Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is a measure of the relative
resistance of the unbound granular base/subbase materials and
subgrade soils to uniaxial penetration. In Essence, it is a
relative measure of the strength (stiffness) of the unbound
materials. The CBR can be measured either in the laboratory or
in the field. This test was developed by the California Division
of Highways around 1930s and was subsequently adopted by
many countries around the world. In Egypt, CBR is the major
input parameter used to characterize the strength of the
unbound materials and subgrade soils for pavement structural
design. Despite its simplicity, the CBR test is tedious and
laborious. Thus, many studies have been conducted to estimate
the CBR from the physical and compaction properties of the
materials. The most important relationships found in the
literature are the ones developed at Arizona State University
(1)
CBR
75
1 0.728( wPI )
wPI = P200 . PI
(2)
(3)
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE MODELS CORRELATING CBR AND INDEX MATERIAL PROPERTIES
No. of
Materials
R2
Remarks
0.84
75
CBR
1 0.728( wPI )
11
0.67
Equation
CBRu=17.009-0.0696(PI)-0.296(MDD)
+0.0648(OMC)
Reference
USA
[1]
South
Gujarat,
India
[2]
Error =
-2.5%
12
CBR=43.907-0.093(PI)-18.78(MDD)
-0.3081(OMC)
Country
Error =
-2.5%
48
N.A
N.A
India
[3]
57
N.A
Malaysia
[4]
N.A
N.A
Victoria,
Australia
[5]
NA
Osogbo,
Nigeria
[6]
0.53
N.A
N.A
[7]
N.A
0.69
N.A
[7]
N.A
South
Africa
[5]
N.A
Malaysia
[8]
OMC 5.73
No. of Blows
N.A
N.A
0.69
0.66
0.62
0.59
0.59
26
0.45
CBR=0.064(F)+0.082(S)+0.033(G)- 0.069(LL)
25
0.92
Fine Grained Soils
India
[9]
+0.157(PL)-1.810(MDD)-0.061(OMC)
CBR= -0.889(WLM)+45.616
N.A
0.979
Fine Grained Soils
N.A
[10]
where, WLM= LL (1 P425/100)
CBRu=(8.44-16.1PI)[Fi+488PI2-314PI+45]
Fine Grained Soils
24
N.A
Sudan
[11]
(Silty Clay)
CBR=(1.44-4.23PI)[Fs+264PI2-56PI-5]
CBR = California Bearing Ratio (soaked), %; D60 = Diameter at 60% passing from grain size distribution, mm; wPI = Weighted
Plasticity index; MDD=Maximum dry density; CBRtop=CBR values at top face of sample; CBRbottom = CBR values at bottom face of
sample; OMC=Optimum Moisture Content; GI=group index; CBRu = unsoaked CBR; LL = Liquid limit; PL = Plastic limit; PI=Plasticity
index; SG = Specific gravity; LSP = Linear shrinkage P200 = passing No. 200 U.S. sieve, %; GM = grading modulus; P425 = passing
sieve size 0.425 mm; F=Fines, %; S=Sand, %; G=Gravel, %; Fi=initial state factor; Fi=soaking state factor.
II. OBJECTIVES
This paper focuses on the development of a simple but reliable
and rational regression model to predict the CBR of the unbound
materials used for road construction projects in the Delta region in
Egypt.
30
Frequency, %
However the use of the literature models to predict the CBR for
materials different from the original materials used to develop
the model is risky and might lead biased estimates with
significant errors. For example, Datta and Chottopadhyay [15]
tried to use correlations given by Vinod and Cletus [16] and
Patel and Desai [2] using soil properties reported by Roy, et
al., [17] and found significant scatter and bias in the predicted
CBR. Thus, before adopting any correlation calibration of the
models based on local materials is essential. Otherwise a new
model should be developed based on the actual data.
25
20
15
10
5
0
CBR Value, %
CBR
MDD
(t/m3)
OMC
(%)
LL
(%)
P4
(%)
P200
(%)
D60
(mm)
Mean
36.39
1.85
10.51
23.94
87.31
1.96
0.77
Median
30.00
1.82
11.00
24.00
96.30
0.80
0.90
Mode
30.00
1.79
12.90
24.70
100.00
0.30
0.90
Standard
Deviation
19.84
0.18
2.40
3.96
22.20
2.18
0.34
Range
84.20
0.76
12.82
21.00
100.00
6.52
1.40
Minimum
10.80
1.47
1.18
12.00
0.00
0.08
0.10
Maximum
95.00
2.23
14.00
33.00
100.00
6.60
1.50
No. of
Data
Points
51
51
47
51
51
51
51
100
100
y = 85.668x - 121.92
R = 0.5481
y = -9.6872x + 43.807
R = 0.0252
80
60
CBR, %
CBR, %
80
40
20
60
40
20
0
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
0.5
1.5
D60, mm
R2
Se/Sy
Excellent
0.90
0.35
Good
0.70 0.89
0.36 0.55
Fair
0.40 0.69
0.56 - 0.75
Poor
0.20 0.39
0.76 0.89
Very Poor
0.19
0.90
Figure 3. Relationship between CBR and percent passing No. 200 sieve
Se
y
i 1
y = -0.5446x + 84.024
R = 0.3452
CBR, %
Sy
60
yi
y
i 1
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
2
adj
(4)
yi
(5)
n 1
S
R 1 e
S
y
2
np
100
80
n 1 Se
1
n p S y
(6)
(7)
(8)
REFERENCES
[1]
100
Goodness of Fit
Predicted CBR, %
80
60
Se/Sy
0.463
R2
0.785
R2Adj
0.776
[2]
40
[3]
20
[4]
Line of Equality
100
[5]
Figure 7. Laboratory measured and predicted soaked CBR using the proposed
model
[6]
20
40
60
80
[7]
[8]
[9]
df
2
SS
15624.29
MS
7812.144
Residual
48
4058.601
84.55418
Total
50
19682.89
F
92.39217
P-value
3.49E-17
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]