Cited by 1Geotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationGeotechnical and construction materials studiesGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics

Strength and Bearing Capacity of Cement Stabilized Clayey Sand Subgrade with Plastic Fines

Open access
Rana, Sohel, Shamshad, Ali, Jeny, Tarin Islam, Abubakar, Salihu·2026·Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Subgrade soils containing plastic fines often exhibit low strength and high moisture sensitivity, limiting their direct use in pavement applications. While cement stabilization is widely adopted, the response of soils with different plasticity characteristics at practical binder dosages remains insufficiently understood. This study evaluated two coarse-grained subgrade soils with plastic fines, classified as clayey sand (SC) and clayey–silty sand (SC-SM) soils. Both soils were treated with 6% ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and evaluated using Atterberg limits, modified proctor compaction, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), and soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests after 7 days. Cement treatment marginally reduced the maximum dry density of both soils, whereas the optimum moisture content decreased for the SC soil and increased for the SC-SM soil. The plasticity index changed only slightly, from 12.8 to 14.2% for SC and from 21.8 to 22.2% for SC-SM. In contrast, the engineering performance improved substantially. The mean UCS increased from 0.390 to 1.993 MPa for SC and from 0.472 to 0.684 MPa for SC-SM. Similarly, soaked CBR increased from around 9–72% for SC and from 35 to 83% for SC-SM. These results indicate that soil plasticity has a greater impact on the amount of strength improvement under the same treatment conditions than changes in index properties. A supplementary artificial neural network (ANN) analysis satisfactorily represented the measured UCS and CBR responses within the experimental dataset, supporting its use as a limited-domain interpretive tool.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10706-026-03835-x

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 1

Authors
Rana, S., Shamshad, A., Jeny, T. I., & Abubakar, S.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Central South University (CN)
Corresponding author
Rana, Sohel
Venue
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
Published
2026-07-28
Volume
44
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0960-3182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1529
OpenAlex
W7171540931
Cited by
1
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
2.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Grouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Keywords
cement stabilization, clayey sand, plastic fines, subgrade soil, bearing capacity, unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, soil plasticity, optimum moisture content, dry density, neural network prediction, pavement subgrade, ordinary Portland cement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review