See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283615727

Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design

Conference Paper · September 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 321

1 author:

Sin-Mei Lim
National University of Singapore
14 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sin-Mei Lim on 10 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013, T3-10.

Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil

Road Design
Sin Mei Lim1*, Devapriya Chitral Wijeyesekera2, Ismail bin Hj Bakar3
1
PhD Candidate, Department of Infrastructure and Geomatic Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400
Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
2
Professor, Department of Infrastructure and Geomatic Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit
Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia; Emeritus Professor, School of Architecture, Computing and Engineering, University
of East London, 4-6 University Way, Beckton London E16 2RD
3
Emeritus Professor, Department of Infrastructure and Geomatic Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia,
86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract: Soil road stabilization commonly appears as a temporary quick fix solution to difficult ground
conditions. A proper design guideline has to be established in order to ensure standard design quality for soil road
construction. To form basis of such a design guideline, it is very important to establish design standards for all
laboratory testing to ensure the accuracy, reliability and representability of soil testing results. Improper specimen
handling during laboratory testing often causes testing delays and spurious result. This paper gives a critical
assessment of methods necessarily adopted in the laboratory assessment of stabilized soils for the use in soil road
design. Reputably, most papers on soil stabilization fail to elaborate on the curing techniques adopted, the
geotechnical parameters obtained from the laboratory testing results, and how its efficacy has been established and
its relevance in practice. Study had been carried out on two types of soil samples, one with high Plasticity Index
(CH) and another type of soil with low Plasticity Index (CL), stabilized with stabilizer recycled from waste
biomass silica (BS). Soil parameters such as maximum dry density, optimum moisture content and Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS) were studied to observe the improvement in the geotechnical strength of the
stabilized samples as well as to assess their contribution to the future soil road design guideline. The authors
consider the current principle soil properties that define stabilized strength of soil are plasticity index (PI), linear
shrinkage (LS), optimum moisture content (OMC), maximum dry density (MDD), UCS, soaked and unsoaked
California Bearing Ratio (CBR). As the observed curing time for stabilized soil samples continued through 28 days
the moisture content continued to decrease. The UCS test results showed an increase in strength for the stabilized
sample. The use of stabilizer to stabilize the soil is not only seen to improve the strength of all types of soil but also
contributed to considerable amount of uniformity and intactness to the stabilized soil samples. Some of the
geotechnical parameters like LS, OMC, MDD, UCS and CBR obtained from the laboratory testing results have
also significantly contributed to the design of soil road.
Keywords: Compaction, California Bearing Ratio, Moisture Condition Value, Unconfined Compressive Strength,
Soil Road

1. Introduction plasticity soil and the significance of the laboratory test

parameter in developing soil road design. Fig. 1 shows the
Soil roads are those constructed only at the base layer
muddy road at Laos during wet season. Despite that rural
typically for the access in rural area. It is unpaved and
roads are often treated as the last link of the transport
normally stabilized with a commercial stabilizer.
network; they often form the most important link in terms
However, with the availability of such resources, there
of providing access for the rural population. Their
remains still a lack of specific guidelines for sustainable
permanent or seasonal absence will act as a crucial factor
soil road construction.
in terms of the access of rural communities to basic
The assessment of soil suitability is important for
services such as education, primary health care, water
road construction. Research indicates that there is a
supply, local markets and economic opportunities [2].
relationship between compactive effort, bulk density and
This study covers progress in experimental biomass silica
moisture content and also shear strength is an effective
stabilization but does not claim to be comprehensive.
measure of suitability of soil for earthworking [1]. This
While the field of soil stabilization has been survey up to
paper presents the efficacy of using a commercial waste
the 2013s, it is timely to focus on the most needed
material as an additive to both expensive and low
developments in soil road design.

*Corresponding author: sin-mei@hotmail.com 1

Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

Fig. 2 The Potential Application of MCA.

Compaction is the densification of a soil by means of
mechanical manipulation. The compactive effort is
applied in a high production manner and includes
mechanical energy applied as a kneading, impact, or
vibration action that expels air and small amounts of
excess moisture [7].
As discussed earlier, the authors intend to study two
types of soils namely CH and CL according to USCS. The
following discussion in this paper applies to a fine-
grained soil with more than 12% fines. The compaction
curve shown in Fig. 3 is a plot of the dry unit weight of
Fig. 1 Muddy road at Laos during wet season. the compacted soil versus the water content of the soil.
(Source: Nijenhuis) Each point of the curve is obtained by applying identical
compactive effort to at least each of 5 specimens of the
2. Parameter Assessment soil. The compactive effort is a measure of the energy (m-
kg/m3) as follows (see Fig. 4):
Moisture condition apparatus (MCA) was developed
at the Scottish branch of the Road Research Laboratory to
predict and access the suitability of fill for earthworks 2.5kg x 0.3m x 27blows/layer x 3 layer
(1)
without the necessity of measuring water contents [3]. Volume m3
This method of selective air-drying is suitable for use in
areas of high precipitation and associated high natural
moisture contents [4]. This fits the application in
countries like Malaysia, Burma, Thailand and India.
To determine whether MCA test can be applied is
obtained by considering the proportions of fines, sand and
gravel in the ‘as-dug’ soil [5] as shown in Fig. 3. It is
defined into three categories:
a) MCA can be used.
b) MCA cannot be used.
c) MCA may be useable.
The authors investigated two different types of soil, which
fall into ‘a’ category. Soils belonging to this category can
be tested using the MCA and generally have a fines
content greater than or equal to 18% [5]. Three different Fig. 3 Proctor test results with specified percentage
Swedish soils were tested and denoted: E22 Flyinge compaction line.
North (E22 F.N.), Sturup PG9 and Östra Torn. These soils
are classified as clayey sand tills and sandy silty clay till
[19].
Mackenzie [6] reported that it is likely to deduce the
potential shear strength of widely differing soil types by
using the MCV results obtained.

Data from this study:

CL: 19.7% Fines
45.7% sand
34.7% gravel
CH: 53.7% Fines
45.1% sand
1.2% gravel
Data from Winter et
al. (1998) Fig. 4 Standard Proctor energy application.
Data from Winter
(2001)
Data from Lindh &
Winter (2003) 2.3 Strength Characteristics
The strength characteristics of stabilized clays are
measured by means of unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) or California bearing ratio (CBR) value.

2
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

3.1.3 Specimen Preparation and Test

3. Experimental Programs Procedure
3.1 Materials Soil samples A and B were oven dried at 105°C and
prepared in accordance to BS1377 for compaction, MCV,
3.1.1 Soil UCS and CBR test using BS1377:1990(1) and (4),
The index properties of the soils used in this study respectively. Soil passed through 425 µm sieve was used
are shown in Table 1. The soils tested classify as CH and to obtain Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage which
CL soil according to Unified Soils Classification System were conducted using BS1377: 1990(1) and (2),
(USCS). Expansive clay (CH) was obtained from respectively.
Kampung Pasir Sulam, Johor while low plasticity clay The UCS tests performed were on samples prepared
(CL) was obtained from Ladang Basir Ismail, Johor. The at optimum water content. The mass of additive was also
sites were chosen by the authors as there has been no determined based on the percentage content by dry weight
investigation carried out on the performance of the soil of the soil. The required amounts of water and additives
road which was constructed 19 years ago. were added to the dry soil and thoroughly mixed using
Table 1 Properties of the Test Soils. Breville Scraper Mixer for at least 15 minutes prior to the
compaction. The soil was being scarified along at least 5
Characteristic Description lines horizontally and vertically for each layer after
Soil A Soil B
compaction to ensure better bonding of the soil between
Passing No. 200 B. S. 53.7% 19.7% the layers (sees Fig. 5). Three UCS specimens having
Sieve 38mm diameter and 76mm height were obtained by
Liquid limit 67.00-70.60% 27.00-38.20% extruding the compacted soil from compaction mould into
Plastic limit 28.6-32.1% 19.39-23.20% 3 core tubes. This system was newly designed, fabricated
Plasticity index 38.4-38.5% 7.61-15.70% and used in RECESS as shown in Fig. 6.
Linear shrinkage 13.80-13.94% 6.30-6.64% A calibrated automatic soil compactor (model: AL
USCS CH CL 5025) was used throughout the tests to ensure uniformity
Group index 19 0 of the compaction energy on the soil sample. The rammer
ASSHTO A-7-6 A-2-6 travels across the mould and the table rotates the mould in
classification equal steps and clockwise direction to provide an
Specific gravity 2.69 2.69
automatic blow pattern as shown in Fig. 7 which ensures
Color Yellowish Reddish-brown
optimum compaction for each layer of the soil.
3.1.2 Stabilizer
Biomass materials that are mainly acquired from
wood and forest waste, agricultural waste, residues of
agriculture and forestry processing, oil plants, animal
faeces, garbage of both urban and rural daily life. These
bio materials have the advantage of being recyclable
materials, widely distributed and remarkably abundant,
and therefore have been widely used in industrial
production [3]. A commercial biomass silica (BS) was Fig. 5 Scarifying pattern.
used as a soil stabilizer in this study. Table 2 shows the
chemical compound of BS, CH and CL.

Table 2 XRF test results.

Chemical Concentration (%)

Formula BS CH CL
CO2 0.10 0.10 0.10
CaO 79.00 - -
SiO 9.12 47.50 45.60
Al2O3 3.48 31.00 39.30
Fe2O3 2.40 19.00 12.40
MgO 2.24 - -
SO3 1.75 - -
K2O 0.91 0.50 0.43
TiO2 0.39 1.17 1.75
ZrO2 - 0.17 0.22
Fig. 6 Core tubes to obtain UCS specimen.

3
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

4.1 Linear Shrinkage

The authors have considered the parameter of linear
shrinkage as one of the important geotechnical properties
for the design of soil road especially when clays are
encountered on site. SL due to drying is significant in
clays, but less so in silts and sands [8]. Measuring the
shrinkage characteristics of a soil can help to delineate
clay mineralogy (montmorillinitic-illitic-kaolinitic) and
shrink/swell potential of a geologic deposit [9]. The bar
linear shrinkage test was found to be the most reliable
Fig. 7 Blow pattern for compaction test. calcrete soil constant in road construction [10, 11, 12]
performed studies to determine subgrade moisture
3.2 Curing of Laboratory Specimens prediction models and indicated that the inclusion of the
The seal-curing method was used for most of the bar linear shrinkage produced as good, if not better,
laboratory specimens. Upon remoulding and subsequent prediction models than the inclusion of any of the other
preparation, the test specimens were wrapped with cling Atterberg Limit results. Haupt [11] and Emery [12]
film and placed in a rotating tray in a storage box performed studies to determine subgrade moisture
(relative humidity of 99%) which was stored in the prediction models and indicated that the inclusion of the
laboratory and maintained at a room temperature of bar linear shrinkage produced as good, if not better,
26±1.5°C and prediction models than the inclusion of any of the other
Atterberg Limit results. Paige-Green and Ventura [13]
4. Laboratory Results and Evaluation concluded from their evaluations of various bar linear
shrinkage tests performed that the bar linear shrinkage
The results of tests for the identification of the soil test is a more effective test to indicate material
and the determination of its properties are presented in performance than the more traditional Atterberg limits.
Table 1. Fig. 8 shows the classification of soil according Using the Linear Shrinkage Test to quantify the shrinkage
to Plasticity Chart and the grain-size distribution of the arrest of soils mixed with a stabilizer (e.g., fly ash or
soil is shown in Fig 9. lime) may be a potentially useful and relatively quick
method for selecting additive contents for various types of
soils, instead of engaging in a lengthy mix design process.
The length of the soil sample was measured three
times with digital calipers and the average was used to
calculate linear shrinkage using the equation:
𝐿𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝐿𝑆 = 1 − ( 𝐿𝑜
) × 100 (2)

Where:
LS=Linear Shrinkage (%)
Lavg = Average Length (mm)
Lo = Original length of Brass mould (mm); ≈140 mm

Fig. 10 shows the linear shrinkage tests for CH and

CL soils. The tests had shown that linear shrinkage for
Fig. 8 Plasticity Chart. high plasticity clay is higher than that of low plasticity
clay. The differences in shrinkage behavior between
different types of soil can be attributed to differences in
CLAY

SILT SAND
GRAVEL
110
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse
0
mineralogy. It is well known that the engineering
100 10 characteristics of fine-grained soils are dominated in large
Percentage Passing by Weight (%)

Percent Retained by Weight (%)

90 20
part by the physic-chemical interactions present in the
80 CH 30
70 40 clay-electrolyte system and surface phenomena, which are
CL
60 50 in turn related to both the amount of clay and the clay
50 60
40 70
mineralogy. CL soil shows the least shrinkage of 6.64%
30 80 and has the lowest specific surface area at 63mm2/g, while
20 90 CH soil has the highest shrinkage arrest of 13.80% and
10 100
0 110 also has the highest surface area of 80mm2/g.
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size in millimeters (mm)

Fig. 9 Grain-Size Distribution for Soil.

4
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

140.000 It is important to specify a range of working water

130.693 contents, together with the relative compaction or density
120.675 index, especially in dry soil conditions. Fig. 12 shows the
working range of field water content lies at the dry
LS for CL = 6.64% density of 95% from its maximum moisture content.
The relationships of Optimum Moisture Content with
Plastic Limit and with Maximum Dry Density for red
LS for CH = 13.80%
tropical soils are shown below:

For South American Soils:

OMC = 0.61PL-0.84 (std. dev. 3.38) (3)
Fig. 10 Comparison of Linear Shrinkage (LS) for CH and
CL soil.
For South American Soils:
The term “Specific Surface Area” (SSA) refers to the OMC = 0.58PL-4.54 (std. dev. 4.2) (4)
area per unit mass of soil and expressed as mm2/g in this MDD = 2563 – 44.48OMC (std. dev. 88kg/m3) (5)
paper. According to Dos & Castro [14], Low [15], Ros (after Morin and Todor, 1977)
[16] and Dasog et al. [17] there is a strong relationship
between specific surface area and the swelling potential of
soil.

4.2 Compaction
The geotechnical properties of soil are dependent on
the moisture and density at which the soil is compacted.
Fig. 4 illustrates the moisture-density relationship of CH
and CL soils used in this study. In general, the addition of
biomass silica for the two studied soils, led to an increase
in the optimum moisture content and to a decrease in the
maximum dry density. In the case of CL soil, the
maximum dry density due to BS addition decreased with
continuous increase in BS content. In the case of CH soil,
the maximum dry density decreased with BS addition,
and with continuous increase in BS content, it increases
relatively. The graph also indicates that for control soils, Fig. 12 Specification of working water content.
soil compacted by automatic compactor has always (Source: Roy 2001)
shown higher dry density than that of using hand hammer
compaction method. Table 3 shows the correlations of OMC with
Atterberg Limits carried out by various researchers.
Moisture-density Relationship for BS Stabilized
and Unstabilized soil
2.0 Correlation of OMC Reference
Automated Compaction Method - CL control
0% Air void
Hand compaction method - CL control
CL+2%
OMC = 0.92 PL [18]
5% Air void
1.9 10% Air void
CL+8% OMC = 0.263 PI + 12.282
Automated compaction method - CH control [19]
Hand compaction method - CH control
CH+2%
OMC = 0.24 LL + 7.549
1.8
OMC = 0.43 (PI + 30) [20]
Dry density, ρd (Mg/m3)

OMC = 6.77 + 0.43 LL - 0.21 PI [21]

R² = 0.9867 OMC = 0.24 LL + 0.63 PL -3.13 [22]
1.7
R² = 0.999 OMC = 0.14 LL + 0.54 PL [21]
R² = 1 OMC = 0.0155 LL +15.327
1.6 R² = 1 [23]
R² = 0.9922
OMC = 0.0162 PI + 15.511
R² = 0.9936 OMC = 0.55(PL) + 0.36 (PI) – (Gs)/2.7 [24]
1.5 R² = 1

R² = 0.999
4.3 Moisture Condition Value Test (MCV)
1.4
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 An idealized example of a typical test result plot as
Moisture content (%) taken from B1377-4:1990 is presented in Fig. 13. The aim
Fig. 11 Moisture – density relationship of CH and CL of this test is to develop a linear relationship between the
soils.

5
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

MCV and moisture content as shown in Fig. 14. The
Moisture Condition Value is defined as:
MCV = 10 log B
where B = number of blows corresponding to ∆p =
5.0mm.
4.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests
CH and CL soils were prepared, for three repeatable
specimen and cured for periods of 7, 14 and 28 days to
(6) estimate how curing time effects unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) of the stabilized soils. All the specimens
were prepared at the optimum water content. The effect
of long-term curing on the UCS of both control and
stabilized soils is shown in Fig. 16. The UCS values of
both virgin soil; CH and CL, as well as mixture of CL
with an additional 2, 4 and 6% of BS, increased with
curing time.

Effect of curring time on UCS of CH and CL stabilized soils

4000

Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

CH OMC
3500 CH+2%BS
CH+4%BS
3000 CH+6%BS
CL at OMC
2500 CL+2%BS
CL+4%BS
2000 CL+6%BS

1500
Fig. 13 Typical MCV test plot (after BS1377-4:1990). 1000
500
0
0 7 14 21 28 35
Curing Days

Fig. 16 UCS at different Curing Days for CH prepared at

OMC, CL prepared at OMC and CL prepared at OMC
with 2% additional of BS.

1600
1400 CLOMC 28CD S1-4
Curing box
1200 CLOMC S2-5
Compressive Stress (kPa)

Wrapped - Air curing

1000
CLOMC S3-6
800 Unwrapped - Air
curing
600
400
200
0
-200 0 5 10 15 20 25
Vertical Strain (%)

Fig. 14 Calibration data. Fig. 17 UCS for CL prepared at OMC: 3 different

curing method.

Fig. 17 shows 3 different curing methods for

stabilized soil which could affect its strength. According
to Walker [26] the relationships between UCS and
bending strength can be determined from the following
equations:

0.88σb = 0.51.UCS (7)

where σb (kPa) is the bending strength and UCS is in units

Fig. 15 Use of the MCA in Earthworking. of kPa. Otte substituted this relationship for σ b in the

6
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

above two relationships. The resulting relationships (with
UCS in units of MPa) are as given in the Guide.
It is suggested that the amount of the design
stabilizing agent percentage as determined by the designer
shall be increased by 1.0 percent in the field to account
for waste, inert materials, and construction variability.
development. It was suggested by Jameson & Sharp [27]
in that subgrades with high CBR values would generally
have low plasticity and hence would not tend to deform
plastically.

4.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

The CBR value has since evolved into many material
specifications where it provides an indicator of shear or
bearing strength. According to the 1969 edition of the
“Technical Bulletin No.4 – The Design of Flexible
Pavements” published by the Country Roads Board of
Victoria [26], the laboratory soaked CBR value can be
estimated from the soil gradings, Atterberg Limits and
Linear Shrinkage. Part A of technical bulletin No.26 [25]
provided a number of alternate methods to estimate the
CBR value of soils from simple soil tests.
Fig. 19 Table for estimating CBR from Plasticity Index
Log10 C.B.R. = 1.6677 – 0.005056 (Pass. No. 36%) (Source: Country Roads Board of Victoria - Technical
+ 0.001855 (Pass No. 200%) – Bulletin No.26).
0.01676 (Linear Shrinkage%) –
0.0003848 (Linear Shrinkage x 4.6 X-ray Diffraction Test
Pass. No. 200%) (8)
Fig. 20 to Fig. 22 shows XRD test results for
Biomass silica soil stabilizer, CH and CL soils.
BS
2500

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000
Portlandite, CaOH2
1900

1800

1700
Calcite,
CaCO3
1600

1500
CaOH2 Calcium
Lin (Counts)

1400 Silicate Oxide,

1300 Quartz, Ca3(SiO4)O
1200
SiO2
1100

1000
CaOH2
900

800

700

600

Fig. 18 Estimation of CBR value from Linear Shrinkage.

500

400

(Source: Country Roads Board of Victoria – Technical Bulletin No.26)

300

200

100

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Fig. 18 is extracted from Appendix 4 of the technical 2-Theta - Scale

BS - File: BS.raw - Type: 2Th/Th locked - Start: 10.000 ° - End: 90.026 ° - Step: 0.020 ° - Step time: 15.4 s - Temp.: 25 °C (Room) - Time Started: 10 s - 2-Theta: 10.000 ° - Theta: 5.000 ° - Anode: Cu - WL1: 1.5406 -
Operations: Strip kAlpha2 0.500 | Import

bulletin which shows tables provided for estimating 00-046-1045 (*) - Quartz, syn - SiO2 - Y: 36.26 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Hexagonal - a 4.91344 - b 4.91344 - c 5.40524 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - P3221 (154) - 3 - 113.010 - I/Ic P
00-004-0733 (I) - Portlandite, syn - Ca(OH)2 - Y: 76.11 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Hexagonal - a 3.59300 - b 3.59300 - c 4.90900 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - P-3m1 (164) - 1 - 54.883
01-073-0599 (*) - Calcium Silicate Oxide - Ca3(SiO4)O - Y: 38.04 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Rhombo.H.axes - a 7.05670 - b 7.05670 - c 24.97400 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - R3m (1
00-005-0586 (*) - Calcite, syn - CaCO3 - Y: 48.49 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Rhombo.H.axes - a 4.98900 - b 4.98900 - c 17.06200 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - R-3c (167) - 6 - 367.78

CBR values from soil particle grading and linear

Fig. 20 XRD test results for BS.
shrinkage values. The following equation is established to
determine CBR value from particle grading and Plasticity 6000
KPS CH700
Quartz,
Index (PI). SiO2
5000

Log10 C.B.R. = 1.886 – 0.003717(Pass 7%) –

0.004498(Pass 36%) + 4000

0.005153(Pass 200%/ Pass 36%) –

Lin (Counts)

3000

0.00004562(Pass 200%/ Pass 36%) Cristobalite,

SiO2
– 0.01429 (PI) (9) 2000
Quartz, Kaolinite, Quartz,
SiO2 Al2Si2O5(OH)4 SiO2

1000

As the CBR test for subgrade strength is

essentially the only commonly used test to 0

characterise subgrade materials, developing a 10 20 30 40 50

2-Theta - Scale
60 70 80

KPS CH700 - File: KPS CH700.raw - Type: 2Th/Th locked - Start: 10.000 ° - End: 90.026 ° - Step: 0.020 ° - Step time: 15.4 s - Temp.: 25 °C (Room) - Time Started: 9 s - 2-Theta: 10.000 ° - Theta: 5.000 ° - Anode: Cu
90

relationship between subgrade CBR and modulus Operations: Strip kAlpha2 0.500 | Import
00-006-0221 (D) - Kaolinite 1Md - Al2Si2O5(OH)4 - Y: 11.45 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Monoclinic - a 5.16000 - b 8.93000 - c 7.39000 - alpha 90.000 - beta 104.500 - gamma 90.000 - 2 - 329.676 - I/Ic PDF 1. - S-Q
01-085-0621 (I) - Cristobalite, high, syn - SiO2 - Y: 20.73 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Cubic - a 7.16000 - b 7.16000 - c 7.16000 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 90.000 - Primitive - P213 (198) - 8 - 367.062 - I/I
00-046-1045 (*) - Quartz, syn - SiO2 - Y: 126.19 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Hexagonal - a 4.91344 - b 4.91344 - c 5.40524 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - P3221 (154) - 3 - 113.010 - I/Ic

(stiffness) of unbound granular materials was an

Fig. 21 XRD test results for CH soil.
essential part of the mechanistic design procedure

7
Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.

LPS CH2000
Quartz, Virgin soil Properties of soil Stabilized
SiO2
4000
properties Stabilizer soil roperties

3000
Lin (Counts)

Cristobalite,
2000
Kaolinite, SiO2
Al2Si2O5(OH)4 Quartz,
Hematite, SiO2
Fe2O3
1000

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2-Theta - Scale
LPS CH2000 - File: LPS CH2000.raw - Type: 2Th/Th locked - Start: 10.000 ° - End: 90.026 ° - Step: 0.020 ° - Step time: 15.4 s - Temp.: 25 °C (Room) - Time Started: 11 s - 2-Theta: 10.000 ° - Theta: 5.000 ° - Anode:
Operations: Strip kAlpha2 0.500 | Import
00-046-1045 (*) - Quartz, syn - SiO2 - Y: 121.40 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Hexagonal - a 4.91344 - b 4.91344 - c 5.40524 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - P3221 (154) - 3 - 113.010 - I/Ic
01-071-5088 (*) - Hematite, syn - Fe2O3 - Y: 18.77 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Rhombo.H.axes - a 5.03850 - b 5.03850 - c 13.74000 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 120.000 - Primitive - R-3c (167) - 6 - 302.0
00-006-0221 (D) - Kaolinite 1Md - Al2Si2O5(OH)4 - Y: 11.66 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Monoclinic - a 5.16000 - b 8.93000 - c 7.39000 - alpha 90.000 - beta 104.500 - gamma 90.000 - 2 - 329.676 - I/Ic PDF 1. - S-Q
01-085-0621 (I) - Cristobalite, high, syn - SiO2 - Y: 23.46 % - d x by: 1. - WL: 1.5406 - Cubic - a 7.16000 - b 7.16000 - c 7.16000 - alpha 90.000 - beta 90.000 - gamma 90.000 - Primitive - P213 (198) - 8 - 367.062 - I/I

Fig. 22 XRD test results for CL soil.

5. Current Design Guidelines Fig. 23 Proposed studies of ANN for soil road
construction.
Majority of local government authorities include road
design guidelines within their town planning policies and
some of these are derived from state or independent 7. Results and Conclusions
authority design guidelines. The object of using the Moisture Condition
Apparatus at the site investigation stage is to allow
6. Future Recommendation/ On-going recognition of those soils likely to cause problems during
Research Works construction and to prepare calibration lines for later use.
The authors recommend MCV to be considered in the
Laboratory testing such as Resilient Modulus test, design of soil road prior to the construction work. This is
Bender Element test, Soaked and Un-soaked CBR test is due to the existence of a calibration line for the soil type
undergoing by using the existing soil samples and considerably speeds up determination of unacceptability
stabilizers used in this research to provide in depth detail immediately prior to and during earthworking.
in the design of soil road. The authors found out that the Insufficient curing of high plasticity clay samples
existing tools such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN) during rapid compaction testing can result in
can be used to develop a correlation using laboratory unrepresentative measurement of MDD and OMC.
testing parameters for the design of soil road. It is
reported by Public Works Department of Malaysia [28]
that the necessity to develop a general relaxation in the
Acknowledgements
specifications for low-volume roads. The author would like to thank both her supervisor,
Professor Dr. Devapriya Chitral Wijeyesekera and
The development of an equation as follow is on-
Professor Dato’ Dr. Ismail bin Hj Bakar for their advices
going to correlate the soil parameters for soil road
and support in writing this paper.
construction:
[L] = [S] [M] (10) References
Where L = required specification and strength of soil; [1] Matheson, G. D. (1983). The use and application of
S = characteristics of type of the virgin soil; M= the moisture condition apparatus in testing soil for
properties of soil stabilizer. suitability for earth working, SDD Guide No. 1,
Many researchers have studied the modeling into area TRRL, Scottish Branch, Livingston.
of soil properties and behavior using ANN. The [2] Donnges, C., Edmonds, G. A., & Johannessen, B.
development of equation 10 will be used together to (2007). Rural road maintenance: Sustaining the
correlate various soil parameters. Fig. 23 shows the benefits of improved access (No. 19). Intl Labour
proposed studies of ANN structure that usually arranged Organisation.
in layers: an input layer, an output layer and one or more [3] Sharp, K. G., Jameson, G. W., & Potter, D. W.
hidden layers for soil road construction. (1987). Field trials of pavement structures:
construction report-Victoria.
[4] Qin, C. (2008). European Patent No. EP 1990576A1.
Muchen, Germany: European Patent Office.
[5] Lindh, P., & Winter, M. G. (2003). Sample
preparation effects on the compaction properties of
Swedish fine-grained tills. Quarterly journal of

8
 Lim, S. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Ismail, B. (2013). Critical Overview of Laboratory Assessments used in Soil Road Design. Soft Soil Engineering
International Conference 2013, SEIC 2013.
engineering geology and hydrogeology, 36(4), 321-
330.
[6] Mackenzie, M. (1989). Specification for Road and
Bridge Works: Soil Suitability for Earthworking -
Use of the Moisture Condition Apparatus. Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges: Vol 4. Edinburgh:
Scottish Development Department.
[7] Matheson, G. D., & Winter, M. G. (2000). Use and
application of the MCA with particular reference to
glacial tills. Use and application of the MCA with
particular reference to glacial tills, 1(1), 1-41.
[8] James, R. T. (2011). Quality Control of Soil
Compaction using ASTM Standards. Manual 70 of
ASTM International manual series. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. pp. 13.
[9] Mariki, J. D. (2000). Laboratory Testing Manual
2000. Novum Grafisk AS, Skjettem Norway:
Ministry of Works.
[10] Buhler, R. L., & Cerato, A. B. (2007). Stabilization
of Oklahoma expansive soils using lime and Class C
fly ash. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, 162,
1-10.
[11] Netterberg, F. (1978). Calcrete wearing courses for
unpaved roads. The Civil Engineer in South Africa,
Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 129-138.
[12] Haupt, F.J. (1980). Moisture conditions associated
with pavements in Southern Africa. MSc Thesis,
University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
[13] Emery, S.J. (1985). Prediction of moisture content for
use in pavement design. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
[14] Paige-Green, P. and Ventura, D. (1999). The bar
linear shrinkage test – More useful than we think! 12
Regional Conference of the Geotechnics for
Developing Africa. Ed. Blight and Fourie, Vol. 12,
pp. 379-387.
[15] Dos Santos, M.P.P. and DeCastro, E., 1965. Soil
Erosion in Roads. Proceedings of the 6 International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 116-118.
[16] Low, P.F., 1980. The Swelling of Clay: II.
Montmorillonite. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, Vol. 44, No.4, pp. 667-676.
[17] Ross, G.J., 1978. Relationships of Specific Surface
Area and Clay Content to Shrink-Swell Potential of
Soils Having Different Clay Mineralogic
Compositions. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,
Vol. 58, pp. 159-166.
View publication stats
[18] Dasog, G.S., Acton, D.F., Mermut, A.R., and
DeJong, E., 1988. Shrink-Swell Potential and
Cracking in Clay Soils of Saskatchewan. Canadian
Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 68, pp. 251-260.
[19] Sridharan, A., & Nagaraj, H. B. (2005). Plastic limit
and compaction characteristics of finegrained soils.
Proceedings of the ICE-Ground Improvement, 9(1),
17-22.
[20] Torrey III, V. H. (1970). Analysis of Field
Compaction Data. Report 2: Littleville Dam,
Westfield River, Massachusetts (No. AEWES-Misc-
Paper-S-70-13). Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station Vicksburg Miss.
[21] Laskar, A., & Pal, S. K. (2012). Geotechnical
Characteristics of Two Different Soils and their
Mixture and Relationships between Parameters.
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17.
[22] US Army. (1997). Field mannual-410: Military soils
engineering- Chapter 9: Soil Stabilization for roads
and airfields. Department of the Army: Washington,
D. C.
[23] US Army. (1997). Field mannual-410: Military soils
engineering- Chapter 9: Soil Stabilization for roads
and airfields. Department of the Army: Washington,
D. C.
[24] Wilbourn, K., Student, R. E. U., & Vembu, K. (2007).
Index Properties and Strength of Artificial Soil Using
the Harvard Miniature Method.
[25] Noor, S., Chitra, R., & Gupta, M. Estimation of
Proctor Properties of Compacted Fine Grained Soils
from Index and Physical Properties.
[26] Country Roads Board of Victoria, 1969, “Technical
Bulletin No.26 – The Design of Flexible Pavements”,
Country Roads Board of Victoria, Australia.
[27] Country Roads Board of Victoria, 1969a, “Technical
Bulletin No.4 – The Design of Flexible Pavements”,
Country Roads Board of Victoria, Australia.
[28] Jameson, G., & Sharp, K. G. (2004). Technical basis
of Austroads pavement design guide.
[29] Public Works Department (JKR) malaysia. (2012,
May). Design Guide for Alternative Pavement
Structures: Low-Volume Roads.
[30] Al-Khafaji, A. N. (1993). Estimation of soil
compaction parameters by means of Atterberg limits.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
Hydrogeology, 26(4), 359-368.