Compaction Notes

ction is defined as the method of mechanically increasing fion soil.
nc ons tra u ion , th is is a ignc ific tap tn o the building ao ct is Ide fi ned sctthe me thod ofsme haa nn ic lla yri cfre asing pe rf fo rmed mp rt ope , se emen tign of t heaso ld o ccu yo so il. In ic ons rucr tl iy on , ttt hli14.330 s is a s ific ntil pc aou rMechanics to ft he br uilding Soil n unne cessa ry roperly, settlement of the soil could occur pe rformed imp SOIL DENSITY cie osts o ncunne cr essary . Al SOIL DENSITY nil cu er ce os ts mos or t all il ing ites and ad ilu re.sAl mos t all n ojec ses uta ili ze u ilp dr ing st it nd comp a c tt is on on proj e c utilize
Soil Compaction
SOIL COMPACTION BASICS
l compaction s.
Loose Soil (poor load support)
Figure Loose 1 Soil (poor load support)
Compacted Soil (improved load support)
ed in place or deposited by various forces such ap sl g ae cio er rs , wind lak es aa nd rive med in alc depos it,ed b yv rious fr os r ces r o r g a n ic a ll y . F o ll ow i ng a r e i mpo r ta n t such as glaciers, wind, lakes and rivers so ilrc all ct i.on :llowing are important o ro gomp anica y Fo
il? oil?
Figure 1 Compacted Soil (improved load support) Figure courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip.
Soil Compaction: vtia b rce y. is simply the deadweight of the machine, S tr iat csoil fo or Densification of by n a pp l y i ng downw a forde ce a on the so su rfam cea ,c ch om -, e soil compaction: Static force is simp lr ydthe dwe igh t il of the ine p ess ing the soil p a ticl heton yw yrtfo ce h sture content ar pp ly ing downw a rr d foes rc. eT on he lso il a su ac ,a cnge ompe the removal of air. t he e ff e c t i ve c omp a c t i on f o r c e i s b y a dd i ng o r pressing the soil particles. The only way to change ct ion rtten req o is tureff co on t uired
These different types of effort are found in the two p incipd le types f comp cff tio on e : static nd Tr hese iff erento types ofae rt f ao rr ecf ound inat he two v i b r at o r y . principle types of compaction force: static and
action effort required
ve princi ple re2/2012 asons to compact soil: Revised ive rin ci le rea es lop ad b ep ar ing csons apacitto y compact soil:
ac t? p ac t?
s so ilase tt emen a nd frtos es lo dble aringtc a paci y t damage
su bte ra c tc ing the wei gh of fto he m ac .S tatic the ff e tive comp a ctit on rce is bh yine add ing orcomp ac on con fined to t uppe r so il la ye rs atat ndic iscli mi-ted su bttir actiis ng the weigh of the m ac h ine .S om tp oaa app ron ecifi aned ble dep th. Kr ne ail d i p ressu re re Courtesy of http://www.extension.umn.edu cny tion is c to uppe so lng ayea rnd sa nd is lim ita ed Slide 1 of 37 ttwo exa mp les tat ic c aca tid on . and pressure are o any a ppr ecio af bs le dep tomp h. Kne ing two xr a mp esuses of stat comp ction . ally engineV ibrae to y forlce a ic me chana ism , usu
14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

RESULTS O F POOR COMPACTION
WHY COMPACT SOILS?
Figure courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip.

Revised 2/2012
Figure 2
Slide 2 of 37
These illustrations show the results of improper compaction and how proper compaction can ensure a longer structural life, eliminating future foundation problems.
MOIST UNIT WEIGHT () vs. MOISTURE CONTENT (w)
Conceptual (Figure 4.1. Das FGE (2005))
=
Revised 2/2012
Weight (W) Volume (V)
Silty Clay (LL=37, PI =14) Example (from Johnson and Sllberg 1960, taken from TRB State of the Art Report 8, 1990)
Slide 3 of 37
LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. Proctors)

Standard Hammer Ejector
6 inch Mold
Soil Plug Scale
Modified Hammer Soil Plug
4 inch Mold
Typical Proctor Test Equipment

(Figure courtesy of test-llc.com)
Revised 2/2012 Slide 4 of 37
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY

Test Standard (SCDOT) Modified ASTM/ AASHTO D698 T-99 D1557 T-180 Hammer Compaction Hammer Drop Effort Weight (lb) (in) (kip-ft/ft3) 5.5 12 12.4
10
18
56
Revised 2/2012
Slide 5 of 37
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY

Test Method STANDARD ASTM D698/AASHTO T-99 A
20% Retained by #4 Sieve
MODIFIED ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180 A

20% Retained by #4 Sieve
B
>20% Retained on #4 20% Retained by 3/8 in Sieve
C
>20% Retained on 3/8 in < 30% Retained by 3/4 in Sieve
B
>20% Retained on #4 20% Retained by 3/8 in Sieve
C
>20% Retained on 3/8 in < 30% Retained by 3/4 in Sieve
Material
Use Soil Passing Sieve Mold Dia. (in) No. of Layers No. Blows/Layer
Revised 2/2012
#4 4 3 25
3/8 in 4 3 25
in 6 3 56
#4 4 5 25
3/8 in 4 5 25
in 6 5 56
Slide 6 of 37
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY PROCTOR TEST
Figure 10
Revised 2/2012
FIELD DENSITY TESTING METHODS

Sand Cone Balloon Densometer Shelby Tube
Slide 7 of 37
Nuclear Gauge
LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. Proctors)
Automated Proctor Equipment

(Figure courtesy of Humboldt)
Revised 2/2012
Manual Proctor Test (What youll be doing)

(Figure courtesy of westest.net)
Slide 8 of 37
14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction SP-SM

% Fines = 6%
Maximum Dry Density MDD or d,max = 112.2 pcf
Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Line Gs = 2.6
d = 1+ w
Revised 2/2012
From soil composition notes:

Optimum Moisture Content OMC = 11.5%
Slide 9 of 37
ZERO AIR VOIDS LINE

Dry Unit Weight (d) (i.e. no water):
Weight of Solids (Ws ) d = = Volume (V) 1+ w

zav = Zero Air Void Unit Weight:
zav
Gs w Gs w w = = = 1 + e 1 + wGs w + 1 Gs
Slide 10 of 37
Revised 2/2012
FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL COMPACTION 1. Soil Type Grain size distribution Shape of soil grains Specific gravity of soil solids 2. Effect of Compaction Effort More energy Greater compaction
Revised 2/2012
Slide 11 of 37
TYPES OF COMPACTION CURVES

Lee and Suedkamp (1972)
A. Single Peak
Dry Unit Weight d
(Most Soils)
C B D
B. 1 Peak
A
Cohesive Soils LL<30
C. Double Peak
Cohesive Soils LL<30 or Cohesive Soils LL>70
Moisture Content w
after Figure 4.5. Das FGE (2005)
D. No Definitive Peak
Uncommon Cohesive Soils LL>70
Slide 12 of 37
Revised 2/2012
EFFECT OF COMPACTION ENERGY
In general:
Compaction Energy = Compaction Energy =
Revised 2/2012
d,max OMC
Figure 4.6. Das FGE (2005).
Slide 13 of 37
EFFECT OF COMPACTION ON COHESIVE SOILS

Dry Side Wet Side
Dry Side Particle Structure Flocculent
Dry Side Particle Structure Dispersed
OMC


Hydraulic Conductivity (k): Measure of how water flows through soils In general: Increasing w = Decreasing k Until ~ OMC, then increasing w has no significant affect on k

Unconfined Compression Strength (qu) : Measure of soil strength In general: Increasing w = Decreasing qu Related to soil structure: Dry side Flocculent Wet Side Dispersed
FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

4 Common Types:
1. Smooth Drum Roller 2. Pneumatic Rubber Tired Roller 3. Sheepsfoot Roller (Tamping Foot) 4. Vibratory Roller (can be 1-3)
Smooth Drum
Pneumatic Rubber Tired
Sheepsfoot
Vibratory Drum
Revised 2/2012
Slide 17 of 37
Photographs courtesy of:

myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/ boulanger/ Holtz and Kovacs (1981)
Revised 2/2012
Slide 18 of 37

Equi pme nt typ es
Rammers
Rammers deliver a high impact force (high amplitude) making them an excellent choice for cohesive and semicohesive soils. Frequency range is 500 to 750 blows per minute. Rammers get compaction force from a small gasoline or diesel engine powering a large piston set with two sets of springs. The rammer is inclined at a forward angle to allow forward travel as the machine jumps. Rammers cover three types of compaction: impact, vibration and kneading. [See Figure 17]
MT-76D Diesel-Powered Rammer

EQUIPMENT TYPES
Fine Grained Soils
Vi bra tory p l a t es
Vibratory plates are low amplitude and high frequency, designed to compact granular soils and asphalt. Gasoline or diesel engines drive one or two eccentric weights at a high speed to develop compaction force. The resulting vibrations cause forward motion. The engine and handle are vibration-isolated from the vibrating plate. The heavier the plate, the more compaction force it generates. Frequency range is usually 2500 vpm to 6000 vpm. Plates used for asphalt have a water tank and sprinkler system to prevent asphalt from sticking to the bottom of the baseplate. Vibration is the one principal compaction effect. [See Figure 17]
MVC-77H Vibratory Plate
Course Grained Soils
Course Re v ersi b l e vi bra tory p l a t es Grained In addition to some of the standard vibratory plate features, reversible plates have two eccentric weights Soils that allow smooth transition for forward or reverse
travel, plus increased compaction force as the result of dual weights. Due to their weight and force, reversible plates are ideal for semi-cohesive soils.
Revised 2/2012
MVH-402DS Reversible Plate
A reversible is possibly the best compaction buy dollar for dollar. Unlike standard plates, the reversibles forward travel may be stopped and the machine will maintain its force for spot compaction.
Figure 17
Slide 19 of 37
from Holtz and Kovacs (1981)

FIELD COMPACTION TESTING

Relative Compaction (R or C.R.):
d ( field ) R(%) = 100 d ,max

5 Common Field Test Methods: 1. Sand Cone (ASTM D1556) 2. Rubber Balloon Method (D2167) 3. Nuclear Density (ASTM D2922) 4. Time Domain Reflectometry (D6780) 5. Shelby Tube (not commonly used)

SAND CONE
(ASTM D1556)
BALLON
(ASTM D2167)
NUCLEAR
(ASTM D2922 & ASTM D3017)
TDR
(ASTM D6780)
METHOD
Advantages
Large Sample Accurate
Large Sample Direct Reading Obtained Open graded material Slow Balloon breakage Awkward Surface not level Soil pumping Void under plate
Fast Easy to re-perform More Tests No sample Radiation Moisture suspect Miscalibration Rocks in path Surface prep req. Backscatter
Fast Easy to re-perform More Tests
Disadvantages
Time consuming Large area required Void under plate Sand bulking Sand compacted Soil pumping
Under research
Errors
Under Research
Revised 2/2012
after Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip. Photographs courtesy of Durham Geo/Slope Indicator and myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com.
Slide 22 of 37

SAND CONE TEST
Sa nd Cone Test (ASTM D1556-90)
A small hole (6 x 6 deep) is dug in the compacted material to be tested. The soil is removed and weighed, then dried and weighed again to determine its moisture content. A soils moisture is figured as a percentage. The specific volume of the hole is determined by filling it with calibrated dry sand from a jar and cone device. The dry weight of the soil removed is divided by the volume of sand needed to fill the hole. This gives us the density of the compacted soil in lbs per cubic foot. This density is compared to the maximum Proctor density obtained earlier, which gives us the relative density of the soil that was just compacted. [See Figure 12]
mine its moisture content. A soils moistur as a percentage. The specific volume of the determined by filling it with calibrated dry from a jar and cone device. The dry weigh soil removed is divided by the volume of s needed to fill the hole. This gives us the de the compacted soil in lbs per cubic foot. Th is compared to the maximum Proctor dens tained earlier, which gives us the relative d the soil that was just compacted. [See Figu
Nuclear D e nsi ty (ASTM D2922-91)
Nuclear D e nsi ty (ASTM D2922-91)
Figure 12
Soil Modulus (soil sti ffness) NUCLEAR TEST This field-test method is a ver y recent development tions. This is a very fast, safe method of tes that replaces soil density testing. Soil stiffness is the stiffness. Soil stiffness is the desired engine ratio of force-to -displacement. Testing is done by a property, not just dr y density and water co machine that sends vibrations into the soil and then This method is currently being researched me a su r es t he de fl e c t i on o f t he so il f r om t he v i b r a b1990. y the Federal H ighwa yA dm inistration. Figures courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip and TRB State of the Art Report 8, Slide 23 of 37 Revised 2/2012 8
Sand Cone Method (D1556-07)
Figure 12
Nuclear Density meters are a quick and fairly accurate way of determining density and moisture content. The meter uses a radioactive isotope source NUCLEAR TEST (Cesium 137) at the soil surface (backscatter) or from a probe placed into the soil (direct transmission). The isotope source gives off photons (usually Gamma rays) which radiate back to the meter s detectors on the bottom of the unit. Dense soil absorbs more radiation than loose soil and the readings reflect overall density. Water content (ASTM D3017) can also be read, all within a few minutes. A relative Proctor Density is obtained after comparing maximum density with the compaction results from the test. [See Figure 13] Figure 13
Balloon Method (D2167-08)
Nuclear Density meters are a quick and fa rate way of determining density and mois content. The meter uses a radioactive isoto (Cesium 137) at the soil surface (backscatte a probe placed into the soil (direct transmi isotope source gives off photons (usually G rays) which radiate back to the meter s de the bottom of the unit. Dense soil absorbs radiation than loose soil and the readings overall density. Water content (ASTM D301 be read, all within a few minutes. A relativ Density is obtained after comparing maxim density with the compaction results from t [See Figure 13]
Nuclear Method (D2922-05 & D3017-05)
SOIL COMPACTION HANDBOOK
FIELD COMPACTION TESTING FREQUENCIES

Reference Year Roads Buildings or Structures Airfields Embankment Mass Earthwork Canal/Reservoir Linings Trenches & Around Structures Parking Areas Misc.
1 per lift per 300 LF 1 per lift per 10000 SF 1 per areas of doubtful compaction 1 per areas of doubtful compaction 1 per lift per 500 LF 1 per lift per 2500 LF 2000 CY 500 CY
City of Lynchburg
2004 1 per lift per 300 LF 1 per lift per 5000 SF
SCDOT QC
1996 1 per lift per 500 LF
SCDOT QA
USBR Earth Manual

1998
NAVFAC DM7.02
1986
FM 5-410
1 per lift per 250 LF
1000 CY
500-1,000 CY 1 per lift per 50 LF 1 per lift per 250 SY
200 CY
200-300 CY
Revised 2/2012
Slide 24 of 37
FIELD COMPACTION TESTING LIFT HEIGHTS

State DOTs
Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma Connecticut, Kentucky Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, Wyoming New York
Maximum Lift Height

Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift before compaction Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift after compaction Max. 0.2 m (8 in) lift before compaction Max. 0.3 m (12 in) lift before compaction Depends on Soil & Compaction Equipment
Revised 2/2012
After Hoppe (1999), Lenke (2006), and Kim et al. (2009).
Slide 25 of 37
COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS & RATINGS FOR USCS SOILS

USCS Compaction Sym. Equipment GW
Rubber Tired Smooth Drum Vibratory Roller Rubber Tired Smooth Drum Vibratory Roller Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot
d,max
D698 (lb/ft3)
Evaluation for Use as Fill

Compression & Expansion Embankment Subgrade Base Course
125 135
Almost None Almost None
Very Stable
Excellent
Good
GP GM GC
115 125
Reasonably Stable Reasonably Stable Reasonably Stable
Excellent to Good Excellent to Good
Poor to Fair
120 135
Slight
Fair to Poor
115 - 130
Slight
Good
Good to Fair
after U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (now ERDC). (1960). The Unified Soil Classification System, Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vicksburg, MS. Revised 2/2012 Slide 26 of 37

USCS Compaction Sym. Equipment SW SP SM SC
Rubber Tired Vibratory Roller Rubber Tired Vibratory Roller Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot
d,max
D698 (lb/ft3)

110-130
Almost None Almost None
Very Stable Reasonable stable when dense Reasonable stable when dense Reasonable stable
Good
Fair to Poor
100-120
Good to Fair Good to Fair Good to Fair
Poor
110-125
Slight
Poor
105-125
Slight to Medium
Fair to Poor

USCS Compaction Sym. Equipment ML CL MH CH
Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot Sheepsfoot Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot Rubber Tired
d,max
D698 (lb/ft3)

95-120
Slight to Medium
Poor Stability
Fair to Poor
Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable
95-120
Medium
Good Stability Poor Stability Should not be used Fair Stability
Fair to Poor
70-95
High
Poor
Sheepsfoot
80-105
Very high
Poor to Very Poor
DYNAMIC COMPACTION
2. Deep Dynamic Compaction Insitu densification of loose soils using Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is accomplished by impacting the ground with a heavy tamper. The depth of improvement and the degree of densification can be varied through the weight of the hammer, the drop height and the spacing between drops. The energy is generally applied in phases on a grid pattern over the area to be improved using either single or multiple passes. A schematic of a typical DDC setup with an accompanying photograph of the project setup is presented in Figure 3. The technique has been used successfully in a wide variety of projects (e.g. Dise et al., 1994 ; Meyer et al., 2001). The technique is described in detail by Leonards et al. (1980) and the United states Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 1995), while ground response to DDC is discussed by Mayne et al. (1984).
Figure courtesy of www.betterground.com
Figure 1. FHWA-SA-95-037.
Figure 3. Typical DDC Setup (after FHWA, 1995).
US44 Expansion Carver, MA.

Slide 29 of 37
Revised 2/2012 For densification to be effective, the deposit to be compacted should be relatively permeable
so excess pore pressures that are generated during densification can dissipate quickly, thereby allowing the soil particles to move into a denser state of packing (FHWA, 1995). Deep dynamic compaction is typically performed on loose granular soil deposits that are relatively permeable, although DDC has been performed on other soil types such as silts (Dumas et al., 1994) and
DYNAMIC COMPACTION
Revised 2/2012
after Figure 5 (FHWA-SA-95-037).
Slide 30 of 37
DYNAMIC COMPACTION US44
Revised 2/2012
Slide 31 of 37
Revised 2/2012
(from Hajduk et al., 2004)
Slide 32 of 37
4. Examination of the difference in shear wave velocities (i.e. Vs) at constant elevation. Analysis of the corrected tip resistance results showed that with the expectation of a few isolated areas, the DDC improved the soil such that the minimum corrected tip resistance of 7.66 MPa (80 tsf) was achieved Soil within the placed fill. The qt values these isolated areas 14.330 Mechanics Soil within Compaction were within 0.1 MPa (1.0 tsf) of the minimum required value and ranged less than 0.3m (1ft) in height. Since these isolated areas were not considered to adversely affect the project, additional DDC was not recommended. Typical qt results from the Initial and Verification I testing phases are presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Typical Initial and Verification Phase Results. (from Hajduk Iet al., CPT 2004) of the difference in qt values ( qt) at constant elevation was achieved by calculating the change in qt at 10cm (3.94 inch) intervals between similar CPT locations for each CPT sounding at the same elevation. These changes were then averaged with depth.
Revised 2/2012 Examination Slide 33 of 37
VIBROFLOTATION
Photograph courtesy of http://www.vibroflotation.com
Figure 4.18. Das FGE (2005) (after Brown, 1977).

VIBROFLOTATION
Figure 4.19. Das FGE (2005) (after Brown, 1977)
Revised 2/2012
Slide 35 of 37
Vibroflotation Probe Spacing
Vibroflotation Effective Grain Size Distributions

COMPACTION ASSOCIATED COSTS
Figure courtesy of www.groundimprovement.ch.


Compaction Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compaction Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compaction Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ction is defined as the method of mechanically increasing fion soil.

SOIL COMPACTION BASICS

Loose Soil (poor load support)

Figure Loose 1 Soil (poor load support)

Compacted Soil (improved load support)

action effort required

s so ilase tt emen a nd frtos es lo dble aringtc a paci y t damage

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

WHY COMPACT SOILS?

Figure courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip.

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

MOIST UNIT WEIGHT () vs. MOISTURE CONTENT (w)

Conceptual (Figure 4.1. Das FGE (2005))

Weight (W) Volume (V)

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. Proctors)

Soil Plug Scale

Modified Hammer Soil Plug

Typical Proctor Test Equipment

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY

MODIFIED ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180 A

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY PROCTOR TEST

Figure courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip.

FIELD DENSITY TESTING METHODS

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. Proctors)

Automated Proctor Equipment

Manual Proctor Test (What youll be doing)

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction SP-SM

Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Line Gs = 2.6

From soil composition notes:

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

ZERO AIR VOIDS LINE

Weight of Solids (Ws ) d = = Volume (V) 1+ w

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

TYPES OF COMPACTION CURVES

Cohesive Soils LL<30

after Figure 4.5. Das FGE (2005)

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

EFFECT OF COMPACTION ENERGY

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

EFFECT OF COMPACTION ON COHESIVE SOILS

Dry Side Particle Structure Flocculent

Dry Side Particle Structure Dispersed

Figure 4.22. Das FGE (2005).

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

EFFECT OF COMPACTION ON COHESIVE SOILS

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

EFFECT OF COMPACTION ON COHESIVE SOILS

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

Pneumatic Rubber Tired

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

Photographs courtesy of: