You are on page 1of 22

REPEATED LOAD CBR TESTING, A SIMPLE BUT EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR THE

CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE SOILS AND UNBOUND MATERIALS


A.A.A. Molenaar
Professor of Highway Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geo Sciences
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands
a.a.a.molenaar@tudelft.nl
tel: +31 15 2784812
Fax: +31 15 2783443

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

ABSTRACT
Almost all available design methods for low volume roads are empirical in nature and rely on simple input
parameters like CBR for subgrade, subbase and base materials. There is however a strong need to use
mechanistic based design analyses to check the empirical based designs on the consequences of e.g.
overloading, unexpected poor material quality etc. In order to be able to use such mechanistic design
systems successfully one needs to have information on the resilient and permanent deformation
characteristics of unbound materials in relation to the degree of compaction and moisture content. Such
information can be obtained through repeated load triaxial testing. These tests however, are costly and,
especially in developing countries, equipment needed to perform these tests is not always available. This
shows that there is a need for simple but effective characterization techniques allowing mechanistic based
design systems to be used. This paper shows that the repeated load CBR test is a powerful tool to perform
such a characterization for soils and unbound materials. After the introduction, a short description of the
test will be given first of all. Then results of a finite element analysis are presented that show that it is
indeed possible to obtain a fairly good estimate of an effective modulus Eeff by means of the repeated load
CBR test. This is supported by the discussion of how the results obtained by means of the repeated load
CBR test relate to the results that are obtained using repeated load triaxial testing. In conclusion it is stated
that the repeated load CBR test is a simple and quick test to obtain good estimates of an Eeff in cases where
repeated load triaxial data are not available and/or cannot be obtained. Also good correlations exist between
the Eeff as determined by means of the repeated load CBR test and the Mr obtained from repeated load
triaxial tests.

Word count: 3858 197 (list of figures and tables) = 3661


11 figures + 2 tables = 3250 equivalent words
Total nr of words: 3661 + 3250 = 6911

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

REPEATED LOAD CBR TESTING, A SIMPLE BUT EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF SOILS AND UNBOUND MATERIALS
A.A.A. Molenaar
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT
Almost all available design methods for low volume roads are empirical in nature and rely on simple input
parameters like CBR for subgrade, subbase and base materials. There is however a strong need to use
mechanistic based design analyses to check the empirical based designs on the consequences of e.g.
overloading, unexpected poor material quality etc. In order to be able to use such mechanistic design
systems successfully one needs to have information on the resilient and permanent deformation
characteristics of unbound materials in relation to the degree of compaction and moisture content. Such
information can be obtained through repeated load triaxial testing. These tests however, are costly and,
especially in developing countries, equipment needed to perform these tests is not always available. This
shows that there is a need for simple but effective characterization techniques allowing mechanistic based
design systems to be used. This paper shows that the repeated load CBR test is a powerful tool to perform
such a characterization for soils and unbound materials. After the introduction, a short description of the
test will be given first of all. Then results of a finite element analysis are presented that show that it is
indeed possible to obtain a fairly good estimate of an effective modulus Eeff by means of the repeated load
CBR test. This is supported by the discussion of how the results obtained by means of the repeated load
CBR test relate to the results that are obtained using repeated load triaxial testing. In conclusion it is stated
that the repeated load CBR test is a simple and quick test to obtain good estimates of an Eeff in cases where
repeated load triaxial data are not available and/or cannot be obtained. Also good correlations exist between
the Eeff as determined by means of the repeated load CBR test and the Mr obtained from repeated load
triaxial tests.

INTRODUCTION
Most of the design systems for low volume roads are empirically based. This implies e.g. that the strength
of the pavement is quantified according eq. 1.
SN = f (i=1i=n (aiDi), CBRsubgrade)
Where: SN
n
ai
Di
CBRsubgrade

(1)

= parameter quantifying the strength of the pavement,


= number of layers,
= strength coefficient of layer i,
= thickness of layer i,
= CBR value of the subgrade.

The traffic load is normally expressed in terms of number of 80 kN equivalent single axles. The strength
coefficient a is related to the stiffness of the material in case of bound materials or to the CBR value in
case of unbound materials.
Although the advantage of such methods is that they are based on vast practical experience, their
disadvantage is that it is very difficult to analyze e.g. the beneficial effects of using new types of material
for which no experience exists. Furthermore these methods can result in poor performing pavements
especially in cases where overloading is severe. In those cases the equivalent axle load concept is not good
enough to capture the damaging effect of these very high loads. Another aspect that should be considered is
the fact that stiffness is not the same as strength. An asphalt mixture e.g. can be given a high stiffness
(and so a high a value) when the mixture is overheated during production. Such a mixture however will
show a very poor cracking resistance.
All this indicates that there is a need to check the realism of designs made using an empirical
method by means of a mechanistic based method. The drawback of using these later systems however is

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

that information is needed about the resilient modulus of the granular materials used in the base and
subbase as well as their resistance to permanent deformation.
Although tests to obtain these mechanistic characteristics are well established and have become
common practice in many parts of the world, they are still considered to be too costly and too complex in
other parts of the world especially in developing countries. The question then is how the mechanical
characteristics of pavement materials can be obtained using a much simpler method that is available in
almost each and every road materials testing laboratory.
The repeated load CBR test as described in this paper (1), is believed to be such a simple method
for the characterization of unbound materials and soils. It is certainly not intended as a replacement for the
repeated load triaxial test. It is meant to be a test that allows obtaining reasonable accurate estimates of the
resilient and permanent deformation characteristics of soils and unbound materials in case triaxial testing is
out of the question.
It is believed that the test allows determining in a very simple way the effects of moisture content,
degree of compaction and gradation on the resilient and permanent deformation characteristics of unbound
materials and soils.
This paper describes the principle of the test as well how the results relate to the results of
repeated load triaxial testing.

REPEATED LOAD CBR TEST


The principle of the repeated load CBR test is very straight forward. A CBR test sample is prepared
according to the prevailing specifications (AASHTO, BS. EN etc.). Then the CBR test is performed until a
penetration of 0.1 is obtained. After that the sample is unloaded until the load is zero and then reloaded
again until the load that was needed to obtain the 0.1 penetration is obtained. This sequence is applied a
number of times until the elastic deformation reached a constant value. Normally that occurs after 50 load
cycles. The repeated load CBR test is performed on regular CBR testing equipment. This implies that it is a
displacement controlled test using a displacement rate of 0.05 inch/minute. Loading of the specimen is
obtained by pushing the button plunger down on the control unit. When the required load level is
obtained, the test is stopped and unloading is obtained by pushing the plunger up button. This implies
that the rate of unloading is the same as the rate of loading. The test is stopped when the load has become
zero after which it is restarted for the next loading cycle. Normally the load level is restricted to an initial
0.1 penetration to avoid excessive permanent deformation during the repeated load cycles applied after the
first load cycle to determine the CBR. The testing schedule is shown in figure 1.
The effective modulus Eeff is calculated from the elastic deformation as soon as that value has
stabilized. The term effective modulus is used because this value reflects the overall stiffness of the sample
rather than the resilient modulus of the material.
Two methods for calculating Eeff have been developed. In the first one an assumption is made
about how the load is spread over the height of the CBR sample. In that case an estimate has to be made
about the angle of load spreading. This angle is not known but a value of 450 is a reasonable assumption.
The second approach is based on the results of finite element analyses in which the material is
assumed to behave linear elastically. From these analyses an equation could be developed between the
elastic modulus of the material tested on one hand and the load and elastic deformation that were measured
on the other. This relationship is shown in equation 2 (2).
E = C1 (1 - C2) 0 a / wC3
Where: E
w
a
0

C1
C2
C3

(2)

= resilient modulus of the material tested,


= elastic deformation measured,
= radius of the circular load (radius of the plunger),
= stress under the plunger,
= Poissons ratio of the material tested,
= 1.797 if full slip along the wall of the mould is assumed, = 1.375 in case of full friction,
= 0.889 in case of full slip, = 1.286 in case of full friction,
= 1.098 in case of full slip, = 1.086 in case of full friction.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

When using equation 2 one has to make an estimate for . Normally a value between 0.35 and 0.45 is
taken. The choice depends on the type of material (fine grained soil or granular) and the moisture
conditions. Furthermore one has to decide whether full slip is assumed between the material and the walls
of the mould or full friction.
From the discussion presented it will be clear that each of the approaches to calculate the effective
modulus results in a different value. Later on it will be shown that these differences are not dramatic and
furthermore one should always realize that this test is not meant to determine an exact value for the
resilient modulus but a realistic value for the effective modulus. As it will be shown later on, such
reasonable estimates are indeed obtained.

Stress dependency
Soils and granular materials are known to be stress dependent; especially the level of confinement is of
importance. The confinement level in the repeated load CBR test is not known. It depends on the
magnitude of the applied load, the gradation and the degree of compaction. In fact the CBR test is a
complex triaxial test in which confinement develops in a more or less natural way which implies that it may
differ from test to test because of differences in gradation, compaction etc. Since the stress conditions in the
CBR test vary significantly over the height and width of the specimen, the resilient modulus will show
quite some variation over the specimen. This implies that the modulus obtained from the repeated load
CBR test is a specimen related characteristic rather than a material property. It is therefore called an
effective modulus (Eeff).
In order to obtain some information on the magnitude of the stresses that develop in the standard
CBR mould and as a consequence of that a variation of the resilient modulus over the specimen, finite
element analyses were made assuming that the tested material was a sand. From repeated load triaxial tests
it was known that the stress dependency of the resilient modulus could be described using equation 3. This
equation has shown not only to be applicable for the characterization of the resilient modulus of sands but
is also applicable for clays, laterites, and granular base course materials (3, 4, 5, 6).
Mr = k1 (conf / 0)k2 {1 k3 (1 / 1f)}k4
Where: Mr
conf
0
1
1f
k1 to k4

(3)

= resilient modulus of the sand [MPa],


= confining pressure [kPa],
= reference pressure = 1 kPa,
= applied vertical stress [kPa],
= vertical stress at which failure occurs given a confining stress = conf,
= material constants.

Some results of the analyses are shown in figures 2 and 3 (7). Figure 2 shows how the modulus changes
over the depth of the sample under the centre of the plunger while figure 3 shows how the modulus varies
with depth and distance to the centre of the plunger.
The figures clearly show that the modulus varies considerably over the mould. This implies that
the modulus as calculated from the repeated load CBR is an overall effective modulus. If however equation
2 was used to calculate the modulus of the sand from the calculated resilient deformation than an effective
modulus (Eeff) value of 246 MPa was obtained in the full slip case and a value of 224 for the full friction
case. It is believed that these values represent very well the magnitude of the resilient modulus as it occurs
over the major portion of the height of the specimen.
Size of the CBR mould
Base and subbase materials with a maximum grain size of 40 mm cannot be tested in the regular CBR
mould having a diameter of 152.4 mm. If these materials have to be tested using this mould, all particles
with a diameter larger than 22.4 mm should be removed and replaced by material in the 5.6 22.4 mm
range. This of course changes the characteristics of the material and therefore it is strongly advised to use a
larger mould with a diameter of 240 mm when materials need to be tested with a 0-40 mm gradation. A

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

limited study was done on the effect of the mould size and the magnitude of the applied load (8). A
recycled crushed masonry subbase material was used for this purpose. All tests were done using the
standard plunger with a diameter of 49.64 mm. implying that in the standard mould, the plunger diameter is
about 33% of the specimen diameter while in the large mould, the diameter of plunger is about 21% of the
specimen diameter. Some test results are shown in table 1.
The table clearly shows that both load level and changing the gradation has a significant effect on
the results. From this it is concluded that the large mould should be recommended for repeated load CBR
testing. Furthermore it shows that the repeated load CBR test allows determining some kind of stress
dependent behavior of the granular material.

FINE GRAINED MATERIAL


Until now most of the repeated load CBR testing has been done on fine grained soils including black cotton
clay, which is notorious for its swelling and shrinkage, laterites and a sand.
In the following sections attention will be paid to the results obtained on black cotton clay and
sand using the repeated load CBR test. Also attention will be paid to the relation between the repeated load
CBR and the repeated load triaxial testing.
Sand
Figure 4 shows the gradation of the sand that was tested, while figure 5 shows the moisture density
CBR relationship. Repeated load CBR tests were performed at different moisture contents and at different
degree of compaction levels. The loading rate was similar to the one used in the regular CBR test and a
load level resulting in a 0.1 penetration was used. An example of how the resilient and cumulative
permanent deformation developed during the test is given in figure 6. The effective modulus was calculated
from the resilient deformation after 50 load cycles using equation (2) (full friction case).
Also repeated load triaxial tests were performed and some of the test results are shown in figure 7.
The stress dependency of the resilient modulus was described using the Uzan equation (equation 4).
Mr = k6 ( / p0)k7 (d / p0)k8
Where: Mr

p0
d
k6 to k8

(4)

= resilient modulus [MPa],


= sum of principal stresses [kPa],
= reference stress = 1 kPa,
= deviator stress [kPa],
= constants.

When analyzing the data it appeared that the effective modulus as determined by means of the
repeated load CBR test was the same as the modulus as determined by means of repeated load triaxial tests
if those tests were done at a confining stress level of 20 kPa (9). This implies that the effective modulus
determined by means of the repeated load CBR should be adjusted if Mr values at other confinement levels
need to be predicted. This adjustment can be made using equation 5.
Mr, triaxial = 0.211 conf0.563 * Eeff,CBR

(5)

Where: Mr
= resilient modulus as would be obtained from a repeated load triaxial test [MPa],
conf
= confining pressure as used in the triaxial test [kPa] (> 20 kPa),
Eeff,CBR = effective modulus as determined by means of the repeated load CBR test [MPa].
Black cotton clay
A similar procedure was followed when testing black cotton clay. The gradation of this A-7-5 clay is
shown in figure 8. The material has a swell potential of 24% a liquid limit of 99% and a plasticity index of
54%. Figure 9 shows the moisture density CBR relationship. The figure clearly shows that this material

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

has a very low bearing capacity when wet. In order to give the material some strength, lime was added and
the samples were tested by means of the repeated load CBR test. Some results are shown in table 2.
Also repeated load triaxial tests were performed on the black cotton clay and some results are
shown in figure 10. No triaxial tests were performed on the lime treated material.
When the effective modulus values obtained from the repeated load CBR test were compared to
the resilient modulus values obtained by means of the repeated load triaxial test, the following relationship
could be developed.
Mr, triaxial = (0.04 * w + 0.006 * conf 0.05) * Eeff,CBR
Where: w
conf

(6)

= molding moisture content [%],


= confining pressure as used in the triaxial test [kPa].

The Eeff, CBR was also determined for different load levels and at different moisture contents. The results
obtained were then compared to values that would be obtained using the well known rule of thumb E = 10
* CBR. The results are shown in figure 11 and it appears that the Mr, CBR can be well predicted using the
rule of thumb at moisture contents higher than 30%.

CONCLUSIONS
From the material presented in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The repeated load CBR test is a simple and quick test to get a good estimate of the effective
modulus of fine grained materials and, most probably, of coarser grained unbound base and
subbase materials too.
2. The repeated load CBR test is not a replacement for the repeated load triaxial test. The modulus
obtained from he repeated load CBR test is in fact an overall representation of the stiffness of the
material in the CBR mould. It is not a material characteristic but a sample characteristic.
3. Nevertheless good correlations could be developed between the Eeff as determined by means of
the repeated load CBR test and the Mr determined from the repeated load triaxial test.
4. Although not discussed in detail, it can be stated that the repeated load CBR test is a useful tool to
evaluate the influence of e.g. gradation, degree of compaction and moisture content on the resilient
modulus and resistance to permanent deformation of soils and unbound materials.
5. A large mould should be used for testing coarser grained base and subbase materials.

REFERENCES

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

Molenaar, A.A.A. Characterization of some Tropical Soils for Road Pavements. In Low Volume
Roads 2007. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1989, Vol. 2, pp 186 193.
Washington DC, 2007.
Opiyo, T.O. A Mechanistic Approach to Laterite- based Pavements. MSc Thesis IP 047,
International Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering. Delft, 1995.
Bogan, G.L. Mechanical Behavior of a Clay Subgrade Material for Mechanistic Pavement
Design. MSc Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geo Sciences, Delft University of
Technology. Delft, 2007.
Manteaw, K.B. The Effect of Gradation on the Mechanical Behaviour of Laterite. MSc Thesis IP
051, International Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering. Delft,
1996.
Huurman, M. Permanent Deformation in Concrete Block Pavements. PhD Thesis, Delft
University of Technology. Delft, 1997.
Van Niekerk, A.A. Mechanical Behavior and Performance of Granular Bases and Subbases. PhD
Thesis, Delft University of Technology. Delft, 2002.
Van Niekerk, A.A. Finite Element Analysis of the CBR Test. Technical Memorandum UB-1, Road
and Railway Research Laboratory, Delft University of Technology. Delft, 2002.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

8.

9.

Osman, S.A. Searching for a Fundamental Characterisation of Unbound Materials using CBR
testing. MSc Thesis IP 046, International Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and
Environmental Engineering. Delft, 1995.
Bokan, G.L Repeated Load CBR and Cyclic-Load Triaxial Compression Tests Correlations to
determine the Resilient Modulus of a Subbase Sand for Mechanistic Pavement Design. Report CT
5050, Road and Railway Research LaborATORY, Delft University of Technology. Delft, 2007.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

List of figures and tables:


Figure 1: Load deformation pattern in a repeated load CBR test
Figure 2: Variation of Mr over the depth of the CBR mould under the centre of the plunger.
Figure 3: Variation of Mr over the width of the CBR mould at four depth levels.
Figure 4: Gradation of the tested sand.
Figure 5: Moisture density CBR relationship for the tested sand.
Figure 6: Development of the resilient and accumulative permanent deformation during a repeated load
CBR test.
Figure 7: Stress dependency of the resilient modulus of the sand as determined by means of repeated load
triaxial testing.
Figure 8: Gradation of the black cotton clay.
Figure 9: Moisture density CBR relationship for black cotton clay.
Figure 10: Example of repeated load triaxial test results obtained on the black cotton clay at optimum
moisture content.
Figure 11: Mr, CBR of the black cotton clay in relation to moisture content and load level.
Table 1: Effect of mould size, replacement and load level on resilient modulus estimated by means of the
repeated load CBR test.
Table 2: Mr values for black cotton clay as determined by means of the repeated load CBR test.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 1: Load deformation pattern in a repeated load CBR test

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 2: Variation of Mr over the depth of the CBR mould under the centre of the plunger.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 3: Variation of Mr over the width of the CBR mould at four depth levels.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 4: Gradation of the tested sand.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 5: Moisture density CBR relationship for the tested sand.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 6: Development of the resilient and accumulative permanent deformation during a repeated load
CBR test.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 7: Stress dependency of the resilient modulus of the sand as determined by means of repeated load
triaxial testing.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

black cotton clay


100

percentage passing

80

60

40

20

0
0,0001

0,001

0,01

0,1

10

sieve diameter [mm]

Figure 8: Gradation of the black cotton clay.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Density [kN/m3]

CBR [%]

Moisture- Density-CBR relation

60

Moisture content [%]

CBR as Molded

Density [kN/m3]

soaked CBR

Figure 9: Moisture density CBR relationship for black cotton clay.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Effect of Deviatoric stress on Resilient modulus at O.M.C (42 %) 3rd tes


90

Resilient Modulus [MPa] . . .

55.2 kPa
41.4 kPa

80

27.6 kPa
13.8 kPa
70

60

50

40
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Deviator stress kPa

Figure 10: Example of repeated load triaxial test results obtained on the black cotton clay at optimum
moisture content.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

.
Resilient Modulus [MPa]

Variation of Resilient Modulus with Moisture and stress level


260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moisture content [%]


Mr at 322 [kPa] or 0.6 kN
Mr=10*CBR
Mr at 660 [kPa] or 1.2 kN

Mr at [420 kPa] or 0.77kN


Mr at 0.1" penetration for each M.C

Figure 11: Mr, CBR of the black cotton clay in relation to moisture content and load level.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Material

Full scale
With
replacement
Without
replacement
Without
replacement
Note:

Mould
Diameter
[mm]
240
240

Max dry
density
[kg/m3]
1719
1704

Optimum
moisture
content [%]
5.0
4.8

Max
CBR
[%]
86
65

Eeff at
0.1
[MPa]
367
217

Eeff at
0.2
[MPa]
494
548

Eeff at
0.3
[MPa]
534
939

240

1710

4.4

70

450

577

573

152.4

1670

9.6

210

314

full scale is the full gradation including all the 0/45 mm particles
without replacement is the full gradation minus the particles larger than 22.4 mm
with replacement is the full gradation minus the particles larger than 22.4 mm; they are replaced
by particles in the 5.6 22.4 mm range.

Table 1: Effect of mould size, replacement and load level on effective modulus estimated by means of the
repeated load CBR test performed on crushed masonry.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Mr at OMC [MPa]

Mr prepared at
OMC after 4 days
soaking [MPa]

40

too low to be
determined

Mr + 5% lime
prepared at OMC
after 4 days
soaking [MPa]
40

Mr + 7% lime
prepared at OMC
after 4 days
soaking [MPa]
650

Table 2: Mr values for black cotton clay as determined by means of the repeated load CBR test.

TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

You might also like