You are on page 1of 13

Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol.

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

LATERITE SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE USE OF


THE STANDARD PROCTOR AND COMPRESSION MACHINE

K. Ahmad1, Y. B. Yamusa1,2*and M. H. Bin Rosly1


(1Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru,
Malaysia
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Nuhu Bamalli Polytechnic, 810001 Zaria, Nigeria)
*Corresponding author’s email: yamusabello@gmail.com
Abstract
This research investigates the influence of compaction methods on the shear strength characteristics of
laterite soil. Comparison was made between static and dynamic methods of compaction in order to
ascertain their similarity and a better optional method. The use of compression machine is a probabilistic
method under uncertainties that is anticipated to produce similar results compared to the Standard Proctor
compaction method due to machine wear and tear. Therefore, this research compares the shear strength of
laterite soil compacted using Standard Proctor and that of compression machine. Basic indices and
mechanical properties of laterite soil such as specific gravity, Atterberg limits, particle size distribution,
compaction and shear strength properties were determined. The effects of moisture content, compactive
methods and the rate of stress-strain on the unconfined shear strength were also studied. The maximum
deviator stress for the laterite soil compacted at 26.4 % moisture content using standard proctor and
compression machine compaction are 459.35 kPa and 219.5 kPa respectively. The results obtained from
this study show that the laterite soil samples compacted using the Standard Proctor yielded higher
unconfined compressive strength compared to those compacted using compression machine. 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.

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.

2. Material and Methods


2.1 Soil Sample Collection
The laterite soil sample used for this study was collected from the hilly area near the Faculty of
Electrical Engineering at 1.5m below ground level using backhoe in Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Johor. The soil sample was then taken to laboratory for
experimentation.

2.2 Soil Sample Preparation


The laterite soil sample was dried for 24 hours in the oven at temperature between 105°C to
110°C in accordance with BSI (1990). After that, the dried sample was sieved through 4.75 mm
sieve to remove oversized gravel. All laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with the
British Standards (BSI 1377:1990).

2.3 Index Properties Test


Atterberg limit tests were conducted to find out the Liquid Limit (LL), that is the water content at
which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behaviour. The Plastic Limit (PL), that is the
empirically established moisture content at which a soil becomes too dry to be plastic. The
Plastic Index (PI) is the difference between Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit. Using these three
parameters, the sample is classified using Plasticity Chart of BSI (1999). Details about the
Atterberg limit tests procedure can be obtained from BS 1377: Part 2: 1990.
In the particle size distribution test, two methods of sieving are specified, namely dry and wet
sieving. Hydrometer method was used in determining the size distribution of fine particles down
to the clay size by sedimentation. Combined sieving and sedimentation procedures enable a
continuous particle size distribution curve of a soil to be plotted from the size of the coarse
particles down to the clay size (BSI, 1990). For this study, dry sieving, wet sieving, and

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.

2.4 Standard Proctor Compaction Test


In this study, the term Standard Proctor refers to the British Standard Light (BSL). This test
covers the determination of the dry density of soil compacted in a specified manner over a range
of moisture contents. The BSL procedures as outlined in BS 1377: Part 4: 1990 were adopted.
Dried sample of about 2 kg was passed through 4.75mm BS sieve and then 26 – 34 % of water
relative to dry mass of soil sample was poured in to the soil and thoroughly mixed. To obtain
proper distribution of moisture, the soil was put inside a plastic bag for a day (i.e. 24 hours) for
mellowing. The soil was then separated into 3 portions and compacted in 3 equal layers. Each
layer was given 27 blows of the 2.5 kg rammer falling freely through a height of 300 mm. The
soil was trimmed off using a straight edge after removing the extension collar at the end of
compaction, and measuring the weight of the mould and the compacted soil. At least two
samples for Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test were taken from the middle of the
specimen by inserting a 38 mm by 76 mm cylindrical steel mould. Finally, a representative
sample was taken for moisture content determination after the compacted soil was extruded from
the mould. The entire process was repeated at least four times within which the optimum
moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) were determined by plotting a graph
of dry density versus moisture content (BS1377, 1990).

2.5 Compression Machine


The compression machine equipped with hydraulic jack to compact the soil sample is the static
compaction method. The sample preparation is similar to the BSL compaction. The dry mass of
the laterite soil used was obtained from the Standard Proctor compaction moisture-density curve.
Likewise, the moisture contents used were like the moisture contents obtained from the Standard
Proctor compaction test between 26 - 34%. Then, the dried mass of the soil samples was mixed
with water to get the bulk mass and kept in an airtight container for 24 hours. Equation (1) was
applied to obtain the dry mass of soil sample. Equation (2) shows how the mass of water that was
mixed with the dry mass of soil was calculated. The bulk mass is addition of dry mass and water
content as in Equation (3).
⁄𝑣 (1)
Where; = 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑠 (g)
= 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (g/m3)
𝑣 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢 𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 (m3)
𝑀 (2)

Where; = M𝑎𝑠𝑠 of water (g)


𝑀 = Optimum Moisture Content (%)

(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).

Figure 1: Steel mould and plungers (UTM, 2017)

Figure 2: Compression Machine UTGE-0086 (UTM, 2017)


2.6 Unconfined Compression Test
The definitive method using load frame is adopted in this study as in BS 1377: Part 7: 1990
method for determining the unconfined compressive strength. The test was carried out on
cylindrical specimens of a length equals to twice the diameter.
For this study, three sets of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test were conducted and
averaged to determine the shear strength of the laterite soils. The laterite soil samples tested were
having varied moisture contents which are 26.4%, 27.8%, 30.1%, 32.3% and 34.1% taken from
the compaction tests. The first set of the UCS test was for the laterite soils that undergo soil
compaction through the Standard Proctor compaction. In this set, the soil specimens were
extruded from the Standard Proctor compaction mould. The soil specimens with size 38 mm
diameter and 76 mm high were extruded from the compaction mould using steel mould of that
size. Whereas the second set of the UCS test was for the laterite soil that undergo soil
compaction or densification by using the compression machine.

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.

Figure 3: Unconfined Compression Test Machine EL25-3516/01 (UTM, 2017)

2.7 Compactive Effort


To calculate the compactive effort or compactive energy for the Standard Proctor compaction
and compression machine, different mathematical formulae were applied. Eq. (4) was applied to
calculate the compaction effort for compression machine, while Eq. (5) was applied to calculate
the compaction effort for the Standard Proctor compaction (Asmani et al., 2011).

(4)

(5)

Where, W =weight of rammer (kN)


H = Height of rammer fall (m)
NB = Number of blow
NL = Number of layer

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

( )

Where, Pressure = 800 kPa


Distance covered by plunger = 52 mm
Diameter of mould = 38 mm
Height of mould = 76 mm

From Equation (5), Standard Proctor Compaction;

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢 𝑒

3. Results and Discussion


3.1 Index properties of laterite soil
Table 1 shows the index properties of the laterite soil and Figure 4 shows the particle size
distribution of the laterite soil. From the particle size distribution shown in Figure 4, the laterite
soil contains 29% fines, 34% sand, and 37% gravel. The average value of the specific gravity is
2.74. Furthermore, the Atterberg limits results revealed a liquid limit of 80%, plastic limit of
41%, and plasticity index of 39%. Based on these data, the laterite soil is classified according to
the BSI (1999) as very high plasticity silt with gravel (MV). The compaction parameters are then
used in assessing the shear strength of the laterite soil.

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

Table 1: Index properties of laterite soil


Property Value
Natural Moisture Content, % 34
Specific Gravity 2.74
% Passing BS 63μm sieve 29
MDD, Mg/m3 1.52
OMC, % 27.8
Liquid Limit, % 80
Plastic Limit, % 41
Plasticity Index, % 39
BSCS MV

120
Percentage passing (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)

Figure 4: Particle Size Distribution Chart

3.2 Standard Proctor Compaction


Based on Figure 5, the optimum moisture content is 27.8 % and the maximum dry density for
this study is 1.52 Mg/m3.

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

3.3 Unconfined Compression Strength Test


Figures 6 - 10 show the deviator stress (kPa) against axial strain (%) for both compaction
methods. The moisture contents of the Standard Proctor compaction samples and compression
machine samples are plotted in one graph to show the different of the deviator stress between
both samples. Based on these figures, the value for axial strain at peak stress increases with
increasing moisture content for both compaction methods. This is because when the moisture
content increase, thus the excess pore water pressure increase causing the axial strain to increase
(Ni et al., 2012).

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

Deviator Stress (kPa)


200

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.

H. Y. Ko, S. Stureand Massoudi, N. 2008. Unsaturated Soils. Advances in Geo-Engineering.


Proceedings of the 1st European Conference, E-UNSAT 2008, Durham, United Kingdom.
doi.org/10.1201/9780203884430.

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.

UTM 2017. University Teknologi Malaysia. Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory equipments,


ASTM D698, D1557, D1883, D1559; BS 1377-4, 1924-2, 598-107.

V. R. Dhawaleand Harle, S. M. 2016. Influence of Different Soil Properties on Shear Strength of


Soil: A Review. American Journal of Construction and Building Materials, 1(1). pp. 24-27. doi:
10.11648/j.ajcbm.20160101.14.

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

You might also like