PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

Group Members: 1. Angelia Chu Su Nee (BK15110287)

2. Bartholomew Kwan (BK15160358)

3. Beatriece Jamin Linggahan(BK15110290)

4. Boon Suan Tee (BK15110040)

5. Broneca Sibin (BK15110042)

6. Lim Kit Meng (BK15110143)

Group Leaders: Bartholomew Kwan (016-8102840)

Date of Submission 7th MARCH 2018

A: Explain the Project Resources (soils, materials) that have been & have yet to be collected so far.

Materials

The following material will be used in this research as recommended by previous researchers:
 Clayey Soil
Soil that will be used in this research is Clayey Soil type which is collected from Kingfisher, Kota
Kinabalu. This type of soil is used due to its tendency to expand and shrink. Clayey soil also often too
soft and weak to support the upper infrastructure of construction projects, which makes it an
excellent and challenging type of host soil for soil stabilization (Shahram Pourakbar et al, 2015).

 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)

Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) is a by-product of the combustion of palm kernel shells under a controlled
temperature of between 600 and 800℃ (Adetoro A, Ezekiel. etc, 2015). In this study, the POFA used is
collected from the Concrete Lab of Faculty of Engineering in UMS. However, the POFA originally
collected from factory in Beaufort, Sabah. The POFA will be treated under high temperature which is
500℃ for 1 hour and then sieved using International Standard Sieve of 600µm (No. 120) sieve. The
treatment of the POFA before the experiment is needed to make sure no unburned carbon that can
affect the potential pozzolanic properties (Shahram Pourakbar et al, 2015).

Variable

In this research, there are several different properties of the soil which is need to observed in order to
investigate the performance of the Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) when used as a stabilizing agent for soil.
This research will observe the properties between the original soil and the modified soil (mixed with
POFA). Based on previous research by Emeka Nnochiri et al (2016), the research investigate the
Compressive Strength of the soil using CBR and Unconfined Compressive Strength Test between soils
and it show that the soil with 4% POFA replacement shows good properties. However, the research
conducted by Shahram Pourakbar et al (2015) shows that the properties of the soil added with POFA
varies between 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, despite that the soil is added with both cement and POFA.
Thus, in our research, we proposed to used only 20% replacement of the POFA inside the soil without
any cement presence or different value of replacement. This is due to short of time in conducting this
research and short supplies of materials.
 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

Previous research has investigate the properties of the Soil in the presence of POFA.
However, most of the research did the research in the presences of other material such as cement,
water and Palm Oil Kernel, with varies number of POFA replacement. This is the main reason why we
proposed to used POFA with only 20% of replacement to the soil without any extra materials. Other
than that, there are no curing process did by the previous research, which mean that there are no
significant contribute to the improvement of the soil.

B: Explain the lab preparation of the material that have been conducted in the lab (Ex: Burning,
sieving, etc).

Lab materials preparation.

Soil:
On 22nd of February Our team had gone to the site location that we had proposed which is in
Alamesra, Kota Kinabalu.Soil sample around half sack was collected from the site.The soil sample was
then dried under the sun for 24 in order to enable the soil to be used in all lab experiment.
Sieving:
For seiving which is conducted on 28th February, the dried soil sample was crushed using
rubber mallet.Then soil sample with the weight of 2.5 kg was weighted for the original soil sieving. As
for the modified soil, 2.5 kg of soil was weighted and 20% of the soil was then replaced with the
stabilizer material which is the POFA. The soil was ready for sieving.

Atterberg's Limits test(Fall Cone Penetration Test) and Specific Gravity of Soil Solid:
These two experiment was conducted on the 1st March during the geo lab scheduled. For the
two experiment, we had used the soil sample that had been sieved.The soil sample used are mixed up
of soil retained and passing through the sieve size 0.300mm.
 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

C: List the lab experiment of the soil that have been conducted so far. Detail the purpose of the lab
experiments.

SIEVE ANALYSIS
Objective - To determine the grain size distribution of soils

Procedure
1. An air-dried soil sample of about 10kg had been collected. Samples with the largest particles
being of the size No 4 sieve openings (4.75mm). For soils with the largest particles of a size
greater than 4.75 mm, larger weights are needed.
2. The soil samples were break into individual particles by using hammer. (Note: The idea is to
break up the particles, not to break the particles themselves)
3. The accurate mass of the sample was determined as 2.5kg.
4. Stack of the sieves were prepared and weighted. A sieve with larger opening was placed
above a sieve with smaller openings. The sieve at the bottom was No 200.
5. The soil sample was prepared and poured into stack of sieves from the top.
6. The cover was placed on the top of the stack of sieves.
7. The stack of sieves was running through a sieve shaker for about 10-15 minutes.
8. The amount of soil retained on each sieve and in the bottom of the pan was weighted.
9. Calculation was done and a graph was plotted.

Specific Gravity of Soil Solids

Objective - To determine the specific gravity of fine-grained and coarse-grained soils

Procedure
1. The density bottle was washed and dried. The bottle was then weighted to the nearest 0.0001
g.
2. A sample of 50-100 g was obtained by quartering. A representative sample must contain
gravel size but ground with mortar and pestle. The sample was reduced by rifting to obtain
sample about 30 g. The sample was dried in the oven and cool it to room temperature in
desiccators.
3. The sample was placed into the bottle directly from the desiccators and the bottle, and
stopper with the soil was weighted to the nearest 0.001 g.
4. The stopper was detached and de-aired water was added into the bottle about half or three
quarter full. The bottle was placed in the vacuum desiccators to remove the air bubbles.
(Note: Ensure that no more bubbles are present in the soil. Reduce the pressure gradually and
leave the vacuum for a while.)
5. The bottle was removed from the desiccators and the soil was stirred gently with a rod, the
particles was washed with de-aired water. The bottle was filled until full and the stopper was
placed.
6. The bottle was transferred to the constant water temperature bath so it immersed up to the
neck. Leaved for about an hour.
7. The bottle was removed from the bath and wiped it dry with cloth. (Avoid prolong contact
with the hands as it increased the temperature.) The bottle and stopper were weighted
together with water and the soil to the nearest 0.0001 g.
8. The bottle was cleaned and filled it with de-aired water until full. The bottle was weighted
together with the water.
 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

Atterberg Limits Test

Objective - To determine the liquid and plastic of soils

Procedure (LL Using Fall Cone Method)

1. Soil sample was weighted as 350g and poured into the mortar.
2. Water about 30ml was added into the mortal to mix with the soil sample.
3. The soil is mixed thoroughly in the mortal to form soil paste by using spatula.
4. The soil sample was placed in the penetration cup by using the spatula and the sample was
pressed slightly to remove air voids. (Note: The surface of the sample should be
approximately horizontal.)
5. The penetration cone was lowered until it was slightly touching the surface of the soil before
setting the penetrometer gauge to zero.
6. The cone penetrometer was released and penetration depth (in mm) was taken. (Note:
Repeat for more accurate result.)
7. The procedure was repeated for at least four to five times at different water content values.
The readings were recorded and the calculation were completed.

D: Summarize the results of the lab experiments conducted in part C. Submit available attachment to
support the report.

The soil has not been classified by USCS, BS, and AASHTO standards due to lack of data. Standard
Proctor Test and Plastic limit has not been conducted for normal soil however the Sieve Analysis,
Specific Gravity, and Liquid Limit for normal soil has been done from the previous lab session. The raw
data will be attached in the following segments. Overall with only 2 more test to classify the soil and
another 2 more to complete the normal soil data (i.e. Standard Proctor Test, Plastic Limit,
Permeability and Consolidation test) before the experiment is repeat again using modified soil where
20% of the normal soil is replaced by POFA.

E: Attachment (if any) Raw data are as attached in below.

 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

ORIGINAL SOIL SAMPLE

Sieve Analysis

Mass
Mass of Percent
Sieve of Cumulative Percent
Soil of Soil
Opening Sieve Percent Finer
Retained Retained
(mm) Before (%) (%)
(g) (%)
(g)

2 1087 1481 24.7 24.7 75.3

1 929 654 10.9 35.6 64.4

0.6 900 438 7.3 42.9 57.1

0.425 792 473 7.9 50.8 49.2

0.3 807 430 7.2 58 42

0.212 800 2030 33.8 91.8 8.2

pan 799 303 5.1 96.9 3.1

Total mass retained = 5809g

6114−5809
Percentage of mass of soil loss = = 5809
𝑥 100% = 4.99%

Percentage of coarse-grained = 60.3%

Percentage of fine-grained = 39.7%

 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

Sieve Analysis Data For Soil

100
90
80
Percent Finer (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1
Sieve Size (mm)
 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

Liquid Limit (Fall Cone Method)

Test no. 1 2 3

Penetration 6.8 14.4 32.7

(mm)

Container no. 1 2 3

Mass of 22.2 21.7 19.6

container (g)

Mass of 24.2 26.2 40.1

container + wet
soil (g)

Mass of 23.9 25.3 35.2

container + dry
soil (g)

Mass of water 0.3 0.9 4.9

(g)

Mass of dry soil 1.7 3.6 15.6

(g)

Moisture 17.6 25 31.4

content (%)

Graph of Depth of Penetration against

Water Content
Depth of Penetration (mm)

40

30

20

10

0 25.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Water Content (%)
 PBL PROGRESS REPORT Week 2 (GEOTECHNICAL LAB)

Specific Gravity – Specific Gravity Bottle Method

Room temperature:

Test no. 1 2

Mass of bottle and stopper (wb), (g) 32.2 32.2

Mass of bottle + stopper + soil (ws), (g) 60.2 63.2

Mass of bottle + stopper + soil + water 139.4 141.6

(wps), (g)

Mass of bottle + stopper + water (wB), (g) 126.2 126.3

Specific gravity = w s – wb 1.89 1.97

(WB – Wb) – (Wps – Ws)

1.93

Average specific gravity =