Experimental Study of Laboratory Compaction and Sand Cone on Foundation Tub Soil

Experimental Study of Laboratory Compaction and Sand Cone on Foundation Tub Soil
  IJETT-book-cover           
  
© 2021 by IJETT Journal
Volume-69 Issue-6
Year of Publication : 2021
Authors : Meti, Tri Harianto, Abdul Rachman Djamaluddin, Achmad Bakri Muhiddin
DOI :  10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V69I6P201

How to Cite?

Meti, Tri Harianto, Abdul Rachman Djamaluddin, Achmad Bakri Muhiddin, "Experimental Study of Laboratory Compaction and Sand Cone on Foundation Tub Soil," International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1-7, 2021. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V69I6P201

Abstract
Soil is a very important material, so it must be able to support the load on it, so the soil must have a good enough soil carrying capacity. In this study, soil compaction was compared to the method of compaction of laboratories with sand cone methods[1]. The purpose of this study is to know the characteristics of the soil and know the comparison of laboratory compaction with the compaction of the shell in the foundation tub. The soil is taken from the same point for the proctor test and sand cone test. These test results are used in foundation model testing. Testing of characteristics in the laboratory: moisture content, density, consistency limits (LL, PL), sift analysis, hydrometer, laboratory compaction, and shelling. The results found that the soil type based on AASHTO classification is A-7-5, and soil classification based on Unifield Soil Classification System (USCS) is MH. Laboratory compaction (Proctor Test) water content averages 32.26%, maximum ?d 1,33 g/cm³, and compaction test sand cone, soil without foundation 0f 1,36 g/cm³, vertically arranged tire foundation of 1,36 g/cm³, horizontally arranged tire foundation of 1,36 g/cm³.

Keywords
Evaluation, Experiment, Laboratory Compaction, Sand Cone, Soil.

Reference
[1] Agustina, D.H, Latul Y, The Effect of Compaction Energy on the Value of Soil Density, Sigma Teknik, 2 (2) (2019) 202- 206.
[2] Santoso, B., Suprapto, H., Suryadi, Basic Soil Mechanics, Guna Darma, (2015).
[3] Das, B.M, Soil Mechanics (Principles of Geotechnical Engineering), Vol.1 Erlangga, Jakarta, (1994).
[4] Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University, Handbook of Soil Mechanics Laboratory I, Gowa, Indonesia,( 2020).
[5] Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University, Handbook of Soil Mechanics Laboratory II, Gowa, Indonesia, (2020).
[6] American Society for Testing and Material, Annual Books of ASTM.
[7] Sismiani. A, Pudyawardhana. C, Determination of Soil Density in The Field Using Borland Delphi 6, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, Muhammadiyah University of Purwokerto, (2016).
[8] Syahputra, A.R., Endriani, D., Husny, Utilization of Palm Kernel Ash and Cement on Clay Soil in Dusun Palh Tested by UCT, ITM Engineering, 33, (2020) 53-60.
[9] Hardiyatmo, H.C. Soil Mechanics 1, Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta. (1992).
[10] Meti.,Samang L., Djamaluddin A., Muhiddin A, The Effect of Gradation on CBR Value, National Seminar of the Faculty of Engineering, Muhammadiyah University Surakarta, (2019) 134-139.
[11] Around Civil Engineering, How to Test Using a Sand Cone, (2017).
[12] Hardjowigeno, S. Ultisol Soil Science New edition., Akademika Pressindo, Jakarta, (2003).
[13] Hardjowigeno, S. Soil Classification and Pedogenesis. Akademik Pressindo,Jakarta,(2003).
[14] Hardiyatmo, H. C. Soil Mechanics 1, Gadjah Mada University Press, Yokyakarta. (2006). Density (?d) SandCone Test (?d) (g/cm³)Average (?d) (g/cm³)Laboratory Compaction(Proctor Test) (?d) (g/cm³)Soil Without FoundationTop Layer :?d =1,35Middle Layer?d =1,36Botton layer?d =1,37VerticallyArrangedTireFoundationTop Layer ?d =1,36Middle Layer ?d= 1,37Botton layer?d = 1,35Top Layer ?d = 1,37Middle Layer:?d = 1,35Botton layer?d = 1,361.36?d= 1,331.36?d= 1,33Horizontally Arranged Tire Foundation 1.36?d= 1,33