Você está na página 1de 14

California Bearing Ratio Test Report

Highways & Traffic Engineering

Ivan Thomson
Olisanwendu Ogwuda Group 5 BN0903A 11NOV2004

Table of Contents

Introduction Objective of the Experiment Testing Procedures & Apparatus Tables of Data, Calculations & Graphs Discussion of Results Conclusions Bibliography

iii 1 2 3 8 9 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 13.24 19.96 2.5 5.0

Load (kN) Penetration (mm)

It should be noted that this test was created by the California Division of Highways in the 1930s 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 rocks 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 2

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

Testing Procedures & Apparatus

Apparatus:*

Loading machine (a loading press) Prepared soil sample in CBR mould with collar Surcharge weights Scales CBR mould wrenches Steel (or Brass) ramming rod Misc. lab equipment such as a tray or bucket to contain the soil
*

Top -Typical CBR loading Press. Middle CBR moulds, wrenches, plungers, etc. Bottom Diagram of a CBR apparatus*.

Testing Procedure Carried Out: Step: 1. Determined the mass of soil needed to fill the mould by M = 23 .05 (100 +) d 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

Tables of Data, Calculations & Graphs

CBR Test (group 4) Mass of Sample (M) Dry Density (P d) Moisture Content (w) Conversion Factor

M=23.05(100+w)P

5.317 kg 3 2.166 Mg/m 6.50 % 18.48

Axial Deflection 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.25 7.50

Readings (test 1) 0 26 60 116 161 229 308 398 482 570 628 672 706 735 764 787 808 827 843 856 868 879 888 897 904 908 912 917 921 927 933

Readings (test 2) 0 30 75 124 171 208 237 264 288 310 332 353 371 389 405 419 434 446 459 472 485 497 510 522 533 544 556 565 575 584 593

Load (kN) (test 1) 0.00 0.48 1.11 2.14 2.98 4.23 5.69 7.36 8.91 10.53 11.61 12.42 13.05 13.58 14.12 14.54 14.93 15.28 15.58 15.82 16.04 16.24 16.41 16.58 16.71 16.78 16.85 16.95 17.02 17.13 17.24

Load (kN) (test 2) 0.00 0.55 1.39 2.29 3.16 3.84 4.38 4.88 5.32 5.73 6.14 6.52 6.86 7.19 Corrected Values 7.48 Test 1 7.74 Offset 8.02 New 2.5 Point 8.24 New 5.0 Point 8.48 8.72 For 2.5 8.96 Point Before 9.18 Point After 9.42 Average 9.65 Div Value 9.85 Load (kN) 10.05 For 5.0 10.27 Point Before 10.44 Point After Average 10.63 Div Value 10.79 Load (kN) 10.96

YES Test 2 0.625 3.125 5.625 0.000 2.5 5.0

2.75 3.25 3 704 13.00 5.25 5.75 5.50 888 16.41

2.25 2.75 2.5 350 6.14 L1 4.75 5.25 5.00 485 8.96 L2

CBR 1 (% ) =

100 L1 13 .24

OR

CBR

(% ) =

100 L2 19 .96
@25pen @50pen 98.19

CBR 1 CBR 2

Whichever CBR is greatest Test 1 Test 2 98.19 46.34 82.22 44.90

Max CBR 98.19 NOT Within 10%

46.34

CBR Test (group 5) Mass of Sample (M) Dry Density (P d) Moisture Content (w) Conversion Factor

M=23.05(100+w)P

4.764 kg 3 1.993 Mg/m 3.70 % 18.48

Axial Deflection 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.25 7.50

Readings (test 1) 0 14 55 120 183 226 255 277 295 314 330 347 362 377 391 406 420 433 447 460 473 486 497 510 521 531 542 552 561 570 579

Readings (test 2) 0 53 124 174 203 225 242 256 270 282 295 306 318 329 339 349 359 370 380 389 398 406 415 423 432 441 449 455 466 474 482

Load (kN) (test 1) 0.00 0.26 1.02 2.22 3.38 4.18 4.71 5.12 5.45 5.80 6.10 6.41 6.69 6.97 7.23 7.50 7.76 8.00 8.26 8.50 8.74 8.98 9.18 9.42 9.63 9.81 10.02 10.20 10.37 10.53 10.70

Load (kN) (test 2) 0.00 0.98 2.29 3.22 3.75 4.16 4.47 4.73 4.99 5.21 5.45 5.65 5.88 6.08 6.26 6.45 6.63 6.84 7.02 7.19 7.36 7.50 7.67 7.82 7.98 8.15 8.30 8.41 8.61 8.76 8.91

Corrected Values Test 1 Offset New 2.5 Point New 5.0 Point For 2.5 Point Before Point After Average Div Value Load (kN) For 5.0 Point Before Point After Average Div Value Load (kN) 0.254 2.75 5.25

YES Test 2 0.000 2.5 5.0

2.50 3.00 2.75 346 6.39 5.00 5.50 5.25 485 8.96

2.25 2.75 2.5 294 5.45 L1 4.75 5.25 5.00 398 7.36 L2

CBR 1 (% ) =

100 L1 13 .24

OR

CBR

(% ) =

100 L2 19 .96
@25pen @50pen 48.29

CBR 1 CBR 2

Whichever CBR is greatest Test 1 Test 2 48.29 41.18 44.90 36.85

Max CBR

48.29

41.18

CBR Test (group 6) Mass of Sample (M) Dry Density (P d) Moisture Content (w) Conversion Factor

M=23.05(100+w)P

5.986 kg 3 2.284 Mg/m 13.70 % 18.48

Axial Deflection 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.25 7.50

Readings (test 1) 0 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 17 19 20 22 24 27 29 31 34 36 39 41 43 46 48 51 53 55 58 60

Readings (test 2) 0 3 5 7 10 12 15 18 21 25 30 35 38 45 51 56 62 69 75 81 87 94 101 107 113 119 126 131 137 143 149

Load (kN) (test 1) 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.34 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.66 0.71 0.76 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.98 1.02 1.07 1.11

Load (kN) (test 2) 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.18 0.21 0.28 0.33 0.39 0.46 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.83 0.94 1.03 1.15 1.28 1.39 1.50 1.61 1.74 1.87 1.98 2.09 2.20 2.33 2.42 2.53 2.64 2.75

Corrected Values Test 1 Offset New 2.5 Point New 5.0 Point For 2.5 Point Before Point After Average Div Value Load (kN) For 5.0 Point Before Point After Average Div Value Load (kN) 0.000 2.5 5.0

No Test 2 0.000 2.5 5.0

2.25 2.75 2.5 15 0.28 4.75 5.25 5.00 36 0.66

2.25 2.75 2.5 30 0.55 L1 4.75 5.25 5.00 88 1.61 L2

CBR 1 (%) =

100 L1 13 .24

OR

CBR 2 (%) =

100 L2 19 .96
@25pen @50pen 8.05

Whichever CBR is greatest Test 1 Test 2 CBR 1 2.09 4.19 CBR 2 3.29 8.05 Max CBR

3.29

8.05

CBR Test Results (Group 4)


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

CBR Test Results (Group 5)


Load (kN) (test 1) 12.00 Load (kN) (test 2)

20.00 18.00 16.41 16.00 14.00 13.00 Load (kN) Load (kN) 12.00 10.00 8.96 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 2.5 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.25 1.50 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.25 3.50 3.75 0.75 1.75 2.00 3.00

10.00 8.96 8.00 7.36 6.39 6.00 5.45

6.14

4.00

2.00 2.5 5 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.50 6.75 7.00 4.00 4.25 5.25 6.25 7.25 7.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 5.00 3.50 5.50 5.75 7.50 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

0.625

3.125 Penetration (mm)

5.625

0.008 0.254

2.754

Penetration (mm)

CBR Test Results (Group 6)


Load (kN) (test 1) 3.00 Load (kN) (test 2)

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)

CBR Test Results (All Groups)


G4 (test 1) 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 Penetration (mm) 31 19 21 27 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 G4 (test 2) G5 (test 1) G5 (test 2) G6 (test 1) G6 (test 2)

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.

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 FO RCE FO RCE significantly weak when compared to the soils of the other two groups. 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 water rather than air. Air is much more compressible than water and once the air was pushed out (or at maximum compression) the water began to offer rapidly increasing resistance to loading.

A B

B A
Test 1

Test 2

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 its highest compaction along the horizontal plane at point A and the amount of compact will decrease until reaching its 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.

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. Craigs Soil Mechanics. 7th ed. London: Spon. ISBN 0-41532703-2 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 Idiots 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