i COMPARISON BETWEEN CANLITE STABILIZED LATERITE AND

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


Canlite

58


Canlite

59


Probase

59


Probase

60

xiii

xiii


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


treated Laterite

76


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.

Documents

i COMPARISON BETWEEN CANLITE STABILIZED LATERITE AND