Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Literature review ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Dissemination of Knowledge............................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................10
References .........................................................................................................................................................11

Abstract
In this experiment we have determined the CBR value of a soil sample in accordance to BS 1377: 1975
using the equipment provided at the soil mechanics laboratory of the University of Mauritius. The CBR
value is an important index used in highway pavement design. This test evaluates the soil
strength of road subgrades, hence is an important factor in determining the thickness of the pavement.
From this test, the moisture content, the dry density, the penetration of the plunger as well as the force of
the plunger in kN have been recorded and calculated. We achieved results which were accurate and
complied to the standard graph shape.

Introduction
In simple words we are in this test determining the resistance of the subgrade. The California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) test is very important in the design of road pavements as the performance of a pavement is
dependent upon the underlying subgrade so it can be defined as the ratio of force per unit area required to
penetrate a soil mass with standard circular piston at a given rate, to that required for the corresponding
penetration of a standard material. The higher the CBR value meaning the stronger the sub grade, a less
thick pavement can be designed and, this gives a considerable cost saving. Conversely if CBR testing
indicates a low CBR value, then we must construct a thicker suitable road pavement to spread the wheel
load over a greater area of the weak sub grade in order that the weak sub grade material is not deformed,
causing the road pavement to fail.

Literature review
The California Bearing Ratio was developed by The California State Highways Department. This test
consists of causing a cylindrical plunger of standard area to penetrate a compacted soil sample. The force
required to cause the penetration is plotted against measured penetration, the readings are noted at regular
time intervals. This information is plotted on a standard graph, and the plot of the test data will establish
the CBR result of the soil tested.
The following table shows information on how the subgrade is related to the CBR value.
CBR VALUE

SUBGRADE STRENGTH

COMMENTS

3% and less

Poor

" Capping is required

3% - 5%

Normal

Widely encountered CBR range,

capping considered according to road category

5% - 15%

Good

"Capping" normally unnecessary

except on very heavily trafficked roads.

CBR test could be conducted in-situ as well as in laboratory. However both values could be different due
to softening from wet weather and trafficking from site vehicles. Capping layers are introduced to help
solve the problem of sub-grades wetting up and losing strength during construction by protecting the
subgrade from the worst of the damage caused by site traffic.

Methodology
Apparatus used
The following apparatus and tools were available:

Loading machine (Compression)

A CBR with a baseplate and collar

Surcharge weights of about 2 kg

Scales

Dial gauges for measuring penetration and force on plunger.

CBR mould wrenches

A tray to contain the soil of weight 6 kg.

A 2.5 kg metal rammer allowing a height of drop to 300

Filter paper,

Steel straightedge ,brush.

Oven and tins to determine moisture content.

Procedures
1. The soil sample used was sieved through 20 mm BS test sieves, prior to the experiment and
placed in the metal tray.
2. The mould, with baseplate fixed, was weighed empty and without the collar.
3. 600 ml of water was added to the 6 kg soil sample in the tray and mixed uniformly.
4. A sample of the soil was taken for the determination of the moisture content.
5. The collar was then fixed to the mould.
6. A filter paper was placed on the bottom of the mould before adding any soil.
7. Using a scoop, the mould was filled in five successive layers by giving 27 blows of the 2.5
kg metal rammer per layer at a height of 300 mm.
8. The uppermost layer was ensured to be compacted up to around 6 mm above the mould.
9. After compaction, the collar was removed and the surface of the mould was leveled using a
straightedge and the outside of the mould wiped off any residual soil grains using a brush.
10. The weight of the mould with the compacted sample was recorded.

11. The penetration test was to be carried out at both ends of the specimen.
12. The mould placed centrally on the loading machine and two surcharge weights of 2000g
were placed on the top of the mould.
13. The plunger was placed in the centre of the mould and first a force of 2.5 KN is applied and
the spring reading is returned back to zero to allow the sample to sit.
14. The machine was operated at a uniform rate and readings were recorded at regular intervals
of 0.25 mm up to a maximum penetration of 7.5 mm.
15. The plunger was then removed and the mould was removed and unloaded.
16. Some soil from the centre of the applied load was taken for determination of moisture
content.
17. The cavity left by the plunger was then filled again and compacted level to the top of the
baseplate using a straightedge.
18. The baseplate was then removed from the bottom end of the mould and fixed on the upper
end, with the mould and its contents inverted. The filter paper at the bottom was also
removed.
19. The testing procedures were then repeated for the other end of the mould.
20. A graph of force on plunger against penetration was then plotted and the CBR value
calculated.

Recommendations

Atleast 3 samples for the soil should be tested to improve the validity of the results.

The CBR test can be used as a method to evaluate the strength of a sub grade soil, sub base, and base
course material for design of thickness for highways. The results obtained by these tests can be used with
the empirical curves to determine the thickness of pavement and its component layers.

Results
Test : CBR (soaked)

Rammer blows: 27
Layers: 5
Mass of soil in tray = 5 kg
Volume of water added to soil = 600 cm3
Surcharge weight = 2000 g

Date : 16/03/2016

Moisture content before test

Tin
weight/g

Tin + wet
soil/g

Tin + dried
soil/g

Weight of
dry soil/g

Moisture
content (%)

29.50

Mass of
water in
sample/ g
3.26

15.44

32.76

14.06

23.19

14.82

29.75

28.11

1.64

13.29

12.34

15.19

30.55

28.88

1.67

13.69

12.20

Average moisture content (%)

Dry density calculations

Weight of mould empty/ g (nearest 5 g)

5549

Weight of mould + compacted sample/ g (nearest 5 g)

9363.5

Weight of compacted sample/ g

3814.5

Volume of mould/ cm

2305

Bulk density (Mg/m3)

1.65

Dry density (Mg/m3)

1.42

Bulk density, = weight of compacted sample volume of mould

= [3814.5 2305] = 1.65 Mg/m3
Dry density, d = [100 / (100 +w)]

where w = moisture content of soil (%)

= [100/ (100 + 15.91)] 1.65 = 1.42 Mg/m3

*1 division on force device is equivalent to a force of 0.0194 KN on plunger.

15.91

Penetration
(mm)
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
3.75
4
4.25
4.5
4.75
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7
7.25
7.5

Force Device Reading

(Division)
top
bot
0
0
37
48
68
74
96
94
117
111
133
127
148
141
160
153
172
166
183
177
194
187
204
197.5
213
207
222
217
231
227
240
236
249
245
257
253.5
265
262
273
271
282
279
290
287
298
295
306
303.5
313
311
321
319
328
327
335
334
342
342
349
349.5
356
356

Force Device Reading (kN)

top
0
0.7178
1.3192
1.8624
2.2698
2.5802
2.8712
3.104
3.3368
3.5502
3.7636
3.9576
4.1322
4.3068
4.4814
4.656
4.8306
4.9858
5.141
5.2962
5.4708
5.626
5.7812
5.9364
6.0722
6.2274
6.3632
6.499
6.6348
6.7706
6.9064

bot
0
0.9312
1.4356
1.8236
2.1534
2.4638
2.7354
2.9682
3.2204
3.4338
3.6278
3.8315
4.0158
4.2098
4.4038
4.5784
4.753
4.9179
5.0828
5.2574
5.4126
5.5678
5.723
5.8879
6.0334
6.1886
6.3438
6.4796
6.6348
6.7803
6.9064

Moisture content after test (TOP)

Tin
weight/g

Tin + wet
soil/g

Tin + dried
soil/g

14.91

20.99

19.85

Mass of
Weight of
water in
dry soil/g
sample/ g
1.14
4.94
Moisture content (%)

Moisture
content (%)

Mass of
Weight of
water in
dry soil/g
sample/ g
3.58
15.47
Moisture content (%)

Moisture
content (%)

23.08
23.08

Moisture content after test (BOTTOM)

Tin
weight/g

Tin + soil/g

Tin + dried
soil/g

15.43

34.48

30.90

23.14
23.14

Interpretation of Results
Graph of force on plunger/ KN against penetration/mm
8

Force on plunger/ KN

7
6

Force on top

Force on bottom
4
3
2
1
0
0

Penetration/ mm

According to BS 1377: 1975, since the graphs are smoothly concaved upwards, no correction is
to be provided to the graph.

Calculation of California Bearing Ratio

According to BS 1377: 1975,
The plunger resistance at 2.5 mm penetration is expressed as a percentage of 13.24 KN and that
5.0 mm penetration is expressed as a percentage of 19.96 KN.
CRB = force required on test soil force required for the same penetration on standard soil
TOP
Penetration (mm)

Force (KN)

Standard force (KN)

CBR value (%)

2.5

3.7636

13.24

28.43

5.0

5.4708

19.96

27.41

BOTTOM
Penetration (mm)

Force (KN)

Standard force (KN)

CBR value (%)

2.5

3.6278

13.24

27.4

5.0

5.4126

19.96

27.12

Maximum CBR = 28 % (nearest 1 %)

Discussion

The surcharge weights were used to stimulate the pavement thickness which would act as a
constraint over the soil beneath it.

The moisture content at the bottom is higher than that of the top since some of the water
might have seeped through to the bottom during compaction.

The maximum CBR value is 28 % (nearest 1 %) and it was found on the top part of the
mould at 2.5 mm penetration. Hence, this CBR value at penetration 2.5 mm is taken for
design purposes.

Precautions and limitations

The mould had to be cleaned thoroughly especially at the threads with a paint brush.

The soil sample was ensured to be uniformly compacted by distributing the blows evenly on
the surface.

The rammer was cleaned regularly during the compaction to remove the soil stuck in it which
could decrease the efficiency of the blow.

A filter paper is placed beneath the soil in the mould to prevent the soil from sticking to the
baseplate during compaction since the experiment had to be performed in the inverse
direction as well.

The moisture content is usually taken from samples few centimetres below the surface to
ensure no loss in moisture content and also it has to be weighed immediately.

Errors that might have contributed might be from evaporation of water taken from sample for
moisture content and non-uniform compaction.

Limitations
1. Mould had to be cleaned at threads with a paint brush with care so that no soil is loss from the
inside of the mould.
2. During compaction, the blows should be evenly distributed for a good compaction of the soil.
3. The rammer end had to be cleaned regularly as the soil sticks to it which can diminish the
compaction effort.
4. While removing the collar it had to be done carefully so that the compacted soil is not disturebed.
5. Filter paper had to be placed at the end of the mould to ensure that no soil sticks to the base of the
plate as the experiment had to be repeated by inversing the mould.
6. For the moisture content, the sample retrieved had to be immediately weighed so that minimum
water is lost in the atmosphere.

Dissemination of Knowledge
This laboratory experiment is about finding the CBR (California Bearing Ratio) , it is about finding the
relationship between the force applied against the penetration of a cylindrical plunger of standard cross
sectional area on a undisturbed or compacted soil.
In the laboratory, the sample had to be compacted before it was subjected to CBR testing. the soil sample
was first soaked and the moisture content of the soil sample was taken. The compaction of the soil was
made manually with the use of a rammer; this enables a standard weight to strike the compacting soil at a
standard height. The soil is filled in 5 layers an each layer is strike 27 times with the rammer. The mould
in which the soil sample was placed had initially be mounted with a collar and the latter had to be
removed and the excess soil was trimmed off carefully. The mould was then placed on a loading
apparatus which would apply load at constant rate, the loading apparatus if fitted with an dial gauge
which would give the penetration of the cylindrical plunger.

After the penetration a sample of the penetration soil was taken to determine the moisture content. This
experiment was repeated by inversing the base plate and the penetration was now being conducted t the
bottom of the mould. A graph of force applied against penetration is plotted.
The ratio of the force obtained from the penetration of 2.5 mm and 5mm to the force obtained from a
standard soil is the CBR.
CBR is important when it comes to the design of highway pavements, the greater value of the CBR the
higher the sub grade and the less thick the pavement, which can result in cost saving.

Health and Safety

1. Wearing of lab coats to avoid soil from getting on our clothes.
2. Wearing of gloves where necessary.
3. Wearing of suitable shoes.
4. During sample preparation care should be taken not to breathe the dust coming from the soil.
5. The rammer is quite a heavy apparatus, care should be taken while working with it.
6. The mould was also quite heavy, it had to be handled with care while weighing and while placing
it at the center of the of the apparatus.
7. The mould had to be mounted and dismantled, this had to be done carefully as the use of a
hammer was required.

Conclusion
With a CBR value of 28 %, we can say that the soil is poorly graded but can be used for the
subgrade.

Contribution of Team Members

Team Members
Raumoo Abhishek

During The Practical

Taking readings from measuring balances
Compaction of soil with rammer
Cleaning the rammer base
Taking readings of the penetration
Cleaning the mould

After The Practical

Methodology
Recommendations

Anusha Bheenuck

Preparation of soil sample

Measuring amount of water to be added to
soil
Compaction of soil with rammer
Cleaning the threads of the mould
Tabulating the readings
Taking weights of mould and tin
Adding the soil sample in layers inside the
mould
Taking weights of the mould after
compaction and penetration
Mounting of apparatus
Preparation of soil sample
Compaction of soil with rammer
Taking moisture contents
Centering the mould on the apparatus
Removal of soil sample after compaction and
penetration for moisture content

Results
Analysis
Discussions
conclusion

Pouskhar Balgobin

Canhye Roshan

Abstract
Introduction
Literature review
References
Limitations
Health and Safety
Dissemination Of Knowledge
Contribution of Team Members

References

Whitlow, R., 2001. Basic Soil Mechanics. 4th ed. Pearson Education

Capping information : http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/cbrtext.htm