Matt Wade

with Sarah Rohm and Seth Fink CE 185 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Laboratory Experiment 5 Standard and Modied Compaction Test

October 24, 2007

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to introduce the student to the Proctor compaction test, both standard and modied, and to introduce the concept of maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content through multiple iterations of the compaction test.

Materials and Equipment

To successfully complete the experiment, the following materials are required: 8lb (3.6kg) soil 9lb (4.1kg) soil distilled water and the following equipment are required: electronic scale accurate to 0.01g electronic scale accurate to 0.01lb #4 sieve large pan 500mL graduated cylinder spatula small brush scoop or large spoon compaction mold drop rammer a. Standard Test: 24.5N rammer falling 0.305m b. Modied Test: 44.5N rammer falling 0.46m steel straightedge extruder 10 sample cans access to a 105 C oven 2

Procedure

There are two dierent tests that take place in this experiment. The rst is the standard test, the second is the modied test. The dierences between the tests are minimal. The following procedure will be given for the standard test and then the changes necessary to successfully complete the modied test will be listed. The procedure for the modied test can be completed by following the procedure for the standard test and substituting in the few changes specic to the modied test. Aspects of the standard test that will be replaced for the modied test will be underlined and followed by a superscript indicating which item from the list of changes will take its place for the modied test. To begin, the test calls for about 8lb1 of the soil sample, sieved through a #4 sieve to remove all gravel. It is necessary to know the expected optimum moisture content, otherwise the tester will be shooting blind as to where to start. Included in the lab manual is a chart that estimates the optimum moisture content. Figure 92 estimates w% based on plastic limit (PL) and liquid limit (LL). At least ve points will be necessary to create a valid curve. It is suggested to use the approximated moisture content found in Figure 92 (henceforth known as an assumed moisture content) as the middle value. Start with an assumed moisture content four percent less than w% (w% 4%). Assume that the starting moisture content of the sample is not more than 2%. To bring the moisture content up to the level of w% 4%, water has to be added. The volume of water can be calculated using Eq. 1: Water to add (mL) = Ms (ww wp ) 100 (1)

where Ms is the mass of the soil sample in grams, ww is the wanted moisture content, and wp is the present moisture content. Note that ww and wp should be percents, not decimals (i.e. 4% not 0.04). The outcome is the mass of water in grams to add to the sample. Because the density of water is roughly 1.00, the mass in grams of water is equal to the volume in milliliters. Eq. 1 will have to be used each time the moisture content is to be changed. Keep in mind that since the original moisture content is assumed at roughly 2%, and that w% is probably in the mid teens, the amount of water added the rst time will be much greater than later iterations because of the dierence of 2% to 11% as compared to 11% to 13%. Place the soil sample into the large pan. Add the water necessary to bring the moisture 3

content to the assumed value. Mix thoroughly and make sure the liquid is spread through the whole sample. The wetted soil is going to be added to the compaction mold in three2 equal layers. Care has to be taken to make sure the layers are roughly the same thickness and that the nal level of the soil sits about 6mm above the neck of the lower portion of the mold. If the layers are dierent thicknesses, the energy from the rammer will not be equally distributed throughout the sample. If the nal level of the soil is not as prescribed, the energy of the rammer will not be distributed as planned and the data could be skewed one way or the other. Practice getting the soil into the mold at equal levels if necessary. It is suggested that taking equal scoops of soil and counting how many scoops are added can be a good way to regulate how much soil is added for each layer. Weigh the empty compaction mold. When ready, ll the mold for the rst layer of soil (after ramming, the layer should take up about one third3 of the bottom portion of the mold). Once the appropriate amount of soil is added, use the 24.5N4 rammer and drop it from full height 25 times. Make sure to work around the inside of the mold so all points in the mold have been rammed at least a few times. Use the spatula to level the layer out so that no soil creeps up the inside of the mold. Add soil for the second layer (again, after ramming, the soil in the mold should take up about two thirds5 of the bottom portion of the mold. Repeat the ramming process for this layer. Repeat the entire process once6 more to complete this portion of the test. Twist o the top portion of the compaction mold. Make sure the soil sits above the top of the bottom portion by about half a centimeter. Use the metal straight edge to remove the excess soil. Use the small brush to remove any excess dust or soil particles on the outside of the mold. Weigh the mold and record its weight. Take the mold o its base and insert the mold into the extruder to remove the soil from the mold. Once removed, start breaking the soil to get a handful-sized sample from the center. Place the sample in a labeled can and place the can in the 105 C oven. The rest of the extruded soil can be reused and added back to the large mixing pan. Repeat this entire procedure at least four more times. It is suggested that the tester calculate the unit weight of the soil as the experiment progresses so they can know when the maximum has been reached (and passed). This can be done knowing that the volume of the mold is 944cm3 . Changes to the test to perform the modied version: 1. 9lb 4
1 3 30 ft

or

2. ve 3. fth 4. 44.5N 5. fths 6. thrice

Results

The recorded and calculated data for the standard and modied tests can be found in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. All masses are presented in g and all unit weights are presented in
kN . m3

In

both tables, the top portion contains the data corresponding to the calculation of the moisture content (w%) of the sample. To do so, the mass of the can and wet soil it contains (Mc+ws ) was recorded, in addition to the mass of the can and the dry soil (Mc+ds ). The mass of water (Mw ) is the calculated by subtracting the mass of the dry soil can from the mass of the wet soil can (Mc+ws Mc+ds ). The mass of the clean, dry can (Mcan ) was then recorded and the mass of the soil was calculated by subtracting the mass of the can from the mass of the dry soil can (Mc+ds Mcup ). The moisture content (w%) is found by dividing the mass of the water by the mass of the dry soil
Mw Mds

The bottom portion of the tables contains the data corresponding to the unit weight ( ). First, the mass of the empty mold is taken (Mmold ). During the experiment, the mass of the mold containing soil is taken (Ms+mold ). The mass of the wet soil (Mws ) is found by subtracting the mass of the mold from the mass of the soil-lled mold (Ms+mold Mmold ). The wet unit weight (wet ) is calculated by dividing the mass of the wet soil by the volume of the mold
Mws Vmold

. To
1 3 30 ft ).

stay consistent with units, the volume of the mold is 944cm3 (although more precisely, it is The dry unit weight is calculated using Eq. 2: d = wet 1+w

(2)

where w is in decimal form. To keep in touch with reality, the curve for the density of the soil assuming no air voids (ZAV ) is also considered. This idea consists of a perfect soil in which all the air within its pores is removed by compaction. Because this is not possible, it is a theoretical value, but one which can never be reached by real experiment. This means that all values of d 5

must be less than its corresponding ZAV (i.e. at the same w%). ZAV is calculated using Eq. 3: ZAV = Gs w 1 + wGs (3)

where Gs is the specic gravity of the soil sample (in this case, 2.70, found in a previous experikN ment), w is the unit weight of water (9.807 m 3 ), and w is in decimal form. Note that for every

w%, there is a corresponding ZAV and the resulting function creates a curve, not a line. The values of ZAV are based on the assumed w% values, not the actual values. Though technically speaking, it doesnt matter what values are used. They could have been based on the actual w% if a direct comparison between d and ZAV was needed for a given w%. Sample Mc+ws Mc+ds Mw Mcan Mds w% Assumed w% Ms+mold Mmold Mws wet d ZAV 1 273.3 257.29 16.01 61.5 195.79 8.18% 11.00% 6205.14 4372.63 1832.51 19.04 17.60 20.42 2 100.15 96.71 3.44 60.82 35.89 9.58% 13.00% 6268.65 4372.63 1896.02 19.70 17.98 19.60 3 264.7 243.61 21.09 60.53 183.08 11.52% 15.00% 6332.15 4372.63 1959.52 20.36 18.26 18.85 4 172.36 158.61 13.75 60.93 97.68 14.08% 17.00% 6395.65 4372.63 2023.02 21.02 18.43 18.15 5 199.12 180.44 18.68 60.2 120.24 15.54% 19.00% 6332.15 4372.63 1959.52 20.36 17.63 17.50

Table 1: Recorded and calculated data for the standard test

Discussion and Conclusion

Figures 1 and 2 represent the compaction curves for the standard and modied tests, respectively. As is expected, the modied test produces a larger d,max and smaller w% than the standard test. This is true because the amount of energy used in compaction in the modied test is more than 6

Sample Mc+ws Mc+ds Mw Mcan Mds w% Assumed w% Ms+mold Mmold Mws wet d ZAV

1 197.97 189.03 8.94 60.63 128.4 6.96% 8.00% 6323.08 4372.63 1950.45 20.27 18.95 21.78

2 156.88 149.1 7.78 61.03 88.07 8.83% 10.00% 6404.72 4372.63 2032.09 21.12 19.40 20.85

3 131.04 124.91 6.13 61.07 63.84 9.60% 12.00% 6477.30 4372.63 2104.67 21.87 19.96 20.00

4 194.13 179.42 14.71 60.38 119.04 12.36% 14.00% 6404.72 4372.63 2032.09 21.12 18.79 19.22

5 239.5 217.24 22.26 59.88 157.36 14.15% 16.00% 6368.44 4372.63 1995.81 20.74 18.17 18.49

Table 2: Recorded and calculated data for the modied test

m m four times that of the standard test (2700 kN versus 600 kN ). The amount of energy is a direct m3 m3

function of the number of layers (the more layers, the more energy input), the number of blows, the mass of the rammer, and the height of the rammer drop. The modied test increases all but one of those variables. The number of blows stays constant while the number of layers, mass of the rammer, and height of the rammer drop all increase. The standard test was developed in the 1930s by R.R. Proctor to estimate the maximum dry density of soils based on moisture content. As time progressed, the profession modied his original test (hence modied test) to meet the current trends in eld compaction. With highpowered heavy machinery readily available and in common use, the test was upgraded to increase the energy input, which better mirrored eld conditions than the old test. With more energy, the soil has a higher dry density and requires less moisture content to meet that value. With more powerful machinery and a more accurate test, a higher dry unit weight is available which requires a smaller water content than that of the standard test. From this experiment, it was found that the standard test produced a curve with a maximum

dry unit weight of 18.48

kN m3

and an optimum moisture content of 13.45%. The modied test

kN produces a maximum dry unit weight of 20.00 m 3 and an optimum moisture content of 9.95%.

Note that on Figure 1, there is a very light curve, which is a fourth order quadratic trendline. The equation of this line is what was used to calculate d,max and w%. The data in Figure 2 did not t an accurate trend, so the values were estimated by a manually added curve. The equation for the curve (Eq. 4) created on Figure 1 is given by Excel as a fourth order quadratic equation. To nd the max, the derivative must be found (Eq. 5). When the derivative is equal to zero, this is a maximum or minimum value of the curve. Knowing the bounds of this curve, the optimum moisture contecnt (w%) be found (Eq. 6). With that value, the maximum dry unit weight (d,max ) can be found plugging in the value from Eq. 6 into Eq. 4 (Eq. 7).

d = 355277w4 + 157297w3 26018w2 + 1920w 35.547

(4)

dd = 1421108w3 + 471891w2 52036w + 1920 dw dd = 0 = 1421108w3 + 471891w2 52036w + 1920 w = 0.1345 = 13.45% dw kN m3

(5)

(6)

d,max = 18.48

(7)

Obviously the values found in the modied test are more preferable. The soil sample has a low moisture content (around 1%2%) which means to achieve the maximum dry unit weight, it will take less water with the modied test. But this argument is basically moot because the standard test is outdated and only meant for time before heavy machinery. Basically the values found in the standard test arent able to be achieved because the modied test is made for todays compaction technology.

References
1. Bowles, Joseph E. Engineering Properties of Soils. 4th. Boston: Irwin McGrawHill, 1992. 2. Das, Braja M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 6th. Toronto, ON: Thomson Canada Ltd., 2006. 3. ASTM Standard D 69807, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Eort (12 400 ft-lb/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3 )), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org 4. ASTM Standard D 155702, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modied Eort (56,000 ft-lb/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3 )), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org

Figure 1: 10

Figure 2: 11