FINAL YEAR PROJECT

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA PULAU PINANG

A GUIDE TO IDENTIFY A RESEARCH GAP (CO4:PO12)

LEVEL 1:
IDENTIFY • STABILIZATION TREATMENT OF ROAD PAVEMENT MATERIALS
RESEARCH
AREA

• Currently, there is a lot problem that occurs to an existing road pavement in Malaysia.
One of the problem is caused by a road settlement which consume a numerous
number of maintenance cost This happens due to used soils are poorly stabilized. A
LEVEL 2: well stabilized soil is essential for construction apllication especially road pavement
RECOGNIZ construction in order to a longer service life of the road. Stabilization treatment can be
E done by utilizing material stabilizer which be categorized into three (3) main type of
soils; lateritic soil, fine soil and clayey soil.

• Refer Recognize Research Area Based on Mind Map

LEVEL 3:
APPLY
COGNITIVE DOMAIN

LEVEL 4: • Refer Develop Table of Comparison

ANALYZE

• Based on AASHTO Classification System and UCSC that have been obtained from the
previous study, lateritic soil geotechnically can be categorized as a problematic soil. With an
application of various material stabilizers or additives into these lateritic soil, it is proven that
soil engineering properties and its strengths are able to be gradually improved. Despite that,
some additive if being developed and disposed in certain quantity could lead to an
enviromental issues, which is another issue will be arised. There is a limitation for some
additive such as Coconut Husk Ash if applied to lateritic soil, as it is unsuitable for lateritic soil
with extremely high liquid limits.
LEVEL 5: • To prevent the environmental issue to be arise, using a clay soil as an alternative to lateritic
soil in road pavement construction can be established. Utilizing a waste materials such as
SYNTHESIZ crushed waste glass and mineral water plastic bottle as a material stabilizer may solve the
E negative impact of waste disposal problems that occurs nowaday. Sustainable in road
pavement construction can also be promoted into Malaysia, reduction of pavement thickness
while maintaining its stability leading to cost savings will also have an opportunity to be
accomplished.
• Besides that, using a fine soil with an additives applied can be considerably increase the CBR
value which used for determining the soil strength characteristics. However, the increment is
only small if compared to lateritic soil with material stabilizers adapted into it.

• Thus, to overcome mentioned limitations and problem an improvement of existing stabilization

treatment of road pavement materials can be considered. Using of Crushed Coconut Shell
instead of Coconut Husk Ash might resulting a distinctive outcome. Lateritic soil is proposed as
the road pavement materials because previous study had validate that there is an improvement
LEVEL 6: with large percentage of CBR value when material stabilizers are adapted into the lateritic soils.
EVALUATE according to Li Lian, Goh (2014) laterite soil has overlaid almost halves of the Peninsular
Malaysia area. it is essentials as there is more availability of laterite soil in comparison with
other type of soils.

FYP_SA_MAC2017
 FINAL YEAR PROJECT
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA PULAU PINANG

RECOGNIZE RESEARCH AREA BASED ON MIND MAP

Stabilization Treatment of Road Pavement Materials

Lateritic Soil Fine Soil Clayey Soil

Cassava Peel Fine Grained Waste Glass Crushed Mineral Water Plastic Bottle
Bagasse Ash Ash (CPA) Soil (HDPE) and Crushed Glass

Fine Brown
Soaked Unsoaked
Soaked (24H) Unsoaked Sand and Ahmad Fauzi et al. (2013)
(24H) Silver Sand

Joseph Ejelikwu Edeh,

Simon Terdoo Tyav and
Salahudeen, Kolawole Junwolu Lead Free Panel Lead Containing
A.B and Osinub et al. (2014) Glass Panel Glass
Ochepo, J et
al. (2015)
Coconut Husk Jute N. Davidovic, Z. Bonic
Stone Lime Fibres and V. Prolovic et al.
Ash
Powder (2012)

J.R. Oluremi, S.I Maity, J,

Adedokun and O.M. Nabil Al-Joulani Chattopadhay B.C
Osulale et al. et al. (2012) and Mukherjee S.P
(2012) et al. (2010)

FYP_SA_MAC2017
 FINAL YEAR PROJECT
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA PULAU PINANG

DEVELOP TABLE OF COMPARISON

Categories /
Type of Additives Advantages Disadvantages References
Soils
i. BA improved the CBR value of lateritic soil i. According to their findings,
when compacted at maximum dry density and Lateritic Soil is to be classified
optimum moisture content; 62% recorded at as A-6 using the AASHTO
Bagasse Ash Salahudeen, A.B
8% BA (highest CBR value). classification system and CL and Ochepo, J et
(BA)
using the USCS. This make it al. (2015)

geotechnically a problematic
soil.
i. California Bearing Ratio of the poor Lateritic i. Coconut Husk Ash is
Soil increased continuously with the addition of unsuitable for stabilizing soils
Lateritic Soil Coconut Husk Ash; ranged from 14% to 36%. with extremely high liquid J.R. Oluremi, S.I.
Coconut
(LS) ii. Availability of Laterite Soil and Coconut Husk limits. Adedokun and
Husk Ash O.M. Osulale et al.
Ash in Peninsular Malaysia can be guaranteed (2012)
as both materials are common in tropical
country like Malaysia.
i. Gradation of the CPA stabilized LS improved i. If generated and disposed in
with higher CPA content. large quantities resulting in Joseph Ejelikwu
Cassava Edeh, Simon
ii. While the specific gravity, liquid and plastic environmental problem.
Peel Ash Terdoo Tyav and
limits increased, linear shrinkage decreased Kolawole Junwolu
(CPA) Osinubi et al.
with increased CPA content.
(2014)
iii. 70% LS + 30% CPA mixtures recorded CBR
FYP_SA_MAC2017
 FINAL YEAR PROJECT
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA PULAU PINANG

values of 35% (unsoaked) and 55% (24H

soaked)
i. Substantial saving in the material needed for
construction of roads due to reduction of
Stone
Fine Grained pavement thickness.
Powder and Nabil Al-Joulani et
Soil ii. Addition of 30% stone powder and lime has al. (2012)
Lime
increased the CBR value from 5.2% to 16%
and 18% respectively.
i. Reduce negative impact of waste disposal. i. Limited usage of waste
ii. 80% Clay + 20% Lead Free Panel Glass = materials due to economic
6.9% CBR value. factors such as transportation
iii. 80% Clay + 20% Lead Containing Panel Glass costs and its treatment costs.
= 7.3% CBR value. ii. Only a combinations of 80% N. Davidovíc, Z.
Waste Glass Clay material and 20% of Bonic and V.
Prolovic et al.
Crushed Waste Glass have (2012)
been studied by the
Clayey Soil researchers; the optimum
percentage of mixtures could
not be identified.
Crushed i. Eliminates the need for expensive borrow
Mineral materials, expedites construction by improving
Water Plastic excessively wet or unstable subgrade
Achmad Fauzi et
Bottle conditions, and promotes cost savings through al. (2013)
(HDPE) and reduction of pavement thickness.
Crushed ii. Solving disposal problems and promoted the
FYP_SA_MAC2017
 FINAL YEAR PROJECT
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA PULAU PINANG

Glass sustainable in highway construction.

i. There is considerable increase in CBR value i. Adding a Jute Fibers into the
for both Fine Brown Sand and Silver Sand sand resulting in moisture
when mixing with randomly distributed discrete content to be risen up. It is
Fine Brown Maity, J,
Jute Fiber. more likely due to greater Chattopadhay,
Sand and Jute Fibres B.C. and
ii. CBR value is maximum when Jute Fiber water absorption in Jute
Silver Sand Mukherjee, S.P et
length 20mm is added 1.5% of Fine Brown Fibers. al. (2010)
Sand and Silver Sand; 23.8% and 48.5%
respectively.

FYP_SA_MAC2017