Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0604-x (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Correlation of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value

with Soil Properties of Road Subgrade Soil
Valentine Yato Katte . Souleyman Moupe Mfoyet . Bertille Manefouet .
Armand Sylvain Ludovic Wouatong . Lawrence Aleh Bezeng

Received: 20 December 2017 / Accepted: 12 June 2018 / Published online: 21 June 2018
Ó Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is the
most utilised parameter for dimensioning flexible
pavements in tropical countries. Often this test is
expensive, laborious and time consuming, and to
overcome this, some regression analysis (single and
multiple) was considered between the soil’s index
properties (liquid limit-LL, Plastic limit-PL and
Plasticity index-PI), compaction characteristics (max-
imum dry density-MDD and optimum moisture con-
tent-OMC), percentage of particle sizes (gravel, sand
and clay/silt) and CBR. The study was carried out
along an ongoing roadway construction project where
V. Y. Katte (&)
Department of Civil Engineering and Forestry
Techniques, HTTTC, The University of Bamenda,
P.O. Box 39, Bambili, North West Region, Cameroon
e-mail: ykatte@yahoo.com
S. M. Mfoyet  B. Manefouet  A. S. L. Wouatong
Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science,
University of Dschang, P.O. Box 67, Dschang,
West Region, Cameroon
e-mail: mfoyetsouleyman@gmail.com
B. Manefouet
e-mail: mceliebertille@yahoo.fr
A. S. L. Wouatong
e-mail: aslwouat@yahoo.com
L. A. Bezeng
Bela Company LTD., P.O. Box 1104, Bamenda,
North West Region, Cameroon
e-mail: bezeng_aleh@yahoo.com
thirty-three soil samples were collected and trans-
ported to the laboratory for analysis. Routine geotech-
nical tests were carried out and thereafter correlation
and regression analysis were run on the obtained
results to assess the relationship between these index
properties, compaction characteristics and the exper-
imental CBR obtained. The results of this analysis
showed relatively fair coefficients of determination of
R2 = 0.772 between CBR and MDD using single
linear regression analysis and R2 = 0.841 between
CBR and all the parameters using multiple linear
regression analysis (MLRA). Though the MLRA
improved the R2 from 0.772 to 0.841, the inclusion
of additional properties results in a marginal increase
of R2 indicative of weak correlators of CBR hence
practically not cost effective for pavement design .
Keywords CBR  Flexible pavement  Soil index
properties  Compaction characteristics  Percentage of
particle sizes  SLRA  MLRA  Pearson’s coefficient
R2  Cost effective
1 Introduction
Transportation Infrastructure is a key component for
any long term development program for any nation.
The development of road network is regarded as an
index of economic, social and commercial progress of
a particular country. No region or country can flourish/

123
218
develop, if it lacks adequate transportation facilities
and more so the road network. It is thus logical that
28% of World Bank funds in Cameroon are allocated
to the transportation sector. Therefore, it becomes very
important that at the early stages of the planning,
design and construction of a road network, proper soil
characterization must be carried out. This is to avoid
jeopardizing the envisaged infrastructure, be they
highways, airports, seaports, railways etc.
The CBR (California Bearing Ratio) is the most
utilised parameter for dimensioning flexible pave-
ments in tropical countries. The bearing capacity of
the subgrade soil is important in determining the
pavement thickness. A low CBR entails a thicker
pavement and vice versa. To determine the CBR
representative soil samples are compacted at prede-
termined optimum moisture content and maximum
dry density for a given compactive energy of the soil
material. Thereafter the CBR value is obtained only
after immersion in water for 4 days and sheared.
Carrying this exercise on soil samples collected from a
limited number of locations cannot be representative
of the whole road trajectory due to the variations of
their engineering properties. So overcoming this
entails the collection of a large number of specimens
for testing which makes the procedure expensive, time
consuming and laborious. To resolve this, the predic-
tion of CBR values of subgrade soil with easily
determinable parameters becomes necessary and sta-
tistical analysis can be used. So far, no information is
available from this study area and its environs of such
an attempt to correlate soil properties and CBR using
regression analysis (single and multiple) between the
soil’s index properties (liquid limit-LL, Plastic limit-
PL and Plasticity index-PI), compaction characteris-
tics (maximum dry density-MDD and optimum mois-
ture content-OMC), percentage of particle sizes
(gravel, sand and clay/silt) and CBR.
2 Description of Study Area/Geological Setting
This study was carried out on the Sangmelima-
Mengong a highway construction project. This area
and its environs is located in the North western edge of
the Congo craton and specifically in the Ntem
complex. This represents the north-western part of
the Archaean Congo craton in Central Africa (Clifford
and Gass 1970; Cahen et al. 1976; Bessoles and
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234
Trompette 1980) and is very well exposed in South
Cameroon (Rocci 1965; Maurizot et al. 1985; Good-
win 1991). It is limited to the north by a major thrust
that marks the contact with the Pan-African orogenic
belt (Yaoundé group) and is composed of various rock
types, with rocks of the TTG (Tonalite–Trondhjemite–
Granodiorite) constituting the greater part(Nédélec
1990). Three main rock types, the charnockitic suite,
granodioritic suite and the tonalitic suite, distin-
guished on cartographic and field observation maps,
make up this TTG unit. The tonalitic suite (known as
‘‘Soo granite’’ and as ‘‘Soo tonalite’’ (Nédélec 1990)
is essentially exposed to the north and is strongly
mylonitized and retrogressed along the fault boundary
with the Pan-African orogenic belt, while granodi-
oritic suite massifs form distinct bodies within the
dominantly charnockitic southern zone (Fig. 1). The
S0 structural surface is basically NW–SE in the
charnockitic suite, NNE–SSW to almost E–W in the
tonalitic suite and E–W to WNW–ESE in granodior-
ites, indicating structural discordances and suggesting
a poly- phase structural setup in the Sangmelima TTG
(Shang 2001). Furthermore, charnockitic xenoliths
occur in granodioritic and tonalitic massifs and the
latter form veins and dykes in charnockite thus
portraying relative chronology for the three members
of the TTG suite.
Exposures of supracrustal rocks (banded iron
formations and sillimanite-bearing Para gneisses) that
represent remnants of greenstone belts form xenoliths
in TTG suite rocks (Nsifa et al. 1993). Late- to post-
tectonic granitoids and syenites with alkaline affinity
intrude the TTG (Kornprobst et al. 1976; Nédélec
1990; Tchameni 1997; Tchameni et al. 2000, 2001;
Shang 2001; Shang et al. 2001a, b), and clearly
postdate the major crustal forming episode. Eburnean
(2.1 Ga) doleritic dykes (Toteu et al. 1994; Vicat et al.
1996)represent the last magmatic activity in the Ntem
complex.
Petro-structural studies suggest two major episodes
of deformation in this geological domain. The first
deformation episode is characterized by vertical
foliation, stretching and vertical lineation and isoclinal
folds. These structural elements could mark the
diapiric emplacement of the granitoids (Shang 2001;
Tchameni et al. 2001). The second major tectonother-
mal event is marked by the development of sinistral
shear planes trending north–south to N45E, and partial
melting of charnockitic and tonalitic members of the
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234 219

Fig. 1 Regional geological

map of the north-western
part of the Congo craton
(Ntem complex) and thrust
contact with the North
Equatorial Pan-African
orogenic belt in South
Cameroon. Main map shows
the geology of the
Sangmelima region and the
distribution of TTG suite

TTG suite and the greenstone belt country rocks,
described as post-Archaean and post-charnockitic
migmatisation (Nsifa and Riou 1990). Although the
timing to this second tectonothermal event is not well
known, Rb–Sr whole-rock data from Lasserre and
Soba (Lasserre and Soba 1976)suggest that this event
could have occurred during the Eburnean orogeny.
The peak of this metamorphism is dated at about
million years 2050 (Toteu et al. 1994), using U–Pb
zircon data on metamorphic rocks from the Nyong
series. Below is the geological map of the studied area.
The study area is located in what is called the South
Cameroon plateau. This zone shows successive con-
vex and convexo-concave hills, which often transit
progressively into pediments around the tropics (Se-
galen 1967; Eno Belinga 1983). These hills make up
much of the tropical plateau landscapes (500 and
800 m altitude) Bitom et al. 2013. The latter are

123
220 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

surmounted primarily by high plateaus (800 to
1800–2000 m) and secondly by mountainous massifs
([ 2000 m altitude) which impose considerable mod-
ifications to climate and vegetation distribution. These
modifications have a direct bearing on the geochem-
ical behaviour and nature of soils (Segalen 1967).
Bitom et al. 2013 have recognized three soil types
being the ferriginous duricrust in the tropical plateaus,
bauxitic duricrust on the high plateau and andosols on
the tropical mountains. Such a relief is replete with
many streams and rivers draining the area of which the
two main ones are the Dja and Lobo constituting part
of the Congo River basin. The climate is the ‘Guinean
type’ with two dry seasons alternating with two humid

Table 1 Some previous correlations and the statistical parameters

S/ Investigator Parameters considered Model Statistical
N and their range parameter

1 NCHRP Non plastic course CBR = 5%, if D60 B 0.01 mm R2 = 0.84

(2001) grained soils 2
CBR = 28.09(D60) , if 0.01 mm B D60 B 30 mm
CBR = 95%, if D60 C 30 mm
Plastic fine grained 75
CBR ¼ 1þ0:728ðwPIÞ R2 = 0.67
soils
2 Satyanarayana FF = 9.0–34.8% CBRs = - 0.388F - 0.064LL ? 20.38MDD R = 0.96
Reddy and LL = 22–48%
Pavani
MDD = 1.90–2.32 g/
(2006)
cc
CBRs = 12.8–56.8%
3 Gregory and For cohesive soils CBR = 0.09cu –
Cross (2007) For cohesionless soils CBR ¼ qult100
6895
–
4 Vinod and C = 33–65% CBRs = - 0.889(WLM) ? 45.616 R = 0.979
Reena (2008) LL = 38.10–63.00% Where, WLM = LL(1-C/100)
CBRs = 8.9–30.4%
5 Patel and Desai LL = 52.98–70.78% CBRs = 17.009 - 0.0696Ip - 0.296MDD ? 0.0648OMC %Error = - 2.5%
(2010) PL = 17.09–26.8% CBRs = 43.907 - 0.093Ip- - 18.78MDD - 0.3081OMC %Error = - 5%
SL = 8.03–19.5%
MDD = 1.58–1.73 g/
cc
OMC = 17.23–24.70%
PI = 24.19–74.78
CBRu = 2.80–8.94%
CBRs = 1.54–4.42%
6 Yildirim and G = 0–78%, CBR = 0.2353G ? 3.0798 R2 = 0.86
Gunaydin S = 1–49% CBR = - 0.1805F ? 18.508 R2 = 0.80
(2011) F = 10–99%, CBR = 0.22G ? 0.045S ? 4.739MDD ? 0.122OMC R2 = 0.88
LL = 20–89%
CBR = 0.62OMC ? 58.9MDD ? 0.11LL ? 0.53PL - 126.18 R2 = 0.63
PL = 11–43%
MDD = 1.21–2.18 g/
cc
OMC = 7.20–40.20%
Where, CBRS soaked California bearing ratio, CBRU unsoaked California bearing ratio, D60 diameter at 60% passing from grain size
distribution (in mm), w percentage passing No.200 U.S sieve (in decimal), LL xL liquid limit of soil (in per cent) and C is fraction of
soil coarser than 425micron (per cent), PL xP plastic limit, SL shrinkage limit, Ip PI = plasticity index, MDD cdmax maximum dry
density, OMC xopt optimum moisture content, cu undrained cohesion (kPa), qult ultimate bearing capacity (in kPa)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234 221

ones of unequal intensities Suchel 1972. The average 3 Historicity

annual rainfall is about 1710 mm. Temperatures vary
between 28 and 30 °C with a thermal amplitude not Many researchers like Gregory and Cross, (2007),
exceeding 2 °C. Due to abundant and regular rainfall, Vinod and Reena, (2008) and agencies like NCHRP
the humidity is relatively high, i.e. 80% and the annual developed relationships between CBR with soil index
evapotranspiration of 1156 mm according to the parameters of lateritic soils on the basis of samples
TURC formula. Consequently, the area is heavily obtained from a specific region and soil type. General
forested being part of the evergreen equatorial forest relationships are also developed using universally
of the Congo Basin. accepted soil classification systems, which are on the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and Amer-
ican Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) systems. These correlation meth-
Table 2 The coordinates of the localisation of sample col- ods take a general approach and attempt to encompass
lection points many or all possible soil types. Results of some
Locality Latitude Longitude previous correlations and the respective statistical
parameters are given in Table 1.
Foulassi 2°580 46.7100 N 11°570 46.9000 E
Ngam (a) 2°580 34.1800 N 11°570 41.9900 E
Ngam (b) 2°580 19.0200 N 11°580 0.2700 E 4 Materials and Methods
0 00
About 1 km from Mepho 2°57 42.11 N 11°570 50.6600 E
Mepho 2°580 6.9900 N 11°580 22.4800 E The study started with deskwork and reconnaissance
survey of the project area. Thereafter sampling was

Fig. 2 Map of the study area

123
222 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

Fig. 3 Showing
investigation depth during
sample collection

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234 223

Table 3 Results of geotechnical tests

CBR MDD %OMC L.L P.L I.P %Gravel %Sand %Silt & Soil type NAME
clay

43.0 2.180 10.40 66.5 43.2 23.3 67.1 6 24.1 A-2-7(1) Reddish or brownish clayey
37.0 2.145 11.10 86.9 51.3 35.6 71.5 8.5 15.9 A-2-7(0) lateritic gravel
30.0 2.050 13.30 43.6 26.5 17.1 57.1 12.4 28.3 A-2-7(1)
47.0 2.191 11.00 64.7 42.6 22.1 64.6 11.7 23.7 A-2-7(1)
30.5 2.110 12.60 43.6 30 13.6 63.9 12.3 23.8 A-2-7(0)
47.0 2.150 9.90 74.9 43.5 31.4 66.1 8.8 19.6 A-2-7(1)
18.5 2.002 12.30 80.6 41.7 38.9 57.8 13.7 28.5 A-2-7(4)
25.0 2.090 12.90 77.8 44.2 33.6 54.5 11.2 31.8 A-2-7(4)
38.0 2.149 11.60 77.7 43.3 34.4 68.1 8.7 23.2 A-2-7(2)
23.0 2.067 14.00 66.40 39.30 27.10 54.46 6.67 26.4 A-2-7(2)
35.0 2.130 12.40 56.70 33.00 23.70 61.82 8.18 30 A-2-7(2)
28.0 2.008 13.00 64.50 35.50 29.00 56.27 10.03 33.7 A-2-7(4)
47.0 2.170 10.20 73.70 41.50 32.20 77.18 7.72 15.1 A-2-7(0)
42.0 2.178 12.00 58.60 27.50 31.10 66.14 11.66 22.2 A-2-7(2)
35.0 2.050 12.50 57.70 31.70 26.00 47.23 10.03 24.86 A-2-7(2)
37.0 2.140 13.00 86.30 42.00 44.30 64.53 7.57 25.2 A-2-7(3)
35.5 2.061 13.40 85.80 48.90 36.90 56.54 9.17 29.19 A-2-7(4)
26.0 1.993 14.80 62.50 30.60 31.90 56.17 9.19 32 A-2-7(4)
31.0 2.128 12.40 66.00 37.50 28.50 61.82 8.17 30.01 A-2-7(3)
41.0 2.1 12.3 57.70 34.80 22.90 51.49 10.69 37.82 A-2-7(3)
31.0 2.1 13.6 79.90 43.20 36.70 62.56 6.05 26.09 A-2-7(3)
35.0 2.12 12.5 54.60 38.40 16.20 56.82 8.92 34.26 A-2-7(1)
21.0 1.96 15 79.80 38.50 41.30 60.63 7.88 31.49 A-2-7(4)
14.2 1.91 16.5 59.70 37.30 22.40 65.33 6.93 27.74 A-2-7(1)
49.5 2.16 11 83.70 45.70 38.00 83.54 4.1 12.36 A-2-7(0)
19.3 1.96 16 68.00 43.80 24.20 51.87 9.93 38.2 A-7-5(3)
29.0 2.06 12.4 63.80 39.70 24.10 57.92 8.63 33.45 A-2-7(3)
48.9 2.23 11.5 63.1 42.8 20.3 65.02 7.14 27.84 A-2-7(1)
49.0 2.15 10.6 92.6 62.1 30.5 86.52 2.98 10.5 A-2-7(0)
31.0 2.02 12 85.9 51.9 34 54.31 9.4 36.29 A-7-6(5)
30.0 2.05 14.2 68.7 40.2 28.5 66.45 7.9 25.65 A-2-7(2)
49.5 2.33 9.6 86.8 52.8 34 84.02 4.46 11.52 A-2-7(0)
49.0 2.25 10.1 65.9 38.9 27 68.77 10.27 20.96 A-2-7(1)

carried out from the several trail pits established
permitting a close examination of the sampling sites.
The samples collected were placed in suitable plastic
containers which were well sealed and transported to
the laboratory where they were air—dried and broken
into smaller fragments, care being taken not to reduce
the sizes of the individual particles. The samples were
air-dried so as to reduce the excess natural water
content of the soil contained mostly in the clay
minerals and organic matter, so that they could be
properly preserved and used latter on.
4.1 Sample Collection
In order to have sufficient and reliable data for the
target analysis, laboratory tests conducted on soil
samples obtained from different localities of Sangme-
lima-Mengong. A total of 33 disturbed samples were
collected within a reasonable sampling interval over a

123
224 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

distance of 3300 m. The representative samples
selected on the basis of visual identification of a
suitable subgrade soil, as such a diversified batch of
samples acquired from areas such as; Ngam(a),
Ngam(b), Foulassi, about 1 km from Mepho and
Mepho. The coordinates of the location and sample
collection points is given in Table 2 as well as the map
of the area is given in Fig. 2. The profile of the
collection points is given in Fig. 3.
4.2 Geotechnical Tests
Preliminary testing was carried out in accordance with
the BS 1377: 1990 testing specifications. The tests
carried out were the grain size analysis; the Atterberg
limits liquid limit plastic limit. The Modified Proctor
test and the determination of the CBR values was also
in accordance with BS 1377:1990.
5 Results and Discussion
The results of the geotechnical tests are presented in
Table 3. The results indicate that the soil materials are
mostly in the A-2-7 class in accordance with the
ASSHTO classification system, thereby making them
suitable pavement material. Just one trial pit material
fell in A-7-6 class which is not a good material for
pavement material except upon improvement.
Thereafter the results of the geotechnical tests were
analysed with the statistical package for social science
software (SPSS) to investigate the significance of
individual regressor variables. Prior to performing the
analysis details of the descriptive statistics—mean,
standard deviation, variance, median and the range of
the sample distribution were obtained. Accordingly,
the thirty three laboratory test results of the indepen-
dent and dependent variables are used in the regression
analysis and it is shown in Table 4. The Pearson
correlation coefficient between the CBR and soil index
properties is given in Table 5.
The results of the correlation of CBR with maxi-
mum dry density, optimum moisture content, percent-
age of gravel and percentage of silt/clay has relatively
good correlation coefficients i.e. 0.879, - 0.861,
0.629 and - 0.645 respectively. Whereas, the corre-
lation of CBR with liquid limit, plasticity index,
plastic limit and percentage of sand has weak corre-
lation coefficients i.e. 0.189, 0.317, - 0.002 and
- 0.334 respectively. The strength of coarse-grained
soil has a greater association with the compaction
characteristics of the soil. As such, maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content has resulted in
relatively a better correlation with the strength
parameter. However, the correlation with liquid limit,
plasticity index and plastic limit shows a weak
relationship. When performing the regression analysis
CBR value is considered a dependent variable while
the index properties and compaction characteristics
are the independent variables.
5.1 Simple Linear Regression Analysis
A single linear regression analysis was carried out on
thirty-three samples (n = 33) and the developed
models are expressed as follows:

Table 4 Descriptive statistics of the thirty-three samples used

Statistics C.B.R %OMC %L.L %P.L %I.P %Gravel %Sand %Silt & clay
Dependent Independent

Mean 34.94 12.43 69.8 40.7 29.1 63.3 8.7 26.1

Median 35.0 12.4 66.5 41.5 29 62.56 8.7 26.4
S.D 10.123 1.688 12.635 7.557 7.357 9.361 2.425 7.285
Variance 102.483 2.850 159.649 57.113 54.126 87.634 5.880 53.074
Minimum 14.2 9.6 43.6 26.5 13.6 47.2 2.9 10.5
Maximum 49.5 16.5 92.6 62.1 44.3 86.5 13.7 38.2
Sum 1152.9 410.1 2304.7 1343.9 960.8 2088.11 286.97 861.74
# samples 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234 225

Table 5 Contingency table (correlation table)

CBR MDD %OMC L.L P.L I.P %Gravel %Sand %Silt and clay

CBR 1 0.879 - 0.861 0.189 0.317 - 0.002 0.629 - 0.334 - 0.645

MDD 0.879 1 - 0.849 0.146 0.268 - 0.025 0.607 - 0.273 - 0.627
%OMC - 0.861 - 0.849 1 - 0.250 - 0.366 - 0.053 - 0.570 0.168 0.630
L.L 0.189 0.146 - 0.250 1 0.852 0.843 0.445 - 0.492 - 0.392
P.L 0.317 0.268 - 0.366 0.852 1 0.435 0.512 - 0.571 - 0.408
I.P - 0.002 - 0.025 - 0.053 0.843 0.435 1 0.239 - 0.258 - 0.254
%Gravel 0.629 0.607 - 0.570 0.445 0.512 0.239 1 - 0.629 - 0.880
%Sand - 0.334 - 0.273 0.168 - 0.492 - 0.571 - 0.258 - 0.629 1 0.490
%Silt & clay - 0.645 - 0.627 0.630 - 0.392 - 0.408 - 0.254 - 0.880 0.490 1

Fig. 4 Regression graph of model 1 Fig. 5 Regression graph of model 2

A. Model 1: Correlation between CBR and Maxi-
mum Dry Density (MDD)
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
MDD is expressed by the following single linear
equation with its corresponding coefficients is given
by Eq. 1 and is shown in Fig. 4.
CBR ¼ 175:006 þ 99:869  MDD ð1Þ
With R = 0.879, R2 = 0.772. Therefore 77.2% of the
variance in CBR can accounted for by maximum dry
density. The details of the statistical out-put indicates
that the relationship developed between maximum dry
density and CBR is statistically significant (a \ 0.05).
The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) obtained for
this soil type indicates that maximum dry density is a
very good predictor for soaked CBR.
B. Model 2: Correlation between CBR and Optimum
moisture content (OMC)
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
OMC is expressed by the following single linear Eq. 2
and is shown in Fig. 5.
CBR ¼ 99:086  5:162  OMC ð2Þ
2
with R = 0.861, R = 0.741. Therefore 74.1% of the
variance in CBR can be accounted for by optimum
moisture content. The details of the statistical out-put

123
226 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

indicates that the relationship developed between

optimum moisture content and CBR is statistically
significant (a \ 0.05). The Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (R) obtained for this soil type indicates
that optimum moisture content is a good predictor for
soaked CBR.
C. Model 3: Correlation between CBR and Liquid
limit (LL)
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
LL is expressed by the following single linear equation
with its corresponding coefficients, is given by Eq. 3.0
CBR ¼ 24:377 þ 0:151  LL ð3Þ
2
with R = 0.189, R = 0.036. Therefore 3.6% of the
variance in CBR can be accounted for by LL. The
details of the statistical out-put indicates that the
relationship developed between liquid limit and CBR
Fig. 6 Regression graph of model 6
is not statistically significant (a [ 0.05). This implies
there is a weak relationship between LL and CBR for
this soil type (A-2-7). The Pearson’s correlation CBR ¼ 35:006  0:002  PI ð5Þ
coefficient (R) obtained for this soil type indicates with R = 0.002, R2 = 0.000. Therefore the PI doesn’t
that liquid limit is a very poor predictor for soaked predict the dependent variable. The details of the
CBR. statistical out-put indicates that the relationship
D. Model 4: Correlation between CBR and Plastic developed between plasticity index and CBR is not
limit (PL) significant (a [ 0.05). This implies there is a very
weak relationship between PI and CBR for this soil
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with type (A-2-7). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient
PL is expressed by the following single linear equation (R) obtained for this soil type indicates that plasticity
with its corresponding coefficients, is given by Eq. 4. index is a very poor predictor for soaked CBR.
CBR ¼ 17:632 þ 0:425  PL ð4Þ F. Model 6: Correlation between CBR and Percent-
2
with R = 0.317, R = 0.101. Therefore, just 10.1% of age of gravel (%GRAVEL)
the variance in CBR can be accounted for by PL. The The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
details of the statistical out-put indicates that the Percentage of gravel is expressed by the following
relationship developed between plastic limit and CBR single linear equation with its corresponding coeffi-
is not statistically significant (a [ 0.05). This implies cients is given by Eq. 6.0 and shown in Fig. 6.
there is a weak relationship between plastic limit and
CBR for this soil type (A-2-7). The Pearson’s corre- CBR ¼ 8:093 þ 0:680  Percentage GRAVEL
lation coefficient (R) obtained for this soil type ð6Þ
indicates that plastic limit is a very poor predictor with R = 0.629, R2 = 0.395. Thus 39.5% of the
for soaked CBR. variance in CBR can be accounted for by Percentage
E. Model 5: Correlation between CBR and Plasticity of gravel. The details of statistical out-put indicates
index (PI) that the relationship developed between percentage of
gravel and CBR is statistically significant (a \ 0.05).
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) obtained for
plasticity index is expressed by the following single this soil type indicates that percentage of gravel is a
linear equation with its corresponding coefficients is
good predictor for soaked CBR.
given in Eq. 5

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234
Fig. 7 Regression graph of model 8
G. Model 7: Correlation between CBR and Percent-
age of sand (%SAND)
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
Percentage of sand fraction is expressed by the
following single linear equation with its corresponding
coefficients, is given by Eq. 7.0
CBR ¼ 47:052  1:393  %SAND ð7Þ
with R = 0.334, R2 = 0.111. Thus 11.1% of the
variance in CBR can be accounted for by Percentage
of sand fraction. The details of the statistical out-put
indicates that the relationship developed between
percentage of sand and CBR is not statistically
significant (a [ 0.05). This implies there is a weak
relationship between percentage of sand and CBR for
this soil type (A-2-7). The Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (R) obtained for this soil type indicates
that percentage of sand fraction is a poor predictor for
soaked CBR.
H. Model 8: Correlation between CBR and percent-
age of clay or silt (%CLAY/SILT)
The regression analysis after correlating CBR with
percentage of clay or silt fraction is expressed by the
following single linear equation with its corresponding
coefficients, and is given by Eq. 8 and shown in Fig. 7.
CBR ¼ 58:350  0:897  %CLAY=SILT ð8Þ
227
with R = 0.645, R2 = 0.416. Thus 41.6% of the
variance in CBR can be accounted for by percentage
of clay or silt fraction. The details of the statistical out-
put indicates that the relationship developed between
percentage of clay or silt and CBR is statistically
significant (a \ 0.05). The Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (R) obtained for this soil type indicates
that percentage of clay or silt is a good predictor for
soaked CBR.
5.2 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
A multiple linear regression analysis was carried out
on thirty-three samples (n = 33) and after trying a set
of alternative combination of predictors the following
result were obtained:
A. Model 9
Correlation between CBR and percentage of clay or
silt, plasticity index, percentage of sand, plastic limit,
maximum dry density, optimum moisture content and
percentage of gravel was carried out. The regression
model obtained is a single linear expression with its
corresponding coefficients as given by Eq. 9.
CBR ¼ 20:19 þ 47:130  MDD  2:895  OMC
 0:091  PL  0:055PI þ 0:049
 %GRAVEL  0:668  %SAND þ 0:000
 %CLAY=SILT
ð9Þ
2 2
with R = 0.917, R = 0.841 and Adj R = 0.796. Thus
predicting 84.1% of the variance in CBR can be
accounted for by the independent variables. The
details of the statistical out-put indicates that the
relationship developed between percentage of clay or
silt, plasticity index, percentage of sand, plastic limit,
maximum dry density, optimum moisture content,
percentage of gravel and CBR is statistically signif-
icant (a \ 0.05).
B. Model 10
Correlation between CBR and percentage of clay or
silt, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content
and percentage of gravel was carried out. The
regression model obtained is a single linear expression
with its corresponding coefficients as given by Eq. 10.
123
228 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

CBR ¼ 59:297 þ 54:293  MDD  2:342  OMC
þ 0:138  %gravel þ 0:018  %clay=silt
ð10Þ
with R = 0.910, R2 = 0.828 and Adj R2 = 0.803. Thus
82.8% of the variance in CBR can be accounted for by
the independent variables. The details of the statistical
output indicate that the relationship developed
between percentage of clay or silt, maximum dry
density (MDD), optimum moisture content (OMC),
percentage of gravel and CBR is significant
(a \ 0.05).
C. Model 11
The correlation between CBR with maximum dry
density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC)

Table 6 Summary of regression analysis and their order of significance in terms of R2

Type of regression MODEL R R2 Significance a Order of significance

Single linear regression Model 1 0.879 0.772 \ 0.05 1

Model 2 - 0.861 0.741 \ 0.05 2
Model 3 0.189 0.036 [ 0.05 7
Model 4 0.317 0.101 [ 0.05 6
Model 5 0.002 0.000 [ 0.05 8
Model 6 0.629 0.395 \ 0.05 4
Model 7 0.334 0.111 [ 0.05 5
Model 8 0.645 0.416 \ 0.05 3
Multiple linear regression Model 9 0.917 0.841 \ 0.05 1
Model 10 0.910 0.828 \ 0.05 2
Model 11 0.905 0.819 \ 0.05 3
Model 12 0.660 0.435 \ 0.05 4

Table 7 Summary of selected models and equations and their order of significance in terms of both their coefficient of determination
and cost effectiveness
Model Description Regression equation Order of
significance

Model CBR versus MDD CBR = - 175.006 ? 99.869 * MDD 2

1
Model CBR versus OMC CBR = 99.086 – 5.162 * OMC 2
2
Model CBR versus %GRAVEL CBR = - 8.093 ? 0.680 * %GRAVEL 6
6
Model CBR versus %CLAY/SILT CBR = 58.350 – 0.897 * %CLAY/SILT 7
8
Model CBR versus % CLAY/SILT, PI, % CBR = - 20.139 ? 47.130 * MDD – 2.895 * OMC – 5
9 SAND, PL, MDD, OMC, % GRAVEL 0.091 * PL - 0,055 * PI ? 0.049* % GRAVEL –
0.668 * % SAND ? 0.000 * %CLAY/SILT
Model CBR versus % CLAY/SILT, MDD, CBR = - 59.297 ? 54.293 * MDD – 4
10 OMC, % GRAVEL 2.342 * OMC ? 0.138 * % GRAVEL ? 0.018 * %CLAY/
SILT
Model CBR versus MDD, OMC CBR = - 61.082 ? 60.233 * MDD - 2.462 * OMC 1
11
Model CBR versus % CLAY/SILT, % SAND, CBR = 24.641 ? 0.351 * % GRAVEL ? 0.258 * % SAND 3
12 % GRAVEL - 0.542 * %CLAY/SILT

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234 229

Table 8 Sample validation table

Hole Control test results CBR (predicted)
MDD %OMC L.L P.L I.P %Gravel Sand % Clay % CBR (actual)

1 2.180 10.40 66.5 43.2 23.3 67.1 6 24.1 43.0 44.6

2 2.145 11.10 86.9 51.3 35.6 71.5 8.5 15.9 37.0 40.8
3 2.050 13.30 43.6 26.5 17.1 57.1 12.4 28.3 30.0 29.6
4 2.191 11.00 64.7 42.6 22.1 64.6 11.7 23.7 47.0 43.8
5 2.110 12.60 43.6 30 13.6 63.9 12.3 23.8 30.5 35.0
6 2.150 9.90 74.9 43.5 31.4 66.1 8.8 19.6 47.0 44.0
7 2.002 12.30 80.6 41.7 38.9 57.8 13.7 28.5 18.5 29.2
8 2.090 12.90 77.8 44.2 33.6 54.5 11.2 31.8 25.0 33.0
9 2.149 11.60 77.7 43.3 34.4 68.1 8.7 23.2 38.0 39.8
10 2.067 14.00 66.40 39.30 27.10 54.46 6.67 26.4 23.0 28.9
11 2.130 12.40 56.70 33.00 23.70 61.82 8.18 30 35.0 36.7
12 2.008 13.00 64.50 35.50 29.00 56.27 10.03 33.7 28.0 27.9
13 2.170 10.20 73.70 41.50 32.20 77.18 7.72 15.1 47.0 44.5
14 2.178 12.00 58.60 27.50 31.10 66.14 11.66 22.2 42.0 40.6
15 2.050 12.50 57.70 31.70 26.00 47.23 10.03 24.9 35.0 31.6
16 2.140 13.00 86.30 42.00 44.30 64.53 7.57 25.2 37.0 35.8
17 2.061 13.40 85.80 48.90 36.90 56.54 9.17 29.2 35.5 30.1
18 1.993 14.80 62.50 30.60 31.90 56.17 9.19 32 26.0 22.5
19 2.128 12.40 66.00 37.50 28.50 61.82 8.17 30 31.0 36.6
20 2.101 12.3 57.70 34.80 22.90 51.49 10.69 37.8 41.0 35.2
21 2.095 13.6 79.90 43.20 36.70 62.56 6.05 26.1 31.0 31.6
22 2.12 12.5 54.60 38.40 16.20 56.82 8.92 34.3 35.0 35.8
23 1.96 15 79.80 38.50 41.30 60.63 7.88 31.5 21.0 20.0
24 1.91 16.5 59.70 37.30 22.40 65.33 6.93 27.7 14.2 13.3
25 2.156 11 83.70 45.70 38.00 83.54 4.1 12.4 49.5 41.7
26 1.962 16 68.00 43.80 24.20 51.87 9.93 38.2 19.3 17.7
27 2.061 12.4 63.80 39.70 24.10 57.92 8.63 33.5 29.0 32.5
28 2.225 11.5 63.1 42.8 20.3 65.02 7.14 27.8 48.9 44.6
29 2.148 10.6 92.6 62.1 30.5 86.52 2.98 10.5 49.0 42.2
30 2.021 12 85.9 51.9 34 54.31 9.4 36.3 31.0 31.1
31 2.045 14.2 68.7 40.2 28.5 66.45 7.9 25.7 30.0 27.1
32 2.328 9.6 86.8 52.8 34 84.02 4.46 11.5 49.5 55.5
33 2.248 10.1 65.9 38.9 27 68.77 10.27 21 49.0 49.5

was carried out. The regression model obtained is a
single linear expression with its corresponding coef-
ficients as given by Eq. 11.
CBR ¼ 61:082 þ 60:233  MDD  2:462  OMC
ð11Þ
with R = 0.905, R2 = 0.819 and Adj R2 = 0.807. Thus
81.9% of the variance in CBR can be accounted for by
the independent variables. The details of the statistical
output indicate that the relationship developed
between percentage of clay or silt, maximum dry
density (MDD), optimum moisture content (OMC)
and CBR is significant (a \ 0.05).

123
230 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

D. Model 12 CBR ¼ 20:19 þ 0:049  %GRAVEL  0:668

Correlation between CBR and percentage of Clay  %SAND þ 0:000  %CLAY=SILT
or silt, percentage of sand, percentage of gravel was ð12Þ
carried out. The regression model obtained is a single 2 2
with R = 0.660, R = 0.435 and Adj R = 0.377. Thus
linear expression with its corresponding coefficients as
81.9% of the variance in CBR can be accounted for by
given by Eq. 12.
the independent variables. The details of the statistical
output indicate that the relationship developed
between percentage of particles and CBR is significant
(a \ 0.05).
A summary for each type of the regression analysis
is given on Table 6 while a summary of some selected
models and their equation is given on Table 7.

6 Interpretations

Following Table 7, Model 11 happens to be the ideal

reason being that it makes use of the compaction
characteristics with the resultant R2 = 0.819. There-
fore, 81.9% of the variance in CBR can be predicted
using the independent variables and finally due to the
ease with which these tests are carried out. Model 1,
Model 2 and Model 12 are possible alternatives when
it comes to cost effectiveness but they show poor
coefficient of determination hence less predictability.
Also Model 9 and 10 have better R2 but is not cost
effective given the high number of laboratory test
involved in their correlation.
Fig. 8 Control graph showing plotted actual or experimental
Using the sample validation table is presented on
CBR values against predicted CBR values
Table 8, a control graph was plotted between actual or

80.0 Comparison between actual and predicted CBR

Actual CBR
70.0

60.0

50.0
CBR

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Trial pit number

Fig. 9 Graph showing a comparison between actual and predicted CBR

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234 231

Table 9 Percentage Trial pit CBR (actual) Developed correlation

variation between actual
and predicted CBR CBR (predicted) Residual % Variation

1 43.0 44.6 1.6 3.8

2 37.0 40.8 3.8 10.2
3 30.0 29.6 - 0.4 - 1.2
4 47.0 43.8 - 3.2 - 6.8
5 30.5 35.0 4.5 14.7
6 47.0 44.0 - 3.0 - 6.3
7 18.5 29.2 10.7 57.9
8 25.0 33.0 8.0 32.2
9 38.0 39.8 1.8 4.7
10 23.0 28.9 5.9 25.8
11 35.0 36.7 1.7 4.8
12 28.0 27.9 - 0.1 - 0.5
13 47.0 44.5 - 2.5 - 5.3
14 42.0 40.6 - 1.4 - 3.4
15 35.0 31.6 - 3.4 - 9.7
16 37.0 35.8 - 1.2 - 3.2
17 35.5 30.1 - 5.4 - 15.3
18 26.0 22.5 - 3.5 - 13.4
19 31.0 36.6 5.6 17.9
20 41.0 35.2 - 5.8 - 14.2
21 31.0 31.6 0.6 2.0
22 35.0 35.8 0.8 2.4
23 21.0 20.0 - 1.0 - 4.6
24 14.2 13.3 - 0.9 - 6.1
25 49.5 41.7 - 7.8 - 15.8
26 19.3 17.7 - 1.6 - 8.3
27 29.0 32.5 3.5 12.1
28 48.9 44.6 - 4.3 - 8.8
29 49.0 42.2 - 6.8 - 13.9
30 31.0 31.1 0.1 0.3
31 30.0 27.1 - 2.9 - 9.6
32 49.5 55.5 6.0 12.1
33 49.0 49.5 0.5 0.9

experimental CBR and predicted CBR and is shown in
Fig. 8. The straight line represents the point at which
experimental CBR equals predicted CBR. Nearly all
points are found closer to the straight line. Only about
four points tend to deviate away from the line. This is
indicative that the predicted CBR values, may be
applied for preliminary characterization of the
strength of the subgrade soil into uniform section. Fur-
thermore, a comparison graph is plotted to verify the
suitability of the developed correlation as shown in
Fig. 9. There is a mismatch between the two curves
observed at pit number 7, 25, 28, 32. This is may be
attributed to errors when carrying out the laboratory
tests. The graph shows a variation between the two
CBR values. Generally, both graphs follow the same
pattern. The percentage variation for each of the
sample’s CBR value is obtained from the Eq. 13.
%Variation ¼ CBRpred  CBRact  100=CBRact
ð13Þ

123
232 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234

Table 10 Comparison of CBR values generated by Yildirm and Gunaydin (2011), Satyanarayna Reddy and Pavani (2006), Agarwal
and Ghanekar (1970), De Graft-Johnson and Bhatia (1969)
Experimental Model 11 Agarwal and De Graft-Johnson and Satyanarayana Reddy and Yildirim and
CBR Ghanekar (1970) Bhatia (1969) Pavani (2006) Gunaydin (2011)

43.0 44.6 - 9.6 9.3 30.8 26.6

37.0 40.8 - 8.6 1.9 32.0 27.6
30.0 29.6 - 12.9 20.0 28.0 24.5
47.0 43.8 - 10.1 9.2 31.3 26.5
30.5 35.0 - 12.6 13.7 31.0 26.1
47.0 44.0 - 8.7 5.7 31.4 26.3
18.5 29.2 - 9.8 11.7 24.6 24.3
25.0 33.0 - 10.3 13.8 25.3 24.0
38.0 39.8 - 9.6 8.1 29.8 27.0
23.0 28.9 - 11.7 11.9 27.6 23.8
35.0 36.7 - 11.5 17.5 28.1 25.6
28.0 27.9 - 11.3 18.7 23.7 23.9
47.0 44.5 - 9.0 2.8 33.6 28.9
42.0 40.6 - 11.2 11.8 32.0 26.9
35.0 31.6 - 11.5 13.3 28.4 22.1
37.0 35.8 - 9.8 8.8 28.3 26.3
35.5 30.1 - 10.0 10.7 25.2 24.3
26.0 22.5 - 12.3 18.9 24.2 24.0
31.0 36.6 - 10.9 15.2 27.5 25.6
41.0 35.2 - 11.4 23.2 24.5 23.3
31.0 31.6 - 10.5 9.9 27.5 25.6
35.0 35.8 - 11.7 18.6 26.4 24.5
21.0 20.0 - 11.2 14.3 22.6 24.8
14.2 13.3 - 13.3 14.0 24.3 25.7
49.5 41.7 - 8.8 0.2 33.8 30.1
19.3 17.7 - 12.5 19.2 20.8 23.1
29.0 32.5 - 11.0 17.4 24.9 24.4
48.9 44.6 - 10.6 12.2 30.5 26.6
49.0 42.2 - 7.9 - 2.1 33.8 30.6
31.0 31.1 - 9.3 14.6 21.6 23.4
30.0 27.1 - 11.6 11.0 27.3 26.4
49.5 55.5 - 7.6 - 0.9 37.4 30.9
49.0 49.5 - 9.5 7.9 33.5 27.5

where CBRpred = Predicted CBR value and
CBRact = Actual CBR value.
The percentage variation between the Actual and
predicted CBR upon using Eq. 13 is given in Table 9.
The average percentage variation obtained from the
model is 1.68%, which is a good value proving that the
predicted values of CBR are not far from the
experimental values. In comparison with the models
generated by Satyanarayana Reddy and Pavani (2006)
and Yildirim and Gunaydin (2011), model 11 give
values of CBR closer to the experimental CBR values
whereas the models generated by Agarwal and
Ghanekar (1970), De Graft-Johnson and Bhatia
(1969) are not suitable for predicting CBR in the
study area. This can be explained by the difference in
lithology i.e. the non-homogeneity of lateritic soils in
both Central and West Africa as typified by the works

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234
of De Graft-Johnson and Bhatia (1969) as shown in
Table 10. Hence the need for an in-depth study of the
soils of this study area.
7 Conclusion
The objective of this study was to determine a
correlation between soaked CBR value and soil index
properties within the scope of the study area, making
sure the model generated was cost effective and less
laborious. As such the fraction sizes of particles were
determined, its index properties, its classification,
compaction characteristics and experimental CBR
values were determined. For this study thirty-three soil
samples were collected from different points along the
Yaoundé—Sangmelima road and its environs. A clear
relationship was developed, with comprehensive
models that predict soaked CBR values in terms of
MDD, OMC, PI, PL, LL, % CLAY/SILT, % SAND
and % GRAVEL. Using the single linear regression
model, the correlation obtained between soaked CBR
versus MDD and that between CBR versus OMC give
fair coefficients of determination values compared to
the other models. Whereas using the multiple linear
regression analysis, model 9 gave the highest coeffi-
cient of determination R2 = 0.841. However, many
test parameters were involved.
Therefore, given that the main objective of this
study was to obtain a regression model between CBR
and soil properties ensuring that it predicts the
experimental CBR values with a good precision, is
less laborious and cost effective, it can be concluded
that none of the models could be used to predict the
CBR of the soils in a cost effective manner in the study
area.
References
Agarwal KB, Ghanekar KD (1970) Prediction of CBR from
plasticity characteristics of soil. In: Proceeding of 2nd
south-east Asian conference on soil engineering, Singa-
pore, pp 11–15
Bessoles B, Trompette R (1980) Géologie de l’Afrique: La
Chaine Pan-Africaine, Zone mobile d’Afrique Centrale
(partie Sud) et zone Soudanaise. Mémoire BRGM
Bitom D, Tamfuh PA, Mamdem L, Zame PZ (2013) Influence of
Altitude on the petrological features of a soil
233
climosequence in the humid tropical zone of Cameroon.
Open Geol J 7:14–30
BS 1377 (1990) Methods of testing soils for civil engineering
purposes. british standard institution. London
Cahen L, Delhal H, Lavreau J (1976) The archaean of equatorial
Africa. Wiley, New York
Clifford TN, Gass IG (1970) African magmatism and tectonics.
Edinburgh
De Graft-Johnson JWS, Bhatia HS (1969) The engineering
characteristics of the lateritic gravels of ghana. In: Pro-
ceedings of 7th international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Mexico, August 28–29, vol 2.
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, pp 13–43
Eno Belinga SM (1983) External dynamic geology of tropical
countries of the earth. iron landscapes. University Library,
Yaoundé
Goodwin AM (1991) The dynamic evolution of the continental
crust. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, California
Gregory GH, Cross SA (2007) Correlation of CBR with shear
strength parameters. In: Proceedings of 9th international
conference on low volume roads, Austin, Texas
Kornprobst J, Lasserre M, Rollet M, Soba D (1976) Existence au
Cameroun d’un magmatisme alcalin Pan-Africain ou plus
ancien: la syénite néphélinique de Nkonglong. Compara-
ison avec les roches alcalines connues dans la méme
région. Bulletin Société Géologique de France, 18 (5, tome
XVIII), 1295–1305
Lasserre M, Soba D (1976) Age Libérien des granodiorites et
des gneiss a pyroxénes du Cameroun Méridional. Bulletin
BRGM 2(4):17–32
Maurizot P, Abessolo A, Feybesse JL, Johan LP (1985) Etude de
prospection miniere du Sud-Ouest Cameroun. In: Brgm
RD (ed) Synthese des travaux de 1978 a 1985
Nédélec A (1990) Late calcalkaline plutonism in the Archaean
Ntem unit: the Sangmelima granodioritic suite (South
Cameroon). 15th colloquium on African geology, CIFEG
22, pp 25–28
Nsifa EN, Riou R (1990) Post Archaean migmatization in the
charnockitic series of the Ntem complex, Congo craton,
southern Cameroun. 15th colloquium on African geology,
CIFEG 22, pp 33–36
Nsifa EN, Tchameni R, Belinga SME (1993) De l’existence de
formation catarchéennes dans le complexe cratonique du
Ntem (Sud-Cameroun). In: Volume A (ed) Archaean cra-
tonic rocks of Africa
Patel RS, Desai MD (2010) CBR predicted by index properties
for alluvial soils of South Gujarat. In: Proceedings of the
Indian geotechnical conference, Mumbai, pp 79–82
Rocci G (1965) Essai d’interprétation des mesures géochrono-
logiques. La structure de l’Ouest Africain. Science de la
Terre France 10:461–479
Satyanarayana Reddy CNV, Pavani K (2006) Mechanically
stabilised soils-regression equation for CBR evaluation. In:
Proceedings of the Indian geotechnical conference, Chen-
nai, India, pp 731–734
Segalen P (1967) Soils and geomorphology of Cameroon. Cah
Orstom (Sér Pédol) 5:137–187
Shang CK (2001) Geology, geochemistry and geochronology of
archaean rocks from the Sangmelima Region, Ntem com-
plex, NW Congo craton, South Cameroon. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Tubingen
123
234
Shang CK, Satir M, Siebel W, Taubald H, Nsifa EN, Westphal
M, Reitter E (2001a) Genesis of K-rich granitoids in the
Sangmelima region, Ntem complex (Congo craton)
Cameroon. Terra Nostra 5(2001):60–63
Shang CK, Taubald H, Satir M, Siebel W, Nsifa EN, Venne-
mann T, Njilah IK, Ghogomu R (2001b) Evidence fora
non-cogenetic relationship between monzogranites and
TTG suite. Strasbourg, France
Suchel JB (1972) Rainfall distribution and rainfall regimes in
Cameroon. CEGET, Talence
Tchameni R (1997) Géochimie et géochronologie des forma-
tions de l’Archéen et du Paléoprotérozoique du Sud-
Cameroun (Groupe du Ntem, Craton du Congo). Thése,
Univérsité d’Orléans
Tchameni R, Mezger K, Nsifa NE, Pouclet A (2000) Neoar-
chaean evolution in the Congo craton: evidence from K
rich granitoids of the Ntem complex, Southern Cameroon.
J Afr Earth Sci 30:133–147
Tchameni R, Mezger K, Nsifa NE, Pouclet A (2001) Crustalo-
rigin of early proterozoic syenites in the Congo craton
(Ntem complex), South Cameroon. Lithos 57:23–42
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:217–234
Toteu SM, Van Schmus WR, Penaye J, Nyobe JB (1994) U-Pb
and Sm–Nd evidence for Eburnean and Pan-African high
grade metamorphism in cratonic rocks of southern
Cameroon. Precambr Res 67:321–347
Vicat JP, Leger JM, Nsifa E, Piguet P, Nzenti JP, Tchameni R,
Pouclet A (1996) Distinction au sein du craton congolais du
Sud-Ouest du Cameroun, de deux épisodes doléritiques
initiant les cycles orogéniques éburnéen (Paléoprotéro-
zoique) et Pan-Africain (Néoprotérozoique). série IIa 323,
575–582
Vinod P, Reena C (2008) Prediction of CBR value of lateritic
soils using liquid limit and gradation characteristics data.
Highw Res J IRC 1(1):89–98
Yildirim B, Gunaydin O (2011) Estimation of California bearing
ratio by using soft computing systems. Expert Syst Appl
38(5):6381–6391