PROPOSAL OF CORRELATION AMONG DIFFERENT SOIL BEARING

CAPACITY PARAMETERS BASED ON AN EXTENSIVE TEST CAMPAIGN

Marco Pasetto1, Emiliano Pasquini2, Giovanni Giacomello3, Andrea Baliello4
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Padua, Via Marzolo, 9 – 35131,
1,2,3,4

Padova, Italy

Abstract: Soil characteristics play a key role for design and construction of transportation infrastructures. Subgrades of pavements
must be adequately designed and realized to face stress-strain fields due to vehicles, withstanding traffic loading during construction
and service life and limiting deformations to prevent the pavement failure. The evaluation of the soil bearing capacity can be
performed through different laboratory and in situ tests, both static and dynamic. Among the existing methods, Light Falling Weight
Deflectometer (LFWD), static plate-bearing load tests (PBLT), Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test (DCPT) and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) tests can be cited. LFWD can be quickly used, being it a simple and portable equipment suitable for determining the
stiffness modulus of the soil. Static plate-bearing load tests can be carried out to measure the elastic vertical displacements, obtaining
the so-called modulus of reaction or modulus of deformation as a function of the plate diameter and the stress path. DCP is used to
measure the resistance against penetration of a soil through a simple test. Then, such characteristic is generally correlated to CBR
using empirical correlations. As known, the bearing capacity of a soil is strictly related to its degree of compaction. Given this
background, an attractive aspect from a scientific and technical perspective concerns the correlation among different methods and
parameters to determine a general approach in considering the different data available for the design and control of a soil layer. To
this regard, the present paper shows the results of an extensive in-situ survey and laboratory experimentation assessing the bearing
capacity of soils through the above-mentioned techniques: a huge data-base permitted the development of some correlations between
the different static and dynamic data.

Keywords: bearing capacity, soil, in situ survey, laboratory experimentation, dry density.

1. Introduction and Experimental Approach

The availability of possible correlations among different bearing capacity parameters is essential for a better approach
to the road design and construction. Bearing capacity measurements are often performed with a single technique,
mainly depending on the available in-field or laboratory equipment; for this reason, the correlation of data deriving
from different tools or methods is required, even if not always simple, given the complexity and the huge amount of
physical variables involved in the measurement. Bearing capacity of soils (and, generally, unbound/bound granular
materials for transport infrastructures) can be determined though several methods, using different instruments able to
acquire different parameters. Principally, tests can be divided in static or dynamic ones. Static analysis generally
considers the use of circular plates, loaded with heavy contrast weights (some standards require loads greater than 5
tons) and quite long loading procedures. Differently, dynamic tests usually imply advanced equipment that allows easy
and timesaving surveys and tests. Both approaches can be used in field or laboratory tests. Among the existing in-situ
tests, Light Falling Weight Deflectometer (LFWD) or Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer (PFWD), static plate-
bearing tests and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test (DCPT) can be cited. In laboratory, the California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) test represents one of the most important solutions for the evaluation of materials’ strength. The parameter
suitable for the characterization of the bearing capacity varies according to the test: the dynamic modulus Evd (MPa) is
calculated with the LFWD, the California Bearing Ratio index (CBR, in percentage) can be estimated in field with the
DCP tool or evaluated in laboratory with the CBR test, the reaction modulus k (MPa/m) and the deformation modulus
Md (also named static modulus, in MPa) are determined by means of a static bearing load plate test (the different
parameter - k or Md – depends on the size of the plate, loading steps and level). Several researchers analyzed benefits
and drawbacks of such testing procedures and dealt with possible correlations of the parameters, validating
experimental data and results (Ese et al., 1994; Loizos et al., 2003; Adam et al., 2009; Fleming et al., 2009). Frequently,
studies found adequate relations analyzing the influence of variables which affect bearing capacity, based on soil
grading, Atterberg limits, in-field specific weight, optimal Proctor density, natural moisture or optimum (Proctor)
humidity content (Lim et al., 2014; Patel et al., 2013; Talukar, 2014; Sangiorgi et al., 2006). Correlations between static
and dynamic parameters are substantially known. In 1995, the Institute for Transport Sciences of Karlsruhe (Gemany)
elaborated a relation between dynamic modulus Evd and static modulus Md (“Baksay formulation”) with the following
equation: Evd = (0.52∙Md)+9.1 (MPa). Tompai (2008) proposed efficient formulas to relate dynamic modulus of soils
measured with the Light Falling Weight Deflectometer (LFWD) or similar instruments with the modulus derived from a
static load plate, also comparing the findings with alternative correlations available in literature. Links between CBR
index and static modulus were identified with empirical approaches by Rafiroiu (1971) and Jeuffroy (1967). Based on
the analysis of various data from literature, Rafiroiu proposed two relations for the static elastic modulus Est considering
the average statistic distribution: Est = 3∙CBR [MPa] for cohesive soils; Est = 5∙CBR [MPa] for non-cohesive ones. CBR
index of a compacted sample was measured in laboratory using the same density obtained in-field during static plate
tests. Formulas were then validated trough an experimental survey with the determination of the static modulus of
elasticity at the second loading cycle with a 30 cm diameter plate. Independently from the soil nature, Jeuffroy proposed
the correlation Est = 6.4∙(CBR)0.65, in MPa, even if a poor scientific background caused a weak reliability. Alternatively,

1
Corresponding author: marco.pasetto@unipd.it
Sargious found a correlation between the CBR index and the reaction modulus k; it was a bilateral-shaped curve, where
the first part, for CBR values ranging from 2 to 30, was represented by the equation k = 4.1+51.3∙log(CBR) [MPa/m],
and the second one, for CBR from 30 to 100, was governed by k = -314.7+266.7∙log(CBR) [MPa/m]. Depending on the
soil type, Sangiorgi et al. (2006) proposed a relation between deformation modulus Md and dynamic modulus Evd,
effective for Md values higher than 50 MPa: Evd = (0,2∙Md)+(18,2±2,4). Also Kim et al. (2007) performed a lot of tests
in order to identify a possible correlation between Md and Evd: in addition, they certified the significant cost save related
to the substitution of the static plate tests with dynamic LFWD ones. Harison (1987) developed theoretical explanation
for the linear log-log relation between DCP and CBR, conducting tests on clay-like, well-graded sand, and well-graded
gravel samples prepared with standard CBR molds: moisture content and dry density parameters resulted key aspects
for the CBR-DCP correlation. Truebe et al. (1995) evaluated the strength of a low volume road managed by the Forest
Service in USA by means of the DCP, presenting a correlation between this apparatus and in-field CBR for unbound
layers and subgrade. They furtherly reported the efficacy of DCP in the quick evaluation of strength properties.
Interesting DCP-CBR relations were also published by Abdulrahman (2015). Wyroslak (2017) found other equations
among the above described bearing parameters, depending on the state of surface layers of soil. Varghese at al. (2009)
studied relations between LFWD, DCP and CBR parameters in order to define easy tools for the conversion of such
physical quantities.
Given this introduction, the herein study presents the results of several in-situ and laboratory tests aimed at identifying
some correlations between the main bearing strength parameters. Tests, described in more detail in the following
paragraph, were executed within a vast unbuilt area of the Northern Italy, close to a major infrastructure. Inside this
area, rectangular shaped, a reference central axis was identified: 3 alignments, parallel to the axis, were defined at a
distance of 53, 75 and 105 meters on both sides (the northern and southern side are hereafter named “a” and “b”
respectively). Perpendicularly to the reference alignment, 10 sections on the “a” side and 12 sections on the “b” side
were drawn (at a distance of 200 meters one from the other) in order to define the location of the bearing tests. In some
cases, the test sites were shifted some meters when ducts and pipes were detected close to the position. In the same area,
some soil samples were taken to be analyzed in the laboratory. Figure 1 shows the layout of the test site (reference axis,
“a” and “b” alignments, test and sampling sections). Since investigation required about two weeks of work, soil water
content calculated with specific procedures was supposed to vary during the experimental campaign.

Fig. 1.
Tests and sampling area

2. Methods and Experimental Data

Data used for the present work were collected during in-situ and laboratory tests. In-field tests consisted in static and
dynamic measurement of bearing capacity of soils: the more complex and time-consuming tests (depending on the
equipment set up and the need of contrast truck machines) were carried only in some indicative sections (Figure 1); on
the contrary, easier and faster tests (e.g. LFWD) were executed in all the sections. The following tests were carried out:
Light Falling Weight Deflectometer (LFWD) tests, static plate-bearing tests, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests (DPCT)
and sand cone tests. Light Falling Weight Deflectometer (ASTM E2835-11) allows the dynamic testing of soils and
involves a quick procedure; for this reason, it was used in all the sections: the output parameter of LFWD is the
dynamic modulus Evd. Static plate-bearing load tests (according to Italian standards, CNR 146/1992 and CNR 92/1983)
were carried out only in some points, determining the deformation modulus Md (300 mm diameter steel plate) and the
reaction modulus k (760 mm diameter plate). DCP tests, performed in two replicates for all sections, allowed the
estimation of the CBR index throughout a relation given by the US Army Corps of Engineering (ASTM D6951).
Finally, sand cone test was used to determine the in-field specific weight of the soil (Italian standard, CNR 22/1972):
tests were carried out only in some representative zones. Then, in the laboratory, collected samples were subject to
grading analysis (EN 933-1 and EN 933-2) and Atterberg limit’s determination (CEN ISO/TS 17892-12); soils were
classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Furthermore, Proctor specimens were compacted
according with standards (EN 13286-2), adding the specific quantity of water corresponding to the pre-determined
natural humidity. Part of the samples were tested suddenly after the compaction to calculate the immediate bearing
index (IBI) (EN 13286-47); the other ones were subject to soaking 4 days (EN 13286-47) in order to evaluate swelling
and CBR index after immersion.
Freeze-thawing tests were performed using an original protocol to evaluate the soil frost resistance: samples, after
Proctor compaction, were sealed with plastic bags (to maintain humidity) and subject to freeze-thawing cycles. The
samples were subject alternatively to freezing at -15°C, 50% humidity, for 12 hours and thawing at 20° C, 50%
humidity, for 12 hours. The freeze-thawing cycle was repeated 6 days. After the 6th day, the samples were moved in a
room at 20°C for 24 hours and then the compressive strength was measured.
Grading, Atterberg limits and water content are reported in Table 1. According to the USCS, the soil can be classified as
“silty sand, sand-silt mixture” (acronym “SM”). Two samples coming from 1a and 9b sections were classified as
“poorly-graded gravel, gravel-sand mixture, little or no fine” (acronym “GP”) and “inorganic silt and very fine sand,
rock flour, silty of clayey fine sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity” (acronym “ML”), respectively. Considering the
classification prescribed by the Italian standard UNI 11531-1:2014 (based on the AASHTO classification), most of the
specimens resulted as “silty-sand soil” (“A2-4” code). Table 1 resumes the results obtained for each test position. Table
2 and 3 summarize the in-field tests results, reporting the type of test and the corresponding parameter. Table 2, related
to sand cone tests, shows natural soil moisture (%), bulk density (Mg/m3) and dry bulk density (Mg/m3). Table 3 shows
plate-bearing load tests results (k, in MPa/m, and Md, in MPa), LFWD moduli (Evd, in MPa) and Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer data (DCP in mm/blow and CBR in %). Table 4 summarizes the results obtained with laboratory tests:
CBR index [%] after Proctor compaction, initial hi and final hf specimen height [mm] (before and after soaking,
respectively), swelling Δh (hf – hi difference), strength resistance before (RC, in MPa) and after the freeze-thawing
cycles (RC-F/T, in MPa). The parameter (RC - RC-F/T)/RC (in %) is used to evaluate the resistance variations after freeze-
thawing cycles. In general, an overall consideration of results points out that studied soils have a discrete bearing
capacity (for static plate and LFWD tests, bearing capacity was always measured 20 centimeters under the surface after
the grassy topsoil removal).

Table 1
Grading analysis, Atterberg limits and classification results for in-field soil samples
Sampling points
1a 1b 2b 3a 4b 5a 7a 7b 9a 9b 10a 10b 11b
Grading analysis
Sieve size
Passing [%]
[mm]
2.00 94.0 99.0 93.0 99.9 97.0 82.0 96.5 94.0 99.0 99.9 100.0 97.0 90.1
0.4 46.0 82.0 72.0 92.9 85.0 71.0 88.8 81.0 89.0 97.5 92.0 87.0 81.1
0.063 4.0 27.0 16.0 40.4 30.0 15.0 27.9 7.0 25.0 56.0 41.0 23.0 33.4
Atterberg limits
WL [%] 22 17 23 18 18 17 19 19 19 19 17 21 20
WP [%] 17 13 18 15 17 18 17 17 18 18 16 19 17
IP [%] 4 4 5 3 2 0 2 3 1 1 1 2 2
Classification
USCS GP SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM ML SM SM SM
UNI A1-b A2-4 A2-4 A4 A2-4 A2-4 A2-4 A3 A2-4 A4 A4 A2-4 A2-4

Table 2
Sand cone test results: natural moisture and bulk density of soil
Sampling Points
1a 1b 2b 3a 4b 5a 7a 7b 9a 9b 10a 10b 11b
Natural soil moisture [%]
6.4 9.1 7.1 7.8 8.8 9.4 8.2 8.1 7.0 7.2 8.6 7.9 7.7
Soil bulk density with natural moisture content [Mg/m3]
1190 1540 1510 1310 1870 1510 1680 1660 1400 1480 1470 1720 1640
Soil dry bulk density [Mg/m3]
1050 1320 1310 1160 1620 1320 1450 1340 1230 1310 1320 1440 1380

Table 3
In field test results (from LFWD, static plate-bearing load tests, DCPT index and CBR by DCPT, respectively)
Sampling DCP index CBR (from
Evd [MPa] Md [MPa] K [MPa/m]
points [mm/blow] DCP) [%]
1a 10.98 12.00 3.26 36.6 5
1b 15.23 21.33 --- 12.9 22
 Sampling DCP index CBR (from
Evd [MPa] Md [MPa] K [MPa/m]
points [mm/blow] DCP) [%]
2a 15.12 14.56 1.64 21.2 16
2b 14.12 7.70 7.38 24.9 13
3a 9.93 --- --- 22.7 9
3b 15.73 --- --- 32.2 7
4a 8.98 16.25 9.43 29.6 7
4b 16.55 15.82 7.09 23.6 9
5a 11.68 36.63 8.79 18.7 12
5b 14.40 20.00 2.87 19.1 12
6a 11.20 27.69 7.21 23.1 12
6b 14.62 19.40 4.68 29.7 8
7a 12.15 22.56 4.66 24.4 9
7b 10.88 10.43 5.61 21.4 13
8a 17.77 16.76 15.67 26.6 8
8b 23.60 30.00 9.38 21.8 14
9a 21.62 10.32 7.75 27.0 18
9b 15.23 13.66 8.68 23.8 10
10a 14.67 --- --- 18.4 19
10b 12.75 13.85 8.17 31.4 7
11b 13.98 20.13 6.62 18.6 12
12b 17.75 --- --- 12.9 18

Table 4
Laboratory test results (IBI, CBR, expansion, frost resistance after freeze-thawing cycles)
Sampling IBI CBR hi hi h (=hf - hi) RC RC-F/T (RC – RC-F/T)/RC
points [%] [%] [mm] [mm] [mm] [MPa] [MPa] [%]
1a 46 4 126.57 133.29  0.48 0.36 26

1b 15 27 124.51 127.25 2.74 0.38 0.29 24

2b 68 14 126.66 131.94 5.28 0.65 0.62 5

3a 51 38 124.99 126.77 1.78 0.73 0.64 12

4b 49 23 124.56 126.3 1.74 0.41 0.32 21

5a 58 32 124.38 126.62 2.24 0.45 0.27 41
7a 46 18 124.48 129.34 4.86 0.32 0.19 41
7b 34 24 124.58 128.17 3.59 0.27 0.27 1

9a 32 10 125.06 127.94 2.88 0.40 0.30 26

9b 61 8 124.18 130.61 6.43 0.52 0.49 6

10a 16 15 124.45 130.07 5.62 0.65 0.59 9

10b 48 31 152.62 128.49 2.87 0.46 0.29 36

11b 76 40 124.25 126.61 2.36 0.60 0.36 40

Values reported on Table 3 and 4 show a not good bearing capacity of the examined soils. Italian specifications for the
construction of transport infrastructures introduce a classification based on parameter values. Soil investigated in this
paper have: “middle” characteristics (CBR > 9% e k > 60 kPa/mm) if used as subgrade for road construction, “good”
characteristics (15 % ≤ CBR ≤ 20 %) if used in airport safety strip or flexible pavement subgrade and “bad”
characteristics if used as subgrade for railways or rigid pavement subgrade for airport infrastructures.
CBR indexes deduced from DCP tests and measured in the laboratory (after Proctor compaction and 4-days soaking)
are sensibly different. Although literature reported that laboratory and in-situ (DCP) CBR values generally match
(Sangiorgi et al., 2006), in this case a higher densification in the laboratory was observed and determined high CBR
values if compared with those of in-situ samples; this was probably due to a low presence of fines and compactability
characteristics. Table 4 also shows swelling results (height variation of samples confined in molds) after 4 days of
soaking and the compressive strength (RC) before and after freeze-thawing cycles (RC-F/T). In general, soils seem to be
partially affected by freeze-thaw effects, with an expansion equal to approximately 5% and a compressive resistance
decrease of 22%.

3. Developed Correlations

Considering the existence of several equations suitable for correlating different bearing capacity parameters, some of
them were used to verify the possible correlation of results for the soils analyzed in the present work.
First of all, relating dynamic modulus Evd (recorded with LFWD) and static modulus Md (calculated with static plate-
bearing load test), an acceptable correspondence seemed to exist (R2 = 0,7). A plot is presented in Figure 2.
Using the Baksay, New Baksay, Rafiroiu_1 and Rafiroiu_2 equations (Figure 3), reliability of different formulations for
Evd versus Md was verified. Baksay, “New Baksay” and Rafiroiu_1 formulas exhibited better confident relations (R2 =
0,58) with respect to Rafiroiu_2 one, for which R2 is equal to 0,43 (the lack of a stronger link can be probably ascribed
to the low content of the fine fraction in soils). The equations used are the following: Evd = (0,52∙Md)+9,1 for Baksay;
Evd = 0,62∙Md for “New Baksay”; Evd = 1,1∙Md for Rafiroiu_1; Evd = (1,1+0,028∙)∙Md for Rafiroiu_2 ( is the
percentage passing to 0,063 mm sieve). Using these equations to evaluate the real data, Figure 3 shows that “New
Baksay” formula leads to an overestimation and Baksay formula to an underestimation of Evd. Rafiriou_1 and
Rafiroiu_2 formulas show an overestimation using low Md values, and viceversa for high Md values.

35,00

30,00

25,00
y = 0,5167x + 6,1239
Evd [MPa]

20,00 R² = 0,70

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00
Md [MPa]

Fig. 2.
Relation between dynamic modulus Evd and static modulus Md

45,00

40,00

35,00
Measured Evd [MPa]

30,00

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00
Calculated Evd [MPa]

Baksay (data) "New Baksay" (data) Rafiroiu_1 (data)

Rafiroiu_2 (data) Baksay (corr.) "New Baksay" (corr.)
Rafiroiu_1 (corr.) Rafiroiu_2 (corr.) 45° line

Fig. 3.
Relations between Evd (measured in situ) in the y-axis and different calculated Evd values in the x-axis

The relation between in-situ (DCP) and laboratory CBR index was also investigated. Figure 4 presents two relations:
the first one (grey broken line) is the ASTM standard equation (between DCP in mm/blow and the CBR index in
percentage) used to calculate the bearing capacity from DCP test; the second one (black dotted line) is the equation
based on data from the field test (DCP) and laboratory test (CBR index). The Figure 4 shows that ASTM standard
equation (CBR = 292∙DCP-1,12) underestimates the CBR values calculated in laboratory. The weak correlation between
DCP and CBR index (measured CBR values are higher than those deriving from the ASTM standard equation) is
caused probably by the better densification given by Proctor compaction in laboratory.
 120

100

Laboratory CBR [%]

80 y = 292x-1,12

60 y = 235,29x-0,823
R² = 0,14
40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DCP [mm/blows]
Fig. 4.
Relationship between laboratory CBR index and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test (DCPT)

The correlations between static modulus Est (in MPa) or deformation modulus Md (in MPa) and laboratory CBR index
(estimated from Est or Md) are presented in Figure 5. Jeuffroy formula (Est = 6,4∙CBR0,65), Boussinesq equation (Est =
0,92∙CBR, with Poisson’s coefficient equal to 0,4) and the equation Md = CBR/0,2 (where deformation modulus Md is
measured in MPa – Ferrari et al., 1983) were used to estimate CBR indexes. Figure 5 represents: Jeuffroy formula,
Boussinesq equation, the equation Md = CBR/0,2 and the data distribution measured with in-field tests. Despite the
quite low R2 values, static modulus Md is predicted with laboratory CBR indexes; Jeuffroy and Md = CBR/0,2 formulas
lead in this case to an underestimation of CBR values, but data show a fair fit with Boussinesq equation.

45,00

40,00

35,00

30,00 y = 0,41x + 8,3

Md or Est [MPa]

R² = 0,28
25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00
CBR [% ]
Md - CBR (data) Md = CBR/0,2 Boussinesq (Est - CBR)
Jeuffroy (Est - CBR) Md - CBR (corr.)

Fig. 5.
Relationship between CBR index and static modulus Est or Md

Figure 6 shows the correlation between static modulus (Md) and reaction modulus (k); plotted data seemed to show no
evident correlation between these two bearing capacity parameters.

45,00

40,00

35,00

30,00
Md [MPa]

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00
k [MPa/mm]
Fig. 6.
Relationship between measured static modulus Md and measured reaction modulus k

4. Conclusions
An experimental study has been carried out on soils in order to determine the main mechanical parameters suitable for
representing their bearing capacity. In field and laboratory tests have been performed involving the evaluation of static
and dynamic moduli as well as current laboratory indexes in different operating conditions, with the purpose of defining
possible correlations among the more common strength parameters. The first conclusion of the research was that tests
carried out in laboratory, even if according to the standards in force, overestimate mechanical performances due to the
different compaction conditions which guarantee a higher density of specimens: Proctor compaction procedures, CBR
and IBI from laboratory tests lead to a less conservative classification of materials than in field trials. Generally, some
correlation among the different parameters can be found, even if it is strictly related to materials’ properties and test
procedures. The dynamic modulus from LFWD is the most difficult parameter to be linked to other indexes due to the
specific size of the tool, the loadings involved and the test protocol.
In any case, comparing the equations from in-field tests and literature, significant differences in form and coefficients
were highlighted; soil characteristics (e.g. particle size distribution, etc.) play a crucial role. For these reason, more
research is recommended in order to investigate better all the aspects which affect the typical parameters used to
indicate the bearing capacity of soils.

References

Abdulrahman, M. H. 2015. The dynamic cone penetration test: a review of its correlations and applications. In
Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Civil and Environmental Engineering 2015.
Adam, C.; Adam, D.; Kopf, F.; Paulmichl, I. 2009. Computational validation of static and dynamic plate load testing,
Acta Geotechnica, 4(1): 35-55.
Ese, D.; Myre, J.; Noss, P.; Vxrnes, E. 1994. The Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) for Road Strengthening
Design in Norway. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields,
343-357.
Ferrari, P.; Giannini, F. 1983. Ingegneria stradale. ISEDI. Italy. (In Italian).
Fleming, P.R.; Frost, M.W.; Lambert, J.P. 2009. Lightweight Deflectometers for quality assurance in road construction.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, 809-818.
Harison, J.R. 1987. Correlation between California bearing ratio and dynamic cone penetrometer strength measurement
of soils. In Proceedings of institution of civil engineers, 83–87.
Jeuffroy, G.A. 1967. Conception et construction des chaussées. Eyrolles. Paris.
Kim, J.R.; Kang, H.B.; Kim, D.; Park, D.S.; Kim, W.J. 2007. Evaluation of in situ modulus of compacted subgrades
using portable falling weight deflectometer and plate-bearing load test, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
19(6): 492-499.
Lim, S.M.; Wijeyesekera, D.C.; Bakar, I. 2014. Correlations of soil classification and compaction parameters with
soaked and unsoaked CBR of soils. In Proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 D1/1-D1/16.
Loizos, A.; Boukovalas, G.; Karlaftis, A. 2003. Dynamic stiffness modulus for pavement subgrade evaluation, Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 129(4): 434-443.
Patel, M.A.; Patel, H.S. 2013. Laboratory assessment to correlate strength parameter from physical properties of
subgrade, Procedia engineering, 51: 200-209.
Rafiroiu, M. 1971. Essai d'etude statistique des constantes élastiques des matériaux routiers. Revue Generals des Routes
et des Aerodromes.
Sangiorgi, C.; Vignali, V. 2006. Studio di correlazioni tra prove di carico su piastra statiche e dinamiche, Strade &
Autostrade, 3: 42-48. (In Italian).
Talukdar, D.K. 2014. A study of correlation between california bearing ratio (CBR) value with other properties of soil,
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 4(1): 559-562.
Tompai, Z. 2008 Conversion between static and dynamic load bearing capacity moduli and introduction of dynamic
target values, Periodica polytechnica Civil Engineering, 52(2): 97-102.
Truebe, M.A.; Evans, G.L.; Bolander, P. 1995. Lowell test road: helping improve road surfacing design. In Proceedings
of Transportation Research Board Conference 1995, 98-107.
Varghese, G.; Nageshwar, C. R.; Shivashankar, R. 2009. PFWD, DCP and CBR correlations for evaluation of lateritic
subgrades, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 10(3): 189–199.
Wyroslak, M. 2017. Establishing relationships between parameters of the controlled compaction soil by using various
in-situ tests, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245:1-8.