FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

HK01 CIVIL ENGINEERING

KA31802 GEOTECHNICAL AND HIGHWAY LAB

DR. SITI JAHARA MATLAN

TECHNICAL REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL LAB

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 2 MAY 2019

GROUP 7

NO. NAME NO. MATRIC SIGNATURE

1. Jazira Binti Jeffry BK16110170
2. Jeyfennye Joachim BK16110030
3. Mohd Rihan Bin Roman BK16110156
4. Muhammad Darwis Bin Abdul Rauf BK16110198
5. Nurul Nawisha Binti Mohd Alwi Ravi BK16110155
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

No. Description Page Number

1.0 Introduction 2-4
2.0 Literature Review 5-7
3.0 Methodology

3.1 Preparation of Material 8 - 10

3.2 Sieve Analysis 11 - 12
3.3 Specific Gravity 13 - 14
3.4 Atterberg Limit 15 - 20
3.5 Standard Proctor Compaction 21 - 23
3.6 Constant Head Permeability 24 - 26
3.7 California Bearing Ratio Test 27 - 28
3.8 Direct Shear Test 29 - 31

4.0 Result and Discussion

4.1 Sieve Analysis 32 - 38

4.2 Specific Gravity 39 - 40
4.3 Atterberg Limit 41 - 46
4.4 Standard Proctor Compaction 47 - 50
4.5 Constant Head Permeability 51 - 55
4.6 California Bearing Ratio Test 56 - 62
4.7 Direct Shear Test 63 - 71

5.0 Conclusion 72 - 73
6.0 References 74 - 75

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of study

Realize or not road and highway network are the main factor of the economic
development of the country. This road or highway network plays an important role
to connect the road user from one place to another place either from city to city or
rural to city. Through road and highway construction, there is a lot benefit that the
citizen will be received and at the same time will boost the country economic. Even
though this may give a positive impact toward the country, the road constructions
have a large negative impact on the ecosystem and overall environmental quality.
This is due to usage of material which is not eco-friendly and may harm our
environment which come from disposal of the domestic and industrial wastes
problems and does not consider this environmental impact during construction of
highway.

The problem of waste disposal have become a major concern for planners
and engineers in developed cities. Basically, to come out with the most efficient
way to solve with this problem is through sustainability. There are number of
important points to be considered while involving suitable and economical designs
for the roads in Malaysia. For construction and maintenance as well as the level of
quality control that might be effectively practised in rural areas. To the extent
possible, the use of locally available materials as such or after suitable processing
have to be maximized in the larger interest of economy. Demolished waste from
the construction could also be used as an admixture to improve the stability of the
soil. Demolish Brick Waste (DBW) have many of its chemical properties similar to
cement and as cement could be used for the stabilization of soil as well as the
DBW. DBW is inexpensive and readily available, hence it is a better option for
stabilization of soil.

1.2 Problem Statement

In design and construction of any structure, the role of soil is very crucial.
Since the soil is in direct contact with the structure, it acts as a medium of load
transfer and hence for any analysis of forces acting on structure, one has to
consider the aspect of stress distribution through soil, as stability of structure itself
depends on soil properties. An expansive soil are weak soil and problematic soil to

2
 engineering structure because of their shrinkage and swelling properties. Some of
the major problems in construction on problematic soil are the soil is more
tendency to expand, collapse, undergo excessive settlement and lake of strength.

Therefore, for this KA31802 Geotechnical and Highway Engineering Lab

Problem Based Learning (PBL), the given problem statement stated that, “some of
the major problems in construction on problematic soil are the tendency of the soil
to undergo expansion, shrinkage, settlement, poor bearing capacity and shear
strength. To improve these properties, stabilization method is being used for a
variety of engineering works. Stabilization in a broad sense incorporates the
various methods employed for modifying the properties of a soil to improve its
engineering performance. Stabilization is being used for a variety of engineering
works, the most common application being in the construction of road and airfield
pavements, where the main objective is to increase the strength or stability of soil
and to reduce the construction cost by making best use of locally available
materials.

1.3 Research Objective

The main purpose of the Geotechnical Open-Ended Lab of the “original soil
without soil stabilizing agent” and “modified soil with an addition of low cost and
sustainable material of soil stabilizing agent (demolish brick waste)” are the
following: -

1. To investigate the properties and behaviors of subsoil (shear strength, soil

compaction, soil density, consolidation, etc.) for designing safe, economical and
environmentally sustainable earth structure for road and highway.

2. To identify the influence of demolish waste brick on the soil properties.

3. To determine the either 40% of demolish waste brick is adequate for

stabilizing a soil to meet the requirement for pavement works.

4. To determine the effect of low cost and sustainable material of soil stabilizing
agent (demolish waste brick) in improving the engineering properties of weak and
problematic soils.

5. To do comparison of laboratory test result between “original soil” and

“modified soil” and justify the result.

3
1.4 Scope of Work

The Geotechnical Engineering Open Ended Lab Problem Based Learning (PBL)
was conducted to study the efficiency of the development of sustainable material
and the effect of low-cost material for road construction in improving the
engineering properties of weak and problematic soils.

First of all, to make sure the laboratory experiment is able to be carried out
smoothly without delaying time or any challenges, Gantt chart is the first things to
be prepared to ensure that there is referable time table of what need to do and
completed at a certain week since there is limitation of time for the laboratory
usage. The next step before the laboratory experiment able to be carried out for
the “original soil without stabilizer demolish waste brick” and “modified soil with
40% stabilizer demolish waste brick”, is the soil sample is prepared and acquired
from a location that located behind FKJ laboratory area. Materials used in the Case
Study for Geotechnical Lab are the soil sample which the type of soil to be
determine and demolish waste brick.

After the type of soil is known which is gravely sandy , then, the “original
gravely sand soil without demolish waste brick” and “modified gravely sand soil
with 40% stabilizer demolish waste brick” are tested for the Sieve Analysis,
Atterberg’s Limit Test (Liquid Limit Test using the Casagrande apparatus and
Plastic Limit Test), Specific Gravity of soil solids, Standard Proctor Compaction
Test, Constant Head Permeability Test (fine-grained), Consolidation Test, Shear
Strength of Soil by Unconfined Compression Test, and California Bearing Ratio
Test. All this laboratory experiments are carried out at Geotechnical Lab, Faculty
of Engineering, University Malaysia Sabah (UMS). All of the experiment is referring
to the Geotechnical lab manual provided in accordance to the American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM) and assist by the lab assistance and lab demonstrator.
Based on the result, further investigate and improvement are required to reach
the research objective.

4
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Soil Stabilization

In general, soil stabilization is known as alteration on physical, chemical,

biological or both properties of soil to meet a specified characteristic. According to
engineering term, soil stabilization is employment of various methods to modify
the properties of a soil in order to improve its engineering performance. There are
various methods of stabilization present such as Mechanical Soil Stabilization,
Soil-Cement Stabilization, Soil-Lime Stabilization and using inorganic admixtures.
Soil stabilization helps a lot in increasing the strength and stability of soil other
than improve the soil’s durability, prevent erosion and dust generation. Soil
stabilization have become a widely used element in engineering field and
commonly applied in the construction of road and air field pavement. It is already
identified to be one of most economical way to modify the soil to a desirable
characteristic as it is basically reusing the wasted construction material as these
materials are found abundantly.

2.2 Type of Soil Stabilizer Agent

The main objective of KA31802 Geotechnical and Highway Lab

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is to study the effect of low-cost and sustainable
material in improving the engineering properties of weak and problematic soil
under the theme “Soil Stabilization Using Low-Cost Material for Road
Construction”. The natural soil sample are collected around Faculty of Engineering,
UMS laboratory area. Several tests are conducted on the natural soil sample to
identify the type of soil and to have a general view on the strength and other basic
properties of it. At the same time, reviews were made to identify the suitable
stabilizer (waste material) to be used to improve its property for the application in
clayey sand and crushed concrete brick is selected as a perfect fit stabilizer for
Group 7’s sample. Use of crushed concrete brick is an alternative of used-concrete
brick being reused for a new construction as a stabilizer. Crushed concrete bricks
are fairly angular and strong which would show comparative results.

In this study, Group 7 are using two soil samples which are natural soil sample
and modified soil sample (replacement of 40% of the soil sample with crushed
concrete brick. Several steps are involved in the preparation of waste concrete

5
 brick to be used as stabilizer namely crushing, pre-sizing, sieving, screening and
removal of contamination The samples retained in each sieve are collected and
assigned as different tests required crushed concrete brick of different sizes. Each
test is conducted twice to identify the difference in results obtained for the both
natural and modified sample.

2.3 Laboratory Test

At the beginning, the type of soil is identified as clayey sand soil by conducting
sieve analysis. Once analyzed, the tests to be conducted further are listed out. The
laboratory experiments involved in the determination of other properties of soil
sample for both natural sample collected from the specified location and modified
sample with 40% of waste crushed brick replacement are Sieve Analysis, Specific
Gravity Test, Atterberg’s Limit Test (Liquid Limit Using Casagrande’s Apparatus
And Plastic Limit Test), Standard Proctor Compaction Test, Shear Strength Of Soil
Test By Shear Box And Constant Head Permeability Test.

Through the laboratory experiments carried out on both natural and modified
samples, comparison of the results obtained helps to distinguish the improvement
of the modified soil sample’s properties especially to be used in road construction.
The tests also show the strength gained by the replacement of 40% of crushed
waste brick to the original sample.

2.4 Past Researches on The Soil Stabilization Using Crushed Waste Brick

Based on the literature review from O. Kashoborozi et al. (2017), on “Use of

Crushed Concrete Aggregate Waste In Stabilization Of Clayey Soils For Sub Base
Pavement Construction”, stabilizers such as crushed concrete bricks can increase
the strength and improve the properties of the soils and this materials can be
found easily from demolished building , roads, and other structures . According to
a study from Anand Kumar et al. (2018), on “Stabilization of Cohesive Soil Using
Demolished Brick Waste”, the study use a trial of 10%, 20%, 305, 40% and 50%
of demolished brick waste content added to the cohesive soil for stabilization and
the optimum percentage found is 40% as the soil stabilizer. Therefore, Group 7
are proposing to use approximately 40% of crushed concrete bricks content as our
soil stabilizer. The curing period will be between 2 to 4 hours before the materials
are used in the experiment. A few tests have also conducted in the laboratory

6
experiments to prove that the crushed concrete bricks is able to improve the
properties of the soil to be used as good-sub-base material for pavement.

Secondly, O. Kashoborozi, E. Aturinda, S. Jjuuko, D. Kalumba, (2017), on Use

of Crushed Concrete Aggregate Waste in Stabilization of Clayey Soils For Sub-Base
Pavement Construction. From the study, the lateritic soils are blended with
different percentage of waste aggregates 0%, 30%, 40% and 50%, chosen
basing on the previous studies. The study looked at properties such as grading
and flakiness of the waste aggregates grading, Atterberg Limit, Optimum Moisture
Content, Maximum Dry Density, and 4 Dry Soaked California Bearing Ratio for the
stabilized and un-stabilized material. Mix design with 40 % and 50% of the waste
aggregate are considered suitable for the use as sub base material. The
researchers have CBR of 46 and 59, respectively, at 95% relative compaction and
PI values of 13.64 and 11.40.

Finally, Joseph Ejelikwu Edeh, Adrian Oshioname Eberemu, Abraham S.D.

Arigi. (2005). Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Stabilized Using Crushed Concrete
Waste as Highway Pavement Material. Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol
1, No.1. this article shows the results of a laboratory evaluation of the
characteristic of reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) stabilized using crushed
concrete waste (CCW) with a view toward determining their suitability for use as
flexible pavement material. The mixture is subjected to British Standard light
(Standard Proctor) compactive effort to determine the compaction characteristic
and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Test results shows that the properties of RAP
waste improved with CCW treatment. The maximum density decreased, and the
optimum moisture content increased, with increased CCW content in the mixes.
Optimum CBR values of 28.06% (unsoaked) and 32.81% (soaked for 24 hours)
are recorded for a 50% RAP and 50% CCW mix. With the potential of a
time-dependent increase in strength in view, the 50% RAP and 50% CCW mix
with a recorded CBR value of 32.81% (soaked for 24h), which satisfied durability
requirements with insignificant water absorption, could be used as a sub-base
material in flexible pavement construction.

7
3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1.0 PREPARATION OF MATERIALS

3.1.1 SOIL SAMPLE

In this Geotechnical Engineering Open Ended Lab Problem Based Learning

(PBL), every group required to choose a location to obtain the soil sample. About
20kg soil sample were collected from a location near laboratory of Fakulti
Kejuruteraan (FKJ), Universiti Malaysia Sabah, (6.034573, 116.123653). The
location of the source of the soil sample is shown below on the map of the study
area.

Figure 1. Location of soil sample being collected

3.1.2 CRUSHED WASTE CONCRETE BRICK

The soil stabilizer is decided in order to improve the properties of the soil is
the crushed waste concrete brick which is one of the eco-friendly materials, and is
easily obtain near along the demolished building, road, and other construction
structures. Crushed waste concrete brick is believed to be able to improve the
engineering properties of soil. This statement is approved by a study by O.
Kashoborozi et al. (2017), on “Use of Crushed Concrete Aggregate Waste in

8
 Stabilization of Clayey Soils for Sub Base Pavement Construction”, where the
researchers found that an optimum 40% content of crushed waste concrete brick
added to a soil sample shown an improvement on the properties of the soil and
are considered suitable for use as sub-base material. Therefore, for this research,
a proportion 40% of crushed waste concrete brick : 60% soil sample was used for
test and being compared with the result 100% of collected soil sample.

Materials and Apparatus

Apparatus Function

To dry the waste concrete bricks for

easier to crushed into smaller sizes.

Dry oven

To crush the waste concrete bricks

into required sizes.

Rubber hammer

To obtain palm crushed waste

concrete bricks which has a particle
size smaller than 300 micrometre.

Sieve (0.300 mm)

9
 To shake the crushed waste concrete
bricks together with the sieve.

Sieve machine

Table 1. Materials and Apparatus for the sample preparation

The preparation of crushed waste concrete bricks are as in the flowchart below.

10
3.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS

The first experiment conducted in this project is sieve analysis. This

experiment is to determine the grain size distribution of soil, where it is needed to
classify a soil for engineering purposes. The soil is collected and then put in shaker
where there are different sieve openings available in order to differentiate the
grain size distribution of the soil. The method of sieve analysis is applicable for
soils that are mostly granular, with some or no fines. Sieve analysis does not
provide information about the shape of the particles.

Material and Apparatus

Apparatus Function
I. Sieves, a bottom pan and a cover To sieve the different size of particles.

II. Mechanical sieve shaker To shake the soil sample together with
the sieve.

III. Digital weighing scale To measure the weight of the sieve

before and after the experiment was
conducted.

Table 2. Material and apparatus for Sieve Analysis Test

11
The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

The mass of soil sample used was determined by weighing on the weighing scale.

Each sieve used for the experiment was cleaned before the mass of empty
weight was recorded.

A stack of sieve was arranged from a larger opening to smaller opening with
pan at the bottom and cover at the top

Soil sample was then poured into the stack of sieves from the top and was covered
using the cover provided.

The stack of sieves was then placed on the mechanical sieve shaker to be shaken
for about 10-15 minutes and The mass of the soil retained on each sieve was
recorded.

12
3.3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a given volume of a material to the volume
of distilled water.

Material and Apparatus

APPARATUS FUNCTION
Specific Gravity Bottle

To measure the specific gravity

of a material.

Weighing Balance

Specific Gravity Bottle

To measure the mass.

Weighing Balance (0.001 g)

Table 3. Material and apparatus for Specific Gravity Test

The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

The density bottle was weight to the nearest 0.001g.

13
A sample of total of soil (30g for constant) and 40% of stabilizer from 30g was
obtained from sieving and weight then put in the porcelain evaporating bowl.
The sample sufficient for 3 trials.ting dish. The sample sufficient for 3 trials.

The sample was placed into the bottle directly after weighted. Next de-aired
water was added with the soil to the nearest 0.001g.

The bottle was cleaned and filled with de-aired water until full then weighted to
the nearest 0.001g. The experiment was repeated 3 times then the average of
specific gravity calculated.

14
3.4 ATTERBERG LIMIT

Atterberg limit test is carried out to identify the water content at which a soil
sample changes its state from solid to semi-solid to plastic and to liquid. There are
two methods to identify the liquid limit which are Casagrande’s Method and Fall
Cone Method. Group 7 have decided to use Casagrande’s Method whereas for
identifying the plastic limit, rolling hand method were used.

Liquid limit is the water content at which the soil sample changes its state
from liquid to plastic state, while plastic limit represent the water content at which
the sample change from plastic state to semi-solid state. Shrinkage limit test is a
test conducted to identify the moisture content when the sample changes from
semi-solid to solid state but in this laboratory, the test is not conducted.

Material and Apparatus

(i) Liquid Limit

APPARATUS FUNCTION

Device used to obtain number of

blows

Casagrande’s Device

To prepare soil paste

Porcelain evaporating dish

15
 Used to spread the soil paste in the
Casagrande’s device cup

Spatula

Used to groove the soil paste o the

Casagrande cup

Grooving tool

Used to pour water on the soil

sample to make paste

Beaker

Used to oven the dry the soil sample

before being used

Oven dry machine

16
 Used to weigh the weight of wet and
dry samples.

Weighing balance

Table 4. Material and apparatus for Liquid Limit

For Plastic Limit Test, small sample of soil paste from the previous test (about 20mm
ball size) are separated to be used.

Material and Apparatus

Apparatus Function

Used as base to roll the soil paste

Glass plate

Table 5. Material and apparatus for Plastic Limit

17
The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

A sufficient amount of soil sample (300-400g) were prepared

Sufficient amount of water was added to the soil sample and were mixed
thoroughly to form a soil paste.

The paste was then placed in the Casagrande’s cup using spatula ad were
pressed slightly to remove air voids.

18
 The sample were cut at the center using a grooving tool to form a groove.

The counter is set at zero and the handle of the tool is winded to close the groove
for 10 mm

If the count exceeds 70 If the count is lower than 70

Soil was removed from the Soil were removed from the
cup and remixed with cup and remixed with the
addition of water addition of soil

The procedures were repeated four to five times at different water content.

19
Plastic limit test flowchart procedure ;

A small amount of soil paste from the previous test (20 mm ball) were set aside.

The sample were rolled on a glass plate to form a soil thread until it crumbles or
cracks when the diameter had reaches 3mm

A small amount of this crumbled sample were placed in the moisture content
container for water content determination.

20
3.5 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION

Standard Proctor Compaction test is carried out in order to determine the

relationship between dry density and moisture content of a particular soil. The
Compaction test is done to ensure the understanding of the optimum moisture
content of the soil as well as the maximum dry density of the soil can be achieved.
Compaction of soil is the optimal moisture content at which a given soil type
becomes most dense and achieve its maximum dry density by removal of air
voids.

Materials and Apparatus

Apparatus Function

To weight the soil sample and the

compaction mould during the test

Weighing scale

The place where the soil is put during the

compaction test

compaction mould

To compact the soil sample

2.5 kg rammer

21
 To crush the soil into smaller sizes

Rubber mallet

The place where the soil is crushed into

smaller sizes

Aluminium tray

To put the wet soil that will be recorded to

determine its moisture content

Can

Table 6. Material and apparatus for Standard Proctor Compaction

22
The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

Air-dried sample of 2500g of soil(original soil) and air-dried sample of 1500g

original soil + 1000g crushed waste concrete bricks(modified soil) were being
oven-dried for about 24 hours.

The soil sample were crushed into smaller particles using the rubber mallet in the
aluminium tray for easier moisture absorption.

125ml of water was mixed evenly into the soil after the soil had fully turned into a
small particle.

The soil sample is divided into 3 portion, where each portion is inserted into the
mould and then the layer is compacted for 27 blows

The surface of compacted soil is scarified and the collar is detached from the
mould, the soil surface is trimmed by using a straight edge The mould with the
compacted soil was weighted. The steps for compaction were repeated until the
mass of mould and soil sample decreased for at least two times.

23
3.6 CONSTANT HEAD PERMEABILITY

Permeability is a measurement of the ease in which the water flows through

rocks and soils. As the objective of the test is to determine the coefficients of the
samples, constant head permeameter will be used to carry out the test. This test is
carry out twice ; the first one will be 2.5 kg of sand and secondly with 40%
replacement of concrete brick (1kg stabilizer + 1.5 kg sand).

Materials and Apparatus

No Materials/Apparatus Function

1. Constant Head Permeameter filled

with sample (Natural and Modified)

Main apparatus to carry out the

constant head permeability test for
both samples.

2. Measuring cylinder

To measure the flow or discharge at

certain time (constant head)

3. Stop watch

- To take the time taken at certain

flow that use to calculate flow
discharge.

Table 7. Material and apparatus for Constant Head Permeability

24
The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

The water tap of the sink is connected to the top of water reservoir that is located
above the permeameter. The water tap was turn on later.

The inlet valve of the permeameter that is located at the base is fully opened
to allow the water to flow in the permeameter and flow out through the
overflow outlet into the sink. This has created a continuous flow of the water
through the soil sample.

The levels of water in the three open-ended tube of the manometer board is
observed and the readings are taken after the levels is ensured to be constant.

25
The distance between tapping points on the permeameter I1 and I2 is measured

The discharge of flow through the soil is measured by using a measuring

cylinder within a given time. The levels of water in the manometer is recorded.

The rate of discharge is adjusted by turning the inlet valve of the permeameter.
Above step is repeated three times to take three values of discharge.

26
3.7 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Californian Division Highway was developed to California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

in 1929 to identify which soil suitable for use as a subgrade or bases materials in
highway construction industry and also currently used in pavement both roads
and airfields. Other than that, the number of CBR obtained by the ratio of the unit
stress needed that affect the penetration depth on a standard sample of crushed
stone.

The calculation of CBR is as follow:

th 㿰thh
CBR = s 4s㿰4 㿰thh

The table below show the Standard Load (kg) for different penetration for the
standard materials to the CBR value of 100%.

Penetration of Plunger (mm) Standard Load (kg)

2.5 1370
5.0 2055
7.5 2630
10.0 3180
12.5 3600

Table 8. Standard Load of different penetration

Materials and Apparatus

APPARATUS FUNCTION
CBR Machine
To determine the material properties such as
CBR Machine strength

Collar and Spacer

Disc Collar and Spacer Disc
Use as clamp, positioner, guide, spacer and
Mould
stop in a smaller profile

27
 Mould
Use as compaction of sample

Metal Rammer
Use as giving the compaction to the sample.
4.5 kg Metal
Rammer

Table 9. Material and apparatus for California Bearing Ratio

The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

28
3.8 DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Direct Shear box test is carried out in order to determine shear strength
parameters of a given granular type of soil. A confining stress is applied vertically
to the soil sample, and the upper ring is pulled laterally until the soil sample fails,
or through a specified strain. The load applied and the strain induced is recorded
at frequent intervals to determine a stress-strain curve for the confining stress.
The rate of strain is varied to create a test of dense and loose conditions.

Materials and Apparatus :

Apparatus Function

The apparatus used in order to conduct the

test

Direct shear box test apparatus with dial

gauge for shear load and horizontal
displacement

To varied the shear load in the test

Set of weights 5kg and 10kg

29
 To observe the time taken for the test

stopwatch

Table 10. Material and apparatus for Direct Shear Test

The procedure of this test is shown in flowchart below ;

Two half of the shear box is placed in the outer container and two part of the container is
fixed by fixing the screws. The lower spacing of the block and groove plate is put
transversely to the direction of the shear.

The sand is poured to fill the box about 2mm below the top and then the surface is
gently levelled with a rulerso. The top platen is placed on top of the soil, followed by
the hanger.

Unscrew the setting screws and replaced them in the corners of the box. The stopwatch is
set to zero and machine at gear A1.

30
The motor and stop watch is started simultaneously. The proving load, the
vertical dial and horizontal dial is read in all divisions at convenient time(every
15s).

When the proving ring readings have become constant or shows reducing load
motor is stopped. The 5.5 kg weights is taken off.

The sand is poured back in a tray and the box is cleans and then replacing it back
into the outer container. Step 1-6 is repeated by adding load of 15.5 kg and 25.5
kg.

For the dense state, the sand is compacted into the box and again by striking the
top platen vertically 10 to 20 times with the tamper. The rest of the procedure
were similar with for the loose state

31
4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS

Weight of container : 266 g

Weight of container and oven dry soil : 766 g

Weight of oven dry soil : 500 g

Formula:

Mass of soil retained (g) = Mass of sieve and soil (g) – Mass of sieve (g)

Mass of soil retained (g)

Percentage mass retained (%) = x
Total mass of soil retained (g)

Percentage finer (%) = 100% - Percentage cumulative mass retained (%)

Mass Mass of Percentage Cumulative Perce

Sie Sieve Size Mass of soil and
of soil mass Percentage ntage
ve Opening sieve (g)
Sieve retained retained mass Finer
No. (mm)
(g) (g) (%) retained (%) (%)
20 1550 0 0 0 0 100
4 4.75 1430 1571 141 28.2 28.2 71.8
8 2.36 1038 1155 117 23.4 51.6 48.4
10 2 1077 1083 6 1.2 52.8 47.2
14 1.4 991 1027 36 7.2 60 40
30 0.6 902 953 51 10.2 70.2 29.8
40 0.425 827 846 19 3.8 74 26
70 0.212 800 856 56 11.2 85.2 14.8
200 0.075 794 794 0 0 85.2 14.8
747 821 74 14.8 100 0
∑=500

Table 11. Result of Sieve Analysis experiment

32
Soil Classification:

(i) USCS Classification

General Classification Data

Passing 4.75mm (No. 4) 71.8%
Passing 0.075mm (No. 200) 14.8%
Liquid Limit, LL 29.16%
Plasticity Index, PI 7.94%
USCS Classification SC (Clayey sand with low liquid
limit)

Table 12. USCS Classification

(ii) BS Classification

General Classification Data

Soil LL = 29.16 %, Soil PL = 21.22 %
Passing 0.06mm 14.8 % < 35 %
(Fine or coarse?) ⸫ Coarse Soils
(Coarse = 85.2 %, Fine = 14.8 %)
Passing 2mm (Gravel or Sand?) Gravel = (100% - 47.2% = 52.8%)/85.2%
= 61.97%
Sand = 100% - 61.97%
= 38.03%
⸫ Predominantly Gravel
% finer less than 0.06 mm ? 14.8% (between 5% and 15%)
⸫ GF
So, GM or GC ? From Plasticity Chart, above A-line and left of
B-line, so CL.
⸫ GC
Check Liquid Limit LL = 29.16%, ⸫ Low liquidity
BS Classification GCL (Low Plasticity Clayey Gravel)

Table 13. BS Classification

33
(iii) AASHTO Classification

General Classification Data

Sieve Analysis (Percentage Passing %):
2.00mm 47%
0.42mm 26%
0.075mm 14.8%
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 29.16%
Plasticity Index, PI = LL – PL 7.94%
AASHTO Classification A-2-4

Table 14. AASHTO Classification

(iv) USDA Classification:

General Classification Data

> 250mm (Boulder) -
76mm – 250mm (Cobble) -
2mm – 76mm (Gravel) 100% - 47% = 53% (Gravel)
Balance Soil (Sand/Silt/Clay) = 47%
0.05mm – 2mm (Sand) 47% - 14.8% = 32.2%
(32.2/47) x 100% = 68.51%
0.002mm – 0.05mm (Silt) 14.8% - 14.8% = 0%
(0/43) x 100% = 0%
< 0.002mm (Clay) 100% - 68.51% - 0% = 31.4%
USDA Classification Gravelly sandy clay loam

Table 15. USDA Classification

(v) ASTM Classification:

General Classification Data

Passing sieve size 0.075 mm 14.8% = less than 50% passing.

⸫ Coarse Soils

Passing sieve size 4.75 mm 71.8% = more than 50% passing.

⸫ Predominantly Sand

34
Passing sieve size 0.06 mm 14.8%, more than 12% fines. ⸫ SM or SC

Check Plasticity Chart Above A-line and left of B-line.

⸫ CL

ASTM Classification SC (Clayey Sand)

Table 16. ASTM Classification

DISCUSSION

An amount of 500 g of soil sample was used in the sieve test and tapping
sieving is the type of sieving that was conducted in the lab. Several precautions
were taken during the test such as making sure that the sieve container was
cleaned first so that there is no error when taking the weight of the sample since it
may use by previous group and they forget to cleaned it. At the same time, the
sieving process also done more than 5 minutes so that all of the particle is allowed
to be sieved in all varying sieve diameter. All of the precautions are taken into
consideration as to get the best result with barely any error.

Figure 2. Semi-logarithmic graph Percentage Finer (%) vs Sieve Size Opening (mm)

35
 From table and graph above, a few observations could be made regarding to
the result obtained. The main one is the size of particle that pass a certain sieve
diameter. For instance, gravel size is the percentage of the soil sample retained on
2 mm sieve diameter. Thus, referring from the table it shows that 52.8% of the
soil sample is in gravel size. Meanwhile, sand size is the percentage of soil retained
on 0.2 mm while passing 2 mm sieve diameter. Therefore, from the graph it is
observed that about 32.4% of the soil sample is in the size of sand particle. Last
but not least, there is no soil sample in fine size particle which is particle that is
passing sieve diameter of 2 mm and retained on 0.02 mm and 14.8% soil sample
is in the pan.

From the Sieve Analysis results that is obtained, the mass loss during the
sieve analysis experiment was 0%. The calculation is shown below:

Weight of dry soil g – Total mass of soil retained (g)

Mass loss = x 100%
tl 4㿰h h (l)

5 g–5 g
= x 100%
5

= 0.00%

Since there is no mass loss and the value are less than 2% allowable error due
to mass loss,hence, the mass loss is satisfactory which might come from
precaution step that the group has implement during the laboratory work.

From the plotted semi-logarithmic graph, the soil particles diameter D10, D30,
and D60, which are the corresponding to percentage finer of 10%, 30% and 60%
respectively is determined. For D10, the value is not available (N/A) since there is
no value when the group extend 10% finer from the y-axis from the graph. But for
the others, the value is for D30 is 0.60mm and D60 is 3.50mm. Hence, from the soil
particles diameter D10, D30, and D60, the coefficient of uniformity, CU and the
coefficient of gradation, CC are determined using the following equation:

CU = D60 / D10 (1)

CC = (D30)² / (D60 x D10) (2)

36
 Coefficient of uniformity, CU = D60 / D10
= 3.50/0
= Undefined

Coefficient of gradation, CC = (D30)² / (D60 x D10)

= (0.60mm)² / (3.50mm x 0)
= Undefined

By referring the calculation both CU and CC are undefined due to the present
of value of D10.

Through the result of coefficient of uniformity, CU which is undefined and the

coefficient of gradation, CC which also undefined and comparing it with the
grading curve analysis requirement as shown in the Table 8 below, it could be
specified that the semi-logarithmic graph is “poorly graded”. The sand is classified
as “poorly graded” because the calculation of coefficient of uniformity, CU and the
coefficient of gradation, CC are not possible as D10 was not available (N/A) on the
gradation curve. Hence, those not conforming are classified as “poorly graded”.
This indicates that there is a big number of fines in the sample. This have proven
that the “poorly graded sand soil” is falls under small range of particle size. Thus,
a Hydrometer experiment shall be applied to determine the coefficients.

No. Coefficients Predominantly Predominantly Sand

Gravel
1. CU must be >4 >6
2. CC must be between 1–3 1–3

Table 17. Grading curve analysis requirement

Based on the experiment conducted in the lab, there are a few factors that
could possibly influence and contribute as the sources of error which might affect
the sieve analysis experiment result. The sources of error are the as limitations on
obtaining a proper representative soil sample from the site, meaning that the
particles must be mixed well within the testing sample. The sample must also be
of the right size, so it does not overload the sieve and skew the results. As
presented on value of CC and CU which is undefined due to lack of 10% finer

37
passing of soil sample. Next is present of organic soil. Since the soil is collected
near Concrete Lab and the weather is not good and almost raining, the soil sample
collected might contain organic soil when the sample collected is not deep enough.
Errors in reading the weighing scale and zeroing it, meaning that the weighing
instrument does not read zero when the input is zero also need to be consider.
Since the group using a digital weighting scale with unit kilogram(kg) and not
gram(g), the reading may not accurate as the gram(g) unit.

For the classification of original soil, the soil classification standard used is the
ASTM BS, USDA, USCS and AASHTO soil classification chart. Basically, the
classification of soil is exclusively based on particle size and its percentage
distribution is known as textural classification system and also the value of Liquid
Limit (LL) and Plastic Index (PI) which come from Atterberg’s Limit Test. For USCS,
the soil classification was SC (Clayey sand with low liquid limit). BS give result GCL
(Low Plasticity Clayey Gravel) of soil classification. For AASHTO the result is A-2-4
which is usually silty or clayey gravel and sand, and has a good rating as subgrade.
Meanwhile for USDA the soil classification is gravelly sandy clay loam and for
ASTM is SC (Clayey Sand). Even from the five soils classification, the group has
gain a mix of sand and clay, but it could be concluded that the soil classification is
sand. This could be proven from USDA classification system which show that sand
is the most dominant with 68.51%, clay only 31.49% and 0% for silt.

38
4.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

RESULT
(i) Original

Test no. 1 2 3
Mass of bottle (m1) (g) 27.0174 27.0465 27.0280
Mass of bottle + dry soil (m2) 56.9696 56.0697 57.0797
(g)
Mass of bottle + dry soil + 136.0705 136.8023 137.0342
water (m3) (g)
Mass of bottle + water (m4) 120.6350 120.8141 120.9283
(g)
Specific gravity = 2.06 2.23 2.16

( )
Average Specific Gravity 2.15

Table 18. Result of Specific Gravity of original sample

(ii) Modified

Test no. 1 2 3
Mass of bottle (m1) (g) 27.0240 27.0118 27.3444
Mass of bottle + dry soil (m2) 57.0489 56.8548 56.6454
(g)
Mass of bottle + dry soil + 147.5690 147.4058 147.6960
water (m3) (g)
Mass of bottle + water (m4) 131.3830 131.4375 131.8240
(g)
Specific gravity = 2.17 2.15 2.18

( )
Average Specific Gravity 2.15

Table 19. Result of Specific Gravity of modified sample

39
DISCUSSION

The normal range for the specific gravity should be between 2.60 and 2.80
(Coduto, 2011) but after the test is conducted by the water pycnometer method
(ASTM D254-14), both of the result for constant and modified show the same
value of specific gravity which is 2.15 which is also 0.83 times lower than the
minimum theoretical specific gravity which is 2.60 (Coduto, 2011). The under
minimum of the theoretical value shows that it has a high content of organic
matter. Although stabilizer already added and the value still the same, it indicates
the percentage of stabilizer added is not enough to make the sample stronger and
more stable.

The effect of high organic matter is the weight of the sample will be affected
which means the actual weight of the soil when weighted will be less than the
measured weight. However, the error might come from the scale tare process
since it is very sensitive even to air. Next, it could be due to loss of soil sample in
the pouring process of soil into the pycnometer and also due to difference of water
and soil temperature.

There are some methods to increase the accuracy of the result which by using
a paper or a bowl on the weighing surface so easier to tare and calculate the
sample. The sample will be placed on the paper or bowl. Next is the temperature
of both sample and water is almost the same. For further knowledge, a research
must be conducted in order to identify the best way to reduce the error.

40
4.3 ATTERBERG LIMIT

RESULT

Liquid Limit Test

a) Original soil

Test no. 1 2 3 4 5

No. of blows 98 60 59 53 20

Container No. 1 2 3 4 5

Mass of container (g) 20.6 20.5 18.6 20.8 20.6

Mass of container + wet soil (g) 24.2 25.1 25 29.1 26.6

Mass of container + dry soil (g) 23.5 24.2 23.7 27.3 25.2

Mass of water (g) 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.8 1.4

Mass of dry soil (g) 2.9 3.7 5.1 6.5 4.6

Moisture content (%) 24.14 24.32 25.49 27.69 30.43

Table 20. Liquid limit test (original soil)

Figure 3. Graph of liquid limit test on original soil

41
From the equation, the water content on the line corresponding to 25 blows is

y = 31.434e-0.003x

= 31.434e-0.003(25)

= 29.16 %

b) Modified soil

Test no. 1 2 3 4

No. of blows 75 62 42 22

Container No. 1 2 3 4

Mass of container (g) 3.77 4.79 4.35 6.56

Mass of container + wet soil (g) 8.86 9.26 8.5 13.52

Mass of container + dry soil (g) 7.83 8.39 7.67 12.03

Mass of water (g) 1.03 0.87 0.83 1.49

Mass of dry soil (g) 4.06 3.6 3.32 5.47

Moisture content (%) 25.37 24.17 25.00 27.24

Table 21. Liquid Limit test (modified soil)

Figure 4. Graph of liquid limit test of modified soil.

42
From the equation, the water content on the line corresponding to 25 blows is

y = 27.438e-0.002x

= 27.438e-0.002(25)

= 26.1 %

Plastic Limit Test

a) Original soil

Container No. 1 2 3

Mass of container (g) 5.7 6.7 3.7

Mass of container + wet soil (g) 6.8 8.4 4.9

Mass of container + dry soil (g) 6.6 8.1 4.7

Mass of water (g) 0.2 0.3 0.2

Mass of dry soil (g) 0.9 1.4 1.0

Moisture content (%) 22.22 21.43 20.00

Table 22. Plastic limit test (original soil)

22.22  21.43  20
Average of moisture content (%) =
3

= 21.22 %

For the plasticity index, PI = LL - PL

= 29.16 - 21.22

= 7.94 %

43
 b) Modified soil

Container No. 1 2 3 4

Mass of container (g) 6.77 6.94 4.72 6.68

Mass of container + wet soil (g) 7.31 7.33 4.93 6.99

Mass of container + dry soil (g) 7.22 7.24 4.9 6.93

Mass of water (g) 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.06

Mass of dry soil (g) 0.45 0.3 0.18 0.25

Moisture content (%) 20.00 30.00 16.67 24.00

Table 23. Plastic Limit test (modified soil)

20  30  16.67  24
Average of moisture content (%) =
4

= 22.67 %

For the plasticity index, PI = LL - PL

= 26.1 - 22.67

= 3.43%

44
DISCUSSION

Atterberg limit test is a test that is carried out in every construction prior the
starting of the construction work. It helps identify the liquid limit and plastic limit.
From this information, plasticity index of the construction site could be identified.

n i ni

Liquid limit is basically defined as the percentage of moisture content at which

a soil changes its behaviour from plastic to liquid state. For this test, the liquid limit
of original soil higher than that of modified soil which is 29.16% and 26.1%
respectively. A higher liquid limit indicates a higher compressibility and shrinkage
potential. This effect is due to the usage of 40% of waste brick in the modified soil
as a stabilizer. This shows that the modified soil is more impervious than original
soil and would be a better preference to be used compare to original soil.

As per plastic limit test, it is a test conducted to identify the percentage of

moisture content at which a soil changes its behaviour from plastic to semi-solid
state. Apart of help in identifying the liquid and plastic limit, Atterberg limit test
also allows to determine the type of soil being tested. Below is the plasticity chart
which shows the relationship between the liquid limit and plasticity index.

Figure 5. Plasticity chart

45
 The data presented might have slight error due to human error,
systematic error and random error. This error would not be avoided but
precautions might be taken to improve the results. For the liquid limit test, the
number of blows should be between 20 to 40 blows to obtain a good graph. Apart
of it, the air movement at the location of testing should also be controlled as water
content is an important measure for this test. While for plastic limit test, the rolling
should be done slowly to avoid the sample from crumbling before 3mm in
diameter. Lastly the samples from both tests should be weighed directly once the
sample obtained to avoid reduction in moisture content.

46
4.4 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION

RESULT

a. Original Soil

Mass of dry soil used 2.5 kg

Mass of stabiliser used 0.0 kg

Measurement of mould height : 11.3 cm, diameter : 10.5 cm

Volume of Mould (V) 0.0009785 m3

Mass of mould + base 5.174 kg (exclude collar)

Table 24. Result of Standard Proctor Compaction of original sample

Trial No 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of Wet Soil + mould +
base (kg) 7.034 7.171 7.044 7.037 7.045
Mass of Wet Soil (kg) = W 1.86 1.997 1.87 1.863 1.871
Container No 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of Container (g) 21 20 22 20 20
Mass of wet soil + container (g) 29 32 41 30 36
Mass of dry soil + container (g) 28 30 37 27 30
Mass of water(g or ml) 125ml 250ml 375ml 500ml 625ml
Mass of dry soil (g) 7 10 15 7 10
Water content (%) 14.29 20 26.67 42.86 45.45
Dry density of soil (kg/m3) =
p/(1+w) 1663.2 1700.73 1598.72 1332.73 1314.62

Table 25. Standard Proctor Compaction test result for original soil

47
 b. Modified Soil

Mass of dry soil used 1.5 kg

Mass of stabilizer used 1.0 kg
Measurement of mould height : 11.6 cm, diameter : 10.4 cm
Volume of Mould (V) 0.0009854 m3
Mass of mould + base 3.235 kg (exclude collar)

Table 26. Result of Standard Proctor Compaction of modified sample

Trial No 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of Wet Soil + mould +
base (kg) 5.071 5.25 5.254 5.223 5.218
Mass of Wet Soil (kg) = W 1.836 2.015 2.019 1.988 1.983
Container No 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of Container (g) 6 20 7 20 22
Mass of wet soil + container
(g) 17 28 27 43 55
Mass of dry soil + container
(g) 16 27 25 39 48
Mass of water(g or ml) 125ml 250ml 375ml 500ml 625ml
Mass of dry soil (g) 10 7 18 19 26
Water content (%) 10 14.29 11.11 28.57 26.92
Dry density of soil (kg/m3) =
p/(1+w) 1693.82 1789.18 1844.04 1569.15 1585.55

Table 27. Standard Proctor Compaction test result for modified soil

48
Figure 6. Compaction graph for original soil sample and modified soil sample

Soil Sample Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture

Content
Original Soil 1710 kg/m3 17.8%
Modified Soil 1890 kg/m3 12.2%

Table 28. Summary for result of standard proctor compaction test

49
DISCUSSION

Based on the result from the Table 24, 25, 26 and 27, the data is plotted in
the graph of dry density against moisture content(Figure 6). Once the data is
plotted, the maximum dry density and the optimum water content of both type of
soil sample is observed and analyzed. Based on Table 28, the maximum dry
density for the original soil sample is 1710 kg/m3 while the maximum dry density
for modified soil is 1890 kg/m3. For the optimum moisture content, original soil
had 17.8% of while modified soil had 12.2%. Therefore, it is shows that the
maximum dry density (MDD) of the soil sample increased when soil is added with
40% of stabilizer(crushed waste concrete bricks). Besides, the optimum moisture
content (OMC) decreased to about 5.6% when the soil sample is modified with
adding 40% of stabilizer (crushed waste concrete bricks) compared to original soil
sample (sandy soil).

From the observation during the test and the result obtained, the original soil
have a lower maximum dry density and higher optimum moisture content than the
modified soil. This shows that the original soil (sandy soil) have low stability and
have percentage of water can go through the soil. However, when the soil sample
is modified by adding 40% of stabilizer (crushed waste concrete bricks), the
maximum dry density increased and this means that the soil is more compact. The
theory stated the more compact the soil sample, soil sample capability to
support load (bearing capacity) is higher and the risk of settlement for pavement
could be substantially decrease. The optimum moisture of the modified soil also
decrease, and this indicate that it decreases the percentage of permeability of
the soil.

During the test, some precautions is performed in order to make sure the
result obtained from the compaction does not have error in data. For instance, the
amount of water added for each trial is calculated precisely in order to avoid the
soil sample to achieved its liquid state too fast during the test. Therefore, Group 7
using an amount of 125mL of water or 5% volume of water from total weight of
soil sample for each trials for both original soil sample and modified soil sample.
Also during the test, after the soil is compacted, some collected small sample of
wet soil is directly weighted in order to make sure the moisture content data is
precise.

50
4.5 CONSTANT HEAD PERMEABILITY

RESULT

For both natural and modified sample, the distance between tapping points on
permeameter I1 and I2 are as below ;

I1 =7.5 cm , I2 = 7.5 cm

h1 = r1 - r2 , h2 = r1 - r3

Q, cm3 t, s r1, cm r2, cm r3, cm h1, cm h2, cm

109 5 90.2 92.8 95.3 2.6 2.5

108 5 82.9 85.1 87.4 2.2 2.3

104 5 75.6 77.7 80.0 2.1 2.3

Table 29. Constant Head Permeability Data for Original sample

Q, cm3 t, s r1, cm r2, cm r3, cm h1, cm h2, cm

139.5 5 84.3 86.6 90.8 2.3 4.2

134.0 5 77.1 79.6 81.6 2.5 2.0

130 5 68.5 70.8 72.8 2.3 2.0

Table 30. Constant Head Permeability Data for Modified sample

For calculation, Darcy’s Law stated for one dimensional flow is ;

Q
v
At

Where ;

A = sample cross-sectional area

V = in cm/s

I = h/l = hydraulic gradient

51
Therefore,

v v l1  l 2 
k and k ave  (in cm/s)
i r1  r3

7.62 
2
D 2
A is constant = = = 45.604 cm2
4 4

i1 i2 v, cm/s k1, cm/s k2, cm/s kave, cm/s

0.35 0.33 0.48 1.38 1.44 1.41

0.29 0.31 0.47 1.61 1.53 1.58

0.28 0.31 0.46 1.63 1.5 1.55

Table 31. Analyzed data for Constant Head Permeability (Original Sample)

Calculation of i, v, k1, k2 and kave are tabulated as below ;

ELEMENT Q1 = 109 Q2 = 108 Q3 = 104

FORMULA CALCULATION

h 2.6 2.2 2.1

i1 =   
l 7.5 7.5 7.5

= 0.35 = 0.29 = 0.28

h 2.5 2.3 2.3

i2 =   
l 7.5 7.5 7.5

= 0.33 = 0.31 = 0.31

Q 109 108 104

V= = = =
At 45.604  5 45.604  5 45.604  5

= 0.48 = 0.47 = 0.46

52
 v 0.48 0.47 0.46
k1 =   
i 0.35 0.29 0.28

= 1.38 = 1.61 = 1.63

v 0.48 0.47 0.46

K2 =   
i 0.33 0.31 0.31

= 1.44 = 1.53 = 1.50

v l1  l 2  0.487.5  7.5  0.477.5  7.5  0.467.5  7.5 

Kave = = = =
r1  r3 90.2  95.3 82.9  87.4 75.6  80

= 1.41 = 1.58 = 1.55

Table 32. Calculation for Constant Head Permeability (Original sample)

i1 i2 v, cm/s k1, cm/s k2, cm/s kave, cm/s

0.31 0.56 0.61 1.99 1.09 1.41

0.33 0.27 0.59 1.77 2.21 1.96

0.31 0.27 0.57 1.86 2.14 1.99

Table 33. Analyzed data for Constant Head Permeability (Modified Sample)

Calculation of i, v, k1, k2 and kave are tabulated as below ;

ELEMENT Q1 = 139.5 Q2 = 134 Q3 = 130

FORMULA CALCULATION

h 2.3 2.5 2.3

i1 =   
l 7.5 7.5 7.5

= 0.31 = 0.33 = 0.31

53
 h 4.2 2.0 2.0
i2 =   
l 7.5 7.5 7.5

= 0.56 = 0.27 = 0.27

Q 139.5 134 130

V= = = =
At 45.604  5 45.604  5 45.604  5

= 0.61 = 0.59 = 0.57

v 0.61 0.59 0.57

k1 =   
i 0.31 0.33 0.31

= 1.99 = 1.77 = 1.86

v 0.61 0.59 0.57

K2 =   
i 0.56 0.27 0.27

= 1.09 = 2.21 = 2.14

v l1  l 2  0.617.5  7.5  0.597.5  7.5  0.577.5  7.5 

Kave = = = =
r1  r3 84.3  86.6 77.1  81.6 68.5  72.8

= 1.41 = 1.96 = 1.99

Table 34. Calculation for Constant Head Permeability (Modified sample)

DISCUSSSION

Permeability is one of the most important soil properties in designing any

engineering projects including the road. Different soil will have different degree of
permeability depending on the several factors such as type of soil and grain size
distribution. This will be characterized by the coefficient of permeability that will
represent the ease of a liquid to flow through the soil, or commonly referred as
hydraulic conductivity of soil.

According to Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), and Terzaghi and Peck (1967), the
soil have high degree of permeability if the coefficient of permeability is greater
than 10-1. Based on the result obtained, both samples of original and modified soil

54
have values greater than 1, thus indicate that it has high permeability. Soil with
high permeability is said to be pervious as water could easily flow through it. By
analyzing the result, degree of permeability of both samples is distributed by the
grain size where by it has great pore size and thus increasing the area for the
water to flow.

Therefore, in comparison between the two samples, modified one have

greater value than the original soil sample. Therefore, it could be concluded that
sample with addition of waste brick as stabilizer have higher degree of
permeability compared to original one.

55
4.6 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

RESULT

(i) Original

Penetration Force on plunger x 2.09

Force gauge reading, div
on plunger (kN)
(mm) Top Bottom Top Bottom
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.25 0.10 0.00 0.21 0.00
0.50 0.10 0.00 0.21 0.00
0.75 0.20 0.40 0.42 0.84
1.00 0.30 0.60 0.63 1.25
1.25 0.40 0.70 0.84 1.46
1.50 0.60 0.70 1.25 1.46
1.75 0.70 0.80 1.46 1.67
2.00 0.80 0.90 1.67 1.88
2.25 0.80 0.90 1.67 1.88
2.50 0.80 1.00 1.67 2.09
2.75 1.00 1.10 2.09 2.30
3.00 1.10 1.20 2.30 2.51
3.25 1.20 1.40 2.51 2.93
3.50 1.30 1.50 2.72 3.14
3.75 1.50 1.60 3.14 3.34
4.00 1.70 1.70 3.55 3.55
4.25 1.70 1.70 3.55 3.55
4.50 1.70 1.80 3.55 3.76
4.75 1.90 1.90 3.97 3.97
5.00 1.90 2.00 3.97 4.18
5.25 2.00 2.10 4.18 4.39
5.50 2.10 2.10 4.39 4.39
5.75 2.10 2.20 4.39 4.60
6.00 2.10 2.30 4.39 4.81
6.25 2.10 2.40 4.39 5.02

56
 6.50 2.10 2.50 4.39 5.23
6.75 2.10 2.50 4.39 5.23
7.00 2.10 2.60 4.39 5.43
7.25 2.10 2.60 4.39 5.43
7.50 2.10 2.60 4.39 5.43

Table 35. Result of California Bearing Ratio Test for original soil

Figure 7. Graph of Force on Plunger(kN) vs Penetration of Plunger(mm) for top part

and bottom part of the original soil

Calculation(2.50 mm penetration):

Test Unit Stress

CBR = x 100% ;
Standard Unit Stress

Standard load for:

2.5 mm penetration = 1370 kg

57
Average of force on plunger at the 2.5mm penetration of plunger in to the original soil:

force at .5 mm penetraion of top part + force at .5 mm penetraion of bottom part

i

.67 kN+ . 9 kN
i

i .88 kN

Hence, CBR for 2.50 mm penetration:

.88 kN
CBR at .5 mm penetration i x
7 kg x 9.8 x kN

CBR at .5 mm penetration i .99

Calculation(5.00 mm penetration):

Test Unit Stress

CBR = x 100% ;
Standard Unit Stress

Standard load for:

5.0 mm penetration = 2055 kg

Average of force on plunger at the 5.0mm penetration of plunger in to the original soil:

force at 5. mm penetraion of top part + force at 5. mm penetraion of bottom part

i

.97 kN + . 8 kN
i

i . 75 kN

Hence, CBR for 5.00 mm penetration:

. 75 kN
CBR at 5. mm penetration i 55 kg x 9.8 x kN
x

CBR at 5. mm penetration i .

58
(ii) Modified

Penetration
Force gauge reading, div Force on plunger x 2.09 (kN)
of plunger
(mm)
Top Bottom Top Bottom
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.25 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.42
0.50 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.42
0.75 0.20 0.40 0.42 0.84
1.00 0.40 0.60 0.84 1.25
1.25 0.80 0.60 1.67 1.25
1.50 1.20 0.80 2.51 1.67
1.75 1.60 1.00 3.34 2.09
2.00 2.50 1.20 5.23 2.51
2.25 3.20 1.40 6.69 2.93
2.50 4.20 1.70 8.78 3.55
2.75 5.40 1.80 11.29 3.76
3.00 5.80 2.00 12.12 4.18
3.25 6.20 2.30 12.96 4.81
3.50 6.40 2.60 13.38 5.43
3.75 6.40 2.90 13.38 6.06
4.00 6.40 3.20 13.38 6.69
4.25 6.40 3.40 13.38 7.11
4.50 6.40 3.80 13.38 7.94
4.75 6.40 4.20 13.38 8.78
5.00 6.40 4.40 13.38 9.20
5.25 6.40 4.80 13.38 10.03
5.50 6.40 5.00 13.38 10.45
5.75 6.40 5.20 13.38 10.87
6.00 6.40 5.40 13.38 11.29
6.25 6.40 5.60 13.38 11.70

59
 6.50 6.40 5.80 13.38 12.12
6.75 6.40 6.00 13.38 12.54
7.00 6.40 6.40 13.38 13.38
7.25 6.40 6.80 13.38 14.21
7.50 6.40 7.40 13.38 15.47

Table 36. Result of California Bearing Ratio Test for modified soil

Figure 8. Graph of Force on Plunger(kN) vs Penetration of Plunger(mm) for top part

and bottom part of the modified soil

Calculation(2.50 mm penetration):

Test Unit Stress

CBR = x 100% ;
Standard Unit Stress

Standard load for:

2.5 mm penetration = 1370 kg

60
Average of force on plunger at the 2.5mm penetration of plunger in to the modified
soil:

force at .5 mm penetraion of top part + force at .5 mm penetraion of bottom part

i

8.78 kN + .55 kN
i

i 6. 65 kN

Hence, CBR for 2.50 mm penetration:

6. 65 kN
CBR at .5 mm penetration i 7 kg x 9.8 x kN
x

CBR at .5 mm penetration i 5.87

Calculation(5.00 mm penetration):
Test Unit Stress
CBR = x 100% ;
Standard Unit Stress

Standard load for:

5.0 mm penetration = 2055 kg

Average of force on plunger at the 5.0mm penetration of plunger in to the modified

soil:

force at 5. mm penetraion of top part + force at 5. mm penetraion of bottom part

i

. 8 kN + 9. kN
i

i . 9 kN

Hence, CBR for 5.00 mm penetration:

. 9 kN
CBR at 5. mm penetration i 55 kg x 9.8 x kN
x

CBR at 5. mm penetration i 56.

61
 Summary of California Bearing Ratio Test

CBR value (kN) Original Soil Modified Soil

At penetration 2.50 mm CBR = 13.99 % CBR = 45.87 %

At penetration 5.00 mm CBR = 20.21 % CBR = 56.00 %

Moisture content (%) 17.8 % 12.2 %

Table 37. Summary of California Bearing Test

DISCUSSION

Based on the result shown, both original and modified soil graph are not a
smooth curve however is a strong soil as the CBR value is more than 2%-6%
(Lashari, Aris Widodo, Nur Azizah, 2018). However, for a high quality of subgrade,
the CBR value usually 80%-100%. This shows that both sample is strong but not a
high quality sub-grade and also, CBR value will increase with the decrease of
moisture content added to the sample. Unfortunately, this test shows that the CBR
test for both sample is fail because the CBR value for penetration is 2.50mm while
it should be higher than the penetration at 5.00mm.

At the same time, some errors could possibly occur during the test such as the
holes of the base plate and disc not cleaned before used, the surcharge weight
with the plunger not aligned until the plunger not penetrate freely into the soil.
Other than that, it could be because of air void appear in the soil, the present of
chemical composition of aggregate in the soil, visual error in taking the result and
also the surface of soil is not smooth before putting it to the CBR machine.

In order to improve the result of CBR value, this test should be repeated, the
result is suggested to be video recorded to ensure that the data could be checked
several times to get precise result. Then, for the smooth surface of soil, it needs to
be trimmed slowly and not add or paste access soil to the mould if hole present
caused by rushed trim of soil and lastly both sample need to be treated with curing
process for some period of time to increase the CBR value.

62
4.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST

(a) Original Soil

Area is constant where, A = 0.06 m x 0.06 m

= 0.0036 m2

Shear Stress (kN/m2)

Times Loose State Dense State
(s)
5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg 5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 0.11 0.57 0.57 0.11 2.64 3.10
30 0.23 0.63 0.92 1.15 3.90 7.34
45 1.61 0.92 0.92 1.15 3.90 11.93
60 3.67 2.31 4.82 1.26 3.67 12.85
75 4.13 2.26 6.31 1.26 3.67 12.85
90 3.90 3.26 9.06 1.95 2.98 12.50
105 3.79 3.29 9.29 2.41 2.98 12.39
120 3.67 4.33 10.33 2.64 2.75 12.28
135 3.56 5.47 11.70 2.41 2.75 12.28
150 3.56 5.47 11.47 2.07 2.75 11.93
165 3.56 5.21 10.21 1.61 2.41 10.78
180 3.44 4.98 9.98 1.61 2.41 10.78
195 3.44 4.98 9.98 1.61 1.61 10.78
210 3.44 4.87 9.41 1.61 1.61 10.10
225 3.44 4.87 8.72 1.61 1.61 9.64
240 3.44 4.87 8.49 1.61 1.61 9.52

Table 38. Calculate shear stress for original soil

63
 Horizontal Displacement (mm)
Times Loose State Dense State
(s)
5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg 5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.08 0.13 0.11
30 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.15 0.28 0.29
45 0.42 0.43 0.47 0.39 0.41 0.45
60 0.55 0.61 0.62 0.55 0.61 0.58
75 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.72 0.75 0.79
90 0.90 0.94 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.92
105 1.07 1.10 1.11 1.10 1.07 1.09
120 1.27 1.22 1.26 1.21 1.22 1.27
135 1.41 1.41 1.47 1.36 1.36 1.41
150 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.52 1.54 1.55
165 1.77 1.76 1.82 1.68 1.72 1.77
180 1.90 1.93 2.03 1.83 1.87 1.91
195 2.11 2.08 2.11 1.99 2.04 2.05
210 2.22 2.24 2.34 2.11 2.19 2.22
225 2.39 2.42 2.51 2.31 2.33 2.41
240 2.55 2.53 2.65 2.45 2.50 2.55

Table 39. Horizontal Displacement of original soil

64
 Figure 9. Graph of Shear Stress vs Horizontal Displacement for original soil (loose
state)

Figure 10. Graph of Shear Stress vs Horizontal Displacement for original soil (dense
state)

65
 (b) Modified soil

Shear Stress (kN/m2)

Times Loose State Dense State
(s)
5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg 5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 1.38 2.29 4.36 0.00 6.65 0.11
30 2.29 2.52 6.88 3.90 15.37 0.80
45 3.21 5.62 8.72 4.82 17.55 1.15
60 3.90 7.57 9.41 7.57 17.21 2.75
75 4.59 8.95 9.64 10.33 16.63 3.44
90 4.82 10.44 10.21 10.55 16.06 4.82
105 4.36 10.67 11.24 10.55 15.83 5.85
120 4.36 9.41 11.82 10.55 15.37 5.85
135 4.36 9.41 12.28 10.55 15.03 7.80
150 4.36 8.60 12.73 10.55 15.03 16.06
165 4.36 8.26 12.73 10.55 14.46 26.62
180 4.13 8.26 12.28 10.55 14.46 25.47
195 3.67 8.26 11.93 10.55 14.46 24.78
210 3.67 7.92 11.93 10.55 14.11 24.78
225 3.67 7.92 11.93 10.55 13.42 24.55
240 3.67 7.92 11.47 10.55 13.42 24.32

Table 40. Calculated shear stress for modified soil

66
 Horizontal Displacement (mm)
Times Loose State Dense State
(s)
5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg 5.5 kg 15.5 kg 25.5 kg

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.11 0.04 0.11
30 0.56 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.35
45 0.73 0.68 0.51 0.67 0.06 0.63
60 0.74 0.75 0.67 0.96 0.07 0.91
75 0.75 0.78 0.77 1.27 0.22 1.05
90 0.76 0.80 0.92 1.53 0.32 1.07
105 0.81 0.82 1.04 1.56 0.62 1.23
120 1.01 0.84 1.16 1.57 0.91 1.44
135 1.03 0.90 1.43 1.70 1.23 1.69
150 1.06 1.10 1.55 1.81 1.52 1.79
165 1.20 1.15 1.65 2.00 1.63 1.91
180 1.42 1.24 1.79 2.18 1.74 2.06
195 1.52 1.33 1.91 2.20 1.80 2.13
210 1.62 1.58 2.03 2.28 2.00 2.21
225 1.78 2.02 2.12 2.34 2.20 2.26
240 2.00 2.24 2.20 2.40 2.40 2.42

Table 41. Horizontal Displacement for modified soil

67
Figure 11. Graph of Shear Stress vs Horizontal Displacement for modified soil (loose
state)

Figure 12. Graph of Shear Stress vs Horizontal Displacement for modified soil(dense
state)

68
 Element Loose state Dense State
Normal Stress
15.00 42.20 69.50 15.00 42.20 69.50
(kPa)
Shear stress at
4.13 5.47 11.70 2.64 3.90 12.85
failure (kPa)

Table 42. Normal stress and shear stress at failure for original soil

Figure 13. Graph of shear stress against normal stress for original soil

Element Loose state Dense State

Normal Stress
15.00 42.20 69.50 15.00 42.20 69.50
(kPa)
Shear stress at
4.82 10.67 12.73 10.55 17.55 26.62
failure (kPa)

Table 43. Normal stress and shear stress at failure for original soil

69
 Figure 14. Graph of shear stress against normal stress for modified soil

DISCUSSION

Based on the theory, shear strength of a soil is equal to the maximum value of
shear stress that could be mobilized within a soil mass without failure taking place.
Based on the result obtained on the graph of original soil and modified soil, the
shear strength at failure of original soil of 25.5kg load for loose state and dense
state is 11.70 kN/m2 and 12.85 kN/m2 respectively. Meanwhile, the shear strength
at failure of modified soil of 25.5kg load for loose state and dense state is 12.73
kN/m2 and 26.62 kN/m2. This shows that when soil is added with 40% stabilizer
(crushed waste concrete bricks), the shear strength of the soil increased. This
means that the more load the modified soil is able to support compared to original
soil(sandy soil).

The cohesion of the original soil and modified soil is zero because the type of
soil used in the test is dry sand soil which is cohesionless. The angle of friction for
the original soil of dense state is 8.78⁰, while the angle of friction for the
modified soil of dense state is 23.25⁰. This shows that the modified soil particles
could hold up together more stronger and have greater interlocking bond to resist

70
load compared to original soil. Thus, modified soil is able increased the strength of
the soil.

For this PBL, the direct shear box test is carried out to test the shear strength
of the soil sample because the test is easier and faster to operate when the type of
soil is gravelly or sandy. Since the type of soil is sandy, therefore the direct shear
box test is carried out. The soil samples also could be sheared along
predetermined planes, when the shear strength along fissures or other selected
planes are needed. However, this type of test have its disadvantage where the
failure plane is always horizontal in the test, and this might not be the weakest
plane in the sample.

71
5.0 CONCLUSION

KA31802 Geotechnical and Highway Lab Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is to

study the effect of low-cost and sustainable material in improving the engineering
properties of weak and problematic soil under the theme “Soil Stabilization Using
Low-Cost Material for Road Construction”. About 20kg soil sample is collected
from a location near laboratory of Fakulti Kejuruteraan (FKJ), Universiti Malaysia
Sabah. Meanwhile, the stabilizer that chose by Group 7 in order to improve the
properties of the soil is crushed waste concrete bricks. Based on previous research
by some researcher, an optimum 40% content of crushed waste concrete brick
added to a soil sample shown an improvement on the properties of the soil and
are considered suitable for use as sub-base material. Therefore, for this PBL, a
proportion 40% of crushed waste concrete brick : 60% soil sample is used for
various test and being compared with the result 100% of collected soil sample.

Based on sieve analysis, it is found that the type of soil is clayey sandy, where
the dominant percentage is sand. Thus, the soil is then classified as sand. Based
on specific gravity test, the result shows that both original soil and modified soil
have the same specific gravity which is 2.15. Thus, the specific gravity of both soil
are under standard specific, 2.60, however it is still consider as stable and not
organic since it is not under 2.00. Based on Atterberg’s Limit test, result shows
that liquid limit(LL) of modified soil is lower than liquid limit(LL) of original soil.
However, plastic limit(PL) of modified soil is a little bit higher than plastic limit(PL)
of original soil. Thus, modified soil has low risk to shrinkage and more impervious
compared to original soil.

Based on standard proctor compaction test, modified soil has better

maximum dry density(1890 kg/m3) and optimum moisture content(12.2%)
compared to original soil(MDD = 1710 kg/m3, OMC = 17.8%). Thus, the stabilizer
help the soil to increase its compactness where capability to support load is
increased. Based on constant head permeability test, it is found that coefficient of
permeability(k) of modified soil is higher than coefficient of permeability(k) of
original soil. Based on direct shear box test, the shows that the shear strength at
failure for modified soil is higher than the shear strength at failure for original soil.
Lastly, based on California Bearing Ratio test, modified soil has a higher CBR value
at 2.50mm and 5.00mm penetration, with 45.87% and 56.00% respectively,

72
compared to original soil with 13.99% at 2.50mm penetration and 20.21% at
5.00mm penetration respectively.

As a conclusion, majority findings from the test shows that in addition of 40%
of crushed waste concrete bricks to the soil had improved the engineering
properties of the soil sample. The addition of the stabilizer helps to increased the
bearing capacity and shear strength of the original soil, and also decreased the
risk of settlement and shrinkage of the original soil. The objective of the PBL was
achieved where stability of the soil is increased with addition of stabilizer.
Therefore, the modified soil was considered as suitable for use as a sub-base
material for a low-cost road construction.

73
6.0 REFERENCES

1. A. (2016). International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific

Methods (IJARESM). Effect of Soil Stabilization in Construction of Roads and
Strength Improvement, 4(8), august, 99-103. Retrieved April 22, 2019, from
http://www.ijaresm.com/uploaded_files/document_file/Ankit_Pannu1eGr.pdf

2. Adid Khan. (January 31, 2016). Soil compaction : Importance and Method
of Determination. EngineerFeed. Retrieved from
https://engineerfeed.com/articles/academics/soil-compaction-introduction-im
portance-and-method-of-determination

3. B.G, Anand & Agrawal, Shashank & Dobriyal, Ankur. (2018). Stabilization
of Cohesive Soil using Demolished Brick Waste. Retrieved April 22, 2019, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326972521_Stabilization_of_Cohesi
ve_Soil_using_Demolished_Brick_Waste

4. Coduto, Donald P., and Man Yeung. “Soil Composition.” Geotechnical

Engineering: Principles and Practices. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson,
2011. 128. Print.

5. Iit Guwahati. (December 31, 2009). Shear strength of soils. NPTEL.

Retrieved from https://nptel.ac.in/courses/105103097/45

6. Kashoborozi, O & Aturinda, E & Jjuuko, Samuel & Kalumba, Denis. (2017).
Use of Crushed Concrete Aggregate Waste in Stabilization of Clayey Soils for
Sub Base Pavement Construction. Retrieved April 22, 2019 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320774603_Use_of_Crushed_Conc
rete_Aggregate_Waste_in_Stabilization_of_Clayey_Soils_for_Sub_Base_Pave
ment_Construction

74
7. Lashari, Aris Widodo, Nur Azizah. 28 March 2018. California Bearing Ratio
Analysis on Kunduran – Goa Terawangan Road, Blora Regency. Indonesia. AIP
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5028071

8. Permeability of Soils: Factors and Determination. (2018, February 16).

Retrieved from
http://www.soilmanagementindia.com/soil/permeability-of-soils/permeability-
of-soils-factors-and-determination/13482

75