FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT

ENVIRONMENTAL
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

TRANSPORTATION LABORATORY (BFC32501)

FULL REPORT
Course Code BFC32501
Experiment Title CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST
Date 30/5/2021
Section 5
Group 2
Members of Group 1. ZUL FADHLI BIN SUHAIMI (CF190082)
2. MUHAMMAD SYAMIL BIN MOHD NAZRI (CF190023)
3. MUHAMMAD SYAZWAN BIN SHAMSHOL ANUAR
(CF190133)
4. MUHAMMAD FUAD ADDIB POK ADI @ FUADTAYADI
(CF190054)
5. MUHAMMAD HAZIM NASRULLAH BIN MOHD IDRUS
(CF190109)
Lecturer/Instructor Prof. Madya Dr. MUNZILAH BINTI MD. ROHANI
Element 1 2 3 4 5 pt wt point
Student submit Student submit the Student submit the Student submit the Student submit the
Attendance
the report report report report report
& 1
1 day late than 12 hours late than 6 hours late than due 2 hours late than due
Discipline
due date due time time time early or on time
Purpose is not Purpose is Purpose is clearly
identified; somewhat vague; Purpose is identified; Purpose is identified; identified;
Relevant
Aim &
variables are Relevant variables Relevant variables are Relevant variables Relevant variables 2
Purpose
not described are not described described are described are described
in somewhat unclear
manner
Trends/patterns
are not Trends/patterns are Trends/patterns are Trends/patterns are Trends/patterns are
analysed; not analysed; logically analysed logically analysed; logically analysed;
Questions are Questions are
Data Questions are Answer to questions answered in answered thoroughly
not answered; are incomplete; for the most part; complete and 7
Analysis
Analysis is not Analysis is Questions are in complete
relevant inconsistent answered in complete sentences; sentences;
sentences; Analysis is thoughtful Analysis is insightful
Analysis is general
Questions are Answer to questions Answer to questions Answer to questions Answer to questions
not answered are incomplete are complete are accurate are accurate
with little reflection and shows whether and shows whether and shows whether
on the lab results the results support the results support the results support
the hypothesis the hypothesis; the hypothesis;
Discussion 8
Possible sources of Possible sources of
error are identified error are identified
and what was
learned from the lab
is stated clearly
The report The report
submitted is submitted is The report submitted The report submitted The report submitted
Participation inorganised somewhat is organised is organised and is organised, 2
structured and easy
organised structured to read
NAME OF LECTURER: SIGNATURE: DATE: TOTAL SCORE:
 STUDENT CODE
OF ETHIC(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own

effort. I also admit notto receive or give any help during the
preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

UL FADHLI

Student Signature

Name : ZUL FADHLI BIN SUHAIMI

Matric No. : CF190082

Date : 30/05/2021
 STUDENT CODE
OF ETHIC(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own

effort. I also admit notto receive or give any help during the
preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

SYAMIL


Student Signature

Name : MUHAMMAD SYAMIL BIN MOHD NAZRI

Matric No. : CF190023

Date : 30/05/2021
 STUDENT CODE
OF ETHIC(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own

effort. I also admit notto receive or give any help during the
preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

SYAZWAN

Student Signature

Name : MUHAMMAD SYAZWAN BIN SHAMSHOL ANUAR

Matric No. : CF190133

Date : 23/05/2021
 STUDENT CODE
OF ETHIC(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own

effort. I also admit notto receive or give any help during the
preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

FUAD ADDIB

Student Signature

Name : MUHAMMAD FUAD ADDIB BIN POK ADI @

FUADTAYADI

Matric No. : CF190054

Date : 30/05/2021
 STUDENT CODE
OF ETHIC(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own

effort. I also admit notto receive or give any help during the
preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.


Student Signature

Name : MUHAMMAD HAZIM NASRULLAH BIN MOHD IDRUS

Matric No. : CF190109

Date : 30/03/2021
 TABLE CONTENT

NO CONTENT PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-2

2.0 OBJECTIVE 2

3.0 APPARATUS 2

4.0 PROCEDURE 3

5.0 CALCULATION 4

6.0 RESULT AND 5-12

ANALYSIS

7.0 CONCLUSION 12

8.0 REFERENCE 12
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) was developed by California division of highways
as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-sub-grade and base course materials for
flexible pavements. The CBR test is currently used in pavement design for both roads
and airfield pavement. In some methods CBR is used directly and in some others it is
converted to Resilient Modulus MR using the following relationships.

MR = 1500 x CBR (ibs/in2 )

MR = 10344 x CBR (Kpa)

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 sampleof crushed stone. Thus,

Test unit stress

CBR = x100
Standard unit stress

The CBR is usually base on the load ratio for the penetration of 2-5mm. If the CBR
value at the penetration of 5.0 mm is larger, the test should be repeated. If a second test
yields a larger value of CBR at 5.0 mm penetration then this larger value should be
adopted. The CBR test are usually made on test specimens at optimum moisture content
(OMC) for the crushed aggregate/soil as determined from modified compaction test.

Page 1
 CBR is used to rate the performances of soils used as bases and sub grade. The
followingtable gives typical rating :

CBR GENERAL RATING USES

0.3 Very poor Sub-grade
3-7 Poor to fair Sub-grade
7-20 Fair Sub-base
20-50 Good Base of sub-base
>50 Excellence Base

2.0 OBJECTIVE

To determine the CBR value of the given crushed aggregate/soil sample.

3.0 APPARATUS

1. CBR equipment consisting of 152.4 mm diameter and 178 mm height, An extension

collarof a diameter 51 mm, spacer disk of 150.8mm diameter and 61.4 mm height.
2. Mechanical compaction rammer 50.8 mm die, 2.49 kg and capable of free fall of 305
mm.

3. Surcharge weight to simulate the effect of overlaying pavement weight.

4. CBR machine: A compression machine, which can operate at a constant rate of

1.3mm/min. A metal piston of 1935mm2 is attached to it.

Page 2
4.0 PROCEDURE

1. CBR equipment consisting of 152.4 mm diameter and 178 mm height, An extension

collarof diameter 51 mm, spacer disk of 150.8 mm diameter and 61.4 mm height.
2. Mechanical compaction rammer 50.8 mm die, 2.49 kg and capable of free fall of 305
mm.

3. Surcharge weight to simulate the effect of overlying pavement weight.

4. CBR machine: A compression machine, which can operate at a constant rate of

1.3mm/min. A metal piston of 1935mm2 is attached to it.
5. The representative crushed aggregate/soil sample is sieved through 20 mm sieve. About
5 kg of crushed aggregate/soil is taken and mixed with optimum moisture content
(OMC).
6. Clamp the mould to the base plate, attach the extension collar and weight. Insert the
spacerdisk into the mold and place a coarse filter paper on the top of the disk.
7. Compact the aggregate /soil water mixture into the world in 3 equal layers to give a
height of 127 mm compact each layer in the 10 blows, 30 blows and 65 blows for each
sample.
8. Determine the water content of the crushed aggregate /soil mixture (oven for 24 hours).

9. Remove the extension collar, and using on straight edge, trim the compacted crushed
aggregate/soil even with the top of the mold surface. Remove the spacer disk and
weight the mold with sample.
10. Place the mold with crushed aggregate/soil on the CBR machine and place the
surchargeweight at the penetration piston, set the dial gauges for load and penetration.
11. Apply the loads to the penetration piston at the rate of 1.27mm/min and record the
load at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 mm penetration respectively.

Page 3
5.0 CALCULATION

CBR : Plot the load deformation curve for each specimen. In some cases the initial
penetration takes place without a proportional increase in the resistance to penetration
and the curve may be concave upward. To obtain the true stress-strain relationships,
correct the curve having concave upward shape near the origin by adjusting the location
of the origin by extending the straight the portion of the stress strain curve down ward
until it intersectswith x-axis.

Determine the corrected load values at 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm and determine the CBR by
thefollowing relationship.

Test unit stress

CBR = x100
Standard unit stress

Standard load at 2.5 mm is taken 13.2 kN and at 5.0 mm it is on 20 kN.

Dry Density:

Weight of the empty mold = A gm

Weight of the mold+soil = B gm
Volume of soil sample = V
B−A
Weight density γ = V

Water content W
𝛾
Dry density 𝛾𝑑 = 1+𝑊

Summary of test result

Sample No. No. of Blows 𝛾𝑑 (𝑔𝑚/𝑐𝑚3 ) CBR (%)
1 10
2 30
3 65

Page 4
6.0 RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Table 1.1: Soil properties measurement

Sample 1 2 3
Number of blows 10 30 65
Empty weight of mould, W1 (kg) 16.720 16.740 16.680
Weight of mould + Wet sample, W2 (kg) 21.160 21.480 21.620
Volume of sample, V (m3) 2.098 x 10-3 2.098 x 10-3 2.098 x 10-3
Can number (For moisture content) 1 2 3
Weight of empty can, A (gm) 9.39 9.31 9.37
Weight of can + wet sample, B (gm) 53.09 70.22 45.51
Weight of can + dry sample, C (gm) 50.23 65.00 43.01

Table 1.2: Readings Taken From CBR Loading Machine

Load (kN)
Penetration
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
(mm)
Div. Corrected Div. Corrected Div. Corrected
(x 0.046) (x 0.046) (x 0.046)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 6.0 0.276 9.0 0.414 0.0 0.0
1.5 9.5 0.437 9.0 0.414 9.0 0.414
2.0 9.9 0.455 9.0 0.414 10.0 0.460
2.5 9.9 0.455 9.0 0.414 10.3 0.474
3.0 16.0 0.736 11.0 0.506 13.0 0.598
3.5 24.0 1.104 21.0 0.966 17.0 0.782
4.0 32.0 1.472 35.0 1.610 45.0 2.070
4.5 45.0 2.070 54.0 2.484 85.0 3.910
5.0 59.0 2.714 76.0 3.496 115.0 5.290
5.5 74.0 3.404 103.0 4.738 163.0 7.498
6.0 87.0 4.002 132.0 6.072 213.0 9.798
6.5 103.0 4.738 162.0 7.452 264.0 12.144
7.0 109.0 5.014 195.0 8.970 304.0 13.984

Page 5
A) Weight density
B) Water content

Page 6
C) Dry density
D) CBR (%)

Page 7
Graph of Load (kN) vs Penetration (mm) -Sample 1

Page 8
Graph of Load (kN) vs Penetration (mm) -Sample 2

Page 9
Graph of Load (kN) vs Penetration (mm) -Sample 3

Page 10
Graph of CBR (%) vs Dry density

Summary of test result

Page 11
7.0 QUESTIONS

8.0 CONCLUSION

What can we summarized here is that the soil sample 1 and 2 is at good rating and
suitable for the base of sub-base. While soil sample 3 gives excellent rating and should
be used at base at the pavement. Generally, those sample are in good shape and good to
be used as pavement . We can conclude that CBR Test is very useful to determine the
performance of soil whether it is good for pavement or not.

9.0 REFERENCES

 Earthworks: A Guide - Page 97 books.google.com.my N. A. Trenter · 2001

 Advances in Site Investigation Practice: Proceedings of the ... - Page 91C. Craig, Institution
of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) · 1996

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_bearing_ratio

 https://www.iricen.gov.in/LAB/res/pdf/test-07.pdf

 Geologic and Engineering Properties of Pleistocene MaterialsDon Albert Linger, Donald

Thomas Davidson, Ladis H. Csanyi · 1954 · Snippet view

Page 12