Advertisement

Prediction of California Bearing Ratio by Reliability Analysis: A Review

  • Harshita BairagiEmail author
  • Shreyas Mutkule
  • Pranali Malunjkar
  • Madhur Jain
Conference paper

Abstract

Reliability analysis is used as a vital tool to predict the uncertainty and take right decisions. It is very important for engineers to predict the behaviour of soil and construction-materials (after construction) used in infrastructures. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is performed to measure the strength of soil, is often used as a design parameter of sub-grade for the design of flexible pavement. CBR test is a laborious test; therefore, it is vital to develop the models for quick assessment of CBR value. This study presents a review to determine the CBR value from reliability analysis which is quicker to estimate from their standard method of testing. In this study authors review predictive models using different sets of soil samples containing different index and engineering properties.

Key points

Reliability analysis California Bearing Ratio Index and engineering properties 

References

  1. Moghal, A.A.B., Chittoori, B.C., Basha, B.M.: Effect of fibre reinforcement on CBR behaviour of Lime blended expansive soils: reliability approach. Artic. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 19, 690–709 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Semen, P.M.: A generalized approach Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-06-15. Engineer Research and Development Centre, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Agrawal, K.B., Ghanekar, K.D.: Prediction of CBR from plasticity characteristics of soil. In: Proceedings of 2nd South-East Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, June 11–15, pp. 571–576 (1970)Google Scholar
  4. Carter, M., Bentley, S.P.: Correlation of Soil Properties. Pentech Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  5. Livneh, M., Ishai, I., Livneh, N.A.: Effects of vertical confinement on dynamic cone penetrometer strength values in pavement and sub-grade evaluations. Transport Research Record 1473, Washington, DC (1996)Google Scholar
  6. Chua, K.H., Der Kiureghian, A., Monismith, C.L.: Stochastic model for pavement design. J. Transp. Eng. 118(6), 769–786 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kenis, W., Wang, W.: Pavement variability and reliability. In: International symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia, Part 3, pp. 213–231 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Kim, H.B., Buch, N.: Reliability-based pavement design model accounting for inherent variability of design parameters. In: 82nd Annual Meeting on Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (2003)Google Scholar
  9. Kim, H.B., Harichandran, R.S., Buch, N.: Development of load and resistance factor design format for flexible pavements. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 25, 880–885 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sani, J.E., Bello, A.O., Nwadiogbu, C.P.: Reliability estimate of strength characteristics of black cotton soil pavement sub-base stabilized with bagasse ash and cement kiln dust. Civ. Environ. Res. 6(11), 115–135 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. Retherford, J.Q., McDonald, M.: Reliability methods applicable to mechanistic-empirical pavement design method. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2154, 130–137 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Webster, S.L., Grau, R.H., Williams, T.P.: Description and application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Instruction Report. GL-92-3, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Centre, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg (1992)Google Scholar
  13. Webster, S.L., Brown, R.W., Porter, J.R.: Force: projection site evaluation using the electronic cone penetrometer (ECP) and the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). Technical report GL-94-17, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Centre, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (1994)Google Scholar
  14. Sahoo, P.K., Reddy, K.S.: Evaluation of sub-grade soils using dynamic cone penetrometer. IIT Kharagpur, India (2009)Google Scholar
  15. Rakaraddi, P.G., Gomarsi, V.: Establishing relationship between CBR with different soil properties. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 04(02), 182–188 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaur, P., Gill, K.S., Walia, B.S.: Correlation between soaked CBR value and CBR value obtained with dynamic cone Penetrometer, February (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Shirur, N.B., Hiremath, S.G.: Establishing relationship between CBR value and physical properties of soil. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. Circ. Rep. North Carolina Department Of Transportation (NCDOT)IOSR-JMCE), October (2014)Google Scholar
  18. Smith, R.B., Pratt, D.N.: A field study of in-situ California bearing ratio and dynamic cone penetrometer. Test. Road Subgrade Investig. 13(4), 285–294 (1983)Google Scholar
  19. Coonse, J.: Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive piedmont residual soil using the scala dynamic cone penetrometer. Master’s thesis (MSCE), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. (1999)Google Scholar
  20. Ese, D., Myre, J., Noss, P., Vaernes, E.: The use of dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) for road strengthening design in Norway. In: The Fourth International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Proceedings (1994)Google Scholar
  21. Harison, J.A.: In situ CBR determination by DCP testing using a laboratory- based correlation. Aust. Road Res. 19(4) (1989)Google Scholar
  22. Srinivasa, R.H., Naagesh, S., Gangadhara S.: Development of regression equations to predict C.B.R of black cotton soils of Karnataka, India. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res. 7(2), 135–152 (2016). ISSN: 2278–3652Google Scholar
  23. Deepak, Y., Jain, P.K., Kumar, R.: Prediction of soaked CBR of fine grained soils from classification and compaction parameters. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Stud. (2014) Google Scholar
  24. Divinsky, M., Ishai, I., Livneh, M.: Simplified generalized California bearing ratio pavement design equation. Transp. Res. Rec. 1539, 44–50 (1996). National Research Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. Begum, N., Sharma, B.: Determination of CBR value from compaction characteristics and index properties of fine grained soil. In: Proceeding of Indian Geotechnical Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  26. Ramasubbarao, G.V., Siva Sankar, G.: Predicting soaked CBR value of fine grained soils using index and compaction characteristics. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 7(3), 354–360 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. Rehman, Z.U., Khalid, U., Farooq, K., Mujtaba, H.: Prediction of CBR value from index properties of different soils. Tech. J. 22(2) (2017). University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  28. Alawi, M.H., Rajab, M.I.: Prediction of California bearing ratio of subbase layer using multiple linear regression models. 14(1), 211–219 (2013). Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  29. Thach Nguyen, B., Mohajerani, A.: Determination of CBR for fine-grained soils using a dynamic lightweight cone penetrometer. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 16(2) (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harshita Bairagi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shreyas Mutkule
    • 1
  • Pranali Malunjkar
    • 1
  • Madhur Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringGHRIETPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations