California Bearing Ratio Test Report

Highways & Traffic Engineering

Ivan Thomson
Olisanwendu Ogwuda
Group 5
BN0903A
11NOV2004
 Table of Contents

Introduction iii

Objective of the Experiment 1

Testing Procedures & Apparatus 2

Tables of Data, Calculations & Graphs 3

Discussion of Results 8

Conclusions 9

Bibliography 11

ii
 Introduction

This report is the result of the California Bearing Ratio laboratory test
carried out by Group 5 in the soils lab (Baxter building) at the University of
Abertay-Dundee on 28 OCT 2004.

This report is primarily concerned with the data gathered by Group 5.

However, as required, data and graphs from Group 4 and Group 6 are
included and discussed.

The members of Group 5 were:

Bruce Shearer
Ivan Thomson
Richard Todd

iii
 Objective of the Experiment

The objective of the California Bearing Ratio test is to determine the CBR
value for a soil under consideration as a pavement foundation. This value is
a percentage comparison with the standard crushed rock from California.
Thus this test is a comparison test.

The CBR value is used to quantify the response of the pavement foundation
and subgrade to loading1.

The standard crush rock from California values are as follows:

Standard Crushed Rock from California2

Load (kN) 13.24 19.96
Penetration
2.5 5.0
(mm)

It should be noted that this test was created by the California Division of
Highways in the 1930’s and as such is an empirical test and does not provide
any data regarding properties of the soil except as to compare its resistance
to penetration to the base crushed rock’s resistance to penetration.

The test remains in existence around the world due to its low equipment
requirements, easy of performance and history of use.

It is important to realize that the CBR test is but one step in the road
pavement foundation design process; the test allows the road
Engineer to design the capping layer (if needed) and the sub-base
Layer by determining the strength of the underlying soil.

By knowing this the Engineer can determine if this

strength is adequate to handle the desired road design
or if additional procedures need to be done to increase
this strength.
Map of the pavement
foundation design
process*.

1
University of Abertay Dundee, Sub grade and Unbound Pavement Foundation, pg 2.
2
University of Abertay Dundee, Subgrade and Unbound Pavement Foundation, pg 3.

1
 Testing Procedures & Apparatus

Apparatus:* Top -Typical CBR loading

Press.
Loading machine (a loading press) Middle – CBR moulds,
Prepared soil sample in CBR mould with collar wrenches, plungers, etc.
Surcharge weights Bottom – Diagram of a
CBR apparatus*.
Scales
CBR mould wrenches
Steel (or Brass) ramming rod
Misc. lab equipment such as a tray or bucket to contain the soil
*

Testing Procedure Carried Out:

Step:

1. Determined the mass of soil needed to fill

the mould by M = 23 .05 (100 +ω) ρd
calculation using = 23 .05 (100 +3.7)1.993
the formula: = 23 .05 (103 .7)1.993
= 45 .93865 (103 .7)
= 4763 .8 g ≈ 4.764 kg

2. Poured the sample into the mould whilst

ramming with the steel rod.
3. Placed filter paper and 50mm compaction plug on top of soil.
4. Place mould into compression machine and applied load until top of
plug was flush with the top of the mould collar.
5. Removed the sample from compression machine, compaction plug
and filter paper.
6. At this point the sample was prepared and ready to be placed into
the CBR loading press.
7. Mould was placed into CBR loading press and the surcharge weights
were placed on top.
8. Seated the CBR plunger on top of the soil sample and began the
process of applying the load at a rate of 1mm per minuet.
9. Recorded the dial gauge readings for every .25mm of penetration up
to a maximum of 7.5mm.
10.Removed the sample from the loading press, placed a top cap on the
sample, flipped it over and removed the bottom cap. This effectively
flipped the sample over without removing it from the mould.
11.Repeated the CBR test upon the same sample (except it was the
bottom instead of the top of the sample being loaded).

*
CBR Equipment, Pavement Design – Foundation Design
*
Google Images [online], Photographs of CBR equipment, http://images.google.com/images?
hl=en&lr=&q=CBR+test

2
 Tables of Data, Calculations & Graphs

CBR Test (group 4) M=23.05(100+w)P d

Mass of Sample (M) 5.317 kg

3
Dry Density (P d) 2.166 Mg/m
Moisture Content (w) 6.50 %
Conversion Factor 18.48

Axial Readings Readings (test Load (kN) (test Load (kN)

Deflection (test 1) 2) 1) (test 2)
0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 26 30 0.48 0.55
0.50 60 75 1.11 1.39
0.75 116 124 2.14 2.29
1.00 161 171 2.98 3.16
1.25 229 208 4.23 3.84
1.50 308 237 5.69 4.38
1.75 398 264 7.36 4.88
2.00 482 288 8.91 5.32
2.25 570 310 10.53 5.73
2.50 628 332 11.61 6.14
2.75 672 353 12.42 6.52
3.00 706 371 13.05 6.86
3.25 735 389 13.58 7.19
Corrected Values YES
3.50 764 405 14.12 7.48
Test 1 Test 2
3.75 787 419 14.54 7.74 Offset 0.625 0.000
4.00 808 434 14.93 8.02
New 2.5 Point 3.125 2.5
4.25 827 446 15.28 8.24
New 5.0 Point 5.625 5.0
4.50 843 459 15.58 8.48
4.75 856 472 15.82 8.72 For 2.5
5.00 868 485 16.04 8.96 Point Before 2.75 2.25
5.25 879 497 16.24 9.18 Point After 3.25 2.75
5.50 888 510 16.41 9.42 Average 3 2.5
5.75 897 522 16.58 9.65 Div Value 704 350
6.00 904 533 16.71 9.85 Load (kN) 13.00 6.14 L1
6.25 908 544 16.78 10.05 For 5.0
6.50 912 556 16.85 10.27 Point Before 5.25 4.75
6.75 917 565 16.95 10.44 Point After 5.75 5.25
7.00 921 575 17.02 10.63 Average 5.50 5.00
7.25 927 584 17.13 10.79 Div Value 888 485
7.50 933 593 17.24 10.96 Load (kN) 16.41 8.96 L2

100 × L1 100 × L2
CBR 1 (%) = OR CBR 2 (%) =
13 .24 19 .96
Whichever CBR is greatest
Test 1 Test 2
CBR 1 98.19 46.34 @25pen
CBR 2 82.22 44.90 @50pen
Max CBR 98.19 46.34 98.19
NOT Within 10%

3
CBR Test (group 5) M=23.05(100+w)P d

Mass of Sample (M) 4.764 kg

3
Dry Density (P d) 1.993 Mg/m
Moisture Content (w) 3.70 %
Conversion Factor 18.48

Axial Readings Readings (test Load (kN) (test Load (kN)

Deflection (test 1) 2) 1) (test 2)
0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 14 53 0.26 0.98
0.50 55 124 1.02 2.29
0.75 120 174 2.22 3.22
1.00 183 203 3.38 3.75
1.25 226 225 4.18 4.16
1.50 255 242 4.71 4.47
1.75 277 256 5.12 4.73
2.00 295 270 5.45 4.99
2.25 314 282 5.80 5.21
2.50 330 295 6.10 5.45
2.75 347 306 6.41 5.65
3.00 362 318 6.69 5.88
3.25 377 329 6.97 6.08 Corrected Values YES
3.50 391 339 7.23 6.26 Test 1 Test 2
3.75 406 349 7.50 6.45 Offset 0.254 0.000
4.00 420 359 7.76 6.63 New 2.5 Point 2.75 2.5
4.25 433 370 8.00 6.84 New 5.0 Point 5.25 5.0
4.50 447 380 8.26 7.02
4.75 460 389 8.50 7.19 For 2.5
5.00 473 398 8.74 7.36 Point Before 2.50 2.25
5.25 486 406 8.98 7.50 Point After 3.00 2.75
5.50 497 415 9.18 7.67 Average 2.75 2.5
5.75 510 423 9.42 7.82 Div Value 346 294
6.00 521 432 9.63 7.98 Load (kN) 6.39 5.45 L1
6.25 531 441 9.81 8.15 For 5.0
6.50 542 449 10.02 8.30 Point Before 5.00 4.75
6.75 552 455 10.20 8.41 Point After 5.50 5.25
7.00 561 466 10.37 8.61 Average 5.25 5.00
7.25 570 474 10.53 8.76 Div Value 485 398
7.50 579 482 10.70 8.91 Load (kN) 8.96 7.36 L2

100 × L1 100 × L2
CBR 1 (%) = OR CBR 2 (%) =
13 .24 19 .96
Whichever CBR is greatest
Test 1 Test 2
CBR 1 48.29 41.18 @25pen
CBR 2 44.90 36.85 @50pen
Max CBR 48.29 41.18 48.29

4
CBR Test (group 6) M=23.05(100+w)P d

Mass of Sample (M) 5.986 kg

3
Dry Density (P d) 2.284 Mg/m
Moisture Content (w) 13.70 %
Conversion Factor 18.48

Axial Readings Readings Load (kN) Load (kN)

Deflection (test 1) (test 2) (test 1) (test 2)
0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 3 3 0.06 0.06
0.50 5 5 0.08 0.09
0.75 6 7 0.11 0.13
1.00 7 10 0.13 0.18
1.25 8 12 0.15 0.21
1.50 10 15 0.18 0.28
1.75 11 18 0.20 0.33
2.00 12 21 0.22 0.39
2.25 14 25 0.25 0.46
2.50 15 30 0.28 0.55
2.75 17 35 0.30 0.65
3.00 19 38 0.34 0.70
3.25 20 45 0.37 0.83
Corrected Values No
3.50 22 51 0.41 0.94 Test 1 Test 2
3.75 24 56 0.44 1.03 Offset 0.000 0.000
4.00 27 62 0.49 1.15 New 2.5 Point 2.5 2.5
4.25 29 69 0.53 1.28 New 5.0 Point 5.0 5.0
4.50 31 75 0.57 1.39
4.75 34 81 0.62 1.50 For 2.5
5.00 36 87 0.66 1.61 Point Before 2.25 2.25
5.25 39 94 0.71 1.74 Point After 2.75 2.75
5.50 41 101 0.76 1.87 Average 2.5 2.5
5.75 43 107 0.79 1.98 Div Value 15 30
6.00 46 113 0.84 2.09 Load (kN) 0.28 0.55 L1
6.25 48 119 0.89 2.20 For 5.0
6.50 51 126 0.94 2.33 Point Before 4.75 4.75
6.75 53 131 0.98 2.42 Point After 5.25 5.25
7.00 55 137 1.02 2.53 Average 5.00 5.00
7.25 58 143 1.07 2.64 Div Value 36 88
7.50 60 149 1.11 2.75 Load (kN) 0.66 1.61 L2

100 × L1 100 × L2
CBR 1 (%) = OR CBR 2 (%) =
13 .24 19 .96
Whichever CBR is greatest
Test 1 Test 2
CBR 1 2.09 4.19 @25pen
CBR 2 3.29 8.05 @50pen
Max CBR 3.29 8.05 8.05

5
 CBR Test Results (Group 4) CBR Test Results (Group 5)
Load (kN) (test 1) Load (kN) (test 2)
Load (kN) (test 1) Load (kN) (test 2)

20.00 12.00

18.00

16.41 10.00
16.00
8.96
14.00
13.00 8.00
7.36
12.00

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

6.39
10.00 6.00
5.45
8.96
8.00

4.00
6.14 6.00

4.00
2.00

2.00
2.5 2.5
5 5.00
0.00 0.00

1.50

3.50

5.50

5.75

7.50
0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

6.00

6.25

6.50

6.75

7.00

7.25
0.00

0.25

0.50

1.00

1.25

1.50

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.50

5.75

6.00

6.50

6.75

7.00
0.75

1.75

2.00

3.00

4.00

4.25

5.25

6.25

7.25

7.50
Penetration (mm)
3.125 Penetration (mm)
0.625 0.008 0.254 2.754
5.625

CBR Test Results (Group 6)

Load (kN) (test 1) Load (kN) (test 2)

3.00

2.50

2.00
Load (kN)

1.61
1.50

1.00

0.66
0.55
0.50

0.28

0.00
0.50

1.25

2.00

2.50

4.00

4.75

5.50

6.25

7.00
0.00

0.25

0.75

1.00

1.50

1.75

2.25

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.25

4.50

5.00

5.25

5.75

6.00

6.50

6.75

7.25

7.50
Penetration (mm)

6
 CBR Test Results (All Groups)
G4 (test 1) G4 (test 2) G5 (test 1) G5 (test 2) G6 (test 1) G6 (test 2)

20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00
Load (kN)

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

22

23

24

25

26

28

29

31
19

21

27

30
1

Penetration (mm)

7
 Discussion of Results

Group 5;

The graph for Group 5 shows fairly close lines with only one line needing a
minor correction.

The CBR values were; Max CBR 48.29 41.18 48.29

This value (48.29) indicates that the soil was at the top end of a ‘Well
Graded Sand’ and is a moderately strong soil.

Group 4;

The graph for Group 4 shows a very large difference in the results between
test 1 and test 2 with one line needing a correction.

The CBR values were; Max CBR 98.19 46.34 98.19

This value (98.19) indicates that this soil is a ‘Well Graded Sand’ to a ‘Sandy
Gravel’ and is a fairly strong soil.

Group 6;

The graph for Group 6 shows a very large difference in the results and is
kind of inverted compared to the graphs of Group 5 and Group 4. This
inverted nature of the graph indicates there was higher moisture content in
the soil (13.7% - almost 4 times as high as Group 5) and shows that as the
load increased the soil offered more resistance. However, overall this soil
offered little as far as a Max CBR value.

The CBR values were; Max CBR 3.29 8.05 8.05

According to this value (8.05) this places the soil in the ‘Sandy Clay’ range
and is a weak soil.

8
 Conclusions

Group 4 and Group 5 had very similar results were the soil offered a decent
amount of resistance to the initial loading but that this resistance decreased
with increased loading. The soils for these two groups were moderate in
strength to fairly strong.

Group 6, however, had a soil that offered Figure 2 – Diagram showing the
little or no resistance to loading initially but direction of the force applied to the
that resistance rapidly increased as the load sample.
continued to increase. However, this soil was
significantly weak when compared to the soils FO RCE FO RCE
of the other two groups.
A B
The major difference between the soil for
Group 6 and the other groups appears to be due
to more of the voids in the soil being filled with A
B
water rather than air. Air is much more Test 1 Test 2
compressible than water and once the air was
pushed out (or at maximum compression) the
water began to offer rapidly increasing
resistance to loading.

The soil for Group 6 may have been much more representative of a soil in
moisture equilibrium.

The soils for Groups 4 and 5 would require less compaction than the soil for
Group 6 to achieve identical strengths.

Since the sample was compacted in the compacting machine only once and
was tested in the CBR machine twice (once on the A face {see figure 2} and
once on the B face) there will be different layers of compaction within the
test sample.

The samples appear to compress much more (have more penetration) on the
first test and less after the sample has been flipped over and retested on
test 2. This would indicate that there are many more voids in test 1 than
test 2 since many of the voids were removed during test 1.

Additional. After test 1 (and before test 2) the soil will be at it’s highest
compaction along the horizontal plane at point A and the amount of
compact will decrease until reaching it’s lowest compaction along the
horizontal plane at point B. In other words the compact will steadily
decrease from point A to point B.

After test 2 was performed the sample will have high compression along the
horizontal planes at both points A & B and lowest compaction in the center.

9
Test one face of the sample then testing on the opposite face simulates the
forces the sample will face since it will have a constant upward force upon
it as will as a constant downward force.

Additionally, the downward force will include periodic increases and

decreases in the force as vehicles move over it. This will have duel effects
on the sample as the upward force will increase to deal with the increase in
force in the downward direction. In real-life situations the sample will be
subjected to constant ‘squeezing and release’ time and time again at
random intervals as traffic moves over it.

10
 Bibliography

Craig, R.F. 2004. Craig’s Soil Mechanics. 7th ed. London: Spon. ISBN 0-415-
32703-2

Cover picture: CBR Testing Machine Picture: ELE International [online].

Available from: http://www.ele.com/geot/images/24-9150.jpg [Accessed
on 11 Nov 2004]

Google.com [online]. Available from: http://www.google.com [Accessed 28

Nov 2004]

Google Images [online]. Available from http://images.google.com/ [Access

28 Nov 2004]

Pavement Design [online]. Available from:

http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/roads/pavdes/pavfound.html
[Accessed 11 Nov 2004]

The Idiot’s Guide to Highways Maintenance [online]. Available from:

http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/cbrtext.htm [Accessed on 11 Nov
2004]

Napier University – School of Built Environment – Projects [online]. Available

from: http://sbe.napier.ac.uk/projects/compaction/chapter7a.htm
[Accessed on 11 Nov 2004]

University of Abertay Dundee. Unknown. Subgrade and Unbound Pavement

Foundation [Class information sheet provided by Mr. Ogwuda].

11