Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

KA21603 Geotechnical Engineering 1, Session 2013/2014

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS COMPARISON BETWEEN THREE TYPES OF SOIL


SAMPLE COLLECTED AT THREE DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR CHOOSING THE
MOST SUITABLE SITE TO BUILD A RADIOACTIVE PROCESSING PLANT
BUILDING
MOHAMED FARIHAN MAIL
BK13160569
ABSTRACT: The aim of this project was to conclude whether the soil in Outdoor
Development Centre (ODEC), Faculty of Science and Natural Resources (FSSA) and
Faculty of Medicine and Health Science (FPSK) meet the required specification for
Radioactive Processing Plant project by conducting research and laboratory work to
classify the engineering properties of soil. There are 5 standards to classify an
unknown soil which are, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), British Standard Classification System (BS), and United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, these standards can only be used once
the soils undergoing laboratory test such as sieve analysis, and Atterberg Limit Test.
After the classification of different standard, the soil group name was found to be
almost the same and each soils type from different location is compared for the
suitability for land reclamation. Hence, the most suitable soil for land reclamation is
clayey soils.
Keywords: USCS, BS, ASTM, AASTHO, Atterberg Limits Test, Sieve Analysis, Liquid
Limit (LL), Plasticity Index (PI), Dry Density
compressibility (Ball et al., 2000)
( Aksakal et al., 2013). The higher the
1.0 INTRODUCTION
liquid limits of the soil, the higher is
the compressibility.
Soils are form when a rock is
undergoing
physical
weathering,
chemical weathering, and/or biological
weathering. Each of this process will
further decrease the size of the rock to
This research is limited to near UMS
gravel, sand, slit and clay.
area with 4 kilometres radius and the
It is to be expected that almost all
soil sample taken from are KingFisher,
the water in fine-grained soils is
along Jalan UMS-Sulaman, and UMSassociated with the clay minerals
ODEC due to time constraint and
(Mitchell, 1993). Plastic Limits (PL) and
liquid limits (LL) are useful because
transportation availability. Besides, our
they are direct measures of soil
group member has excluded the
mechanical behavior and represent an
hydrometer test to determine the
integration of soil properties (Soane et
percentage of silt and clay. The main
al., 1972),which can be used to
objective of this report is to:
estimate
properties
such
as
BK13160569, keystig@gmail.com, Civil Engineering Program, UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
SABAH

KA21603 Geotechnical Engineering 1, Session 2013/2014

a) Classification of soil using


different standard,
b) Compare to research finding,
c) Determine the suitability of soil
for land reclamation (land fill).

2.0 RESEARCH METHOD


Each soil sample is taken from 3
different locations, which are Faculty
of Science and Natural Resources
(FSSA), Outdoor Development Centre
(ODEC) and Faculty of Medicine and
Health Science (FPSK). Approximately
2.5 Kg of soil is taken from these 3
locations. Soil is carefully extracted far
beneath top soil and any object (roots,
leaf, shell, etc.) are removed.
Sieving procedure
Sieve size are arranged in an order
with No. 3/8 in at the top follow by, No.
4, No. 8, No. 10, No. 14, No. 30, No.
40, No. 50, No. 200 and a pan at the
bottom of all sieve mentioned. After all
three sample weighed, the sieve
analysis is conducted. Before start
sieving, each size of sieve tray are
cleaned to make sure there are no
impurities that will affect the sieving
process. The weight of each sieve was
recorded before soil is placed. Each
soil is then weight for 500 gram to be
sieve, the sample was placed gently to
avoid the loss of weight. Lid was
placed and the sieves were agitated in
the mechanical shaker for about 10
minutes. (Makinda, 2015)
Sieves were weighted with the soil
sample retained. If the total weight
before and after is differs by more
than 0.3%, the result should not be
used.
(Hasannel,
2015)
The
BK13160569, keystig@gmail.com, Civil
SABAH

percentage was coarser than the


percentage passing was calculated,
and hence, the gradation chart is
plotted.
Atterberg Limit
Sieve with No. 50 and soil that
passed sieve No. 50 is used for the
liquid limit (LL) test. Sample is first
added with water to about surface
saturated dry, then it is placed in a
penetration cup using spatula and
pressed slightly to removed air void.
Lowered the penetration cone until the
needle slightly touched the surface of
the sample. The cone penetration is
released for about 3 second and the
penetration depth is taken. Average
cone penetration is taken to reduce
error. A small sample of cup
penetration is taken, weight, and
oven-dry for 24 hours. After oven-dry,
the sample was weight again to
determine
the
moisture
content
Remainder of the sample is then put in
some pure water to increase its
moisture content. The procedure is
repeated and 5 set of test is recorded.
(Makinda, 2015)
small quantity of sample set from
the Fall Cone Test is rolled on the glass
plate to form soil thread until it
crumbles when its diameter is about
3mm. Water is added until sample is
in wet condition. A small amount of
soil sample is taken and rolled on the
glass plate to form soil thread until it
crumbles
(or
cracks)
when
its
diameter
about
3mm.
Crumbles
sample immediately taken to weighed
and oven dry (24hours) in order to
obtain the moisture content. The
procedure is repeated for 4 set tests.
(Makinda, 2015)
Engineering Program, UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

KA21603 Geotechnical Engineering 1, Session 2013/2014

Compaction test
Soil sample of 2Kg was taken from
sieve No. 4. The weight of the Proctor
mould with volume of 0.000987m3 is
then recorded. After the compaction
apparatus was assembled, soil sample
is the mixed with 150mm3 of water.
After that, the soil is placed into the
Proctor mould layer by layer (3 layers).
The soil was then compacted with 25
evenly distributed blows by using
Proctor hammer. The mould is then
carefully detached from the apparatus
and weighed. Next, the weighed
sample is removed from the mould
and small portion (20-30 grams) of
that soil sample is taken and to find its
moisture content. The procedure is
repeated for another 4 times with
100mm3 volume of water added each
times.
3.0 RESULT
Table 1: Result of sieve analysis
Openin
g (mm)
9.5
4.75
2.36
2
1.4
0.6
0.425
0.3
0.075
Pan

% Finer
FSSA
98.49
4
84.50
2
59.32
6
57.47
49.34
6
13.28
8
9.681
8.979
3.468
0

ODEC
99.398
98.595

FPSK
96.743
76.903

97.039

63.025

96.788
95.031

61.322
56.262

37.049

43.186

23.695
19.83
7.43
0

35.621
31.763
14.237
0

Table 1: The result of the fall cone


penetration test for FSSA
Water
Conten
t (%)
Penetr
ation
(mm)

28.
71

27.
74

25.
39

28.
02

26.
79

166
.67

217
.67

120
.67

190
.33

200
.33

Figure 2: Moisture content at 20mm


depth
penetration defines the
liquid limit of
soil sample. For
FSSA LL is 24.4%.
Table 2: The result of the fall cone
penetration test for
FPSK
Water
Content
(%)
Penetra
tion
(mm)

28.5
9

30.6
9

31.7
5

31.3
8

3
4

220.
33

171.
67

212.
67

215.
67

2
3
9

Figure 1: Soil sample gradation chart


at
FSSA, ODEC, and FPSK.
BK13160569, keystig@gmail.com, Civil Engineering Program, UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
SABAH

KA21603 Geotechnical Engineering 1, Session 2013/2014

Figure 3: Moisture content at 20mm


depth penetration defines the liquid
limit of
soil sample. For FPSK LL
is 27.5%.
Table 4: Classification of each soil
sample
Properti FSSA
ODEC
FPSK
es
D10
0.5
0.09
0.032
D30
0.9
0.56
0.3
D60
2.7
0.83
1.8
CU
5.4
9.22
56.25
CV
0.6
4.198
1.56
2
Note: Cu=D60/D10 ; Cc=(D30) /(D60D10)

Table 5: Classification of Soil by using


USCS
Properties

FSSA

ODE
C
98.59
5
7.43

Passing
84.50
4.75 mm
2
Passing
3.468
0.075 mm
LL
24.4
NP
PI
2.11
C lassificati SM
SWon
SX
Note: NP means non-plastic.

FPSK
76.90
3
14.23
7
27.5
4.62
SM

Table 6: Classify the soils by using


AASHTO
Properties
Passing
2.000 mm
Passing
0.425 mm
Passing
0.075 mm
LL
PL
PI

FSSA
57.49

3.468

ODEC
96.78
8
23.69
5
7.43

24.4
22.24
2.11

NP
4.62

9.681

FPSK
61.32
2
35.62
1
14.23
7
27.5
22.88
-

Classificati A-1-b A-3


A-1-b
on
Note:GI=(F-35)[0.2+0.005(LL-40)]
+0.01(F-15)(PI-10)
Table 7: Classify the soil samples by
using ASTM
Properties
Passing
0.075 mm
Passing
4.75 mm
LL
PI
CV
CU
Classificati
on

FSSA
3.468

ODEC
7.43

84.50
2
24.4
2.11
0.6
5.3
SP

98.59
5
NP
4.198
9.22
SP

FPSK
14.23
7
76.90
3
27.5
4.62
2.56
56.25
SW

Table 8: Classify the soil samples by


using USDA
Properties

FPS
K
0.075<sand<4
79.3
.75
7
0.002<silt<0.0
15.8
75
7
Clay<0.002
1.75 2.1
4.76
Classification
San Loam San
d
y
d
Sand Loa
m
Table 9: Classify the soil samples by
using BS
Properties
Passing
0.063 mm
Passing
2.000 mm
LL
Classificati
on

FSS
A
94.7
4
3.51

ODE
C
76.2
4
21.7

FSSA
3

ODEC
6

FPSK
0

57.47

96.78
8
NP
-

100

24.4
SPu

27.5
SWM

Table 10: Compaction test for FPSK

BK13160569, keystig@gmail.com, Civil Engineering Program, UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA


SABAH

KA21603 Geotechnical Engineering 1, Session 2013/2014

Dry
den
sity
(Kg
/m3)

167
7.58
8

Wat
er
Con
ten
t
(%)

0.19
4

153
9.88
9

0.22
3

152
1.39
3

0.23
8

147
5.46
1

0.25
8

136
3.97
7

0.26
5

Figure 4: The results of the compaction


test for FPSK

4.0 DISSCUSSION
Table 11: Analysis results of the soil
samples
Properti
es
Coarsegrained
soil (%)

Soil
FSSA
96.532

ODEC
92.57

FPSK
85.263

Finegrained
soil (%)
Gravel
(%)
Sand
(%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
PL
LL
PI
AASHTO
BS
USCS
ASTM
USDA

3.468

7.43

14.237

43

37

54

89

49

2
1
22.24
24.4
2.11
A-1-b
SPu
SM
SP
Sand

5
12
2
2
22.88
NP
27.5
8.1
A-3
A-1-b
SWM
SP-SX
SM
SP
SW
Loamy Sand
Sand
Loam
Note: The value of coarse and fine
grained, gravel, sand, silt and clay
based on AASHTO.
In this experiment, FPSK soil
sample is chosen for compaction test
because it managed passed the
required
specification
based
on
AASHTO (A-1-b), BS (SWM) and USDA
(Sandy Loam). By observing table 10
(compaction test for FPSK), it is found
that FSPK has the maximum dry
density of 1677.588 Kg/m3 which is
well over the required specification
needed (1600Kg/m3).
On the other hand, soil sample
taken from ODEC is neglected because
it is unable meet the requirement for it
to be tested using fall cone test since
the soil is sandy and does not have
any plasticity. Because of this reason,
we are unable to get the LL and PL for
this soil sample.
Soil sample taken at FSSA is also
neglected because the specification it
meets are less than soil sample taken
from FPSK .
5.0 CONCLUSION

BK13160569, keystig@gmail.com, Civil Engineering Program, UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA


SABAH

KA21603 Geotechnical Engineering 1, Session 2013/2014

In a nut shell, it is found that soil


sample from FPSK meet the outlined
specification for radioactive waste
treatment plant project for the
Australian earth mining company.
Referring to table 11, the engineering
properties and classification of this soil
sample can be determined. FPSK's
percentage of fine-grained soils is
14.237% . It is consider as sands with
fines because it has Cu more than 6
and the Cv is more than 1. This soil can
be classified as well graded (SW). The
required maximum dry density of this
soil sample meet the required
specification
for
the
radioactive
processing plant which is well over
1600Kg/m3.

7.0 REFERENCE
Aksakal, Ekrem Lutfi et al. (2013),
Catena Effect of Diatomite on Soil
Consistency
Limits
and
Soil
Compactibility, pp 157-163.
Hassanel, Zachary (2015), KA20801:
Concrete and Material Laboratory,
students
lab
manual,
FKJ,
University Malaysia Sabah.
Makinda, Jodin (2015), KA21603:
Geotechnical
Engineering
1,
students
lab
manual,
FKJ,
University Malaysia Sabah.

BK13160569, keystig@gmail.com, Civil Engineering Program, UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA


SABAH