IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Related content

- Computer Simulation of Ion Beam
Development of Mackintosh Probe Extractor Extraction from a Free Plasma Surface
Kenichi Asai, Yasuhiro Yasaka, Masahiro
Mori et al.
To cite this article: Noor Khazanah A Rahman et al 2016 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 160 012015
- Experimental Test of 7.8 GHz Power
Extractor Using Dielectric Loaded
Rectangular Waveguide Structures
Lu Zhi-Gang, Gong Yu-Bin, Gai Wei et al.

View the article online for updates and enhancements. - Mach–Zehnder Interferometric Wavelength
Converter as a Pseudo Return-to-Zero
Extractor
Dong Churl Kim, Young Ahn Leem, Eun
Deok Sim et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 94.30.29.65 on 30/04/2019 at 16:36

International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

Development of Mackintosh Probe Extractor

Noor Khazanah A Rahman1, Masiri Kaamin 2, Amir Khan Suwandi 2, Suhaila

Sahat 2 and Mohd Jahaya Kesot 2
1
Department of Infrastructure and Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat,
Johor, Malaysia
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Center of Diploma Studies, Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malaysia 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

E-mail: khazanah@uthm.edu.my

Abstract. Dynamic probing is a continuous soil investigation technique, which is one of the
simplest soil penetration test. It basically consist of repeatedly driving a metal tipped probe into
the ground using a drop weight of fixed mass and travel. Testing was carried out continuously
from ground level to the final penetration depth. Once the soil investigation work done, it is
difficult to pull out the probe rod from the ground, due to strong soil structure grip against
probe cone and prevent the probe rod out from the ground. Thus, in this case, a tool named
Extracting Probe was created to assist in the process of retracting the probe rod from the
ground. In addition, Extracting Probe also can reduce the time to extract the probe rod from the
ground compare with the conventional method. At the same time, it also can reduce manpower
cost because only one worker involve to handle this tool compare with conventional method
used two or more workers. From experiment that have been done we found that the time
difference between conventional tools and extracting probe is significant, average time
difference is 155 minutes. In addition the extracting probe can reduce manpower usage, and
also labour cost for operating the tool. With all these advantages makes this tool has the
potential to be marketed.

1. Introduction
Soil investigation (SI) is a fundamental step which held prior to any construction activity on site. The
main purpose of SI is to obtain all soil parameters that are needed in designing the foundation of any
given loads on the building to be constructed. Parameters obtained will assist in designing phase so
that the good quality, economic and safe structure can be built. Three main processes of SI frequently
carried are boring, sampling and testing of soil on site. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most
popular method of SI that caters all the processes mentioned that recorded completely the soil profile
at any chosen bore hole. Normally large scale project with high budget suits this method which
produce detail information on soil profile and almost at any sensible depth for building construction.
At normal circumstances, for smaller scale projects or any small construction within a huge project,
there might be some need for the SI report at the particular vicinity. In handling this, Mackintosh
Probe is the widely available, least costly and most practical method to use. The use of Mackintosh

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

probe is normally as complimentary to the SPT method and not to substitute it. The difference
between Mackintosh probe and JKR probe is the angle of the cone, where the Mackintosh probe have
60o angle cone and the JKR probe, with 300 angle cone. According to [1], although this test is
considered as a classic method, but it still used in soil investigation for the any construction. Base on
[2], the Mackintosh Probe has been described, where it consist of a 27.94 mm diameter cone with a 30 º
angle; 12.7 mm diameter solid rods and a 4.5 kg dead weight with standard drop height of 300 mm,
Figure 1. The cone is advanced into the soil by standard blows from the drop weight and the number
of blows for 100 mm penetration is countered. Based on the principles by [3], the probe rod will be
advanced into the soil to get the data to analyse. According to [2], Mackintosh probe was developed
for the investigation of peat and has been used in a variety of soft soils.

Figure 1. Assembly of Mackintosh Probe

The method involve is hammering in rod connected to a cone both of which are in their standard
sizes. Number of blows per 0.3m of rod will be counted and recorded [3], record sample is as shown in
Table 1 and Figure 2 (a) and (b). Note : Depth no. correspond to the particular range of depth as shown

Table 1: No. of blows versus no. of depth and depth

Cumulative No. of
Depth (m) No. of Blows
Blows
0.0 - 0.3 262 262
0.3 - 0.6 207 469
0.6 - 0.9 146 615
0.9 - 1.2 74 689
1.2 - 1.5 60 749
1.5 - 1.8 49 798
1.8 - 2.1 57 855
2.1 - 2.4 74 929
2.4 - 2.7 92 1021
2.7 - 3.0 142 1163
3.0 - 3.3 274 1437
3.3 - 3.6 316 1753
3.6 - 3.9 400 2153

2
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

(a) (b)

Figure 2 : (a) Graph of no. of blows versus depth number (b) Graph of cumulative no. of blows versus
depth number.

Frequent problem faced by handling this method is the difficulty of extracting the rod after it
reaches the following conditions: the maximum depth 14 rods or 400 number of blows per 0.3m.
Hence, the main scope of this paper is to develop the portable and effective equipment that extract the
rod after it reaches the two (2) conditions. It is normal that there is difficulty in the process of
retracting the probe rod out from the ground. This is due to the horizontal pressure that the
surrounding soil (Figure 3) which imposed on the rod and cone and this has to be overcome in order to
successfully extract it out. Thus, in this study, we create a tool that able to overcome this horizontal
pressure (Figure 3) thus be able to retract the probe rod easily from the ground. The tool named as
Probe Extractor. After the completion of the Probe Extractor, its effectiveness in terms of time, labour
and costs used are tested and analysed. Three different locations were selected to test the effectiveness
of the Probe Extractor.

Horizontal Horizontal
pressure pressure

Figure 3: Pressure force on probe from the ground

3
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

2. Methodology and Materials

2.1 Probe Extractor Design

First class lever concept was chosen as the design criteria for the probe extractor [2]. This concept can
reduce manpower usage to extract probe rod from the ground and make the extraction process easy
and goes smoothly. In addition, this new invention design can against pressure force from the ground
because at the end of the rod was penetrated and was clutched tightly by ground strengths.
Analyzation was done on this equipment to determine suitability materials used with using several
formula. Calculation of minimum size of the tool base, minimum size of bolt and minimum size of the
pusher were based on structure design concept. Comparison between total soils bearing capacity [6]
with total human pressure force has shown that minimum size that suitable to use for the based tool is
15 times 10 inch. Meanwhile, for pusher tools, shear force diagram, shear force formula [5],[7], and
first class lever formula [2] were used to obtain the suitable minimum size for the tools. From this
formula, we obtained 30mm diameter and 31 inch long for the pusher minimum size. Minimum bolt
size calculation was obtained using shear force diagram and shear formula for nut and the size was
fixed with 6 inch long and 0.1mm diameter.

2.2 Probe Extractor Fabrication

Several processes were involved in fabricating the probe extractor including welding and cutting steel
plate. There were four parts for this tools (a) based tool, (b) upholder, (c) pusher and (d) arm holder.
Each parts were cut according to minimum size (Figure 4). Few nuts and bolts were used to connect
between arm holder and pusher and also upholder. Once cutting processes were done, pusher part was
welded with upholder using 6 inch nuts. Then, installation between grappler with arm holder was did
using 50mm long and 10mm diameter nuts and bolts. After this two parts had fabricate it was
combined with pusher using nuts and bolts to make it easy to be moved clearly. Tool based was added
with 2 wheels as additional criteria of this design. The wheels will make the user feel free to bring it
without holding it on their back compared to conventional tools.

2.3 Driving in the Probe

A tool to retract the probe rod from the ground will be created in order to assist in the process of
retracting probe rod from the ground after the soil investigation was completed. The design for this
tool was made up by using solid work. This tool was created using readily available materials and easy
to set up. The material that has been used in producing this tool is steel. Extracting Probe has several
components such as grippers, arms, press tool, straighteners and stand supported that will be joined
together to make it perfect tool and can be functioning as planned. Figure 4 shows the design of a
Probe Extractor.

(A) Pusher
(B) Upholder
(C) Based Tool
(D) Grappler
(E) Arm Holder

4
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

Figure 4: Probe Extractor main Components

Figure 5: The use of Probe Extractor

In process of retracting the probe rod from the ground, the press tool of the Probe Extractor will
be pressed downward (Figure 5) and this will cause the arms to move upward and directly the grippers
will grip strongly the probe rod and bring it out from the ground gradually. This step was repeated
until all the probe rod out from the ground. After Probe Extractor was produced, it workability will be
tested. Four different location will be chosen to test this tool. It on the Kolej Kediaman Perwira,
RECESS UTHM, Pt. Rasipan, and one of it in Taman Manis, Parit Raja. After that, the data will be
collected and analysed. The data will be collected by making comparison between Probe Extractor and
conventional method in terms of time, labor and costs used in process of retracting the probe rod from
the ground after soil investigation was finished. The expected result from this Probe Extractor is it can
reduce the time spent to retract the probe rod from the ground compared to the conventional method
because it will be reduce the cost to pay employee. Next, it also can reduce the labor used because
Probe Extractor just only use one employee (Figure 5) compared to conventional method that use
more than one employee.

5
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

3. Results and Discussions

Results that were collected is in term of time, labour and costs used in process of extracting the probe
rod from the ground after soil investigation was finished. The discussions also was made up to
improve this Extracting Probe in the future.

3.1 Graph of average time against the rod for three different places
Following were the graph of average time against the rod for the Extracting Probe and conventional
method in process of extracting the probe rod from the ground for three different places, Kolej
Kediaman Perwira, RECESS UTHM, Pt. Rasipan, and one of it in Taman Manis, Parit Raja.

Table 2: Average time to Extract rode Probe

Depth (m) Existing Tool Probe Time
Location 400 blows (min) Extractor Differences
(min) (min)
Kolej Kediaman 11.4 180 25 155
Perwira
RECESS UTHM 9.9 160 15 145
Kg. Pt. Rasipan 10.2 170 20 150
Taman Manis 13.3 200 30 170

250
Ti me (min)

200

150

100

50

0
Kolej Kediaman RECESS UTHM Kg. Pt. Rasipan Taman Manis
Perwira Location
Existing tools Simple extractor

Figure 6: Graph of average time against the rod

Table 2 shows the average time against the rod for Kolej Kediaman Perwira, RECESS UTHM,
Pt. Rasipan and Taman Manis, Pt. Raja. From the all graph the time taken to retract the probe rod from
the ground by using the Extracting Probe is more faster compare with conventional method with
average time differences is 155 minutes. Overall average time taken for the all rod totally out from the
ground is proved by Extracting Probe, where it faster compare with the conventional method. In Table
3, the different time taken to extract probe rod from the ground by using Extracting Probe and
conventional.

6
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

Table 3: Time Comparison between the Existing Lift Rod and Probe Extractor

Existing Extracting Time

Location Tools Probe Difference
(min) (min) (min)
Kolej Kediaman 180 25 155
Perwira
RECESS UTHM 160 15 145
Kg. Pt. Rasipan 170 20 150
Taman Manis 200 30 170

3.2 Cost and labour use

According to the respondents, the representatives of threes companies, namely Chengal Jati
Sdn.Bhd. , Alur Bina and Gagasan Teguh Sdn.Bhd. who asked about the payment of salaries of
workers to extract the probe rod out from the ground is about RM50 per person. It need two or
more person if use the conventional method, where the cost will be double but by using the
Extracting Probe, it just only need one person to handle this tool, so the cost to pay the employee
will be decreased.

4. Conclusions
Invasion of Extracting Probe has proved it can reduce the problems in process extracting probe
rod out from the ground after soil investigation work finishes. It can solve the problems in term
of time, manpower usege and the payment for the employee. This was proved after the data of
average time by using the Extracting Probe is faster compare with conventional method in the
process of extracting the probe rod from the ground. Besides that, Extracting Probe only use one
labour to handle this tool compare with conventional which need two or more labour to extract
the probe rod from the ground and this will directly reduce the cost to pay the employee.

5. Acknowledgement
The work has been supported by the Short Term Grant (STG) scheme under Vot U141. The
authors would also like to acknowledge Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia with the financial
support of this paper.

References
[1] Ahmadul Hadi bin Mohammad, “Perkaitan Antara Dua Ujian Penusukan Piawai Dengan Kekuatan
Tanah. “Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2005.

[2] Hvorslev, MJ (English Translation 1969) “Physical Properties of Remoulded Cohesive Soils
(Vicksburg, Miss: I.S Waterways Experimental Station), No 69-5, 1937.

[3] Clayton, C.R.I., Simons, N.E. & Matthew, M.C. Site Investigation 2nd End Blackwall Science, Oxford,
1995.

[4] Destiny Images. Simple machines: lever, wheel and axle, pulley lever, wheel and axle, pulley.
Lawrenceville, NJ: Cambridge Educational, 2006.

7
International Engineering Research and Innovation Symposium (IRIS) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 160 (2016) 012015 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012015

[5] Bedford, Anthony. Engineering mechanics: statics and dynamics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2002.

[6] Farhan Mohammad Ab Latif. A study on consolidation, shear strength and bearing capacity of soft soil
improved by vertical drain. Batu Pahat: Kolej Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn, 2006.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_and_moment_diagram

[8] Hibbeler, R. C. Engineering mechanics: statics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.