JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE UNDERGROUND EXPLORATION VOL. 1 NO.

1 (2021) 20-24

© Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Publisher’s Office

Journal of
J-SUE Sustainable
Underground
http://publisher.uthm.edu.my/ojs/index.php/j-sue Exploration
e-ISSN : 2821-2851

Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength and

Atterberg Limit of Soft Clay by Stabilizing with Sodium
Silicate and Biomass Silica in Batu Pahat
Amirul Najmi Shukri1, Saiful Azhar Ahmad Tajudin1, Ahmad Hakimi Mat
Nor2*
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, MALAYSIA
2
Centre for Diploma Studies,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Jorak, 84500 Bukit Pasir, Johor, MALAYSIA

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30880/jsue.2021.01.003
Received 24 August 2021; Accepted 11 October 2021; Available online 16 December 2021

Abstract: Soft clay soils can be considered as problematic soil with the characteristic of high compressibility, low
permeability and low shear strength. Construction on soft clay deposit may causes problem such as insufficient
bearing capacity, settlement problem and instability on excavation and embankment. Ground improvement
methods were used as the aimed of this study is to determine the effect of non-traditional stabilizer on the
compressive strength of soft clay soils. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine effect of compressive
strength of untreated and treated soft clay soil with addition of non-traditional stabilizer at different curing periods.
The soil properties of soft clay soil such as compaction, Atterberg limits, and unconfined compression strength
(UCS) testing methods were used to observe the performance of treated and untreated samples. The test results
from the UCS indicated that once Biomass Silica and Sodium Silicate in the form of SH-85 and TX-85 have been
added to the clay soil, the strength of the sample will increase with increasing percent of sodium silicate and curing
periods.

Keywords: Soft clay, Non-traditional stabilizer, unconfined compressive strength

1. Introduction
Construction is an important support for Malaysia's economic development and is also a key support project of the
national economic fixed investment. Engineer must have the ability to make use of a diverse form of soil for use as
production purpose. In civil engineering literature, a soil or soil deposit were described as all obviously taking place
relatively unconsolidated mineral particles, organic or inorganic, lying over the bedrock that's shaped by weathering of
rocks [1]. Ground data inclusive of the soil bearing capacity, soil stress and soil electricity had to be decided to make
sure that it turned into appropriate earlier than production start. The soft soil has emerged as a chance to the
development industry, specifically in road construction. As we know, soft soil is highly compressible, low shear
strength between 25 kPa to 50 kPa and low permeability. Usual construction problems on this deposit are unsatisfactory
bearing capacity, more post-production settlement and instability on soil elimination and embankment forming. To
counter this problems in geotechnical construction, engineers should have a look at the engineering properties of the
soft clay. A form of techniques like displacement, replacement, reinforcement, and stabilization are the strategies
practiced for boosting the houses of the susceptible soils [1].

*Corresponding author: ahakimi@uthm.edu.my

2021 UTHM Publisher. All rights reserved. 20
publisher.uthm.edu.my/ojs/index.php/j-sue
Amirul Najmi et al., Journal of Sustainable Underground Exploration Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021) p. 20-24

Chemical stabilization techniques are followed to offer the soil strength improvement, general and differential
settlements and permeability reduction. Soil stabilization is a cost-effective and environmental approach carried out to
accustom the soils’ mechanical and chemical traits [2]. There are different sorts of usable admixtures. The chemical
response among soils and admixtures boosts the physical and engineering properties. Replacement of soft soil with
appropriate soil continues to be notably applied when construction has taken place on soft soil deposit. This method
ends in an expensive layout as a massive quantity of appropriate soil is needed to be transported. When there's an
addition of admixtures to the soil in the precise quantities, the properties of the soil may be improved. Applying
chemical stabilization solutions to stabilize soft clay soil concerns in order to be appropriate for construction purposes.
This emphasized on applying stabilizers by one attention and stabilizing the soft clay. Soil stabilization aims at
enhancing soil strength and increased resistance to softening with the aid of using water via bonding the soil particles
together, waterproofing the particles or mixture of the two [3].
From this study, we will decide the ratio of stabilizer to stabilize clay soil. Adding stabilizer will boost the strength
of soil for building purposes. Thus, these study can be used to offer knowledge about the most appropriate chemicals to
stabilize soft clay. This report can be used as a manual to pick the optimum powder stabilizer for application, mostly
based on soil conditions and preferred strength.

2. Illustrations
Stabilizing agent were widely available on the market and it was developed specifically to stabilize the clay soil
with high water content. Stabilizing agent relatively have slow reaction to the ground and will produce lower effect
during a short-term period but will give better effect in long term period. Besides, it is very effective and efficient due
to the low amount of cost used for the improvement of soil.
This study will be using non-traditional stabilizer which is sodium silicate and biomass silica or commercially
called as TX-85 and SH-85 as the stabilizing agent. Probase soil Stabilizer Company, a local company in Johor state of
Malaysia are in charge of supplying the sodium silicate. It is an organic combination of Sulphur and acid buffered
which is a liquid type of non- traditional stabilizer and typically marketed for stabilization of plantation road soils. The
plasticity index when applying this liquid stabilizer can decreased with increment of TX-85 which indicate that TX-85
can reduce the thickness of diffusion layer [4]. Another stabilizing agent used for this study was biomass silica which is
in powder form or commercially called as SH-85 Soil Hardener. SH-85 is one of the bio-technological process
produced from wastes of biomass silica to form “Artificial Laterite”. The product is a cement-like soil and can be used
with any type of soil to achieve California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) according
to the requirement of engineering design.

3. Materials and Methods

The soil sample is a soft soil collected from the Research Centre of Soft Soil (RECESS) Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malaysia campus in Johor, Malaysia at a depth of 3 meter. Table 1 shows the physical properties of this soil.

Table 1 - Physical properties of soft clay

Physical Properties Values
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 73
Plastic Limit, PL (%) 29.12
Plastic Index, PI (%) 43.88
Maximum Dry Density, MDD (kg/m3) 1520
Optimum Moisture Content, OMC (%) 23

The physical characteristics tests were carried out in accordance with (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: 4). The practice of
compressing solid particles closer together, usually by mechanical means, to increase the dry density of the soil is
known as a standard proctor compaction test. The amount of water in the soil and the degree of compaction applied
influence the dry density that can be attained. The optimal moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD)
for specimen preparation were determined using a compaction test. To avoid effect of these variables on the strength of
stabilized soil, all preparation samples were done with the bulk density and moisture content controlled. The procedure
of preparing samples for these tests, which only requires a small amount of soil and one sample, can be repeated
numerous times after gradually increasing the amount of water. The Atterberg Limit test was used to classify clay and
to explore the impact of moisture content on the behavior of soil, particularly fine-grained soil, after stabilizer addition.
The purpose of the consistency limit experiments was to see how the stabilizer affected the Atterberg limits of the
treated and untreated soils. To determine the influence of the stabilizer on the Atterberg limits, the samples were dried,
crushed, and sieved passing 425 m (in accordance with BS) and having varying quantities of different stabilizers. To
obtain an accurate result, two specimens of the same combination were made and averaged. All specimens were treated
with varying amounts of TX-85 (liquid) and SH-85 (powder) probase stabilizer for different curing periods (0, 14, and

21
 Amirul Najmi et al., Journal of Sustainable Underground Exploration Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021) p. 20-24

28 days) [5]. LoadTrac II which is Unconfined Compression Strength Test (UCS) was used to evaluate the shear
strength of all samples that had cured. LoadTrac II is defined as the maximum unit axial compressive stress at failure or
at 1% strain per minute.

P
qu  (1)
A

4. Results and Discussion

The result from table shows that the neutral moisture content of Batu Pahat soft clay is 72% and dry unit weight is,
γd is 8.57kN/(m3) which is rather high for a soil sample at a depth of soil taken of 1 – 1.5 m at the location of RECESS
that gives higher moisture content to the soil deposits below the water table. The result of the test is given in Table 1
below:
Table 1 - Result of moisture content test
Weight Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Container (kg) 0.010 0.010 0.010
Wet sample + container (kg) 0.056 0.070 0.066
Wet sample (kg) 0.046 0.060 0.056
Dry sample + container (kg) 0.032 0.040 0.042
Dry sample (kg) 0.024 0.030 0.032
W% 91.67 50 75
W % average 72 %
Dry unit weight Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
7.68 9.83 8.42

average 8.57 kg/m³

Compaction test is performed to obtain the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) of
a soil by standard proctor compaction test on the graph dry density versus moisture content for sample preparation
make specimen unconfined compression strength test (UCS) are shows as Table 2 and Fig. 1 shows the graph dry
density against moisture content. In determination of atterberg limit, there are two separate test have been carried out
are liquid limit(LL) and plastic limit(PL). The difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit is calculated to give
plasticity index(PI) of the soft clay. Table 3 and 4 show the result of atterberg limit test and result liquid limit test.
According to BS 1377: Part 7: 1990, the specimen for the unconfined compression strenght test is 38mm diameter by
76 mm high. In order to get accurate result, 3 specimen have been prepared for same mixture to get the average data.
All specimens at different curing period and different percentages of TX-85(liquid) with SH-85(powder) probase
stabilizer such as 0, 14 and 28 days. Each 42 samples have been made according to different percentages which are
5%P, 5%P+1%L, 5%P+2%L, 5%P+3%L, 5%P+4%L, 5%P+5%L and 5%P+6%L. Table 4.6 had shown the result
unconfined compression strenght test (UCS).

Table 2 - Compaction test for soft clay

Dry
Mg/m3 1411.217 1465.766 1503.748 1499.729 1436.288
density
Moisture
% 15.577 18.890 21.241 24.946 29.142
content
Zero air
% 1850.54 1743.63 1674.98 1577.09 1479.21
void

22
Amirul Najmi et al., Journal of Sustainable Underground Exploration Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021) p. 20-24

Fig. 1 - Dry density against Moisture Content

Table 3 - Result of Atterberg limit test

Plasticity
Test Plastic limit, PL (%) Liquid limit, LL (%) Plasticity index, PI (%)
chart
Very high
Results 29.12 73 43.88
plasticity

Table 4 - Results for Unconfined Compresson Strenght Test (UCS)

0 Day
SAMPLE NON 5P+1L 5P+2L 5P+3L 5P+4L 5P+5L 5P+6L
S1 34.48 292.13 263.23 301.56 309.05 288.1 287.78
S2 32.77 294.16 273.15 348.84 303.29 276.66 294.11
AVERAGE 33.625 293.15 268.19 325.20 306.17 282.38 290.95
14 Day
SAMPLE NON 5P+1L 5P+2L 5P+3L 5P+4L 5P+5L 5P+6L
S1 34.48 233.49 181.06 221.28 206.51 247.98 266.32
S2 32.77 144.67 231.91 221.24 242.28 265.99 292.25
AVERAGE 33.63 189.08 206.49 221.26 224.40 256.99 279.29
28 Day
SAMPLE NON 5P+1L 5P+2L 5P+3L 5P+4L 5P+5L 5P+6L
S1 34.48 269.51 288.44 298.99 274.11 202.76 230.84
S2 32.77 277.10 286.16 314.54 274.88 164.87 247.65
AVERAGE 33.63 273.31 287.30 306.77 274.50 233.82 239.25

Figure 2 shows the combination of three different curing day with different percentage of mixture. The effect
of the mixture SH-85 (powder) and TX-85 (liquid) at different percentage affecting the shear strength of the specimens.
The shear strength was determined by the peak pressure from the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test after all
of the specimen were cured according to the curing day respectively. It can be seen that the percentage increase in the
content of TX-85 leads to increased strength in unconfined compressive strength until the mixture of 5%P+3%L. Most
of the result from the test show the peak strength of specimen is 5%P+3%L mixture for 0 day and 28 day curing while
the shear strength continue increased up to 5%P+6%L for 14 day curing.
As the result, the optimum content of combination between SH-85 with TX-85 probase stabilizer obtained by
addition of 5%P+3%L on soft clay was 325.2 kPa as compared to only 33.63 kPa achieved on soft clay without

23
 Amirul Najmi et al., Journal of Sustainable Underground Exploration Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021) p. 20-24

stabilizer. Less significant improvement obtained at higher sodium silicate content was believed due to exaggerated
sodium silicate content to form a desired strength of the soil sample. It can be seen that after 3% of sodium silicate used
in the sample, the strength suddenly decreased. The impact of sodium silicate on the shear strength of clay shows that
the unconfined compressive strength of the soil specimens has increased with the increment of sodium silicate however
reduce after 4% uses of sodium silicate for 0 and 28 days curing but the shear strength increases for 14 days of curing.
The plasticity index also decreased with increment of TX-85 which indicate that TX-85 can reduce the thickness of
diffusion layer [4].

Fig. 2 - UCS versus percent of stabilizer

5. Conclusion
The test results from the Unconfined Compressive Strength Test (UCS) indicated that once Biomass Silica and
Sodium Silicate in the form of SH-85 and TX-85 have been added to the clay soil, the strength of the sample will
increase with increasing percent of sodium silicate and curing periods. The strength of the clay stabilized with 5P+3L
stabilizers is the highest among different percentages of the stabilizer at 0 and 28 days curing. Because of the
stabilization process in the sample, there is an immediate increment in rate of strength after addition of the stabilizer.
The curing period and the percentages of SH-85 and TX-85 used in the sample have a significant impact on the strength
development of the soil.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment and Centre for
Diploma Studies Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor.

References
[1] Akhtar, M. (2012). Role of Soil Mechanics In Civil Engineering. Research Gate, 2, 104–111
[2] Amiralian, S., Chegenizadeh, A., & Nikraz, H. (2012). A review on the lime and fly ash application in soil
stabilization. International Journal of Biological, Ecological and Environmental Sciences (IJBEES), 1(3),
124–126
[3] Cuisinier, O., Auriol, J. C., Le Borgne, T., & Deneele, D. (2011). Microstructure and hydraulic conductivity of
a compacted lime-treated soil. Engineering Geology, 123(3), 187–193
[4] Nor, A. H. M., Pakir, F., Arifin, A., & Sanik, M. E. (2015). Stabilization of Batu Pahat Soft Clay by
Combination Between TX-85 and SH-85 Stabilizers. Journal of Advanced Research in Materials Science,
14(1), 1–7
[5] Makusa, G. P. (2012). Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials in Engineering Practice. J0urnal, 1, 1–35

24