Sie sind auf Seite 1von 106

INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GEOTECHNICAL


ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF
LATERITE SOILS IN NILAI, MALAYSIA

Ahmed Sujeeth
BEng (Hons) in Civil Engineering

Project Supervisor: Dr. Eric Loh

Final Year BEng Project

April 2015
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF
LATERITE SOILS IN NILAI, MALAYSIA

A project dissertation submitted to the

Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERISTY

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) in Civil Engineering

by:
Ahmed Sujeeth

Approved by:

________________
Dr. Eric Loh
Project Supervisor

INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY


NILAI, NEGERI SEMBILAN

APRIL 2015

i
Abstract

An increase in construction and material use in tropical environments has made way for
engineering knowledge of related basic properties of soils within those areas. One such soil
found abundantly are the laterite soils. This study is based on determining the engineering
geotechnical properties of laterite soils which are observed to occur in the town of Nilai,
Malaysia. These basic properties were generally determined for non-problematic laterite soils.
Experimental analysis of earlier research as well as related journals on the same subject were
reviewed. Five sites were randomly chosen throughout Nilai from which disturbed and
undisturbed laterite soil samples at a depth of 1m were collected. The objectives of this study
were satisfied by a series of standardized tests done on the soil using laboratory equipment.
Comparison of the determined engineering properties were compared with properties of similar
studies done on laterite soils found in parts of the world.

The findings show particle distribution of laterite soils found throughout Nilai are very similar
in nature. While less than 10% of aggregates were present, the predominant material consisted
of sands of either medium or fine grains. Fines ranging from 4% to 21% were encountered
while the overall classification could be said as Sandy Clay (SC) or Sandy Silt (SM) material.
Natural moisture content range between 18 to 34% and mean value was observed at 26%.
Maximum dry unit weight (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) were found to be 16.4
KN/m3 and 16.4% respectively. The specific gravity ranges between 2.66 and 3.02 with an
average of 2.78. Plastic limits range between 18 to 28%, liquid limits 22 to 43% and plasticity
index 4 to 16%. Almost all samples lie above the A-Line meaning they are mostly inorganic
clays of either low or medium plasticity. Average cohesion and angle of internal friction are
16.2 KN and 25.2°. The unsoaked CBR ranges from 5.8 to 24%. Unconfined compression
strength (UCS) and undrained shear strength cohesion parameter (Cu) were found to be within
the range of 38 to 134 kPa and 19 to 67 kPa respectively.

Calculations of experimental data and its analysis with the use of spreadsheets have been
summarized in chapters 3, results published in chapter 4 and in depth workings shown in the
appendix.

Keywords: (Keywords: Laterite, Lateritic soil, particle size analysis test, Atterberg limit test,
British standard light compaction test, specific gravity, California bearing ratio, soil
classification, geotechnical engineering properties).

ii
Declaration

I declare that the study performed and consequent report of those studies are my own work
under the guidance of my supervisor Dr. Eric Loh. To my best of knowledge, this study nor any
of its findings and conclusions have been presented as part of final year project in Inti
International University, Nilai. All sources used for this study have been cited and duly
acknowledged.

Signature: ……………………....

Name: Ahmed Sujeeth


ID: I11009050
Course: Bachelor of Eng. (Hons.) in Civil Engineering
Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics
Inti International University
April 2015

iii
Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to thank my creator, Almighty Allah for granting me the
strength and wisdom to undertake this task. Secondly, I thank my parents for being constantly
by my side providing uplifting moral support in any endeavor I take.

Final year project (FYP) is the ultimate evaluation module and criteria for students in
determining their level of comprehension of the knowledge acquired throughout the course
of the degree program. During the said course, numerous lecturers with varying disciplines
of engineering aspects guided students in their respective appointed teaching classes. In
appreciation, I would like to acknowledge those lecturers who took the time and effort to
provide innumerable knowledge and guided the students in the required direction, ultimately
contributing in making this project a successful one.

I thank the faculty for granting me the means for finding and utilizing resources for research.

Special thanks and gratitude to my project supervisor Dr. Eric Loh in sparing time and
sharing insight into the different aspects of the task at hand. I thank him for generously
directing me towards valuable references and resources. I value his input and guidance
throughout the project.

iv
Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii 


Declaration ................................................................................................................................iii 
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... iv 
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... v 
List of Figures..........................................................................................................................viii 
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xii 
List of Photographic Plates ....................................................................................................... xv 
List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... xv 
List of Symbols & Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xvi 

1.0  INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 


1.1  Preamble .................................................................................................................. 1 
1.2  Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 2 
1.3  Aim and Objectives ................................................................................................. 3 
1.4  Scope ....................................................................................................................... 3 
1.5  Thesis Organization ................................................................................................. 4 

2.0  LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................... 5 


2.1  Laterite Historical Literature ................................................................................... 5 
2.2  Formation, Profiles & Occurrence........................................................................... 7 
2.2.1  Formation ................................................................................................ 7 
2.2.2  Laterite soil profile & horizons ............................................................. 10 
2.2.3  Occurrence ............................................................................................ 12 
2.3  Characteristics of Laterite ...................................................................................... 13 
2.3.1  Composition and form .......................................................................... 13 
2.3.2  Particle size and distribution ................................................................. 14 
2.3.3  Specific Gravity, Density & PH ............................................................ 15 
2.3.4  Atterberg limits ..................................................................................... 16 
2.3.5  Soil susceptibility to aggregation .......................................................... 17 
2.4  Drying and Hardening of Laterite.......................................................................... 18 
2.5  Classification of Laterites ...................................................................................... 19 
2.6  Construction using Laterite ................................................................................... 21 
2.7  Study area - A review ............................................................................................ 22 
2.7.1  General .................................................................................................. 22 
2.7.2  Climatic Data ........................................................................................ 23 
2.7.3  Geographical setting ............................................................................. 24 
2.7.4  Geological origins & status ................................................................... 25 
v
2.8  Critical analysis and context of review.................................................................. 28 
2.8.1  Research Techniques............................................................................. 28 
2.8.2  Research Diversity ................................................................................ 29 
2.8.3  Review Interpretation/Conclusion ........................................................ 29 

3.0  METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................ 31 


3.1  Introduction ........................................................................................................... 31 
3.2  Approach ............................................................................................................... 31 
3.3  Method outline ....................................................................................................... 33 
3.4  Sample collection & preparation ........................................................................... 34 
3.4.1  Collection sites ...................................................................................... 34 
3.4.2  Site and Soil Conditions ........................................................................ 37 
3.4.3  Sample preservation for testing............................................................. 39 
3.5  Test descriptions .................................................................................................... 41 
3.5.1  Particle size analysis & Classification .................................................. 41 
3.5.2  Moisture content ................................................................................... 44 
3.5.3  Maximum dry unit weight & optimum moisture content ..................... 45 
3.5.4  Specific Gravity .................................................................................... 47 
3.5.5  Plastic Limit & Liquid Limit ................................................................ 49 
3.5.6  Direct Shear........................................................................................... 51 
3.5.7  California Bearing Ratio ....................................................................... 54 
3.5.8  Unconfined Compression Test .............................................................. 56 

4.0  RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS & COMPARISONS ...................................................... 59 


4.1  Summary of Results............................................................................................... 59 
4.2  Particle size Distribution, Analysis & Classification ............................................ 60 
4.2.1  Particle Size, Discussion & Comparison .............................................. 62 
4.3  Moisture Content Analysis .................................................................................... 63 
4.3.1  Moisture content, Discussion and Comparison..................................... 63 
4.4  Maximum Dry Unit Weight & Optimum Moisture Content Analysis .................. 64 
4.4.1  Compaction, discussion and comparison .............................................. 65 
4.5  Specific Gravity Analysis ...................................................................................... 66 
4.5.1  Specific Gravity, discussion and comparison ....................................... 67 
4.6  Atterberg Limits / Consistency Analysis ............................................................... 68 
4.6.1  Atterberg limit, discussion & comparison ............................................ 69 
4.7  Direct Shear Analysis ............................................................................................ 73 
4.7.1  Direct Shear, discussion & comparison ................................................ 74 
4.8  CBR Test Analysis ................................................................................................ 77 
4.8.1  CBR discussion and comparison........................................................... 78 

vi
4.9  Unconfined Compression Test Analysis ............................................................... 80 
4.9.1  Unconfined Compression, discussion & comparison ........................... 81 

5.0  CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 84 


5.1  Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 84 
5.2  Recommendations ................................................................................................. 85 

6.0  REFERENCE ................................................................................................................ 86 

7.0  APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 90 


7.1  Particle Size Analysis Data.................................................................................... 90 
7.2  Moisture Content Analysis Data............................................................................ 95 
7.3  Proctor Test Analysis Data .................................................................................... 98 
7.4  Specific Gravity Analysis Data ........................................................................... 104 
7.5  Atterberg Limit Analysis Data ............................................................................ 107 
7.6  Direct Shear Analysis Data.................................................................................. 112 
7.7  CBR Analysis Data .............................................................................................. 127 
7.8  Unconfined Compression Analysis Data ............................................................. 132 
7.9  Progress Gantt chart Stage 1 ................................................................................ 148 
7.10 Progress Gantt chart Stage 2 ................................................................................ 149 

vii
List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Laterite brick making, India ......................................................................... 5 


Figure 2.2: Leached lateritic soil, Amazon forest (LUTGENS & TARBUCK, 2012) .. 6 
Figure 2.3: Outcrop of laterite, Northern Ireland ........................................................... 7 
Figure 2.4: Climate to weathering relationship (FOOKES, et al., 1971) ....................... 9 
Figure 2.5: Typical laterite Soil profile ........................................................................ 10 
Figure 2.6: Latosol soil (collective laterite) world distribution (http://www.nzdl.org) 12 
Figure 2.7: Laterite samples approx. 8cm (http://www.sandatlas.org) ........................ 13 
Figure 2.8: Aluminium rich Bauxite approx. 8cm (http://www.sandatlas.org) ............ 13 
Figure 2.9 : Laterite partcle distribution (BELL, 2007) ............................................... 15 
Figure 2.10: Casagrande Plasticity Chart (DAS, 2010) ............................................... 17 
Figure 2.11 : Temple at Angkor Wat, Laterite bricks used, 12th century Cambodia... 21 
Figure 2.12: Rainfall & average temp., Nilai (EN-CLIMATE-DATA.ORG, 2014) ... 23 
Figure 2.13 : Geographic setting, Nilai (Google Maps) ............................................... 24 
Figure 2.14 : Mountaineous topography, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan (Maphill.com) ....... 25 
Figure 2.15: Main laterite bearing soil locations, West Malaysia ................................ 26 
Figure 3.1: Project flow chart ....................................................................................... 32 
Figure 3.2: Sample collection sites (Google Maps) ..................................................... 34 
Figure 3.3: Mechanical shaker equipment .................................................................... 42 
Figure 3.4: Particle size distribution curve (ASTM, 2006) .......................................... 43 
Figure 3.5: Moisture content (w) testing ...................................................................... 45 
Figure 3.6 : Compaction mold and hammer, Proctor test (HEAD, 1992) .................... 46 
Figure 3.7 : Moisture – density relationship curve (DAS, 2010) ................................. 47 
Figure 3.8: Specific gravity experiment apparatus ....................................................... 48 
Figure 3.9 : Atterberg limits (DAS, 2010) ................................................................... 49 
Figure 3.10: Cone Penetrometer ................................................................................... 50 
Figure 3.11: LL graph (DAS, 2010) ............................................................................. 50 
Figure 3.12: Rolling soil to determine PL .................................................................... 51 
Figure 3.13: Principle of shear box test (HEAD, 1992) ............................................... 52 
Figure 3.14: Shear box apparatus ................................................................................. 52 
Figure 3.15: Shear strength curve (DAS, 2010) ........................................................... 53 
Figure 3.16: Shear strength parameters (DAS, 2010) .................................................. 53 
Figure 3.17 : CBR testing equipment ........................................................................... 54 
Figure 3.18: Standard load vs. penetration CBR curve (HEAD, 1992) ....................... 55 

viii
Figure 3.19 : Mohr's circle at failure, Unconfined compression test (DAS, 2010) ...... 56 
Figure 3.20: Unconfined compression test apparatus with failed sample .................... 57 
Figure 3.21: Unconfined compression strength, undisturbed & remolded................... 57 
Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution, all sites............................................................... 61 
Figure 4.2 : Proctor test results graph, all samples ....................................................... 65 
Figure 4.3 : Casagrande Plasticity Chart Results ......................................................... 69 
Figure 4.4 : Effect of drying & mixing time on Atterberg limits (GIDIGASU, 1976) 71 
Figure 4.5 : PI comparisons (ZELALEM, 2005) & (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) .......... 72 
Figure 4.6 : PI comparison (UGBE, 2011) ................................................................... 72 
Figure 4.7 : Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope, all sites ................................................ 73 
Figure 4.8 : Effect of water on shear parameters (GIDIGASU, 1976)......................... 75 
Figure 4.9 : CBR Curves, all sites ................................................................................ 77 
Figure 4.10 : Site A, Unconfied compression curves ................................................... 80 
Figure 4.11 : Site A, Unconfined compression test failure modes ............................... 80 
Figure 4.12 : Unconfined compression test interpretation (SCOTT, 1980) ................. 81 
Figure 7.1 : Site A, particle size distribution graph ...................................................... 90 
Figure 7.2 : Site B particle distribution graph .............................................................. 91 
Figure 7.3 : Site C Particle size analysis graph ............................................................ 92 
Figure 7.4 : Site D particle size analysis graph ............................................................ 93 
Figure 7.5 : Site E Particle size distribution graph ....................................................... 94 
Figure 7.6 : Site A. Proctor test graph .......................................................................... 99 
Figure 7.7 : Site B Proctor test graph ......................................................................... 100 
Figure 7.8 : Site C Proctor test graph ......................................................................... 101 
Figure 7.9 : Site D Proctor test graph ......................................................................... 102 
Figure 7.10 : Site E Proctor test graph........................................................................ 103 
Figure 7.11 : Liquid Limit graph, Site A .................................................................... 107 
Figure 7.12 : Liquid Limit Graph, Site B ................................................................... 108 
Figure 7.13 : Liquid Limit Graph, Site C ................................................................... 109 
Figure 7.14 : Liquid Limit Graph, Site D ................................................................... 110 
Figure 7.15 : Liquid Limit Graph, Site E ................................................................... 111 
Figure 7.16 : Direct shear graph, Site A, 5kg loading ................................................ 112 
Figure 7.17 : Direct Shear graph, Site A, 10kg .......................................................... 113 
Figure 7.18 : Direct Shear graph, Site A, 15kg loading ............................................. 114 
Figure 7.19 : Direct Shear graph, Site B, 5kg loading................................................ 115 
Figure 7.20 : Direct Shear graph, Site B, 10kg loading.............................................. 116 
ix
Figure 7.21 : Direct Shear graph, Site B, 15kg loading.............................................. 117 
Figure 7.22 : Direct Shear graph, Site C, 5kg loading................................................ 118 
Figure 7.23 : Direct Shear graph, Site C, 10kg loading.............................................. 119 
Figure 7.24 : Direct Shear graph, Site C, 15kg laoding.............................................. 120 
Figure 7.25 : Direct Shear graph, Site D, 5kg loading ............................................... 121 
Figure 7.26 : Direct Shear graph, Site D, 10kg loading ............................................. 122 
Figure 7.27 : Direct Shear graph, Site D, 15kg loading ............................................. 123 
Figure 7.28 : Direct Shear graph, Site E, 5kg loading ................................................ 124 
Figure 7.29 : Direct Shear graph, Site E, 10kg laoding .............................................. 125 
Figure 7.30 : Direct Shear graph, Site E, 15kg loading .............................................. 126 
Figure 7.31 : CBR Curve, Site A ................................................................................ 127 
Figure 7.32 : CBR curve, Site B ................................................................................. 128 
Figure 7.33 : CBR Curve, Site C ................................................................................ 129 
Figure 7.34 : CBR curve, Site D................................................................................. 130 
Figure 7.35 : CBR Curve, Site E ................................................................................ 131 
Figure 7.36 : Unconfined compression graph, Site A, Undisturbed sample 1 ........... 132 
Figure 7.37 : Unconfined compression graph, Site A, Undisturbed sample 2 ........... 133 
Figure 7.38 : Unconfined compression graph, Site A, Undisturbed sample 3 ........... 134 
Figure 7.39 : Unconfined compression graph, Site B, Undisturbed sample 1 ........... 135 
Figure 7.40 : Unconfined compression graph, Site B, Undisturbed sample 2 ........... 136 
Figure 7.41 : Unconfined compression graph, Site B, Undisturbed sample 3 ........... 137 
Figure 7.42 : Unconfined compression graph, Site C, Undisturbed sample 1 ........... 138 
Figure 7.43 : Unconfined compression graph, Site C, Undisturbed sample 2 ........... 139 
Figure 7.44 : Unconfined compression graph, Site C, Undisturbed sample 3 ........... 140 
Figure 7.45 : Unconfined compression graph, Site D, Undisturbed sample 1 ........... 141 
Figure 7.46 : Unconfined comrpession graph, Site D, Undisturbed sample 2 ........... 142 
Figure 7.47 : Unconfined compression graph, Site D, Undisturbed sample 3 ........... 143 
Figure 7.48 : Unconfined compression graph, Site E, Undisturbed sample 1............ 144 
Figure 7.49 : Unconfined compression graph, Site E, Undisturbed sample 2............ 145 
Figure 7.50 : Unconfined compression graph, Site E, Undisturbed sample 3............ 146 
Figure 7.51 : Site A, Unconfined compression, failure modes .................................. 147 
Figure 7.52: Site B, Unconfined compression, failure modes .................................... 147 
Figure 7.53 : Site C, Unconfined compression, failure modes ................................... 147 
Figure 7.54 : Site D, Unconfined compression, failure modes .................................. 147 
Figure 7.55 : Site E, Unconfined compression, failure modes ................................... 147 
x
Figure 7.51 : Gantt Chart, Stage 1 schedule ............................................................... 148 
Figure 7.52 : Gantt Chart, Stage 2 schedule ............................................................... 149 

xi
List of Tables

Table 2.1 : General Specific Gravity of soil particles (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) ....... 16 
Table 2.2: Common properties, laterite (BELL, 2007) ................................................ 16 
Table 2.3 : Annual Temperatures in Nilai .................................................................... 23 
Table 3.1 : Particle size classification systems (DAS, 2010) ....................................... 41 
Table 3.2 : USCS table (DAS, 2010) ........................................................................... 42 
Table 3.3 : Standard sieve number and its sizes (DAS, 2010) ..................................... 43 
Table 3.4 : Minimum amount of moist samples for testing w% .................................. 44 
Table 3.5 : T1 and A values.......................................................................................... 48 
Table 3.6 : General rating of soil using values of CBR (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) .... 54 
Table 3.7 : Standard force values (HEAD, 1992; BS:1377-PART-4, 1990) ............... 55 
Table 3.8 : qu and consistency relationship (DAS, 2010) ............................................ 58 
Table 4.1 : Tests and laterite soil property summary ................................................... 59 
Table 4.2: Particle size Analysis & Classification ....................................................... 60 
Table 4.3 : Natural Moisture contents, all sites ............................................................ 63 
Table 4.4 : Moisture content comparison values .......................................................... 63 
Table 4.5 : Proctor test results, all samples .................................................................. 65 
Table 4.6 : MDD and OMC comparison ...................................................................... 66 
Table 4.7 : Specific Gravity results .............................................................................. 67 
Table 4.8 : Specific Gravity comparison table ............................................................. 67 
Table 4.9 : Atterberg Limit Results .............................................................................. 68 
Table 4.10 : Atterberg limit & plasticity index comparison ......................................... 71 
Table 4.11 : Direct Shear resutls .................................................................................. 73 
Table 4.12 : Shear strength comparison table .............................................................. 75 
Table 4.13 : CBR Resutls, all sites ............................................................................... 77 
Table 4.14 : CBR comparisons ..................................................................................... 79 
Table 4.15: UCS results ................................................................................................ 80 
Table 4.16 : UCS comparisons ..................................................................................... 83 
Table 7.1 : Site A, particle size distribution ................................................................. 90 
Table 7.2 : Site B particle size distribution .................................................................. 91 
Table 7.3 : Site C Particle size analysis ........................................................................ 92 
Table 7.4 : Site D Particle size distribution .................................................................. 93 
Table 7.5 : Site E Particle size distribution .................................................................. 94 
Table 7.6 : Site A moisture content data ...................................................................... 95 

xii
Table 7.7 : Site B moisture content data....................................................................... 96 
Table 7.8 : Site C moisture content data....................................................................... 96 
Table 7.9 : Site D moisture content data ...................................................................... 97 
Table 7.10 : Site E moisture content data ..................................................................... 97 
Table 7.11 : Site A Proctor test moisture content data ................................................. 99 
Table 7.12 : Site A, Proctor test data ............................................................................ 99 
Table 7.13 : Site B Proctor test moisture content data ............................................... 100 
Table 7.14 : Site B Proctor test data ........................................................................... 100 
Table 7.15 : Site C Proctor test moisture content data ............................................... 101 
Table 7.16 : Site C Proctor test data ........................................................................... 101 
Table 7.17 : Site D Proctor test moisture content data ............................................... 102 
Table 7.18 : Site D Proctor test data ........................................................................... 102 
Table 7.19 : Site E Proctor test moisture content data................................................ 103 
Table 7.20 : Site E Proctor test data ........................................................................... 103 
Table 7.21 : Site A, Gs data ........................................................................................ 104 
Table 7.22 : Site B, Gs data ........................................................................................ 104 
Table 7.23 : Site C, Gs data ........................................................................................ 105 
Table 7.24 : Site D, Gs data ........................................................................................ 105 
Table 7.25 : Site E, Gs data ........................................................................................ 106 
Table 7.26 : Plastic Limit Data, Site A ....................................................................... 107 
Table 7.27 : Liquid Limit Data, Site A ....................................................................... 107 
Table 7.28 : Plastic Limit Data, Site B ....................................................................... 108 
Table 7.29 : Liquid Limit Data, Site B ....................................................................... 108 
Table 7.30 : Plastic Limit Data, Site C ....................................................................... 109 
Table 7.31 : Liquid Limit Data, Site C ....................................................................... 109 
Table 7.32 : Plastic Limit Data, Site D ....................................................................... 110 
Table 7.33 : Liquid Limit Data, Site D ....................................................................... 110 
Table 7.34 : Plastic Limit Data, Site E ....................................................................... 111 
Table 7.35 : Liquid Limit Data, Site E ....................................................................... 111 
Table 7.36 : Direct shear, Site A, 5kg loading data .................................................... 112 
Table 7.37 : Direct shear, Site A, 10kg loading data .................................................. 113 
Table 7.38 : Direct Shear, Site A, 15kg loading data ................................................. 114 
Table 7.39 : Direct Shear, Site B, 5kg loading data ................................................... 115 
Table 7.40 : Direct Shear, Site B, 10kg loading data ................................................. 116 
Table 7.41 : Direct Shear, Site B, 15kg loading data ................................................. 117 
xiii
Table 7.42 : Direct Shear, Site C, 5kg loading data ................................................... 118 
Table 7.43 : Direct Shear, Site C, 10kg loading ......................................................... 119 
Table 7.44 : Direct Shear, Site C, 15kg loading ......................................................... 120 
Table 7.45 : Direct Shear, Site D, 5kg loading data ................................................... 121 
Table 7.46 : Direct Shear, Site D, 10kg loading data ................................................. 122 
Table 7.47 : Direct Shear, Site D, 15kg loading data ................................................. 123 
Table 7.48 : Direct Shear, Site E, 5kg loading data.................................................... 124 
Table 7.49 : Direct Shear, Site E, 10kg loading ......................................................... 125 
Table 7.50 : Direct Shear, Site E, 15kg loading data.................................................. 126 
Table 7.51 : CBR data, Site A .................................................................................... 127 
Table 7.52 : CBR result, Site A .................................................................................. 127 
Table 7.53 : CBR data, Site B .................................................................................... 128 
Table 7.54 : CBR Result, Site B ................................................................................. 128 
Table 7.55 : CBR Data, Site C ................................................................................... 129 
Table 7.56 : CBR Result, Site C ................................................................................. 129 
Table 7.57 : CBR data, Site D .................................................................................... 130 
Table 7.58 : CBR Result, Site D................................................................................. 130 
Table 7.59 : CBR Data, Site E .................................................................................... 131 
Table 7.60 : CBR Result, Site E ................................................................................. 131 
Table 7.61 : Unconfined compression data, Site A, undisturbed sample 1 ................ 132 
Table 7.62 : Unconfined compression data, Site A, undisturbed sample 2 ................ 133 
Table 7.63 : Unconfined compression data, Site A, undisturbed sample 3 ................ 134 
Table 7.64 : Unconfined compression data, Site B, Undisturbed sample 1 ............... 135 
Table 7.65 : Unconfined compression data, Site B, Undisturbed sample 2 ............... 136 
Table 7.66 : Unconfined compression data, Site B, Undisturbed sample 3 ............... 137 
Table 7.67 : Unconfined compression data, Site C, Undisturbed sample 1 ............... 138 
Table 7.68 : Unconfined compression data, Site C, Undisturbed sample 2 ............... 139 
Table 7.69 : Unconfined compression data, Site C, Undisturbed sample 3 ............... 140 
Table 7.70 : Unconfined compression data, Site D, Undisturned sample 1 ............... 141 
Table 7.71 : Unconfined compression data, Site D, Undisturbed sample 2 ............... 142 
Table 7.72 : Unconfined compression data, Site D, Undisturbed sample 3 ............... 143 
Table 7.73 : Unconfined compression data, Site E, Undisturbed sample 1 ............... 144 
Table 7.74 : Unconfined compression data, Site E, Undisturbed sample 2 ............... 145 
Table 7.75 : Unconfined compression data, Site E, Undisturbed sample 3 ............... 146 

xiv
List of Photographic Plates

Plate 1.1: Weathering rocks, Nilai .................................................................................. 1 


Plate 1.2: Weathered laterite soil composite, Nilai ........................................................ 1 
Plate 2.1: Weathering sources of rock, Nilai ................................................................ 27 
Plate 2.2: Excavated hills & top soil removed, Nilai.................................................... 27 
Plate 3.1 : Site A sample collection .............................................................................. 35 
Plate 3.2 : Site B sample collection .............................................................................. 35 
Plate 3.3 : Site C sample collection .............................................................................. 35 
Plate 3.4 : Site D sample collection .............................................................................. 36 
Plate 3.5 : Site E sample collection .............................................................................. 36 
Plate 3.6 : Tube sample collection ................................................................................ 36 
Plate 3.7 : Site A, mica flakes and weathering rocks ................................................... 37 
Plate 3.8 : Site A, soil profile........................................................................................ 38 
Plate 3.9 : Site B laterite soil sample with high laterization ......................................... 38 
Plate 3.10 : Site C, weathering rocks ............................................................................ 38 
Plate 3.11 : Site C, soil profile and laterization ............................................................ 39 
Plate 4.1 : Mechanical seiving undertaken in lab ......................................................... 60 
Plate 4.2 : Moisture content experimentation in lab ..................................................... 63 
Plate 4.3 : Proctor test conducted in lab ....................................................................... 64 
Plate 4.4 : Direct shear plane failure, Direct Shear Test............................................... 74 

List of Appendices

7.01 Particle Size Analysis Data .................................................................................. 90


7.02 Moisture Content Analysis Data .......................................................................... 95
7.03 Proctor Test Analysis Data .................................................................................. 98
7.04 Specific Gravity Analysis Data .......................................................................... 104
7.05 Atterberg Limit Analysis Data ........................................................................... 107
7.06 Direct Shear Analysis Data ................................................................................ 112
7.07 CBR Analysis Data ............................................................................................ 127
7.08 Unconfined Compression Analysis Data ........................................................... 132
7.09 Progress Gantt chart Stage 1 .............................................................................. 148
7.10 Progress Gantt chart Stage 2 .............................................................................. 149

xv
List of Symbols & Abbreviations

Designation Units

LL Liquid limit %
PL Plastic limit %
PI Plasticity Index %
Gs Specific gravity of soil
w Moisture content %
NMC Natural moisture content %
AD Air drying with natural humidity
OD Oven drying at a temperature of 105 ºC
UCS Unconfined compression strength KPa
γ Moist unit weight KN/m3
OMC Optimum moisture content for compaction test %
γd Dry unit weight KN/m3
γd max Maximum dry unit weight (in compaction test) KN/m3
MDD Maximum dry unit weight (in compaction test) KN/m3
CBR California Bearing Ratio %
qu Unconfined Compression Strength KN/m3
AASHTO American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials.
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
BS British Standard

xvi
CHAPTER 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble

Laterite soils are a highly leached type of soil usually the product of intensive weathering of
variety of rocks. These soils are rich in iron oxide and aluminium. It is this iron oxide that gives
the soil its reddish colour. Laterite soils are commonly attributed to tropical areas with hilly
terrains, uniform temperature, high humidity and abundant rainfall.

Nilai is a town in the state of Negeri Sembilan, east of Malaysia and is considered a tropical
area with rather predictable wet climate throughout the year (MET.GOV.MY, 2014). Annually
it has been recoded to have an average temperature of 27.2 degrees Celsius and approximately
2223mm of precipitation annually (EN-CLIMATE-DATA.ORG, 2014). Upon first glance, it is
visibly covered in some areas with a reddish soil similar to the soils found throughout Malaysia.

Plate 1.1: Weathering rocks, Nilai

Plate 1.2: Weathered laterite soil composite, Nilai

Hence by default, the soils of that particular nature found in Nilai are assumed to be lateritic
due to appearance being in a tropical environment. These lateritic soils can be found throughout

1
the town. This soil does show similar characteristics associated with lateritic soils such as
colour, small particle size, absence of siliceous material and leaching of soluble materials from
the weathering sources of rock. (BELL, 2007).

Research on history of lateritic soil shows that it has been used for many generations as building
material especially if it is in a tropical area where it is found in abundance. This is frequently
evident from the structures still surviving from past generations made possible only due to the
favorable combination of characteristics and properties of this soil (LUTGENS & TARBUCK,
2012).

Lateritic soils and its properties have to be determined for it to be either used as a construction
material or to understand its limitations and impacts. For this reason, numerous tests and studies
have been conducted and published over the years. However in Nilai, for the most part, its
lateritic soils and properties have been assumed to have typical characteristics as those found
in other areas. Hence, little is known of laterite soil types and its engineering properties from
Nilai. To one’s best of knowledge, no research has been done on laterite soils found in Nilai,
nor studies similar to it has been done as part of a final year project in Inti International
University.

This study tackles the task of providing the relevant data on properties of laterite soil in Nilai.
Initial tests prior to determination of the said properties reveal that the soil under consideration
is indeed laterite soil.

As clearly stated in the topic, only laterite soil and its engineering properties and characteristics
are indulged upon in this study. Any deeper studies could not be made given the time limitation.

1.2 Problem Statement

Laterite soils in Nilai, its conditions, characteristics and properties are all too important in
determining the feasibility of its use in construction and also its behavior and impacts in
surrounding areas. Laterite soils has been attributed to being a construction material and also in
some cases, the failure of soil slopes which is a result of reduction in strength due to water
seepage (ALAYAKI, 2012). A soil study is needed to measure and record such data for
immediate or future use in planning where it is found in abundance.

Hence, this study is such an undertaking to review the nature of the laterite soil in Nilai and its
various aspects with regard to the particular engineering properties it has.

2
1.3 Aim and Objectives

This project aims to study the geotechnical engineering properties of five (5) lateritic soils
encompassing the town of Nilai.

The consequent objectives of this study are as stated below:

1. To critically review published literature to source the types and characteristics of


lateritic soils.
2. To determine various geotechnical engineering properties of laterite soils found in Nilai.
3. To analyze and compare the findings in this study to those found in the literature review.

1.4 Scope

The scope of the study is purely on the type of laterite soils collected in Nilai and its engineering
properties. Methods of determining the properties are ten standard soil tests done in the
laboratory based on guidelines stated in the British Standards 1377 (BS:1377-PART-2, 1990;
BS:1377-PART-4, 1990; BS:1377-PART-7, 1990).

The governing guideline used to obtain soil classification, moisture content, plastic limit, liquid
limit and specific gravity is BS1377-part 2:1990.

The governing guideline used to obtain maximum dry unit weight, CBR and optimum moisture
content is BS1377-part 4:1990.

The governing guideline used to obtain direct shear and unconfined compressive strength is
BS1377-part 7:1990.

Any other additional studies are not part of the study as it would require further research and
comparisons for which time does not permit.

3
1.5 Thesis Organization

This study has been organized into six chapters with subdivisions within the chapters.

The introductory chapter gives a brief description of the location of interest, background
information on the topic and the objectives of the study. Aims and scope along with a brief
summary of the study are stated here.

The second chapter is a full literature review of the subject at hand, describing the type of soil
being tested. Its origins, process of formation, classification and referenced to prior studies is
presented here. Considerations of using laterite soils as construction material are clearly
discussed as well. Soil sample collection areas and a brief description of overall geographical,
geological, climate and soil conditions are given. Photographic records have also been included
within.

The third chapter provides a step by step methodology of how the project is to be handled and
progressed in light of the objectives of the study. Testing procedures are clearly defined here.
The methodology is a tentative one with consideration to other studies done on the subject.

The fourth chapter deal with the practical aspects of the study where sample collection,
laboratory tests, data collection, analysis of the results and discussions are made. Photographic
records are also incorporated into the results as evidence. Comparisons of the results to that of
previous studies on laterite soil have been presented as well.

Chapter five concludes the project study. Recommendations have also been suggested for the
overall project and its phases of study.

In addition to these chapters, references and appendices relevant to the study have been
included.

4
CHAPTER 2

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Laterite Historical Literature

Laterite is a term derived from the Latin word ‘latere’ which means ‘brick’. The term was first
coined by an English surgeon Francis Buchanan in his manifold published journals and
observations during his travels along the western coast of southern India in 1807. He linked the
name to the highly ferruginous clay material which was used in the process of making earth
bricks. He described the soil content as being vastly distributed without the immediate
appearance of layers, having numerous cavities and pores, high iron content and so soft that it
could be cut with iron tools to the shape desired but later hardened like bricks once exposed
(RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980). The very first application of the word thereby was for the use of
laterite material in brick making in India and Cambodia (LUTGENS & TARBUCK, 2012).

Figure 2.1: Laterite brick making, India

In Asia, laterite has been well-known source of construction material as far back as a thousand
years. Basic methods of making laterite soil bricks remains the same, in which the excavated
soils are dug up, shaped and left to harden under the sun. In the tropics, buildings constructed
using laterite remain to this day in fairly good condition since chemical weathering had removed
the soluble materials during the formation of the laterite soil originally. (LUTGENS &
TARBUCK, 2012).

5
Figure 2.2: Leached lateritic soil, Amazon forest (LUTGENS & TARBUCK, 2012)

Latosol is a term used to define all tropical and equatorial zone soils having its dominant
characteristic as low silica-sesquioxide ratio, low base exchange, low primary mineral content,
low soluble constituents and some red colour. Hence this term is a collective term for lateritic
soils (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

Since Buchanan’s first expression of laterite as a term to describe the type of soil, numerous
studies have been conducted on other soil types. A common practice since then has been to
apply the term laterite to any kind of red soil and rock in the tropics that bares similarity.
Alternatively, over the years, laterite soils are known by many names such as Brickstone, Iron
clay, Ironstone, Murram and Ferricrete, to mention a few.

Although a few differences in interpretation of the subject exists, laterite soils and its studies
have yielded great increase in undivided understanding in knowledge of its origins, contents,
formation, use and impacts (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980). Consequent studies and resulting
discussions resulted in agreement among researchers that laterite soil are like fine grained sands
in varying sizes and classified as one which has undergone weathering and has a ratio of silica
to iron oxide and aluminium.

This conclusion although agreed upon, is not in its full capacity, accepted and practiced, leading
to frequent misuse of the term and assumptions made that any type of red soils are laterites. The
use of the term laterite to describe a broad group of tropical soils with similar properties is
simply misleading and untrue due to the fact that research shows differences in properties vary
with location, climate, topography and soil conditions. For this reason, any such type of soils
that show characteristics of laterites need to be investigated in detail for that particular area of
interest.

6
2.2 Formation, Profiles & Occurrence

2.2.1 Formation

Laterite soils are the consequent product of intense and long periods of weathering of rocks that
are usually associated with tropical and subtropical climatic conditions such as the Malaysian
peninsula with hilly terrains, uniform temperature, high humidity and rainfall. The original
soluble minerals are removed due to chemical weathering. The ultimate resulting product is a
highly leached soil type (due to water passing through soil) which has an accumulation of
hydrated iron and aluminium oxides. These laterite soils are hence insoluble and very stable
(UGBE, 2011).

Research suggests that an average annual temperature of 25°C is required for formation to occur
given the fact that tropical areas show warm and wet periods with consistence. Any deviation
from these observed requirements hinder formation such as in the case of excessively high
rainfall where laterites do not develop freely (CIRIA, 1995).

Observations made on rainfall suggests a minimum of 750mm precipitation annually is required


for formation of laterite soils. Precipitation levels above this mark results in greater leaching of
silica and reduces silica/sesquioxide ratio which in turn increases the degree of laterizations
(CIRIA, 1995). Sesquioxide rich clay is described as a ‘plinthite’ which either is the hardened
product of soft red mottles or the irreversible hard pans formed by the repeated wetting and
drying due to weather (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980; PEARRING, 1968).

Figure 2.3: Outcrop of laterite, Northern Ireland

The process of conversion of the weathered clay material to what is defined as laterite is due to
the removal of siliceous material which is brought on by the action of carbonated water present
in the soil. Also during the wet season, the soluble minerals are leached off by chemical

7
weathering. As the water table recedes due to dry season, minerals like iron that are mobilized
are oxidized. The dry season allows for the groundwater to be drawn to the surface due to
capillary action which precipitates minerals as the water evaporates. The minerals that are being
accumulated consist of hydrated peroxides of iron, aluminium and to some degree, manganese,
all of which fall under a given horizon of the soil profile. These hydroxide minerals are in fact
insoluble and makes way to the formation of impermeable lateritic soil at one point. When this
happens, the formation of laterite is hindered since no further leaching takes place. In many
laterite formations, as a consequence of these turn of events, lateritic deposits are found to be
less than 7m thick (BELL, 2007). In some cases it has been recorded to be 10m thick
(PEARRING, 1968).

ALAO (1983) describes the formations to be of three layers.


Laterite crust: Composed of a cellular texture and generally hard to break with a
geologists' hammer. Commonly found as boulders on slope surfaces, on top of flat-topped
hills and beneath the ground.

Laterite gravel: Found below laterite crust layer. At some locations, the gravel deposit is
only covered by a thin layer of soil.

Lateritic clay: Lateritic clay is often located above the weathered basement and below the
gravel or the crust and is comprised of very rich reddish-brown color. This material is often
is used in the construction of earth dams (ALAO, 1983).

MAKASA (1998) (ZELALEM, 2005), classifies soil formation as the three processes stated
below:
Decomposition: Physical and chemical breakdown of minerals with the exposure of
constituent elements (Fe2O3, Al2O3, SiO2, CaO, Na2O, MgO, K2O, etc) in ionic form.

Leaching: The combined effect of removing soluble mineral bases and silica and
accumulation of hydroxide and oxides of sesquioxides (oxide containing three atoms
of oxygen with two atoms of another element). This is called laterization. The extent to
which this process takes place depends on the rate and amount of chemical weathering of
primary minerals. Low level of chemical soil formation does not yield laterites but rather
clays with mineral kaolinite and sometimes hydrated oxides of iron and aluminium.

Dehydration/Desiccation: Dehydration of the sesquioxide constituent materials, its


composition and distribution is altered which is generally a fixed form and irreversible

8
upon re-wetting. The soluble minerals had long been leached and insoluble minerals are
left in place which is considered impermeable and more stable. Clay formation processes
are also influenced by dehydration. In the case of complete dehydration, granular soils with
cementation may be formed (BLIGHT, 1997). Dehydration occurs generally due to
climatic changes such as dry weather. Other reasons include upheaval of land and human
intervention.

The weathering of rock and resulting residual clay itself is the culmination of three types which
are physical, chemical and biological processes. The first stage involves the weathering of
parent rock and minerals. This releases internal energy and breaks them down to smaller
particles which has lower internal energy and hence formation of more stable soils. This
physical weathering increases the surface area which makes way for chemical weathering to
take place. Both physical and chemical weathering can be a direct outcome of biological
weathering processes such as tree roots making way into the rock joints and cracks and
eventually prying the rocks apart (BLIGHT, 1997). The weathering can be affected by at least
five factors which directly influence the end product. These are parent material, living
organisms (mostly vegetation), topography, climate and time (PEARRING, 1968).

The importance of relating weathering process to mean rainfall and temperature is shown in
Figure 2.4 below. According to Malaysian mean rainfall and temperature recordings, its
weathering mechanism is strong in chemical weathering, shown marked as ‘x’ (FOOKES, et
al., 1971).

Figure 2.4: Climate to weathering relationship (FOOKES, et al., 1971)

9
Topography and climatic conditions have a direct influence on the rate of weathering.
Topography is linked to the rate of weathering partly by factors such as amount of water
available and the rate at which it moves through the weathering zone. Topography also is found
to control the profile of soil by controlling the rate of erosion of surface weathered material.
Evidence of this is the deeper profiles found in valleys and gentle slopes in contrast to higher
ground and steep slopes. In places where humidity and moisture is in abundance, chemical
weathering rate is found to be more compared to that of dry climate areas where physical
wreathing is predominant. (BLIGHT, 1997).

The angle of slope determines the water content moving through the weathering zones.
Generally, steeper slopes do not favor of deep weathering as seepage rate is higher. Deep soil
profiles are produced in significantly flat slopes due to uninterrupted periods of weathering.
Level grounds are subject to other types of soil dominate the grounds since water seepage is
impeded. According to RAYCHACDHURI and CHAKRAVORTY (1940), negative
correlation with the SiO2/Al2O3 ratios are associated with annual rainfall and altitude of the clay
fractions of Indian lateritic soils (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

2.2.2 Laterite soil profile & horizons

Throughout the tropics, weathered residual soils occur in


numerous forms, among which the most common
residual soil profile is the weathering profile of laterite.
These profiles are deemed as those having lateritic
horizons (layers) or those capable of developing lateritic
horizons under favorable conditions. (MUSTAPHA &
ALHASSAN, 2012).

Below the humus stained top soil, lateritic weathering


profile can be distinguished into three major horizons
(MUSTAPHA & ALHASSAN, 2012). Figure 2.5: Typical laterite Soil profile

i. Lateritic horizons with rich sesquioxides: They are either gravelly or hardened in-situ
forms. The so called ground water laterites with low permeability and rainfall are
indurated/hardened with iron compounds. These profiles are thick and formed from any
parent rock material under typical drainage conditions of a tropical high temperature
climate.
ii. Mottled zone with hints of sesquioxide enrichment. Deep reddish soil profiles with

10
rich iron and aluminium oxide due to basic weathering of igneous rock under
moderately good drainage in seasonally high rainfall regions. These profiles contain
small pea-sized concretions. Below this is a mottled red layer which may be soft in
nature but dries out to hard lumps when exposed to atmosphere. Such hardened types of
laterite soils are quarried for use in road construction.
iii. Horizon that overlies parent rock, referred as leached or pallid zone. This zone
contains rocks which has mineralogical and chemical changes although physical
appearance remains the same.

It is generally considered that the weathered residue is uniform with depth, i.e. constituents and
properties are assumed to be same. Although much work has been done on laterite soils, little
is study has been made on the weathering horizons and the characteristic change with depth.
These studies suggest weathering laterite products vary in geotechnical properties, chemically
and physic-chemically in horizontal and vertical directions (MUSTAPHA & ALHASSAN,
2012).

BELLO & ADEGOKE (2010) described the profiles of laterite soils are of three types in
general:
(1) Overlaying soil, direction of transport downwards
(2) Underlying weathered rock, direction of transport upwards
(3) Laterites in which crust material is detrital (deposited, precipitated and transported)

Laterites may occur as unhardened clayey deposits, gravels, or as hard pans on the surface.
Thus the geotechnical properties and characteristics have direct relationships to the pedological
factors (topography, weathering period, climate, vegetation and parent material), degree of
weathering, depth of soil in profile and position on the topographic site (BELLO & ADEGOKE,
2010).

The compact B horizon in Figure 2.5 hinders root penetration. The water or moisture levels in
this profile is considered low since retention is relatively low (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

11
2.2.3 Occurrence

Laterite and lateritic soils are largely predominant to tropical areas with moist climate.
Coverage of laterites around the world mainly pertain to Africa, India, Australia, South-east
Asia, Central America and South America. Residual soil and especially recent lateritic soils are
present dominantly in major parts of south-east Asia, Laos, Vietnam and Malaysia (CIRIA,
1995). These locations generally fall between latitudes 35oS and 35oN (BELLO & ADEGOKE,
2010). A collective laterite world occurrence and distribution map is shown in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Latosol soil (collective laterite) world distribution (http://www.nzdl.org)

Geological plate movement and shifting has continuously distributed laterites outside the
tropical zones. In India for example, it has been roughly suggested to cover 248,000 sq.
kilometers, largely on the summits of hills. All laterite soils in occurrence are have a poor lime
and magnesia content while nitrogen is absent altogether (CIRIA, 1995).

High level and low level laterite classification pertains to the altitude of occurrence in which
high level laterites are found 2000 ft. above sea level and low level laterites below that mark.
In Tamil Nadu, India, high level laterites soils are found to be more acidic while rich in plant
nutrients. Low level laterites are found to have poor organic nutrient content. This occurrence
is just one of many varieties of situations found throughout the world in terms of soil
constituents (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

12
Basaltic and granitic hills in India have been observed to have laterite soil capping. Plateaus in
this region occasionally are found to have considerable thickness of laterite soil.

2.3 Characteristics of Laterite

2.3.1 Composition and form

The residual clays formed from weathering are basically enriched with insoluble deposits of
hydroxides of ferric iron and aluminium. This coupled with the removal or leaching of silica
due the humid conditions of the region results in a hydrated form of iron and aluminium oxides
(BELL, 2007). It is important to note that the constituents of the soil is taken as a criterion of
laterite. Laterites that are poor in iron oxides and rich in aluminum oxides are called bauxites.
The iron oxide content accumulation gives the soil its distinctive reddish colour ranging from
light red through bright red and also brown shades (BELL, 2007).

Figure 2.7: Laterite samples approx. 8cm (http://www.sandatlas.org)

Figure 2.8: Aluminium rich Bauxite approx. 8cm (http://www.sandatlas.org)

The word laterite is defined by geologists as a varying proportion of mixtures of hydroxides of


iron and aluminium with other quantities of substances mixed together. It is also described as
plastic, mostly fine grained, volumetrically inactive, high iron content with red colour. This
term has been used broadly by Civil Engineers to describe all red colored soils of the tropics.
13
Although the red colour is due to the high iron oxides, the early stages of formation and
development may limit the quantities of oxides which makes the soil inadequate to impart on
colour (PEARRING, 1968).

Apart from being enriched with iron and aluminium oxides, laterite soils are also rich in
sesquioxides which are secondary oxides of iron and aluminium while being low in bases and
primary silicates. Identifiable amounts of quarts and kaolinite may also be found.

The degree of laterization is expressed as the silica to sesquioxides ratio. The ratios SiO2/ Fe2O3
and Al2O3 are (BELL, 2007; PEARRING, 1968):
Ratio < 1.33 = Laterite soils
1.33 < Ratio < 2 = Indication of laterite soils
Ratio > 2 = Non lateritic soils

Under the right conditions, lateritic soils become impermeable in nature and are found in
cemented continuous or honeycombed mass and also as gravels. Honeycombed masses are
crumbly in nature and confined to the surface (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

Laterite sediment areas are particularly hard enough under certain conditions with almost
negligible settlement effects (BLIGHT, 1997). It is also this property that makes it ideal in
certain parts of the world to use it as a road base (SCOTT, 1980). However one drawback is
that the strength of soil may decrease with increase in depth.

2.3.2 Particle size and distribution

Although laterite soil is most commonly associated with clay like fine grained particles, all
shapes and sizes ranging from fine to gravel have been observed throughout the world. They
are found to occur from loose to massive sizes although most commonly in fine to coarse
grained composition. Those larger sizes include pea sized gravel to 3 inch gravels and in rare
cases, even larger cemented masses. Figure 2.9 shows typical laterite particle distribution. They
may be at times found to contain nodules or concretions especially in areas where high
concentrations of oxides occur. Higher oxide concentrations gives rise to laterite formation
(BELL, 2007).

14
Figure 2.9 : Laterite partcle distribution (BELL, 2007)

The engineering properties of laterite soil is affected by the different grain size distribution
which has a direct influence on the usability of laterite soils in construction works (OMOTOSO,
et al., 2012).

UGBE (2011) in his research utilizes particle size distribution using AASHTO, plasticity,
maximum dry density and California bearing ratio as the means to determining the properties
of laterite soils in Niger Delta. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) is a soil classification system developed in 1929 as the system for
classification of Public Road Administration (DAS, 2010).

Research done on particle size distribution and analysis clarifies that influence of seasons and
flooding has an effect on the dominant percentage fines. The general classification of laterites
based on particle size fine to medium grained soils compromising of mainly clayey sands and
sandy clays. High content of clays and extremely less or absence of gravel is evident from
research (UGBE, 2011).

2.3.3 Specific Gravity, Density & PH

The specific gravity (Gs) of soil is defined as the ratio of the unit weight of soil to the unit
weight of water at 20ºC. Hence, the smaller the size of laterite particles, the higher the specific
gravity. GIDIGASU (1976) states that the range is between 2.55 and 3.0 or 4.6 depending on
the state of laterization. The specific gravity is dependent on the mineralogy and density of the

15
individual soil particles. This property can be found in the laboratory and is often used in
calculations for soil mechanics where ultimately the values help in either classifying the soil or
comparing it to soils with applications or precautions (DAS, 2010; GIDIGASU, 1976). Typical
values of specific gravity of soil particles are given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 : General Specific Gravity of soil particles (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012)

RAYACHANDHURI (1980) reports the density of laterite to be moderately high 2.5 to 3.6. It
has been found to contain secondary aluminium and may contain quartz & kaolinite although
low in silica and absent in humus. Laterite soils are low in organic nutrients levels of calcium,
potassium and phosphorous in general. PH levels range from 4.8 to 5.5 while nitrogen levels
generally fall within 0.03 to 0.06 percent. Hence with respect to nutrient content and physical
characteristics, laterite soils have low agricultural value (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980;
PEARRING, 1968).

2.3.4 Atterberg limits

Atterberg consistency limit tests are the shrinkage limit (SL), liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit
(PL) test from which engineering properties could be estimated for fine grained soils (SCOTT,
1980). The limit tests are a measure of critical water content in percentage. Laterite soil liquid
limit does not generally exceed 60% at or near the surface. Plasticity index has been found to
be less than 30% average. For this reason, laterite soils are of low to medium plasticity. Low
plasticity translates to absence of expandable clay. Plasticity index can also inadvertently lead
to soil swelling determination (UGBE, 2011). Table 2.2 shows some of the engineering
properties of laterite soils (BELL, 2007).

Table 2.2: Common properties, laterite (BELL, 2007)

16
Casagrande plasticity chart utilizes the plasticity index versus the liquid limit in correlation to
determine several physical soil parameters and also soil identification.

Figure 2.10: Casagrande Plasticity Chart (DAS, 2010)

Inorganic clays are separated from the inorganic silts where the clay values lie above the A-line
and silts lie below it. This chart is universally recognized as the basis for classification of fine
grained soils in the USCS (Unified Soil Classification System). In general, the laterite soils or
clays show up above the said A-line indicating it is not silt. (DAS, 2010).

This chart is a precursor in determining the engineering applications and limitations for given
soil such as laterite. For instance embankments, roadbase and subbase material selection is
dependent on the values derived from this chart (UGBE, 2011; OMOTOSO, et al., 2012)

2.3.5 Soil susceptibility to aggregation

Laterite soils are subject to clay mineral aggregation due to drying and re-wetting, more
specifically, the hydration and dehydration of sesquioxides. This is an important effect to take
note of since not all laterite occurrences are exactly the same for any two sites, nor is the ground
water and climate condition for that matter. Some sites may be prone to high water content
while other laterites are subject to dry climatic conditions. For this reason, any attempt to
determine the properties of laterite soils should be preceded by bulk sampling and determination
17
of moisture content in the laboratory. The following tests are adequate for this task (CIRIA,
1995).

i. Loss of water of hydration


Oven and air dried test of two portions are conducted at 50ºC and 150ºC
respectively until no detectable weight loss is recorded. The two moisture
content levels is compared. 4-6% or more variation indicates water presence.
When this is so, testing procedures are to be changed in order not to subject the
soil to aggregation (BLIGHT, 1997).

ii. Disaggregation of clay-size particles on mixing


Five air dried samples are mixed with water and subject to PL and LL tests.
Successive tests are done after curing at specific intervals. Differences of more
than 5% in test results in LL indicate a breakdown if the aggregation in clay
particles (BLIGHT, 1997).

iii. Drying and wetting


Atterberg limits of laterite soils from natural state and re-wetted oven dried state
is compared for determination of the state of aggregation. A vast difference in
test results means the laboratory conditions and samples should simulate the
actual soil sample conditions with respect to drying and re-wetting conditions on
site.

2.4 Drying and Hardening of Laterite

Once exposed to air, the soft laterite soils harden due to the hydration levels of iron and
aluminium oxides being changed. As seen from the brick making process, this feature is an
important one for the strength, formation and practical use of laterite soils. This characteristic
deserves separate review in detail as sample soils removed from its natural origin and being
tested in the laboratory is susceptible to changes in moisture and nature of the soil. Observations
suggest that hardening is not as common for granular soils as much as for clay soils.

CIRIA (1995) states that the sensitivity of lateritic soils to test procedures may be influenced
by the factors which govern the hardening process. They can be sensitive to the laboratory test
preparation and actual testing methods as well. Sensitivity here is defined as being prone to

18
undergo change. The hardening process can be attributed to the following factors (CIRIA,
1995).

i. Aggregation of clay-size particles


Water absorption reduction layer of clay formed which in turn makes way for
aggregation of coarse particles. Plasticity may be reduced when tested in lab
from what is actual on site.

ii. Irreversible changes in plasticity on drying


At times, drying of soils leads it to become less plastic and stronger bonds
between particles. This creates water a resistant material. The process here
cannot be reversed by re-wetting.

iii. Loss of water of hydration on drying


Standard moisture content determination test of soil involves oven drying it at
l05°C whereby all water content is removed.

2.5 Classification of Laterites

ANTHONY YOUNG (1976) in his research and subsequent book publications has made the
laterites into the following types and sub types.

1) Massive Laterite: associated with continuous hard fabric. Sub-division include:

(a) Cellular laterite – rounded cavities.

(b) Vesicular laterite – tubular cavities.

2) Nodular Laterite: Individual rounded concretions also known as pisolithic laterite.


Sub-division include:

(a) Cemented nodular laterite – Same iron-stone types of material are joined
together, although lone concretions is observed.

(b) Partly cemented nodular laterite.

(c) Non-cemented nodular laterite - Concretions from over 60 per cent by weight
of the total soil.
(d) Iron concretions - Concretions are separated by soil, but forms less than 60 per
cent by weight of the total horizon.
19
3) Re-cemented laterite: Broken and wholly or partly cemented fragments of massive
laterite or ferruginized rock.

4) Ferruginized Rock: Rock structure is identifiable, but with significant isomorphous


replacement by iron.

5) Soft Laterite: Mottled/smeared iron rich clay which hardens once exposed to air or
repeated wetting and drying. The hardening is irreversible.

Wesley L.D. and Irfan T.Y. (Blight, 1997) states that residual soils are to be classified by its
mineral constituents which are:

Group A: without observed minerals

Group B: with strong observed minerals in transported soils.

Group C: with strong observed minerals in residual soils. Further subdivided into:

(a) Halloysitic soils

(b) Allophanic soils

(c) Soils with sesquioxides.

Laterite soils come under group c and sub group c in this classification. There is much influence
of sesquioxides on the engineering properties of laterites. This is due to sesquioxides acting as
cementing agent, the consequence being clusters being formed. Concretions of sesquioxides
lead to hard formations (BLIGHT, 1997).

As such, classification can be based on degree of concretion and size of particles. Lithological
classification divides the laterite soils according to the particle sizes as stated below (LYON
ASSOCIATES, 1971).

Lateritic clays < 0.002 mm


Lateritic silts = 0.002 ~ 0.06 mm
Lateritic sands = 0.06 ~ 2 mm
Lateritic gravels = 2 ~ 60 mm
Cuirasse > 60 mm

20
Depending of the level of concretion development, classifications have been made as well. This
classification requires that the concretions have sufficient hydrated iron and aluminium oxide
concentrations for precipitation growth or cementations to initiate (CIRIA, 1995).

Classifications based on other studies makes the distinctions as ‘High level’ and ‘Low level’
laterites. High level laterites are said to occur above 2000ft (from sea level) and low level
laterites are derived in most cases due to high level laterites being deposited in valleys or plains
and thus are detrital in origin (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

2.6 Construction using Laterite

A great number of studies has been made on the subject of laterites since the discovery of iron,
aluminium and other minerals within the soil. Possibility existed for laterites to be used as an
ore for aluminium which is an expensive and very frequently used element in almost all aspects
of engineering (RAYCHAUDHURI, 1980).

A very obvious use of laterite soils have been brick making. As discussed earlier, laterite soils
have been cut into brick shape, dried and used extensively in parts of the world such as India
and Cambodia for building construction (LUTGENS & TARBUCK, 2012).

Figure 2.11 : Temple at Angkor Wat, Laterite bricks used, 12th century Cambodia

Laterites have been used in embankments and extensively as road pavement materials as sub-
base and base in concretion form. Gravel roads are also one application. Laterites with
significant granular sizes are used for this purpose rather than clayey material. For such
applications, thin strata from shallow depth are used ensuring the need for careful excavation
and handling. For embankments, the quality, thickness and depth are all important variables to
be examined prior to application along and down the slope. Laterites in their natural state is
generally considered unusable for road construction purposes due to the high clay contents in

21
them. Best method of stabilization for road construction requires the need to determine the
classification of soils. A number of research has been done on laterites where detailed
investigation of basic engineering geological properties of soil is employed (UGBE, 2011).

OMOTOSO, et al., (2012) states that several authors have worked on determining the
geotechnical engineering properties of lateritic soils in order to determine its feasibility of use
in construction such as base and sub-base material in road construction, highway and airfields.
Some of the soils properties can even be tweaked by addition of enhancing materials.

It has been observed that laterites show property changes even during construction. Proper
selection of the type of laterite soils is crucial at times depending on the type of engineering
application as most laterite is found in clay form. Coarse material is always rather useful
compared to soft clays when it comes to being used as a construction material (ZELALEM,
2005).

As such, laboratory tests are a frequent, and at times, the only method of determining the
suitability of laterites. On the basis of the geotechnical properties, one could come to a
conclusion whether the soil is a good engineering construction material or not. These tests need
to be conducted prior to planning and application. There is a need to evaluate the test results,
analyze and determine if the particular laterite is fit for use or needs to be modified to strengthen
it as in the case of addition of stabilization material being added to highway pavement
application. However, due to the sensitivity of the soils to test procedures, site conditions need
to be simulated for proper testing and consequent data collection.

2.7 Study area - A review

2.7.1 General

Nilai is situated in the west of peninsular Malaysia in the state of Negeri Sembilan. It is a
modern town situated in close proximity to the international airport and a stepping stone on the
way to the capital city Kuala Lumpur, the city Putrajaya and the town Cyberjaya. Until a decade
or so, this region was mostly long and flattened stretch of plantations for the production of palm
oil. Since then, numerous construction works, including public infrastructure has taken place
and is evidently growing in pace. This is an important point to state since the structural aspects
of these works are related in more ways than one to the soil pertaining to that area, hence the
importance of the study area as stated in this study.

22
2.7.2 Climatic Data

Nilai is set in a geographically tropical humid zone in the equatorial region with mainly two
seasonal variations, the Southwest and Northeast monsoon seasons which occur throughout the
year. The Southwest monsoon which is the drier one amongst the two, starts from May till
September whilst Northeast monsoon is from mid-November till March. The change in periods
are prone to heavy rainfall (MALAYSIA, 2014).

Being in a tropical regions, the average temperature is 27ºC, average precipitation is about 2223
mm annually and humidity is recorded to be about 80% average due to the high temperature
and high rate of evaporation (MET.GOV.MY, 2014).

Figure 2.12: Rainfall & average temp., Nilai (EN-CLIMATE-DATA.ORG, 2014)

Table 2.3 : Annual Temperatures in Nilai

23
2.7.3 Geographical setting

Geographically Nilai is situated located in Southeast Asia in Peninsular Malaysia. Below are
some of the relevant geographical statistics (MALAYSIA, 2014).

Geographic location: 2°49′0″ N, 101°48′0″ E


Map reference: Southeast Asia
Region: Equatorial region / Tropical setting
Area: 2522 ha / 2564 sq miles / 6641 sq km.
Principle Rivers: Linggi on the west and Muar on the east.
Terrain: Hills, mountains and flat plains
Average elevation: 50m above sea level

Figure 2.13 : Geographic setting, Nilai (Google Maps)

24
2.7.4 Geological origins & status

Malaysia is lies in two tectonic context (Sibumasu and Indochina) being part of a mountain
range/belt. It also forms part of the Sunda Shield. The tectonic plate’s mountainous spine known
as the ‘Main Range’ or ‘Banjaran Titiwangsa’ lies southwards starting from the Thai border
towards Negeri Sembilan in which state Nilai is located. This range constitutes partly of
granitoids and marks the separation of the east and west Malaysian peninsula (MALAYSIA,
2014; BURTON, 1972).

Figure 2.14 : Mountaineous topography, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan (Maphill.com)

It is observed from Figure 2.14 that part of the Main Range extends to the west in close
proximity to Nilai. This is indirect evidence of sorts that laterite soils may be found in Nilai due
to weathering of rocks from this parent material.

Geologically, all systems ranging from the Cambrian to the Quaternary are found in Peninsular
Malaysia and hereto Nilai, where the Triassic and older strata found are of marine origins and
post Triassic rocks are not. Some of the oldest dated rocks found are the certs, lower Devonian
shales and ophiolites which are especially common to the east of the Main Range close to the
geographical location of Nilai. These are succeeded by limestone tower karst and Lower
Carboniferous shales as sediments. Geological findings show granite emplacement which as a
consequence consolidated much of the region. Sedimentary rock strata troughs were later
restored throughout the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras with renewed tectonic activity whereby
25
the full stabilization of peninsular tract occurred. Due to the instability of the troughs, breaks
are apparent in the rock groups. Consequent molasses like sedimentary rock formation took
precedence to later granitic rock yet again. Uplift and warping of plates and rocks took place
near the end of Mesozonic era where the older strata were folded and deformed. Mineralization
of rocks occurred during the granitic emplacement and commonly associated with faulting of
rock on a larger scale. Four main groups of rocks are associated with mineralization, namely
the the ophiolite suite, crystalline basement, the granitic intrusions and the young volcanic and
associated hypabyssal rocks (HUTCHISON & TAN, 2009).

All throughout the eras mentioned, sedimentary and metamorphic rock such as sandstone,
limestone and gravel formations ultimately lead to the current status of the rock and soil
conditions of Nilai. Figure 2.15 shows laterite formations and occurrence throughout Malaysia.
Laterite is most commonly observed in foot slopes, undulating country regions, hill summits
and flat alluvial lands (EYLES, 1970). Substantial occurrence is observed in Pahang and Negeri
Sembilan states of which Nilai is situated in the latter, near Seremban city.

Figure 2.15: Main laterite bearing soil locations, West Malaysia


(1968 Malaya soil survey reconnaissance map) (EYLES, 1970)
26
Visibly the soil type found in Nilai is mostly reddish in colour and in composite mixture with
small gravel. Weathering sources of rocks are still evident as shown in Plate 2.1. Geology of
Nilai hence is described as comprised of weathering metamorphic rocks and granites including
genesis, schists and basalts which favor laterite formation. These rocks have evidently
undergone intensive weathering process. Top soil and just beneath it is composed of grain size
soil. Clay like residual soil is encountered a few feet underneath whilst the colour still remains
reddish. Flat plains and excavated hillsides show consistency in soil nature in relation to other
areas of Nilai. These visual observations, coupled with favorable conditions of climate, rain,
sloped hillsides and topography, are strong evidence that the soil found in Nilai is in fact laterite
soil (HUTCHISON & TAN, 2009; MALAYSIA, 2014; BURTON, 1972).

Plate 2.1: Weathering sources of rock, Nilai

Plate 2.2: Excavated hills & top soil removed, Nilai

Vegetation in Nilai is plenty with diversity in growth. Due to the nature of the topography and
heavy rainfall, many rivers are formed which contributes to the overall process of geological
process.

27
2.8 Critical analysis and context of review

Critical examination of the literature review is required to make the crucial connection between
prior researches based on laterites to the topic at hand. This allows for a basis on what
methodology has been used in the past and whether that should be the most appropriate trends
that should be followed. This also allows for the dismissal, if any, of some of the techniques
used that are redundant for this particular study undertaken.

Analysis mainly was based on research techniques, diversities, accepted achievements and
justification of methodology.

2.8.1 Research Techniques

UGBE (2011), OMOTOSO, et al., (2012), BELLO & ADEGOKE (2010), ALAO (1983),
MUSTAPHA & ALHASSAN (2012), PEARRING (1968), OGUNSANWO (1989) used
AASHTO and USCS particle size distribution (Grain size analysis), dry density, maximum dry
density, moisture content, CBR, specific gravity determination, unconfined compression and
Atterberg limit tests in order to determine the engineering properties of laterite soil.

Researchers utilize plotted plasticity charts once plasticity index and liquid limit are
determined. The Casagrande plasticity chart as it is know is an improvement on the index
property analysis. The data derived from this chart is used in determining the practical
applications of a given soil such as laterite (UGBE, 2011; OMOTOSO, et al., 2012; BELLO &
ADEGOKE, 2010).

Compaction tests on laterite soils have been conducted by standard and modified proctor
methods in researches. Specific gravity values were also found for satisfying the purpose of
determining engineering properties of laterite soil (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012; ALAO, 1983;
LYON ASSOCIATES, 1971; BELLO & ADEGOKE, 2010).

Mineralogical data, chemical properties, hydrometer analysis, permeability test, properties in


relation to depth, chemical composition by X-ray fluorescence spectrometer analysis, X-ray
diffraction (XRD) techniques and pH of soil in water tests can be done in addition to the
prescribed tests in this study (ALAO, 1983; MUSTAPHA & ALHASSAN, 2012; PEARRING,
1968; OGUNSANWO, 1989). However, time does not permit for such tests to be done for this
study, hence only those specified in the objectives shall be satisfied.

UGBE (2011), OMOTOSO, et al., (2012) and other researchers state agreement on the need to
determine the properties. Purpose of engineering application is based on the different
28
engineering properties (LYON ASSOCIATES, 1971). Selection, function and type of
application is determined by the engineering properties of soil determined. This is evident from
the number of research papers referenced in the literature review. The tests used to determine
the properties include particle size analysis, direct shear, unconfined compression test, CBR,
plastic limit, liquid limit, dry density and moisture content tests.

2.8.2 Research Diversity

Classification of laterites are described by many authors in different methods, the most common
being the ratio of silica (SiO2) to sesquioxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3) ratios where less than 1.33 are
indicative of laterites, those between 1.33 and 2.00 show lateritic and those greater than 2.00 of
non-lateritic types (BELL, 2007). This is preferably easier to determine although not widely
accepted in the general geological community (PEARRING, 1968). This definition is not
adequate from an engineering perspective particularly where there is absence of satisfactory
research facilities. For this reason, a common system of classification needs to be adopted and
practiced for laterite soils.

A frequent assumption made is that engineering geological properties of soil within a region
are same for those found in the test area. Most research uses samples from a particular area in
the assumption that it would be same for the surrounding areas. Short distances however can
have variety in soil quality and nature (UGBE, 2011). For this reason, the properties of laterite
soils found in Nilai in this study shall pertain to that particular sample collection area and
immediate surrounding only and should not be assumed to be same in another untested region
of Nilai. The determination of engineering properties of laterite soils in Nilai are as per the
parameters defined in the sample collection areas defined in the methodology.

2.8.3 Review Interpretation/Conclusion

Research gap: A study on the laterite soils in Nilai has to be conducted for determination of its
engineering properties independent of the research based on similar soils from the surrounding
area. This study is therefore one that is done different from other final year projects done in Inti
International University, in that laterite soils are being specifically tested for its engineering
properties.

The methodology used to satisfy the objectives of this study is based on past research techniques
mentioned due to the similar aspects common to those research and this one. Hence the latest
techniques mentioned will be used. These include soil property tests such as particle analysis,
direct shear, unconfined compression test, CBR, plastic limit, liquid limit, dry density and
29
moisture content tests. The methodology of choice is discussed in chapter 3 in detail.

Engineering applications such as embankments, road construction, foundations, dams and


stabilization methods for road bases requires the determination of soil classification. The
determination of other parameters or properties of soil is in this regard, very important for any
engineering application prior to execution. It helps in having an overall knowledge of the soil
and its behavior. Researchers use data from basic engineering geological properties in pre-
planning for any such applications.

30
CHAPTER 3

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Methodology described in this chapter is the comprehensive physical system or model of choice
undertaken to satisfy the objectives of the study. Specifically, the methodology chosen was a
tentative one, taking into consideration the tools, methods and approach utilized by researches
in the past to achieve similar or exact objectives. Hence, a physical based model of investigation
was formulated as best suited for this project.

3.2 Approach

A structured approach was devised to tackle the task at hand. This involved separating the
project into two phases and complete each one during the course of a semester.

The first phase was structured to introduce the topic at hand, to deliver a literature review on
the topic with reference to past research on the subject, and to formulate a simplified physical
based model to carry out with respect to the past methodologies used by researchers. The
progress of the phase 1 approach is depicted in the Gantt chart shown in Appendix 7.9.

The second phase dealt with execution of chosen methodology, mainly conducting experiments
and collecting data. Here, samples were collected from the chosen sites and laboratory
equipment was used to determine the properties of laterite soils by conducting standard
accepted tests and whose results can be compared with past research data. A conclusion with
recommendation hence was made based on the results. The progress of the phase 2 approach is
depicted in the Gantt chart shown in the Appendix 7.10.

The flow chart in Figure 3.1 shows the planned approach for the project as a whole.

31
Project Selection

Project Planning

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Analyse L.R for research 
techniques
Insufficient data

Common research  Research 
Trends
methods diversities

Review summary

Formulated tentative 
Methodology

Sample collection & 
Laboratory soil tests

Lab test analysis and results

Comparison with past research data

FINAL REPORT

Figure 3.1: Project flow chart

32
3.3 Method outline

The methodology of choice was to conduct the following tests on collected laterite soil samples
from Nilai in order to determine their engineering properties. The tests were carried out in the
Soil Mechanics lab of Inti International University.

1. Particle size analysis & Classification


2. Moisture content
3. Maximum dry unit weight
4. Optimum moisture content
5. Specific gravity
6. Plastic limit
7. Liquid limit
8. Shear strength
9. California Bearing Ratio
10. Unconfined compressive strength

Laboratory experiment works were carried out during phase 2 of the project. The soils collected
for experimentation were laterite soils from pre-determined five sites A, B, C, D and E
(Figure 3.2).

33
3.4 Sample collection & preparation

3.4.1 Collection sites

Samples were collected from a total of 5 sites A, B, C, D and E within the 6641 km2 of the town
of Nilai, in such a manner to try and achieve distributed coverage. These sites shown in
Figure 3.2 were chosen due to the proximity to construction sites and ease of sample
availability, lending to the ease of soil sample collection.

Figure 3.2: Sample collection sites (Google Maps)

Prior to collection, site visits were made in order to inspect for potential places for collection of
lateritic soil and choices were made. Less vegetated areas were selected since it is a good
indication of lateritic soil.

Site A was due west in Inti International University campus. Site B was also due west in the
campus of Nilai International University. Site C due northwest in Universiti Sains Islam
Malaysia campus. Site D was due northeast within the district of Nilai 3 industrial area and site

34
E due southwest in Desa Chempaka area. All soil samples were taken from undisturbed origins
where no prior man made disturbances in soil profile had occurred.

Plate 3.1 : Site A sample collection

Plate 3.2 : Site B sample collection

Plate 3.3 : Site C sample collection

35
Plate 3.4 : Site D sample collection

Plate 3.5 : Site E sample collection

Laterite soil samples were collected during 29th December 2014 and 16th February 2015.
Trenches approximately 1m deep were made by use of hand tools except for samples collected
from site E where an excavator was used. Samples were collected within those borrow pits.
During the collection, soil profiles were visually inspected. Undisturbed and disturbed samples
were collected for the appropriate tests to be conducted.

Plate 3.6 : Tube sample collection

Approximately 5kg of laterite soil samples were collected from each site. This included bulk
samples with additional ones collected in tubes with capped ends as shown in Plate 3.6.
Collection was made at the top, middle and bottom of the trench excavated. To comply with
36
preservation of soil samples, they were contained in sealed bags to minimize moisture content
loss.

The soil was air dried prior to testing, except for the moisture content and unconfined
compression tests, for which the soil samples in the tubes were used.

On average, three (3) runs of each test described in the method outline were conducted using
the samples from each site following the specified governing guidelines. An average of those
results were tabulated as shown in the summary of results in Table 4.1 of chapter 4.

3.4.2 Site and Soil Conditions

These sites had typical wet and dry climatic conditions and geographic settings with little
variation from one site to another. Soil conditions with characteristics of slightly varying
reddish soils in comparison with one site to another were found. Terrain was relatively flat with
little undulations and collection areas had no slopes.

Geology of the soils beneath the top soil consisted of reddish-brown clay like residual soil found
just a few feet below, showing consistency in characteristics of that of laterite soils. Laterite
gravel was found mostly within the topsoil covering only a thin layer. Mica flakes were
observed upon visual inspection.

Soil profiles were visible in some of the sites due to the ongoing construction or earlier
excavations done in close proximity to the collection areas. These observations and visual
depictions have been presented hence.

Plate 3.7 : Site A, mica flakes and weathering rocks

37
Plate 3.8 : Site A, soil profile

Site B visually had rather high reddish soil compared to the other sites. In addition, the degree
of laterization was observed to be higher, in that the laterite soil compaction or density seemed
higher with concentrated reddish profiles as seen from the laboratory sample depicted in
Plate 3.9.

Plate 3.9 : Site B laterite soil sample with high laterization

No major hard rocks were immediately encountered within the collection areas. However, large
rocks were observed to have been extracted from deeper excavation pits from Site C due to the
construction projects around that area, as seen in Plate 3.10. Although these rocks and the depths
in which they were found do not have any significance to this research, it is worth mentioning
the observable geological background.

Plate 3.10 : Site C, weathering rocks


38
Another significant observation made in Site C is that the profiles of laterite soils were almost
as if residual layers had been piled up one after the other. Possible explanations may be due to
soil swell, upheaval and ground water movements in this area contributing to this effect as seen
in Plate 3.11.

Plate 3.11 : Site C, soil profile and laterization

Apart from the mentioned, detailed geological study is not within the scope of this paper

3.4.3 Sample preservation for testing

When laterite soil samples are removed from its natural setting and tested under laboratory
conditions, they tend to undergo change in physical properties and hence lead to misleading
results.

It is important to understand the origins of samples collected with respect to the climatic and
geographical setting since a defining method in adopted as to how the sample should be treated
prior to testing in the laboratory.

Laterites in wet regions are found to be high in water content, high in liquid limits and have
irreversibly changes once drying takes place. If drying was inadvertently allowed to take place
during laboratory testing, hardening naturally takes place in which case the plasticity decreases
and grain size increases due to agglomeration of the clay particles. This results in silt like
formation. One reason for the close adhesion of particles is due to the capillary stresses
developed within. These stresses form aggregation of particles which reduces the surface
contact area for water and hence the reduction in plasticity. All of these aspects described here
ultimately leads to inaccuracy in soil test results if proper methods of preservation is not adopted
(LYON ASSOCIATES, 1971).

39
Laterites formed in regions of wet and dry seasons are found to be low in water content and
plasticity. Concretions and cemented horizons are frequently observed within the soil profile.
Prior research proves that tests conducted on samples collected from these regions, either from
natural water seeped state or air dried state, show similarity in results. Tests conducted on these
type of samples are considered easier and no pre-treatment or preservation is required (LYON
ASSOCIATES, 1971).

Hence, as a general rule for achieving accurate results, all laboratory testing for engineering
properties were done to simulate the actual condition, or to the very least, done with the least
amount of time between sample collection and the testing itself.

40
3.5 Test descriptions

3.5.1 Particle size analysis & Classification

Classification of soils according to particle size provides a common standard to express the
overall characteristics. The particle size of any given soil vary over a wide range. Clay, silt,
sand and gravel are general classifications of the soil depending on the predominant size of
particles. As such several standards have been developed for particle size classification of soil
among which the Unified Soil Classification System (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation) is most widely accepted and adopted by the American Society for
Testing and Materials, ASTM test designation D-2487 (ASTM, 2006). USDA textural
classification is yet another system used to classify soils according to surface appearance.

Table 3.1 : Particle size classification systems (DAS, 2010)

The purpose of particle size analysis is to obtain the distribution and grading curve so that
classification according to particle size can be done with the intended system of choice. Hence,
USCS system of classification shown in Table 3.2 is adopted for the purpose of classification
of laterite soil in this study. The USDA textural classification will not be used. BS 1377 part 2
code of practice is used for the procedure.

41
Table 3.2 : USCS table (DAS, 2010)

The actual process of mechanical analysis involves the determination of the range of particles
by use of mechanical shaker equipment. Air dried soil of measured amount were shaken through
a set of progressively smaller set of sieves placed on the mechanical shaker shown in Figure 3.3.
The standard sieve sizes are shown in Table 3.3, the smallest being number 200 with an opening
of 0.075mm. This sieve is adequate enough to filter clay materials (ASTM, 2006; BS:1377-
PART-2, 1990).

Figure 3.3: Mechanical shaker equipment

42
Table 3.3 : Standard sieve number and its sizes (DAS, 2010)

The mass of the soil collected in each sieve was recorded, amount passing each sieve (or percent
finer) expressed in percentage of total dry weight of soil and plotted on a semi-logarithmic
graph paper to produce a particle size distribution curve (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Particle size distribution curve (ASTM, 2006)

For adequate classification, percentage of gravel, sand, silt, clay, coefficient of uniformity /
slope of distribution curve (Cu), coefficient of gradation (Cc), LL and PI must be determined.

43
Coefficient of uniformity / slope of curve Cu:

(1)

Coefficient of gradation Cc:

(2)

Where
D60 = diameter corresponding to 60% finer (or passing). This is a good
measure of hydraulic conductivity & drainage.
D30 = diameter corresponding to 30% finer (or passing).
D10 = diameter corresponding to 10% finer (or passing) (MITCHELL &
SOGA, 2005).

3.5.2 Moisture content

Moisture content is also known as water content and as the name suggests, it is the ratio of
weight of water in a known volume sample of soil to its weight. The determination of this
variable helps in finding solutions for various parameters surrounding engineering applications
dealing with soil such as road construction.

100 (3)

To determine the moisture content, laterite soil samples which were taken from the collection
sites, with minimum time in between collection and testing, were weighed and placed in a dry
oven where the temperature was kept at 105+/- 10ºC. For best results, a minimum amount of a
range of sample sizes has to be used as shown in Table 3.4. These values satisfy ASTM test
Designation D-2216 (DAS, 1997; ASTM, 2006). The governing guideline used for this
procedure is BS1377-part 2:1990.

Table 3.4 : Minimum amount of moist samples for testing w%

44
Samples were kept overnight for proper moisture content removal. After drying, the moisture
content was determined by use of equation (3), expressed to the nearest 1% or 0.1%. Values
greater than 100 is in fact possible.

Figure 3.5: Moisture content (w) testing

3.5.3 Maximum dry unit weight & optimum moisture content

Optimum moisture content (OMC) is defined as the moisture content when maximum dry unit
weight (γd max) is achieved.

The process of compaction is generally, by mechanical means, densification of soil particles


due to removal of air without removal of water. Compaction strengthens soil by increasing the
unit weight and hence reduces the effect of settlement to structures. It also can be an
instrumental step in increasing the bearing capacity of the soil, reducing the settlement on
structures, reducing hydraulic conductivity and increasing slope stability.

Hence, the degree of compaction is a measure of its dry unit weight which first increases as
moisture content increases but caps off at a certain moisture content level. This is γd max and
the corresponding moisture content determined is the optimum moisture content OMC. Up to
the point of optimum moisture content, the water helps the grains to be compacted together.
Beyond this point, the water pushes the particles apart and dry density is reduced (HEAD, 1992)

To determine OMC parameter, maximum dry unit weight of compaction is determined by use
of Standard Proctor compaction test. BS 1377 part 4 code of practice is the governing guideline
used for this test.
45
Figure 3.6 : Compaction mold and hammer, Proctor test (HEAD, 1992)

The Proctor compaction mold was filled with air dried laterite soil which had been sieved
through No. 4 U.S. sieve and mixed with water to bring moisture content to 5%, 10%, 20% and
30% of weigh of soil at successive stages of experimentation. The mixture of soil was laid in 3
layers, each compacted with 25 blows using a 2.5kg rammer. Weight of the compacted moist
soil was determined along with the volume of the mold. Hence;

.
Moist unit weight 9.81 (4)

Using an extruder, the compacted soil was removed from the mold and samples from the top
and bottom of it placed in the dry oven to determine the moisture content as described in sub-
section 3.5.2. Remaining soil from the mold was loosened up and its moisture content increased
by 2% and the process repeated. At each stage of the moisture content level, the dry unit weight
was calculated.
46
Dry density % (5)
1
100

d was plotted against the OMC to obtain the ‘moisture-density relationship curve’ as shown
in Figure 3.7. The maximum dry unit weight and corresponding optimum moisture content was
recorded from the graph.

Figure 3.7 : Moisture – density relationship curve (DAS, 2010)

3.5.4 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity (Gs) is the ratio of weight of a known volume of soil to weight of equal volume
of water at 20ºC. This revels how much heavier or lighter the soil is than water. It can be
determined by laboratory experimentation. Laterite soil with iron rich content from tropical
regions are more likely to have a Gs value between 2.75 and 3.0 but could be higher as well.
Coarse soils represent a low value while fine grained soils represent higher values. General
ranges of Gs for soils particles are given in Table 2.1, the range being 2.6 to 2.7. Specific gravity
is rather important in accessing weight-volume relationship of any given soil. Practical uses
include determination of parameters such as porosity, void ratio and saturation (OMOTOSO,
et al., 2012; GIDIGASU, 1976).
47
The governing guidelines used are BS1377-part 2:1990 and ASTM D-854.

/
Specific Gravity (6)

Where
Ws = weight of solid
Vs = volume of solid
ρw = density of water = 1000 Kg/m3

In determining the Gs of soils smaller than 4.75mm (U.S. Sieve No.4), the experimental
involves mixing oven dried soil samples in a volumetric flask with known volume of distilled
water. All the while, the mass of soil and water were recorded.

Figure 3.8: Specific gravity experiment apparatus

The mix with room temperature was determined for dry weight by placing it in a dry oven.
Hence;

Gs (at 20°C)= 1°C (7)

Where
T1 = Temperature of water recorded during experimentation
°
A= , (Table 3.5)
°

Table 3.5 : T1 and A values

48
3.5.5 Plastic Limit & Liquid Limit

Consistency of the soil increases with increase in moisture content, excessive amounts of that
moisture will lead to the soil being in a liquid state (LL). With decrease in moisture content, the
soil passes the plastic state (PL). With further reduction, semisolid and eventually solid state is
achieved. These consistency limits of fine grained soils are described as Atterberg limits.

Liquid Limit (LL) is defined as the moisture content, in percent, at which soil begins to behave
as a liquid material and begins to flow. Plastic Limit (PL) is defined as the moisture content at
which soil begins to behave as a plastic material. Shrinkage Limit (SL) is defined as the
moisture content at which no further volume change occurs with further reduction in moisture
content.

Figure 3.9 : Atterberg limits (DAS, 2010)

LIQUID LIMIT:

In the lab, the liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at which a standard cone of angle
apex 30 degree and weight of 0.78N is made to fall from point of contact and penetrate a soil
mix to a depth of 20mm in 5 seconds. This method is popular in Europe and Asia. The
guidelines that govern this test is stated in BS 1377 part 2.

Air dried soil sieved with U.S.No.50 sieve was mixed with water, made to a paste is placed in
the testing cup. The cone was made to fall as described in the guidelines. The Several repetitions
have to be done each at different moisture content levels. The results were plotted in a semi-
logarithmic graph with moisture content vs. cone penetration. Moisture content corresponding
to 20mm is determined as the LL.

49
Figure 3.10: Cone Penetrometer

Figure 3.11: LL graph (DAS, 2010)

PLASTIC LIMIT:

In the lab, plastic limit is the moisture content (%) at which the soil when rolled into threads of
3.2mm (1/8 in) in diameter, will crumble.

Plastic limit defines the lower limit of the plastic stage. Hence plastic index (PI) is the difference
between the liquid limit and plastic limit of a soil.

ASTM test designation D-4318 states the test procedures. The guidelines that govern this test
is stated in BS 1377 part 2.

Soil samples from liquid limit test were rolled to 3.2mm diameter strips, around which it starts
to break. The moisture content of the sample is determined using test described in section 3.5.2.

50
Figure 3.12: Rolling soil to determine PL

The significance of these two tests is to determine the plasticity index. It represents the range
in water contents over which a soil behaves in a plastic manner.

Plasticity Index (PI) (8)

Ultimately, the plasticity index is an important property in classifying fine grained soils such as
laterite soils. This is done by using the Casagrande plasticity chart (Figure 2.10) where co-
relation of plastic index versus liquid limit is plotted on a graph. Plots above the A-line represent
clay (plastic) and those below represent classified as silt (non-plastic).

Atterberg limits describe the consistency of fine-grained soils. Consistency limits help classify
the soils which in turn can be used to predict the performance of those soils when used as
construction material. The consistency limits are an effective and inexpensive method to
classify clays and silts.

3.5.6 Direct Shear

Shear strength of a given soil is the internal resistance per unit area that it can endure to resist
failure by sliding. The shear stress on a failure plane is given by:

′ ′ tan ∅ ′ (9)
Shear strength

Where
c' = cohesion (based on effective stress)
ø’ = drained angle of internal friction (based on effective stress) which is
a function of density, grain size, shape and distribution. Higher the
void ratio, lower the angle. Higher the angularity, higher the angle.
σ' = effective stress (normal) carried by soil solids on failure plane
51
Direct shear test is one of the simplest and oldest forms of shear tests. It has been used to
determine the consolidated shear strength of sandy to silty soils. The determination of shear
strength parameters is one of the most important aspects of a soil which is required when
structural design depends on the shear resistance. These include determining the stability of
slopes, bearing capacity of soil and calculating pressure exerted by a soil on a retaining wall.

The governing guidelines used is BS1377-part 7:1990.

Air dried soil specimen placed inside the shear box of the direct shear test apparatus was subject
to a normal force on the top half of the box. Shear force was applied by moving the top half
horizontally. This force was increased till failure was observed.

Figure 3.13: Principle of shear box test (HEAD, 1992)

Figure 3.14: Shear box apparatus

Shear displacement at a constant rate was measured by a horizontal dial gauge and the resisting
shear force by a horizontal proving ring. Volume change of soil was also recorded.

From the readings shear stress is calculated as given. In dry sand σ'= σ and c’=0

Normal stress (10)


.

Shear stress (11)


.

52
Shear stress vs. shear displacement recorded was plotted where the peak shear resistance in
dense soil as well as lesser shear resistances after failure was observed for a specific vertical
confining stress.

Figure 3.15: Shear strength curve (DAS, 2010)

After the experiment was run several times for various vertical-confining normal forces, a plot
of the maximum shear stresses versus the vertical (normal) confining stresses for each of the
tests is produced. Here, the cohesion c’ and angle of internal friction ø’ is determined.

Figure 3.16: Shear strength parameters (DAS, 2010)

53
3.5.7 California Bearing Ratio

CBR test is a penetration test used to determine the mechanical strength or load bearing capacity
of subgrade, sub-base and base course materials used in road pavements. The CBR value may
be thought of as the strength of the soil relative to that of crushed rock. The thickness required
for flexible pavements for airfields and highway pavements can be determined by use of CBR.
This test can be carried out on most types of soil ranging from clay to gravel (HEAD, 1992).

ASTM D-1883-05 describe test standards and BS 1377 part 4 are used as governing guidelines.

Table 3.6 : General rating of soil using values of CBR (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012)

The principle behind the test deals with determining the force required to maintain a fixed rate
of penetration of a known area of soil sample with a plunger by use of the CBR equipment. The
measured pressure is to be divided by pressure required to achieve equal penetration on crushed
rock.

Figure 3.17 : CBR testing equipment

Air dried soil sieved through 20mm sieve was mixed with water equivalent to optimum
moisture content levels determined (section 3.5.3) and was compacted into the mold by 3 layers.

54
Moisture content prior to compaction is however in most cases taken for checking against
required moisture content. The equipment was set up with the mold in place and compressive
force applied at a constant rate of penetration at 1.25mm/min. Loads at varying penetrations
was plotted to determine the measured loads. Force value corresponding to 2.5 and 5mm
penetrations were taken and divided by the standard forces given in Table 3.7 to determine the
CBR in percentage (HEAD, 1992; BS:1377-PART-4, 1990).

Figure 3.18: Standard load vs. penetration CBR curve (HEAD, 1992)

Table 3.7 : Standard force values (HEAD, 1992; BS:1377-PART-4, 1990)

The corresponding values of force to standard penetrations is stated in BS 1377 part 4 as stated
in Table 3.7. Greater value of CBR of either penetration of 2.5mm & 5mm is chosen. Hence;

California Bearing Ratio 100 (11)

55
3.5.8 Unconfined Compression Test

This test is an unconsolidated undrained (UU) test most suitable used for clays. The pressure
confinement is made zero but a rapidly applied axial load causes the failure of the sample. Total
major principle stress is σ1 and total minor principle stress σ3 is zero. The soil specimen used is
saturated and fully undrained. Hence shear stress at failure;

(12)
Shear strength 2 2

Where
qu = unconfined compression strength

Bulging or shear are the main modes of failure observed. Mohr’s failure curve with shear and
normal stress shows the failure curve in Figure 3.19.

Figure 3.19 : Mohr's circle at failure, Unconfined compression test (DAS, 2010)

Specimens collected in sampling tubes were extruded, measured and placed in between the
plates of the apparatus shown in Figure 3.20. Compression force was applied to the sample with
constant axial strain and failure modes noted with readings from the dial gauge and proving
ring. The same sample was then remolded and retested for compression whilst moisture content
level determined afterwards using test described in section 3.5.2.

56
Figure 3.20: Unconfined compression test apparatus with failed sample

Unconfined compression strengths of remolded or disturbed clay soils will be lower than the
one for the undisturbed state of soil given that moisture content is the same. This is due to the
fact that the soils structure is broken down and becomes softer in nature. The ratio of
undisturbed to the disturbed strength is known as ‘sensitivity’ of the clay. (HEAD, 1992).

(13)
Sensitivity

Since this test is only applicable to cohesive soils, undrained shear strength Cu (undrained
cohesion), stress-strain characteristics and relative consistency of the soil is determined from
the test rather effectively. For undrained saturated clays ø = 0.

Figure 3.21: Unconfined compression strength, undisturbed & remolded

57
This test is rather versatile and a more reliable one compared to direct shear test in determining
the strength parameter. The significance of determining the unconfined compression strength
is to determine undrained shear strength Cu and classify the soils in terms of consistency as
shown in Table 3.8. This makes way for selection of the types of soils for applications that
require those particular engineering properties.

Table 3.8 : qu and consistency relationship (DAS, 2010)

58
CHAPTER 4

4.0 RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS & COMPARISONS

4.1 Summary of Results

The tests were conducted on laterite soils found in Nilai as described in chapter 3. Table 4.1
below shows the summary of results obtained in a tabulated form.

Test data analysis summary for individual test has been shown in subchapters 4.2 through 4.9.

Detailed individual test data and graphs for each sample from each site are shown in the
appendix 7.1 through 7.8.

Table 4.1 : Tests and laterite soil property summary

Site A  Site B  Site C  Site D  Site E 


Tests 
Results  Results  Results  Results  Results 
Unconfined compression, qu (KPa)  38.80 45.61 134.22 79.61  43.01
   Cu (KPa)  19.40 22.81 67.11 39.80  21.50
Moisture content (%)  18.56% 34.12% 25.29% 28.81%  24.63%
Proctor test            
3
   γdmax (KN/m )  16.55 16.13 16.08 17.02  16.20
   OMC (%)  19.0% 19.0% 17.0% 11.0%  16.0%
Particle size analysis            
  Gravel  9.96% 3.42% 1.61% 6.67%  2.01%
  Sand  75.65% 92.02% 91.40% 71.67%  87.94%
  Fines  14.39% 4.56% 6.99% 21.67%  10.05%
Direct shear            
   C (KPa)  10.00 20.00 24.00 15.00  12.00
   ø (degrees)  32° 20° 30° 21°  23°
Plastic Limit (%)  18.00% 28.00% 21.00% 17.00%  21.00%
Liquid Limit (%)  22.60% 43.20% 37.45% 28.95%  29.90%
Plasticity Index (PI) (%)  4.60% 15.20% 16.45% 11.95%  8.90%
Specific gravity  2.72 3.02 2.66 2.79  2.75
CBR test (%)  5.8% 24.3% 23.4% 15.3%  24.0%

59
4.2 Particle size Distribution, Analysis & Classification

Particle size analysis helps in determining and co-relating relative soil properties of different
soil samples. The samples as described in section 3.4 were collected and allowed to air dry in
open trays in the laboratory for 5 days prior to sieving. Concretions were eliminated prior to
sieving by light crushing of larger cohesive particles. Test procedures as described in
section 3.5.1 were conducted and results analyzed.

The size of the particles show variation in size from gravel to clay, although results show all
sites to be composed of fine sand and clay material. The particle size distribution graphs of all
sites along with comparison curves have been compiled in one graph shown in Figure 4.1. The
individual distribution graphs have been presented in Appendix 7.1.

Table 4.2: Particle size Analysis & Classification

Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%)


Site Classification
76.2 to 4.75mm 4.75 to 0.075mm < 0.075mm
A 9.96 75.65 14.39 SC, SM = Sandy Clay or Sandy Silt
B 3.42 92.02 4.56 SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC
C 1.61 91.40 6.99 SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC
D 6.67 71.67 21.67 SC= Sandy Clay
E 2.01 87.94 10.05 SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC
Avg. 4.73 83.66 11.53 SC, SM = Sandy Clay or Sandy Silt

Plate 4.1 : Mechanical seiving undertaken in lab

60
Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution, all sites

61
4.2.1 Particle Size, Discussion & Comparison

From Figure 4.1, it is observed that the particle distributions of all sites lie close together with
very little significant variation. Although the distances from sites vary from 2km to as much as
12km, the curves follow the same shape for percent passing. This means that the particle size
distributions are similar for all sites in comparison. The curve shapes can be classified as poorly
graded as the particles do not show a gradual distribution of all sizes.

Little amounts of gravel was recorded from all sites, not exceeding 10%. The particles that
predominate all samples from all sites are sand particles reaching as much as 92% as seen from
the graph.

Clay content during sample collection was observed to be high and hence it was assumed at the
time that the test results would yield the same. Upon lab tests, this proved untrue since clay
content was observed to be less than 14% the only exception being results for site D which
yielded 21% clays.

USCS classification has been shown in Table 4.2. The most common of the classification types
are either Sandy Clay (SC) or Sandy Silt (SM).

The range of distribution is the envelop of all curves, the furthest of curves marking the bounds.
The range approximately would be the bound made up by site B and site D curves.

While in comparison of particle distribution to one another of laterite soils within Nilai shows
little change, in contrast comparison of related research of laterite soils and their particle
distribution from other parts of the world show definitive variation as shown from the graph’s
comparison curves. Laterite soils from South Brazil and Uganda show similar distribution
curves while soils from West Africa and Nigeria show heightened levels of clay. In contrast to
all of the above distributions, Laterite soils from Ethiopia show high levels of gravel. These
results suggest that significantly varying particle sizes may be observed for laterite soils from
parts of the world, although the case for Ethiopia may be a rare observation. Most certainly the
case for Nilai is such that particle size distribution of laterite soils shows little variation.

62
4.3 Moisture Content Analysis

Natural moisture contents were recorded once the samples were taken directly to the laboratory.
The moisture contents from individual sites are shown in Table 4.3 and detailed data presented
in appendix 7.2.
Table 4.3 : Natural Moisture contents, all sites
Natural Moisture
Site Depth (m)
content (%)
A 1.0 18.56
B 1.0 34.12
C 1.0 25.29
D 1.0 28.81
E 1.0 24.26
Average 26.21

Plate 4.2 : Moisture content experimentation in lab

4.3.1 Moisture content, Discussion and Comparison

Table 4.4 : Moisture content comparison values

Moisture content
Reference Sites Depth (m) Average
Range (%)
Nilai sites A,B,C,D,E 1.0 18 to 34 26.21
Welega, Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) 0.5 to 2.5 14 to 35 25.36
Laos (HASELSTEINER, et al., 2014) - 20 to 32 -
Uganda (HASELSTEINER, et al., 2014) - 14 to 32 -
Ilorin, Nigeria (ALAO, 1983) - 2 to 14 -
Ile-Ife, Nigeria (AYODELE, et al., 2009) - 16 to 20 -
Niger State, Nigeria
0.5 to 2.0 5.5 to 12.5 -
(MUSTAPHA & ALHASSAN, 2012)
General range (BELL, 2007) - 10 to 49 -
General range (GIDIGASU, 1976) - 10 to 30 -

63
As seen from Table 4.4, the natural moisture content (NMC) range for Nilai and its determined
sites range from 18% to 34% with a mean value of 26%. These results are consistent with
research ranges specified by BELL (2007) and GIDIGASU (1976). Although it is not a must to
meet these requirements, it is significant to note that the NMC values are within those ranges
determined by earlier research on laterite soils.

Climatic conditions during time of sample collection were clear and normal except for site A
where light rain conditions were observed. Although the condition being so, no heightened
moisture content is seen for that sample.

In comparison to the sites from Nilai, the determined NMC from other research on laterite soils
from around the world show that they too conform to the ranges stated as reference except for
the case in Ilorin, Nigeria, where unusually low moisture contents were encountered.
ZELALEM (2005) reports the range and mean values of NMC from that research are almost
similar to the one from this paper.

These observations give acknowledgement that soils collected from Nilai are indeed lateritic
soils and that they follow the set of typical properties. The determination of NMC for a given
area provides information as to how best an engineering application should be carried out.

4.4 Maximum Dry Unit Weight & Optimum Moisture Content Analysis

As described in test procedures in section 3.5.3, the maximum dry unit weight (γd max) and
optimum moisture content (OMC) were determined for the lateritic soil samples collected from
Nilai. The results have been compiled in Table 4.5 and corresponding graphs of dry unit weight
vs. OMC are shown in Figure 4.2. Individual test results are shown in appendix 7.3.

Plate 4.3 : Proctor test conducted in lab

64
Dry unit weight vs moisture content
18
Site D = γd max = 17.02, OMC = 11%

17 Site E = γd max = 16.20, OMC = 16%

Site C = γd max = 16.08, OMC = 17%
Dry unit weight KN/m3

16
Site A
15 Site B
Site C
14 Site D
Site B = γd max = 16.13, OMC = 19% Site E
13

Site A = γd max = 16.55, OMC = 19%
12
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
moisture content (%)

Figure 4.2 : Proctor test results graph, all samples

Table 4.5 : Proctor test results, all samples


Maximum dry unit Optimum Moisture
Site Depth (m)
weight (kN/m3) content (%)
A 1.0 16.55 19
B 1.0 16.13 19
C 1.0 16.08 17
D 1.0 17.02 11
E 1.0 16.20 16
Average 16.40 16.40

4.4.1 Compaction, discussion and comparison

Compaction densify the soils, increasing dry unit weight with the addition of water. This
decreases the settlement effect, decreases permeability and also increases shear strength. The
highest limitation when water helps in maximizing the dry density is the maximum dry density
beyond which the soil loses its density. The corresponding moisture content is the optimum
moisture content (OMC) for that particular soil.

It is seen from Figure 4.2 that increased amounts of water added to the soil replaced the soil
particles with water, effectively reducing the density of soil.

Almost all the curves follow the same profile with dry density and being in close proximity to
65
one another. Optimum moisture content does not vary much, the most difference in values being
8% at most.

It should be noted that significant breakdown of soil particles and concretions can occur during
conduction of the proctor test compactions as mentioned in past research papers. In order to
avoid this, all compactions for different moisture levels were done on fresh soils from the
corresponding sites instead of re-using the same soils.

Table 4.6 : MDD and OMC comparison


Maximum dry Optimum
Testing
Reference Sites unit weight Moisture
Method
(kN/m3) content (%)
Nilai sites A,B,C,D,E Standard 16.40 16.40
Welega, Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) Standard 16.06 26.94
Niger Delta, Nigeria (UGBE, 2011) Standard 19.61 11.30
Ilorin, Nigeria (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) Standard 18.45 14.50
Lagos, Nigeria (OGUNSANWO, 1989) Standard 17.10 18.50
General range (BELL, 2007) Standard 15.2 to 17.3 19.00
General range (GIDIGASU, 1976) Standard 13.30 32.00

Comparisons of MDD and OMC are shown in Table 4.6. The MDD determined for laterite soils
from Nilai are quiet close to pre-determined vales for the same from other parts of the world.
This is especially true for laterite soils found from Nigeria. OMC for laterite soils from Nilai
does follow the same trend of values for laterite soils from other researches, the exceptions
being the case for soils from Ethiopia and general range of values states in GIDIGASU (1976).

4.5 Specific Gravity Analysis

Specific gravity (Gs) of air dried samples collected were determined as described in
section 3.5.4. Specific gravity is intensively used in soil engineering applications in determining
other parameters such as void ratio, particle size distribution using hydrometer analysis &
degree of saturation.

The results have been compiled in Table 4.7. Individual test results are shown in appendix 7.4.

66
Table 4.7 : Specific Gravity results

Natural Moisture Test Specific Gravity


Site
Content (%) Condition (Gs)
A 18.56 Air Dried 2.72
B 34.12 Air Dried 3.02
C 25.29 Air Dried 2.66
D 28.81 Air Dried 2.79
E 24.26 Air Dried 2.75
Average 2.78

4.5.1 Specific Gravity, discussion and comparison

The specific gravity (Gs) test results from Table 4.7 show slight variation from one site to
another. The range of Gs values found for laterite soils in Nilai are from 2.66 to 3.02. The
average was determined as 2.78. The typical value for a given laterite soil is around 2.75. Hence
the specific gravity determined for laterite soils in Nilai is strong evidence that these soils are
in fact laterite soils.

The most significant variation in Gs was for site B where the value is greater than 3.0. This is
not typical for laterite soils but not to be considered as a false reading since Gs values of more
than 3.0 has been observed, recorded and accepted in certain cases for laterite soils. The high
value is a good indication that the laterite soil may have high iron content. This is supported by
the fact that the reddish colour of laterite soil in Site B is more intense compared with samples
from other sites. (GIDIGASU, 1976; UGBE, 2011). Lower values of specific gravity strongly
suggest a coarse soil while higher values suggest fine grained soils (BS:1377-PART-2, 1990).

Table 4.8 : Specific Gravity comparison table

Specific Average
Test
Reference Sites Gravity range Specific
Condition
(Gs) Gravity (Gs)
Nilai sites A,B,C,D,E Air Dried 2.66 to 3.02 2.78
Welega, Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) Air Dried 2.78 to 3.03 2.90
Niger Delta, Nigeria (UGBE, 2011) Air Dried 2.50 to 2.83 2.62
Ilorin, Nigeria (ALAO, 1983) Air Dried 2.62 to 2.88 2.75
Ilesha, East Nigeria (BELLO &
Air Dried 2.60 to 2.80 2.70
ADEGOKE, 2010)
Uganda (GIDIGASU, 1976) Air Dried 2.69 to 2.91 2.80
India (GIDIGASU, 1976) Air Dried 2.78 to 2.92 2.85
Ghana (GIDIGASU, 1976) Air Dried 2.77 to 2.78 2.78

67
A comparison of specific gravities determined for sites from various parts of the world has been
summarized in Table 4.8. The resulting range of specific gravity for laterite soils found in Nilai
which is in agreement with the works of almost all the authors stated and the general range
stated as reference in GIDIGASU (1976).

Most interesting is the result from the works of ZELALEM (2005) where the Gs value range is
similar to the results of this paper.

It is safe to conclude from the observed results with comparisons that the specific gravity falls
within acceptable and pre-determined ranges and does not show significant variation from the
norm.

4.6 Atterberg Limits / Consistency Analysis

Plastic limit (PL) and liquid limits (LL) of the all air dried samples collected from all sites were
determined using the ascribed test methods in section 3.5.5. The Casagrande plasticity chart has
also been plotted using the analyzed results.

The consistency of a fine grained soil such as laterite soil is most easily determined by the
Atterberg limit tests. It should be noted that the type of drying can have an effect on the value
of PL and LL as seen from the discussion.

The results have been compiled in Table 4.9.Individual test results are shown in appendix 7.5.

Table 4.9 : Atterberg Limit Results

Natural Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Plasticity Index


Site Testing condition Moisture (PL) (LL) (PI)
content (%) (%) (%) (%)
A Air dried (5 days) 18.56 18 22.60 4.60
B Air dried (5 days) 34.12 28 43.20 15.20
C Air dried (5 days) 25.29 21 37.45 16.45
D Air dried (5 days) 28.81 17 28.95 11.95
E Air dried (5 days) 24.26 21 29.90 8.90

Average 26.21 21 32.42 11.42

68
Casagrande Plasticity  Chart
25

ICMP
20

Site C
Plasticity Index (%)

15 U‐line PI = 0.9(LL‐8) Site B

Site D

10 CS
Site E
A‐line PI = 0.73(LL‐20)

5
Site A ISMC
ICLP
ISLC

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Liquid Lmit (%)

Figure 4.3 : Casagrande Plasticity Chart Results

CS  Cohesion‐less Soil 
ICLP  Inorganic clays of low plasticity 
ISLC  Inorganic silts of low compressibility 
ICMP  Inorganic clays of medium plasticity 
ISMC  Inorganic silts of medium compressibility and organic silts 

4.6.1 Atterberg limit, discussion & comparison

Typically, the Atterberg limit test for laterite and lateritic soils yield a significantly high range
of values as proven from the research done by earlier authors referenced. This is influenced due
to the different climatic and soil conditions surrounding the area from which the soil samples
are taken (GIDIGASU, 1976).

When conducting liquid limit test, one important aspect to keep in mind is the fact that
aggregated clay particles break down rather quickly due to addition of water and hence may
affect the results. To mitigate this effect, appropriate time allowance of about half an hour was
given before conducting the test.

69
From the results given in Table 4.9, the natural moisture content lies somewhat in between the
plastic limit and liquid limit in general.

The results show that plastic limits and liquid limits are relatively close to each other resulting
in lower plasticity index, more so for samples from site A and E. The plasticity index can be
ruled as being low meaning the percentage of clays present is low. This means that the transition
from plastic limit to liquid limit takes place with the addition of a small amount of water.

The plasticity index is utilized in classifying laterite soils using it in co-relation with liquid limit
in the Casagrande plasticity chart shown in Figure 4.3. Plasticity index is the range of water
content where the soil transforms from plastic state to liquid state. For this reason, the Atterberg
limits or the consistency limits obtained from the tests help describe the consistency of the fine
grained laterite soils, hence the name association. The consistency is key to classifying the soils
which help to deduce where and how the soils could be utilized or if any limitations exist as a
construction material in a practical engineering application.

As mentioned in the literature review of this paper, the laterite soils which plot above A-line
are classified as inorganic clays which are plastic in nature and those below it as inorganic silts
that are non-plastic in nature. The upper limits of the chart are define by the U-line where plots
above the line represent cohesion-less soils.

By following these facts of reference, almost all laterite samples are clays, plastic in nature
except for samples from Site B which are silt, non-plastic in nature. And also in exception to
laterite soils form Site B, all soils testes are either low plasticity or medium plasticity meaning
the particles are close together reducing the surface on which water can effectively interact,
reducing the plasticity.

GIDIGASU (1976) describes the type of drying and mixing time has an effect on the
consistency limits as shown in Figure 4.4. Testing being done on air dried laterite soils found
in Nilai, it can be assumed that such effects are imposed on these soils and these effects can
only be observed if ‘as received’ and ‘oven dried’ conditions are tested in the lab and compared,
which is not in the scope of this paper.

70
Figure 4.4 : Effect of drying & mixing time on Atterberg limits (GIDIGASU, 1976)

ZELALEM (2005) reports that the Atterberg limits for different gradations and soaking
condition of soil results in negligible difference in comparison. Although this study does not
deal with laterite soils taken with gradation, nor soaking conditions, it is nonetheless interesting
to note that a similar result might have been the case for the laterite soils under investigation.

Table 4.10 : Atterberg limit & plasticity index comparison


Plastic Liquid Limit Plasticity Index
Location Limit (PL) (LL) (PI)
(%) (%) (%)
Nilai Sites A,B,C,D,E 18 to 28 22 to 43 4 to 16
Welega, Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) 34 to 43 54 to 67 18 to 24
Kenya (GIDIGASU, 1976) 39 to 42 76 to 88 37 to 46
Niger Delta, Nigeria (UGBE, 2011) 14 to 31 22 to 48 4 to 25
Ilorin, Nigeria (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) 18 to 23 40 to 46 21 to 22
Vietnam (PEARRING, 1968) 0 to 42 14 to 74 16 to 28
Range specified (BELL, 2007) 13 to 31 33 to 90 20 to 59

The comparisons of PL, LL and PI from Table 4.10 show that these values vary in range from
one location to another all around the globe. No significant trends are observed here. One reason
for this may be that the mineral constituents of laterite soils from these locations vary in quantity
and composition. Most laterites are known to compose of kaolinites. A comparison of
Casagrande plasticity chart is given in Figure 4.5.

71
Figure 4.5 : PI comparisons (ZELALEM, 2005) & (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012)

Figure 4.6 : PI comparison (UGBE, 2011)

In comparison to the determined plasticity index for laterite soils found in Nilai, the ones found
in Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) have plasticity index below the A-line while those found in
Nigeria (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) have plasticity index above the A-line. Once again, no clear
relationships could be made between laterite soils from different locations from the world since
clearly different results are observed here. This suggest that Atterberg limits are unique to the
climate, soil condition, natural moisture content and soil mineral composition found in a
particular area.

72
4.7 Direct Shear Analysis

The shear capacities of laterite soils found in Nilai were determined using the specified
procedures mentioned in section 3.5.6. The laterite soils from all sites were tested after a
minimum drying period of 5 days.

The results have been compiled in Table 4.11 and Figure 4.7. Individual test results are shown
in appendix 7.6.

Table 4.11 : Direct Shear resutls

Cohesion Angle of friction


Site
(KPa) (degrees)
A 10 32
B 20 20
C 24 30
D 15 21
E 12 23
Average 16.2 25.2

Shear stress vs Normal stress graph (Mohr‐Coulomb envelope)
250

200
Shear Stress (kPa)

150 Site A c=10, φ=32°
Site B c=20, φ=20°

100 Site C c=24, φ=30°
Site D c=15, φ=21°
Site E c=12, φ=23°
50

0
0 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure 4.7 : Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope, all sites

73
4.7.1 Direct Shear, discussion & comparison

By far amongst the index properties of soils, the most important consideration should be shear
strength since it is a major governing factor for any structural capacity. Shear strength provides
the necessary support for applications such as slope stability and bearing capacity, hence more
or less is always incorporated into engineering problems at some stage of the design process.

The objective of shear strength test is to determine the shear strength parameters which is the
(c) cohesion and angle of internal friction (ø). The direct shear test is one of the most definitive
and comparatively rapid tests to determine the shear parameters which are cohesion and angle
of internal friction.

Plate 4.4 : Direct shear plane failure, Direct Shear Test

The shear strength is dependent on the friction between adjacent soil grains and the resistance
they have against moving. This is known as the effect of interlocking effect. Shear is also
dependent on the density of the soil and also, to some degree, the shape of particles and grain
size distribution. The higher the density, so is the shear strength. When shear failure is observed
during the test, the plane of shear is cut as seen from Plate 4.4. Thus the maximum strength of
those soil particle to interlock is determined.

The shear strength parameters are very sensitive to the degree of saturation and moisture content
as most investigators agree. The amount of water affects the cohesion of soils in which an
increase of water decreases the cohesion. The influence of water content on shear parameters is
given in Figure 4.8. Hence, the amount of water within the soil has to be monitored prior to
testing. This was done by allowing the laterite soils to air dry for 5 or more days prior to testing.

74
Figure 4.8 : Effect of water on shear parameters (GIDIGASU, 1976)

Given all these know factors of shear failure, it was visually observed that the laterite soil
particle sizes were small and density was low which would contribute to lesser cohesion due to
the less interlocking effect. This statement is proven true as seen in Figure 4.7 where cohesion
is observed to be between 10KPa & 24KPa with an average of 16.2KPa for all samples. The
angle of internal friction range between 20° and 32° with an average of 25.2°. Given the facts,
the laterite soils could be used in moderately simple slope stability applications.

Since the Figure 4.7 shows an increasing trend line with regard to shear stress and normal stress
showing an angle of friction, it is conclusive that all laterite soils found in Nilai are cohesive in
nature but not purely cohesive soils; i.e. the plots on the graph are not horizontal.

Table 4.12 : Shear strength comparison table

Angle of
Cohesion
Location friction
(KPa)
(degrees)
Nilai Site A,B,C,D,E 10 to 24 20 to 32
Hong Kong (GIDIGASU, 1976) 0 to 215 25 to 32
Ilorin, Nigeria (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) 60 to 100 31 to 35
General range (HASELSTEINER, et al., 2014) 0 to 25 5 to 37
Uganda (HASELSTEINER, et al., 2014) Avg. 15 Avg. 25
Laos (HASELSTEINER, et al., 2014) Avg. 24 Avg. 17
General Range (BELL, 2007) 466 to 782 28 to 35

Comparison between determined shear strength parameters and those of earlier research as
shown in Table 4.12 shows significant variation of cohesion values from sites around the world.
While cohesion values of soils from Uganda and Laos are relatively similar to those laterite

75
soils in Nilai, this cannot be said as the same in the case of soils from Nigeria and Hong Kong
where cohesion range between 60 to 200+ KPa.

Although cohesion in comparison with other sites show significant variation, the angles of
internal friction for laterite soils found in Nilai are relatively similar to those site given in
Table 4.12. The average range determined from these sites is about 25 to 35° while the same
for laterite soils fond in Nilai is 20 to 32 °. This range is in close proximity to the mentioned
reference. Hence the laterite soils found in Nilai could be said to have medium cohesion strength
and angle of internal friction for applications of slope stability and shallow foundation
(OMOTOSO, et al., 2012).

76
4.8 CBR Test Analysis

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was conducted on laterite soils found in Nilai
according to procedures specified in section 3.5.7.

The results have been compiled in Table 4.13 and Figure 4.9. Individual test results are shown
in appendix 7.7.

LOAD   ‐ P E N E T R ATI O N  C U RVE


8

6
MEASURE LOAD (KN)

5
Site A
4 Site B
Site C
3
Site D

2 Site E

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PENETRATION (MM)

Figure 4.9 : CBR Curves, all sites

CBR for laterite soils were determined using the results obtained from the graph, standard loads
stated in Table 3.7 and applying it with equation (11). The results are stated in the table below.

Table 4.13 : CBR Resutls, all sites

CBR at 2.5mm CBR at 5mm CBR


Site
(%) (%) (%)
A 4.3 5.8 5.8
B 20.9 24.3 24.3
C 20.0 23.4 23.4
D 13.2 15.3 15.3
E 20.8 24.0 24.0
Average 15.84 18.56 18.56

77
4.8.1 CBR discussion and comparison

In the evaluation of materials for flexible pavement construction, the California Bearing Ratio
test developed by the California State High Department proves to be a very useful and effective
tool. As such, the base, sub-base and subgrade bearing strengths can be determined.

The load required to penetrate the soil sample under optimum moisture content and controlled
density is determined using this test. This is either done with soaked or unsoaked samples. For
the purpose of determining CBR for laterite soils found in Nilai, unsoaked samples were used.

CBR can be described as the strength of soil relative to crushed rock. The standard loads used
in determining CBR of laterite soils are said to have a CBR value of 100% which is obtained
from tests done on crushed stones. The CBR value at 2.5mm penetration is generally taken as
the norm as long as CBR at 5mm is lower in comparison.

Since this test is basically a penetration test, the deformation happens due to shear and hence
the CBR is an alternative measurement of shear force. However, this test is most appropriate
for the purpose for which it was developed which is thickness of highway base (HEAD, 1992).

CBR has been adopted in tropical areas in highway and airfield construction applications using
laterites and other tropical soils as construction materials. As such, this test has been proven
very useful for evaluation of nearly all laterite soils (GIDIGASU, 1976).

As seen from the results in Figure 4.9, sites A and D have different values of CBR and the
values for sites B, C and E are relatively similar to one another. GIDIGASU (1976) reports that
some laterites are known to have high strengths when dry but tend to decrease abruptly when
moisture content increases. Hence a sensitivity of CBR to moisture content is known to occur.
This might very well be the reason for the variation of CBR values for sites A and D. Also the
fact that the laterite soils are not well graded is also a contributing factor for variations.

According to Table 3.6, the laterite soils are suitable for use as subgrade material. The laterite
soils are characterized as being very poor or fair with regard to CBR. In general, if the CBR
value is less than 10, it is not suitable for subgrade use. For use as sub-base material, the CBR
has to be more than 30%, which for the laterite soils in Nilai is not. Base material requires CBR
to be even higher. ZELALEM (1995) reports that the lower CBR is attributed to the sesquioxide
bonds of laterite soils being weak leading up to low cementation between soil particles. Overall,
the laterite soils found in Nilai can be concluded as having low CBR value and inadequate as
road construction material by itself.

78
Table 4.14 : CBR comparisons

OMC # of CBR
Sample
(%) blows (%)
Nilai Sites A,B,C,D,E 16.40 56 5.8 to 24
Welega, Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) 26.94 56 79
General range (PERSONS, 1970) 9 to 25 - 11 to 52
Niger Delta, Nigeria (UGBE, 2011) 8 to 18 - 3 to 43
Ilorin, Nigeria (OMOTOSO, et al., 2012) 14 to 15 - 1 to 4
Ilesha, Nigeria (BELLO & ADEGOKE, 2010) 10 to 23 55 37 to 85

Comparison of CBR determined from previous research is presented in Table 4.14. It is clearly
seen that CBR values vary quite significantly from one site to another. As mentioned earlier,
these variations are most likely due to climatic conditions, sensitivity of soil to moisture and
particle size distribution and also optimum moisture content and maximum dry density.

In light of the findings from this research and comparisons made, the discussions suggest that
CBR values for laterite soils are subject to varying properties from one site to another due
sensitivity to a wide range of factors such as particle size characteristics, moisture content,
composition, plasticity, and degree of weathering.

79
4.9 Unconfined Compression Test Analysis

The unconfined compression test was conducted on laterite soils found in Nilai according to
procedures specified in section 3.5.8. Test samples were brought into the laboratory in specified
cylindrical tubes and extracted. Tests were conducted on these cylindrical samples.

Test results and derived graphs for a Site A has been shown along with the failure modes as a
typical example. The average results have been compiled in Table 4.15. Individual test results
are shown in Appendix 7.8.
Table 4.15: UCS results
Site UCS, qu (KPa) Shear strength, Cu (KPa)
A 38.80 19.40
B 45.61 22.81
C 134.22 67.11
D 79.61 39.81
E 43.01 21.51

SITE A, typical UCS determination example

Site A, Unconfined compression, σ vs ε graph


45.00 qu= 42.67 Kpa
40.00
Unit Stress, σ (kPa)

35.00
qu= 38.16 kPa
30.00
25.00 qu= 35.56 kPa
Sample 1
20.00
15.00 Sample 2
10.00 Sample 3
5.00
0.00
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Unit strain ε

Figure 4.10 : Site A, Unconfied compression curves

Figure 4.11 : Site A, Unconfined compression test failure modes

80
4.9.1 Unconfined Compression, discussion & comparison

Unconfined compression test (UCS) is a basic test to determine unconfined compression


strength (qu) and failure shear strength parameter of a cohesive soil sample, meaning a sample
that is inclusive of clay. The failure shear strength parameter is equal to the cohesion (Cu) of
the soil.

Unconfined compression test is the most popular means used to determine shear strength
parameter of the soil and it is has become one of the most common tests used to date. It is also
one of the easiest tests to be carried out in determining the said failure stress. Due to the lack of
lateral supports, the sample itself has to have sufficient cohesion to maintain its shape and
support its own weight. Hence the determination of cohesion (Cu) is considered the strength of
the soil sample (GIDIGASU, 1976).

The standard procedure of this test requires unconfined compression applied to an


unconsolidated soil under undrained condition (UU) where the lateral confining pressure σ3 is
0, hence the term ‘unconfined’. An increasing axial load at a constant rate was applied to the
soil sample until failure. The maximum load over unit area of sample is known as UCS. Using
the normal stress vs. strain curve, qu was obtained.

As seen from Mohr’s circle at failure from Figure 4.12, the major principle stress is σ1=qu at
failure and the minor principle stress σ3 remains zero. Since the shear strength τf is equal to
cohesion (Cu) and is independent of the confining pressure, it is taken as half of qu. The angle
of internal friction (øu) is zero in all cases.

Figure 4.12 : Unconfined compression test interpretation (SCOTT, 1980)

81
As seen from Table 4.15, the unconfined compression strength of laterite soils found in Nilai
vary with location. The most noticeable increase in strength is in laterite soils from sites C and
D which is approximately 200% and 77% respective increase from the average compression
strengths of the rest of the sites. ZELALEM (1995) reports that a high unconfined compression
strength may be due to the sesquioxides bonds having a high degree of cementation on the soil
particles.

According to Table 3.8, the laterite soils from site C is of stiff consistency and site D is of
medium consistency. The rest of the laterite soils are of soft consistency.

As the shear strength parameter Cu is half of qu, it also follows that for sites C and D, the shear
strengths are higher compared with the other sites.

This test is usually considered as a measure of elasticity and consequent recoverable


compression of the soil. As the elastic bearing strength of soil was made to exceed in this test,
the failure occurred either by plastic or brittle failure with lateral deformation. Failure modes
observed for all site samples show shearing plane failure. None of the samples showed failure
by bulging or excessive deformation. All failure modes have been depicted in Appendix 7.8.

The shear strengths obtained from unconfined compression test and direct shear test should not
be compared since the former uses undrained saturated soil and the latter uses air dried soil.

A number of reasons for error exist for this test. One of the reasons is that the laterite soil may
not representative of the bulk of the sample area, meaning it may have been subject to
disturbance in soil profile recently. The sample tested being short is also prone to significantly
varying results.

Practical applications such as determining bearing capacity of soils for foundations, dams, etc.
is dependent on the undrained shear strength Cu. Hence, the results from this investigation can
be used to definitively say whether the laterite soils found in Nilai could be used for certain
applications or not.

The governing factors for a high unconfined compression strength are sesquioxide strengths,
moisture content, particle size constituents and plasticity.

82
Table 4.16 : UCS comparisons

Sample UCS (KPa)


Nilai Sites A,B,C,D,E 38 to 134
Welega, Ethiopia (ZELALEM, 2005) 165 to 553
Ilorin, Nigeria (ALAO, 1983) 221 to 824
Kenya (GIDIGASU, 1976) 27 to 620
Niger State, Nigeria
94 to 412
(MUSTAPHA & ALHASSAN, 2012)

Table 4.16 shows the comparisons of UCS from sites from earlier research. These comparisons
clearly show a huge variation in compression strength in that UCS for laterite soils found in
Nilai are significantly lower than that for laterite soils from other sites. Although comparisons
made show difference in values, this does not mean the determined values are altogether wrong
or invalid. On the contrary, it serves as the basis for the notion that UCS vary with location and
accompanying factors such as OMC, MDD and climatic and soil conditions. It also clearly
shows the need to test for laterite soil strength when in need for any application.

83
CHAPTER 5

5.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Laterite soils found in Nilai and its geotechnical engineering properties have been investigated
and results obtained. Visually the soils are of fine content with reddish or light brownish colour.
Laterite soils in Nilai is not considered problematic in the conventional sense.

Particle size distribution shows that the laterite soils are poorly graded. Aggregates were found
to be less than 10% with predominant sands of both medium or fine grains and fines ranging
from 2 to 21%. Classification of soils using USCS revealed that overall, the laterite soils are
classified as Sandy clay (SC) or sandy silt (SM). Natural moisture content ranged between 18
to 24% at a mean value of 26%. Compaction test revealed a maximum dry unit weight (MDD)
of 16.4 KN/m3 and an optimum moisture content (OMC) of 16.4% respectively. Gs was found
to be between 2.66 and 3.02 with a mean of 2.78. Plastic limit, liquid limit and plasticity index
range between 18 to 28%, 22 to 43% and 4 to 16% respectively. This suggest that the soils
could be described as having a low to medium swell. With the exception of Site B soils, all
samples lie above the A-line of the Casagrande plasticity chart which translates as laterite soils
being mostly of inorganic clays of either low or medium plasticity. Shear strength parameters
c and ø were found to be 16.2kPa and 25.2° respectively. Unsoaked CBR was found to range
between 5.8 to 24%. Unconfined compression strength (qu) was determined to range between
38 to 134 kPa while undrained shear strength cohesion (Cu) was between 19 to 67 kPa.

Shear strength parameters c and ø suggest moderate bearing capacity with applications of slope
stability. Road subgrade applications are also a viable choice given the CBR results, although
stabilization of soil is required in such an application to increase durability.

Comparisons made between properties of laterite soils found in Nilai with that of other sites
from earlier research shows some similarities exist while variations in UCS, shear strength and
CBR are significantly high.

84
5.2 Recommendations

Further research needs to be done on laterite soils and accompanying properties that have been
published in the past. For this reason, the literature research in this project has limitations and needs
additional content.

Sample collection method needs to be broadened such that deeper pits be dug with collection
from various horizons of the pit. Undisturbed and disturbed samples need to be investigated
separately for any co-relation between them. Co-relation of laterite soil properties with depth
also need to be investigated.

In order to determine a relationship between soil profile and localized collection, a detailed soil
profile investigation need to be carried out.

While direct shear test is applicable for shear determination on all soils and is most satisfactory
for cohesionless soils, the preferred method for cohesive soils is either triaxial or unconfined
compression tests (GIDIGASU, 1976). Hence triaxial test on laterite soils found in Nilai needs
to be conducted to find shear strength parameters.

For CBR tests, various periods of soaked specimens need to be tested with varying number of
blows since it can have an effect on the results. The soaking period also needs to be carefully
selected since field moisture conditions are best depicted at either 24 or 48 hour soakings.

Laterite soil property co-relations and its method of applications need to be researched further
as past research clearly signify relationships with one property to other. Co-relation helps as an
aid in determining the best criteria for selection of soils for a given application so as to improve
the engineering characteristics.

Hydrometer analysis is highly recommended to be implemented in order to analyze fine soil


particles smaller than 0.075mm in diameter.

85
6.0 REFERENCE

[1] ALAO, D.A. (1983) 'Geology and Engineering Properties of Laterites from Ilorin,
Nigeria', Engineering Geology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 111-118.

[2] ALAYAKI, F.M. (2012) 'Water Absorption Properties of Laterite Soil in Road
Pavement: A Case Study Ife-Ilesha Highway, South Western Nigeria', International
Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, vol. 2, no. 11,
November, pp. 1-7.

[3] ASTM (2006) Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System) D 2487 – 06, West Conshohocken: ASTM.

[4] AYODELE, A.L., FALADE, F.A. and OGEDENGBE, M.O. (2009) 'Effect of fines
content on some engineering properties of lateritic soil in Ile-Ife, Nigeria', Journal of
engineering research, vol. 9, no. 32, pp. 1-15.

[5] BELL, F.G. (2007) Engineering Geology, 2nd edition, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

[6] BELLO, A.A. and ADEGOKE, C.W. (2010) 'Evaluation of Geotechnical Properties of
Ilesha East Southwestern Nigeria’s Lateritic Soil', The Pacific Journal of Science and
Technology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 617-624.

[7] BLIGHT, G.E. (1997) Mechanics of Residual soils, 1st edition, Rotterdam: Balkema.

[8] BS:1377-PART-2 (1990) British Standard Methods of Tests for Soil for Engineering
Purposes, Part 2, London: BSI.

[9] BS:1377-PART-4 (1990) British Standard Methods of Tests for Soil for Engineering
Purposes, Part 4, London: BSI.

[10] BS:1377-PART-7 (1990) British Standard Methods of Tests for Soil for Engineering
Purposes, Part 7, London: BSI.

[11] BURTON, C.K. (1972) 'Outline of the Geological Evolution of Malaya', Journal of
Geology, University of Chicago, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 293-309.

[12] CIRIA (1995) 'Laterite in road pavements', Transport Research Laboratory


(TRL),Westminster, London, no. 47, Available: HYPERLINK
"http://products.ihs.com/cis/Doc.aspx? AuthCode=&DocNum=282141"
http://products.ihs.com/cis/Doc.aspx? AuthCode=&DocNum=282141 [13 October
2014].
86
[13] DAS, B.M. (1997) Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual, 5th edition, Austin, Texas:
Engineering Press.

[14] DAS, B.M. (2010) Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 7th edition, Stamford USA:
Cengage Learning.

[15] EN-CLIMATE-DATA.ORG (2014) Climate: Nilai - Climate graph, Temperature


graph, Climate table, 20 September, [Online], Available: HYPERLINK
"http://en.climate-data.org/ location/47401/" http://en.climate-data.org/
location/47401/ [20 September 2014].

[16] EYLES, R.J. (1970) 'Physiographic Implications of Laterite in West Malaysia',


Geological Society of Malaysia, vol. Bulletin No. 3, pp. 1-7.

[17] FOOKES, P.G., DEARCLAN, W.R. and FRANKLIN, I.A. (1971) 'Some engineering
aspects of rock', Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, vol. 4, pp. 139-185.

[18] GIDIGASU, M.D. (1976) Laterite Soil Engineering Pedogenesis and Engineering
Principles, 1st edition, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.

[19] HASELSTEINER, R., SCHUETZ, H.-G., OSAN, C. and SOMDALEN, B. (2014)


'Lateritic Soils for Dam Foundations and Dam Cores -Two Case Studies and Their
Typical Properties', Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG, Renewable Energies & Environment,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-9.

[20] HEAD, K.H. (1992) Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, 2nd edition, London: Pantech
Press.

[21] HUTCHISON, C.S. and TAN, D.N. (2009) Geology of Peninsular Malaysia, 1st
edition, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.

[22] LUTGENS, F.K. and TARBUCK, E.J. (2012) Essentials of Geology, 11th edition,
Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

[23] LYON ASSOCIATES, I. (1971) Laterite and lateritic soils and other problem soils of
africa, 1st edition, Baltimore, Marylan: Lyon Associates, Inc.

87
[24] MALAYSIA, M.&.G.D. (2014) Mineral & Geoscience Department Malaysia, [Online],
Available: HYPERLINK "http://www.jmg.gov.my/en/" http://www.jmg.gov.my/en/
[1 October 2014].

[25] MET.GOV.MY (2014) Malaysian Meteorological Department - General Climate of


Malaysia, 20 September, [Online], Available: HYPERLINK
"http://www.met.gov.my/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=75"
http://www.met.gov.my/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=75 [20
Septermber 2014].

[26] MITCHELL, J.K. and SOGA, K. (2005) Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour, 3rd edition,
New York,N.Y: Wiley.

[27] MUSTAPHA, A.M. and ALHASSAN, M. (2012) 'Chemical, Physico-chemical and


Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Weathering Profile Derived from Granite
Basement', Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), vol. 17, pp.
1505-1514.

[28] OGUNSANWO, O. (1989) 'Some properties of a sedimentary laterite soil as


engineering construction material', Bulletin of the International Association of
Engineering Geology-Bulletin de l'Association Internationale de G'eologie de
l'Ing'enieur, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 131-135.

[29] OMOTOSO, O.A., OJO, O.J. and ADETOLAJU, E.T. (2012) 'Engineering Properties
of Lateritic Soils around Dall Quarry in Sango Area, Ilorin, Nigeria', Earth Science
Research, vol. 1, no. 2, February, pp. 71-81.

[30] PEARRING, J.R. (1968) 'A study of basic mineralogical, physical-chemical, and
engineering index properties of laterite soils', Graduate College of the Texas A & M
University, pp. 1-122.

[31] PERSONS, B.S. (1970) Laterite Genesis, Location, Use, 1st edition, Plenum Press.

[32] RAYCHAUDHURI, S.P. (1980) 'The occurance, distribution, classification and


management of laterite and lateritc soils', Journee Georges Aubert, vol. 18, no. 3-4,
September, pp. 249-252.

[33] SCOTT, C.R. (1980) An Introduction to Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 3rd edition,
London: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
88
[34] UGBE, F.C. (2011) 'Basic engineering geological properties of lateritic soils from
Western Niger Delta', Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, vol. 3,
no. 5, August, pp. 571-577.

[35] YOUNG, A. (1976) 'Tropical soils & soil survey', Cambridge Geographical Studies,
vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 1-468.

[36] ZELALEM, A. (2005) 'Basic Engineering Properties of Lateritic Soils Found in Nejo--
Mendi Road Construction Area', Addis Ababa University School of Graduate Studies,
vol. 1, pp. 1-85.

89

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen