Problems 205

d(max) and wopt are functions of the energy of compaction E.

●

● Several empirical relations have been presented to estimate d(max) and

wopt for cohesionless and cohesive soils (Section 6.6). Also included in
this section is an empirical relationship to estimate the relative density
of compaction (Dr) with known median grain size (D50) and energy of
compaction (E).
● For a given energy of compaction (E) in a cohesive soil, the hydraulic conduc-
tivity and uncon ned compression strength are functions of molding mois-
ture content.
● Field compaction is generally carried out by rollers such as smooth-wheel,
rubber-tired, sheepsfoot, and vibratory (Section 6.9).
● Control tests to determine the quality of eld compaction can be done by
using the sand cone method, rubber balloon method, and nuclear method.
● Vibro otation, dynamic compaction, and blasting are special techniques used
for large-scale compaction in the eld (Section 6.13).
Laboratory standard and modified Proctor compaction tests described in this
chapter are essentially for impact or dynamic compaction of soil; however, in
the laboratory, static compaction and kneading compaction also can be used. It is
important to realize that the compaction of clayey soils achieved by rollers in the
field is essentially the kneading type. The relationships of dry unit weight ( d)
and moisture content (w) obtained by dynamic and kneading compaction are
not the same. Proctor compaction test results obtained in the laboratory are used
primarily to determine whether the roller compaction in the field is sufficient.
The structures of compacted cohesive soil at a similar dry unit weight obtained
by dynamic and kneading compaction may be different. This difference, in turn,
affects physical properties, such as hydraulic conductivity, compressibility, and
strength.
For most fill operations, the final selection of the borrow site depends on such
factors as the soil type and the cost of excavation and hauling.

Problems
6.1 The maximum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content of a soil are
16.8 kN/m3 and 17%, respectively. If Gs is 2.73, what is the degree of saturation
at optimum moisture content?
6.2 For a soil with Gs 5 2.7, calculate and plot the variation of dry density
(in kg/m3) at w 5 8, 12, 16, and 20% and for the degree of saturation at S 5 55,
70, 85, and 100%, respectively.
6.3 Calculate the zero-air-void unit weights (lb/ft3) for a soil with Gs 5 2.66 at
moisture contents of 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23%.
6.4 The results of a standard Proctor test are given in the following table.
a. Determine the maximum dry unit weight of compaction and the opti-
mum moisture content. Given: Mold volume 5 1/30 ft3.
206 Chapter 6 | Soil Compaction

b. Determine the void ratio and the degree of saturation at the optimum
moisture content. Given: Gs 5 2.69.

Weight of moist soil Moisture

Trial no. in the mold (lb) content (%)
1 3.7 8.6
2 4.15 10.6
3 4.69 12.5
4 4.62 14.9
5 4.02 16.7
6 3.63 18.3

6.5 The laboratory test in Problem 6.4 is used to develop eld compaction spec-
i cation for a highway project. A eld unit weight determination during the
construction revealed that the in situ moist unit weight is 124 lb/ft3 and the
moisture content is 13.7%. Determine the relative compaction in the eld.
6.6 Repeat Problem 6.4 with the following data (use Gs 5 2.73):

Weight of moist soil Moisture

Trial no. in the mold (lb) content (%)
1 3.67 7
2 3.79 8.9
3 3.96 12.3
4 4.07 14.8
5 4.12 17.3
6 4.11 18.5

6.7 Results of a standard Proctor compaction test on a silty sand are shown in
Figure 6.40.
20
Dry unit weight (kN/m3)

18

16

14

12
4 8 12 16
Moisture content (%)

Figure 6.40

a. Find the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content.
b. What is the moist unit weight at optimum moisture content?
 Problems 207

c. What is the degree of saturation at optimum moisture content? Given:

Gs 5 2.69.
d. If the required eld dry unit weight is 18.5 kN/m3, what is the relative
compaction?
e. What should be the range of compaction moisture contents in the eld to
achieve the above relative compaction?
f. If the minimum and maximum void ratios are 0.31 and 0.82, respectively,
what is the relative density of compaction in the eld?
6.8 A standard Proctor test was conducted on a silty clay soil collected from a
proposed construction site. The results are shown in the following table.

Mass of moist soil Moisture

Trial no. in the mold (g) content (%)
1 1689 12.7
2 1752 15.0
3 1800 17.8
4 1845 20.6
5 1844 23.8

a. Determine the maximum dry density (kg/m3) of compaction and the op-
timum moisture content. Given: Mold volume 5 943.3 cm3.
b. If speci cation calls for 99% relative compaction in the eld, what would
be the eld dry density and the range of acceptable moisture content?
6.9 Refer to the silty clay soil at the construction site in Problem 6.8. As part of a
quality control program, the eld inspection engineer conducted a sand cone
test to determine the eld density. The following data were recorded using the
sand cone method.
5 1667 kg/m3
5 0.117 kg
5 6.1 kg
5 2.83 kg
5 3.35 kg
5 16.1%
a. Determine the dry unit weight of compaction in the eld.
b. What is the relative compaction in the eld?
c. Was the compaction speci cation stated in Problem 6.8 met?
6.10 The in situ moist unit weight of a soil is 16.6 kN/m3, and the moisture content
is 19%. The speci c gravity of soil solids is 2.69. This soil is to be excavated
and transported to a construction site for use in a compacted ll. If the spec-
i cation calls for the soil to be compacted to a minimum dry unit weight of
19.5 kN/m3 at the same moisture content of 19%, how many cubic meters of
soil from the excavation site are needed to produce 2500 m3 of compacted
ll? How many 20-ton (< 18,144 kgf) truckloads are needed to transport the
excavated soil?
208 Chapter 6 | Soil Compaction

6.11 A proposed embankment ll requires 7500 m3 of compacted soil. The void

ratio of the compacted ll is speci ed as 0.7. Soil can be transported from one
of the four borrow pits, as described in the following table. The void ratio,
speci c gravity of soil solids, and the cost per cubic meter for moving the soil
to the proposed construction site are provided in the table.
a. Determine the volume of each borrow pit soil required to meet the spec-
i cation of the embankment site.
b. Make the necessary calculations to select the borrow pit which would be
most cost-effective.

Borrow pit Void ratio Gs Cost ($/m3)

0.85 2.66 11
II 0.92 2.69 8
III 1.21 2.71 9
IV 0.89 2.73 10

6.12 The maximum and minimum dry unit weights of a sand were determined in
the laboratory to be 16.9 kN/m3 and 14.2 kN/m3, respectively. What is the rel-
ative compaction in the eld if the relative density is 82%?
6.13 The relative compaction of a silty sand in the eld is 94%. Given that gd(max) 5
17 kN/m3 and gd(min) 5 13.8 kN/m3, determine the dry unit weight in the eld
and the relative density of compaction.
6.14 The relative compaction of a clayey sand in the eld is 90%. The maximum
and minimum dry unit weights of the sand are 115 lb/ft3 and 93 lb/ft3, respec-
tively. Determine:
a. Dry unit weight in the eld
b. Relative density of compaction
c. Moist unit weight at a moisture content of 18%
6.15 Refer to the eld compaction of the clayey sand in Problem 6.14. If the soil
layer before compaction had a void ratio of 0.97 and a thickness of 5.5 ft.,
what would be the nal thickness after compaction? Assume Gs 5 2.67
6.16 For a dynamic compaction test, the weight of the hammer was 16 metric ton
and the height of the hammer drop was 11 m. Estimate the signi cant depth
of densi cation.
6.17 Vibro otation is being considered for in situ densi cation of a thick deposit
of granular soils at a particular site. The results of the sieve analysis of the
proposed back ll material is shown in Figure 6.41.
 Critical Thinking Problem 209

100

80

60
Percent f iner

40

20

0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size (mm)

Figure 6.41

Determine the suitability number, SN, and rate it as a back ll material.

Critical Thinking Problem

6.C.1 Since laboratory or eld experiments are generally expensive and time con-
suming, geotechnical engineers often have to rely on empirical relationships
to predict design parameters. Section 6.6 presents such relationships for pre-
dicting optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight. Let us use
some of these equations and compare our results with known experimental
data. The following table presents the results from laboratory compaction
tests conducted on a wide range of ne-grained soils using various compactive
efforts (E). Based on the soil data given in the table, determine the optimum
moisture content and maximum dry unit weight using the empirical relation-
ships presented in Section 6.6.
a. Use the Osman et al. (2008) method [Eqs. (6.15) through (6.18)].
b. Use the Gurtug and Sridharan (2004) method [Eqs. (6.13) and (6.14)].
c. Use the Matteo et al. (2009) method [Eqs. (6.19) and (6.20)].
d. Plot the calculated wopt against the experimental wopt, and the calcu-
lated d(max) with the experimental d(max). Draw a 458 line of equality on
each plot.