Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. & Jagadish, K. S. (1993).Ghotechnique 43, No.

2, 337-341

TECHNICAL NOTE

The static compaction of soils

B. V. VENKATARAMA REDDY* and K. S. JAGADISH*

KEYWORDS: compaction; laboratory tests; partial per unit volume could easily be varied. In such a
saturation. test, OMC would become a function of the
energy input for a given maximum dry density.

INTRODUCTION
Soils are often compacted to improve their engin-
eering characteristics. Three types of STATIC SOIL COMPACTION
compaction-dynamic (impact), static and In static compaction processes, the soil is com-
vibratory-are commonly employed for soil pacted by a gradually applied static force. In
improvement. A laboratory test, such as the stan- practice, the loose soil is confined in a container
dard Proctor test, is often used to ascertain such and compaction is achieved by the gradual move-
compaction characteristics of a soil as optimum ment of a piston. Static soil compaction is of two
moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry types.
density. These characteristics are utilized in the
control of field compaction processes. However,
compaction testing gives the OMC and
maximum dry density for a given standard energy Constant peak stress-variable stroke compaction
input: data are hence not unique to a particular In this type of static compaction, the applied
soil and can vary with the amount and nature of stress is varied gradually at a definite rate (or a
compaction energy supplied in the test. set of different rates) until a specific peak stress is
Pressed soil blocks are generally produced by reached. The thickness of the compacted speci-
compaction of soil in a machine, in which case men depends on the moisture content. Such tests
the compaction process is essentially static. To have been carried out by Turnbull (1950) and
determine the OMC for the field process of block- Olivier & Mesbah (1987). Compaction curves
making through a laboratory test, the energy similar to the Proctor curves were generated in
input per unit volume in the field operation must these tests, but the energy input to the soil varied
be ascertained and simulated in the laboratory. with the moisture content. Such a compaction
Use of the Proctor test for this purpose poses two curve cannot be interpreted with reference to a
problems. specific energy input.
First, the energy input for the pressing of soil
blocks often depends on the design of the
machine and the nature of the soil: it can be quite
different from the standard energy supplied in a Variable peak stress-constant stroke compaction
Proctor test. Hence the OMC derived from the In this type of compaction a static force is
Proctor test is not necessarily relevant to the gradually applied to a soil mass until a specific
block-making process. final thickness (volume) is achieved. The force at
Second, the Proctor test employs an impact the end of compaction can vary, depending on
technique for compaction. The energy require- the moisture content of the soil. This operation is
ments for compaction may be substantially differ- very similar to the process of soil block compac-
ent in static and dynamic compaction methods, tion shown in Fig. 1. Prototype compaction
and since the block-making process is static, the devices are limited by the available compaction
Proctor test is not suitable for determination of force and ram displacement.
the OMC. A new test called the ‘static compaction test’ is
For these reasons, a need was felt to exist for a discussed below, based on the variable peak
static compaction test in which the energy input stress+constant stroke compaction process. Even
this test does not lend itself to a constant energy
Discussion on this Technical Note closes 1 October input compaction; however, an attempt has been
1993; for further details see p. ii. made to derive the energy input_OMC relation-
* Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. ship indirectly.
337
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 338 VENKATARAMA REDDY AND JAGADISH
.
Processed so11 Lid Pressed so11block
/ / \

\
Base plate
Fig. 1. The process of compaction for pressed soil block production: (a) mould filled with
processed soil; (b) compaction at top due to closure of lid; (c) compaction at bottom due to
piston stroke

STATIC COMPACTION TEST now be taken. Each quantity of soil is charged

Concept and objectives into the mould and is subjected to static compac-
The relationship of compaction energy, dry tion in the machine until the requisite block
density and OMC can be obtained by static com- thickness (76 mm) is reached. The total static
paction of a soil into a small cube at different compaction travel is 65 mm, of which the first 35
moisture contents while the energy input to the mm is carried out quickly by a manual movement
cube is monitored. This relationship will provide of the machine piston, and the final 30 mm is
specific information on the OMC to be used to carried out by the motor of the machine at a
achieve a given dry density when the compaction piston travel rate of 1.25 mm/min.
energy available in the static compaction device/ The force of compaction (proving ring reading)
process is known. A continuous relationship of and the corresponding travel are measured at 5
compaction energy and OMC is necessary to mm intervals of displacement. These readings give
achieve these results. the force-stroke curves for a specific moisture
content. The test is performed for other values of
moisture content. Each test is repeated three
Procedure times, and an average force-stroke curve is
The experimental set-up for the static compac-
tion test is shown in Fig. 2. The test is conducted
in a strain-controlled compression testing
machine. Table 1 gives the characteristics of the
soil used.
An oven-dried and air-cooled soil sample is
powdered in a hand-operated crusher, then mixed
with a specific quantity of water (well below
saturation). The moist soil is stored in an airtight
bag for a day. Five different quantities of moist
soil (850 g, 875 g, 900 g, 925 g and 950 g) may

Table 1. Soil characteristics Depth

gauge
Strain-controlled
Sl. No. Characteristics

1 Textural composition: %
Sand (4.76-0.074 mm) 48.8
Silt (0.074-0.002 mm) 22.4 Soil under compaction
Clay ( <0@02 mm) 28.8
2 Atterberg limits
Liquid limit: % 42.0
Plastic limit: % 19.7
Plasticity index 22.3
3 Unified soil classification CL
4 Specific gravity 2.69
Fig. 2. Static compaction test set-up

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 STATIC COMPACTION OF SOILS 339

MoWwe content = 13.05% 1

-1

01” ” L ” ” ” ” I’, J
12 14 16 18 !O
Moisture content: %

Fig. 4. Static compaction curves

moisture (OMC-static) can be obtained by

drawing a horizontal line at the energy level to
read the OMC-static value on the abscissa. The
curves clearly show that for any dry density, an
Compaction stroke: mm
increase of compaction energy leads to a
reduction in OMC-static value.
Fig. 3. Force plotted against stroke for bulk density Each curve terminates at a specific moisture
2@11 kN/m3
content value. This means that the given density
cannot be achieved at moisture contents greater
than this value. These curves thus give a total
obtained. A typical set of curves for a bulk picture of compaction for a particular soil for
density of 20.11 kN/m3 is shown in Fig. 3. Each various dry density values. The curve correspond-
force-stroke curve refers to a particular value of ing to the highest dry density (18.15 kN/m3 in the
the final bulk density (this depends on the quan- case of Fig. 4) is the most useful.
tity of moist soil selected initially). The test is
repeated for different values of the final bulk
density to obtain a ‘family’ of force-stroke curves. COMPARISON WITH PROCTOR
The information in these basic curves can now COMPACTION TEST
be reorganized to interpret the relationship of It is useful to compare the results of static com-
compaction energy input per unit volume, dry paction with those of the Proctor compaction
density and moisture content. For convenience, test. The results of the static compaction test have
four discrete values of dry density are assumed been reorganized to yield curves relating dry
(y,, = 18.15, 17.66, 17.17 and 16.68 kN/m3). density and moisture content for constant energy
The corresponding bulk densities yb of a speci- input values. The results of the Proctor compac-
men during and after compaction are obtained tion test are superposed on these curves in Fig. 5.
from yb = yd (1 + w). The points on the force- The static compaction curves show only the
stroke curves that represent the appropriate bulk ‘rising’ portion of the compaction curve: the
density can now be identified. The area under the ‘drooping’ portion beyond the OMC normally
force-stroke curve up to this point gives the com- noticed in the Proctor curve is not present.
paction energy input for the identified dry density It is necessary to understand the behaviour of
and the moisture content appropriate to the soil in static and dynamic compaction processes,
curve. The information derived from these mea- especially when the moisture content is beyond
surements is summarized in the form of static the OMC. In the case of Proctor compaction, the
compaction curves (Fig. 4). These curves provide energy of the dropping weight is not used effec-
a relationship between compaction energy per tively for compaction, as the moist soil bulges
unit volume and soil moisture for a specified dry around it. This is because the diameter of the
density. For any given energy, the appropriate falling weight (64 mm) is much smaller than that

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 340 VENKATARAMA REDDY AND JAGADISH

type of static compaction test described here

hence differ from those of the Proctor compac-
tion, especially at higher moisture contents.
The curves also show that for the same input
energy and OMC value, the static compaction
yd = 17.46 kN/m3
produces a much higher dry density. The Proctor
Energy per umt compaction achieved a dry density of 17.46
volume = 060 MJlti kN/m3 at an OMC of 16.3%; a static compaction
18- using the same energy per unit volume achieved a
dry density of 18.15 kN/m3 at an OMC of 16.6%.
This seem, io indicate that the static compaction
,Zero air-voids process is more energy efficient than the Proctor
method, perhaps because of the higher energy
losses during the impact of the falling weight in
the Proctor test.

\ UTILIZATION OF THE STATIC COMPACTION

Energy per umt \
16- TEST RESULTS
volume: MJ/m3
\ 15.0% One of the objectives of the static compaction
test is to generate information on the OMC to be
used in the production of compacted soil blocks
using suitable machines. Before this can be
\
15 * t ’ ’ m ’ a ’ ’ ’ m ’ ’ attempted, the effect of the specimen size on the
10 14 18 22 energy needed for compaction must be evaluated.
Moisture content %
Static compaction tests were carried out on three
Fig. 5. Dry density plotted against moisture content different block sizes: the standard 76 x 76 x 76
mm cubical block, and two other sizes
(150 x 150 x 76 mm and 230 x 190 x 76 mm)
of the soil specimen (102 mm). However, in the which were considered in order to elucidate the
case of the static compaction test under dis- energy requirements of larger blocks. The results
cussion here, the entire soil mass is subjected to of the static compaction at two moisture contents
positive displacement, hence the water phase are given in Table 2, which clearly shows that a
becomes continuous readily. This leads to the larger block requires less energy per unit volume
beginning of consolidation, and compaction is no to achieve the same dry density. This can be
longer possible as a quick or instantaneous attributed to the larger surface area of a smaller
response (the begining of the consolidation phase specimen with respect to its volume. The increase
is not related to any specific air-void ratio). The in surface area also means a greater loss of energy
point at which this situation obtains for a given due to boundary friction. If the results of the
energy input provides the OMC (static) and the standard laboratory static compaction test (using
corresponding maximum dry density. The the 76 mm cubical block) are extrapolated to the
Proctor compaction avoids this stage, since the normal block size of 230 x 190 x 76 mm used in
dynamic nature of the test precludes the develop- the field, the energy figure may be reduced by
ment of a consolidation phase. The results of the 0.72.

Table 2. Effect of block size on energy: compaction duration 139 min

Soil block size: mm Moulding moisture content

Sl. No. 14.41% 11+x-J%

Length Breadth Thickness Dry Compaction Dry Compaction

density: energy per density : energy per
kN/m3 unit volume: kN/m’ unit volume:
MJ/m’ MJ/m3
1 230 190 16 17.66 0.303 18.05 0.741
2 150 150 76 17.66 0.323 18.05 0.891
3 76 16 16 17.66 0.384 18.05 1.141

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 STATIC COMPACTION OF SOILS 341

The use of the static compaction test is now The static compaction test-described can be
straightforward. Given that a particular soil used to obtain a continuous relationship between
block press is capable of producing a compaction compaction energy and OMC.
energy per unit volume of E,, to establish corre- Static compaction appears to be more efficient
spondence with the laboratory test the energy to than dynamic compaction by means of the
be considered in the static compaction test will be impact of a falling weight-this may depend on
E, = EJO.72. The OMC for this energy input can the nature of the soil used in compaction.
be read from the static compaction curve, using Static compaction test results can be used to
the value of E,. This value of the OMC may now estimate precisely the OMC needed with refer-
be used in the compaction of soil blocks in the ence to a field operation of static compaction.
field. The energy inputs can therefore bc I,;:::,..;:~ c
The above discussion shows how the OMC is accurately.
related as a continuous variable to the compac- The static compaction test described is cumber-
tion energy. The static compaction test proposed some: a simpler, faster test procedure is required.
here may seem to be more complicated than the
Proctor test; however, it is open to the geotech-
nical engineer to devise a simpler test procedure REFERENCES
that may be used to obtain the static compaction Olivier, M. & Mesbah, A. (1987). Influence of different
parameters on the resistance of earth, used as a
curve. It is hoped that a simple static compaction
building material. Proc. Int. Conf Mud Archit.,
rig will be developed in the near future to facili-
Triuandrum, India. Bangalore: Hudco.
tate a rapid compaction analysis. Turnbull, W. J. (1950). Compaction and strength tests
on soils. In Lambe, T. W. & Whitman, R. V. Soil
mechanics. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern.
CONCLUSIONS
This Paper describes a new static compaction
test for soils, to be used in the production of com-
pacted soil blocks.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.