and
sampling practices” USA, 2001.
[10] M. P. Rollings and R. S. Rollings, “Geotechnical materials in
construction” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
[11] E. G. Kleyn, “The use of the dynamic cone penetrometer” Rep. No.
2/74, Transvaal Roads Department, Pretoria, South Africa, 1975.
[12] M. Livneh, “The use of dynamic cone Penetrometer in determining the
strength of existing pavements and subgrades” Proceedings of Southeast
Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 1987.
[13] J. A. Harison, “In situ California bearing ratio determination by dynamic
cone penetrometer testing using a laboratory based correlation”
Australian Road Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 313-317, 1989.
[14] M. Livneh, I. Ishai and N. A. Livneh, “Effects of vertical confinement
on dynamic cone penetrometer strength values in pavement and
subgrade evaluations” Transport Research Record 1473, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 1992.
[15] D. Ese, J. Myre, P. Noss and E. Vxrnes, “ The use of dynamic cone
Penetrometer for road strengthening design in Norway” Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and
Airfields, pp. 343-357, 1994.
[16] J. Coonse, “Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive piedmont
residual soil using the Scala dynamic cone penetrometer” Thesis
(Master), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C, 1999.
[17] M. A. Gabr, K. Hopkins, J. Coonse and T. Hearne, “DCP criteria for
performance evaluation of pavement layers” Journal of Performance and
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 14, pp. 141-148, 2000.
[18] O. Al-Amoudi, I. Asi, H. Wahhab and Z. Khan, “Clegg hammer –
California Bearing Ratio correlations” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 512–523, 2002.
[19] G. H. Gregory, “Correlation of California Bearing Ratio with shear
strength parameters” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1989, pp. 148-153, 2007.
[20] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Validation of soil strength criteria for
aircraft operation on unprepared landing strips: Vicksburg, Mississippi”
Waterways Experiment Station, technical report 3-554, 1960.
[21] 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. Washington, DC: NCHRP,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2004.
[22] P. M. Semen, “A generalized approach to soil strength prediction with
machine learning methods” Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-06-15.
Hanover, NH: Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 2006.
[23] W. P. M. Black, “A method of estimating the CBR of cohesive soils
from plasticity data” Geotechnique, Vol. 12, pp. 271–272, 1962.
[24] J. W. S. De Graft-Johnson and H. S. Bhatia, “The engineering
characteristics of the lateritic gravels of Ghana” Proceedings of 7th
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Vol. 2, Mexico, pp. 13–43, 1969.
[25] K. B. Agarwal and K. D. Ghanekar, “Prediction of CBR from plasticity
characteristics of soil” Proceeding of 2nd south-east Asian conference
on soil engineering, Singapore, pp. 571–6, 1970.
[26] S. N. Doshi, M. S. Mesdary and H. R. Guirguis, “Statistical study of
laboratory CBR for Kuwaiti soils” The fourth conference of the road
engineering association of Asia and Australasia, Vol. 2, Jakarta, pp. 43–
51, 1983.
[27] D. J. Stephens, “Prediction of the California bearing ratio” The Journal
of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 No.12, pp.
523–527, 1990.
[28] British Highway Agency, “Design manual for roads and bridges” Vol. 7.
London: Stationery Ltd., Section 2, Part 2 HD 25/94, 1994.
[29] National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Guide for
mechanistic and empirical – design for new and rehabilitated pavement
structures, final document” Appendix CC-1: correlation of CBR values
with soil ındex properties, West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois:
Ara, Inc, 2001.
[30] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “Development of a new dynamic
lightweight penetrometer for the determination of mechanical properties
of fine-grained soils” Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Vol. 6 No.10, pp. 1417-1422, 2012.
[31] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “A new lightweight dynamic cone
penetrometer for laboratory and field application” Journal and News of
the Australian Geomechanics Society, Vol. 47 No.2, pp. 41-50, 2012.
[32] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “Determination of CBR for finegrained
soils using a dynamic lightweight cone penetrometer”
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2014.
[33] B. T. Nguyen and A. Mohajerani, “A new dynamic cone penetrometer to
predict CBR for fine-grained subgrade soils in the laboratory and field
conditions” 11th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics:
Ground Engineering in a Changing World, Melbourne, Australia, 2012.
[34] AS 1289.5.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
compaction and density tests - Determination of the dry density/moisture
content relation of a soil using standard compactive effort” Australian
Standard, Australia, 2003.
[35] AS 1289.3.1.1, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit of a soil - Four
point Casagrande method” Australian Standard, Australia, 2009.
[36] AS 1289.3.2.1, “ Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil
classification tests - Determination of the plastic limit of a soil -
Standard method” Australian Standard, Australia, 2009.
[37] J. Uzan, “Characterization of clayey subgrade materials for mechanistic
design of flexible pavements” Transportation Research Record. 1629,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 188–196, 1998.
[38] M. K. Elfino and J. L. Davidson, “Modeling field moisture in resilient
modulus testing” Geotechnical Special Publication 24, ASCE, pp. 31–
51, 1989.
[39] G. B. Thadkamalla and K. P. George, “Characterization of subgrade
soils at simulated field moisture” Transportation Research Record. 1481,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 21–27, 1995.
@article{"International Journal of Architectural, Civil and Construction Sciences:69062", author = "Bao Thach Nguyen and Abbas Mohajerani", title = "Prediction of California Bearing Ratio from Physical Properties of Fine-Grained Soils", abstract = "The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) has been
acknowledged as an important parameter to characterize the bearing
capacity of earth structures, such as earth dams, road embankments,
airport runways, bridge abutments and pavements. Technically, the
CBR test can be carried out in the laboratory or in the field. The CBR
test is time-consuming and is infrequently performed due to the
equipment needed and the fact that the field moisture content keeps
changing over time. Over the years, many correlations have been
developed for the prediction of CBR by various researchers,
including the dynamic cone penetrometer, undrained shear strength
and Clegg impact hammer. This paper reports and discusses some of
the results from a study on the prediction of CBR. In the current
study, the CBR test was performed in the laboratory on some finegrained
subgrade soils collected from various locations in Victoria.
Based on the test results, a satisfactory empirical correlation was
found between the CBR and the physical properties of the
experimental soils.
", keywords = "California bearing ratio, fine-grained soils,
pavement, soil physical properties.", volume = "9", number = "2", pages = "136-6", }
