Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:263–268
DOI 10.1007/s10706-011-9460-7
TECHNICAL NOTE
Prediction of Unconfined Compressive Strength
of Soil–Cement at 7 Days
Jutha Sunitsakul • Attasit Sawatparnich •
Auckpath Sawangsuriya
Received: 3 June 2010 / Accepted: 30 September 2011 / Published online: 11 October 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
of cement stabilized bases was collected from a
number of highway construction projects in Thailand.
Results from the statistical analysis indicated that the
most important factors affecting the UCS were the
CBR and the water to cement ratio. The UCS was
however independent on the dry density. A statistical
model was developed in the study to predict the UCS
of cement stabilized bases. A model was developed
based on the following criteria: (1) the dry density of
the sample shall be greater than 95 percent of the
maximum dry density based on the modified Proctor
compaction, (2) samples shall be soaked for at least
2 h prior to testing, and (3) the CBR shall be measured
at 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) penetration.
Keywords Unconfined compressive strength 
CBR  Water to cement ratio  Cement stabilized base 
Highway materials
J. Sunitsakul  A. Sawangsuriya (&)
Department of Highways, Bureau of Road Research
and Development, Bangkok, Thailand
e-mail: sawangsuriya@gmail.com
J. Sunitsakul
e-mail: sjutha@gmail.com
A. Sawatparnich
Department of Highways, Bureau of Bridge Construction,
Bangkok, Thailand
e-mail: attasit.doh@gmail.com
1 Introduction
1.1 History of Cement Stabilized Base in Thailand
With the limited resource of the crushed rock used for
granular base course and an increase in the transpor-
tation cost, the highway construction budget in the
northeastern part of Thailand becomes increasing
substantially. In 1965, the Siam Cement Company and
the Department of Highways (DOH), Thailand con-
structed the first 5 km soil–cement road by stabilizing
lateritic soil with cement as a base course in the
northeastern part of Thailand. After the first soil–
cement road had been constructed, the DOH continued
to construct the soil–cement roads. Until 1972, over
1,400 km of soil–cement roads have been constructed
(Rananand et al. 1983).
Unfortunately, the transverse cracks were later
detected along the pavement surface of several soil–
cement roads. Those cracks were believed to reflect
from the cement stabilized base course. Since then, the
DOH stopped constructing the soil–cement road. From
1973 to 1985, the DOH officials led by Mr. Nibon
Rananand and Dr. Therachatri Ruenkrairergsa per-
formed a number of comprehensive studies to evaluate
the long-term performance of the existing soil–cement
roads in order to alleviate those reflective cracks. After
every issue had been resolved, the cement stabilized
bases were adopted again by the DOH (Rananand
2001; Ruenkrairergsa 1989) and many soil–cement
roads were built successfully.
123
264
In addition to the cement stabilized lateritic soil or
‘‘soil–cement base’’, the DOH also applied the cement
stabilization method in the conventional crushed rock
base, which is called ‘‘modified crushed rock’’.
Moreover, the cement stabilization method was
applied for pavement rehabilitation on the old high-
ways in such a way that the crushed rock base and the
reclaimed asphalt pavement were mixed with the
Portland cement. Such rehabilitation technique was
commonly known as pavement recycling and has been
adopted in Thailand since 1994.
1.2 Mix Design for Cement Stabilized Bases
The first soil–cement road was initially designed based
on the guidelines according to the Siam Cement
Company, which required a minimum CBR value of
120% for the cement stabilized base. Later, the DOH
adopted the unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
instead of the CBR. The UCS after 7 days of curing
time for cement stabilized lateritic soil and cement
stabilized crushed rock shall not be less than 1.7 MPa
(17.5 ksc) and 2.4 MPa (24.5 ksc), respectively. It
should be noted that the unconfined compression test
in the DOH was performed in accordance with the
DH-T 105/1972, which is equivalent to ASTM
D-1502.
To perform the mix design, the selected marginal
highway materials were prepared by mixing with
various cement contents at optimum moisture content
based on a modified Proctor compaction. In order to
avoid the reflective cracks on the asphalt concrete
pavement, those selected marginal highway materials
shall meet the standard specifications in Table 1. The
amount of cement added in each selected highway
material is the cement content that shall meet the
minimum UCS of the cement stabilized base. To
compensate for soil–cement mixing plant efficiency,
approximately five to twenty percent of cement
content at a minimum UCS value for 7 days of curing
time shall be added. Figure 1 illustrates an example of
Table 1 Standard specifications for highway materials mixed with cement used as base and subbase course
Layer Liquid limit (%) Plastic index (%)
Base \40 \15
Subbase \40 \20
NS not specified, DH-S Department of highways material standard
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:263–268
mix design for the cement stabilized bases from two
DOH construction projects in Thailand.
1.3 Strength Development of Cement Stabilized
Bases
Strength development in concrete material primarily
depends on the ratio of the amount of free water to
cement, in which it can be referred to the pioneer work
by Prof. Abrams in 1918 (a.k.a. Abrams’s law).
Minimum amount of free water to cement of 0.25 was
required to achieve the completed hydration reaction
(Murdock et al. 1991). Extra water was added for the
workability purpose, however, the permeability,
weathering, and shrinkage increased with the increase
in the water to cement ratio.
In the case of a compacted cement stabilized
highway material, several investigators also indicated
the strength gained with the amount of the cement
content for a given amount of water and curing time
(Ruenkrairegsa and Sanguandeekul 1977; Rue-
nkrairergsa 1989; Apimeteetamrong et al. 2005;
Horpibulsuk et al. 2007; Sunitsakul and Sawatparnich
2008). The UCS for the coarse-grained soils stabilized
with cement was dependent on the water to cement
ratio if the samples were prepared on the wet side of
compaction (Horpibulsuk et al. 2007). In addition, a
unique relationship between UCS and the water to
cement ratio was developed in Eq. 1 if samples were
prepared at the optimum moisture content (Rue-
nkrairegsa and Sanguandeekul 1977; Horpibulsuk
et al. 2007; Sunitsakul and Sawatparnich 2008).
A
UCSi ¼  B ð1Þ
W=
C
where
A and B fitting parameters determined from the
statistical analysis
W/C water to cement ratio
Percent passing Percent passing Remark
sieve no. 10 sieve no. 200
\70 \25 DH-S 204/2533
NS \40 DH-S 206/2532
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:263–268 265

4 6

Strength @ 7 days cured (MPa)

UCS at 7 Days (MPa)

Unconfined Conpressive
3
4

2 3

2
1
Route No. 201 1
Route No. 3510
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
Percent Cement (%) W/C

Fig. 1 Example of soil–cement mix design from two highway Fig. 3 UCS-W/C relationship
construction projects in Thailand (after Apimeteetamrong et al.
2005)
6

Strength @ 7 days cured (MPa)

Unconfined Conpressive
6 5
Strength @ 7 days cured (MPa)
Unconfined Conpressive

5 4

4 3

3 2

2 1

1 0
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
0 Dry Density (g/ml)
0 2 4 6 8
Cement Content (%) Fig. 4 UCS-dry density relationship

Fig. 2 UCS-cement content relationship

2 Mix Design Database for Cement Stabilized
Bases
A series of mix design data for the cement stabilized
bases were collected from various DOH construction
projects. Data used in this study were consisted of 520
samples from different sites. All of the marginal
highway materials were low-plastic lateritic soils and
non-plastic crushed rock. The UCS was plotted against
the cement content, water to cement ratio (W/C), dry
density, and soaked CBR as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and
5, respectively. Those plots indicated that there existed
some trends in UCS-cement content, UCS-W/C, and
UCS-soaked CBR relationships.
A soaked CBR was selected to represent the basic
properties (i.e., liquid limit, plasticity index, water
content, fine content, gradation, activity etc.) of
marginal highway materials. The soaked CBR of
those marginal materials used is 27–60% for the
lateritic soils, 16–96% for the reclaimed highway
materials, and 84–99% for the crushed rock base. On
the other hand, the cement content and dry density
represented the properties of cement stabilized mate-
rials. The cement content and dry density of the cement
stabilized samples are 1–6% and 2.03–2.37 g/ml (i.e.,
greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density
based on the modified Proctor compaction), respec-
tively. The corresponding UCS of the cement stabi-
lized bases is ranged from 0.46 to 5.60 MPa. Figure 6
shows a plot of UCS with W/C for a given soaked CBR.
Good correlation was observed between the UCS and
W/C for a given soaked CBR value. The UCS-W/C
relationship gradually moved upward as the soaked
CBR increased.

123
266 Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:263–268

Strength @ 7 days cured (MPa) 6 relative effect of such parameters on the UCS of the
cement stabilized bases. The ultimate goal of this
5
Unconfined Conpressive

study was to develop a refined, practice-oriented

4 model that contains minimum numbers of soil
parameters.
3
UCSi ¼ f ðCBRi ; W=Ci ; cDRYi Þ ð2Þ
2
where
1
UCS unconfined compressive strength at 7 days of
0 curing time
0 20 40 60 80 100
CBR (%) CBR soaked CBR at 95 percent of maximum dry
density based on modified Proctor compaction
Fig. 5 USC-soaked CBR relationship and is measured at 0.1 inch penetration
W/C water to cement ratio
cDRY dry density
5
CBR = 84% CBR = 69%
Strength @ 7 days cured (MPa)

Based on the statistical analysis, three alternative

CBR = 69% CBR = 46%
Unconfined Conpressive

4
CBR = 17%
models were obtained as follows:

ðCBRÞB
3
UCSi ¼ A C
ð cÞ D ð3Þ
ðW/CÞ
2
ðCBRÞB
UCSi ¼ A ð4Þ
1 ðW/CÞC
CBR B
 
0 UCSi ¼ A ð5Þ
0 2 4 6 8 W/C
W/C
where
Fig. 6 UCS-W/C relationship for a given soaked CBR value
A, B, C, and D fitting parameters determined from
statistical analyses
3 Proposed Model
3.2 Results of Statistical Analysis
3.1 Statistical Analysis
The fitting parameters in Eq. (3) to Eq. (5) are
The influencing factors such as W/C ratio, dry density summarized in Table 2. The statistical analysis indi-
(cDRY), and soaked CBR on UCS were evaluated in the cated that the coefficient of determination (R2)
study as shown in Eq. 2. A nonlinear multi-variable obtained from the models in Eq. (3) to Eq. (5) were
regression was performed in order to evaluate the closed. The model described in Eq. 5 was more

Table 2 Results of statistical analysis

Equation Fitting parameters Remark
A B C D R2

3 0.443 0.553 0.521 0.01 0.733 Including outliers

4 0.446 0.553 0.522 – 0.733 Including outliers
5 0.496 0.527 – – 0.732 Including outliers
5 0.427 0.578 – – 0.751 Excluding outliers

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:263–268 267

6 6
0.527
 CBR ⎞

Strength at 7 Days Cured (MPa)

Strength at 7 Days Cured (MPa)
UCS = 0.496
4.863⎜ ⎟

Unconfined Compressive
5 ⎝ W/C ⎠ 5
Unconfined Compressive

4 4
0.578
3  CBR ⎞
3 UCS = 0.427 ⎜ ⎟
Outliers ⎝ W/C ⎠
2 2

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
CBR/(W/C) CBR/(W/C)

Fig. 7 UCS model for cement stabilized bases Fig. 9 UCS model for cement stabilized bases (excluding
outliers)

30
6
Content of Cement Stabilized Sample (%)

20
Difference between OMC and Water

10
5
0
Predicted UCS (MPa)

-10 4
-20
3
-30
-40 2
-50
Low Water Content
-60 1

-70
0
-80 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 20 40 60 Tested UCS (MPa)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
at 7 Days Cured (ksc) Fig. 10 Comparison between predicted and tested UCS

Fig. 8 Difference between optimum moisture contents and

water content of cement stabilized samples for a given UCS the soaked CBR and W/C ratio on the UCS of cement
stabilized bases.
To verify a developed model, the UCS from another
desirable because it had less variables and fitting series of 91 mix design data collecting from highway
parameters. However, the data contained some outli- construction projects after 2005 were plotted against
ers as shown in Fig. 7. To exclude those outliers, the the UCS estimated from the developed model as
attempt was made by plotting the difference between shown in Fig. 10.
the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the water
content of cement stabilized samples against the UCS
as shown in Fig. 8. It was found that those outliers 4 Conclusions
exhibited large difference in OMC and water content
of cement stabilized samples. The fitting parameters The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) model of
without those outliers are also presented in Table 2 cement stabilized bases was developed based on a
and the new regression was developed in Fig. 9. A series of mix design data collected from various
developed model clearly indicated the significance of highway construction sites in Thailand. The dry

123
268
density of cement stabilized base was found to be
insignificant if the mix design requirement can be
achieved. The key influencing factors on the UCS of
cement stabilized bases are the soaked CBR and W/C.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their sincere
gratitude to Dr. Teeracharti Ruenkrairergsa for his suggestion
and guidance during his time at the Department of Highways.
The authors would like to thank the technical officials at Bureau
of Material Analysis and Inspection, Department of Highways,
Thailand for providing mix design data in this study.
References
Apimeteetamrong S, Sunitsakul J, Sawatparnich A, Rungrat B
(2005) Engineering properties of soil cement materials. In:
Proceedings of the 1st research seminar for highway
development, pp 335–340 (in Thai)
Horpibulsuk S, Sirilerdwattna W, Rachan R, Katkan W (2007)
Analysis of strength development in pavement stabilization:
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:263–268
a field investigation. In: Proceedings of the 16th southeast
Asian geotechnical conference, pp 579–583
Murdock LJ, Brook KM, Dewar JD (1991) Concrete materials
and practice. Edward Arnold, London, p 470
Rananand N (2001) Development of materials for roadworks in
the department of highways. In: Proceedings of the 1st
seminar on highway engineering, pp 1–21 (in Thai)
Rananand N, Ruenkrairergsa T, Yossombat S (1983) Perfor-
mance of lateric soil-cement roads in Thailand. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 4th REAAA conference, pp 119–144
Ruenkrairergsa T (1989) Development of soil-cement road in
Thailand. In: Proceedings of the 11th IRF world meeting,
pp 81–84
Ruenkrairegsa T, Sanguandeekul, S (1977) Cement stabilization
of some selected weathered rock. In: Proceedings of the 5th
southeast Asian conference on soil engineering, pp 413–426
Sunitsakul J, Sawatparnich A (2008) Statistical model to predict
unconfined compressive strength of soil-cement materials.
In: Proceedings of the 13th national convention on civil
engineering (in Thai; CD-ROM)