TANAH DASAR

SUBGRADE
SI 3241
NASUHI ZAIN
REFERENSI
• Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, BRAJA M. DAS
• Soil mechanics in pavement engineering, S. F. BROWN Ã
Chapter 12) that was a follow-up to Gautier’s (1717) original study. He also specified
a soil classification system in the manner shown in the following table. (See Chap-
ters 3 and 4.) Preclassical Period of Soil Mechanics (1700 –1776)

Unit weight
Classification kN/m3 lb/ft3

Rock — —
Firm or hard sand 16.7 to 106 to
Compressible sand 18.4 117
Ordinary earth (as found in dry locations) 13.4 85
Soft earth (primarily silt) 16.0 102
Clay 18.9 120
Peat — —

The first laboratory model test results on a 76-mm-high (! 3 in.) retaining wall
 Modern Soil Mechanics (1910 –1927)
6 Chapter 1 Geotechnical Engineering—A Historical Perspective

Table 1.1 Important Studies on Clays (1910 –1927)

Investigator Year Topic

Albert Mauritz Atterberg 1911 Consistency of soil, that is, liquid,

(1846 –1916), Sweden
Jean Frontard
(1884 –1962), France
Arthur Langtry Bell
(1874 –1956), England
Wolmar Fellenius
(1876 –1957), Sweden
Karl Terzaghi
(1883 –1963), Austria
plastic, and shrinkage properties
(Chapter 3)
1914 Double shear tests (undrained) in
clay under constant vertical load
(Chapter 11)
1915 Lateral pressure and resistance of
clay (Chapter 12); bearing capacity
of clay (Chapter 15); and shear-box
tests for measuring undrained shear
strength using undisturbed specimens
(Chapter 11)
1918, Slip-circle analysis of saturated clay
1926 slopes (Chapter 14)
1925 Theory of consolidation for clays
(Chapter 10)
 1936 –1957 K. Terzaghi (U. S. A.)
1957–1961 A. W. Skempton (U. K.)
1961–1965 A. Casagrande (U. S. A.)
1965 –1969 L. Bjerrum (Norway)

Geotechnical Engineering after 1927

1969 –1973 R. B. Peck (U. S. A.)
1973 –1977 J. Kerisel (France)
1977–1981 M. Fukuoka (Japan)
1981–1985 V. F. B. deMello (Brazil)
1985 –1989 B. B. Broms (Singapore)
1989 –1994 N. R. Morgenstern (Canada)
1994 –1997 M. Jamiolkowski (Italy)
1997–2001 K. Ishihara (Japan)
2001–2005 W. F. Van Impe (Belgium)

Table 1.4 ISSMGE Technical Committees for 1997–2001 (based on Ishihara, 1999)

Committee
Table 1.3 Presidents of ISSMFE (1936 –1997) and
number Committee name
ISSMGE (1997–present) Conferences
TC-1 Instrumentation for Geotechnical Monitoring
TC-2 Centrifuge Testing
TC-3
TC-4
Geotechnics of Pavements and Rail Tracks
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
Year President
TC-5 Environmental Geotechnics
TC-6
TC-7
Unsaturated Soils
Tailing Dams
1936 –1957 K. Terzaghi (U. S. A.)
TC-8
TC-9
Frost
Geosynthetics and Earth Reinforcement
1957–1961 A. W. Skempton (U. K.)
TC-10
TC-11
Geophysical Site Characterization
Landslides
1961–1965 A. Casagrande (U. S. A.)
TC-12
TC-14
Validation of Computer Simulation
Offshore Geotechnical Engineering
1965 –1969 L. Bjerrum (Norway)
TC-15
TC-16
Peat and Organic Soils
Ground Property Characterization from In-situ Testing
1969 –1973 R. B. Peck (U. S. A.)
TC-17
TC-18
Ground Improvement
Pile Foundations
1973 –1977 J. Kerisel (France)
TC-19
TC-20
Preservation of Historic Sites
Professional Practice
1977–1981 M. Fukuoka (Japan)
TC-22
TC-23
Indurated Soils and Soft Rocks
Limit State Design Geotechnical Engineering
1981–1985 V. F. B. deMello (Brazil)
TC-24
TC-25
Soil Sampling, Evaluation and Interpretation
Tropical and Residual Soils
1985 –1989 B. B. Broms (Singapore)
TC-26
TC-28
Calcareous Sediments
Underground Construction in Soft Ground
1989 –1994 N. R. Morgenstern (Canada)
TC-29
TC-30
Stress-Strain Testing of Geomaterials in the Laboratory
Coastal Geotechnical Engineering
1994 –1997 M. Jamiolkowski (Italy)
TC-31
TC-32
Education in Geotechnical Engineering
Risk Assessment and Management
1997–2001 K. Ishihara (Japan)
TC-33
TC-34
Scour of Foundations
Deformation of Earth Materials
2001–2005 W. F. Van Impe (Belgium)

Table 1.4 ISSMGE Technical Committees for 1997–2001 (based on Ishihara, 1

SIEVE ANALYSIS
Soil-Particle Size
Clay Minerals
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
Distribution Curve Particle Size
WEIGHT – VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS
3.2 Relationships among Unit Weight, Void Ratio
Moisture Content, and Specific Gravity
 yi1,wsrt 7,r(1 *

Table3.2 Void Ratio,MoistureContent,and Dry Unit Weight

fbr SomcTypicalSoilsin a NaturalState

Natural moisture
content in a Dry unit weight, 7a
Void saturated
Type of soil ratio, e state (%) lb /ft3 kN /m3
Loose uniform sand 0.8 30 92 14.5
Densc uniform sand 0.45 16 115 18
Loose angular-grained
silty sand 0.6-5 25 102 l6
Dense angular-grained
silty sand 0.4 15 l2l l9
Stiff clay 0.6 21 108 77
Soft clay 0.9-1.4 30-50 73-93 11.5-14.5
Loess 0.9 25 86 13.5
Soft organic clay 2.5-3.2 90-r20 38-51 6-8
Glacial till 0.3 10 t34 21
 Consistency of Soil • The plasticity index (PI = LL - PL)
– Atterberg Limits
Chapter 3 Weight-Volume Relationships,Plasticity,and Structure of Soil
3.7 Liquid Limit (LL) 61

Shrinkage P l a s t i cl i m i t , Liquid
limit, SL PL l i m i t ,Z l

Stress-strain
diagramsat
van0us states a

Shrinkage Plastit
limit limit
Moisturecon(ent(%,)------t
Figure 3.8 Attcrberg Limits

Figure 3. 15 De{inition ol shrinkagc lirnit

3.6 Consistencyof Soil - Atterberg Limits
3.9 Shrinkage Limit (SL) When clay minerals are present in fine-grainedsoil, the soil can be remolded
 50
a
Figure 3.79 Simplifiedrelationship of clay-size
betwcenplasticityindcxand percentage
fractionby weight(al'tcrSecd,Woodward.and Lundgren. 1964b)
Figure 3.14
Mineral
L i q u i d a n d p l a s t i cl i m i t s
Liquid limit, L{_ plastic limit, pt A
a for Cambridge Gault
5 l{}
(ione penetration,r/ (rn)
l
Kaolinite
clay detcrmincd by fall
cono test
Seecl,Woodward, anclLundgren 3 . 5 -clay.
I 0They 0 concludedthat although
( 196aa)stucliedthe plasticpropcrty of several
20 the 40 re-
artificially preparecl mixturcs oI sancl and
Illite lationshipof the plasticity index to60 120
the perccntagc of clay-sizc fraction
35 60
is linear,as ob-
Table 3.4 Typical Values of Liquid Limit. PlasticLirnit. and Activitv ol'Some CllavMincrals
serveclby Skempton,it may not alwayspassthrough the origin. Thus, thc activity can
Montm 3.5 Relative
o r i l l o n i t c be redefined Density Sg 100 9(x)
Mineral Liquid limit, L{_ plastic limit, pt Activity, A
as in Eq. (3.52),viz.. 50-I(X)
where
Kaolinite D,: relative density, 3.5-I00
usually 20 40
given Halloysite
as a 0 . 3- 0 . 5 (hydratcd)
percentage 50 -70P I 4 0 - 6(3.s2)
0
Illite 60 120 35 60 0 . . 51 . 2 % ' o l ' c l e t y - s i z e I ' r a c t i t l nC '
l l o:n i t cin situ void 100
M o n t m o r ie ratio9(x)of the soil 5 0 - IHalloysite
(X) t . 5 7 . 0 (dchydratcd)
where C' is a constant for a givcn 40 -5-5
soil. For the cxperimental results30 of Seed4-5et al.
:
Halloysite (hydratcd) 50-70 40-60 0 . 1 - 0 . 2
em," void ratio of the soil
Halloysite (dchydratcd)
emin: void ratio ofI -50the
Attapulgite
40-5-5
-250
soil
in
in
the
r
30 4-5
(
the x )1
loosesr
Attapulgite
2 5
state
0.4 0.6 ( 1 9 6 4 a )C. ' : 9 .
I -50-250
Further works ol Seed,Woodward, and Lundgren ( 1964b)showed r ( that
x )the
1 re-
25
densest 0 .
state4 1 . 3
Allophane 200 2.s0 -
I 20 l-50A l l o p h0 a.4 n I . 3e
200
lationship ol the plasticity index to the
2.s0
perccntagc
by two straight lincs. This
soil can be rcprescnted
of
finding
clay-size
is
fraction
shown I 20 -
present in
l-50
qualitatively
a
in
The values of D, may vary from a minimum of 0% for very loose soil
Figurc 3.19. to a max-
For clay-size fractionsgreater than 40%, the straight line passesthrough
imum of 100%
B u r m i s t e r ( 1 9 4 9 )c l a s s i for
f i e dt h very.
e p l a s t idense
c i t yi n d e xsoils.
i n a q u aSoils l i t a t i v cengineers
m a n n c r a s f o l l oqualitatively
ws: describe
the proiected back'
it is granu-
origin whenthe
lar soil depositsaccording PI to Description
their relative densities,asshown in Table 3.3. In-place
soils seldom have t.l relative Nonplastic
densitiesless than 20 to 30"/o. 3.12 Plasticity
Compacting Chart soil
a granular
to a relative density - 5 - 1 0greater
B u
S l i g h t l yp l a s t i c
Lowthan plasticity
r m
about g5% is difficult.i s t e r ( 1 9 4 9 )c l a s s i f i e d
t h e p l a s t i c i t yi n d e x i n a q u a l i t a t i v cm a n n c r a
l0 20 Mcdiun.rplasticity Liquid and plastic limits are determined by rclativcly simple laboratory tests that
20 40 High plasticity PI Description
provide information about the nature of cohesivesoils.Engineershave usedthe tests
Iable 3.3 >40 Description
Qualitative ofplasticity
Vcry high GranularSoil Deposits extensivelyfor the corrclation o[ severalphysicalsoil parametersas well as for soil
identificatlon. Casagrande(1932) studied the relationship of the plasticity index to
The plasticity index is important in classifyingfine-grainedsoils. It is funda-
Relative
mental to density
the Casagrande
(%l Description
plasticity chart (presented of soil deposit
t.l Nonplastic
thc liquid limit of a wide variety of natural soils.On the basisof the test results,he
in Section 3.12), which is cur- proposed a plasticity chart as shown in Figure 3.20.The important feature of this
rently the basisfor the Unified Soil classificationSystem.(See chapter 4.)
Sridharan et0al.
- 1(1999)
. 5 showedthat the plasticityindex
Verycanloose
S l i g h t l yp l a s t i c
.t-ruit ir the empirical,4-line that is given by the equation PI
: 0.13(LL - 20). An
be correlated to the the inorganic claysfrom the inorganicsilts.Inorganic clay valueslie
I 5 - 5 0from the liquid limit tests (Section
flow index as obtained Loose3.7). According to their -5-10
A-line separate.s
Low plasticity
above the A-line, and valuesfor inorganic silts lie below the A-line. Organic silts plot
study,
.50 70 in the same region (below the A-line and with LL ranging from 30 to 50) as the in-
70- u-5 PI (%) : 4.I2lF("/")
Mediunr
(3.42) l0 20 Mcdiun.rplasticity
organic silts of medium compressibility. Organic clays plot in the same region as
Dense
and
tt5- t(x)
PI (%) : 0.141F(.f/")
Very dense
(3.43)
20 40 High plasticity
>40 Vcry high plasticity
The relationshipsfor rclative densitycan also be definedin terms of porosity,
or
The
[,r,,,
plasticity index is important in classifyingfine-grainedsoils.
(3.31)
 A : (3.s1)
(%of clay-sizefraction,by weight)

where,4 : activity.Activity is used as an index for identifying the swellingpotential

of clay soils.Typical valuesof activitiesfor variousclay minbralsare givenin Table 3.13 Soil S
3.4.

o Shellhavcn
clay
A = 1.33
I n o r g a n i cc l a y s
of highplasticity
London clay
A = 0.95
u 6 _ O- E+o
a
E
I n o r g a n i cc l a y so f '
.:- Wcald clay
'E
r.'
r r c d i u mp l a s t i c i t y

A = 0.63 E
i 4 0 I norganic
c l a y so f l o w
p la s t i c i t y
Horten clay
A = 0.42 I n o r g l n i cs i l t so 1 '
n r e t l i u l nc o n r p r c s s i bi ti ly
Cohesionless
a n d o r g a n i cs i l t s

0 l'tqutcl intit
I n o r g a n i cs i l t so l
Percentageof clay_sizefraction (<2 pm)
low conrprcssibility

Figure 3.18 Activity (basedon Skempton,1953)

Figure 3.20 Plasticitychart

i n o r g a n i cs i l t s o f h i g h c o m p r c s s i b i l i t y( b e l o w t h c A - l i n e a n d L l , g r
'lhe
i n l o r m a t i o n p r c l v i d c di n t h e p l a s t i c i t yc h a r t i s o l ' g r c a t v a l u e a n c
t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i oo
n f f i n e - g r a i n c ds o i l si n t h e L J n i f i e dS o i l C l a s s i l i c a t
C h r p t e r4 . )
AASHTO CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
 E
l 8 . sz
5.2 Standard Proctor a Test
Maximum 1.,
J
5.2 Standard Proct
il | l-)

l a i . lI d

Zero- .E
\25
air-void
o curve 5.2 Standard Proctor Test Zero-
(G' = 2.69,
1 7 . . 50
101
air-void
19.0
curve
(G' = 2.69,
Optimum
E 19.0
l104
8 . sz n.lolsture
Chapter 5 Soil Compaction 120
r0-5 a contcnt t
mum 1., "{z
5 t0 l-5 tu
J
Moisture w (%) a n d , f r o m E q .
content, (3.18),
Se : G,rl
E
J l a i . lI d
Figure 5.3 Standard Proctor compaction test results for a silty clay l 8 . sz
,:! .E
or a
Maximum 1.,
.: 1 7the
. . 50 moisture content G,trr J
For each test, of the compacted soil is determined in the labo- - . s il | l-)

' ratory.
5 With the known moisture content, the dry unit weight can be calculated as l a i . lI d

> .: 7l Thus. .E
Optimum
n.lolsture
. l
= l r u -_ $ 6 Grlr,
(s.2)
o
F I t- (s.3) |I 1 7 . . 50
contcnt t 1oo
i / : -

l t l Id
Glo
t0 l>- 5 l tu
- l t* I
w (%)
sturecontent, l t l :
s I
> - l w ("/") percentageof moisture content.
where
The values of determined from Eq. (5.2) can be plotted againstthe corre-
dard Proctor compaction test results7,1for a silty clay weight is ob-
spondingmoisture contentsto obtain the a given moisture
Fgrmaximum dry unitcontent,
weight and the the optimummaximum dry unit
theclretical
moisture content for the soil. Figure Moisturc
dw h
t a i n e5.3 content- i nr,
a i r i sa
c n n o such
shows v o i c l
s p a c s
e
t h c for a silty-claysoil.
plot
- t h a t i s ,w h c n t h e d c g r e e o f s a t u r a t i o ne q u a l s Optimum
The procedure for the standard
l 0 g %Proctor a x i m u m d in
, t h cismelaborated
. H c n c etest u n i t w cTest
r y ASTM a t a g i v e nm o i s t u r e
i g h t Desig- c o n t e n tw i t h z e r o n.lolsture
he moisture content of theprinciple
compacted soil is determined
Figure 5. I (ASTM, 1999)
nation D-698 s ofand
compaction
a i r v o i d sc aresr
AASHTo
in the labo- t i t u t i n gS
s u b s(AASHTO,
o b t a i n e db y T-99
n b eDesignation - i n t o E q . ( - 5 . 3 )o. r
I1982). contcnt t
e known moisture content, the dry unit weight can be calculated as
For a given moisture content w and degree of saturation $ the dry unit weight
r0-5
5 t0 l-5 tu
of compaction can be calculatedas follows: From chapter 3 [Eq. (3.16)],for any soil,
Moisturecontent,w (%)
B e y o n da c e r t a i nm o i s t u r cc o n t cG'f'' u r e- 5 . 1 )a, n y i -rT
n t w : w t ( F i grzu,,: n c r c a s ci n t h c m o i s t u r e(s.4)
r u - _
: ( s . 2 ) #*: '
t-$6
contcnt te n d s ,.,
t o r c d u c e t h e d r y lu+n iet w e i g h t .T h i s p h e n o m e w n o+no - c c u r sFigure
b c c a u s5.3 ct h cStandard Proctor compaction test results for a silty clay
G..
wwhere
a t e rG"
t a k: especific
su p1t ohgravity
co s p aofcsoil a t w o u l d h a v c b c e n o c c u p i e db y t h c s o l i c lp a r t i c l c s .. l - h c
e st hsolids
m o i s t7,,
u r e: cunit
o n tweight
e n t a tofwwater
h i c h t h e m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w e i g h t i s a t t a i n e di s g e n c r a l l y
e : void y-,^.: 7.ero-air-voidunit weight. re-
percentageferred
of moistureto as the opfimum where
ratio
content. moisturc content. Foruseeach test, the moisture content of the compacted soil is determine
the following
s of 7,1determined from Eq. (5.2) can be plotted To obtain thc variertion of 7.,,,.with moisturc content,
g e n e ragainst
T h e l a b o r a t o r yt e s tproccdure: a l l yu sthe
ccl
corre-
 5.3 FactorsAffecting Compaction
106 Chapter 5 Soil Compaction 5.4 Modified Proctor Tes
Iu.u6
ttJ 19.85

Sandyclay
t8.-50 L i q u i dl i n i t = 3 1
S a n d ys i l t
Line of P l a s t i cl i m i t = 2 6
optlmum 19.00

in k
Iu.(x)
,P
E LL 30 - 70
!
Siltyclay z E E
@ i rr<
l7 <rt z
o Ir,i.003
s ._.
.zr I il)
J
s LL < 30
H i g h l y p l a s t i cc l a y 'a E ;
E 'E LL > 70 .s!
'| 7' 't r' t'r = .E
') .=
: ll0
=
q
Poorly gradcdsand
\,2-5 blows/ layer
17.(x)
r05 I6.-50

2 0 b l o w s /l a y e r

r6.(x)
M0isture content,t|'
l (X) 15 . 7 a
5 t0 l-5 20
M o i s t u r cc o n t c n t , r . ( ? )
Figure 5.5 Typcsof compaclion curvc t0 12 t1 16 It { 2(\ 22 24
Figure 5.4
'I'ypical Moisturecontent,11,
(.2,)
conrpaction curves li)r lirur soils (AS.l.M D_69u)
Figure 5.6 Effect of compaction cnergy on the compaction of a sancryclay

Effect of Soil Type Compaction curves of types B and C can be found From the for soils
preccding that have
observation a liquid
and Figure limit
5.6, we can see that
'l'he
soil type - that is, grain-sizedistribution, shapeof the soil grains,specilic lessgrav_ than about 30. Compaction curves of type
l. As D do not have
the compaction effort is a definite
increascd, peak.drv
the maximum They
unit weight of
ity of soil solids,and amount ancl type of clay minerals p."r.ni- has a grcat paction is also increased.
c n c e o n t h e m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w e i g h t a n d o p t i m u m m o i s t u r ec o n t e n t are As thegreater
termed odd shuped.Soils with a liquid 2.limit
inllu_
compaction than
effort isabout 70
increased, may exhibit
the optimum moisture content is
.F i e u r e 5 . 4
creased to some
showstypical compaction curvesobtained lrom lirur soils.The laboratorycompaction teits were curvesof type C or D. Such soils are uncommon. cxtent.
conducted in accordancewith ASTM Test Designation D-691t. The preceding statementsare true for all soils. Note, however, that the de
Note also that the bell-shapedcornpactioncurvc shown in Figure ,5.3is typical compaction is not directly proportional to the compaction eftbrt.
 Figure 5.5 Typcsof compaclion curvc

PEMADATAN TANAH Compaction curves of types B and C can be found for soils that have a liquid limit
lessthan about 30. Compaction curves of type D do not have a definite peak. They
are termed odd shuped.Soils with a liquid limit greater than about 70 may exhibit
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsm_ltI2-Ig
compaction curvesof type C or D. Such soils are uncommon.

Effect of Compaction Effort

The compaction energy per unit volume used for the standardProctor test described
i n S c c l i o n5 . 2 c a n b e g i v e na s

..(,*"In")
(,)T*:) , (,*:i''),
(iTJ:?)
\p", tny"r/ \ tuy.r,,/ \t.,o*,n"r/ \ nut,n"r 7
E : (s.s
Volume of mold

or, in SI units,

(2s)(3)
(%p -)
r.N)to.:os
E : : 594kN-m/m3: 600kN-m/m3
944> l0"mj

In Englishunits,
/\ L7Js) \\J1- t1: J) :5/J5t)*r l)t
E - : D375 ft-lb/ft3 : l 2 . 4 t J 0f t - l b / f t r
i r \
\30i
STANDAR or MODIFIED TEST disesuaikan dengan teknologi
If the compaction effort per pemadatan
unit volume of soil is changed, the moisture-unit weight
curve also changes.This fact can be demonstrated with the aid of Figure 5.6, which
PEMADATAN TANAH DI LAPANGAN
 ti .-t
{
'0
j

'4o
)
t4>
c

PEMADATAN TANAH DI LAPANGAN

l l n
Figure 5.14
Siltyclay Growth curves for a silty clay * relationship
l2 between dry unit weight and number ofpassesof
L i q u i dl i m i t = . 1 3
P l a s t i c i t yi n d e x= l 9 U4.5kN (19 kip) three-wheelroller when the soil
r l l is compactedin229 mm (9 in) toose layersat dif-
rJ t6 24 1a
ferent moisture contents (redrawn after Johnson
Number of roller passes
and Sallberg, 1960)
5.6 Field Compactian 115
Dry unit weight,y,1(lb/fi:.y
t8 ^ t00
t,-
t04 lt'8,
,r.ttt,

Moisture content= l7
Relative density, D,. (%) Relative density, D,. (o/o)
l7 ^,, 5o 60 70 |1{) 9Q, 60 10 80 90..
M o i s t u r ec o n t e n t= I 1 . 6 7 c "ut_r, 0.0P -E--U

0.50
I

16e 0.5
Curnpaetitrn lticr
0.5 +
I

5 roller passes
2 I
2
z
I
0.46
g E E € e (l8 in.)

15 .-t 'l '{ - X l A o r r r

- ; : _ . 3 €
ti a o r.v E ;: t.u
o
{
'0
j Nurnberof
rollerpasses
'o 4
)
t4> t.5 l.)

t 1.83 l .83

l l n
Figure 5.14 r.83
r6.00 16.50 17.00
Siltyclay Growth Dry
curves for
unitweighr, a silty
17(kN/m:.t clay * relationship
l2 between dry unit (a) weight and number
L i q u i dl i m i t = . 1 3 ofpassesof
P l a s t i c i t yi n d e x= l 9 U4.5kN (19 kip) three-wheel roller when the
Figure 5.15 (a) Vibratory compaction of asoil
sand-variation of dry unit weightwith number
r l l is compactedin229 of rollermm (9thickness
passes; in) toose
of liftlayers
: 2.45mat(8 dif-
ft); (b) estimationof compactionlift thickness
rJ t6 24 1a for minimum required relative
ferent moisture contents (redrawn after Johnson density of 75"/" with five roller passes(ifter D,Appolonia,
Number of roller passes Whitman,and D'Appolonia, 1969)
and Sallberg, 1960)

Dry unit weight,y,1(lb/fi:.y

onsfor earthwork, the contractor is instructed to zrch
it weight of 90 to 9-5%of the maximum dry unit we
atory by eithcr the
PENGUJIAN PEMADATAN or modificd Proctor te
standardTANAH
ativc compaction,which cernbc expressedas

7'1(Ii"r'r)
fi(%)= x100
7d(rnax * lab)

Tanah A-7-6 (AASHTO) atau CH (UCS) dan tanah ekspansive tidak dijadikan tanah timbunan

action of granular soils, spccificationsare sclmetim

PENGUJIAN CBR
PENGUJIAN CBR
PENGUJIAN DCP
PENGUJIAN TRIAKSIAL
PENGUJIAN MODULUS RESILIENT