Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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(%)
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
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
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
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
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
D1-15