The effects of different compaction energy

on geotechnical properties of kaolin and

laterite
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1875, 030009 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998380
Published Online: 08 August 2017

Siti Aimi Nadia Mohd Yusoff, Ismail Bakar, D. C. Wijeyesekera, Adnan Zainorabidin, Mastura Azmi, and
Harris Ramli

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Effect on physical properties of laterite soil with difference percentage of sodium bentonite
AIP Conference Proceedings 1875, 030003 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998374

To determine the slow shearing rate for consolidation drained shear box tests
AIP Conference Proceedings 1875, 030010 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998381

Effects of leachate on geotechnical characteristics of sandy clay soil

AIP Conference Proceedings 1571, 530 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4858709

AIP Conference Proceedings 1875, 030009 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998380 1875, 030009

© 2017 Author(s).
 The Effects of Dıfferent Compactıon Energy on
Geotechnıcal Propertıes of Kaolın and Laterıte
Siti Aimi Nadia Mohd Yusoff1,a), Ismail Bakar2, b), D.C. Wijeyesekera2, c), Adnan
Zainorabidin2, d), Mastura Azmi1, e) and Harris Ramli1, f)
1
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Seberang
Perai Selatan, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.
2
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400, Parit Raja, Batu
Pahat, Johor, Malaysia.

a) Corresponding author: amynadia168@gmail.com

b)bismail@uthm.edu.my
c)devapriya@uthm.edu.my
d)adnanz@uthm.edu.my
e)cemastura@usm.my
f)cemhr@usm.my

Abstract. Strength and deformation parameters of compacted soil are known to be related to soil type and moisture.
However, little attention has been directed towards understanding the influence of compaction energy on soil type and
moisture. This study considers the effect of different compaction energy on certain geotechnical properties of Kaolin and
Laterite soil. This paper describes a laboratory study conducted to evaluate the relationship between soil type, soil
moisture content with different compaction energy and strength characteristic. Specimens were compacted with impact
energy at levels of 596 kg/m3(Standard Proctor) and 2682 kJ/m3 (Modified Proctor) over a wide range of moisture
contents to determine dry unit weight, and Unconfined Compression Strength Test (UCS). Result shows that compaction
energy is an important factor in determining soil strength that should be considered during the planning phase of any
earthwork construction operation.

INTRODUCTION

Soil improvement is frequently termed soil stabilization which implies the alteration of any property of the soil
to improve its engineering performance. The most common and important method of soil improvement is
densification and that most widely used method is compaction [1, 3]. Compaction is being used and considered by
many engineers as a design tool [2]. The dry density and moisture content can be controlled within limits during
construction so as to reveal the soil properties (density, CBR, consolidation, permeability, shear strength, etc.)
desired by the engineer. The compaction of soil plays an important role in construction of structures, highways and
airports. In 1933, Proctor developed a laboratory compaction test to determine the maximum dry density of
compacted soils, which can be used for specifications of field compaction [3]. The different compaction effort is one
of the other important factors that affect the compaction of a soil. Besides that, the compaction of soils also
influenced by the soil type, the moisture content and other factors. Different types of soil give a different behavior
with respect to maximum density and optimum moisture. Therefore, each different soil types have its own behavior
and controls both in the field and for testing purposes [4]. The soil type in terms of the grain-size distribution, shape
of the soil grains, specific gravity of soil solids, percentage of the fine content and the type of fine, provides a great
impact on the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content [5]. The laboratory compaction
characteristics of the soil influence the selection of criteria to evaluate the field compaction. These criteria are often
characterized by setting a minimum deviation interval for the field dry density and moisture content compared with
the laboratory obtained standard compaction curve, especially the two key parameters: maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content [6]. The engineering properties of compacted soil behavior (e.g. compressive, shear and
tensile strength, permeability and stiffness) can be determine by relate to the different compaction energy. The need
for adequate and reliable geotechnical characterization of soils in different compaction energy level is very
important in controlling the soil properties of earth constructions. However, only very limited studies have
investigated the effect of compaction energy on certain geotechnical properties of the soil. This study evaluates the

International Conference on Applied Physics and Engineering (ICAPE2016)

AIP Conf. Proc. 1875, 030009-1–030009-7; doi: 10.1063/1.4998380
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1555-3/$30.00

030009-1
influence of different compaction energy on certain geotechnical properties of kaolin and laterite soil. The properties
considered include maximum dry density, unconfined compressive strength test (UCS). The results obtained are
assessed with a view to determining the usability of the soil when compacted at the different energy as well as in the
natural state.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials
The soil used in this study is laterite taken from Bukit Banang, Batu Pahat, Johor. Laterite soil was collected
(disturbed sample) at a depth 05m after removing the top soil of about 0.3m below the ground surface. Meanwhile
this study also considered using manufactured kaolin where, are being produced with all the sample is passing 75μm
sieve.

Methods
Fundamental geotechnical test such as Atterberg limit, sieve analysis, specific gravity, standard proctor test,
modified proctor test, unconfined compression strength test and California Bearing Ratio test were carried out on
both kaolin and laterite as shown in Table 1. Standard and modified proctor test (compactive energy = were 596 and
2682 kJ/m3 respectively) were performed using 10cm diameter compaction mould (volume = 924 3 cm) based on
guidelines of BS 1377 (1993) part 4. Unconfined Compressive Strength test was performed on soil samples
according to BS 1377; 1990 Part 7 using the British Standard light and British Standard Heavy energy levels as well
as for the samples compacted using two different energies at the respective optimum moisture content (OMC).

TABLE 1. The differences between Standard and Modified Proctor test

Standard Proctor Modified Proctor
Hammer weight 2.5kg 4.5kg
Drop distance 300 mm 450 mm
Energy 596 kJ/m3 2682 kJ/m3
Number of layers 3 5
Number of blow per layers 27 27

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Index Properties

These basic tests were conducted following BS 1377; Part 1. The basic properties of the studied soil are
presented in Table 2, Kaolin was dominated by Silt and clay meanwhile laterite comprised more fine grain of clay
and silts (table 2). The particle size distribution curves for both materials are shown in Figure 1. The specific gravity
(Gs) for kaolin and laterite is 2.47 and 2.79 respectively. The consistency index of liquid limits and plastic limits for
kaolin is 74% and 43.83% respectively. These values gave plasticity index 30.17%. The plotting on the Cassagrande
plasticity chart were classified kaolin as CH material under USCS classification scheme. Then the result from the
consistency index tests of laterite is 66% of liquid limit and 23.1% of plastic limit, these values gave plasticity index
42.9% and laterite also was classified as CH (Clay of high plasticity) material under USCS classification scheme.

030009-2
 TABLE 2. The physical properties of the studied soil
Properties Unit Kaolin Laterite
Natural Water content (%) 0.22 22.54
Gravel (%) - 6.69
Sand (%) - 32.51
Clay (%) 87.67 49.00
Silt (%) 12.35 11.80
Particle Size Distribution D10 0.0014 0.0019
D30 0.0040 0.0090
D60 0.0086 0.2
Cu 6.143 105.26
Cc 1.329 0.213
Plastic Limit (PL) (%) 43.83 23.1
Liquid Limit (LL) (%) 74 66
Plasticity Index (PI) (%) 30.17 42.9
Specific Gravity (Gs) (%) 2.47 2.79
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) CH CH
AASTHO A-7-5 A-8

Figure 1 shows the particle size distribution curve for the studied soil. The percentage of gravel, sand, clay and
silt in the laterite is 6.690%, 32.512%, 49.00% and 11.796% respectively. Meanwhile it was found that the
percentage of silt and clay in kaolin is 49.003% and 11.796% respectively.

FIGURE 1. Particle size Distribution Curve of Kaolin and Laterite.

Standard Proctor and Modified Proctor

The soil samples were compacted using standard proctor and modified proctor compaction test. Table 3 shows
the result of standard and modified proctor test and Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 shows the compaction characteristic of the
sample collected and the maximum theoretical dry density to which it can be compacted. The higher moisture
content signifies the plastic nature of the sample.

030009-3
 TABLE 3. Standard and modified compaction parameter
Soil Compaction Maximum Dry Optimum
Energy Density, MDD Moisture Content,
(Mg/m³) OMC (%)
Standard 1.63 22.5
Laterite
Modified 1.77 16.5
Standard 1.41 27
Kaolin
Modified 1.46 23

FIGURE 2. Compaction behavior of Laterite with different compaction energy.

FIGURE 3. Compaction Behaviour of Kaolin with different compaction energy

030009-4
 Basically, many variables influence the densification of soils. The major ones include the type of soil, moisture
content and compaction effort. Table 3 showed, laterite is being compacted to a higher density than kaolin for both
different compaction efforts. This is because the present of various particle size from fines to a coarse-grained soil
will attains a much higher density for a given compaction effort. Meanwhile kaolin is provided with the same size
where, mostly of the particle size is passing 63 μm. They are plastic when wet but become very hard when dry and
have a strong affinity to absorbed more water and tend to swell. For those cases where the compaction rammer
causes very large penetration during compaction, the specimen compressibility tends to increase, which is believed
to be caused by a breakdown of the soil’s structure and greater orientation of the particle during compaction.
Difference in behaviour between laterite and kaolin can be seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. When applying more and
more blows to the soil, the soil particles will be able to compact to the maximum possible densities. There is also a
certain optimum compactive energy required to be applied to the soils. If energy is applied, it will create instability
in the soil matrix. Maximum dry density will increase, with the increase of compactive effort. By increasing
compactive effort, (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) the maximum dry density is increase and the optimum moisture content is
decrease. For both compaction behavior, it can be seen that for both soil show that the curve is shifted to the left-
hand side and going upwards if compared to a standard proctor compaction test.

Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Unconfined compressive strength test was carried out on different compaction energy. The results, as shown in
Table 4 reflect that the strength is increasing with the increase of compaction effort. Higher strengths were recorded
with the increasing of compaction energy level. The increase in the UCS is due to the strong bonding within soil
matrix initiated. Table 3 shows that for both kaolin and laterite, it was found that after using a modified energy, the
strength increases more than 2 times if compared it with using standard proctor energy.

TABLE 4. Result of UCS for laterite and kaolin with different compaction energy
UCS (kPa) Moisture content (%)
Soil
Standard Modified Standard Modified
Laterite 554.37 1211.858 22.5 16.5
Kaolin 192.55 476.738 27 23

Figure 4 and Fig. 5 shows that soil stiffness decreased with the increase in water content and increase in different
compaction enegry. The UCS value of both laterite and Kaolin with different compaction energy, show two times
increasing in UCS value after applying modified compaction effort. The increase in water content of soil also
reflected in its stress-strain behaviour. It shows that the failure strain decreases with the increase in water content.
The failure strain decreases with the increase in water content and beyond 27 % water content. The stress-strain
curve shows that the sample behaves like very stiff clay (brittle behaviour) with a pronounced peak at lower water
contents and gradually shows ductile behaviour at higher water contents. Meanwhile Fig. 6 shows the sample failed
by bulging and development of tension cracks were seen at failure load at lower water contents (Fig. 6 (c) and (d)
and at higher water contents they showed ductile behaviour (Fig. 6 (a) and (b)). Unconfined compressive strength
decreases with the increase in water content.

FIGURE 4. Strength Behaviour of Kaolin with different compaction energy.

030009-5
 FIGURE 5. Strength behaviour of Laterite with different compaction energy.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

FIGURE 6. Soil specimens after ucs test (a) laterite(std) (b) Kaolin(std) (c) Laterite(mod)
(d) Kaolin (mod)

CONCLUSION
Based on the preliminary investigations and various geotechnical test conducted on laterite and kaolin, the following
conclusion were drawn.

x The MDD values increase with the increased in compaction energies. However, the changes of MDD and
OMC for both soil is small.
x It was found that the fine particle size has a major effect on OMC and MDD. And the effect mostly
influences by the percentage of clay. Soil with a higher percentage of clay and silt, usually have more pore
space and have a lower bulk density than sandy soil.
x In the case of UCS, the same trend with compaction was obtained. It was found that the higher UCS values
were recorded with increase in compaction energy.
x Grain size distribution and the characteristic of soil plays a major role in improving the engineering
properties of the soil.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia for sponsoring this research project under research
grant no. USM(RU) 1001/PAWAM/814246. The authors also would like to acknowledge the support provided by

030009-6
the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia and RECESS, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia in
carrying out this study.

REFERENCES

1. Lambe, T. W., & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil Mechanics,John Wiley, New York, pp. 553.
2. Gidigasu, M. (Ed.). (2012). Laterite soil engineering: pedogenesis and engineering principles (Vol. 9).
Elsevier.
3. Ogunsanwo, O. (1990). Geotechnical properties of undisturbed and compacted amphibolite derived laterite
soil. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology-Bulletin de l'Association Internationale
de Géologie de l'Ingénieur, 42(1), 67-73.
4. Multiquip Inc. (2011). Soil Compaction Handbook. Retrieve from
http://www.multiquip.com/multiquip/pdfs/Soil_Compaction_Handbook_low_res_0212_DataId_59525_Versio
n_1.pdf
5. Guerrero, A. M. A. (2004). Effects of the soil properties on the maximum dry density obtained from
the standard proctor test. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida).
6. Indraratna, B., Heitor, A., & Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2012). Effect of compaction energy on shear wave
velocity of dynamically compacted silty sand soil.

030009-7