Journal of Society for Transportation and Traffic Studies (JSTS) Vol.4 No.

1
EVALUATING LATERITIC SOIL-CEMENT STRENGTH AND MODULUS
USING MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODEL

Saravut JARITNGAM William.O.YANDELL

Associate Professor Visiting Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Prince of Songkla University Prince of Songkla University
Hatyai, Songkla, Thailand Hatyai, Songkla, Thailand

E-mail: jaritngam@gmail.com E-mail: aprof_wyandell@yahoo.com

Pichai TANEERANANON
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Prince of Songkla University
Hatyai, Songkla, Thailand
E-mail: pichai.t@psu.ac.th

ABSTRACT:

Soil cement improvement has been used for many years because of the significant improvement in soil
properties. The improvement in engineering properties of soil cement is mainly due to the hardening of
cement in the presence of moisture and extends the period of curing times. Different cement contents
and curing time result in different reaction for improving the quality of the soil cement. This paper
presents a methodology for predicting the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and modulus of
lateritic soil-cement (LSC) by making use of the cement content and the curing time values. Data taken
from a laboratory in Thailand have been employed in the multiple regression model construction and
testing. The performance evaluations showed that the multiple regression model predictions are very
satisfactory in estimating both strength and modulus of elasticity.

KEYWORDS: multiple regression, lateritic soil, soil-cement, unconfined compressive strength

modification building and bridge
techniques has been foundations, retaining
1. INTRODUCTION used widely for civil structures,
engineering and liquefaction
To improve mechanical properties of base infrastructure mitigation, temporary
materials, soil mixing, one of many ground applications such as support of excavation
and water control. The soil mixing techniques economical method a new technology for
originally developed in the U.S. have been to mix cement (or in Thailand. It was
extensively accepted in Japan for more than 30 some cases fly ash or introduced since
years. Names such as Jet Grouting, Soil Mixing, lime) with soil 1990s by both
Cement Deep Mixing (CDM), Soil (Broms 1983, Huang government and
1993, Jaritngam private sectors.
1996, Miki 1997, Nevertheless, there is
Terashi 1997, still no engineering
Mixed Wall (SMW), Deep Soil Mixing, (DSM), Ruenkrairergsa and practice for
Dry Jet Mixing (DJM), and Lime Columns are Jaratkorn 2001, construction of
known to many. Each of these methods has the Jaritngam, 2002). The cement column
same basic root, finding the most efficient and cement column is not
53
Evaluating Lateritic Soil-Cement Strength And Modulus Using Multiple Regression Model
soil is mechanically because it can
blended with rapidly improve of
cement to form soil- soil strength and
cement layer. This also relatively safe
method to the environment.
The unconfined
compressive
strength (UCS)
requirements for
considering quality control. For pavement bases and subbases
construction, controlling of the settlement treated with cement
is quite important. There are several are indicated in
methods to reduce the construction Table 1.
settlement. Improving soil by cement is widely employed
mixing is one of the methods whereby the for highway project
Stabilized days (MPa) course, select material or
Table 1 UCS requirements soil layer Base course subgrade
for bases and subbases Minimum 5.17 1.72
treated with cement UCS at 7 Subbase
Ban provinc m moisture ksc, lateritic
Lao-Tha e. The content, respecti soil are
2. SAMPLE Yom at maximu unconfined vely. In summar
PREPARATION Km.36+ m compressive addition ized in
500. strength and elastic , the Table 2.
Sample of lateritic This site modulus at 50% basic
soil was collected is dry strain are 2.13 characte
from the right- located density, ton/m3, 8.7%, ristics
handed side of the in Khon the 14.07 ksc and 1311 of the
Highway Project of Khan optimu in-situ
5.2 mm
Table 2 Lateritic Sand, 7 Specif Liquid Soil
Soil Properties 2.000- ic Limit, Classificati
before mixed, 0.074 Clay, Gravit LL on, USCS
Thailand mm <0.00 Coefficient of y (%) GC
(%) 2 mm Uniformity (Cu) 2.71 16
15.1 (%) 700 Soil
Soil Properties 11 Classificati
Unit Values Liquid Plastic on,
Silt, % Passing Sieve Limit, ity AASHTO
Gravel, >2.000 0.074- Mediu No.200 LL Index, A-2-6
mm (%) 0.002 m Size 16.2 (%) PI (%)
68.7 mm 36 20
(D50)
(%)
were ture facilitate the (UC days the mold and ired
Samples of used cont mixing and S) , cem amo
soil were wate ent compaction tests resp 101.6 ent unt
mixed with the r (OM process. at ectiv mm in were of
Ordinary cont C). Modified curi ely. diameter, mix opti
Portland ent Wat compaction ng Mix then ed mu
cement type 1 at er specimens time ed compact toge m
at the the was were s of cem ed to 5 ther wate
percentage of opti adde prepared for 3, 7, ent layers of to r
3, 5 and 7 by mu d as unconfined 14 cont 25 mak cont
weight of dry m need compressive and ent percent. e the ent
soil. Samples mois ed tostrength 28 in The soil requ corr
esponding to mixt the Specimens were to until the
different ure com from the kept prev days of
percentage of was pacti compaction in ent curing as
cement was com on mold were plast mois shown in
added. The pact mol then ic ture Figure
resulting ed in d. extracted and bags loss
54
Journal of Society for Transportation and Traffic Studies (JSTS) Vol.4 No.1
zero. UCS test is is a simple and
generally quick laboratory
performed on test to measure
cylindrical strength. To
prepare UC
specimens, molds
of 101.6 mm in
diameter and 140
mm in height,
1(a). Three specimens were were used. The
prepared for each percentage of most common
cement and curing time measure of soil-
respectively. UCS tests were cement
conducted in accordance with samples. Load- compressibility is
ASTM D1633-84 (see Figure deformation the secant
1(b)). characteristics are modulus, E50,
measured to which is
The strength of the lateritic soil- determine evaluated at the
cement was determined with strength stress level equal
unconfined compressive characteristics. to 50% of the
strength (UCS) test. UCS test is The main
special form of triaxial test advantage of peak strength (qu)
where confining pressure is UCS test is that it from the stress-
strain curve.
(b) Test set-
up

Figure 1
Unconfined
compressive
strength test samples
(a) UCS and set-ups
test samples
experi h and cement curing ined
mental modul content (CC), time compre
3. RESULTS results us of curing time and the ssive
AND with elastici dry strengt
DISCUSSION 12 ty density h and
tests during of soil. the
From represe the 28 (T) and dry Variabl modul
experimental nt the days density (DD) e us of
data, the results unconf after are linearly (UCS) elastici
for soil-cement ined additio dependent and ty,
mixing are compr n of predictors of (ES) respect
presented in essive water. the cement are the ively.
Table 3. The strengt The content, the unconf
55
Evaluating Lateritic Soil-Cement Strength And Modulus Using Multiple Regression Model
7
14
2.142
51.93
6749
3
28
2.120
Table 3 Experimental Results of laterlite 36.03
soil-cement 5108
CC 5
T 28
DD 2.140
UCS 48.93
ES 7647
3 7
3 28
2.111 2.142
25.54 59.17
3836 8074
5 Note: CC = the cement content, T = the curing time, DD =
3 dry density (ton/m3), UCS = unconfined compressive
2.122 strength (ksc), ES = Modulus of elasticity (ksc)
32.29
4773 The multiple regression model (Draper, N.R.
7 and Smith H., 1998) was proven to have a good
3 fit with inclusion of all the two predictors
2.096 (unconfined compressive strength and the modulus
35.11 of elasticity) presented as given in equation (1).
5088
3 yi 0 1 xi1 2 xi 2 3 xi3 , i 1, 2,..., n
7 (1)
2.119
30.45 Where, yi = the predictors (UCS and ES), i =
4706
5 numerical constants and xii = soil cement
7 parameters. In this model, multiple regression
2.122 analysis is applied to all data. The resulting
38.49 regression is as follows:
5313
7 For unconfined compressive strength:
7 UCS 11.622 3.977C
C
2.115 0.641T
42.15 2
5325 (R =0.884)
3 (2)
14
2.109
32.7
4825
5
14
2.129
45.29
6172
UCS 548.472 3.377C
C
0.399T 266.811D
2
(R =0.960)
(3)

ES 70032.2 345.023C
D
61.912T 34461.962D
2
(R =0.927)
(5)
For modulus of elasticity:

C
D

ES 2311.071 422.562C
C
Where, unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
93.137T 2
2 unit: kg/cm , cement content (CC) unit: % by
(R =0.850) weight, curing time (T) unit: days, dry density
(4) 3
(DD) unit: ton/m , modulus of elasticity (ES)
2
unit: kg/cm .
point at longitudinal strain 50 presented and
It should be noted that the and 2) the second point at in Figure 2. modulus of
modulus of elasticity (ES) compressive stress The elasticity
in this study represents the corresponding to 50% of maximum were found
modulus of elasticity (E50) ultimate load was used for this absolute to be 11
at 50% of ultimate load. To purpose. error and 12%,
determine the static percentage respectively
modulus of elasticity, the Comparison between the of (see
slope based on the two experimental data and unconfined Appendix A
linear points of stress- predicted values obtained from compressiv for all test
strain relation: 1) the first Equation (3) and (5) were e strength samples).
56
Journal of Society for Transportation and Traffic Studies (JSTS) Vol.4 No.1
40 7000

35 6000

30 5000

25 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 4000

UCS (ksc) 3000

6
0

5
5

3000
4000
5 5000
0 6000
7000
8000
9000
Predicted UCS (ksc) 4
5

E50 (ksc)

(a) Unconfined
Compressive Strength
(b) Modulus of
Elasticity

Figure 2 Comparison
of Experimental data
and predicted values
 ais an
At low cement overall
contents ductile Eimprov
(
stress-strain (
ement
relationships 5in the
0
were observed strengt
though brittle h
behavior charact
v
appeared with eristics
increasing of the
strength. The 4lateriti
modulus of c soil
elasticity (E50) Tand
of the lateritic this
soil -cement behavi
also increases or has
with increasing been
strength. confir
Approximate med
ratios of the from
elastic modulus unconf
ined
(E50) to compre
unconfined ssion
compressive tests.
strength (UCS) This
of cement can be
treated lateritic realize
soils varied d with
between 100 increas
and 200. e in the
Therefore the induce
modulus of d UCS
elasticity and and
unconfined
compressive E50
strength can be values.
stated by There
Equation 6 and is an
7, whereas the increas
relation of e in the
Equation 6 and strengt
7 were power h of
and linear, the
respectively. In lateriti
addition, the c soil
relationship by
between the about 4
modulus of times
elasticity and for 5%
unconfined cement
compressive weight
strength tend to by soil
from the power weight
and linear when
model as given compar
in Equations (6) ed to
 (coeff ressive impr as ent .
E50 718.33 icien Unco strength and oved the is
T
123.402U t of nfine modulus of signi cem inc
CS deter d elasticity fica ent rea
(R2=0.921) mina comp (E50) are ntly cont sed
5
Evaluating Lateritic Soil-Cement Strength And Modulus Using Multiple Regression Model
On the basis of
the results, 5% The performance
cement content is evaluations
the optimum for showed that the
use as a base multiple
course in regression model
highway predictions are
pavements. very satisfactory
Cement content (CC) and curing time in estimating
unconfined
(T) have major effects on the strength and compressive
modulus of lateritic soil-cement in flexible strength and
pavement. modulus of
elasticity.

method. highways Foundation Engineering,

Internatio , 27 Stockholm, Sweden, June 15-
REFERENCES nal August 19.
Conferen 1997,
Broms, B. (1983), ce on Departm Ruenkrairergsa, T. and
Stabilization of soft clay Road & ent of Jaratkorn, S. (2001),
with lime columns, Airfield Highway Unconfined Compressive
International Seminar on Pavemen s& Strength of Soil-Cement
Construction Problems in t Japan under Various Density, RD
Soft Soils, Singapore, Technolo Internatio 188 Road Research and
pp.120-133. gy, nal Development Center,
China, Cooperat Department of Highways, 179
Draper, N.R. and Smith H. pp.144- ion p.
(1998) Applied 153. Agency,
Regression Analysis, New Bangkok, Terashi, M. (1997), Deep
York, John Wiley&Son, Miki, H. Thailand. mixing method-Brief state-of-
736 p. Huang Y.H. (1993), (1997), th
the-art. 14 International
Pavement analysis and Design Mitchell, Conference on Soil Mechanics
design. Englewood Cliffs, of deep J.K. and Foundation Engineering, 4
NJ: Prentice-Hall. mixing (1981), p.
method Soil
Jaritngam, S. (1996), of improve Terashi, M. (2002) Long-term
Method of reducing soil stabilizat ment: Strength Gain
movements for deep ion with state-of- vs.Deterioration of Soils
excavations in soft clay. low the-art. Treated by Lime and Cement.
M.Eng. Thesis, Nanyang improve Tenth Proceedings of Deep Mixing
Technological University, ment. Internatio Workshop, The International
Singapore. The first nal Workshop of Deep Mixing,
seminar Conferen Edited by Masaki Kitazume
Jaritngam, S. (2002), The on ce on and Masaaki Terashi, Toyko,
soil improvement for road ground Soil Japan, October 15-18, pp. 39-
embankment on soft clay improve Mechani 57.
by using jet grouting ment in cs and
5
8
Journal of Society for Transportation and Traffic Studies (JSTS) Vol.4 No.1

Appendix A. Comparison of the accuracy of multiple regression analysis

Table A.1: Comparison of the accuracy of multiple regression analysis (UCS)

Item
Experiments
Equation (3)
Absolute
Absolute

(ksc)
(ksc)
error value
error percentage (%)

1
25.54
26.09
0.55
2

2
32.29
35.78
3.49
11

3
35.11
35.60
0.49
1

4
30.45
29.82
0.63
2

5
38.49
37.38
1.11
3
6
42.15
42.27
0.12
0

7
32.70
29.95
2.75
8

8
45.29
42.04
3.25
7

9
51.93
52.26
0.33
1

10
36.03
38.47
2.44
7

11
48.93
50.56
1.63
3

12
59.17
57.85
1.32
2

Table A.2: Comparison of the accuracy of multiple regression analysis (E50)

Item
Experiments
Equation (5)
Absolute
Absolute

(ksc)
(ksc)
error value
error percentage (%)
1
3836
3938
102
3

2
4773
5007
234
5

3
5088
4801
287
6

4
4706
4461
245
5

5
5313
5255
58
1

6
5325
5703
378
7

7
4825
4550
275
6

8
6172
5929
243
4

9
6749
7067
318
5

10
5108
5796
688
12

11
7647
7175
472
7

12
8074
7934
140
2

59