Post on 26-Jan-2022
i
i
COMPARISON BETWEEN CANLITE STABILIZED LATERITE AND
PROBASE STABILIZED LATERITE
NG TECK WEI
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JUNE 2014
iii
iii
This project report is dedicated to my late father and beloved mother
iv
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere and deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr.
Nor Zurairahetty for all her limitless efforts in guiding, encouraging, supervising
throughout my research work and for providing me useful reference materials.
Besides, I would like acknowledge her generosity in spending time I needed for
consultation, reading and responding to the drafts of my work. Thank You!
I am very grateful to Mr. Yong Chin Yung for his positive comments and
giving me relevant reference documents which are very helpful to success this
research. Special thanks go to Probase Manufacturing Sdn Bhd who supplied the
Probase soil stabilizers and Mr. Nima Latifi who provide me the Canlite soil
stabilizer.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mother, my
friends and all who contributed to this research work in one way or another. They
contributed to this work through their generous encouragement, understanding and
love.
v
v
ABSTRACT
In the previous studies, the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of
Laterite soil was improved significantly by adding polymer soil stabilizers like
Canlite and Probase. Although this is the important finding of the research, there is
still no comparison study done between the two polymer soil stabilizers. The aim of
this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of the Laterite soil stabilization treated
by Canlite-liquid and Probase-liquid soil stabilizer. A testing programme, scheduled
to achieve the overall objectives of this study was to determine the basic properties
of Laterite soil, establish the relationship between the compaction characteristics
(maximum dry density and optimum moisture content) with the amount of polymer
emulsion and last but not least compare the strength of the Canlite-treated and
Probase-treated Laterite soil. The effects of both polymer soil stabilizer – Canlite and
Probase were examined. The optimum moisture content of the mixtures was used as
a reference to determine the water content for preparing all the specimens and later
used in unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test. The laboratory test results
showed that the additional amount of Canlite and Probase improved the physical
properties, liquid limit and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of Laterite soil.
The compressive strength of the treated Laterite was varied and depends on the type
of stabilizers, quantity of additives and curing time. From the UCS tests, it was found
that the Probase improve the greater strength of the Laterite as compared to the
Canlite.
vi
vi
ABSTRAK
Dalam kajian sebelum ini, ujian kekuatan mampatan tak terkurung (UCS)
tanah laterit telah bertambah baik dengan ketara dengan menambah penstabil tanah
polimer seperti Canlite dan Probase. Walaupun ini merupakan penemuan penting
dalam penyelidikan, masih tiada kajian perbandingan dilakukan antara kedua-dua
penstabil tanah polimer. Tujuan kertas ini adalah untuk melihat keberkesanan
penstabilan tanah Laterit dirawat oleh Canlite-cecair dan Probase-cecair penstabil
tanah. Satu program ujian, yang dijadualkan untuk mencapai objektif keseluruhan
kajian ini adalah untuk menentukan sifat-sifat asas tanah laterit, menentukan
hubungan antara ciri-ciri pemadatan (ketumpatan kering maksimum dan kandungan
lembapan optimum) dengan jumlah emulsi polimer dan akhir sekali bandingkan
kekuatan tanah Canlite dirawat dan Probase dirawat Laterit. Kesan kedua-dua
penstabil tanah polimer - Canlite dan Probase telah diperiksa. Kandungan lembapan
optimum campuran telah digunakan sebagai rujukan untuk menentukan kandungan
air untuk menyediakan semua spesimen dan kemudian digunakan dalam kekuatan
mampatan tak terkurung (UCS) ujian. Keputusan ujian makmal menunjukkan
bahawa tambahan Canlite dan Probase meningkatkan sifat-sifat fizikal, had cecair
dan kekuatan mampatan tak terkurung (UCS) tanah laterit . Kekuatan mampatan
Laterit yang dirawat bergantung kepada jenis penstabil, kuantiti bahan tambahan dan
masa sembuhan. Daripada ujian UCS, didapati bahawa Probase meningkatkan
kekuatan yang lebih besar kepada Laterit berbanding dengan Canlite.
vii
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES xv
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Aim and Objectives 4
1.4 Scope of Research 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Laterite Soil 6
2.2 Soil Stabilization 9
viii
viii
2.2.1 Chemical Stabilization 11
2.3 Traditional Stabilizer 11
2.3.1 Lime 13
2.3.2 Cement 15
2.3.3 Fly-Ash 17
2.3.4 Blast Furnace Slags 18
2.3.5 Bitumen and Tar 19
2.4 Non-traditional Stabilizer 23
2.4.1 Polymer Emulsion 25
2.4.1.1 Canlite 30
2.4.1.2 Probase 32
2.5 Selection of Stabilizing Agent 34
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Laboratory Test 37
3.3 Atterberg Limits Test 38
3.3.1 Liquid Limit 41
3.3.1.1 Test Procedures for Liquid Limit 43
by Using Fall Cone Method
3.3.2 Plastic Limit 45
3.3.2.1 Test Procedures for Plastic Limit 46
Test
3.4 Standard Proctor Compaction (SPC) Test 47
3.4.1 Test Procedures for SPC Test 49
3.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test 51
3.5.1 Test Procedures for UCS Test 52
3.6 Specimen Preparation 53
ix
ix
4 DATA AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction 56
4.2 Soil Classification 56
4.3 Compaction Characteristic 65
4.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test 68
4.4.1 Effects of Polymer Quantities 70
4.4.2 Effects of Curing Time 73
4.4.3 Comparison between Canlite and 75
Probase Stabilizer
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction 78
5.2 Conclusions 79
5.3 Recommendations 81
REFERENCES 82
APPENDICES 89
x
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Summarize of traditional soil stabilizers 22
2.2 Summarize of non-traditional soil stabilizers 24
3.1 Mix proportioning for the samples in the UCS
test
37
3.2 Typical values of LL, PL and activity of some
clay minerals
40
3.3 The plasticity index in a qualitative manner 40
3.4 General relationship of consistency and
unconfined compressive strength of clays
52
4.1 Summary of Atterberg limits test 61
4.2 SPC test results for natural Laterite soil 67
4.3 Summary of UCS test result 68
xi
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Relationship between unconfined compressive
strength and lime content of the treated soils
with lime
14
2.2 Change in the compaction curve of a lime treated
soil
15
2.3 Unconfined strength of the cement-treated soil
samples with different content and curing time
17
2.4 Relationship between the maximum dry density
and tar content
20
2.5 Relationship between the optimum water content
and tar content
21
2.6 Unconfined compressive strength of tar-
stabilized clayey sand
21
2.7 Effect of acrylic polymer on the UCS 26
2.8 Effect of Soil Sement on the Eolian soil 27
2.9 Effect of Soil Sement on the Fluvial soil 27
2.10 Unconfined compressive strength value for 28
days of curing
28
2.11 Canlite - SS299 30
2.12 Strength gain for SS299 treated Laterite soil with
different stabilizer content and curing time
31
xii
xii
2.13 Comparison for UCS of SS299 treated Laterite
soil with different stabilizer content and curing
time
31
2.14 Probase TX-85 33
2.15 Strength gain for TX-85 treated Laterite soil with
different stabilizer content and curing time
33
3.1 Research framework 36
3.2 Atterberg limits 38
3.3 Plasticity index 39
3.4 Plasticity chart 41
3.5 Fall cone test 42
3.6 Sample plot of moisture content vs cone
penetration for determination of liquid limit
43
3.7 Plastic limit test 46
3.8 SPC test results for silty clay 48
3.9 Typical compaction curve for four soils 49
3.10 Unconfined compression strength test 51
3.11 Sample wrapped with a cling film and cured in
the container
54
3.12 Samples put together in large container 54
3.13 Repeatability data for UCS test of untreated
sample
55
4.1 Penetration against moisture content for natural
Laterite soil
57
4.2 Penetration against moisture content with 2%
Canlite
58
4.3 Penetration against moisture content with 8%
Canlite
58
4.4 Penetration against moisture content with 16%
Canlite
59
4.5 Penetration against moisture content with 2%
Probase
59
4.6 Penetration against moisture content with 8%
Probase
60
xiii
xiii
4.7 Penetration against moisture content with 16%
Probase
60
4.8 Graph of liquid limit versus percentage of
stabilizers
62
4.9 Graph of plastic limit versus percentage of
stabilizers
62
4.10 Graph of plasticity index versus percentage of
stabilizers
63
4.11 Atterberg limits of Canlite-treated Laterite 64
4.12 Atterberg limits of Probase-treated Laterite 65
4.13 Compaction curve for natural Laterite soil 67
4.14 Failure modes of the specimens after UCS test 70
4.15 Effect of Polymer content on the UCS of the
Canlite-treated Laterite
71
4.16 Effect of polymer content on the UCS of the
Probase-treated Laterite
71
4.17 Effect of curing time on Canlite-treated Laterite 73
4.18 Effect of curing time on Probase-treated Laterite 74
4.19 Comparison chart for UCS of 2% polymer-
treated Laterite
76
4.20 Comparison chart for UCS of 8% polymer-
treated Laterite
76
4.21 Comparison chart for UCS of 16% polymer-
treated Laterite
77
xiv
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength
CBR = California Bearing Ratio
SPC = Standard Proctor Compaction
MDD = Maximum Dry Density
OMC = Optimum Moisture Content
CMS = Cement-Modified Base
CTB = Cement-Treated Base
GGBFS = Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
PVC = Polyvinyl Chloride
SS299 = Canlite
TX-85 = Probase
US = Untreated Sample
PL = Plastic Limit
LL = Liquid Limit
PI = Plasticity Index
UU = Unconsolidated, Undrained
xv
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Data of Atterberg limits test 90
B Result of standard proctor compaction test 97
C Examples of computer-generated report for UCS
results
98
1
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
The use of soil is an inevitable element in the construction process, especially
for developing countries. It is used extensively as construction materials in the
building of roads, dams, embankments and airfields. According to Whitlow (2001),
the properties of the materials need to be measured and evaluated before use and
introduce some quality control measures to ensure a quality product. In this sense, it
is worth to realize that the strength of the soils varies from different types of soils.
Indeed, there are a wide variety of soils in Malaysia; one of the special soils is called
Laterite soils.
Laterite soils are found abundantly in the Tropicana country such as Malaysia.
The colours can differ from ochre through red, brown, violet to black, depending
largely on the concentration of iron oxides (Amu et al., 2011a). Laterite soil is well
known in Asian countries as a building material for more than 1000 years and the
temples at Angkor are famous examples for this early use. Basically, Laterite soils
are regarded as good foundation materials as they are virtually non-swelling
(Alhassan, 2008). However, it contains amount of clay minerals that its strength and
2
2
stability could not be guaranteed under loads, especially under presence of water
(Oluremi et al., 2012). When Laterite soil consists of highly plastic clay, the
plasticity of soil may cause cracks and damage on building foundations, pavement,
highway or any other construction projects. It is therefore important, to understand
the behaviour of Laterite soil and thus figure out the method of soil stabilization.
The soil stabilization can be either mechanical or chemical stabilization. The
former refers to either compaction or the introduction of fibrous and other non-
biodegradable reinforcement to the soil while the latter is the method of improving
the engineering properties of soil by adding some chemical to improve the existing
soil. The used of stabilized soils in construction like road construction has been
introduced since Roman times (Krebs and Walker, 1971) and used in construction of
adobe buildings in Cyprus and Arizona (Fitzmaurice, 1958). It has a very long
history and common practice around the world. When the mechanical stability of a
soil cannot be obtained and considered, it is always an alternative by adding of the
chemical additives. For instance, addition of traditional chemical stabilizer such as
lime, cement, bituminous materials and fly ash were done by many researchers
(Oluremi et al., 2012; Alhassan, 2008; Little et al., 2000; Rogers et al., 1993;
Sherwood, 1993; Ola, 1975).
Despite of traditional chemical stabilizer, polymer emulsion which is
considered non-traditional chemical stabilizer has introduced recently like
PolyPavement, Soil Sement, TerraBond, Canlite, Probase, etc. Principally, the function of
polymers is to enhance the strength of the soil and it is especially suitable to increase
the strength of silty-sand soil under wet and dry condition (Yong, 2013). Among the
polymer emulsions, Canlite and Probase was studied by many researchers recently
such as Latifi et al., (2013); Marto et al., (2013) and Yong, (2013) in respect of
Laterite stabilization.
3
3
In this study, both polymer soil stabilizer entitled Canlite and Probase were
tested to the Laterite soil. Both Canlite and Probase exist in two forms which are
liquid and powder form; however, only liquid form was used in this research. The
results obtained from the UCS test for both polymer soil stabilizers were then
compared and discussed.
1.2 Problem Statement
Laterite soil is found to be good construction materials and can be easily
available in the Malaysia. For instance, it can be used as building materials for
moulding blocks and plastering. Beyond that, it can be utilized in a variety of
construction purposes such as highway construction and pavement construction.
However, the Laterite soil in the natural has low bearing capacity and low strength
due to high content of clay. Many research found that the construction failure are
owing to poor Geotechnical properties of the underlying soils (Laterite soil). For
example, several highway pavements on Nigeria roads are failing due to the
inadequate of soil strength (Amu et al., 2011b). This soil stabilization is practiced
when it is more economical to improve its engineering properties rather than bring in
the one that fully complies with the requirement of the specification for the soil (Ola,
1975).
Different additives have different functions and can bring different effect to
the same materials. The addition of cement will increase the compressive strength of
the Laterite soil, but probably produce shrinkage cracks when the cement content is
high; addition of coconut husk ash increase the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
value of the Laterite soil but reduces the plasticity index of the Laterite soil.
4
4
For the non-traditional stabilizers, polymer emulsions can be used on most
soils; however, certain products are more effective for specific soil types. For
instance, when synthetic polymer emulsions applied at low application rates
(sprayed-on or mixed-in) to the surface of the unbound roads, they perform well for
dust suppression. They bond soil particles together and so reduce dust generation.
Another example is synthetic polymer emulsions can be used to stabilize soils at
higher application rates (Kestler, 2009). In the previous studies, the Laterite soil was
treated with both Canlite and Probase and the research found that the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) of Laterite soil was improved significantly. Although
this is the important finding of the research, there is still no comparison study done
between the two polymer soil stabilizers. It is always advisable that does not rely
only on one material and should go for alternatives. This is because the comparison
study can search for the best solution. Thus, comparison study between the Canlite-
treated soil and Probase-treated soil is vital for the construction industry.
1.3 Aim and Objectives
The aim of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of the Laterite soil
stabilization treated by Canlite-liquid and Probase-liquid soil stabilizer. In this paper,
three objectives were identified to attain the above aim:
a. To determine the basic properties of Laterite soil.
b. To establish the relationship between the compaction characteristics
(maximum dry density and optimum moisture content) with the amount of
polymer emulsion.
c. To compare the strength of the Canlite-treated and Probase-treated Laterite
soil.
5
5
1.4 Scope of Research
Generally, this research is a comparison study of the stabilization of Laterite
soil between the use of Canlite and Probase soil stabilizer. Physical properties tests
like Atterberg limits Test was carried out while mechanical properties tests were
standard protocol compaction (SPC) test and unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
test. All the tests were performed in accordance with the British Standard 1377 (1990)
and Head (1992).
For the constant variables, there were settings as follow:
a) The soil sample was obtained around the Faculty of Electrical and Electronic,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai Johor;
b) Only the soil particles which passed through the 2mm sieve were considered
in the laboratory test;
c) The amounts of Probase and Canlite soil stabilizer were added to the Laterite
soil were 2%, 8% and 16%, besides, there were a condition which no soil
stabilizer added to the sample soil as control samples;
d) All the treated soil samples were cured for 3, 7 and 28 days.
For the laboratory test procedure, there were carried out as follow:
a) All the soil specimens were dried out in the oven (approximately 110ºC) for
one day before laboratory work were carried out.
b) A standard proctor compaction test was carried out to achieve the maximum
dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC).
c) The soil samples for unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test were
prepared by referring to the MDD and OMC of the untreated soil.
d) UCS tests were carried out after curing period of 0, 3, 7 and 28 days with
different emulsion content.
82
REFERENCES
AASHTO M-145-91. (2008). Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for
Highway Construction Purposes. American Association of State and
Highway Transportation Officials.
Ahnberg, H., Holm, G. (1999). Stabilization of Some Swedish Organic Soils with
Different Types of Binders. Proceeding of Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil
Stabilization, pp. 101-108.
Alhassan, M. (2008). Permeability of Laterite Soil Treated with Lime and Rice Husk
Ash. Technical Report, Vol. 12(2), pp. 115-120.
Al-Tabbaa, A., Evans, W. C. (2005). Stabilization-Solidification Treatment and
Remediation: Part I: Binders and Technologies-Basic Principal. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Stabilization/Solidification Treatment and
Remediation, pp. 367-385.
Amu, O. O., Adetuberu, A. A. (2010). Characteristics of Bamboo Leaf Ash
Stabilization on Lateritic Soil in Highway Construction. International
Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2(4), pp. 212-219.
Amu, O. O., Bamisaye, O. F., Komolafe, I. A. (2011a). The Suitability and Lime
Stabilization Requirement of Some Laterite Soil Samples as Pavemen.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences and Technology, Vol.
2(1), pp. 29-46.
Amu, O. O., Ogunnlyl, S. A., Oladeji, O. O. (2011b). Geotechnical Properties of
Lateritic Soil Stabilized with Sugarcane Straw Ash. American Journal of
Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 2(2), pp. 323-331.
83
ASTM D2166. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Cohesive Soil. ASTM International.
ASTM D2487-11. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International.
ASTM D4318. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils. ASTM International.
ASTM D698. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Standard Effort [12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)]. ASTM
International.
Atterberg, A. (1911). Über die physikalische Bodenuntersuchung und über die
Plastizität der Tone (On the Investigation of the Physical Properties of Soils
and on the Plasticity of Clays). Internationale Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde,
Band, Vol.1, pp. 10-43.
Blight, G. E. (1997). Mechanics of Residual soils. A.A Balkema, the Netherlands.
British Standard 1377-1 (1990). Methods of Test For Soils For Civil Engineering
Purposes. General Requirements and Sample Preparation. BSI Group.
Buchanan, F. (1807). A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore.
Kanara and Malabar. East India Co., London.
Burmister, D. M. (1949). Principles and Techniques of Soil Identification.
Proceedings, Annual Highway Research Board Meeting, National Research
Council, Washington, D. C, Vol. 29, pp. 402-433.
Casagrande, A. (1948). Classification and Identification of Soils. Transactions,
ASCE, Vol. 113, pp. 901-930.
Cat. (2006). Understanding the Basics of Soil Stabilization: An Overview of
Materials and Techniques. Caterpillar.
CIRIA. (1995). Laterite in Road Pavements. Westminster, London. Special
Publication 47 for Transport Research Laboratory (TRL).
84
Cortellazzo, G., Cola, S. (1999). Geotechnical Characteristics of Two Italian
Peats Stabilized with Binders. Proceeding of Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil
Stabilization, pp. 93-100.
Das, B. M. (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Seventh Edition.
Cengage Learning.
Fajobi, A. B., Ige, O. O., Adeleye, O. K. (2012). Engineering Properties of Acrylic
Resin on Lime Stabilized Soil. Transnational Journal of Science and
Technology, Vol. 2(11), pp. 113-127.
Fitzmaurice, R. (1958). Manual on Stabilized Soil Construction for Housing.
Technical Assistance Programme, United Nations, pp. 124.
Garber, N. J., Hoel, L. A. (2000). Traffic and Highway Engineering, Second Edition
Brooks /Cole Publishing Company, London, pp. 481- 492.
German, C. M. (2005). Stabilization of Soft Clay Subgrades in Virginia Phase I
Laboratory Study. Master Thesis Report, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Gidigasu, M. D. (1976). Laterite Soil Engineering; Pedogenesis and Engineering
Principles. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 9. Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Amsterdam Oxford, New York.
Gow, A. J., Davidson, D. T., Sheeler, J. B. (1960). Relative Effects of Chlorides,
Lignosulfonates and Molasses on Properties of a Soil-Aggregate Mix.
Bulletin 282, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Head, K. H. (1992). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Volume 1: Soil
Classification and Compaction Tests, Third Edition. Whittles Publishing.
Hicks, R. (2002). Alaska Soil Stabilization Design Guide.
Hogentogler, C. A., Terzaghi, K. (1929). Interrelationship of Load, Road and
Subgrade. Public Roads: pp. 37–64.
Ingles, O. G., Metcalf, J. B. (1972). Soil Stabilization: Principles and Practice.
Butterworths, Sydney.
85
Katz, L. E., Rauch, A. F., Liljestrand, H. M., Harmon, J. S., Shaw, K. S., Albers, H.
(2001). Mechanisms of Soil Stabilization with Liquid Ionic Stabilizer.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, Vol. 1757(1), pp. 50-57.
Kestler, M. A. (2009). Stabilization Selection Guide for Aggregate and Native-
Surfaced Low-Volume Roads. The U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Krebs, R. D., Walker, R. B. (1971). Highway Materials. McGraw Hill, New York, pp.
428.
Latifi, N., Marto, A., Eisazadeh, A. (2013). Structural Characteristics of Laterite Soil
Treated by SH-85 and TX-85 (Non-traditional) Stabilizers. EJGE, Vol. 18,
pp. 1707-1718.
Little, D. N. (1995). Handbook for Stabilization of Pavement Subgrades and Base
Courses with Lime. Kendall/Hunt, Iowa.
Little, D. N., Nair, S. (2009). Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade
Soils and Base Materials. NCHRP, Web Only Document 144, Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas.
Little, L., Connor, B., Carlson, R. F. (2005). Tests of Soil Stabilization Products,
Phase 1. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Little, D. N., Males, E. H., Prusinski, J. R., Stewart, B. (2000). Cementitious
Stabilization, Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and
Future Directions. Perspectives from Transportation Research Board
Standing Committees.
Lyon Associationes, Inc. (1971). Laterite and Lateritic Soils and Other Problem Soils
of Africa. Kumasi, Ghana.
MacLaren, D. C., White, M. A. (2003). Cement: Its Chemistry and Properties.
Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 8(6), pp. 623.
Maignien, R. (1966). Review of Research on Laterite, Natural Resource Research IV;
UNESCO: Paris, France, pp. 148.
86
Makusa, G. P. (2012). Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials in Engineering
Practice. State of the Art Review, Department of Civil, Environmental and
Natural resources engineering, Division of Mining and Geotechnical
Engineering, Luleå University of Technology.
Marto, A., Latifi, N., Sohaei, H. (2013). Stabilization of Laterite Soil Using GKS
Soil Stabilizer. EJGE, Vol.18, pp. 521-532.
Mitchell, J. K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behaviors. Second Editions, Wiley &
Sons Inc, New York.
Naeini, S. A., Naderinia, B., Izadi, E. (2012). Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Clayey Soils Stabilized with Waterborne Polymer. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 16(6), pp. 943-949.
Newman, K., Tingle, J. S. (2004). Emulsion Polymers for Soil Stabilization. FAA
Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Atlantic City, USA.
Ola, S. A. (1975). Stabilization of Nigeria Lateritic Soil with Cement, Bitumen and
Lime. Proceeding of 6th
Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. Durban, South Africa.
Oluremi, J. R., Adedokun, S. I., Osuolale, O. M. (2012). Stabilization of Poor
Laterite Soil with Coconut Hush Ash. International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, Vol. 1(8), pp. 1-9.
Pandan, N. S., Nsgaraj T. S., Sivakuma Babu G. L. (1993). Tropical Clays. I: Index
Properties and Microstructural Aspects. ASCE, Vol.119 (5).
Pousette, K., Mácsik, J., Jacobsson, A. (1999). Peat Soil Samples Stabilized in
Laboratory-Experiences from Manufacturing and Testing. Proceeding of Dry
Mix Methods for Deep Stabilization, pp. 85-92.
Probase. (2012). Probase. Making Roads Better. Probase Manufacturing. Retrieved
November 28, 2013 from http://www.probase.com.my.
Proctor, R. R. (1933). Design and Construction of Rolled Earth Dams. Engineering
News Record, Vol.3.
87
Rahmat, M. N., Ismail, N. (2011). Sustainable Stabilisation of the Lower Oxford
Clay by Non-traditional Binder. Applied Clay Science, 52(3), 199-208.
Raychaudhuri, S. P. (1980). The Occurance, Distribution, Classification and
Management of Laterite and Lateritc Soils. Journee Georges Aubert, New
Delhi, India.
Reddy, K. (2002). Experiment 7- Atterberg Limits. Engineering Properties of Soils
Based on Laboratory Testing, pp. 60-73.
Rogers, C. D. F., Glendinning, S. (1993). Modification of Clay Soils Using Lime. In
C. a. Rogers (Ed.), Proceeding of the Seminar held at Loughborough
University on Lime Stabilization, pp. 99-114.
Santoni, R. L., Tingle, J. S., Webster, S. L. (2003). Stabilization of Silty Sand with
Non-traditional Additives. Transportation Research Record 1787, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 33-41.
Sherwood, P. (1993). Soil Stabilization with Cement and Lime. State of the Art
Review. London: Transport Research Laboratory, HMSO.
Sinha, S. P., Davidson, D. T., Hoover, J. M. (1957). Lignins as Stabilizing Agents for
Northeastern Iowa Loess. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 69th
Session, Iowa.
Skempton, A. W. (1953). The Colloidal Activity of Clays. Proceedings, 3rd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
London, pp. 57-61.
Thagesen, B. (1996). Tropical Rocks and Soils. In: Highway and Traffic Engineering
in Developing Countries. Thagesen, B. edition, Chapman and Hall, London.
Tingle, J. S., Santoni, R. L. (2003). Stabilization of Clay Soils with Non-traditional
Additives. In Transportation Research Record 1819. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Whitlow, R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics, Fourth E dition. Pearson Education.
Yong, C. Y. (2013). Stabilization of Laterite Soil Using Canlite Soil Stabilizer.
Undergraduate Project Paper, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
88
Zelalem, A. (2005). Basic Engineering Properties of Lateritic Soils Found in Nejo –
Mendi Road Construction Area, Welega. A PhD thesis of Addis Ababa
University, School Of Graduate Studies.