The Comparison between Static and Dynamic Laboratory Compaction Methods
In engineering practice, earth construction requires suitable soil compaction, usually relating to the California Bearing Ratio which called (CBR) is a used sidelong way to estimate the shear strength and stiffness modulus of subgrade in pavement design works. For these types of soils, California Bearing Ratio could be used as a method of compaction assessment being an indicator of soil bearing capacity. Thus, a new method has been created to determine the CBR values based on the MDD and OMC values by using static CBR tests to close the gap between laboratory and field data regarding developing further to improve engineering parameter, especially for pavement design. During the last years, few comparisons had been proposed by various researchers. This study was carried out to find the comparisons CBR values between dynamic and static methods for four different types of soils that locate in Selangor, Malaysia. This study has been calculated the dynamic and static Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and Optimum Moisture content (OMC) values to use these values to determine the CBR values. Based on the results, a static CBR test shows more available results than the dynamic CBR test regarding the CBR values to get an accurate and economical design for the subgrade and pavements layers.
2. Joseph, E. B. (1992), Engineering properties of soils and their measurement (4th ed.). Irwin Mc Graw-Hill publishers, Boston.
3. Jack, R. (1995), Understanding Soil Mechanics (1st ed.). Delmar Publishers, Bonn.
4. Roy, W. (2001), Basic Soil Mechanics (4th ed.). Prentice Hall publisher, England.
5. Geological Society of London. (1994), Clay materials used in construction (4th ed.). SRES Publisher, London.
6. Joseph, D., and Vipulanandan, C. (2010), Correlation between California bearing ratio (CBR) and soil parameters. J. CIGMAT. Geotechnical Research, 31, 44-9.
7. Adewumi, I.K., Amu, O.O., Ayodele, A.L., Mustapha, R.A, and Ola, O.O. (2005), Analysis of California bearing ratio values of lime and wood ash stabilized lateritic soil. J. Applied Sciences, ISSN 1812-5654, Nigeria, pp1479.
8. Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N., and Gill, K.S. (2010), A study on CBR behavior of waste plastic strip reinforced soil, Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 15 (1), 51-57.
9. Bambang, I., Siswosoebrotho, J.S., and Teddy, E. (2003), Compaction and CBR strength characteristics of Paramus island granite mixed with Surabaya pulverized fuel ash. J. Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4.
10. Kalantari, B., and Bujang, B.K. (2009), Load-Bearing Capacity Improvement for Peat Soil, European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X Vol.32 No.2, pp.252-259.
11. Al-Refeai, T., and Al-Suhaibani, A. (1996), Prediction of CBR using dynamic cone penetrometer. J. King Saud Univ, Vol.9, Eng.(2), pp 191-209.
12. Coleri and Erdem. (2007), Relationship between resilient modulus and soil index properties of unbound materials. Middle East Technical University, Vol 4. pp 77-128.
13. Vogrig, M., and MacDonald A. (2003), A laboratory technique for estimating the resilient modulus variation of unsaturated soil specimens from CBR and unconfined compression tests. J. Lakehead University, Vol 5, pp 134-148.
14. Ksaibati, K., Michael L., Whelan, and James, M. (1994), Selection of Subgrade Modulus for Pavement Overlay Design Procedures. J. The University of Wyoming Vol 6.pp 587-611.
15. Hafez M.A, Doris Asmani M., Nurbaya S. Vol. 15 (2010) Comparison between Static and Dynamic Laboratory Compaction Methods Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering University Technology MARA Malaysia.
16. Ohomson, I. and Olisanwendu, O. (2004), California Bearing Ratio test report highways & traffic engineering.
17. Saeed, O., Ibrahim, M., Hamad, W., and Ziauddin, A. (2002), Clegg Hammer—California-Bearing Ratio Correlations. J. Vol 9, pp 512-523.
18. Moto, K.V., Julian, Y., Syamsudin, K., Wiradi, T.A., and Wijaya, S. R. (2004), Synthesize of emulsion polymer latex for sub-grade CBR improvement in the road construction. J. Makara, Teknologi, Universitas Indonesia, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 55-60.
19. Soewignjo, A., Nugroho., Muhammad, Y., and Sri, R. (2010), Comparative study on soaked and unsoaked CBR. Jurnal of science and technology, University of New Zealand 9 (2), pp 69-76.
20. Ziauddin, A. Khan., Omar, S., Al Amoudi, B., Asi. I. M., and Hamad, I. (1995), Field and laboratory assessment of the Clegg hammer – CBR correlation. Journal of materials in civil engineering. The Fourth Saudi Engineering Conference, Vol 2.pp 339-345.