Home   >   CSC-OpenAccess Library   >    Manuscript Information
Full Text Available

This is an Open Access publication published under CSC-OpenAccess Policy.
Experimental Study to Correlate the Test Results of PBT, UCS, and CBR with Liquid Limit, Gradation and DCP Results On Various Soils in Soaked Condition
Mukesh A. Patel, H.S. Patel
Pages - 244 - 261     |    Revised - 15-09-2012     |    Published - 24-10-2012
Volume - 6   Issue - 5    |    Publication Date - October 2012  Table of Contents
Subgrade, CBR, DCP, PBT, UCS
The development of new roads, enhancement of existing roads and new runways are part of infrastructure boom in India as well as in Gujarat. Need of strength parameters of subgrade soils is very important in monitoring and evaluation of roads and runways subgrade quality. Laboratory determination of California Bearing Ratio useful for flexible pavement design, Coefficient of subgrade reaction K-Value needed for rigid pavement, raft footing and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) is required for determination of shear strength parameter of subgrade are time consuming and demand significant effort but mandatory. Dynamic Cone Penetration test can be a faster and easier way to evaluate subgrade strength. In present study an investigation has been carried out on strength parameters for the soil from various locations of Gujarat, In-situ condition has been created in laboratory using bigger testing mould and various tests like Liquid Limit, Plastic limit as well as CBR, PBT, UCS and DCP were carried out on repetitive samples of Maximum Dry Densities achieved through modified proctor effect in soaked condition. The empirical correlations have been established among test results using linear regression procedure. The formulations are validated using other sets of tests data. The developed empirical correlations may be useful to estimate time consuming strength parameters as well as physical properties at numerous locations within area under consideration using simple and rapid DCP test. Keywords: Key Words— Subgrade, CBR, DCP, UCS, PBT.
CITED BY (0)  
1 Google Scholar
2 CiteSeerX
3 refSeek
4 Scribd
5 SlideShare
6 PdfSR
1 Harison, J.R. (1983). “Correlation between CBR and DCP strength Measurements of Soils,”Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers London, Part-2.
2 Harison, J.R. (1987). “Correlation between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils,” Proc. Institution of CivilEngineers, London, Part-2,pp. 83-87.
3 IS: 2720 (Part-3, Section-1)-1980, Methods of Test ForSoils: Part-3 Determination of Specific Gravity, Section 1 Fine Grained Soils.
4 IS: 1498 -1970, Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes.
5 IS: 1888-1982, Method of Load Test on Soils.
6 IS:2720 (Part-4)-1985, Methods of Test for Soils: Part -4 Grain Size Analysis.
7 IS:2720 (Part-5)-1985, “Methods of Test for Soils: Determination of Atterberg’s limits.”
8 IS: 2720 (Part-10) – 1973, Method Test for Soil: Part-10 Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength.
9 IS: 2720 (Part-16) -1983, Indian Standard Method of Test for Soils, Laboratory Determination of “CBR”.
10 IS: 2720 (Part-8), Method of test of Soils: Part -8 Determination of Water Content-Dry Density Relation using Heavy Compaction.
11 IS: 9214- 1974, Method of Determination of Modules of Subgrade Reaction (K-Value) of Soils in Field.
12 Kleyn, E.G., (1975),” The Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” Rep. No.-2/74.Transval Roads Department, South Africa.
13 Kleyn, E.G., and Savage, P.E.(1982). “The Application of the Pavement DCP to Determine the Bearing Properties and Performance of the Road Pavements,” International Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trodheim, Norway.
14 Livneh, M. (1987). “Validation of Correlation between a Number of Penetration Test and In situ California Bearing Ratio Tests, “Transp. Res. Rec. 1219. Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., pp. 56-67.
15 Livneh, M. (200). “Friction Correction Equation for the Dynamic Cone Pentrometer in Subsoil Strength Testing” Paper Presented at the 79th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,Washington, D.C.
16 Livneh, M., and Ishai, I. (1988). “The Relationship between In situ CBR Test and the Various Penetration Tests.” Proc. First Int. Conf. On Penetration Testing, Orlando, Fl, pp.445-452.
17 Livneh, M., and Livneh, N.A. (1994). “Subgrade Strength Evaluation with the Extended Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Proc. 7th Int. IAEG Congress.
18 P. Vinod and Reena Cletus, “Prediction of CBR value of lateritic soils using liquid limit and gradation characteristics data”
19 Rodrigo Salgadi., Sungmin Yoon., (2003). “Final Report on Dynamic Cone Penetration test (DCPT) for Subgrade assessment.
20 TalalAo-Referal., & Al Suhaibani., (1996). “Predication of CBR using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer”.
21 Varghese George, Ch. Nageshwar Rao, and R. Shivashankar.(2009) “A laboratory investigation on evaluation of lateritic subgrade using PFWD, and CBR, and their correlations”.
Mr. Mukesh A. Patel
U.V. Patel College of Engineering, Ganpat University - India
Dr. H.S. Patel
L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad - India