100 International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 100-103

Moisture and Compaction Based Statistical Model for Estimating CBR of Fine
Grained Subgrade Soils
Dharamveer Singh
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd Street,
Room 334, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, 73019, Email: dvsinghchauhan@gmail.com
K. S. Reddy
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India, Email: ksreddy@iitkgp.ernet.in
Laxmikant Yadu
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Raipur, India, 492010,
Email: lkyadu.ce@nitrr.ac.in

ABSTRACT: The present study was undertaken to develop regression-based models for estimating soaked and
unsoaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for fine-grained subgrade soils. Five locally available soils were
collected from different zones of West Bengal. The samples were compacted at four different levels of compaction (i.e.,
50, 56, 65, and 75 blows) and at five different levels of moisture contents on dry and wet sides of an optimum moisture
content (OMC) of a soil (i.e., ± 2% OMC, ± 1% OMC, and OMC). A total of 100 samples were prepared in the
laboratory. Soaked and unsoaked CBR tests were conducted on each sample. Regression models were developed
considering different independent parameters namely, index properties of soils, degree of compaction, and moisture
content. The models were validated using a soil that was not used in the development phase of the models. Analyses of
the results show that the developed models give a reasonable estimate of CBR values. Furthermore, it was observed that
variation in the moisture content and compaction efforts has significant effect on the soaked and unsoaked CBR of a
soil.

KEY WORDS: CBR, Subgrade, OMC, Compaction, Fine-grained soils.

INTRODUCTION MATERIAL
A proper compaction of subgrade soil is necessary for Five fine grained subgrade soils were collected from
building long last lasting pavements (Huang, 1993). different zone of West Bengal (i.e., Kharagpur, Nachipur,
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is considered as an Narayangarh, Amarda). Preliminary laboratory tests, such
indication of strength of subgrade soil. Furthermore, CBR as grain size distribution, LL, and plastic limit (PL) were
value is used to estimate the resilient modulus of a soil. conducted in accordance with Indian Standard Codes (IS:
Recognizing the importance of this test, several prediction 2720). Table 1 summarizes index properties and
models were developed to estimate CBR value of a soil classification of the soils. Five soils: Kharagpur Reddish,
(Black, 1962; Agarwal and Ghanekar, 1970; Kin et al., Nachipur Reddish, Narayangrah Reddish, Narayangrah
2006; NCHRP, 2001). First, Black (1962) correlated CBR Blackish, and Amarda Blackish were classified as CL,
with grain size distribution of soil and plasticity index CL, CI, CH, and CH, respectively (Table 1).
(PI). A graph was developed to estimate CBR value using
liquid limit (LL) and PI of a soil. In another study, The classification of the soils was done as per Indian
Agarwal and Ghanekar (1970) developed a CBR model standard soil classification system (IS: 1498-1970). The PI
considering optimum moisture content (OMC) and LL of of soils varied from 14% to 44%. The moisture-density
soils. Similarly, the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement relationship for each soil was determined in accordance
Design Guide (NCHRP, 2001) proposed a CBR model with IS 2720-Part 8: 1983 (Table 1). OMC and MDD
based on soil passing on a 75 micron sieve and PI. values of the soils vary from 7.8% to 15.5%; and from
Recently, Kin et al. (2006) developed a model for 17.22 to 20.90 kN/m3, respectively.
Malaysian soils. A total of 65 different soils samples of
coarse and fine grained soils were collected. The CBR Table 1 Properties of Different Types of Soils
was corrected with OMC and maximum dry density
(MDD) of soils. All above mentioned models are based on Soil Soil LL PI Soil OMC MDD
Sample Source (%) (%) Type (%) (kN/m3)
the index properties of soil, MDD, and OMC of a soil. So Kharagpur
far, limited studies have been conducted to consider the CL-1 26 14 CL 7.8 20.90
Reddish
effect of degree of compaction (i.e., no. of blows) and CL-2
Nachipur
33 19 CL 11.2 18.98
moisture content on CBR. Reddish
Narayangarh
CI 46 34 CI 15.5 17.62
Reddish
OBJECTIVE Narayangarh
The main objective of the present study was to develop CH-1 65 44 CH 16.0 17.22
Blackish
regression-based models for estimating CBR value of fine CH-2
Amarda
55 36 CH 16.5 17.49
grained subgrade soils, considering degree of compaction, Blackish
moisture content, and various index properties of a soil.

#020410125 Copyright © 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved

 Moisture and Compaction Based Statistical Model for Estimating CBR of Fine Grained Subgrade Soils 101

SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND TESTING where,

The modified proctor procedure was used to prepare CBR
samples. The compaction efforts used in present study
were: 50, 56, 65, and 75 blows, while the moisture levels
were ± 2% OMC, ± 1% OMC, and OMC. Each CBR
sample was compacted in five layers of soil using
predetermined number of blows and water content. A total
of 100 soil samples were prepared for CBR testing (20
samples each soil x 5 soils). The dry density of the
compacted sample was estimated using bulk density and
moisture content of the sample. The degree of compaction
was calculated as ratio of measured dry density and MDD.
Furthermore, actual moisture content (MC) of each
compacted sample was determined to check any
variability from the pre-determined water content.
Unsoaked and soaked CBR values of the compacted
sample was determined in accordance with IS 2720-Part
16:1987.
DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS
Soaked and unsoaked CBR models were developed
considering various independent variables: OMC, MC,
Density, MDD, PL, LL, and PI. A commercial software,
called Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)
was used to develop the models. A total of four soils (i.e.
CL-1, CL-2, CI, and CH-2) (Table 1) were used to
SCBR = Soaked CBR (%).
VALIDATION OF MODELS
The developed models (Equations (1) and (2)) were
validated using CH-1 soil (Table 1). This soil was not
used in the development phase of the models. In addition,
models were checked using a combined database of all the
soils. Figure 1 shows the graph between the predicted and
the measured unsoaked CBR values (R2= 0.910).
Similarly, Figure 2 shows the plot of the measured and the
predicted soaked CBR values (R2=0.70). The model
predictions show a good agreement with the measured
CBR values.
The developed models were further checked for all the
soils. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the
predicted and the measured unsoaked CBR values (R2 =
0.750). Similarly, Figure 4 depicts the graph of the
predicted and the measured soaked CBR values for all the
soils (R2 = 0.60).
50
y = 1.036 x
R2 = 0.91
40

develop the models. The outliers from the data were

Predicted UCBR (%)

eliminated using a box plot method. The presence of 30

collinearity among the independent variables was
measured using Pearson’s correlation (Rahim, 2005). It
was found that percentage passing on a 75 micron sieve is 20

highly correlated with LL (Pearson correlation = 0.515,

p<0.001). Similarly, LL and PL are highly correlated 10
(Pearson correlation = 0.846, p<0.001). Therefore, only
PL of the soils was considered for developing the
0
regression models. The MC and density values were 0 10 20 30 40 50
normalized by dividing them with OMC and MDD, Measured UCBR (%)
respectively. Fig. 1 The Measured and the Predicted Unsoaked CBR
The regression models developed for unsoaked CBR and value for CH-1 Soil
soaked CBR are shown in Equation (1) and Equation (2),
respectively. The model developed for unsoaked CBR has 6
correlation coefficient (R2) = 0.70, indicating a reasonable y = 0.40 x
fit to the data. A fair correlation was obtained for a model 5 R2 = 0.70
developed for soaked CBR (R2 = 0.48).
Unsoaked CBR Model
Predicted SCBR (%)

4
 MC   Density 
UCBR = 104.71 − 0.671 ×  × 100  + 0.239 ×  × 100  − 2.004 × PL
 OMC   MDD  (1)
(R2=0.70) 3

where,
UCBR = Unsoaked CBR (%), 2

MC = Moisture Content (%),

OMC = Optimum Moisture Content (%), 1

Density = Measured or calculated density (gm/cc),

MDD = Maximum Dry Density (gm/cc), and 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
PL = Plastic Limit of soil (%).
Measured SCBR (%)

Soaked CBR Model

 MC   Density
SCBR = −2.213 − 0.055 ×  × 100  + 0.328 × 
 OMC   MDD
(R2=0.48)

Fig. 2 The Measured and the Predicted Soaked CBR
× 100  − 1.147 × PL
 (2) values for CH-1 Soil

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 100-103
 102 Dharamveer Singh, K. S. Reddy, Laxmikant Yadu

80
y = 0.99 x Effect of Degree of Compaction
R2 = 0.75

60
At constant moisture content, as compaction effort
increases the unsoaked CBR values also increases (Figure
Predicted UCBR (%)

5). For example, at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC),

40 increase in compaction effort from 80% to 90% would
result in 6% increase in unsoaked CBR value. Similarly,
at 110% of OMC (wet side of OMC), increase in degree
20 of compaction from 80% to 100%, resulted in
approximately 18% increase in unsoaked CBR (Figure 5).

0
0 20 40 60 80 70
Measured UCBR (%) 80 % MDD
60 90 % MDD
100 % MDD
Fig. 3 The Measured and the Predicted Unsoaked CBR 50
Values for all Soils

UCBR (%)
40

20
y = 1.01 x 30
R2 = 0.60
20
15
Predicted SCBR (%)

10

0
10
70 80 90 100 110 120
(MC/OMC) (%)

5
Fig. 5 Variation of Unsoaked CBR value with
Compaction and Moisture Content for CH-1 Soil
16
0 80 % MDD
0 5 10 15 20 14 90 % MDD
100 % MDD
Measured SCBR (%) 12

Fig. 4 The Measured and the Predicted Soaked CBR 10

SCBR (%)

Values for all Soils 8

VARIATION OF CBR WITH MOISTURE AND 6

COMPACTION: 4

The developed models (Equations (1) and (2)) were used 2

to evaluate the effect of moisture content and the degree 0

of compaction on CBR. For brevity, only soil 70 80 90 100 110 120
Narayangarh Blackish (i.e., CH-1) (Table 1) soil was (MC/OMC) (%)
selected. Fig. 6 Variation of Soaked CBR value with Compaction
Moisture Content for CH-1 Soil
Unsoaked CBR
Soaked CBR
Effect of Moisture Content
Effect of Moisture Content
It can be seen from Figure 5 that as moisture content Figure 6 shows the effect of moisture and the degree of
increases the unsoaked CBR value of soils decreases. For compaction on soaked CBR. It is evident that as moisture
example, at a constant degree of compaction say 90%, content increases, the soaked CBR values of soil
sample prepared at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC) decreases for each level of compaction. For example, at a
resulted approximately 19% higher unsoaked CBR constant degree of compaction say 90%, a sample
compared to sample compacted at OMC. Similarly, if soil prepared at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC) resulted
is compacted at 120% of OMC (wet side of OMC), the approximately 6.8% higher soaked CBR compared to soil
unsoaked CBR value decreases approximately 38% compacted at OMC. Similarly, if a sample is compacted at
compared to CBR value at OMC. 120% of OMC (wet side of OMC), the soaked CBR value

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 100-103
 Moisture and Compaction Based Statistical Model for Estimating CBR of Fine Grained Subgrade Soils
decreases approximately 13.6% compared to soaked CBR
value at OMC (Figure 6).
Effect of Degree of Compaction
At constant moisture content, as compaction effort
increases, the soaked CBR values also increases (Figure
6). For example, at 90% of OMC (dry side of OMC),
increase in compaction effort from 80% to 90% would
result in 62% increase in soaked CBR value. Similarly, at
110% of OMC (wet side of OMC), an increase in degree
of compaction from 80% to 100%, would result
approximately 156% increase in soaked CBR (Figure 6).
Effect of compaction on soaked CBR is more dominant
compared to unsoaked CBR.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present study was undertaken to develop regression-
based models to estimate soaked and unsoaked CBR
values of fine grained subgrade soils. A total of 100
samples were tested for soaked and unsoaked CBR values
for five different soils. Regression-based models were
developed and validated. A good agreement was observed
between the measured and the predicted CBR values.
Furthermore, it was observed that the CBR value, both
soaked and unsoaked significantly affected by change in
moisture content and compaction effort. The effect of both
moisture and compaction effort is more significant on the
soaked CBR value. It is recommended that the developed
regression models be validated on large range of soils.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 100-103
103
REFERENCES
[1] Agarwal, K.B. and Ghanekar, K.D. (1970). Prediction
of CBR from Plasticity Characteristics of Soil.
Proceeding of 2nd South-east Asian Conference on
Soil Engineering, Singapore, June 11-15, 1970,
Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology, 571-576.
[2] Black, W.P.M. (1962). A Method of Estimating the
CBR of Cohesive Soils from Plasticity Data.
Geotechnique, Vol. 12: 271-272.
[3] Huang, Y.H., Pavement Analysis and Design, 1993
(Prentice-Hill, Inc. New Jersey).
[4] Kin, M.W., California Bearing Ratio Correlation
With Soil Index Properties. Master of Engineering
Thesis, University of Technology, Malaysia, 2006.
[5] National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(2001). Guide for Mechanistic and Empirical- Design
for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.
[6] Rahim, A.M. Subgrade soil index properties to
estimate resilient modulus for pavement design. The
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol.
6, No. 3, September 2005, 163-169.