Strong Correlation between the Bearing Capacity and CBR of a

Gypsiferous Subgrade Soil Subjected to Long-Term Soaking

Sabah S. Razouki & Dina K. Kuttah

Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq.

Omar A. Al-Damluji
Construction and Housing Ministry, Baghdad, Iraq.

Isam H. Nashat
National Center for Construction Laboratories and Researches, Baghdad, Iraq.

ABSTRACT: Presented in this paper is a correlation between the bearing capacity of a

gypsiferous subgrade soil with the corresponding CBR value. The geotechnical tests carried
out on this soil indicate that the soil is sandy lean clay of CL group according to the USCS
and A-6 (6) group according to AASHTO Soil Classification System. The soil contains about
33% gypsum content. For this purpose, thirty six CBR samples were prepared at optimum
moisture content (of the modified AASHTO compaction test) namely 11.5% at compactive
efforts of 1, 2 and 4.56 times that of the Proctor compaction (standard AASHTO). These
samples were soaked for 0, 4, 7, 15, 30, and 120 days under the effect of 40 lbs (178 N)
surcharge load. For each soaking period, three pairs of CBR soil samples were prepared, one
for each compactive effort. The first CBR sample from each pair was used to determine the
CBR value while the second CBR sample was used to obtain triaxial soil samples for
unconsolidated undrained tests to arrive at the corresponding shear strength parameters. The
present paper reveals that for each soaking period, there is a linear increase of the ultimate
bearing capacity with increasing compactive effort, while a significant drop in the ultimate
bearing capacity of the tested soil took place with increasing soaking period. The paper
reveals also that there is a strong linear correlation between the estimated ultimate bearing
capacity and the corresponding CBR value indicating that the Rosenak's equation correlating
the bearing capacity with CBR value is very conservative.

KEY WORDS: Bearing capacity, California bearing ratio, compaction, gypsiferous soil,
soaking.

1 INTRODUCTION

The subgrade of a road pavement, like any foundation, must be capable of supporting the
imposed loading without shear failure or excessive deformation (Hight & Stevens, 1982).
A major input to all methods of design of pavements is a measure of the strength of the soil,
i.e. its ability to resist the stress imposed by traffic loading. This input is required for the
design of new roads and for the design of the total or partial reconstruction of damaged
existing roads (Black, 1979).
 The strength of subgrade soil for highways and airports is usually expressed in terms of the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
In foundation design, the bearing capacity of the soil is usually of great concern.
Due to the wide spread of gypsiferous soils in the Middle East (Fookes 1976, 1978; Fookes
and French, 1977; Tomlinson, 1979; Razouki and El-Janabi, 1999) the present paper is
devoted to such soils.

2 SOIL PROPERTIES

To have complete information about the properties of the gypsiferous soil under study,
chemical and physical tests are carried out on it. They indicate that the soil is sandy lean clay
of CL group according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil contains about 35%
total soluble salts (TSS) and about 33% gypsum content.
To arrive at the type and amount of each clayey mineral present in soil tested, a quantitative
X-ray diffraction analysis (Mitchell, 1976) was carried out on the clayey fraction of the soil
sample. The test results reveal that the tested soil consists of 6% montmorillonite, 7%
kaolinite, 17% palygorskite and illite and 2% mixed layer.
In order to obtain the moisture-density relations for the modified Proctor compaction tests
according to ASTM D 1557 (1989), a mold of 6˝ (152.4-mm) internal diameter and 4.584˝
(116.43-mm) height is used. The test indicates a maximum dry unit weight of 18.18 kN/m3
taking place at the optimum moisture content of 11.5%. More details about the mineralogical,
physical and chemical properties of the soil are described in Table 1.

Table 1: Classification and properties of tested soils

Soil Classification Soil Properties Specifications

CL ASTM D 2487-93
Classifications
A-6 (6) AASHTO T 88-93
Particle size distribution
Silt and Clay 67.66%
Fine Sand 23.66% A ASHTO M 145-86
Coarse Sand 8.68%
Consistency limits
Liquid Limit 29% AASHTO T 89-95(a)
Plastic Limit 17% AASHTO T 90-95(b)
Plasticity Index 12%
Specific gravity 2.47 B.S. 1377-1990,
Test 6 (B) with white spirit instead of water
Modified AASHTO
Compaction
γd max 18.18 (k N/m3) AASHTO T 180-95(c)
OMC 11.5%
Chemical Tests
Initial T.S.S. 35.1% U.S. Earth Manual (1980) at dilution of 1:200
Initial Gypsum Content 33% From Sulphate (SO3)
X-ray analysis
Montmorillonite 6% X-ray diffraction analysis with 2 º/min scan
Kaolinite 7% speed
Illite & Palygorskite 17%
3 SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

Due to the fact that the bearing capacity of the soil as well as the CBR depend on relative
compaction of the soil, three compactive efforts were chosen by changing the number of
blows per layer of the soil sample compacted in 5 layers in the CBR mould by 10 lbs (4.54
kg) hammer falling from 18" (45.7 cm) height. The number of blows adopted in this study and
the corresponding compactive efforts are shown in Table 2, where

W × H × Nb × Nl
CE = (1)
V

where:

CE= Compactive effort, CE Proctor= Proctor compactive effort, W = Weight of hammer,

H = Height of drop of hammer, Nb = Number of blows per layer, Nl = Number of layers,
V = Volume of compacted soil.

The smallest compactive effort corresponding to 12 blows per layer used in this study
represents almost the compactive effort corresponding to standard AASHTO compaction
(standard Proctor).
The compactive effort corresponding to 56 blows per layer represents the modified
AASHTO compaction.

Table 2: Chosen compactive efforts

No. of blows/ layer Compactive effort, CE CE /CE Proctor

(kN. m / m3)
12 586 0.98 ≈ 1
25 1221 2
56 2735 4.56

For the purpose of this work, it was decided to use a surcharge load of 40 lbs (178 N) in
CBR test that represents an average flexible highway pavement thickness of 50 cm. The effect
of surcharge load on the CBR can be taken into consideration using Razouki and Al-Shefi
(2002) approach.
Due to the fact that gypsiferous soils can be subjected to infiltration of rain water or tap
water from irrigation or leaky water pipes, it is necessary to simulate this in the laboratory.
In the CBR test, long-term soaking of samples can take care of this fact.
To avoid full saturation of water in soaking tanks with gypsum, it is necessary to change
their water continuously. Day (1992) reported that the amount of swell of soil samples could
be affected by the type of water the soil is submerged in. According to Ismael and Mollah
(1998) tap water is more convenient to use in leaching of gypsiferous soil samples and it is
similar to ground water in the field. Therefore, tap water is used in soaking of CBR soil
samples used in this study.
Thirty six CBR samples were prepared at optimum moisture content of the modified
AASHTO compaction test namely 11.5% at compactive efforts of 1, 2 and 4.56 times that of
the Proctor compaction. These samples were soaked for 0, 4, 7, 15, 30, and 120 days under
the effect of 40 lbs (178 N) surcharge load. Note that for each soaking period, 8 CBR soil
samples were prepared two for each compactive effort (one of these two CBR samples was
used to determine the CBR value and the other one to extrude UU triaxial soil samples for the
determination of the corresponding values of cohesion and angle of internal friction).

4 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

The bearing capacity of a soil is a direct measure of the resistance of the soil to lateral
displacement, and since the CBR test was designed to measure this property, some degree of
correlation would be expected (Black, 1962).
The Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation for circular foundation under centric loading, as
given by Bowles (1988) is

qu = 1.3 c NC + po Nq + 0.3 γ B Nγ (2)

where:

qu = Terzaghi's ultimate bearing capacity, c= Soil cohesion, γ= Unit weight of soil (when the
water table is above the underside of the footing the submerged unit weight γ' has to be used
instead of γ), po= Overburden pressure at the base of the footing, B= Diameter of the footing,
Nc, Nq and Nγ= Terzaghi bearing capacity factors.

For the case of CBR test, B= diameter of the plunger = 1.954"=4.963 cm, po= overburden
pressure due to surcharge load.
Equation (2) was used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil when
compacted at OMC of 11.5% under the effect of 56, 25 and 12 blows/layer and soaked for 0,
4, 7, 15, 30 and 120 days.
Table 3 shows a sample of calculation of the ultimate bearing capacity making use of the
values of ø and c determined from UU triaxial tests together with the corresponding values of
the unit weight and Terzaghi bearing capacity factors as given by Terzaghi & Peck (1967).
The effect of compactive effort on the ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil compacted
at the OMC is shown in Figure (1).

Table 3: Terzaghi ultimate bearing capacity for unsoaked soil samples compacted at OMC
Compactive effort Ø* c* Nc Nq Nγ qu **
(blows/layer) (degrees) (kPa) (kPa)
56 27 150 29.32 15.94 15 5894.07
25 25 135 25.20 12.75 10 4563.76
12 22 90 20.32 9.21 6 2478.96

** Determined from UU (Unconsolidated Undrained) triaxial tests on samples extruded from

CBR soil samples soaked for different soaking periods under the effect of 40 lbs (178 N)
surcharge load.
* See eq. (2)
 8000
Y = 71.3003 * X + 2101.95, R =0.936
7500 Y = 75.7745 * X + 275.16, R = 0.996
Y = 73.7239 * X _ 107.912, R = 0.994
7000 Y = 71.6541 * X _ 291.19, R = 0.994
Y = 60.8314 * X _330.134, R =0.996
6500
Y = 46.0794 * X _ 197.318, R =0.999
6000 Unsoaked
Ultimate bearing capacity (kPa)

5500
5000
4 days soaking
4500
7 days soaking
4000 15 days soaking
3500
30 days soaking
3000
2500 120 days soaking
2000
1500
Y=Ultimate bearing capacity (kPa)
1000 X= Compactive effort (blows/layer)
R= Coeff. of correlation
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Compactive effort (blows/layer)

Figure 1: Effect of compactive effort on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil samples
compacted at OMC for different soaking periods

It is apparent from this figure that the ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil increases
with increasing compactive effort and decreases with increasing soaking period.
Figure 1 reveals also that for the unsoaked conditions, the increase in the compactive effort
from 12 blows/layer to 56 blows/layer causes a significant increase in the ultimate bearing
capacity from 2478.96 kPa to 5894.07 kPa (about 2.4 fold increase). For 120 days soaking,
the ultimate bearing capacity increased from 365.63 kPa to 2387.32 kPa (about 6.5 fold
increase) when increasing the compactive effort from 12 to 56 blows/layer. This means that
the effect of compactive effort becomes more pronounced as the soaking period increases.
Figures 2 shows the effect of soaking period on the ultimate bearing capacity for samples
compacted at OMC. It is apparent from this figure that the ultimate bearing capacity of the
tested soil at 120 days soaking is 28.3%, 46.6% and 52% relative to that for 4 days soaking
for the compactive efforts of 12, 25 and 56 blows/layer respectively, indicating a significant
decrease in strength with soaking time which is in full agreement with Razouki and El-Janabi
(1999) and Razouki and Kuttah (2004). Accordingly, the use of the common 4 days soaking is
not recommended for gypsiferous soils as it leads to serious overestimation of soil strength.
 6000

5500

5000

4500
Ultimate bearing capacity (kPa)

4000

3500

3000
56 blows/layer
2500

2000

1500
25 blows/layer
1000
12 blows/layer
500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Soaking period (day)
Figure 2: Effect of soaking period on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil samples compacted
at the OMC for different compactive efforts

5 CORRELATION BETWEEN CBR AND ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

To enable the engineer to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of soils (similar to that
tested) from the CBR (California Bearing Ratio) value for design purposes, a relationship
between the ultimate bearing capacity and CBR is required. Figure 3 shows the correlation
between the ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil versus the CBR for soil samples
compacted at OMC of 11.5%.
The use of linear regression analysis yields the following regression equation correlating
the ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil with the CBR:

qu = 172.6 (CBR) – 601 for CBR> 5% (3)

where:

qu = Ultimate bearing capacity in (kPa)

CBR= California bearing ratio in (%)
Equation 3 represents strong correlation after Anderson and Sclove (1978) due to the high
correlation coefficient of R=0.944.
 Rosenak (1968) assumed that the bearing capacity is in direct correlation with the CBR of
the soil as shown below:

qu (psi) = 10 CBR (4 a)

qu (kPa)= 68.89 CBR (4 b)

7500
7000
6500
6000
5500

44
Ultimate bearing capacity (kPa)

0.9
R=
5000

1,
60
R_
4500
CB

4000
*
2.6
17

3500
=
qu

3000 6 8)
k (19
en a
2500 s
Ro
er
Aft
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
CBR (%)

Figure 3: Correlation between the ultimate bearing capacity and CBR of soil samples
compacted at the OMC

Figure (3) shows a comparison of the relationship obtained in the work between the
Ultimate bearing capacity and the CBR of the tested soil with that of Rosenak (1968). It is
obvious from this figure that the equation suggested by Rosenak (1968) underestimates
significantly the ultimate bearing capacity especially for the higher CBR values.
6 CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study carried out on an A-6 (6) gypsiferous soil after the AASHTO soil
classification system and sandy lean clay after the Unified Soil Classification system with
33% gypsum content, the following conclusions can be obtained:
ƒ Upon soaking, a linear increase of the ultimate bearing capacity with increasing
compactive effort took place.
ƒ Increasing the compactive effort from 12 to 56 blows/layer causes an increase of 2.3 fold
and 6.5 fold in the estimated ultimate bearing capacity for the unsoaked and soaked
samples for 120 days respectively, indicating that the effect of compactive effort becomes
more pronounced as the soaking period increases.
ƒ There is a significant drop in the ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil with increasing
soaking period. The ultimate bearing capacity of the tested soil at 120 days soaking is
28.3%, 46.6% and 52% relative to that for 4 days soaking for the compactive efforts of 12,
25 and 56 blows/layer respectively
ƒ There is a strong linear correlation between the estimated ultimate bearing capacity and the
corresponding CBR value.
ƒ Rosenak (1968) equation underestimates significantly the ultimate bearing capacity
especially for the higher CBR values.

7 REFERENCES

AASHTO, 1986. Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway

Construction Purposes. AASHTO Designation: M 145-86, Standard Specifications for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 14th Edition, Washington D.C.
AASHTO, 1993. Particle Size Analysis of Soils. AASHTO Designation: T88-93, Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 16th Edition,
Washington D.C.
AASHTO, 1995 a. Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils. AASHTO Designation: T89-94,
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 17th
Edition, Washington D.C.
AASHTO, 1995 b. Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils. AASHTO
Designation: T90-94, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 17th Edition, Washington D.C.
AASHTO, 1995 c. The Moisture-Density Relations Using a 4.45-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a
457-mm (18-in.) Drop. AASHTO Designation: T180-93, Standard Specifications for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 17th Edition, Washington D.C.
ASTM, 1993. Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System). ASTM Designation: D 2487-93, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Anderson, T.W. and Sclove, S.L., 1978. An Introduction to the Statistical Analysis of Data.
Houghton Miffling Company, Boston.
Black, W. P. M., 1962. A Method of Estimating California Bearing Ratio of Cohesive Soils
from Plasticity Data. Geotechnique, Vol. XII, No.2, pp.271-282.
Black, W. P. M., 1979. The Strength of Clay Subgrade: Its Measurement by a Penetrometer.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, TRRL Laboratory Report No. 901.
Bowles, J. E., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design. Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
British Standards Institution, 1990. Method of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.
Doc. BS 1377, London.
Day, R.W., 1992. Swell Versus Saturation for Compacted Clay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 8, pp. 1272-1278.
Fookes, P. C., 1976. Road Geotechnics in Hot Deserts. The Highway Engineer, Journal of the
Institution of Highway Engineers, Vol. 23, No. 10, pp. 11-23.
Fookes, P.C., 1978. Middle East-Inherent Ground Problems. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, London, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp 33-49.
Fookes, P. C. and French, W.J., 1977. Soluble Salt Damage to Surfaced Roads in the Middle
East. The Highway Engineer, Journal of the Institution of Highway Engineers, Vol.24,
No. 11, pp10-20.
Hight, D. W. and Stevens, M. G. H., 1982. An Analysis of the California Bearing Ratio Test
in Saturated Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 315-322.
Ismael, N. F. and Mollah, M. A., 1998. Leaching Effects on Properties of Cemented Sands in
Kuwait. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124,
No. 10, pp. 997-1004.
Mitchell, J. K. 1976. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Razouki, S. S. and Al-Shefi, A., 2002. Effects and Observations of Surcharge Load on the
Laboratory CBR and Resilient Modulus of Roadbed Soil. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, London, Vol. 35, pp. 89-95.
Razouki, S. S. and El-Janabi, O. A., 1999. Decrease in the CBR of a Gypsiferous Soil due to
Long-Term Soaking. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, London, Vol.32, No.1,
pp.87-89.
Razouki, S. S. and Kuttah, D. K., 2004. Effect of Soaking Period and Surcharge Load on
Resilient Modulus and California bearing Ratio of Gypsiferous soils. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, London, Vol. 37, pp. 155-164.
Rosenak, S., 1968. Soil Mechanics. B. T. Batsford Ltd., London.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 2nd Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Tomlinson, M. J., 1978. Middle East-Highway and Airfield Pavements. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, London, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 65-73.
U.S. Department of Interior “Earth Manual”, 1980. Water and Power Resources Service, 3rd
Edition, Washington.