V

Compaction
Section 1.6 Craig

1
Outline

1. Compaction
2. Theory of Compaction
3. Properties and Structure of Compacted Fine-Grained Soils
4. Suggested Homework
5. References

2
2.1 Compaction and Objectives

Compaction
• Many types of earth construction, such as dams, retaining walls,
highways, and airport, require man-placed soil, or fill. To compact a soil,
that is, to place it in a dense state.
• The dense state is achieved through the reduction of the air voids in the
soil, with little or no reduction in the water content. This process must
not be confused with consolidation, in which water is squeezed out under
the action of a continuous static load.

Objectives:
(1) Decrease future settlements
(2) Increase shear strength
(3) Decrease permeability
 2.2 General Compaction Methods
Coarse-grained soils Fine-grained soils
Laboratory

•Vibrating hammer (BS) •Falling weight and hammers

•Kneading compactors
•Static loading and press

•Hand-operated vibration plates

•Motorized vibratory rollers
•Hand-operated tampers
Field

•Rubber-tired equipment
•Sheepsfoot rollers
•Free-falling weight; dynamic
compaction (low frequency •Rubber-tired rollers
vibration, 4~10 Hz)
Vibration Kneading
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
3.1 Laboratory Compaction
Origin
The fundamentals of compaction of fine-grained soils are relatively new.
R.R. Proctor in the early 1930’s was building dams for the old Bureau of
Waterworks and Supply in Los Angeles, and he developed the principles
of compaction in a series of articles in Engineering News-Record. In his
honor, the standard laboratory compaction test which he developed is
commonly called the proctor test.
Purpose
The purpose of a laboratory compaction test is to determine the proper
amount of mixing water to use when compacting the soil in the field and
the resulting degree of denseness which can be expected from compaction
at this optimum water
Impact compaction
The proctor test is an impact compaction. A hammer is dropped several
times on a soil sample in a mold. The mass of the hammer, height of drop,
number of drops, number of layers of soil, and the volume of the mold are
specified.
3.1.1 Test Equipment
Standard Proctor test equipment

Das, 1998
 3.1.2 Comparison-
Standard and Modified Proctor Compaction Test
Standard Proctor Compaction Test Specifications (ASTM D-698)
Modified Proctor Compaction Test Specifications (ASTM D-698)

Standard Proctor Test Modified Proctor Test

12 in height of drop 18 in height of drop
5.5 lb hammer 10 lb hammer
25 blows/layer 25 blows/layer
3 layers 5 layers
Mold size: 1/30 ft3 Mold size: 1/30 ft3
Energy 12,375 ft·lb/ft3 Energy 56,250 ft·lb/ft3

Higher compacting energy

3.1.3 Comparison-Why?
 In the early days of compaction, because construction equipment was
small and gave relatively low compaction densities, a laboratory
method that used a small amount of compacting energy was required.
As construction equipment and procedures were developed which gave
higher densities, it became necessary to increase the amount of
compacting energy in the laboratory test.

 The modified test was developed during World War II by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineering to better represent the compaction required
for airfield to support heavy aircraft. The point is that increasing the
compactive effort tends to increase the maximum dry density, as
expected, but also decrease the optimum water content.

(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

 3.2 Variables of Compaction
Proctor established that compaction is a function of four variables:
(1)Dry density (d) or dry unit weight d.
(2)Water content w
(3)Compactive effort (energy E)
(4)Soil type (gradation, presence of clay minerals, etc.)

Height of Number of
Weight of
hammer
 drop of  blows per  Number of
Compactive effort layer layers
hammer
(energy E) E=
Volume of mold

2.495 kg (9.81m / s 2 )(0.3048 m)(3 layers)(25 blows / layer)

E
For standard 0.944  103 m3
Proctor test
 592.7 kJ / m3 (12,375 ft lb / ft 3 )
3.3 Procedures and Results
Procedures
(1) Several samples of the same soil, but at different water contents, are
compacted according to the compaction test specifications.

The first four blows

The successive blows

(2) The total or wet density and the actual water content of each
compacted sample are measured.

Mt  Derive d from the known 

 , d 
Vt 1 w and w

(3) Plot the dry densities d versus water contents w for each compacted
sample. The curve is called as a compaction curve.
 3.3 Procedures and Results (Cont.)
Results

Peak point Line of Zero air

Dry density d (Mg/m3)

Dry density d (lb/ft3)

Line of optimum optimums void
d max
Zero air void

Modified
Proctor

Standard
Proctor

wopt
Water content w (%) Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
3.3 Procedures and Results (Cont.)
The peak point of the compaction curve
The peak point of the compaction curve is the point with the maximum
dry density d max. Corresponding to the maximum dry density d max is a
water content known as the optimum water content wopt (also known as
the optimum moisture content, OMC). Note that the maximum dry density
is only a maximum for a specific compactive effort and method of
compaction. This does not necessarily reflect the maximum dry density
that can be obtained in the field.
Zero air voids curve
The curve represents the fully saturated condition (S = 100 %). (It cannot
be reached by compaction)
Line of optimums
A line drawn through the peak points of several compaction curves at
different compactive efforts for the same soil will be almost parallel to a
100 % S curve, it is called the line of optimums
 3.3 Procedures and Results (Cont.)
The Equation for the
curves with different
degree of saturation is :

wS  S
d   w
 S
w wS w
s Gs

You can derive the equation

by yourself

s
Hint: d 
1 e
Se  wG s

Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

3.3 Procedures and Results-Explanation
Below wopt (dry side of optimum): Lubrication or
As the water content increases, the particles loss of suction??
develop larger and larger water films around
them, which tend to “lubricate” the particles
and make them easier to be moved about and (wopt, d max)
reoriented into a denser configuration.

At wopt: d
The density is at the maximum, and it does
not increase any further.

Above wopt (wet side of optimum): w

Water starts to replace soil particles in the
mold, and since w << s the dry density
starts to decrease.
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
3.3 Procedures and Results-Notes
• Each data point on the curve represents a single
compaction test, and usually four or five individual
compaction tests are required to completely determine the
compaction curve.
• At least two specimens wet and two specimens dry of
optimum, and water contents varying by about 2%.
• Optimum water content is typically slightly less than the
plastic limit (ASTM suggestion).
• Typical values of maximum dry density are around 1.6 to
2.0 Mg/m3 with the maximum range from about 1.3 to 2.4
Mg/m3. Typical optimum water contents are between 10%
and 20%, with an outside maximum range of about 5% to
40%.
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
 3.4 Effects of Soil Types on Compaction

The soil type-that is, grain-

size distribution, shape of the
soil grains, specific gravity
of soil solids, and amount
and type of clay minerals
present.
 4.1 Structure of Compacted Clays

 For a given compactive

effort and dry density, the
soil tends to be more
flocculated (random) for
compaction on the dry side
as compared on the wet side.
 For a given molding water
content, increasing the
compactive effort tends to
disperse (parallel, oriented)
the soil, especially on the
dry side.

Lambe and Whitman, 1979

4.2 Engineering Properties-Swelling

• Swelling of compacted clays is greater for those compacted

dry of optimum. They have a relatively greater deficiency
of water and therefore have a greater tendency to adsorb
water and thus swell more.

(wopt, d max)
Higher Higher
swelling shrinkage
potential d potential

w
From Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
5.1 Control Parameters

 Dry density and water content correlate well with the

engineering properties, and thus they are convenient
construction control parameters.

 Since the objective of compaction is to stabilize soils and

improve their engineering behavior, it is important to keep
in mind the desired engineering properties of the fill, not
just its dry density and water content. This point is often
lost in the earthwork construction control.

From Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

5.2 Design-Construct Procedures

 Laboratory tests are conducted on samples of the proposed

borrow materials to define the properties required for
design.
 After the earth structure is designed, the compaction
specifications are written. Field compaction control tests
are specified, and the results of these become the standard
for controlling the project.

From Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

5.3 Specifications

(1) End-product specifications

This specification is used for most highways and building
foundation, as long as the contractor is able to obtain the
specified relative compaction , how he obtains it doesn’t
matter, nor does the equipment he uses.
Care the results only !
(2) Method specifications
The type and weight of roller, the number of passes of that
roller, as well as the lift thickness are specified. A maximum
allowable size of material may also be specified.
It is typically used for large compaction project.
From Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
 5.4 Relative Compaction (R.C.)
Relative compaction or percent compaction

d field
R.C.  100%
d maxlaboratory

Correlation between relative compaction

(R.C.) and the relative density Dr
It is a statistical result
R.C.  80  0.2Dr based on 47 soil
samples.
As Dr = 0, R.C. is 80

Typical required R.C. = 90% ~ 95%

5.6 Determine the Relative Compaction in the Field

Where and When

• First, the test site is selected. It should be representative or typical of the
compacted lift and borrow material. Typical specifications call for a new
field test for every 1000 to 3000 m2 or so, or when the borrow material
changes significantly. It is also advisable to make the field test at least
one or maybe two compacted lifts below the already compacted ground
surface, especially when sheepsfoot rollers are used or in granular soils.
Method
• Field control tests, measuring the dry density and water content in the
field can either be destructive or nondestructive.

Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

5.6.1 Destructive
Methods
(a)
Methods
(a) Sand cone
(b) Balloon
(c) Oil (or water) method
(b)
Calculations
•Know Ms and Vt
•Get d field and w (water content) (c)
•Compare d field with d max-lab
and calculate relative compaction
R.C.

Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

5.6.1 Destructive Methods (Cont.)
The measuring error is mainly from the determination of
the volume of the excavated material.

For example,
 For the sand cone method, the vibration from nearby working
equipment will increase the density of the sand in the hole, which will
gives a larger hole volume and a lower field density.
d  field  M s / Vt
 If the compacted fill is gravel or contains large gravel particles. Any
kind of unevenness in the walls of the hole causes a significant error in
the balloon method.

 If the soil is coarse sand or gravel, none of the liquid methods works
well, unless the hole is very large and a polyethylene sheet is used to
contain the water or oil.

Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

 5.6.2 Nondestructive
Methods (a)
Nuclear density meter
(a) Direct transmission
(b) Backscatter
(c) Air gap

Principles
Density
The Gamma radiation is scattered by the soil (b)
particles and the amount of scatter is
proportional to the total density of the material.
The Gamma radiation is typically provided by Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
the radium or a radioactive isotope of cesium.
Water content
The water content can be determined based on
the neutron scatter by hydrogen atoms. Typical (c)
neutron sources are americium-beryllium
isotopes.
9. References
Main References:
Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering, Prentice Hall. (Chapter 5)
Others:
Das, B.M. (1998). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 4th edition,
PWS Publishing Company.

Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1979). Soil Mechanics, SI Version,

John Wiley & Sons.

Schaefer, V. R. (1997). Ground Improvement, Ground Reinforcement,

Ground Treatment, Proceedings of Soil Improvement and
Geosynthetics of The Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers in conjunction with Geo-Logan’97. Edited by V.R.
Schaefer.