Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014).

Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked
CBR of Soils. In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement:
Advancement of Research and Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-1

CORRELATIONS OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION PARAMETERS

WITH SOAKED AND UNSOAKED CBR OF SOILS

S. M. Lim 1, D. C. Wijeyesekera 2 and I. Bakar 3

ABSTRACT: California bearing ratio (CBR) is an important design parameter for soils and is an indirect measure of soil
strength, and hence bearing capacity. This is widely used in the design of base and subbase material for roads. It is also
used as a direct correlation for the determination of base or subbase soil reaction. This paper critically reviews the soil
CBR value and its dependent parameters like optimum moisture content (OMC), maximum dry density (MDD), liquid
limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), plasticity index (PI) and linear shrinkage (LS). The latter parameters are routine parameters
obtained during a site investigation. The high cost of time, equipment and testing makes it generally prohibitive to map
the variation of their values spatially along the alignment of a road. Many past attempts to correlate CBR from different
soil index properties have yet to be validated with real field and laboratory data. This paper further emphasizes the shared
importance of the knowledge of both soaked and unsoaked CBR. Multiple regression analysis was used as a mathematical
tool for the correlations of both soaked and unsoaked CBR with parameters obtained from soil classification test and
compaction test, and these correlations are presented. In particular, data collected from a series of laboratory tests
conducted on a high plasticity clay (CH) obtained at 150mm depth from the topsoil at Kampung Basir Salam, Johor
Malaysia are comprehensively analyzed. These soils were further stabilized with cement-lime-ash (CLA) at 2, 4 and 6%
by dry weight of soil and cured at 0, 7, 14 and 28 days. The consequent results indicate that the treated clay showed
significant improvement of both soaked and unsoaked CBR for longer than normal curing periods adopted in laboratory
investigation for road construction. Correlations of this nature are useful in highway design practice and such correlation
for CH soils has been successfully established in this study.

Keywords: Atterberg Limits, CH soil, Correlation, MH soil, Maximum Dry Density, Optimum Moisture Content, Soaked
CBR, Soil stabilizer, unsoaked CBR.

INTRODUCTION involved. This necessarily result in serious delays in the

project time frame which leads to escalation of project
The characteristic of a soil road or unpaved road cost.
depends to a large extent on the strength parameter of base
and subbase material. It is important to evaluate base or
subbase bearing for road design, construction and
maintenance. For the road design of an entire roadway,
soil samples are collected at several particular locations
for the determination of CBR value of base and subbase.
The geometry of the road is designed based on these result.
It is noteworthy the CBR values obtained from soil
samples collected at limited locations cannot be
representative of the large variations in the engineering
soil properties for the entire road. In order to obtained
representative CBR value, large number of soil samples
need to be collected over short intervals throughout the
Fig. 1 Ruts created by wet-weather (due to high rainfall)
road but consequently the procedure for the evaluation of
of an unsurfaced, poorly drained road. (Source: Angela
CBR value will require considerable effort, time
Wilson, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
consuming and costly as the laborious laboratory work is
Board)

1 Ph.D. Student, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, MALAYSIA
2 Professor, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, MALAYSIA
3 Professor, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, MALAYSIA
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils. In
proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and Practice for
Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-2
Practically it is impossible to devote time into this aspect
(Datta and Chottopadhyay, 2011; Talukdar, 2014).
Areas which receive exceptional heavy and frequent
rainfall, have rolling or rugged terrain, causing existing
road to become slushy and develop unevenness, waviness
and depression which due to prolong soaking of soil in
subbase or subgrade caused by seeping of water through
road surface (Seehra 2008). Roads constructed in flood-
prone areas are also exposed to increased flood hazards,
including inundation and erosion (Konrad 2014). This
aggressive environment results in high road maintenance
cost if soaked CBR is not properly analyzed for road
construction. Most engineers do not pay sufficient
attention to soaked CBR because of the time and cost of
tying down the apparatus for periods of 4 days soaking
and the importance of considering soaked CBR is
highlighted in this paper.
It is therefore important to study not only unsoaked
CBR but also soaked CBR for the design of road
construction. An attempt has been made to correlate
soaked and unsoaked CBR value statistically with
optimum moisture content (OMC), maximum dry density
(MDD), linear shrinkage (LS), plasticity index (PI), liquid
limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) for CLA stabilized soil.
Correlations of engineering soil parameters such as CBR
is essential for rapid determination from soil parameters
for a proper design of soil road.
APPLICATION OF CBR IN HIGHWAY DESIGN
According to Porter (1943), the distribution of load as
stress in flexible pavement structure is as shown in Fig 2.
Fig. 3 shows the thickness design curves developed from
12 years of CBR tests associated with both failed and
good performing pavements on the California Highway
system. Curve “A” and “B” show the minimum pavement
thickness for light and medium heavy traffic.
Fig. 2 Distribution of load as stress in flexible pavement
(Source: The Constructor, 2012)
Fig 3 Thickness design curves developed from 12 years
of CBR tests associated with both failed and good
performing pavements on the California Highway system
The additional curves were added by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for the design of flexible airfield pavements.
The design curve also embodies the assumption of the
pavement structure lying on compacted soils of at least
300mm of compacted subgrade.
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CBR
CBR is an empirical test developed in 1928-29 and is
widely applied in flexible payment design over the world.
This test was introduced during the 2nd world war (1939 –
1945) in USA and now it is being used as standard method
of design in many parts of world. But due to its
imperialness (Brown, 1996) it is recently being
discouraged in some advanced countries because CBR
test procedure is costly and time consuming. This test also
requires a large amount of soil sample (6kg in accordance
to British Standard for fine grain soils) for the laboratory
test. Does a hygienic testing under controlled laboratory
condition represent the real field condition?
The soil classification test, compaction test and CBR
test was developed independently in the early 1900s,
1920s and 1930s respectively. According to Breytenbach
(2009), the system introduced by Kleyn (1995) is
probably the first worthwhile attempt at relating index
parameters to CBR values and achieved some success.
Table 1 is a chronological illustration of CBR correlations.
Dry condition After compaction
Fig. 4 Before and after (during wet season) road
compaction at Ladang Basir Ismail, Johor, Malaysia
(Source: Lim Sin Mei, 2013)
D1-2
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils. In
proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and Practice for
Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-3

Two-Speed
Mechanical
Replacement
Jacky

Proving Ring with

Wet condition After compaction analog dial indicator

Fig. 5 Before and after (during dry season) road

compaction at Kampung Pasir Salam, Johor, Malaysia Penetration
(Source: Lim Sin Mei, 2013) piston

Compaction is aimed to maximize soil density on site. Displacement dial guage

– manual data logging Steel bridge
Soil compaction properties can be changed by adding a
support
single anion or cation from stabilizers. Therefore soil
stabilizer reactions are subject to the initial compactive Slotted Surcharge Weight
effort as the reaction has direct influence on the bonding
of soil particle and the subsequent crystallization process. Field soil sample

Figs. 4 and 5 show the road condition before and after

compaction during wet and dry season. Fig.7 Field test CBR apparatus
In the past, several investigators have attempted to
make correlations of both soaked and unsoaked CBR with Table 1 Chronology of CBR correlated with basic soil
different soil properties. Table 2 is a collation by the properties.
authors of the current and more comprehensive

Involvement
Correlation
correlations. Attempts at correlation of CBR with other
soil parameters dates back to 1955 by Kelyn. As seen in Reference Year Test
this table, most of the correlations are on the basis of soil
parameters. The correlations by Gregory and Gross
(2007) are a function of undrained shear strength. In (Atterberg,

Independentl
1911 PL, LL
geotechnical investigation, variation in soil properties 1911)

Done
(Proctor, 1930) 1930s Compaction

y
over small distances is more of a norm than an exception.
(O. James
1920s CBR
Porter, 1943 )
Correlated parameters of CBR with:
S-cell load (Kleyn, 1995) &
PI, GM(grading
(Stephens, 1955
modulus)
Penetration piston 1988)
(Gawith & Grading, GI, LS
1962
Slotted Surcharge Weight Perrin, 1962)
Grading, ground
(Wermers,
Soil specimen 1963 index number, LL,
Correlated

1963)
PL, PI
(Stephenson et
1969 Grading, PI, LL
al., 1969)
GM, LS, grading,
(Haupt, 1980) 1980
CBRs and CBRus
(Netterberg &
Paige-Green, 1988 LS
Automatic Geocomp machine 1988)
with electronic data logging GM, PI, LS, MDD,
(Davel, 1989) 1989
OMC

Fig. 6 Laboratory testing equipment for CBR

D1-3
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils. In
proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and Practice for
Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-4

Table 2 Current correlations in the 2000s.

Reference Correlation Equation Equation Correlated parameters
No.
Talukdar CBR(soaked)= 0.127LL+0.00PL– (1) LL, PL, PT, MDD(gm/cc), OMC
(2014)* 0.1598PI+1.405MDD-0.259OMC+4.618
Sabat (2013) CBR = 83.7 - 3.12 L + 0.540 QD + 0.442 (2) L (lime) %, QD (Quarry dust) %, CP
CP - 5.08 MDD + 0.32OMC (curing period) days, MDD(kN/m3), OMC
Patel & Patel CBR = 2.408004415 MDD - (3) MDD, OMC
(2013)* 1.283426806• 10-1 OMC - 39.34504338
Nugroho, ∆CBR=25+C1Clay+C2LL+C3IP+3.5OMC (4) Clay, LL, IP, OMC
Hendri & ∆CBR=-25+C1Clay-C2LL-C3IP+3.5OMC (5) Clay, LL, IP, OMC
Ningsih (2012)
Patel and Patel CBR=3.753294993MDD – (6) LL. PI, OMC, MDD
(2012) 1.366922172E10-1OMC +
1.519309837E10-1WLM – 70.10518931
CBR = 3246.4WLM-1.895 (7) WLM
Yildirim & CBR=-0.1805F+18.508 (8) F
Gunaydin CBR=0.2353G+3.0798 (9) G
(2011)* CBR=0.22G+0.045S+4.739MDD+0.122O (10) G, S, MDD(g/cc), OMC
MC
(Refer to CBR=0.62OMC+58.9MDD+0.11LL+0.5 (11) OMC, MDD, LL, PL
Ramasubbarao &
3PL-126.18
Siva, 2013)
Patel and Desai CBR(soaked)=43.907-0.093(PI)- (12) PI, MDD(gm/cc), OMC
(2010)* 18.78(MDD)-0.3081(OMC)
CBR(unsoaked)=17.009-0.0696(PI)- (13)
0.296(MDD)-0.0648(OMC)
Roy et al (2009) Log(CBRsoaked)= Log (γd max/γw)-Log (14) OMC, MDD (same unit)
(OMC)
Vinod & Cletus CBR = -0.889 (WLM) + 45.616 (15) LL, Gradation
(2008) where, WLM = LL(1-C/100)
Gregory & CBR = 0.09Cu (16) Cu
Gross (2007) CBR = 100qult/6895 (17) qult
*These correlations are used and further validated later in this paper.

DATA BANK which is MH or ML. Most as past literature reported on

soil sample classified in the CL region where authors’ data
Test samples used in this study include untreated analyzed on CH soil.
research sample (CH), subsequently modified research
samples (CH and MH) and various types of soil collated 60
from different cited researchers viz. CL, CI, ML, MH, MI,
SC and SM. Data bank pertaining to soil properties used 50
for developing the correlations of CBR values is presented
Plasticity Index, PI (%)

in Table 6. In view of this, a total of 161 datasets reported 40

by Roy et al (2009), Talukdar (2014), Sathawara & Patel
30 MH or OL
(2013), Ramasunnarao and Siva (2013) and Patel and
Patel (2012) were collated together with the authors’
20
experimental work results to seek the validity of the
Authors' data
available soaked and unsoaked CBR correlations on the Talukdar (2014)
10 Sathawara &Patel (2013)
basis of compaction and classification characteristics in CL - ML Patel & Patel (2012a, 2013b)
the specific range of plasticity characteristic. It is seen in ML or OL Roy et al (2009)
0
Fig. 7 (classification of soil sample), data analyzed mostly 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
focuses on clay as it is a problematic soil. Very few Liquid Limit, LL (%)
studies have apparently been carried out on silty soil Fig. 7 Soils sample used in this study

D1-4
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils. In
proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and Practice for
Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-5

Table 5 Standard experimental testing method adopted in this study.

Type of
Standard Test Methods/properties
test/Products Brief Description
measured
tested
Water Distilled water: BS 1377: Part 1: 1990: Produced either by distillation or by the use of
Clause 5.1 deionizing apparatus.
De-aerated water: BS 1377: Part 1: Unless otherwise specified in test methods, de-
1990: Clause 5.2 aerated water shall consist of mains tap water from
which dissolved air has been removed.
Moisture MS 1056: Part 2:2005: Clause 4.2 Oven drying to constant mass maintained at a
content BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: Clause 3.2 temperature of 105°C to 110°C.
SNI 03-1965-1990
SNI 1965:2008
CEN ISO/TS 17892-1
pH BS 1377: Part 3: 1990: Clause 9.3 The logarithm to base 10 of the reciprocal of the
SNI 03-6426-2000 soil cement concentration of hydrogen ions in an aqueous
BS EN 1997-2:2007 solution. It provides a measure of the acidity or
alkalinity of the solution on a scale reading from
0to14, on which 7 represents neutrality 3.
Classification BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: Clause 9.2 Quantitative determination of the particle size
test SNI 03-6371-2000 distribution in an essentially cohesionlesss
CEN ISO/TS 17892-4 soil, down to the fine sand size.
ASTM D3282
Atterberg MS 1056: Part 2:2005: Clause 5.3 & 6.0 LL is defined as the moisture content at which soil
Limits BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: Clause 4.3 & begins to behave as a liquid material and begins to
(LL, PL, PI) 5.0 flow (Liquid limit of a fine-grained soil gives the
SNI 1966:2008 PL & PI moisture content at which the shear strength of the
SNI 1967:2008 LL soil is approximately 2.5kN/m2) (Das 1997).
CEN ISO/TS 17892-12 PL is defined as the moisture content at which soil
ASTM D4318 begins to behave as a plastic material (soil changes
from semisolid to plastic).
PI is the difference between the liquid limit and the
plastic limit; the range of moisture content within
which the soil remains plastic. Abbreviation:
Relationship: PI=LL-PL.
Linear BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: Clause 6.5 LS is the amount of shrinkage experienced by a soil
Shrinkage SNI 3422:2008 sample, expressed as a percentage of the original
length of the test sample, when dried from its
Liquid Limit moisture content.
Compaction MS 1056: Part 4:2005: Clause 4.3 & 4.4 Compaction procedure shall be that the mass of soil
BS 1377: Part 4: 1990: Clause 3.3 & to achieve the required density just fills the mould
4.4 (standard Proctor Compaction) when uniformly compacted. The requisite
MS 1056: Part 4:2005: Clause 4.5 & 4.6 compactive effort and number of blows per layer
BS 1377: Part 4: 1990: Clause 3.5 & 4.6 shall be determined by trial.
(Heavy Compaction)
SNI 03-1742-1989
BS EN 1997-2:2007
ASTM D4546

California MS 1056: Part 4:2005: Clause 8.0 CBR is defined as the ratio of the test load to the
Bearing Ratio BS 1377: Part 4: 1990: Clause 7.0 standard load, expressed as percentage for a given
(CBR) ASTM D1883-99(2003) penetration of the plunger.
BS EN 1997-2:2007
ASTM D4429/D1883
SNI 1738-2011

*Highlighted Standard clauses are used in this study. pH is dependent, these info is not provided here, the authors are
very concern of the significance of pH in soil properties.

D1-5
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-6

Table 6 Data bank for the correlations and validation of soaked and unsoaked CBR
LL PL PI LS MDD OMC Measured CBR
No. Reference IS Classification
% % (LL-PL) % kg/m3 % US S
1 Virgin Research sample CH 69.16 30.79 38.36 13.63 1.70 20.25 14.50 2.00
2 Modified research sample CH 60.20 26.50 33.70 12.63 1.70 20.25 11.50 4.00
3 Modified research sample CH 57.00 29.55 27.45 12.60 1.70 20.25 12.00 5.00
4 Modified research sample CH 59.80 27.90 31.90 12.56 1.70 20.25 7.00 3.60
5 Modified research sample CH 55.70 26.95 28.75 11.41 1.63 21.30 19.80 5.00
6 Modified research sample CH 54.20 26.24 27.96 11.18 1.63 21.30 21.20 12.30
7 Modified research sample MH 50.20 28.09 22.11 7.94 1.63 21.30 23.40 18.00
8 Modified research sample MH 51.25 29.90 21.35 8.31 1.63 21.30 28.00 21.00
9 Modified research sample CH 52.50 27.72 24.78 8.09 1.63 21.60 28.50 10.40
10 Modified research sample MH 54.05 32.10 21.95 7.00 1.63 21.60 36.30 25.60
11 Modified research sample MH 58.55 36.81 21.74 7.79 1.63 21.60 45.00 37.00
12 Modified research sample MH 52.55 31.28 21.27 6.51 1.63 21.60 51.00 39.00
13 Modified research sample MH 58.80 34.95 23.85 6.37 1.54 25.40 32.00 13.00
14 Modified research sample MH 55.50 36.21 19.29 5.54 1.54 25.40 77.10 56.00
15 Modified research sample MH 50.70 31.79 18.91 5.47 1.54 25.40 66.00 66.00
16 Modified research sample MH 50.10 31.65 18.45 5.08 1.54 25.40 88.00 75.00
17 Talukdar (2014) ML 28.46 20.24 8.22 - 1.65 14.56 - 5.56
18 Talukdar (2014) ML 34.62 26.65 7.97 - 1.70 15.11 - 5.62
19 Talukdar (2014) ML 34.92 27.40 7.52 - 1.71 15.20 - 5.77
20 Talukdar (2014) MI 35.20 27.51 7.69 - 1.69 15.35 - 5.69
21 Talukdar (2014) ML 34.42 27.47 6.95 - 1.72 15.62 - 5.81
22 Talukdar (2014) ML 29.35 23.23 6.12 - 1.77 14.39 - 6.12
23 Talukdar (2014) ML 30.34 23.78 6.56 - 1.76 14.92 - 6.10
24 Talukdar (2014) MI 36.78 28.32 8.46 - 1.64 15.82 - 5.72
25 Talukdar (2014) ML 32.21 25.69 6.52 - 1.75 14.42 - 6.20
26 Talukdar (2014) ML 34.25 27.53 6.72 - 1.74 14.16 - 6.05
27 Talukdar (2014) MI 35.69 28.54 7.15 - 1.73 15.62 - 5.95
28 Talukdar (2014) MI 36.29 28.18 8.11 - 1.62 15.76 - 5.67
29 Talukdar (2014) MI 35.23 27.88 7.35 - 1.66 15.52 - 5.92
30 Talukdar (2014) MI 36.23 28.98 7.25 - 1.68 15.62 - 5.88
31 Talukdar (2014) ML 34.56 26.44 8.12 - 1.71 15.40 - 5.98
32 Talukdar (2014) MI 35.36 28.34 7.02 - 1.74 14.65 - 6.02
33 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 31.00 14.00 17.00 - 1.90 12.00 5.81 3.42
34 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 23.00 12.00 11.00 - 1.90 12.00 5.02 4.25
35 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 25.00 15.00 10.00 - 1.87 9.00 10.08 7.04
36 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 26.00 12.00 14.00 - 1.93 10.00 9.07 5.22
37 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 28.00 12.00 16.00 - 1.94 11.00 3.82 3.53
38 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 34.00 15.00 19.00 - 1.78 16.00 9.37 5.51
39 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 33.00 21.00 12.00 - 1.84 16.00 14.36 9.38
40 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 28.00 13.00 15.00 - 1.76 12.00 4.07 2.61
41 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 29.00 14.00 15.00 - 1.88 15.00 4.72 3.41
42 Sathawara &Patel (2013) CL 31.00 14.00 17.00 - 1.81 14.00 6.42 3.27
43 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 29.00 17.00 12.00 - 2.00 11.00 8.45 6.11
44 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 47.00 30.00 17.00 - 1.73 15.00 4.51 3.05
45 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 42.00 13.00 29.00 - 1.73 10.00 11.81 9.41
46 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 45.00 27.00 18.00 - 1.61 15.00 14.00 13.62
47 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 45.00 25.00 20.00 - 1.80 13.00 3.95 2.58
48 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 1.87 14.00 2.01 1.67
49 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 36.00 19.00 17.00 - 1.78 16.00 1.43 1.07
50 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 47.00 30.00 17.00 - 1.73 15.00 4.51 3.05
51 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 42.00 13.00 29.00 - 1.73 10.00 11.81 9.41
52 Sathawara &Patel (2013) SC 45.00 27.00 18.00 - 1.61 15.00 14.00 13.62
53 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 54.80 27.40 27.40 - 1.78 16.80 - 3.00
54 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 58.70 16.48 42.22 - 1.64 17.00 - 1.47
55 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 60.60 30.60 30.00 - 1.51 35.00 - 1.96
56 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 63.00 31.00 32.00 - 1.25 35.00 - 1.26
57 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 72.70 30.50 42.20 - 1.85 21.20 - 2.10
58 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 82.50 32.80 49.70 - 1.58 19.60 - 0.80
59 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 94.00 36.00 58.00 - 1.33 35.40 - 2.10
60 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 75.00 32.00 43.00 - 1.47 28.00 - 2.43
61 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 48.00 26.00 22.00 - 1.61 20.00 - 3.40
62 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 49.00 24.00 25.00 - 1.69 19.60 - 4.13
63 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 59.00 34.00 25.00 - 1.69 19.00 - 4.00
64 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 47.20 32.00 15.20 - 1.55 23.00 - 4.90
65 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 24.60 15.30 9.30 - 1.56 18.50 - 2.34
66 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 29.30 18.40 10.90 - 1.71 18.20 - 2.55
67 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 26.00 11.90 14.10 - 1.63 15.20 - 2.12
68 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 30.00 12.30 17.70 - 1.82 14.20 - 3.14
69 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 36.50 20.90 15.60 - 1.76 16.20 - 3.94
70 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) ML 34.04 25.75 8.29 - 1.52 18.90 - 5.86
71 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 45.20 22.30 22.90 - 1.78 12.30 - 3.30
72 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 56.00 27.00 29.00 - 1.51 24.80 - 3.89
73 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) MH 59.00 31.00 28.00 - 1.47 26.10 - 3.57
74 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 57.80 21.70 36.10 - 1.58 22.00 - 1.50
75 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CL 32.60 20.60 12.00 - 1.84 15.00 - 1.31
76 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) ML 43.50 26.78 16.72 - 1.61 21.60 - 3.27
77 Ramasunnarao & Siva (2013) CH 69.00 33.00 36.00 - 1.55 26.80 - 2.00
78 Patel & Patel (2013) SM-SC 28.00 21.00 7.00 - 2.04 7.50 - 8.50
79 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 31.00 21.00 10.00 - 2.08 9.60 - 12.90
80 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 29.00 21.00 8.00 - 2.09 8.70 - 15.10
Table 6 (continued)

D1-6
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-7

LL PL PI LS MDD OMC Measured CBR

No. Reference IS Classification
% % (LL-PL) % kg/m3 % US S
81 Patel & Patel (2013) CH 62.00 24.00 38.00 - 1.65 14.60 - 1.20
82 Patel & Patel (2013) CH 54.00 23.00 31.00 - 1.68 14.50 - 2.00
83 Patel & Patel (2013) CH 54.00 24.00 30.00 - 1.79 13.60 - 2.28
84 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 46.00 22.00 24.00 - 1.85 12.50 - 3.10
85 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 48.00 24.00 24.00 - 1.86 12.70 - 3.47
86 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 36.00 22.00 14.00 - 1.89 13.00 - 3.59
87 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 38.00 23.00 15.00 - 1.91 10.70 - 3.90
88 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 36.00 23.00 13.00 - 1.94 10.50 - 4.50
89 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 42.00 22.00 20.00 - 1.94 12.80 - 4.60
90 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 42.00 22.00 20.00 - 1.94 11.00 - 4.60
91 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 44.00 22.00 22.00 - 1.95 11.60 - 4.60
92 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 36.00 22.00 14.00 - 1.95 10.60 - 4.90
93 Patel & Patel (2013) CI 36.00 23.00 13.00 - 1.99 12.50 - 6.50
94 Patel & Patel (2013) CL 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 1.96 10.10 - 5.50
95 Patel & Patel (2013) CL 35.00 21.00 14.00 - 1.99 10.40 - 6.60
96 Patel & Patel (2013) CL 33.00 21.00 12.00 - 2.03 10.00 - 8.10
97 Patel & Patel (2013) CL 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 1.99 10.20 - 8.90
98 Patel & Patel (2013) CL-ML 32.00 25.00 7.00 - 1.97 9.80 - 5.80
99 Patel & Patel (2013) CL-ML 33.00 26.00 7.00 - 1.98 10.00 - 5.90
100 Patel & Patel (2013) MI 43.00 25.00 18.00 - 1.86 11.90 - 3.50
101 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 48.00 21.00 27.00 - 1.93 10.40 - 4.20
102 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 38.00 21.00 17.00 - 1.95 10.40 - 5.00
103 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 34.00 21.00 13.00 - 2.01 10.00 - 7.80
104 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 28.00 21.00 7.00 - 2.04 9.70 - 8.30
105 Patel & Patel (2013) SC 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 2.06 9.70 - 10.50
106 Patel & Patel (2012) CL 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 1.99 10.20 - 8.90
107 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 29.00 21.00 8.00 - 2.09 8.70 - 15.05
108 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 31.00 21.00 10.00 - 2.08 9.60 - 11.90
109 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 2.05 9.70 - 10.00
110 Patel & Patel (2012) SM-SC 28.00 21.00 7.00 - 2.04 7.50 - 8.50
111 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 28.00 21.00 7.00 - 2.02 9.70 - 8.30
112 Patel & Patel (2012) CL 33.00 21.00 12.00 - 2.03 10.00 - 8.10
113 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 34.00 21.00 13.00 - 2.01 10.00 - 7.80
114 Patel & Patel (2012) CL 35.00 21.00 14.00 - 1.99 10.40 - 6.60
115 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 38.00 23.00 15.00 - 1.99 12.50 - 6.50
116 Patel & Patel (2012) CL-ML 33.00 26.00 7.00 - 1.98 10.00 - 5.90
117 Patel & Patel (2012) CL-ML 32.00 25.00 7.00 - 1.97 9.80 - 5.80
118 Patel & Patel (2012) CL 32.00 21.00 11.00 - 1.96 10.10 - 5.50
119 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 38.00 21.00 17.00 - 1.95 10.40 - 5.00
120 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 36.00 22.00 14.00 - 1.94 10.60 - 4.90
121 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 42.00 22.00 20.00 - 1.94 12.80 - 4.60
122 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 42.00 22.00 20.00 - 1.94 11.00 - 4.60
123 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 36.00 23.00 13.00 - 1.94 10.50 - 4.50
124 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 43.00 22.00 22.00 - 1.93 11.60 - 4.60
125 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 37.00 23.00 15.00 - 1.91 10.70 - 3.90
126 Patel & Patel (2012) SC 49.00 21.00 27.00 - 1.93 10.40 - 4.20
127 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 38.00 22.00 14.00 - 1.89 13.00 - 3.59
128 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 49.00 22.00 24.00 - 1.85 12.50 - 3.10
129 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 48.00 24.00 24.00 - 1.86 12.70 - 3.47
130 Patel & Patel (2012) MI 38.00 25.00 15.00 - 1.90 10.20 - 3.50
131 Patel & Patel (2012) CH 54.00 24.00 30.00 - 1.79 13.60 - 2.28
132 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 48.00 23.00 24.00 - 1.83 14.50 - 2.00
133 Patel & Patel (2012) CI 48.00 24.00 25.00 - 1.79 14.60 - 1.20
134 Roy et al (2009) CL 25.00 18.00 7.00 - 1.84 12.00 - 18.30
135 Roy et al (2009) CL 23.50 15.00 8.50 - 1.77 14.00 - 10.88
136 Roy et al (2009) CL 23.00 15.00 8.00 - 1.89 11.50 - 15.10
137 Roy et al (2009) CL 28.50 17.00 11.50 - 1.83 14.50 - 7.30
138 Roy et al (2009) CL 31.50 18.00 13.50 - 1.79 14.50 - 5.60
139 Roy et al (2009) CL 26.50 15.00 11.50 - 1.71 18.00 - 5.00
140 Roy et al (2009) CL 27.00 16.00 11.00 - 1.79 16.40 - 5.90
141 Roy et al (2009) CL 31.00 17.00 14.00 - 1.81 15.60 - 8.50
142 Roy et al (2009) CL 33.00 20.00 13.00 - 1.79 14.30 - 7.30
143 Roy et al (2009) CL 31.00 12.00 19.00 - 1.89 16.50 - 7.00
144 Roy et al (2009) CL 35.00 18.00 17.00 - 1.82 17.60 - 6.50
145 Roy et al (2009) CL 36.00 19.00 17.00 - 1.70 16.00 - 5.50
146 Roy et al (2009) CL 37.00 20.00 17.00 - 1.53 17.80 - 3.00
147 Roy et al (2009) CL 36.00 21.50 14.50 - 1.75 17.00 - 4.00
148 Roy et al (2009) CL 40.50 19.50 21.00 - 1.65 17.00 - 2.38
149 Roy et al (2009) CL 37.00 21.50 15.50 - 1.55 21.40 - 3.14
150 Roy et al (2009) CL 44.50 23.00 21.50 - 1.69 21.90 - 4.12
151 Roy et al (2009) CL 43.00 22.00 21.00 - 1.68 19.00 - 4.00
152 Roy et al (2009) CL 42.00 21.00 21.00 - 1.52 19.90 - 3.28
153 Roy et al (2009) CL 47.00 21.00 26.00 - 1.70 19.00 - 2.65
154 Roy et al (2009) CL 36.50 22.00 14.50 - 1.70 16.00 - 4.85
155 Roy et al (2009) CL 40.00 21.00 19.00 - 1.65 18.50 - 4.41
156 Roy et al (2009) CL 48.00 22.00 26.00 - 1.72 15.50 - 3.90
157 Roy et al (2009) CL 43.00 18.00 25.00 - 1.69 19.00 - 3.36
158 Roy et al (2009) CL 43.00 17.00 26.00 - 1.66 19.70 - 3.00
159 Roy et al (2009) CL 37.00 17.90 19.10 - 1.71 16.50 - 3.20
160 Roy et al (2009) CL 44.40 22.00 22.40 - 1.76 18.60 - 3.75
161 Roy et al (2009) CL 39.00 18.50 20.50 - 1.63 20.85 - 2.40
*The development on authors’ correlations are based primarily on the CH and MH soil data.

D1-7
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-8

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND design parameter for construction practices. The

RESULTS determination of water content for all types of soil
can be done by oven drying the soil to 105°C.
Fig. 6 shows the particle size distribution graph for Duplicate specimens were prepared for testing to
the soil samples used in this research. The particle ensure good practice.
distribution curves of soil sample A is smooth with
coefficient of gradation of 0.86 which is less than 1. Table 3: Untreated soil properties
The untreated soil properties is as given in Table 3.
Type of Soil A
Liquid limit, Plastic limit and linear shrinkage of the
LL 68.80 - 71.20
soil used in this study lies in the range of 68.80 to
PL 28.59 - 32.11
71.20, 28.59 to 32.11 and 12.85 to 13.94, LS 12.85 - 13.94
respectively. The soil is classified as CH according USCS (ASTM) CH
to USCS and A-7-6(19) according to American Gravel (60mm - 2mm) 1.2
Association of State Highway and Transportation Sand (2mm - 0.063mm) 45.1
Officials (AASHTO) soil classification system. CH Silt (0.063mm to 0.002mm) 30.5
soil used in this research is a lateritic soils rich in Clay (<0.002mm) 23.2
iron oxide (Fe2O3), silica (SiO2) and alumina Passing no.200 B.S. sieve
56
(75µm)
(Al2O3): Fe2O3 12.4-12.5%; SiO2 45.4-45.5%; Al2O3
Cu 48.39
39.1-39.4% Typical chemical compositions of the Cc 0.86
soil and soil stabilizer stabilizer are listed in Table 3. ASSHTO A-7-6 (19)
The cement lime ash (C-L-A) soil stabilizer used in Specific gravity 2.69
this study was obtained from Probase Manufacturing pH 8.700
Sdn. Bhd, Johor, Malaysia. The proportion of C-L- Natural Moisture content, wn
18.505-19.485
A is unknown to the user due to commercial reasons. (%)
Probase is a well-known soil stabilizer supplier in
Malaysia. Table 4 Chemical composition of CH soil and PPS
stabilizer.
All the laboratory experiments were carried out No. Material Soil (CH) C-L-A
in accordance with British standard 1377 as shown Sample
1 2 3 1 2
in Table 5. All soil testing standards specify no.
somewhat erroneously the use of deionized or 1 SiO2 1 2 3 9.12 9.38
2 Al2O3 45.50 45.60 45.40 3.48 3.56
distilled water during the sample preparation for
3 Fe2O3 39.10 39.30 39.40 2.40 2.41
testing. It is inevitable to use different sources of 4 CaO 12.50 12.40 12.40 79.00 78.60
water (e.g.: tap water, river, or sea water) for site 5 MgO - - - 2.24 2.26
construction work, which is not in accordance with 6 SO3 - - - 1.75 1.77
7 K2O - - - 0.91 0.94
the standard. Serious consideration have to be given 8 TiO2 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.38
to determine the applicability of results obtained 9 CO2 1.76 1.75 1.75 0.10 0.10
from laboratory experiment that will be used as a 10 ZrO2 0.10 0.10 0.10 - -
11 Cl 0.22 0.22 0.21 - -
100
Note: * Using standard less method, measured from Na
to U (refer to periodic table)
90 ** All values in weight percent.
A(KPS)
80
*** 1% = 10,000 ppm

70 Table 4 is presented for the purpose of recordof

Percent finer, %

60 therminology ontained. The XRF test is not analyse

50 further in this paper.
40
TECHNIQUES ADOPTED FOR CBR
30
CORRELATIONS
20
10 Both simple linear and multiple linear regression
0 were used for correlating soaked and unsoaked CBR
0.0000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 value in terms of classification and compaction
Particle Diameter, mm properties. Statistical software “MINITAB 17” that
offers a choice of regression methods, was used for
Fig 6 Particle size distribution graph for type A soil

D1-8
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-9

the analytical work and development of the 100

correlations. Standard statistical software such as CBRs
90
Data Analysis Tool Bar of Microsoft Excel was also
80 CBRus
used in order to define the relationship statistically.
The performance indicator (PI) used in this study 70
was as that suggested by Evan et. al (2000) and 60

CBR (%)
Kottegoda and Rosso (1998) according to 50
Wijeyesekera, Lim, and Yahaya (2013) where 40
R² = 0.66
coefficient of determination (R2) was used for R² = 0.72
30
accuracy measures. R2 value approaching 1 indicates
20
the best distribution. Coefficient of determination of
each of the soil properties with both soaked and 10
unsoaked CBR is determined and is tested by using 0
statistical t-test. The adequacy of the proposed 0 5 10 15 20
Linear Shrinkage (%)
modal for estimating soaked CBR value was
measured by perfoming F-test according to the Fig. 9 Relationship of soaked and unsoaked CBR
standard analysis procedure (Ramasubbarao and with Linear Shrinkage (LS)
Siva, 2013; Montgomery and Runger, 2013).
100
STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS CBRs
90
80 CBRus
I. Simple Regression Analysis (SRA)
70
Simple regression analysis (SRA) has been 60 R² = 0.69
CBR(%)

carried out to develop the correlation between 50

individual soil property and both soaked and 40
unsoaked CBR value. The test results (no. 1 – 16) 30 R² = 0.59
given in Table 5 were analysed using the method of
20
least squares regression. Linear, logarithmic,
10
exponential and power curve fitting approximations
were tried and the best prediction equation with the 0
1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75
highest correlation coefficient was determined for
MDD (Mg/m3)
each regression.
The relation of CBR value with respect to Fig. 10 Relationships of soaked and unsoaked CBR
different soil properties are presented in Fig. 8 to Fig. with Maximum dry density (MDD)
12. From Figs. 8, 9 and 10, it has been observed that
both soaked and unsoaked CBR decreases with the 100
increase in liquid limit, linear shrinkage and 90 CBRs
maximum dry density. Fig. 11 shows a better 80 CBRus
correlation (R2 > 0.6) of CBR with optimum 70
moisture content than which plastic limit (Fig. 12), 60
CBR (%)

R2 < 0.4. R² = 0.69

50
40 R² = 0.60
100
30
90 CBRs
20
80 CBRus
10
70
0
60
CBR (%)

19 21 23 25 27
50 OMC (%)
40
R² = 0.29 Fig. 11 Relationship of soaked and unsoaked CBR
30
R² = 0.24 with Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
20
10
0
45 55 65 75
Liquid limit (%)
Fig. 8 Relationships of soaked and unsoaked CBR
with Liquid limit (LL)

D1-9
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-10

100 100
90 CBRs 90
80 CBRus 80
70 R² = 0.38 70
60 60
CBR (%)

CBR (%)
50 R² = 0.31 50
40 40 Unsoaked CBR
30 30
Soaked CBR
20 20
10 10
0 0
25 30 35 40 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Plasticity limit (%) Plasticity Index, PI (%)
Fig. 12 Relationships of soaked and unsoaked CBR Fig. 13 Effect of Plasticity Index, PI (%) on soaked
with Plastic limit (PL) CBR and unsoaked CBR

CBR tests were performed on high plasticity clay 1

Normalized CBR (CBRs/CBRus)

(CH) soil type A and stabilized with 2, 4, and 6% 0.9
powder stabilizer (PPS). Figs. 10 and 11 show that 0.8
by adding PPS stabilizer into the virgin soil reduced 0.7
dry density and increased the OMC for both soaked 0.6
R² = 0.72
and unsoaked CBR. Although the amount of 0.5
observed changes was rather small, the decrease in 0.4
the dry density can be due to the rapid cation
0.3
exchange in the stabilized soil mixture. Similarly,
0.2
the increase of moisture content was probably due to
the rapid and exothermic nature of the reaction 0.1
between soil and stabilizer which led to loss of water. 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
This data obtained was in good agreement with the
Plasticity Index, PI (%)
results reported by Latifi, Eisazadeh & Marto (2013)
and Sukmak et al. (2013). Table 7 Fig. 14 Relationship of normalized CBR values with
Good correlations were obtained by the authors Plasticity Index (PI)
for CBR values correlated with plasticity index. The
relationships are as follow: A very useful output from this paper is the equation
20 which has not appeared in this form in the
CBRSoaked = 122047845PI-4.98 R2=0.78 (18) previous literature.
CBRunsoaked = 326036PI-2.93 R2=0.93 (19) This paper therefore suggests that for all soils,
this equation will be of the form:
Ratio of CBRs/CBRus = 374.34PI-2.051 (20)
CBRs/CBRus = A∙PI-B (21)
Table 7 Models developed from simple regression
analysis for soaked and unsoaked CBR
The authors propose that “A” and “B” are dependent
Models developed from SRA R2
on the type of soil.
CBRus = 0.029OMC - 186.93 0.69
CBRs = 9.0515OMC - 175.82 0.60
The correlation of normalized soaked over unsoaked
CBRus = -6.9682LS + 96.968 0.72
CBR is
CBRs = -6.4771LS + 82.082 0.66
CBRus = -342.26MDD + 591.85 0.69
CBRs/CBRus= 1.466-0.0351PI R2=0.72 (22)
CBRs = -306.97MDD + 523.92 0.59
CBRus= 4.5048PL - 102.44 0.38
CBRs = 3.9495PL - 96.008 0.31 The ratio of normalized CBRs/CBRus has also not yet
been published in past literature.
CBRus = -2.3929LL+168.22 0.24
CBRs = -2.5338LL+165.54 0.29

D1-10
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-11

II. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) Table 7 Fits and residuals for soaked CBR
St
Obs
PI CBRs Fit SE Fit Residual Resid
Multivariate linear regression (MLR) analysis is 1 38.4 2 2 13.16 0 *X
carried out to identify simultaneously two or more 2 33.7 4 -5.49 9.45 9.49 1.04
independent variables that explain variations of a 3 27.4 5 18.05 10.94 -13.05 -1.79
dependent variable. MLR analysis was carried out to 4 31.9 3.6 0.73 7.81 2.87 0.27
5 28.8 5 0.47 9.03 4.53 0.47
determine the relationship between 6 independent 6 28 12.3 4.67 8.59 7.63 0.77
variables related to both the soaked and unsoaked 7 22.1 18 28.19 6.56 -10.19 -0.89
CBR values. MINITAB 17 was used in the multiple 8 21.4 21 29.44 6.58 -8.44 -0.74
regression analysis where independent variables are 9 24.8 10.4 20.5 6.75 -10.1 -0.89
10 21.9 25.6 28.02 6.46 -2.42 -0.21
first identify that is affecting the dependent variable. 11 21.7 37 23.67 10.37 13.33 1.64
12 21.3 39 31.9 7.43 7.1 0.65
X = α + β1Y1 + β2Y2 + …. βnYn + e (23) 13 23.8 13 35.18 9.58 -22.18 -2.46R
14 19.3 56 53.49 7.56 2.51 0.23
15 18.9 66 59.96 7.85 6.04 0.57
Where X = dependent variable 16 18.5 75 62.13 8.18 12.87 1.25
α= X-intercept R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.
β= slopes associated with X X denotes an observation whose X value gives it large
leverage.
Y= values of independent variables
e= error
70
y=x
Soaked and unsoaked CBR value are considered 60
Predicted Value of soaked CBR

dependent variable which are denoted by X, while 50

liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, linear
40
shrinkage, maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content are considered as the independent 30
variables. 20
The correlations of soaked CBR, derived by the
10
MLR analysis are as shown in Equ. 24. Table 6
shows the coefficient for soaked CBR and Table 7 0
shows the fits and residuals for soaked CBR -10
obtained from regression analysis using MINITAB. -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Experimental value of soaked CBR

CBRs = - 808 - 3233 PL + 3232 LL - Fig. 9 Scatterplot of predicted soaked CBR and
3236 PI - 0.12 LS + 407 MDD + 14.0 (24) experimental values of soaked CBR
OMC
The correlations of unsoaked CBR, derived by
Table 6 Coefficients for soaked CBR the MLR analysis are as follow:
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant -808.3 559 -1.45 0.182 CBRus = - 503 - 2763 PI + 10.8 OMC +
PL -3233 2120 -1.52 0.162 242 MDD - 1.42 LS + 2761 LL - 2761 (25)
LL 3232 2120 1.52 0.162 PL
PI -3236 2121 -1.53 0.161
Table 8 Coefficients for unsoaked CBR
LS -0.124 4.609 -0.03 0.979
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
MDD 407.1 280.7 1.45 0.181
Constant -502.6 540 -0.93 0.376
OMC 14.042 6.79 2.07 0.069 LL 2761 2048 1.35 0.211
S = 13.1593 R-Sq = 81.2% R-Sq(adj) = 68.7% PL -2761 2048 -1.35 0.211
PI -2763 2049 -1.35 0.21
LS -1.418 4.453 -0.32 0.757
OMC 10.845 6.56 1.65 0.133
MDD 241.6 271.2 0.89 0.396
S = 12.7121 R-Sq = 83.6% R-Sq(adj) = 72.6%

D1-11
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-12

Table 9 Fits and residuals for unsoaked CBR Table 10 Soil parameters used for the correlations
SE St of soaked and unsoaked CBR
Obs.
PI CBRs Fit Fit Residual Resid Correlated Parameters (%)

with Equ.
Equations

CBR (%)

Validate
1 38.4 14.5 14.5 12.71 0 *X

MDD
OMC
2 33.7 11.5 3.43 9.12 8.07 0.91

LL
PL

LS
PI
3 27.4 12 20.03 10.57 -8.03 -1.14
4 31.9 7 8.07 7.54 -1.07 -0.1
5 28.8 19.8 12.85 8.73 6.95 0.75 (1) ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ S -
6 28 21.2 15.73 8.3 5.47 0.57 (3) - - - - ✔ ✔ S -
7 22.1 23.4 36.24 6.34 -12.84 -1.17 (11) - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ US -
8 21.4 28 37.13 6.36 -9.13 -0.83 (12) ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ S -
9 24.8 28.5 31.33 6.52 -2.83 -0.26 (13) ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ US -
10 21.9 36.3 39.10 6.24 -2.8 -0.25 SML (24) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ S -
11 21.7 45 36.58 10.02 8.42 1.08 SML (25) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US -
12 21.3 51 42.09 7.18 8.91 0.85
13 23.8 32 53.81 9.25 -21.81 -2.50R
SML (26) ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ S (1)
14 19.3 77.1 67.46 7.3 9.64 0.93 SML (27) - - - - ✔ ✔ S (3)
15 18.9 66 70.51 7.58 -4.51 -0.44 SML (28) ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ S (12)
16 18.5 88 72.44 7.9 15.56 1.56 SML (29) ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ US (13)
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. SML (30) - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ US (11)
X denotes an observation whose X value gives it large *CBR: S (Soaked); US (Unsoaked)
leverage.
Table 11 Variance Analysis (ANOVA) for
70 Regression significance test for soaked CBR
Predicted Value of unsoaked CBR

Regression
Equation.

Source of
Variation

Residual
R² = 1

Error or
60
Total S R2
50
40
DF 126 34 160 1.825 99.25
30 SS 14934 113.2 15047
20 (1) MS 118.5 3.33
Fc 35.6
10 P 0.000
DF 119 41 160 8.4 80.36
0
SS 12092 2955 15047
-10 (3) MS 101.6 72.1
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Fc 1.41
Experimental value of unsoaked CBR P 0.104
DF 129 31 160 2.777 98.41
Fig. 10 Predicted values and experimental values of SS 14808 239.1 15047
unsoaked CBR (8) MS 114.7 7.71
Fc 14.88
P 0.000
From Table 6 and Table 8, large T-values go with DF 128 32 160 1.544 99.49
small p-values suggested a term contribution to the SS 14971 76.28 15047
model. The Standard error (SE Coef) on each of the (13) MS 117 2.38
Fc 49.06
regression coefficient shows the deviations from the P 0.000
actual value. DF 140 20 160 0.261 99.99
Correlations developed by various researcher as SS 15046 1.36 15407
(27) MS 107.5 0.07
shown in Equ. 1, 3, 11, 12, 13 in Table 10 uses soil Fc 1581
classification parameters (LL, PI, PL) and P 0.000
compaction parameters (MDD, OMC) to correlate DF 120 40 160 8.579 80.44
SS 12104 2944 15047
with soaked and unsoaked CBR. The authors intend (28) MS 100.9 73.6
to verify these correlations with the newly Fc 1.37
developed correlations using the stabilized CH soil P 0.127
DF 136 24 160 0.323 99.98
with CLA and is shown in Equ. 26 to 30. ANOVA
SS 15045 2.5 15047
analysis was carried out to determine the (29) MS 110.6 0.1
significance of these parameter with the correlations Fc 1063
P 0.000
established, this can be seen in Table 11.
[DF = Degree of freedom; SS = Sum of Squares; MS = Mean
square (MS = SS/DF); Fc = Calculated F-distribution (Fc =
MSR/MSE); P = P-value; S = Standard error of the regression; R2
= Coefficient of determination @ multiple determination in
multiple regression.]

D1-12
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-13

Table 11 Correlations established for validation

Models developed from MRA R2 Equ. 80
CBRs = - 808 - 3233 PL + 3232 0.69 (24) 70
LL - 3236 PI - 0.12 LS + 407 MDD + 60
14.0 OMC

Predicted value of CBR

CBRus = -503+2761LL-2761PL- 0.73
2763PI-1.42LS+10.8OMC+
242MDD
CBRs = -468-2954PI - 2951PL + 0.83
2951 LL + 10.9 OMC + 219 MDD
CBRs = 119-132MDD+5.38OMC 0.61
CBRs = - 711 - 2.85 PI + 12.6 OMC + 0.70
324 MDD
CBRus = - 438-2.17PI+10.8OMC 0.76
+178MDD
CBRus= - 378 + 2.68 PL - 1.99 LL + 0.79
9.47 OMC + 143 MDD
Variance analysis table shown in Table 11
suggest that calculated F value for equation (1) is
35.6 and its degree of freedom (126, 34). The P-
value obtained from this analysis gives 0.000 which
is a test for all the independent variables. The null is
that none contribute anything and the small p-value
suggest that calculated F value for equation (1) is
35.6 and its degree of freedom (126, 34). The P-
value obtained from this analysis gives 0.000 which
suggests that at least one independent variable
contributes to the correlation model. F-distribution
with degree of freedom obtained from each
correlation was tested and 95% level of confidence
was chosen. If the calculated F value is greater than
the tabulated F value, the null hypothesis is rejected
and there is a good relation between dependent and
independent variables (Ramasubbarao and Siva,
2013). The correlations developed as shown in Table
10 concluded that the correlations is valid as the Fc
value is greater than the tabulated F value. Table 11
shows the correlations established for soaked and
unsoaked CBR with different soil parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Stabilization of CH soil using CLA stabilizer are
able to increase significantly for both soaked and
unsoaked CBR value. CBR value increases with the
decrease of plasticity index, liquid limit, linear
shrinkage and maximum dry density but decreases
with the increase of optimum moisture content and
plasticity limit.
The study has established correlations of both
soaked and unsoaked CBR values. Verification of
the correlations show that correlation equation (24)
and (25) can be used for predicting the soaked and
unsoaked CBR for stabilized CH soil using CLA
50
(25)
40
30
(26) 20
10
(27)
0
(28)
-10
(29) -20
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Actual Value of soaked CBR
(30) Equ. (1) - CBR Soaked Equ. (3) CBR Soaked
Equ. (12) CBR Soaked Equ. (11) CBR Unsoaked
Equ. (13) CBR Unsoaked Equ (26) CBR Soaked
Equ. (27) CBR Soaked Equ. (28) CBR Soaked
Equ. (29) CBR Unsoaked Equ. (30) CBR Unsoaked
Fig. 11 Comparison of actual CBR and predicted
CBR value using authors’ established correlations
and various established correlations by previous
researcher
stabilizer, in this case having the range of 18.5% to
38.4% for plasticity index, 5.08% to 13.63% for
linear shrinkage, 50.10% to 69.16% liquid limit,
26.24% to 36.81% plastic limit, 1.54Mg/m3 to
1.70Mg/m3 maximum dry density and 20.25 to
25.40% optimum moisture content.
Fig. 11 illustrates the comparison of actual CBR
value and predicted CBR value using authors’
established correlations and correlation developed
by previous researcher using soil classification and
compaction parameters. It is observed from this
figure that the predicted value of CBR from Equ. 1,
3, 11, 13 and 27 shows wide divergence from the
experimental value for most of the soils reported in
Table 6. On the other hand, the predicted value from
Equ. 12, 26, 28 and 29 shows lower predicted values
predicted from actual reported value in most of the
cases. Each of the correlations predicted was using
different types of soil. However, the authors suggest
that correlation of soaked and unsoaked CBR can be
well established if by classifying each into different
type of soil according to IS classification so that the
proposed correlation should only be used along with
good judgment. These help provide a rapid, accurate
and cost-effective method of determining soaked
and unsoaked CBR without carrying out laborious
laboratory experiment. Further research need to be
carried out to correlate both soaked and unsoaked
CBR in a wider range of IS classification.

D1-13
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The tests performed and stabilizer used as part of this
study were sponsored by Probase Manufacturing
Sdn. Bhd. and that the support is gratefully
appreciated. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
valuable assistance and unwavering support from her
academic supervisor, Professor Dr. Devapriya
Chitral Wijeyesekera from Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malaysia (UTHM). The author would also like
to thank her co-supervisor Professor Dato Dr. Ismail
bin Hj Bakar (UTHM), and laboratory staffs of
Research Centre for Soft Soils (RECESS) for their
valuable technical support.
REFERENCES
Atterberg, A. (1911). Die Plastizita¨t der Tone. Int.
Mitt. Bodenkd. 1, 10–43 (in German).
British Standard Institution (1990). British
Standard Methods of Test for soils for civil
Engineering Purposes. London, BS1377.
Berytenbach, I. J. (2009). The relationship between
index testing and California bearing ratio
values for natural road construction materials
in South Africa. M. Eng. Dissertation.,
University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Brown, S. F. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Pavement
Engineering. Geotechnique, 46 (3), 383-426.
Datta, T. & Chottopadhyay, B. C. (2011).
“Correlation between CBR and Index
Properties of Soil.” Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Paper No. A-350,
pp. 131-133.
Davel, J. S. (1989). n Statistiese analise van
ferrikreet as padboumateriaal in die
voorspelling van KDVwaardes uit die
graderingsmodulus. BS Hons (Eng)
dissertation, Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans
University.
Davis, T. (2008). Geotechnical Testing,
Observation, and Documentation. 2nd Ed.
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 25-26.
Evans, M., Hasting, N. & Peacock, B. (2000)
"Statistical Distributions". 3th Edition, New
York, Wiley.
Gawith, A. H. & Perrin, C. C. (1962).
Developments in the design and construction
of bituminous surfaced pavements in the state
of Victoria, Australia. Proceedings, 1st
International Conference on Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, pp 897-910.
Gregory, G.H. & Cross, S.A. (2007). Correlation of
CBR with Shear Strength Parameters, June
24-27, 1-14, Proceedings of 9 International
Conference on Low Volume Roads, Austin,
Texas.
Haupt, F. J. (1980). Moisture conditions associated
with pavements in Southern Africa. MSc.
(Eng) Dissertation, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 385pp.
Kleyn, S. A. (1995). Possible Developments in
Pavement Foundation Design. The South
African Institution of Civil Engineers, 5(12),
286-292.
Konrad, C. P. (2003). Effects of urban development
on floods. United States Geological Survey
Fact Sheet 076–03, Tacoma, Washington.
Kottegoda, N. T. & Rosso, R. (1998). Statistic,
Probability for Civil and Environmental
Engineers, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Montgomery, D. C. (2013). Applied Statistics
and Probability for Engineers 6th edition.
Wiley.
Latifi, N., Eisazadeh, A., & Marto, A. (2013).
Strength behavior and microstructural
characteristics of tropical laterite soil treated
with sodium silicate-based liquid
stabilizer. Environmental Earth Sciences, 1-
8.
Montgomery, D.C. & Runger, G.C. (2003).
Applied Statistics and Probability for
Engineers, 3 Edn., John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Netterberg, F. & Paige-Green, P. (1988). Wearing
courses for unpaved roads in southern Africa:
A review. Proceedings, Annual Transport
Conference, Paper 2D/5, Pretoria.
Patel, R. S., & Desai, M. D. (2010). CBR predicted
by index properties for alluvial soils of South
Gujarat. In Proceedings of the Indian
Geotechnical conference, Mumbai (pp. 79-
82).
Patel, M. A., & Patel, H. S. (2012). Experimental
Study to Correlate the Test Results of PBT,
UCS, and CBR with DCP on Various soils in
soaked condition.International Journal of
Engineering (IJE), 6(5), 244.
Patel, M. A. & Patel, H. S. (2013). Laboratory
Assessment to Correlate Strength Parameter
from Physical Properties of Subgrade.
Procedia Engineering, 51(NUiCONE 2012),
200–209. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.029
D1-14
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C. and Bakar, I. (2014). Correlations of Soil Classification and Compaction Parameters with Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of Soils.
In proceedings of Soft Soils 2014 Volume 2: South East Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and Ground Improvement: Advancement of Research and
Practice for Geotechnical Solutions, Bandung, Indonesia, 20-23 October (pp. D1-1 –D-16).D1-15

Porter, O. J. (1943). Foundations for Flexible (2013). Factors influencing strength

Pavements. In Highway Research Board development in clay–fly ash
Proceedings (Vol. 22, p. 43). Retrieved from geopolymer. Construction and Building
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=104549 Materials, 47, 1125-1136.
Ramasubbarao, G.V. & Siva Sankar, G. (2013). Talukdar, D. K. (2014). A Study of Correlation
Predicting Soaked CBR Value of Fine Between California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Grained Soils Using Index and Compaction Value With Other Properties of Soil.
Characteristics. Jordan Journal of Civil International Journal of Emerging
Engineering, 7(3), 354–360. Technology and Advanced Engineering, 4(1),
Roy, T. K., Chattopadhyay, B.C. and Roy, S. K. 559–562.
(2009). Prediction of CBR from Compaction Vinod, P. & Cletus Reena ,(2008), Prediction of
Characteristics of Cohesive Soil, Highway CBR value of Lateritic Soils using Liquid
Research Journal, July-Dec., 77-88. Limit and Gradation Characteristics Data,
Sabat, A. K. (2013). Prediction of California Highway Research Journal, Vol. I, No. 1,89-
Bearing Ratio of a Soil Stabilized with Lime 98.
and Quarry Dust Using Artificial Neural Wermers (1963). No publishing or title detail
Network. EJGE, 18, 3261–3272. specified in Netterberg. F. (1994). Prediction
Seehra (2008). NBMCW March 2008 Practical of CBR from Indicators: a Review. Pretoria,
problems in Highway construction in Black Department of Transport, Report no. 90/278;
cotton soil,R&D of road presumably Wermers, L.G. (1963).
department,Guntur,India) Evaluation of abbreviated methods for
http://www.nbmcw.com/articles/roads/307- routine soil testing: final report. Lafayettem
practical-problems-of-highway-construction- Purdue University.
in-black-cotton-soil-area.html Wijeyesekera, D. C., Lim, A. J. M. S., & Yahaya,
Stephens, D. J. (1988). The variation of the A. S. B. (2013). Advanced Statistical
California bearing ratio with standard Analysis for Relationships between Particle
classification parameters for a selection of Morphology (Size and Shape) and Shear
Natal soils. (Static and Dynamic) Characteristics of
Sathawara, J. K. & Patel, A. K. (2013). Sands. International Journal of
COMPARISON BETWEEN SOAKED AND Geosciences, 4, 27.
UNSOAKED CBR. International Journal of Yildirim, B. & Gunaydin, O. (2011). Estimation of
Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, California bearing ratio by using soft
2(3), 132–135. computing systems. Expert Systems with
Sukmak, P., Horpibulsuk, S., Shen, S. L., Applications, 38(5), 6381-6391.
Chindaprasirt, P., & Suksiripattanapong, C.

D1-15