PAPER

per minute, as

~e slrencl", ~ oi Loading ram

described
BS1377(1990).
Since
drainage
no
was
in

Deviator stress

we clracic (6) - 6s)

I
~
permitted dur-
ing
total
cond
shearing,

it
stress
i on s
s
Perspex

co >esivel i Loading cap

l

I
cell body

Solid
perspex
applied.
water

recorded.
Pore
pres-
sures were not

by Philip Jenkins, lecturer, University of Abertay Dundee Rubber disc

Relationship
membrane
and and IA Kerr, professional officer, City of Edinburgh Sample between CBR
and other soil
Council parameters
Considerable
Synopsis research
has
The engineering behaviour of fill material derived from well graded Dett been carried
Boulder Clay has posed problems for civil engineers concerned with prussur%I out in an
road design and construction. Small increases in the moisture content of attempt to
the fill material can result in significant loss of shear strength. This Fig 2:The unconsolldatedundrslnedtrlaxlaltestapparutus. relate the CBR
factor can have serious implications for pavement performance when value of a soil
upper layers of the subgrade material are affected. A series of to parameters such as moisture content, plasticity, suction and shear
compaction, undrained shear strength and CBR tests were performed on strength. One approach has considered the CBR test to simulate bearing
samples selected to simulate well graded Boulder Clay fill material. The capacity failure under a circular footing; since the load is applied
reduction in strength of the fill with increasing moisture content was rapidly, undrained shear failure is implied for cohesive soils and hence it
investigated; the concept of matrix moisture content was examined. A may be assumed that ()=0'.
correlation between undrained shear strength and CBR is proposed. Black (1962) investigated the relationship between CBR and plasticity
data for cohesive soils and stated that experience had shown that at a
Inbodu etio n penetration of 2.5mm bearing capacity failure of the test soil had
The deleterious effects of water on clay fills are well documented. The generally occurred. Black demonstrated the relationship between CBR
combination of a well graded cohesive fill such as Boulder Clay and and moisture content for six remoulded inorganic clay soils and
heavy intermittent rainfall during the earthworks season has a great proposed a method which allowed engineers to estimate the C BR of a soil
influence on road design and construction activities in Scotland. The from its liquid limit, plastic limit and natural moisture content. Other
rate of deterioration of the strength of Boulder Clay during wet weather relationships concerned suction and degree of saturation.
can be dramatic; the actual CBR value of the material at formation level Black and Lister(1979) published results of an investigation into the
at the time of construction can be significantly lower than the CBR strength of clay fill subgrades and discussed relationships between
values measured on samples obtained during the ground investigation. CBR, moisture content, plasticity. suction and undrained shear strength
This paper presents the results of laboratory tests which have been of cohesive soils.
performed on simulated Boulder Clay fill material to quantify and CBR = (stress on plunger)-69
explain the loss in strength due to increasing moisture content. A at 2.5mm penetration where stress is in kPa. This is deduced from the
relationship between undrained shear strength (cu) and California area of the plunger 1,935mm-'nd the standard force applied at 2.5mm
Bearing Ratio(CBR) is suggested. penetration = 13.2kN. Black and Lister referred to model footing studies
by Skempton (1951) which had indicated that at 2.5mm penetration the
The CBR test stress on the plunger is equal to about half the ultimate bearing capacity
The essential features of the test apparatus are shown in Figure 1. The [Quit] of the soil.
test, which is fully described in Hence CBR = (05*Quit)-69= Quit 138 ,'2)
BS1377(1990)consists of loading a The ultimate bearing capacity of a circular footing
sample of soil at a rate of os
oad
A pp lied load
I
placed on the surface of a soil is Quit = 6.0*c
1mm/minute with a circular Hence CBR = cu-23 13 I

plunger of cross sectional area or cu 23*C BR

equal to 1,935mm-. Load versus Metal plunger This implies a linear relationship between
penetration curves are plotted and ~~ undrained shear strength and CBR value. Black and
the actual load values at 2.5mm Lister suggested a minor modification to the formula,
and 5mm penetration are noted. based on the suction method:-
Dial gauge support
These load values are compared 50mm dia c=23*(CBR+ 1)
with the standard loads of 13.2kN The soils considered in their study were silty or
and 20kN. The CBR of the soil is sandy clays such as London clay, brickearths and red
expressed as a per.centage of the Dial gauge 25mm coffee soils.
standard load. the larger value travel (0.01mm Black (1979) published results of an investigation
being used for design purposes. divisions. 1mm per into the strength of clay subgrades using a
For a particular soil the CBR value revolution) penetrometer. The relationship between CBR and
generally increases as dry density I'
undrained shear strength (cu) was considered with
increases and as moisture content Detachable collar respect to theoretical ultimate hearing capacity of a
decreases. The test is empirical circular footing and the relationship CBR = cu 23 was
and was adopted in the UK during restated.
the 1950s. A table of results was included which summarised
49.ttmm the work of various authors and this showed that
Unconsolidated undrained din Mould for:-
shear strength test Soil sample Undisturbed samples: c/CBR 8.6 to 11.0
The essmitial features of the test 152mm dla x Remoulded samples: cu/CBR = 24.5 to 27.6
apparatus are shown in Figure 2. 127rnm high The equationcu =23.0*CBR l6l
Samples of soil 100mm in was proposed for remoulded soils and the equation
diameter by 200mm high were c u =11.5*CBR 17 I

shear ed to failure by applying an was suggested for undisturbed overconsolidated

axial load at a rate of strain of 2 "< Fig 1:The CBR apparatus. soils.

38 (Il(()I)NI) I'()INI(I'I(IN(I %1alr('I I 1998

 PAPER

Brown, Loach and O'Reilly (1987) considered the Tablel:Soilclassificationtestresults

relationships between CBR and undrained shear
strength although the main effort was directed Sampletype LiquidLimit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Specific Gravity
towards investigating repeated loading of fine Silty Clay 44 21 23 2.681
grained soils. 45 /o fines 34 17 17 2.673
The relationship: c(kPa) = 7.8*CBR 8l l 35'/o fines 31 16 15 2.671
was obtained using shear vane and pocket 25 )o fines 26 15 11 2.670
penetrometer equipment on samples which had been
saturated an isotropically and overconsolidated.
In addition, samples were prepared by mixing dry soil Table 2: CBR test results
and water and compacting them into a CBR mould.
The undrained shear strength was measured using Finescontentof sample=25%
the pocket penetrometer and the relationship was Moisturecontent(%) 7.9 9.2 10.3 11.5
found to be
c(kPa) = 34*CBR ,'9,
A less satisfactory relationship was obtained using
'CBR
Dry density (Mg/mo) 2.13
33.5
2.11
16.5
2.07
4.2
2.02
1.0

the shear vane, the correlation being of the form: Fines content of sample = 35%
c=k*CBR ,'10, 'Moisture content(%) 7.0 9.1 11.3 11.9 14.1
The value of "k" is a function of soil type and varies Dry density (Mg/mo) 2.04 2.11 2.01 1.98 1.94
between 11.5 for Gault Clay to 20 for Keuper Marl. CBR 37.0 22.0 6.0 2.7 1.1
Previously Black (1979)had suggested a value of 23 for
remoulded soil. Fines content of sample = 45%
Ervin (1993) presented results demonstrating the Moisturecontent(%) 10.2 11.1 12.1 13.1 13.9
influence of moulding water content on the Dry density (Mg/mo) 2.00 2.00 1.99 1.95 1.94
undrained shear strength of three compacted clay CBR 18.5 11.0 9.0 6.0 3.2
soils being placed in a dam. The moisture contents
were varied from 2'o below to 4% above standard
optimum moisture content. The relationship between undrained shear
strength and moisture variation from optimum demonstrated a steady I
Lcw ptnsttcity ltntennediate1 "'g" Very high
1

near linear reduction in strength with increasing moisture. 60

Jones and Greenwood (1993) reported on relationship testing for
acceptability of cohesive fill from three sites in eastern England. The 50. 1~25%Fines w3
soils were clays varying from low to high plasticity. Linear relationships 0~O
between moisture content and the logarithm of undrained shear 40'
strength and CBR were obtained. A linear relationship of the form cu = 30.
23*CBR was obtained for the clay of intermediate to high plasticity.

Laboratory tesbng of simulated Boulder Clays

Material preparation

fI"
10
Three grading curves were chosen to represent generally well graded
boulder clay. Test samples were prepared by combining sub-rounded '0 80
sand and gravel particles with a silty clay obtained from the brick pit at
Errol. Tayside. The particle size distribution of the samples was chosen
such that the materials were well graded and contained 25o, 35oo and Flg4:Plesflcltycbnrl.
45oo silty clay respectively; the remainder of each sample consisted of
gravel finer than 20mm and sand. The grading curves of the silty clay
and the three test materials are shown in Figure 3. The silty clay content
of the test samples henceforth is referred to as "o o fines". 2.10.
E
Results of Laboratory Tests 2.05-
The results of soil classification tests are summarised in Table 1 and E
plotted graphically in Figure 4. Since liquid and plastic limits are
determined on soil particles passing the 0.425mm size sieve. the 2.00-
N
reduction in plasticity as the fines content reduces is directly related to
the increasing amount of fine and medium sand in the test samples. The g 1.95.
rate of reduction in the value of the liquid limit with the addition of fine
and medium sand is much greater than the effect of sand on the plastic
I Jfg
limit. All four test results plot above the "A" line and are classified as
clays of low to intermediate plasticity.
6 7, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Moisture content (%)
The relationship between dry density and moisture content
(compaction curve) was established for each of the sample types and Fig 5:Retettonshlp between dry densify and moisture content.

100- these are shown in Figure 5.

The undrained shear strengths and CBR values of each sample type
were measured at combinations of dry density and moisture content
representing points on the compaction curves. The samples were
70 prepared at the required moisture content and to the required density by
a! 60- static compression in steel moulds, taking care to minim ise the presence
e 50. of density variations within the samples. It was inevitable that the
density and moisture content of samples did not exactly match the
40. target values from the compaction curves but close agreement was
5 30. achieved. The undrained shear strength was determined from a single
20. sample at a cell pressure of 50kPa. The value of chas been taken to be
10 ~ Fines half the deviator stress at failure. This is truly valid only when (i)o is zero
which theoretically occurs when the degree of saturation of the sample
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 approaches 100 o.
Particle size (mm) The relationships between CBR test results, density and increasing
moisture content are shown in Table 2.
Fig 3:Pargcle size distributions of test materlnls. The relationships between undrained shear strength, density <m<1

(II)I)NI) I:.N(;INNNI(IN<) '.(IAI'II 1998 39

 PAPER

Table 3:Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test results strength and a 50'/1 to 60'/0 reduction in CBR value.
The relationship between cand CBR for the
Fines content of sample = 25% materials chosen to represent boulder clay is shown
Moisture content(%) 8.3 9.5 10.7 11.1 in Figure 8. The parabolic curve
Dry density (Mg/m') 2.03 2.06 1.99 1.99 c = 27.15*CBRo.5w 11,'
Undrained shear strength (kPa) 146.2 132.1 36.1 34.7 is proposed; this curve has a correlation coefficient of
Fines content of sample = 35% 0.953.
Moisture content (%) 9.3 10.6 11.6 12.0
Dry density (Mg/m"') 2.07 2.07 1.95 1.98 Discussion
Undrained shear strength (kPa) 178.5 120.9 81.0 54.5 The marked reduction in soil strength, measured
either in terms of undrained shear strength or CBR
Fines content of sample = 45% value needs to be considered in more detail. Several
Moisture content (%) 10.9 11.8 13.2 14.6 researchers and practising engineers in the past have
Dry density (Mg/m') 1.95 1.95 1.91 1.86 considered how the additional water is absorbed by
Undrained shear strength (kPa) 135.3 95.4 67.0 34.8 well graded cohesive soils. Laboratory tests during
this investigation indicated that the saturation
moisture content of the sand and gravel fraction did
Table 4: Summary of laboratory test results not exceed 5%. Therefore at moisture contents in
excess of 5%, water must be preferentially absorbed
Sample Type 25% fines 35% fines 45% fines by the "fine" particles namely the silt and clay
Maximum dry density (Mg/m') 2.14 2.09 2.01 fraction. The matrix moisture content is defined as
Optimum moisture content (%) 8 9 11 the moisture content of the particles finer than
Matrix moisture content (%) 17.0 16.4 18.3 0.06mm, assuming that the sand and gravel particles
Plastic Limit 15 16 17 are saturated at 5% water by weight.
Liquid Limit 26 31 34 The matrix moisture content [mmc] can be
Air content (%) 3.2 2.9 2.7 calculated from:-
Void ratio 0.254 0.252 0.330 iliiiic = [100*(w -0 05*(100- % Fines))] % Fines,'2 ',

Degree of saturation (%) 84.1 95.4 89.1 where "w" is the moisture content of the whole
sample, expressed as a percentage.
Table 5 illustrates the relationship between
40- moisture content and calculated matrix moisture contents for the three
ii different test samples. The relationships between undrained shear
35- ~ 25% Fines w 35% Fines ~ 45% Fines
~ strength and CBR with increasing matrix moisture content are shown in
30- Figures 9 and 10. Small increases in the moisture content, as
determined on the whole sample, result in large increases in the matrix
o 25. moisture content. It appears that the optimum moisture content occurs
> 20. when the matrix moisture content of the sample is approximately equal
K to its plastic limit. CBR values below 2.0 and undrained shear strengths
rn 15-
below 45kPa are obtained when the matrix moisture content approaches
10. the liquid limit of the sample.
5. The standard laboratory test to determine the CBR values of boulder
clays are not wholly reliable for a number of reasons but the gravel
content and the limited cross-sectional area of the plunger in relation to
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 the particle size of the material can lead to significant errors.
Moisture content (%) Erroneously high results may arise due to concentrations of gravel in
the test zone beneath the plunger. Although the CBR test procedure has
Fig 6:Rolotlonshlp between CBR and moisture content. been standardised the CBR value of a soil is an empirical parameter. The
test can be considered as a 50mm diameter circular model footing. In
moisture content are shown in Table 3. practice the CBR has proved to be an acceptable parameter on which to
base road design.
Analysis of Laboratory Test Results The 100mm diameter unconsolidated undrained triaxial test is a
It can be seen from the data in Table 4 that the optimum moisture routine laboratory test procedure in which the soil fails in shear. In
contents are 6% to 7% below the plastic limits of each sample. The air theory the failure plane should be inclined at 45'o the horizontal,
content of the samples at maximum dry density is low at around 3% and assuming that Ii= 0, which should be the case for full saturation of the
would be acceptable for fill material in embankment construction. The sample. Non-uniform distribution of the granular particles should not
degree of saturation is more variable, ranging from 84% to 95%. be so critical due to the greater area of the failure plane [in theory an
The relationship between undrained shear strength and CBR with ellipse of 44,400mm'] compared to the area of the CBR plunger which is
increasing moisture content is shown in Figures 6 and 7; the reduction 1,935mm'. A set of three identical samples prepared to the same density
in both cand CBR with increasing moisture content is marked for all and moisture content is required for testing at different cell pressures;
three sample types. Typically a 2% increase in moisture content above multistage triaxial testing is not advised.
optimum moisture content results in a 40% to 46% reduction in shear

180-
180-
160- o- 160-
c 140 c 140-
S 120. co120-
S 100-
100-
c m
ro 80.
80-
60.
60. o
~(g 40-
c 40- c 20- es
20 0
8 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Moisture content (%) California bearing ratio (%)

Fig 7:Relationship between undrained shear strength and moisture content. Fig 8:Relationship between CBR and undrained shear strength.

40 GROIIND ENGINEERING NIARGII 1998

 PAPER

40-
35- ~s 35T Fines ~ 45'/ Fines~
30-
25
'0-
I P<l1
cJ 15- Ground Engineering
10- l

0
10 15 20 25
Moisture content ( Io)
Flg 9:Relationship between CBR and matrix molstare content.

Conclusions
The rapid reduction in both shear strength and CBR values of well
graded cohesive fills as the moisture content increases has been
demonstrated.
It is tentatively proposed that the CBR value of well graded cohesive
fills can be estimated from the undrained shear strength parameter
using the equation;
CBR=(c 27)'
A 100mm diameter unconsolidated undrained triaxial test on
compacted material is likely to provide a more reliable measure of the
: (tsimple) soiuti ons for the world':8
strength of a well graded material; the design CBR may be estimated diffic ult ground
from undrained shear strength.
It is suggested that the optimum moisture content of a well graded
cohesive fill material coincides with the matrix moisture content being
close to the plastic limit of the fill material. ~I +44 (0) 1706 877555 Deep Compaction and
References ~4'-44 (0) I 706 879754 Stone Column techtto
Black. WPM. "A method of estimating California Bearing Ratios of cohesive soils from (0 Sales)
plasticity data, Georecknique, December 1982. "i/groundpennine-9 I'ou P.C
Black, WPM, "The strength of clay subgrades: its measurement by a penetrometer", TRRL (0 Rental)
Report. LR901. 1979.
Black. WPM and Lister NW, "The strength of clay till subgrades: its prediction in relation
to road performance", TRRL Laboratory Report 889, 1979.
~~:3 www.pennine.co.uk (0 Technical Ispthtit

Brown SF, Loach SC and O'Reilly MP. "Repeated loading of fine grained soils", TRRL
Contractor Report 72, 1987.
BS1377:1990,"Methodsof testforsoilsforcivilengineeringpurposes",BSI,1990. (
m~ a Reader Enquiry No. 24 (
Skempton AW, "The bearing capacity of clays", Building Research Congress. London, 1981,
(Building Research Station).
Ervin MC. "Specification and control of earthworks", Engineered Fills, Eds Clarke B.G.,
Jones C JFP and Moffat AIB. Thomas Telford, 1993.
Jones RH and Greenwood JR. "Relationship testing for acceptability assessment of
cohesive soils". Engineered Fills, Eds Clarke BG. Jones CJFP and Moffat AIB, Thontas ~ ~ ~ ~
Te Iford. 1993.

IL

c
180-
160.
140 ~
VERMEER
from start to finish
~
g 120-
100-
80. Custom built Piling Machines for use
~
60- with dropweight, hydr. hammer,
eg
re 40- augerboring and other tools
C 20.
D
0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Matrix moisture content (%)
Fig 10:Relatlonshlp between undrained shear strength and matrix moisture

Table 5:Matrix moisture content values

Moisture content(%) Matrixmoisture content(%)

25% Fines 35% Fines 45% Fines

8 17.0 13.6 11.7

9 21.0 16.4 13.9
10 25.0 19.3 16.1
11 29.0 22.1 18.3
12 33.0 25.0 20.6
13 37.0 27.9 22.8
14 41.0 30.7 25.0 Vermeer Holland B.V. ER-H0
Oakfield Corp LLK. Ltd.,
Mr. B. Bellamy
Phone: 0114.275.8008
Fax: 0114.270.0769

GROUND KNGINIIKRING MARCI I 1998

)
m~ e Reader Enquiry No. 25 ]
41