Faculty of Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering Department

Soil Laboratory

ENCE 311

Experiment #7

“CBR(California bearing ratio)”

Instructors :

Dr. Abdelhamid Mimi

Eng. Shuroq AL Jamal
Prepared By Group C:

ANAS AKRAM 1160382

AYA KAHALA 1171720

AHMAD SAHEM 1160074

HANNA SAFAR 1172052

ANAS RABBA 1151890

Section :2

Date of perform the experiment : 2/11/2019

Date of submitting the experiment:16/11/2019

Contents:
Introduction: .................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 3
Hypothesis: ................................................................................................................................. 3
Instruments: ................................................................................................................................... 4
Procedures: .................................................................................................................................... 5
Data and Calculation: ................................................................................................................... 6
Results and conclusion: ............................................................................................................... 11
Reference:..................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction:

Background

The California bearing ratio (CBR) is a penetration test for evaluation of the mechanical
strength of natural ground, sub grades and base courses beneath new carriageway
construction, and this measure was invented by the California Department of transport.

The laboratory CBR test measures the shearing resistance of a crushed aggregate/soil
under controlled moisture and density conditions. The test yields bearing ratio number
that is applicable for the state of crushed aggregate/soil as tested. The CBR is obtained as
the ratio of the unit stress required of effect a certain depth of penetration of the piston
(1935 mm) into a compacted specimen of crushed aggregate/soil at some water content
and density to the standard unit stress required to obtain the same depth of penetration on
a standard sample of crushed stone.

measured Load
CBR = × 100
Standard Load

The result of this ratio must be larger at 2.5mm penetration than 5 mm, unless the

experiment must be repeated.

The principal of CBR test involves by applying load to a small penetration piston at a rate
of 1.3 mm per minute and recording the total load at penetrations ranging from 0.64 mm
up to 7.62 mm.

1
 Fig (1) CBR work classification

Determine the CBR values for three compacted soil samples, the first sample is
compacted under 65 blows, the second one is compacted under 30 blows, and the third is
under 10 blows. The CBR values are obtained by conducting a load penetration test on
the samples, then determine the relationship between the dry unit weight of the soil
samples (𝛾) and CBR values. Where,

𝛾 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡
𝛾d =
1+𝜔%
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔 ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝜔% = *100%
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔 ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑑

2
 According to CBR values the types of soil can be determined as shown in table (1)

Table (1): types of soil according to CBR values

Purpose

To determine the California bearing ratio for three soil sample (which is compacted under

different numbers of blows) by conducting a load penetration test on them. Then

determine the relationship between the dry unit weight of the soil samples (𝛾) and CBR

values.

Hypothesis:

It is predictable that the test with 65 blows per layer scored highest resistance followed

by the one with 30 blows per layer and finally the sample with 10 blows. But it is

inevitable that there were errors while mixing and compacting soil specimens and

soaking them for four days, which explains having some error is present in the result.

3
Instruments:

CBR mold surcharge mass swell measure tool

CBR testing machine perforated plate hammer

4
Procedures:

1. Normally 3 specimens each of about 18 kg must be compacted so that their

compacted densities range from 95% to 100% generally with 10, 30 and 65

blows.

2. Weigh of empty mold

3. Add water to the first specimen (compact it in five layer by giving 10 blows per

layer)

4. After compaction, remove the collar and level the surface.

5. Take sample for determination of moisture content.

6. Weight of mold + compacted specimen.

7. Place the mold in the soaking tank for four days (ignore this step-in case of un

soaked CBR.

8. Take other samples and apply different blows and repeat the whole process.

9. After four days, measure the swell reading and find %age swell.

10. Remove the mold from the tank and allow water to drain.

11. Then place the specimen under the penetration piston and place surcharge load

of 10lb.

12. Apply the load and note the penetration load values.

13. Draw the graphs between the penetration (in) and penetration load (in) and find

the value of CBR.

14. Draw the graph between the %age CBR and Dry Density, and find CBR at

required degree of compaction.

5
Data and Calculation:
Table (2) : three samples data
#of specimen 1 2 3
#of molds 7 8 9
#of blows 65 30 10
Mass mold(gm) 4213 4257 4231
Volume mold (Cm3) 2305 2305 2305
Mass mold &soil(g) 9122 8962 8731
Mass cane(gm) 512
Mass can &wet soil(g) 6785
Mass can &dry soil(g) 6390
w% 6.71997278
wet density(g/cm3) 2.129718004 2.041214751 1.952277657
dry density (gm/cm3) 1.995613332 1.912682975 1.829346097

Sample calculation of specimen 1

𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 − 𝑑𝑟𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 6585 − 6360
𝑤% = = = 6.199%
𝑑𝑟𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 − 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 6390 − 512
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑑 &𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 − 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 9122 − 4213
𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 2.1297𝑔𝑚/𝑐𝑚3
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑜𝑓𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑑 2350
𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 129718004
𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 1.9956133𝑔𝑚/𝑐𝑚3
1 + 𝑤% 1 + 0.067199

6
 Table (3): Data for deformation load of samples

specimen 1 2 3 1 2 3
penetration Test Load

plunger(mm) Div. KN

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.25 18 10 5 0.459 0.255 0.1275
0.5 28 16 10 0.714 0.408 0.255
0.75 36 22 14 0.918 0.561 0.357
1 49 28 17 1.2495 0.714 0.4335
1.25 65 35 21 1.6575 0.8925 0.5355
1.5 82 40 24 2.091 1.02 0.612
1.75 100 45 27 2.55 1.1475 0.6885
2 117 50 30 2.9835 1.275 0.765
2.25 136 56 33 3.468 1.428 0.8415
2.5 160 61 35 4.08 1.5555 0.8925
2.75 181 65 37 4.6155 1.6575 0.9435
3 203 70 40 5.1765 1.785 1.02
3.25 230 74 42 5.865 1.887 1.071
3.5 255 79 44 6.5025 2.0145 1.122
3.75 280 83 46 7.14 2.1165 1.173
4 305 86 48 7.7775 2.193 1.224
4.25 332 89 50 8.466 2.2695 1.275
4.5 356 93 52 9.078 2.3715 1.326
4.75 381 98 54 9.7155 2.499 1.377
5 404 100 56 10.302 2.55 1.428
5.25 429 104 57 10.9395 2.652 1.4535
5.5 454 109 59 11.577 2.7795 1.5045
5.75 477 111 61 12.1635 2.8305 1.5555
6 500 114 62 12.75 2.907 1.581
6.25 522 116 63 13.311 2.958 1.6065
6.5 545 120 64 13.8975 3.06 1.632
6.75 567 121 65 14.4585 3.0855 1.6575
7 590 125 66 15.045 3.1875 1.683
7.25 611 128 67 15.5805 3.264 1.7085
7.5 632 131 68 16.116 3.3405 1.734
7.75 650 133 69 16.575 3.3915 1.7595
8 671 136 70 17.1105 3.468 1.785
From division to KN
at 0.25 for 65 blows
18*0.0255=0.459 KN

7
 Fig (2) Deformation vs load specimen 1(65 blows)

18

16

14

12

10
Load(KN)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Deformation(mm)

Fig (3) Deformation vs load specimen 2(30 blows)

3.5

2.5
Load(KN)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Deformation(mm)

8
 Fig (4) Deformation vs load specimen 3 (10 blows)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Load(KN)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

Deformation(mm)

Table (4): calculations for CBR

specimen 1 2 3

penetration(mm) 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5

standard load 13.24 19.96 13.24 19.96 13.24 19.96

(kN)
load(kN) 4.08 10.302 1.5555 2.55 0.8925 1.428

CBR (%) 30.81570997 51.61322645 11.74848943 12.7755511 6.740936556 7.15430862

For penetration=2.5m
𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 4.08
𝐶𝐵𝑅% = ∗ 100% = ∗ 100% = 30.8157099%
𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 13.24

9
 Table (5): Dry unit weight & CBR% value

#specimen 1 2 3
Dry unit weigh
1.995613332 1.912682975 1.829346097
(gm/cm3)
CBR%2.5mm 30.81570997 11.74848943 6.740936556
CBR%5mm 51.61322645 12.7755511 7.154308617

Fig(5)CBR (%) VS. Dry unit weight for 2.5 mm penetration

35

30

25

20
CBR%

15

10

0
1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2 2.05

Dry unit weightgm/cm3)

Fig(6)CBR (%) VS. Dry unit weight for 5 mm penetration

60

50

40
CBR%

30

20

10

0
1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2 2.05
Dry unit wight(gm/cm3)

10
 Results and conclusion:

Results:

#specimen 1 2 3
Dry unit weigh
1.995613332 1.912682975 1.829346097
(gm/cm3)
CBR%2.5mm 30.81570997 11.74848943 6.740936556
CBR%5mm 51.61322645 12.7755511 7.154308617

Conclusion:
The California bearing ratio test is penetration test meant for the evaluation of sub grade

strength of roads and pavements. The results obtained by these tests are used with the

empirical curves to determine the thickness of pavement and its component layers. This is

the most widely used method for the design of flexible pavement.

From the results obtained. It’s clearly noticed that with the increase of number of blows,

the void ratio decreases, CBR value increases as we seen in the table of results.

In this experiment, the CBR was calculated based on two values of penetration, which

was 2.5 mm and 5 mm. Generally, the CBR values for the 2.5 penetration mm have to be

greater than the ones for 5 mm penetration, from the results above it’s clear that 2.5mm

penetration lower than 5 mm penetration for Specimen 1, 2 and 3 which means that we

must repeat this experiment because the results were unaccepted

11
• Sources of errors:

1. The water content added wasn’t the exact O.M.C.

2. The soil wasn’t mixed homogenously with the water.

3. The fall wasn’t exactly 18” at all times.

4. Free falling of the hammer wasn’t always executed perfectly.

5. Not all layers were compacted the same due to the change in people doing the

compaction.

6. The compaction wasn’t uniformly distributed on each layer.

7. Imperfections in the reading of the gauge and time.

12
Reference:

• Das, Braja M., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 7th edition.

• Das, Braja M., Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual, 6th edition, University of

California State, 2002 print.

• Das, B. M. (2006). Principles of geotechnical engineering. Stamford,CT:

Thomson Learning College.

13