India's passenger traffic primarily relies on the road network for commuting. As a result, the demand for transport infrastructure has led to rapid growth in road construction across the country. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests measure strength of subgrade soil, which is essential for pavement design. In practice, the CBR value is often estimated through index and strength properties of soil, since it is easier as compared to the conventional time-consuming laboratory CBR testing. Over the years, a lot of efforts has been taken for developing CBR from index and strength properties correlation equations, most of which are based on regression analysis. Moreover, most of the correlation equations developed are based on a wide dataset compiled from different regions, which makes them incapable of accounting for the spatial variability of soil. This study presents a quick approach to estimate onsite CBR values using sensor acceleration data, avoiding time-consuming laboratory tests. An Arduino Uno sensor collected data for 19 locations in Dhule district, Maharashtra was used in present study. The developed CBR equations using sensor data showed a strong correlation with conventional regression equations and experimental results.

In the recent past, liquefaction is considered as one of the major geotechnical hazards in worldwide caused due to earthquakes in saturated fine sand deposits. Liquefaction of soil results in catastrophic damages to life and property as well. Keeping this in view, prior anticipation of occurrence of liquefaction is required to safeguard the infrastructure and life against the adverse effects of liquefaction, especially in coastal areas where abundant saturated sand deposits are present. This study has been carried out to determine the evaluation of liquefaction potential and liquefaction potential indices in the selected areas of Visakhapatnam city by estimating the factor of safety based on field SPT N values as per IS 1893 Part 1 2016 and Idriss & Boulanger (2008) methods. Based on the study, it was concluded that all the study areas, other than study area 4, are not prone to liquefaction under the considered magnitudes of earthquakes with respect to present seismic zoning 2. However, the subsoil profiles of all study areas indicated high risks against liquefaction, corresponding to seismic zones 4 and 5.