You are on page 1of 15

Engineering Geology, 34 (1981) 185--199


Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands



Building and Road Research Institute, Kumasi (Ghana)
The University of Leeds, Leeds (Great Britain)
(.Received January 20, 1981, accepted July 20, 1981)

Akoto, B.K.A. and Singh, G., 1981. Some geotechnical properties of a lime-stabilized
laterite containing a high proportion of aluminium oxide. Eng. Geol., 17: 185--199.
The engineering properties of many soils can be improved by lime stabilization. Not all
such soils, however, show improved strength. Such non-reactive soils will show no strength
increase regardless of lime type and percentage, curing environment and duration of
The type and amount of minerals and elements may either facilitate or inhibit increase
in strength. The strength of soils possessing high proportions of aluminium oxide could
be reduced when stabilized with lime and cured over a long period at a high temperature.
This decrease in strength is due to the type o f reaction products formed.
A Kenyan laterite with a high proportion of aluminium oxide was stabilized with
different percentages of lime and cured over periods of up to 28 days. The results show
that with a lower percentage of lime, the unconfined strength decreases with increase in
curing time. However, when the amount o f lime is increased, there is an increase in
strength with curing time. The immediate California Bearing Ratio (C.B.R.) values are
observed to be functions of density and moisture content. The higher the density, the
greater the C.B.R. values.

Use of lime-clay mixtures for construction purposes started some 5,000
years ago; the sub-bases of many R o m a n roads, including the Appian Way,
were stabilized with lime (Krebs and Walker, 1971). In the United States of
America, lime stabilization was first used a b o u t 1920 and by 1971 the use of
lime stabilization was approaching an annual rate of 500 million m 2 of construction.
The purpose o f lime-stabilization has been to alter soil properties for
specific engineering requirements. Such soil properties as strength, permeability, workability anql swelling potential can be changed or improved b y
soil stabilization. N o t all soils, however, show improved strength with addition
of lime. With some svils~he pozzotanm reaction is inhibited, cementing agents
0013--7952/81/0000--0000/$02.50 © 1981 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

Those which react with . Both static and dynamic tests were performed on the raw and the stabilized soil. If a soil is "non-reactive" strength increase will not be achieved regardless of lime type and percentage. This study was undertaken using laterite soil having a high proportion of oxides of iron and aluminium and stabilizing it with various percentages of lime. The stabilizingage. Legend : K . kaolinite.~t used was commercial-grade white calcium hydrated lime.lime to produce strength increase greater than 345 kN/m 2 following 28 days curing at a temperature of 22. MATERIALS The soil was red-brownish laterite imported from Kenya. whilst De Graft Johnson and Bathia (1969). . The main elements in the soil were oxides of silica.Kaolin F. particle-size composition.These and other elements present in the soil are shown in Table I.186 are not extensively formed. position of the soil in the profile and the soil series.8°C are "reactive". Thompson (1966} has used the term "reactivity" to distinguish between soils which "react" with lime and those that do not. . and those which display strength increase less than 345 kN/m 2 are called "non-reactive". which form more than 80% by weight of the total elements in the soil. amongst other things. mica content. The response of soil to stabilization is influenced by the clay minerals. organic matter. gibbsite and mica (Fig. Bishewski {1963). attribute the susceptibility of laterite soils to stabilization to the high concentration of sesquioxide.oL Quartzite F .Feldspar " O / K F F K rV~ 20 (CU Kcr.Oibbsife O . The main constituent minerals were quartz. Thompson (1965) and Sherwood (1968) have indicated that the presence of sesquioxides decreases the strength of stabilized laterite soils. This paper contains the results obtained from the static tests. o n t h e other hand. r a d i a t i o n l Fig.l). sesquioxides present.1.aluminiurn and iron. curing environment and duration. and hence there is no appreciable strength increase. X-ray diffraction patterns for raw laterite. feldspar.

the lime--soil mixture was compacted in a C.61 0.22 26.R. C. Compaction and C.21 1.06 P2Os NaO Water loss in fusion Total 100.187 TABLE I Results from chemical analysis by x-ray fluorescence of the fraction < 5 mm Elements % by weight SiO2 A1203 Fe203 TiO: MnO MgO CaO K~O 31.B. tests were then performed immediately. Such preliminary values as consistency limit. The soil was then sieved through 5 mm sieve. The specimens were prepared in a 50 mm by 100 mm constant-volume mould by static compaction to modified ASSHO maximum density.S. All tests were performed according to B.B. different soil samples were used for the determination of the various experimental points on the compaction curve. Moisture--density relationships were investigated for the untreated.). 1377 (1975) and 1924 (1975).) and the Unconfined Compressive Strength (U. 3%.54 15.B. specific gravity and pH were measured. Homogeneous mixtures were obtained by blending the required amount of lime with the air-dried soil in a mechanical mixer for three minutes. Immediately after mixing.38 0. the following steps were taken. California Bearing Ratio (C. 7% and 10% lime contents. Since the soil was susceptible to crushing.R.83 22. Water was then added and mixing continued for about seven minutes. The retained component was discarded.R.30 0. To obtain a uniform density through the specimens and also to make extrusion o f the specimens easier.C.B.24 0. mould at modified AASHO compaction level.R.55 0. 5%. The static tests performed on both the natural and the stabilized soft included compaction. .33 TESTING PROCEDURES The soil was mixed thoroughly and then air-dried at room temperature.42 1. Unconfined compression tests All the unconfined compression tests were performed on samples compacted at optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight for each treatment level.

the surface of each layer being scarified before the n e x t layer was put on. first. o t ~ ucb I:i 90 71 80 70 7. The samples were extruded from the mould.O 30 20 I 10 0 00001 kfldTl 11 Ii 0. i 10 100 . This change may be attributed to the fact that the higher concentration causes agglomeration of the smaller particles. so as to obtain a good bond between layers..eing tapped by a rod fifteen times.5% to 5% decreased the clay content by 6%.2. o N o u. which is considered to be the best dispersing agent for laterite (Gidigasu. (b) Compaction was done in t w o stages. at least three specimens were tested after 1.001 0 01 01 10 Porticle S~ze (ram) A . waxed and stored in an oven kept at a temperature of 28°C + 2°C. 1976). After this initial compaction. manually in four layers. Increasing the concentration from 2. Particle-size o c o r~.'~ o oO 100 ~t~ ~ .5 0 m l l "S°dium HexometQphosphafe C-Originaal Soil Fig.2. with slight changes in the other particle sizes. The dispersing agent used was sodium hexametaphosphate. the mould with its end caps in position was placed under a universal compression machine and the sample compacted from both ends o f the mould at a compression rate of 1 mm per minute. 14 and 28 days of curing.2 5m11 B . 7. At each stabilizer content. X: I/l! 60 50 z. each layer b.188 (a) A very thin film of grease was smeared in the mould before compaction. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Particle size distribution The result o f the particle-size distribution tests is shown in Fig.

the Casagrande method and the cone penetrometer method. samples cured for 1 h had liquid limits greater at all lime contents than those cured for 24 h.62 and 2.~/*( . 60 \\ ~ 50' Liquid Limff . respectively. Whilst the two curing methods did not differ much in their effects on the plastic limit. .3. The results are shown in Fig. • Cone -Penefrometer ~J"¢ 30 2C ~ 1 hr curing 24 hrs curing Lime Content Fig. Specific gravity This was found to be 2. hrs. E f f e c t o f lime c o n t e n t o n Atterberg's limits.3o 10 • Cnsagr'ande "~I hr o Cone PenetrometerJ c~ C a s a q r a n d e 2/. at all times.71 for samples passing through 2 m m and 5 m m sieves.189 A tterberg limits Two methods. These and other engineering properties of the soil are shown in Table II._--e Plastic Limit ~. The iron concentration in the larger particle sizes was responsible for the higher values of the specific gravity in the bigger sizes.3. were used to determine the liquid limit of the soil samples after 1 h and 24 h o f curing. lower than those obtained by the Casagrande device. The values of the liquid limit from the c o n e p e n e t r o m e t e r method were.

g.5 1760 109.71 5. Like most soil--lime mixtures. 5% and 7% lime softs are similar.62 2. Neubauer and Thompson.7 19.190 TABLE II Some engineering properties of Kenyan laterite Liquid limit (%) Plastic limit (%) Plasticity index Mod. Immediate CBR tests will. there is a wide disagreement as to the mechanisms responsible for these effects.4 and 5.AASHO max.7).7 2. At the o p t i m u m moisture contents (Fig. o f the properties of cohesive soft. Whilst some researchers (e.9. therefore..5--7 and Fig.e. 1965) postulate t h a t the mechanism responsible is the formation o f bonds of tetracatcium alumina hydrates and possibly .5 shows the relationship between moisture c o n t e n t and immediate CBR for the different lime contents. 1972) attribute the amelioration effect to the immediate cation exchange and the flocculation and agglomeration reactions that occur when cohesive soil is stabilized with lime. Diamond and Kinter. Even though most researchers rule o u t the possibility of extensive development of pozzolanic reaction products being responsible for the rapid amelioration. Fig. the dry unit weight decreases with an increase in the lime content. The decrease of dry unit weight with the addition of lime can be attributed to the flocculation and agglomeration of the soil particles and to the lower unit weight o f lime. Dry Density (kg/m 3) (ib. improvement. The increase in the o p t i m u m moisture content could be attributed to the total increase in fines c o n t e n t due to the addition of the lime and to the high affinity which lime has for water./ft 3) Optimum moisture content (%) Specific gravity < 2 mm < 5 mm pH 49.3 Dry unit weight/moisture content The results of the compaction tests are shown in Figs. the 3% stabilized soil gave the highest CBR.g.2 29. The shapes o f the CBR and compaction curves for the 3%. i. and there is very little information on the immediate effects t h a t result from the improvement of properties of uncured lime--laterite mixtures. As observed by Neubauer and Thompson (1972) and Van Ganse (1974) the immediate improvements in the stabilized soil are n o t proportional to the a m o u n t o f lime added. The test results are shown in Figs. California Bearing Ratio ( CBR ) Most of the published research on lime-stabilized soils has been devoted to cured specimens.6 19. others (e. shed some light.

191 1800 • 0% • 3% • 5% • 7% • 10% '"~"\ \ 1780 \ \ Lime Lime Lime Lime Lime \ \ 1760 • \" \ \ \ 17/. Fig. Jan and Walker (1963) have also observed that both the immediate CBR and the cured CBR are functions of both density and moisture content. resulting in the formation of soil crumbs. It does appear that the amelioration is due to the flocculation and agglomeration of the soil when mixed with lime. the greater the CBR value o f the stabilized soil. however. admit that the formation of hydrates does not lend itself to easy demonstration. __i 21. This happens as a result of an immediate reaction occurring between the alumina-bearing edges of clay particles and the lime adsorbed on the faces of adjacent particles.4. It could be concluded that the immediate CBR values are functions of both moisture content and dry density. The higher the dry density. There are optimal moisture contents and compactive efforts for m a x i m u m strength. The reaction products formed are neither stable nor complete and by themselves are not responsible for the strength increase. calcium silicate hydrates which link the clay particles together. which help to link the clay particles together. Diamond and Kinter.1720 o 1700 ~3 I \\ 16 1~8 2'0 2'2 Moisture Content {%} 1680 1660 16~0 1 1/. Moisture/density relationships. . and possibly the formation of calcium alumina and calcium silica hydrates. Van Ganse (1974) attributes the amelioration of the soil properties to the formation of the softs into crumbs which retain their individuality when the lime--soil mixture is kneaded and compacted.0 \ E \\ -.

-- 60~ 40t/ c~ 1660 ~0 ~ 30 c~ 00 16~... Relationships among moisture content.o • 20 Me~sture Content I%) 60 ao ~o ~ 0o 30 so 20 m ~. -. 105/o '..\\ ! 1 2'3 2s Fig. • -- s% • ..192 1800 (o1 .'~.5..'~ 1720~ ~ 00 1~9of :..A\ . mo -= ~72o } 16~0 = 16 16 10 20 3% L. ~\ ~ \ "-. 100 80 '.. • .. ~\:.) Fig. dry density and immediate California Bearing Ratio (CBR).......01 1690 70~J"...... 6O ~ :\ L_a ~0 Lime Content .Dry Density (bl---CBR 00 0% Lime _ . 20 °.0 ~ 10 00 21 22 23 Hoisfur~ Content (%) Holsture Content (~/... \...1720 1" 80 ~ 1700 50 11670 ~.3 o% • --- r/.. I I 15 1A7 19 21 Moisture Content (%) ._ ".0 :::{ ~o := o Moisture Content f % l 10% Lime 7"/. Relation b e t w e e n moisture c o n t e n t and CBR at various lime . t1080 ~_ ~ 1650 c~ 16.0 10 30 0 20~f16 ~7oo ' c~ 1680 18 20 2~1660'2"" ~ Molstut~ Content (%) 24 5% Lime 1001 /. . m a x i m u m CBR.

calcium aluminate hydrates (CAH) and calcium aluminosilicate hydrates (CASH). . The reaction products at the end of three.193 100 80 /60 \ \ \ ) . These pozzolanic reaction products are generally calcium silicate hydrates (CSH).0 \. but also there was an indication of the definite formation of crystalline C4AHn at all temperatures.and seven-day curing were similar to those of one-day curing.8--12. even though it was non-conclusive. +1 Moisture Confenf I *2 Fig. except that the calcium aluminate hydrates were quite evident at the higher temperatures of 50°C and 60°C. R u f f and Ho (1966) also studied the time-temperature strength-reaction products and observed that reaction products in the tobermorite hydrate groups are formed at all temperatures as early as one day after compaction. He observed that the lime consumed was very high at the initial stage. To explain the shapes of the graphs it will be necessary to explain briefly the reactions that bring a b o u t strength increase in lime-stabilized soils. thereafter the rate of consumption was highly reduced.: / s% Lime \ f2:: ¸ ~0 7% Lime \ ~10% Lime 20 I 0 -2 I | I -1 OPT. more than 50% being consumed within the first five to seven days. 0. CBR against moisture c o n t e n t . Nwakanma (1979) studied the reaction between lime and red tropical soil from Brazil by measuring the a m o u n t of unreacted lime left in solution. from 5°C to 60°C.7. Slight amounts of calcium aluminate hydrates appeared to have formed. The x-ray diffraction curve for 65 days was similar to that formed after 7 days curing. Unconfined compressive strength The results of strength tests are shown in Figs. and hence the a m o u n t of lime consumed during lime--soil reaction. The strength shown by soil--lime mixtures comes about as a result of the reaction between lime and soil minerals to generate cementitious reaction products.

60 ~ t_.8." 700 90_ 600 o 80 500 ¢. 70 ocu c~ CO ~oo g 30o 2°°o _o / (a} UC.---e3O/o ~oo c 300 r 200 1 1/* Age(days) r --0% 2=1 2'8 Fig. . LimeContent {°/o) ~ 1~ Fi~.9.R..~ CB... Relationship between Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and age at various lime contents.194 900 "~10% 800 7% 7oc z ~ 5% ~600 500 .. ~ .S. ' (b) .. Relationship between lime content and: (a) one-day UCS. and (b) immediate ... 8°°I 100 lI = ~ ..

R u f f and Ho (1966) concluded from their work that lime--clay reaction is a con- . It could. for example. Harty and Thompson (1973}. It has been reported that the time lapse between mixing and compaction has no deleterious effect on the strength of the compacted mixture. requiring very long periods of from several weeks to many months.195 150 J f J / I~0 / 10% Lime f p 130 p. Mitchell and Hooper (1961} have pointed o u t that if there were a "perm a n e n t " cementing reaction at an early stage of mixing lime with soil. be concluded that even if more than 50% of the lime is consumed within the first five to seven days after curing and that reaction products are formed as early as 24 h after compaction.) Lime 2'1 Fig. therefore.d a y UCS. the strength increase in the soil--lime mixture is n o t due to the a m o u n t of lime consumed nor to the initial reaction products formed b u t rather to the changes that take place in the cementitious products formed during the pozzolanic reaction. then delay between mixing and compaction should adversely affect the strength of the final products as happens in the case of soil-cement. Anday (1963) has indicated that the strength development in lime--soil mixtures is a very slow process.-J f J f / 120 I I I 11o 2 loo aJ r~ 90 80 " ' ~ 3 % 70 ÷ Age (days. have observed that the strength of 28-day cured lime-stabilized soil is a b o u t 2 to 3 times that of the 7-day cured material.10. UCS e x p r e s s e d as a p e r c e n t a g e o f o n e .

in the region of 30°C and above. depending upon curing time and temperature. At an elevated temperature. C3AH6 (3CaOA1203" 6H20) has a higher density than the original calcium aluminates and under the conditions that the overall dimensions of the b o d y are constant.. This c o m p o u n d is responsible for loss of strength in high-alumina cement and lime (or cement) stabilized soil with high proportions o f aluminium oxide. 1966).11. this increased density in the c o m p o u n d brings a b o u t increased . and once formed it is stable at r o o m temperature (Ruff and Ho. They indicated that at any given time there could be more than one phase of the reaction present.196 900 BOO E 700 %-J = 600 >~ 500 o L~ ~0o ¥ c . Relationship between 28-days UCS and lime content. secutive reaction.= 300 ~ o 200 I00 0 1 I 2 ~ I 6 Lime Content ~ t 10 (°1o) Fig. is formed. This converted cubic c o m p o u n d . The other cementitious products formed during soil--lime reaction are the calcium aluminate hydrates.C4AHn. a different calcium aluminate. and that the strength increases as the reaction proceeds further. the strength gain being due to the different phases of the complete reaction: lime + clay -~ CSH {gel) -* CSH (11) -~ CSH (1) -~ tobermorite. This c o m p o u n d is the same as that formed in high-alumina cement at high temperatures or with prolonged curing. The form generally produced at r o o m temperature has the composition -. C3AH6.

Lea (1970) has emphasized that it is the volume change on conversion. changes take place in the reaction products which. there is a gradual decrease o f strength with time. Therefore the reaction products likely to be formed are both CSH and CAH.8 shows that the increase in strength is n o t proportional to the a m o u n t of lime added. amongst other things.12.9 shows that the shape of the curve of the oneday UCS is similar to that of the immediate CBR at various lime contents. The soil used for this study had a high proportion of both A1203 and $102 and the clay mineral was predominantly kaolinite.197 600 300 200 100 o 1'o Lime Content (%) Fig. With time. Neville. rather than the mineralogical nature or morphology of the hydrates formed that is responsible for the fall in strength. This reduction in strength m a y be due to the conversion of the calcium aluminate hydrate to the cubic c o m p o u n d . UCS as a percentage of natural soil (28 days curing). Sherwood (1968) indicated that the effect o f conversion of the initial calcium aluminate hydrate to the cubic c o m p o u n d m a y be masked by the strength increases of the other pozzolanic reaction products. He observed that there was a reduction in strength with time when bauxitic soil (47% A1203 and only 4% $102) was stabilized with as much as 10% lime or cement. for example 3%. porosity in the stabilized soil mass and this leads to a loss of strength (Lea. For smaller percentages of lime. whereas Fig. Fig. It should be remembered that the samples were cured at a temperature of 28°C + 2°C and according to R u f f and Ho (1966) cubic c o m p o u n d could be . 1975). axe affected by the a m o u n t of lime used. 1970.

There is a scatter of points for the soil stabilized with 7% lime. 1960). the higher the density the higher the CBR. This is higher than the optimum lime content obtained by the pH m e t h o d (Eades and Grim. The strength appeared to be picking up slightly after 21 days curing. their contribution to the strength was not enough to overcome the reduction due to the cubic compound. The immediate CBR is a function of density. except for the 7% lime c o n t e n t where the maximum CBR was obtained at 2% below the o p t i m u m moisture content. At lower lime contents there could be a decrease in strength with time. and thus masking the effect o f the cubic c o m p o u n d . the highest CBR values were obtained at the o p t i m u m moisture content. The Unconfined compressive strength of one-day cured stabilized soil is almost independent of the a m o u n t of lime added. if the best-fit line is drawn through the points. resulting in higher strength. At a higher lime c o n t e n t and longer curing time. F i g . l l shows that the o p t i m u m lime content for maximum strength will be a b o u t 12% (by extrapolation). once formed. USAID (1972) also observed that the o p t i m u m lime content obtained by the pH m e t h o d was always lower than the lime content that gave the maximum strength for lime-stabilized laterite. For all the stabilized soil-mixtures. one observes that there is a gradual increase in strength with time. Increase in lime content decreases maximum dry unit weight and increases optimum moisture content. Cusens for making available the facilities at his Department. The cone penetrometer gave lower liquid limits than the Casagrande device and the longer mellowing time gave lower values of the plasticity index. So even though calcium silicate hydrates might have been formed. the c o m p o u n d could be stable in the curing temperature range. the Director of the .198 formed at the upper range of the curing temperature. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The help rendered by the following is acknowledged: Professor A.10 shows the strength as a percentage of the one-day strength with increase in curing time. appear that the pH method is n o t applicable to tropical soils. the reaction products in the tobermorite groups appear to be proceeding further. at a decreasing rate. therefore. Fig. However. with an increase in the lime content. Higher temperatures could be deleterious to lime-stabilized soil containing high proportions of A1203. MAIN CONCLUSIONS Increase in the concentration of the dispersing agent reduced the amount of clay fraction as measured in the laboratory. The same trend occurs for the 10% stabilized soil. It would. and it is n o t proportional to the a m o u n t of lime added.R. After 28-days curing the strength increases.

1976. New York.R.R. Salisbury.R. Int. U. C.D. Immediate amelioration of wet cohesive soils by quick lime. Harty. F. 1975. Curing lime stabilized soils. USAID. and Bathia. E. 1968.R.R. H.D. Laterite and Lateritic Soils and Other Problem Soils of Africa. C. London.R. The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete. 1965. M.. Nwakanma. ASCE. Mexico. REFERENCES Anday. C. F_ziward Arnold. Rec. Rep. S. Sherwood. Bishewski. Found. Lime reactivity of illinois soils.F. Amsterdam 554 pp.92.. Jan. 1965. SMFE..S. and Hooper. Influence of time between mixing and compaction on properties of lime-stabilized expansive clay. Rep.. Development. 1975. and Walker.. Res. Neubauer. LR 205. 428 pp. Proc.R.E. 422: 102--112. Rec.K.K. T. Soil-lime mixtures for construction of low-volume roads. 1966. Report AID/CSD-2146.. Methods o f Test for Stabilized Soils. Rec. Van Ganse. M. Highway Res. Conf.. TRB. 1: 63--67.C. P. 1973. N. 1979. M. Mechanisms o f soil-lime stabilization.. Krebs. Elsevier.M. 1966. 290 pp. 29: 1--12. 3rd Reg.. 7th. 139: 42--60. Agency for Int. Bul.L.S. M. Rec. 501: 42--53. Ruff.H. Highway Materials.. Div. Eng.D. Rec. 1960. R.R.. and the Staff in the Overseas Unit for providing the laterite used in the study and the Ghana Government for sponsoring the first author for the study. 1961.A. Spec. Rep... Soil Mech. Gidigasu. Ph. 1975.. 1969. Lateritic Soils. Thompson. The Use of Red Tropical Soils as Pozzolanas: Reaction Products and Properties. British Standards Institute.S. British Standards Institute. Highway Res. 1972.. Stability properties of uncured lime-treated fine-grained soils. J.... M. Thompson. No. 1377. Bull.D. Highway Res. Gen. Board.D. 262: 51--63.160. R..199 Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Africa. Transp. Laterite Soil Engineering. J. Highway Res. Found.S. 92: 83--102. R..M. H. U. R. Glasgow. and Grim. Highway Res.... 2: 13--43. Conf. R. Thesis. Eades. Vol. Lea. Effect of lime moisture and compaction on a clay soil.. Highway Res. and Kinter. Neville. D.G.. 1974.. Rec. Highway Res. Lime reactivity of tropical and subtropical soils. Spec.S. University of Leeds..W.L. and Thompson...A.R. 1963.. High Alumina Cement Concrete. 3rd. M.R. Board. 29: 13--24. 1971. 1963. J.. Board. B. The properties of cement stabilized materials. 304: 14--31. 381: 20--26. M. A. The effect of mixing time on the strength of clayey gravel stabilized with hydrated lime. The Construction Press. Mitchell. 1970. 1924. J. and Thompson. U.R. De Graft-Johnson. Engineering properties of laterite soils. and Walker. . Soil Mech. Sess.T. Reaction of hydrated lime with pure clay minerals in soil stabilization. J... 1972..K. E. Time--temperature strength reaction product relationships in lime--bentonite--water mixtures. Highway Res. and Ho. Eng. 1963. Diamond. McGraw-Hill.Y. Proc. B. C. Methods of Testing Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.