1.

1 Background

The residual soil are the products of chemical weathering and the characteristic

of the soil depend on the environment factors.(Townsend et al , 1985). There are a lot

of study about residual soil however until recent there are no exact definition of

residual soil. However , the Public Work Institute of Malaysia has their own definition

about residual soil. According to JKR Malaysia . “residual soil is formed in-situ by

decomposition of parents rocks and the soil is not being transport to anywhere.

(IKRAM , 1996). In addition , the residual soil also can be found in tropical region

which received heavy rainfall and warm climate such as Malaysia. According to Taha,

2016, 75% of west Malaysia were mantled by the residual soils. Residual soils are

known as a problematic soil which is cannot be used in most of the construction

because of low strength properties, in tropical climate such Malaysia the process of

weathering are much more faster compared to the other climates. Residual soils in

tropical region contain high volume of aluminium oxide(Al2O3) and iron oxide(Fe2O)

most of the soil are reddish color.(Marto , 2017)

Stabilizing the residual soil are the process where the soil are mixed with the

other material in order to increase the strength properties of the soil. Residual Soil

treatment are commonly practiced in geotechnical engineering application to increase

the strength properties of the problematic soils. Before the soil stabilizing method were

applied in the construction industry , the residual soil will be excavated and replaced

22
with imported materials to get the satisfactory strength properties. By applying that

method the cost for the construction highly increase because of the hauling and

dumping process especially in multiple terrains sites. (Latifi et al, 2017)

Nowadays, There are two methods normally used to stabilize the residual soil

which are non- conventional and conventional. The non-conventional method used

additives such as rice husk ash and market ready stabilizers such as cement ,

bituminous material and lime. These stabilizing agents has been proved that it can be

used in soil treatment and improving the residual soil strength properties. This

traditional method is widely study and the chemical properties of the agents are well

understood.(Chew et al , 2004). The second method to improve strength properties of

residual soil is by using conventional method. In conventional method the list of the

stabilizing agents are much broader than the non – conventional. The list of the agents

are such as enzymes , resins , liquid polymer , powder polymer , acid and silicates.

The reaction during residual soil treatment process are different for each categories of

stabilizers used and the stabilizer used are different according to the soil type and

properties . (Rashid , 2015)

Recently there are many research has been carried out to find a new material

that can be used to treat the residual soil. The conventional materials such as enzymes

, resin , epoxy , liquid polymer and binder and been used widely. For each types of the

stabilizing agent it has different effect and mechanism on the treated soil properties.

The strength properties of the treated residual soil focused in this research are shear
23
strength , reducing settlement and compressive strength and it will be determined by

laboratory test such as , standard proctor test , atterberg limit test, direct shear test and

unconfined compressive strength test.

1.2 Problem Statement

Recently the high quality of soil are very limited in many part of country and

it cause a lots problem to the geotechnical engineer , Eisazadeh (2016). The residual

soil is very well known for its unstable condition and it is not suitable for geotechnical

engineering application especially for high load construction which demand high

strength properties of soil such as foundation for building or road subgrade. This type

of soil usually can be found in hillside and of course it will increase the construction

cost because excavation and borrow purpose.

Normally, for construction purpose the engineers only have two methods

which are by excavating the in situ residual soil and the soil will be dumped and it will

be replaced with borrow materials. However, this method is very expensive and it is

also become a problem for the engineers to transport the material whether excavated

soil or the imported soil especially in mountainous terrain.

24
 The other method used during construction to provide high strength soil is by

stabilize the problematic soil using stabilizing agent whether traditionally or

conventionally. The stabilizing process of the residual soil using the traditional ways

are proofed as one of the efficient methods. However, based on the previous study,

stabilizing the residual soil using conventional method by adding chemical additives

can develop the strength properties of the residual soil within curing time, Majid

(2016). There are various of stabilizing agents such as rice husk ash, lime , liquid

polymer , resin , epoxy and binder.

1.3 Objectives

Followings are the objectives proposed for this study: -

i. To determine the strength properties of natural residual soil based on series of

laboratory test.

ii. To figure out the optimum strength properties of MUF treated residual soil

based on Unconfined Compression Strength Test.

iii. To compare the effectiveness of MUF treated residual soil between the

untreated residual soil.

25
1.4 Scope of the Study

In order to accomplish the main objective of this research scope study has been

planned The type of soil focused on this study are limited the residual soil only.

The residual soil are taken from the UPNM hillside 2-3 meter below surface

ground. The stabilizing agent used to improve the strength properties of the

residual soil is Melamine Urea Formaldehyde (MUF) in powder form. The

chemical powder used obtained from Al-Asia Chemical Sdn. Bhd. The sample

consist of untreated residual soil , and the MUF treated residual soil at different

percentages of stabilizer used. The percentage of the stabilizer used are 3% , 6%,

9% and 12% by weight. Series of laboratory experiments will be conducted for

both untreated residual soil and MUF treated residual soil by using reconstitute

sampling method.

26
1.5 Significance of the Study

This research is done to increase the strength properties of the residual soil by

adding the chemical additive known as Melamine Urea formaldehyde (MUF) which is

in form of powder. There are a few chemical stabilizing agents already developed to

increase the strength properties of the residual soil such as Liquid Polymer SS299

(Latifi & Rashid , 2016) , SH-85 a powder form chemical (Eisazadeh , 2017) and

Liquid chemical (Ali , 2012).

The stabilizing of residual soil using traditional method by adding lime, cement

or rice husk ash are very effective but it need longer curing time compared to the

chemical stabilizing agents.(latifi & rashid & siddqua , 2015). Stabilizing residual soil

using MUF powder can give a huge contribution to the geotechnical engineering as it

price is very cheap and can be bought at RM 1.30 per kilogram. The MUF powder also

can be found easily in Malaysia as it is widely used in commercial industries. The

succeed in this research can reduce the cost for the construction as the engineers do

not need to used the typical method by excavating the problematic soil and replaced it

with imported materials

27
1.6 Thesis Outline

In this thesis outline it will explain the steps and processes of the research by

chapter how the thesis conducted. This thesis contain five chapter which is Chapter 1

: introduction to the back ground of the study, where it will explain the properties of

the residual soil , the method applicable in treating the residual soil and as well as it

advantages in geotechnical engineering application. Other than that, this chapter also

will explain the problem statements and objectives of the research and the research

scope and the significant of research . Chapter 2 consist of the literature review which

is included the preparation of the materials and the techniques used to stabilize the

residual soil in this research based on the pass studies which is published in the journals

and articles whether in Malaysia or other countries. Chapter 3 focused on the

methodology and in this chapter it will explain in details the flow of research and the

procedure in conducting the experimental testing as well as the apparatus and materials

used for this study. Chapter 4 is the result and analysis of the study which is containing

the data of the experimental testing conducted. Lastly, chapter 5 is the conclusion and

the discussion of the study which assembles the result of this result and further

recommendation.

28
2.1 Introduction

Recently , many researchers come out with methods to stabilize the weak soil in

terms of developing the strength properties. In residual soil stabilization, there are two

methods practiced either conventional or non-conventional with various of stabilizing agents

available at commercial market. The residual soil which is mixed with the various of stabilizing

agent will be tested to determine the strength properties of the soil based on series of

laboratory experiments.

2.2 Residual Soil

Recently, the growth of population and economic has led to the increase of the large

townships, high standard highways and skyscrapers. In Malaysia the residual soils form the

largest group of soil and most of the earthwork project excluded the residual soil. (Ali et al

,2009). Most common problem related to the residual soil to be used as natural foundation

or filling material is the heterogeneity of the soil due to variation of the weathering profile.

Residual soil is the product of weathering process whether chemically or physically and the

characteristic is based on the soil environment and climate factor. As dictates by (Michelle et

29
al ., 2005) the residual soil can be found easily in the tropical region because the tropical

region received constant rain and warm climate and the weathering rate in tropical region

more rapid compared to other region.

There are a few engineering properties of the residual soil and it characteristic

depends on the type of soil. For example, the lateritic residual soil formed from gravelly

nodules to reddish clay and it can be the mixture of both. The residual soils can be categorized

into three types, lateritic residual soil, allophonic soil and black soil. For lateritic residual soil

it is clearly can be seen the reddish colour of the soil as there are high amount of Aluminium

Oxides (Al2O3). Other than that, the allophonic soil are the soil that formed from the volcanic

ash and this soil contain allophone (amorphous silica) and halloysite. The black soil presence

in dark clays and it is easy to shrink and swell because the presence of montmorillonite.

(Townsend et al, 1985).

A study by Sew (2009) stated that the standard specification on earthworks identified

that residual soil as unsuitable material to be used as filling material. The material other than

unsuitable can be used as filling element in construction. The definition of the unsuitable

material in this research are running silt, peat, toxic material, mud, slurry logs or any material

consist of high organic silt and clay. The soil which is clay with plasticity index exceeding 55%

and liquid limit pass 80% also can be categorized as unsuitable material.

30
 The residual soil is well known as it has a low strength properties such as high

shrinkage value, low compressive strength and high plasticity index. As stated by (Faisal et al,

2000) the characteristic of the residual soil are depending on the depth of the soil from the

ground surface. The different in characteristic of residual soil is because of the different

degree of weathering during the process. For geotechnical engineering purpose the residuals

soil which is weak need to be treated by adding the stabilizing agents (Latifi et al , 2017).

31
 Figure 1 : Weathering Of Tropical Residual Soil (Townsend 1985)

2.3 Soil Stabilization

Soil stabilization or soil treatment is the improvement of the load that can be exert

by the soil. The improvement of soil in terms of strength properties can achieved from
32
optimization and combination of soil with stabilizing agents. (Basha , 2003 The well-

established methods of soil treatment often used in order to increase the strength properties

of residual soil through cementing agent such as lime , rice husk ash and Portland cement.

As dictated by Ali (1992) in his research the soil which is found locally are different in

imperative aspect compared to the soil tested in other area. The properties of treated soil as

well as technical method and stabilization process of the soil are affected by the type of soil

and climate condition of the region. For a certain country it is important to understand the

local condition of the soil before the stabilization process being applied.

The rate of curing is much more rapid at higher temperature and the compaction as

well as strength of stabilized soil may affected by rain. (Dumbleton, 1962). The stabilization

of residual soil is very important in construction process in order to improve the properties

of the treated soil such as plasticity, maximum dry density , optimum moisture content and

strength. (Khan., 2016).

The method to increase the strength of the soil by stabilizing process is the most

practicable and trustable ways. It is also economical to improve the soil resistance, soil

strength, permeability and settlement. (Eisazadeh, 2010). By using the soil stabilization

method compared to other method such as adding reinforced soil or replacing the soil are

much better in term of progress of work, performance and economic aspect (Marto, 2013).
33
 The soil treatment also can be defined as the procedure of improving the

geotechnical engineering of the soil in order to obtain the predetermined objective whether

physically, biologically and chemically. In order to increase the soil strength properties and

reduce the settlement the use of chemical in soil treatment become most favourable choice.

The chemical being used as stabilizing agent due to its cost which is can be considered as low

and much more convenient especially in the construction process that required a lot amount

of soil improvement. (Saeed et al, 2012)

There are a lot of chemical compound used as a common soil stabilizing agent such

as polymers, resin, silicates and acid. However, the review on past researches has shown that

analysis done on traditional stabilizers such as rice husk ask, cement and lime are more

common when compared to researches done on conventional stabilizing agents. (liu, j et al

2011)

Recently, most of engineer in the construction industries peculiarly in geotechnical

region apply the soil stabilization technology in many areas such as foundation of building,

road construction, retaining structures and also being used to improve the coastal area of

site.

2.4 Melamine Urea Formaldehyde polymer.

34
 Melamine urea formaldehyde is the product of condensation between melamine,

urea and formaldehyde and it is classified as the thermosetting adhesive resin (Pizzi et al

1994). The MUF polymers strength are depending on the molar ratio between melamine,

Urea and Formaldehyde, the Melamine contain in the MUF polymer are the factor that affect

the bonding strength of the MUF polymer itself. The higher the content of the melamine in

MUF the higher bonding strength created and the melamine also reduce the emission of

formaldehyde when being compared to the other thermosetting resins like Melamine

Formaldehyde and Urea Formaldehyde (Bono et al 2003).

Melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) and melamine formaldehyde (MF) resins are

the absolute most generally utilized glues for exterior and semi-exterior wood boards and for

the readiness and holding of low and high pressure paper covers and overlays. Their principle

and critical trademark that recognizes them from urea formaldehyde (UF) resins is the higher

protection from water attack and climate conditions. MF polymer are costly because of

melamine content and consequently MUF resin are regularly utilized, since they have been

cheapened by adding urea. Up to a half of melamine can be supplanted by urea without

35
genuinely trading off the higher protection from water a and climate states of MF resins.

(Likozar, 2012)

Figure 2 Molecular Structure Of MUF polymer (Bono et al 2003)

MUF polymer are material which are integrated by the progression polymerization

of melamine, urea and formaldehyde under acidic or alkaline condition. Three response

36
arrangements must be considered, to be specific the formaldehyde expansion to melamine

or to urea by methyl development response, chain development or pre-polymer

development and lastly cross-linking or curing progress. There are a few contending

responses engaged with MUF pitch cross-connecting process which continue both

continuously and in parallel. (Scheepers, 1993)

As mentioned by Tohmura et al (2000), Melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) are

broadly used in industries to generate bond between materials such as plywood, particle

board and fibre board and it is already being used for 20 years. It is widely used especially in

the commercial industries because of its higher bond quality. The bond created by MUF

polymer were tested by the bond performance test. This test was conducted using Japanese

Agriculture Standard(JAS) for common plywood.

Based on the test performed, it indicates that the higher amount of melamine in

MUF resin will generate the higher cross-linkage in the structure when compared to the lower
37
amount of Melamine presence in MUF. One of the polymer of formaldehyde family is Urea

Formaldehyde(UF) resin and it can be classified as indoor pollution especially when exposed

to the high temperature as it emitted formaldehyde. The adding of the melamine content in

UF reduced the formaldehyde emission. However, until now the effect of the melamine

content to the environment and the cured structure still unclear. (Tohmura , 2000).

Figure 3: Result For Formaldehyde Emission Test (Tohmura , 2000)

2.5 Previous Research On Soil Treatment

There are a lots of past research has been carried out about soil stabilization. The

most popular and become choice in soil stabilization are by using the traditional way. the
38
traditional way has been used are by adding stabilizing agent such as lime, cement and rice

husk ash. However, the study about soil stabilizing using conventional method such as resin,

enzyme and polymer are become wider recently.

2.5.1 Rice husk ash and cement

As dictated by Khan., Loh., et al (2016) one of the method in treating the weak soil is

by using the industrial by product such as Rice Husk Ash. The rice husk ash (RHA) are by-

product of rice milling and it can be considered as valueless product. The RHA usually been

disposed by burning it in the heaps which is near mill. (Basha et al ,2005). The RHA used in

the research obtained from burning of the RHA in incinerator. The burning process of organic

material called as thermal decomposition and the ash obtained is fine size.

The ash then mixed with lime in order to create bonding characteristic and the

quality of the product are depending on how long it burned, cooled and the grinding

condition. (James et al, 1986). This research is considered as one of the traditional method

to stabilize the soil by adding the rice husk ash and cement to the residual soil. The cement

used are ordinary Portland cement and it is used as binder in soil treatment.(Khan et al, 2016)

39
 Figure 4 OMC vs RHA percentage (Khan et al 2016)

Based on the figure 4 the optimum moisture content of the stabilized soil increase

when the amount of the RHA increase. The rise of OMC in the treated soil because of addition

of RHA. The addition of RHA drop the amount of silt fraction and formed a coarser and larger

surface area. the coarser and larger surface need more water in order to compact the soil.

(Sarkar, 2012). From the series of the laboratory test, the optimum amount recommended

the addition of 10%-15% cement and 6%-8% RHA.

Figure 5MDD vs RHA percentage (Khan et al 2016) 40

 Based on figure 5 the MDD of the treated soil drop when the amount of RHA

increase. The decrease in MDD is due to replacement of soil by adding the RHA lowered the

specific gravity of the stabilized soil compared to the natural residual soil.

The strength of the residual soil will increase with lesser cement amount. The CBR

value also increase when the stabilizing agent added to the residual soil as the treated

residual soil CBR value is 74% compared to the untreated soil which CBR value is 16%. It can

be concluded that even though the rice husk ash has been proved as an economical and eco-

friendly stabilizer but it does not significantly increase the strength of the soil. A strong binder

such as cement and lime need to be added to the treated soil in order to pass the required

strength. (Basha ,2005)

41
 Figure 6 UCS value comparison (Khan et al 2016)

The addition of RHA and cement on Unconfined compressive strength test clearly

shown an increment and considered as effective stabilizer to increase the compressive

strength of the soil.(Mahmud et al 2004). The optimum amount of RHA and cement in order

to stabilize the soil is 15% and 8% respectively. The increase in UCS value when being treated

using RHA is due to lack of the cementitious properties (zerbino et al , 2011). As stated by

Hosain et al (1986) the addition of only RHA in stabilized soil just slightly increase the strength

of the treated soil and it is suggested to add binder such as cement to increase more in UCS

value.

2.5.2 Commercial Liquid Polymer (SS299)

According to Ali , (2012 ) and Latifi & Rashid , 2016) , stabilizing the weak soil is the

process to increase the strength properties of the soil by improving the engineering

properties of the residual soil. Residual soil is well known as unsuitable material that cannot

be use in geotechnical engineering application especially in subgrade construction.

42
 The stabilizing method used in this study is conventional method which is used the

commercial liquid polymer(SS299). SS299 is a new liquid polymer which is obtained from a

local soil stabilizer company known as GKS located in southern part of Malaysia.

The result stated that 6% (by weight) of the agent is the optimum amount to

increase the compressive strength of the residual soil based on the UCS test. The SS299 can

potentially be used as soil stabilizer as it can save time and reduce the construction cost.

However the chemical composition of the liquid polymer were undisclosed because of the

proprietary nature. With the new founding for residual soil stabilization , it can reduces the

cost for excavating and importing soil for construction

Figure 7 UCS result for SS299 treated soil

43
2.5.3 Epoxy Resin Polymer.

As dictated by Naini (2010) , The weak soil intend to susceptible to the various

settlement because of the low compressive strength high and low shear strength. In order to

cater the poor engineering properties , it come out with research to stabilize the soil using

epoxy resin polymer. The commercial product called epoxy resin (bisphenol A) used in this

study as it has high tensile and bond strength.

The silty sand soil used in this research which has different content of silts were

mixed with resin. As the stabilizing agent used in this research insoluble in water the soils

are oven dried for 24 hours in order to remove the moisture content in the soil , then the

soil will be mixed together with the epoxy resin. The curing time used for the specimen are

1,2,4,6, and 8 days and each curing times two sample are prepared. The UCS test are done

on all of the samples at rate 1% per minutes and the specimens are loaded until it reach 20%

of the axial strength. As for result , this research stated that the crosslink between the soil

particle increasing as more polymer added and the optimum curing time taken for soil to

react is 7 days.

44
 Figure 8 UCS result of treted soil

2.5.4 A powder form Chemical (SH85)

As dictated by Eisazadeh et al (2017) , Stabilization of the residual soil for

geotechnical engineering properties are performed using various of chemical additives either

using lime , cement or fly ash. Based on this research the new calcium based chemical

additive known as SH-85 is used to stabilize the tropical residual soil. The SH-85 is the calcium

based chemical produced from silica and its it used to stabilize the tropical laterite residual

soil.

Based on this research series of the UCS test are done in order to determine the

effectiveness of the SH-85 as the stabilizing agent to be added into the tropical residual soil

and it is examined over various of curing time. The residual soil used in this study were

45
excavated from 2 to 3m at UTM , Skudai , Johor Bharu Malaysia. After the soil were air dried

series of test were done to classify the soil collected including soil particle analysis and

atterberg limit test. After the 90% MDD and OMC of the residual soil are determined the SH-

85 were added to the residual soil then it was cured fo 3 ,7 ,14 28 and 90 days in room

temperature. There are various percentage of the SH -85 used in the research such as 3% ,

6% , 9% , 12% and 15% (by weight).

As for the result , it dictates that from the UCS result the compressive strength of

the SH-85 treated lateritic residual soil increasing by curing time compared to the untreated

specimens. Other than that , the optimum percentage of the SH-85 used to increase the

strength of the soil is 9 % and at 7 days of curing time the UCS result has increase 5 time

(1085 kpa ) compared to the untreated soil (226 kpa). The rapid compressive strength

obtained are resulted from the catalyst nature of the additive used in the study.

46
 Figure 9 UCS result For SH-85 treated soil and natural soil (Eisazadeh et al 2017)

2.6 Soil Classification

Determination soils with similar properties may be classified into groups an

subgroups according to their engineering behavior most of the soil classification systems that

has been developed for engineering purpose are based on simple index properties such as

particles size distribution and plasticity.

There are two major categories into which the classification system developed in the

past can be grouped. First, the textural classification is based on the particles size distribution

of the present sand , silt and clay size. Second, the other major classification system is divided

which is U.S department Agriculture (USDA), AASHTO classification system and the Unified

Classification System(USCS). USDA is base on the particle size distribution of the percent of
47
sand, silt size fraction in a given soil. The AASHTO classification system and USCS is based on

the engineering behavior of the soil and take into consideration the particle size distribution

and plastic-like properties.

General classification according to the USCS the size particles for fines such a silt is

smaller that 0.075 mm. Fine grained soil are classified when 50% or more passing through

No 200 seive. On the other hand, according to USDA system , the silt size should be between

0.05 mm to 0.02 mm in diameter and sand size is 2.0mm to 0.05 mm in diameter.

192.5 Unconfined Compressive strength (UCS)

48
 The unconfined compressive strength test is a test used to determine the undrained

strength of the cohesive soil. The UCS test is a simple laboratory test to recognize the

mechanical properties of rocks and fine grain soil. Based on this test it will provide the stress-

strain characteristic and the undrained strength of soil. The UCS also can be defined as the

compressive strength when an unconfined samples of the soil fail in a simple compression

test. This test is conducted based on the BS 1924 : Part 2 section 4.

The main purposed of UCS test is to quickly determine the unconfined compressive

strength of the rocks and fine-grained soils which has sufficient cohesion to be tested in the

unconfined state. The magnitude of the test then will be used to calculate the unconsolidated

undrained shear strength of the clay when it is under the unconfined state. The UCS test are

performed on the soil samples whether undisturbed , compacted or reconstitute cohesive

soil sample.

49
Figure 10 UCS apparatus

50
 Before performing the UCS test , after obtaining the OMC and MDD of the soil

sample, it is then put in the cylindrical mould 50 mm diameter by 100 mm height and the soil

sample will be trimmed so that the end of the sample are smooth and perfectly fit the mould.

The UCS test is performed by placing the sample into the loading machine between the upper

and lower plates. Before the test begin , the upper placed is adjusted so that it is in contact

with specimen and the deformation set to 0. Then , by applying the constant rate of axial

strain about 1% every minutes the test is started. The initial height and diameter of the

specimens are measured , it is suggested to determine the height and diameter of the

samples multiple time at a different place of the sample then the average is taken and

recorded.

The maximum value of the compressive force per unit area at which the specimen

can sustain is referred to as the unconfined compressive strength of the soil. In soils of high

plasticity in which the axial stress does not readily reach a maximum value, an axial strain of

20 % is used as the criterion of failure.

The axial strain ε of the specimen for each set of reading is calculated from the

𝛥𝐿
equation ε = 𝐿0

51
 Where

ΔL = the change of length of the specimen

L0 = the initial length of the specimen .

The force, P (N) is calculated for each set of reading by multiplying thechange in reading of

the force measuring device f rom zero load by relevant load calibration factor. Then , the

compressive stresses σ (kpa) is calculated in each specimen for each set of readings.

Where Ao is the initial cross sectional of the specimen.

52
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3

3.1 Introduction

This chapter is concentrating on research methodology and the problem

solving that has been found on the previous chapter. The flowchart of the all research
steps and activities planned are demonstrated in figure 3.1.

53
 Flow chart

START

Title : Strength Roperties Of Melamine Urea Formaldehyde (Powder) Of Treated Residual Soil
Objectives
i) To identify the stremgth properties of MUF treated residual soil
ii) To recognise the optimum strength properties of MUF treated residual soil

Literature review
> Geotechnical characteristic of residual soil
> Stabilization of tropical residual soil using calcium based powder (SH-85)
> Residual soil treatment by rice husk ash and cement
> Strength measurement and textural characteristic of liquid polymer(ss-299) stabilized residual soil
> Factor affecting compressive strength of soils stabilized with epoxy resin polymer

Methodology
1. soil sampling and materials preparation
2. preliminary test
3. series of laboratory test to determine the strength properties.

Melamine urea
Residual soil
formaldehyde

DATA ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

54
3.2 Materials

In this research there are a few materials that need to be provided for experimental
purpose. The materials needed are Residual soils and powder form polymer known as
Melamine urea formaldehyde.

3.2.1 Residual Soils

In this research the soils that have been used is tropical residual soil which is
easy to find in Malaysia. The residual soil used in this research is excavated from
UPNM hillside 2m to 3m below existing ground. For this type of residual soil it can
be identified by it reddish colour because of high amount of Aluminium oxide (Al2O3)
presence in this soil. The sample of the soil for this experiment also obtained as
disturbed sample as it is easy to collect.

Area of residual soil collected

Figure 11 : The Location Of Residual Soil. 55

3.2.1 Melamine Urea Formaldehyde

In this research , the agent used to stabilize the tropical residual soil is Melamine Urea
formaldehyde powder resin (AL-907P). MUF powder can be bought at Al- Asia
Chemical Sdn, Bhd located at Pulau Pinang , Malaysia for the price RM 1.30 per
kilogram. For this experiment purpose about 5Kg of MUF powder has been prepared.
Table 3.1 show the properties of the MUF powder,

Figure 12 MUF polymer in powder form

Properties Units Specifications Result

Appearance - White free flowing powder Pass

Solubility - Soluble in water Pass

Volatile content % Max 3 2.69
Free formaldehyde % Max 2 1.21

Viscosity at 30oC (2:1/67% solution) Cps 1000-1500 1423

pH at 30oC (2:1/67% solution) - 8-10 8.0

Gel time at boiling water (reactivity) sec 50-110 85

Table 1: MUF powder properties

56
3.3 Sample Preparation

About 15Kg of the residual soil samples obtained from excavation at UPNM
hillside are put in closed plastic bag. After impurities such as pebbles and root were
removed, the untreated residual soil was air dried under the laboratory condition. The
particle size distribution and geotechnical properties were obtained through
preliminary test including sieve analysis , compaction test, standard proctor test , direct
shear test and Unconfined compressive strength test(UCS).

For treated residual soil to achieve the optimum strength properties, the MUF
sample are divide into several percentage by weight which is , 3% ,6% ,9% ,12%. Then
, the soil and muf powder were mix thoroughly and for each samples the test were done
three times and the average is collected. After the samples of soil and MUF were mix
homogeneously and series of the test were done the treated sample will be cured for
7,14,21 and 28 days.

57
3.4 Laboratory Test

There are series of test conducted in second semester of final year in order to
get the strength properties of treated residual soil. All of the experiment involve in this
research are done in UPNM geotechnical engineering laboratory.

3.4.1 Particle Size Distribution

The particles size distribution for both natural residual soil were obtained from
the dry sieve analysis. The sieve analysis of the soil were conducted according to BS
1377-1990: part2. From this test we can analyze the type of soil and its contents. If
there are more than 10% passed through 63µm sieve the hydrometer analysis will be
performed. The dry soil that passed 425 µm sieve will be used in this experiment.

58
3.4.2 Atterbeg Limit Test

The atterberg limit test are conducted to determine the liquid limit and
the plastic limit of soil. The liquid limit test performed will provide the moisture
content of the soil when the soil passes from the state of liquid to plastic state and it is
also can be used to indentify the class of the soil. Next , the plastic limit test are
conducted in order to find out the lowest water content in the soil and it can be
indentified when the specimen start to crumbles when being rolled. The soil sample
used in this test are the soil that passing through No. 40 sieve and oven dried 2 hours
before the experiment are done. All the test carried out are according to the BS
1377:part2.

Figure 13 : Liquid Limit Apparatus

59
3.4.3 Compaction Test

The standard proctor test were conducted based on BS 1377-1990 : Part 4 in

order to determine the maximum dry density(MDD) and optimum moisture content of
the soil. This test are conducted for both natural and treated residual soil. The
preliminary standard proctor test are done at the early stage of the research to define
the properties of compaction for natural soil. The second test will be performed to
determine the compaction properties of the MUF treated residual soil with varying
percentage of the MUF powder.

Figure 14 Compaction test Apparatus

60
3.4.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength

After MDD and OMC were obtained from the compaction test, the UCS
specimen were prepared by static compaction. The samples then will be prepared in
50mm x 100mm cylinder mould. This test are carried out to define the mechanical
properties of the rocks and fined grain soil and it will provide the value of the stress-
strain properties and un-drained strength of the rock or soil . The UCS were performed
based on BS 1924 : part 2-section 4. For the treated residual soil , the sample will be
cured as soon after the test done and the remaining sample will be test on 7,14,21 and
28 days. The test performed on natural soil will be the control sample of this research.

Figure 15: UCS test Apparatus

61
3.4.5 Direct Shear Test

The direct shear experiment are carried out in this research to determine the
effective shear parameter of the soil, the cohesion and the angle of the friction for
both treated and natural soils. The experiment are carried out by placing the soils in
60mm x 60mm 25mm shear box. This test can be conducted either from the compacted
sample or remoulded sample . the specimens fos this test also can be prepared directly
in shear box by compacting the soils. The direct shear box test are performed
according to the BS 1377-1990 : Part 7.

Figure 16: Shear Box apparatus

62
 RESULT AND DISSCUSSION

4.1 Soil Classification

 64

Visual identity of the residual soil collected is a few sandy in nature and the colour of the soil

is reddish brown. The colour present in reddish brown due to the present of aluminium and

iron Townsend ,(1985). The soil contained small plant structure with a few disintegrated rock

. In –situ moisture content of the sample was not possible to carried out. The classification of

the soil at first were determined by Plastic Limit , Liquid Limit and plasticity index including

determination of the water content.

Particle Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Graph 1 : particle distribution analysis

64
 65

Coefficient of uniformity , Cu 0.378

Coefficient of curvature , Cc 0.96

Plastic limit , PL 25.21%

Liquid limit ,LL 42%

Plasticity index ,PI 16.79 %

Soil type Silt (MI)

Maximum dry density , MDD 1480 kg/m3

Optimum moisture content, OMC 29.2 %

Table 1 : soil properties

Based on BS classification. The soil is classified as Silt(M). The particle size distribution

analysis was conducted using dry sieve method. This test is carried out in order to determine

the various size of particle size of soil. This test carried out on natural soil using dry sieve

method. Pass research has stated the soil need to be air dried at room temperature before

the test carried out.(Eisazadeh , 2015). The hydrometer analysis is not carried out as not more

65
 66

than 10% passing 630µm. Based on the data , the plasticity index for natural residual soil are

low (16.79%).

4.2 Atterberg Limit Test.

Atterberg limit test is a standard experiment performed on both treated and natural

residual soil based on BS 1377 : part 2 : 1990. This test carried out to determine critical water

content of soil by requiring plastic limit and liquid limit. Plastic limit is determined as the

moisture content of the soil at condition when the soil behave as plastic. Liquid limit is the

moisture content when the soil passes from liquid state to plastic state. The liquid limit of

the natural soil is 42% which is high, as stated by Patel , N.A(2015) the higher trend of liquid

limit of soil usually has poor engineering properties nature and has low carrying capacity and

hard to compress during compaction.

moisture content vs No of Blow ,N

60
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

50

40

30

20

10 66
0
1 10 100
NO OF BLOW , N
 67

Graph 2 : determination of liquid limit

PI VS MUF PERCENTAGE
18 16.79
15.79
16 15.15

14 12.86
Plasticity Index (%)

12 10.68
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 3 6 9 12
MUF (%)

Graph 3 : plasticity index vs moisture content

67
 68

The natural residual soil without addition of MUF plasticity index is 16.79 % which is can be

categorized as low. Based on chart above , it is clearly shown that the adding of MUF powder

to the residual soil reducing the PI of MUF treated soil.

4.3 Compaction test (standard proctor test ) BS light

The compaction test is the process to reduce air voids of soil and the degree of compaction

of the soil is measured by its dry unit weight. The compaction test are carried out to both

natural and treated residual soil according to BS 1377 : Part 4 , 1990. This experiment was

carried out to determine the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density

(MDD) of the soil. The OMC is defined as water content at maximum dry density of the soil.

The OMC obtained from compaction test of untreated soil will be used to prepare

reconstitute sample for Unconfined Compressive Strength Test (UCS) in further section. The

graph 4 present dry density vs moisture content of untreated residual soil. The independent

curve is corresponding to percentage of MUF added to the soil. As stated in BS 1377 the 0%

air void line which is saturated line(S=100) should has not cross the curve.

68
 69

dry density vs moisture content

2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
DRY DENSITY KG/M3

1700
1600
1500
1400
1300 S = 100
1200
1100
1000 S = 95%
900
800 S= 90%
700
600
500 NATURAL SOIL
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

Graph 4 : dry vs moisture content

The OMC and MDD of natural residual soil that passed 5mm BS sieve firstly obtained.

Compaction test then carried out to the residual soil which has been mixed with various

percentage of MUF powder by weight.(3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%). The soil was not left for 24

hours to calibrate as stated by BS 1377 because the soil sample dry up after a few hour.

4.3.1 OMC vs MUF

OMC VS MUF
45
40
35
30
OMC (%)

25
20
15 69
10
5
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
MUF (%)
 70

Graph 5 : OMC vs % of MUF

Based on the graph of OMC against percentage of MUF , it can be seen that the OMC value

increase when MUF added to the soil sample. As dictates by Sew , G.S (2016) , the stabilizing

agent particle which is MUF is finer that the soil. The finer particle will have the larger surface

area, so more water needed to provide lubrication exceeding water absorption by MUF

powder. The higher content of MUF will adsorb more water as MUF powder are easy to react

with the water. Other than that , the increase of OMC are because of the additional water

held with flocculant soil structure resulting from MUF – Soil reaction.(Zhang , 1996)

The increase of OMC turned the soil into humid state in order to lubricate the soil

particle and help the MUF particles slide between larger soil particles to fill the gap between

void. The soil will become easy to compact and it will reduce the compacting energy needed

and compaction period of soil become shorter. This is clearly favorable when used on soil

with contain high amount of water.

70
 71

MDD VS MUF %
1550

1500

1450 0%
MDD KG/M3 3%
1400
6%
1350 9%
12
1300

1250
MUF PERCENTAGE

Graph 6 : MDD vs % of MUF

The figure above show the maximum dry density against MUF percentage , it is clearly can

be seen that as the percentage of the MUF powder rise the dry density of the treated residual

soil start to decrease. The value of MDD reduces as MUF percentage added , it is because of

different in both particle size and specific gravity of soil and stabilizing agent.(Rahman , 1997).

The highest MDD obtained is when 3% of MUF added and the least MDD is at 12% of MUF

added.

71
 72

4.4 Unconfined Compression Test

According to ASTM standard the unconfined compressive strength test (UCS) is the

compressive stress at when the unconfined sample of soil in cylindrical form start to fail in a

simple compression test. The UCS value is obtained at the maximum load carried per unit

area or at 15% of axial strain. The loading rate of stabilized soil in UCS test according to

BS1924, Part 2:1990 is 1mm/min.

The UCS is the most common and adaptable test of evaluating strength of stabilized

soil. It is also recommended to determine the optimum amount of stabilizer to be used in soil

treatment. The test were conducted on both untreated and MUF treated residual soil which

various percentage of MUF (3%, 6%, 9%, 12%). This test was carried out after obtaining the

OMC and MDD of the natural residual soil during standard proctor compaction test. The air

dried soil sample then mixed with the MUF powder at different percentage. The reconstitute

sample then taken to be cured for 7, 14 and 28 days at room temperature. The samples were

prepared using PVC pipe with 50mm inner diameter and 100mm height. Test conducted on

the untreated residual soil with 0% of MUF are used as controlled sample.

0 Days
250

190.87
200

139.49
UCS (kPa)

150
120.23
102.54
92.02
100

50
72

0
3 6 9 12 untreated
MUF (%)
 73

Graph 7 : UCS value against MUF % in 0 day

Graph 8 : UCS value against MUF % in 7 days

14 Days
450 406.21
400
338.25
350
300 73
UCS (kPa)

250 220.8
200 182.58

150
92.02
100
50
 74

Graph 9 : UCS value against MUF % in 14 days

The value of UCS for untreated soil is 92.02 kPa which is consider as medium

according to Das (2012). According to the graph 7 , graph 8 and graph 9 the value of the UCS

increased when more MUF powder added to the soil. As in graph 7 , the immediate reaction

happen between soil particle and MUF as we can see there is slight increment in value of

UCS. The UCS value rise about 10% compared to the untreated natural soil when 3% MUF

added to the soil. The value of UCS then increase proportionally to the percentages of MUF

added to the soil. After 7 days of curing period the UCS value for 6% MUF increase about

50% from its original value( 92.02 kPa to 189.25 kPa ).

UCS vs Curing days

450
400
350
300 74
UCS (kPa)

250
200
150
100
50
0
 75

Graph 10 : UCS value against curing time

The compressive strength of the MUF treated residual soil improves as the
percentages of MUF added to the soil increase and the main increment can be seen after 7
days of curing. The UCS value obtained after the mixing process has already shown an
improvement as more MUF added to the soil. The UCS value of the MUF treated soil also
increase during curing period.

UCS VS MUF PERCENTAGE

450
400
350
300
UCS (KPa)

250
REFERENCE
0 DAYS
200
7 DAYS
150
100 14 DAYS

50
75
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MUF (%)

Graph 11 : UCS value against MUF %

 76

Latifi, N., Eisazadeh, A., Marto, A., & Meehan, C. L. (2017). Tropical residual soil

stabilization: a powder form material for increasing soil strength. Construction and

Building Materials, 147, 827-836.

Latifi, N., Rashid, A. S., Siddiqua, S., & Majid, M. Z. (2016). Strength measurement

and textural characteristics of tropical residual soil stabilised with liquid polymer.

Measurement, 91, 46-54.

Basha, E., Hashim, R., Mahmud, H., & Muntohar, A. (2005). Stabilization of residual

soil with rice husk ash and cement. Construction and Building Materials, 19(6), 448-

453.

Khan, M. M. H., Loh, E. W. K., Singini, P. T.(2016). Stabilization of Tropical Residual

Soil Using Rice Husk Ash and Cement. International Journal of Environmental

Sciences.11(1), 73-88.

Latifi, N., Marto, A., Sohaei, H. (2013). Stabilization of laterite soil using GKS soil

stabilizer. Electronic Journal Of Geotechnical engineering. 18(C), 521-532.

Ali, F. (2012). Stabilization of residual soils using liquid chemical. Electronic Journal

Of Geotechnical Engineering. 17(B), 115-126.Rahman, Z. A., Ashari, H. H., Sahibin,

A. R., Tukimat, L., Razi, W. M. (2014). Effect of rice husk ash addition on

geotechnical characteristic of treated residual soil. American Eurasian Agriculture And

Environmental Science. 14(12), 1368-1377.

76
77

77