Department oI Civil Engineering

Soil Compaction

Nam Jo Kim
3 August, 2011




Abstract:
This report investigates the behaviour oI soil compactability USC group classiIication CL in
response to diIIerent moisture content and compactive eIIort. Calculation oI maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content is made Irom experimental data and hence the degree
oI compaction Irom Standard Proctor Test and ModiIied Proctor Test will be compared.


Introduction
The aim oI the soil compaction test is to identiIy the relationship between degree oI soil
compaction and moisture content oI the soil mixture and hence make an estimation oI the
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content Irom experimental results.
In construction projects, having an accurate description oI the achievable soil compaction is
essential to improve the soil conditions and hence allow a suitable Ioundation Ior Ioundations
oI roads and buildings. Applying proctor test on soil sample is an eIIicient method oI
experimentally identiIying the optimum moisture content required to improve the soil`s
engineering properties.
Soil compaction is a process oI increasing soil density hence reducing the air voids. This
allows increase in shear strength, reduced permeability, and reduced compressibility. Other
advantages include control oI swelling and shrinking and reducing liqueIaction potential.(Dr
Talat Bader) Moisture plays an important role in this process as it oIIers some lubrication in the
process. However, too much moisture results in soil being less dense than its optimum.
Soil sample preparation and all test procedures are in accordance to Australian
Standard AS 1289.2.1.1-25(Australian Standard 2001) and is shown in Appendix A. However
materials used in the test (mould and hammer) are US equipment based on US standards.
Throughout the test, the dry density and actual moisture content was obtained to describe the
behaviour oI soil compaction at diIIerent moisture contents and compactive eIIorts oI
Standard and ModiIied proctor tests
Results
Through test results, the behaviour oI both Standard Proctor and ModiIied Proctor tests were
below the Zero air voids line. However the soil was compacted at a higher density by
ModiIied Proctor test with its maximum dry density measured as 1.91 g/cm
3
in comparison to
Standard Proctor test being 1.82g/cm
3
. Similarly, the optimum moisture content was 13.7
Ior ModiIied Proctor and 14.8 Ior Standard Proctor test. This relates to the greater
compaction eIIorts or energy oI impact made by the ModiIied Proctor test allowing increased
compactability.
Determination oI maximum dry density and optimum moisture content by graph estimate was
only possible Irom results Ior Standard Proctor Test. However, results Ior ModiIied Proctor
Test included an inconsistent data value which would have made the graph estimate
ambiguous. Hence maximum dry density and optimum moisture content Ior ModiIied Proctor
Test were selected Irom experimental results only.
In practice, ModiIied proctor test is applied to Ioundations required to handle large loads such
as airplane runway or high-rise buildings. On the other hand, Standard Proctor test is used Ior
projects required oI less loading such as building oI residential housing and roadwork. Other
tests which are also commonly used today are Sand replacement test, Coring, Nuclear
Density Meter.
Test results have shown the Iollowing behaviours oI compaction in accordance to its moisture
content. The Zero Voids Line was calculated by equation p
d
=
up
w
1+(
mG
S
)
with the assumptions
G2.70, p
w
1g/cm
3
and S1.

llgure 1 ury denslLy vs MolsLure ConLenL

As it could be observed, Ior both compaction methods, through adding moisture content into
the soil sample, the degree oI compaction increased until maximum dry density then
decreased again.
In obtaining the dry density and actual moisture content Ior both Standard Proctor Test and
ModiIied Proctor Test, the Iollowing calculations were made.

Dry Density Determination
The Soil density is calculated as p
t
=
w
t
v
where
t
=
]nuI
-
mouId
and
mouId
being
the weight oI the compacted mould aIter reaching the desired moisture content. The dry
density is obtained by equation p
d
=
p
t
1+m
n
where
n
the target moisture content percentage
is.
For Moisture Content 7.4 (Standard Proctor Test) the Iollowing calculations have been
made:
p
t
=
9
9c
3
=
.
c
3

p
d
=
.c
3
+ .8
= .9c
3

13
17
19
21
23
23
27
0 3 10 13 20 23
D
r
y

D
e
n
s
|
t
y

g
]
c
m
3
Mo|sture Content ()
SLandard rocLor
Modlfled rocLor
Zero volds Llne
Actual Moisture Content Determination
The actual moisture content was then calculated by obtaining the weight oI the moist soil and
dry soil. Calculations are in accordance to AS 1289.2.1.12005(Australian Standard 2001).

=

b
-
c

c
-
u

Where

u
Empty Tray

b
Tray Soil

c
Tray Dry Soil

Final moisture content was determined by averaging the moisture content oI top and bottom
oI the mould. For Moisture Content 7.4 (Standard Proctor Test), the Iollowing calculations
have been made.

top
=
.89 -.
. -.
= .%

bottom
=
.9 -.8
.8 -.
= .%
=

top
+
bottom

= .%
*Moisture content is reported in percentage to nearest 1.1 in accordance to AS 1289.2.1.1 (Australian Standard 2001).
Hence, the Iollowing dry density and actual moisture content was achieved Ior standard and
modiIied proctor test.
tandard
roctor 1est
Dry Dens|ty p
d

139 g/cm
3
176 g/cm
3
182 g/cm
3
173 g/cm
3

Mo|sture
Content
74 114 148 191
Mod|f|ed
roctor 1est
Dry Dens|ty p
d
176 g/cm
3
182 g/cm
3
191 g/cm
3
181 g/cm
3

Mo|sture
Content
33 92 137 160

llgure 2 ury uenslLy MolsLure ConLenL (CpLlmum MolsLure ConLenL hlghllghLed)
Degree oI saturation is calculated by substitution oI the moisture content and dry density into
the equation p
d
=
up
w
1+(
mG
S
)
hence by rearranging the equation, =
mu
up
w
p
d
-1
where G2.7 and
p
w
1.
ThereIore, the degree oI saturation oI both compaction methods were calculated
Mo|sture
Content
tandard 74 114 148 191
Mod|f|ed 33 92 137 160
tandard roctor 1est 029 038 080 092
Mod|f|ed roctor 1est 023 031 089 088

llgure 3 uegree of SaLuraLlon
This shows increasing amount oI saturation oI the soil where maximum saturation is 1.
However, the proportion oI soil particles per volume decreases Irom its maximum resulting in
despite the increase in degree oI saturation Irom 3
rd
to 4
th
column.

Discussion
By visual inspection, the USC group classiIication oI the soil sample was noted to be CL.
This is due to its properties oI being inorganic clay with a slightly gravelled texture. The
signiIicant inclusion oI clay particles classiIies CL soil type as cohesive. ThereIore it is not
necessary Ior the relative density to be calculated.
The Iollowing table describe the Engineering properties oI diIIerent soil types

llgure 4 Lnglneerlng properLles of ma[or soll Lypes (Farm Dams for the Sugar ndustry 2001)

As it could be observed in the reIerence table, CL provides a large amount oI shear support oI
approximately 87kPa and minimal permeability oI 0.00007m/day. This property oI low
permeability and suIIicient shear support allows the material to be suitable Ior dams,
embankment and landIills while not recommended as a subgrade material. However, Man-
made materials such as concrete are commonly used to reinIorce the stiIIness oI the material
Ior suIIicient vertical support (Woodward 2005). In terms oI compactability, CL is good to Iair and
would provide suIIicient horizontal support on most structures. However, extreme loads such
as high-rise structures and airplane runways it would require a large amount oI reinIorcement
to avoid Iailure.
In comparing the experimental data results to Typical Values obtained Irom Standard Proctor
Test, the optimum dry density would have to be converted to dry unit weight
d
.
By equation
d
= p
d
, the maximum Unit Weight oI Standard Proctor test is calculated
to be 17.84kN/m
3
while optimum moisture content is unchanged. Hence, there were no
qualitative changes to the results.
1yp|ca| Va|ues

dry
)
max
(kn/m
3
) m
opL
()
Je|| graded sand J 22 7
andy c|ay C 19 12
oor|y graded sand 18 13
Low p|ast|c|ty c|ay CL 18 13
Non p|ast|c s||t ML 17 17
n|gh p|ast|c|ty c|ay Cn 13 23

llgure 3 1yplcal values by SLandard rocLor 1esL (Dr David Airey)
In comparison to Typical Values, the maximum Unit Weight and optimum moisture content
diIIered by 1 and 1 respectively which shows high accordance oI the experimental results
to the typical values.
Analysing the uncertainties and error within the proctor test, limitations in producing an
evenly mixed soil sample would have lowered the moisture content measured than what was
expected. This is due existence oI soil lumps causing diIIiculties in moisture to be mixed
evenly within the soil mixture. Lastly, a proportion oI the water molecules may have been
entrapped within soil particles and still exist in the dry soil mixture aIter 24 hours in oven due
to its clastic properties. Varying sample sizes taken Ior each soil sample would have also
contributed in uncertainty as the rate oI evaporation would have been unique Ior all samples.
Other uncertainties were due to variance in compaction due to human error when generating
each mould.
For accurate results, more data was required with larger number oI samples tested at a Iiner
increase in moisture content. Automated mechanical breakdown oI the soil Ior wet soil
sample preparation would have been highly desirable in comparison to soil mixture by hand.
Conclusion
Through soil compaction experiment, the behaviour oI soil compaction in response to
diIIerent moisture contents was closely inspected. Additionally, it was veriIied that increasing
compactive energy resulted in a greater amount oI compaction while less moisture content
was required to achieve maximum dry density. Furthermore, characteristics oI soil content oI
CL classiIication have shown cohesive and strain resistive properties.

5 References
Richard Woodward 2005, Construction Materials, viewed 3August 2011,
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~engineeringgeologist/page13.html~
Farm Dams Ior the Sugar Industry 2001, Appendix E Soils Classification, Testing and Suitability,
viewed 3August 2011, http://www.Isaconsulting.net~
Dr Talat Bader, Soil Compaction Theory, viewed 3August 2011,
http://Iaculty.kIupm.edu.sa/CE/tbader/CE20553/Hand20out/001SCT.ppt~
Dr David Airey, Compaction, viewed 3August 2011,
https://elearning.sydney.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/Iile?cmdview&contentid82
48631&courseid121201
Australian Standard 2001, Method of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes, AS 1289.2.1.1-2005,
Standards Australia Limited, Sydney
Appendix A
Step 1. Jelgh and record Lhe empLy mould (wlLh Lhe base buL Lhe collar)
Step 2. Measure Lhe mould and calculaLe lLs volume
Step 3. noLe Lhe lnlLlal mass of Lhe soll and lLs presumed molsLure conLenL
Step 4. CalculaLe Lhe amounLs of waLer needed Lo creaLe each of Lhe LargeL molsLure
conLenLs
Step 5. dd Lhe requlred amounL of waLer Lo Lhe soll and mlx Lhoroughly
Step 6. lorm a layer of soll ln Lhe mould (3073mm) and genLly press Lhe soll Lo smooLh lLs
surface
Step 7. CompacL Lhe soll wlLh 23 evenly dlsLrlbuLed full helghL blows of Lhe hammer
Step 8. 8epeaL SLeps 6 and 7 wlLh a second and Lhlrd layer fLer Lhe compacLlon of Lhe
Lhlrd layer Lhe surface of Lhe soll musL be sllghLly above Lhe Lop rlm of Lhe mould L all
Llmes keep all Lhe splll and lefLover soll for remlxlng ln SLep 13
Step 9. 8emove Lhe collar and Lrlm off Lhe soll above Lhe Lop of Lhe mould
Step 10. Jelgh Lhe mould and Lhe sample
Step 11. 8eporL wrlLer prewelghs 2 Lrays and now obLalns small samples from Lop and
boLLom of mould for molsLure conLenL deLermlnaLlon (20 g each)
Step 12. reak Lhe remalnlng soll from Lhe mould uslng Lhe hydraullc [ack
Step 13. reak up Lhe soll Lhoroughly 8emlx all soll wlLh Lhe orlglnal sample addlng Lhe
waLer requlred for Lhe nexL 1arget
Step 14. 8epeaL SLeps 6 Lo 13 unLll all 4 LesLs have been done