Professional Documents
Culture Documents
14(2):304-316
Copyright © Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng
Keywords: Shear strength; Compression machine; Standard Proctor; Compaction; Laterite soil
1. Introduction
Laterite soils might contain high amount of clay minerals thus its strength and stability in
construction could not be guaranteed especially under the presence of water. Due to the plasticity
of the clay, laterite soil may crack and cause damages to building foundations, pavements,
highways or any other construction projects. Cracks also can affect the performance of
compacted soil liners in sanitary landfill and eventually causing leakage of contaminants that
will pollute the ground water. Therefore, it is important to determine the proper method of
stabilization of laterite soil to improve its properties. Basically, two common methods of soil
stabilization are mechanical stabilization and chemical stabilization (Yunus et al., 2015a; Yunus
et al., 2015b).
Compaction as one of the mechanical stabilization can increase the soil load bearing capacity,
prevents soil settlement when load is applied, provides soil stability, reduces water seepage, and
decreases soil swelling and shrinkage (Head, 2006). It is significant to evaluate the effects of
applying different densification methods on soil, as some characteristics of mechanical response
on densified soils are still poorly understood (Crispim et al., 2011). Compaction as a process that
fundamentally modifies soil structure is indeed a difficult task, when there are many number of
factors involved and associated to the interface and stress distribution in the solid, liquid and
gaseous phases, capillarity phenomena and osmotic pressures (Crispim et al., 2011).
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):304-316
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng
Two methods of compaction tests carried out through laboratory procedures are dynamic and
static compaction (Crispim et al., 2011). The Standard Proctor compaction is known as the
dynamic compaction because the energy produced is affected by the dynamic load of the
hammer. Meanwhile, static compaction is performed using compression machine, where static
load is applied to the soil sample in order to compact it (Asmani et al., 2011).
Some institutional and research laboratories prefer using compression machine to compact their
soil samples instead of using the Standard Proctor compaction. The reason is that compression
machine takes a shorter time to compact the soil and use smaller quantity of soil samples.
However, this option might result in soil properties variation due to the different densification
methods applied to the soil. Therefore, it is necessary to examine if the compaction using
compression machine gives equal or similar unconfined compressive strength as with the use of
Standard Proctor compaction.
The maximum value of the compressive force per unit area which the specimen can sustain is
referred to as the unconfined compressive strength of the soil. In very plastic soils in which the
axial stress does not readily reach a maximum value, an axial strain of 20 % is used as the
criterion of failure (BSI, 1990). Thus, this study investigates the effects of standard proctor and
compression machine compactions on shear strength characteristics of laterite soil for use as a
construction material in engineering works.
305
Ahmad, et al.: Laterite soil shear strength characteristics from the use of the standard proctor and
compression machine. AZOJETE, 14(2):304-316. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng
hydrometer methods were used to determine the laterite soil particle size distribution (BS 1377:
Part 2: 1990). The specific gravity test was carried out using small pyknometer method in this
study for the soil samples in accordance to (BSI, 1990). Soil sample and distilled water was put
into pyknometer and vacuum suction pump used to take out the air from the soil sample.
(3)
Where; = Bulk m𝑎𝑠𝑠 (g)
306
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):304-316
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng
For the static compaction method (compression machine), the soil mix (bulk mass) was placed in
a steel cylindrical mould of diameter 38 mm and height 76 mm. Then, the longer steel plunger
was inserted on the top of the mould and the shorter steel plunger on the bottom of the mould.
Thereafter, the machine was turned on and compressed the steel plunger until it touches the
mould, which mean the soil in the mould is already compacted. These steps were followed for
each moisture content i.e. 26.4%, 27.8%, 30.1%, 32.3% and 34.1%. Figures 1 and 2 show the
steel mould with plungers and the compression machine used for this study, respectively (UTM,
2017).
307
Ahmad, et al.: Laterite soil shear strength characteristics from the use of the standard proctor and
compression machine. AZOJETE, 14(2):304-316. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng
The procedures for the UCS followed; the mass of the prepared moist specimens extruded from
both BSL compaction method and compression method to the nearest 0.1 g are determined. The
specimen was placed centrally on the pedestal of the UCS machine between the upper and the
lower platens. Adjustment of the axial deformation was done such that the rate of axial strain
does not exceed 2 %/min. Then, applied the compression to the specimen at the selected rate and
recorded simultaneous readings of the force-measuring device and the axial deformation gauges
at regular intervals of compression. The test was continued until the maximum value of the axial
stress has been passed or the axial strain reached 20% of the soil specimen diameter (is used as
the criterion of failure). The whole specimen was removed from the apparatus and its moisture
content determined. The test was repeated for other moisture contents. Figure 3 shows the UCS
machine used in this study which is connected to a computer.
(4)
(5)
From the pressure meter on the compression machine, 800 kPa of pressure was applied to
compress all samples. By applying the formula, the compaction energy was calculated.
From Equation (4), Compression Machine;
𝑜𝑟 𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝑒 𝑜𝑟
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢 𝑒 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢 𝑒
308
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):304-316
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng
𝑜𝑟 𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑜𝑟 𝑒
𝑜𝑟 𝑒
( )
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢 𝑒
309
Ahmad, et al.: Laterite soil shear strength characteristics from the use of the standard proctor and
compression machine. AZOJETE, 14(2):304-316. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng
120
Percentage passing (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)
1.65
1.60
Dry Density (Mg/m3)
1.55
1.50
1.45
1.40
1.35
24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Moisture Content (%)
Figure 5: Dry Density against Moisture Content
310
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):304-316
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng
500
450
400
Deviator stress (kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Axial strain (%)
Densified by Standard Proctor Compaction Densified by Compression Machine
Figure 6: Graph of deviator stress against axial strain for both compaction methods at 26.4 %
moisture content
450
400
Deviator Stress (kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Axial Strain (%)
Densified by Standard Proctor Compaction Densified by Compression Machine
Figure 7: Graph of deviator stress against axial strain for both compaction methods at 27.8 %
Moisture Content
311
Ahmad, et al.: Laterite soil shear strength characteristics from the use of the standard proctor and
compression machine. AZOJETE, 14(2):304-316. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng
250
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Strain (%)
Densified by Standard Proctor Compaction Densified by Compression Machine
Figure 8: Graph of deviator stress against axial strain for both compaction methods at 30.1 %
moisture content
160
140
Deviator Stress (kPa)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial Strain (%)
Densified by Standard Proctor Compaction Densified by Compression Machine
Figure 9: Graph of deviator stress against axial strain for both compaction methods at 32.3 %
moisture content
140
120
Deviator Stress (kPa)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Axial Strain (%)
Densified by Standard Proctor Compaction Densified by Compression Machine
Figure 10: Graph of deviator stress against axial strain for both compaction methods at 34.1 %
moisture content
312
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):304-316
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng
From Figures 6 - 10, the maximum deviator stress for the laterite soil compacted through the
Standard Proctor compaction is 459.35 kPa, while for the maximum deviator stress for laterite
soil compacted through compression machine is 219.5 kPa. Both maximum deviator stresses are
at 26.4 % moisture content. The minimum deviator stress for laterite soil compacted through the
Standard Proctor compaction is 115.35 kPa, while for the minimum deviator stress for laterite
soil compacted through compression machine is 67.5 kPa. Both minimum deviator stresses are at
34.1% moisture content. This shows that the value of deviator stress decreases as the moisture
content increases for both compaction method. Also, it indicates that the lower the moisture
content, the higher the unconfined compressive strength of the soil. When the moisture content
increase, the clay particles separate from each other, thus the lubricity between clay particles is
enhanced and causing resultant decrease of friction between soil particles (Wang et al., 2014).
When the moisture content is decreased, the deviator stress increased due to the friction between
soil particles at lower moisture content which is larger than the friction between soil particles at
higher moisture content. On the other hand, when the moisture content is increased, the soil
particles swell with water content resulting to decrease in deviator stress (Tian et al., 2016). Soil
moisture content influences the soil failure mechanism greatly by decreasing the shear strength
of the soil (V. R. Dhawale and Harle, 2016; Osinubi et al., 2015).
Static compaction using the compression machine generate lower compaction energy compare to
dynamic compaction using Standard Proctor compaction (Asmani et al., 2011). This was proved
in the previous calculation of compaction effort values for both compaction methods. For the
same moisture content but applying different compaction energy, the higher the compaction
energy will increase the shear strength of the soil compare to the lower compaction energy (Ojo,
2013).
Figure 11 shows the comparison where the maximum deviator stresses of laterite soil samples
compacted through Standard Proctor Compaction and the compression machine against the
moisture contents. The shear strength of the laterite soil compacted using standard Proctor is
having larger values compared to the shear strength of laterite soil compacted using compression
machine. The values mentioned including both maximum and minimum deviator stress for both
soil compaction method.
500
450
400
Deviator Stress (kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Moisture Content (%)
Densified using Standard Proctor Compaction Densified using Compression Machine
Figure 11: Comparison of maximum deviator stress of laterite soil compacted using Standard
Proctor compaction and compression machine
313
Ahmad, et al.: Laterite soil shear strength characteristics from the use of the standard proctor and
compression machine. AZOJETE, 14(2):304-316. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng
Additionally, the dynamically compacted soil specimens have isolated pores while the statically
compacted soil specimens have uniform distribution of pores as shown in Figures 12 (a) and (b)
for the lowest moisture content and Figures 13 (a) and (b) for the highest moisture content
respectively. This is due to the different type of compaction on the soil fabrics which generate
different compaction effort or compaction energy. In a soil structure when the pores are isolated,
the soil can resist better to shear effort compare to uniformly pore distribution (Crispim et al.,
2011).
(a) (b)
Figure 12: Compacted laterite soil texture at 26.4 % moisture content
(a) Standard Proctor compaction sample (b) Compression machine sample
(a) (b)
Figure 13: Compacted laterite soil texture at 34.1 % moisture content
(a) Standard Proctor compaction sample (b) Compression machine sample
The difference of deviator stress between the Standard Proctor samples and the compression
machine samples is getting smaller as the moisture content increase. H. Y. Ko et al. (2008)
proposed that the static compaction involves relatively smaller shear strain compare to dynamic
compaction. This eventually induce an aggregation of the fines particles even for compaction on
the wet side of optimum moisture content. Thus, the deviator stress for the Standard Proctor
compaction on the wet side is having steeper decreasing gradient compare to compression
machine sample due to the reduction of soil aggregation as the moisture content increase.
Therefore, lower stress is needed to break the soil particles when the soil aggregation is low for
the for the dynamic compaction.
4. Conclusion
The results obtained from this study show that the laterite soil samples compacted using the
Standard Proctor has higher unconfined compressive strength compare to those compacted using
314
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):304-316
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng
compression machine. This is because of the kneading effect of the Standard Proctor compaction
which demonstrated higher UCS to that of compression machine. This behaviour shows the
reason why sheep foot rollers are preferable on field application as it compact the soil better than
smooth rollers. Moreover, the compacted samples displayed reduction in strength as the moisture
content increased for both samples compacted using the Standard Proctor and compression
machine. Reason is that when moisture content increase, the clay particles separate from each
other, thus the lubricity between clay particles is enhanced and causing resultant decrease of
friction between soil particles.
The compression machine takes shorter time of less than 2 minute (in other words, it is faster) to
compact and extrude soil specimen compared to the Standard Proctor compaction which takes
about 30 minutes to compact and extrude. Likewise, compression machine requires a small
amount of soil sample for UCS test because of the smaller size mould (38 mm diameter and 76
mm length) compared to SP compaction mould (105 mm diameter and 115.5 mm length). Thus,
less soil specimen will result to less soil wastage.
The compaction method affects the soil shear strength as confirmed by the UCS results.
Therefore, to obtain shear strength of soils for field applications, the use of static compaction
technique in laboratory requires careful investigation because it might not produce the required
representative results. Although more study is encouraged, it is expected that the results of this
study could be a stepping stone to address this issue of uncertainty usually encountered in
various institutional and private laboratories. It is therefore recommended to apply pressure
greater than 800 kPa on the compression machine to achieve better results.
References
Asmani, D., Hafez, M. and Nurbaya, S. 2011. Static laboratory compaction method. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 16, pp. 1583-1593.
BSI 1990. Methods of Testing Soil for Civil Engineering Purposes (BS 1377:Part 1-9). British
Standards Institute, London.
BSI 1999. Code of practice for site investigations (BS 5930). British Standards Institute, London.
Crispim, FA., de Lima, DC., Schaefer, C., de Carvalho Silva, CH., de Carvalho, CAB., de
Almeida Barbosa, PS. and Brandão, EH. 2011. The influence of laboratory compaction methods
on soil structure: Mechanical and micromorphological analyses. Soils and Rocks, 34, pp. 91-98.
Head, KH. 2006. Manual of soil laboratory testing, third edition. Whittles publishing, Dunbeath,
Caithness KW6 6EY, Scotland, UK.
Ni, J., Indraratna, B., Geng, X. and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. 2012. The effect of the strain rate on soft
soil behaviour under cyclic loading. 11th Australia - New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics: Ground Engineering in a Changing World. pp. 1340-1345, Australia: Engineers
Australia.
315
Ahmad, et al.: Laterite soil shear strength characteristics from the use of the standard proctor and
compression machine. AZOJETE, 14(2):304-316. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng
Ojo, EB. 2013. Investigation Of The Shear Strength Properties Of Some Compacted Lateritic
Soils. International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Hammamet-Tunisia, 21-23
February, 13, pp. 289-295.
Osinubi, KJ., Moses, G., Oriola, FOP. and Liman, AS. 2015. Influence of Molding Water
Content on Shear Strength Characteristic of Compacted Cement Kiln Dust Treated Lateritic Soils
for Liners and Covers. . Nigerian Journal of Technology, 34 (2), pp. 266 – 271.
Tian, Q., Qian, N. and Zhang, J. 2016. Shear strength features of unsaturated clayey sand by lab
test. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 1(24), pp. 1-9.
Wang, L., Long, W. and Gao, S. 2014. Effect of moisture content, void ratio and compacted sand
content on the shear strength of remolded unsaturated clay. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 19, pp. 4413-4426.
Yunus, NM., Wei, N., Yung, Y., Marto, A., Pakir, F., Hezmi, M., Abdullah, N., Abdullah, R.,
Hassan, S. and Saari, R. 2015a. Effectiveness of Canlite and Probase Stabilized Laterite Soil.
Journal of Advanced Research Design, 5 (1), pp. 17-30.
Yunus, NZM., Yung, YC., Wei, NT., Abdullah, N., Mashros, N. and Kadir, MAA. 2015b. Shear
Strength Behaviour of Canlite-Treated Laterite Soil. Jurnal Teknologi, 72 (3), pp. 91–97.
doi.org/10.11113/jt.v72.4019.
316