Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Soil Compaction
l n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o no f h i g h w a ye m b a n k m c n t se, a r t h d a m s ,a n d m a n y o t h e r e n g i n e e r -
ing structurcs,loose soils must be compacted to increasethcir unit weights. Com-
paction incrcasesthe strength charactcristicsol'soils.which increasethe bearing ca-
pacity of [oundationsconstructedovcr them. Compaction also dccreasesthe amount
o f u n d e s i r a b l cs e t t l e m c n to f s t r u c t u r c sa n d i n c r c a s c st h e s t a b i l i t yo f s l o p e so f e m -
bankments. Smootl.r-wl'rccl rollers. shccpsfoot rollcrs, rubber-tired rollers, and vi-
bratory rollers arc generally used in thc ficld for soil compaction. Vibratory rollers
arc uscclmostly for the densificationol'granular sclils.Vibroflot devicesare also used
frtr compacting granular soil depositsto a considerzrblcdepth. Compaction of soil in
this manner is known as vihntflotutioz. This chapter discusscsin some dctail the
p r i n c i p l e so f ' s o i l c o m p a c t i o ni n t h e l a b o r a t o r ya n d i n t h e f i c l d .
f :7:
However, the dry unit weight at this moisture content is given by
tr 17,1
f ,tr,,,, 1: 1 a 1 , ,' , ,
100
5.2 Standard Proctor Test 101
"{z
J
,:!
.:
'5
> .: 7l
. l
= l
F I
l t l
- l
> l
l t l
>-l
Moisturc
content-
r,
Figure 5. I principles of compaction
B e y o n da c e r t a i nm o i s t u r cc o n t c n t w : w t ( F i g u r e- 5 . 1 )a, n y i n c r c a s c
in thc moisture
c o n t c n t t e n d s t o r c d u c e t h e d r y u n i t w e i g h t .T h i s p h e n o m e n o n
o c c u r sb c c a u s ct h c
w a t e r t a k e su p t h c s p a c e st h a t w o u l d h a v c b c e n o c c u p i e db y
t h c s o l i c lp a r t i c l c s .. l - h c
m o i s t u r ec o n t e n t a t w h i c h t h e m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w e i g h t i s
a t t a i n e di s g e n c r a l l yr e -
ferred to as the opfimum moisturc content.
T h e l a b o r a t o r yt e s t g e n e r a l l yu s c c lt o o b t a i n t h e m a x i m u r r
dry unit weightof
compaction and thc optimum moisturc content is called the Proctor
t'ctntput'tipntest
(Proctor, 1933).The procedurefor concluctingthis typc of test
is describeclin the lbl-
lowingsection.
I 1 4 . 3m m
I diameter
(4.5 in.) --*l
I
bxtensron
;€=::==:::::-:
t'.'
l. I r r .r j
DroP=
304.8nm
(l2in.)
(a) W e i g h to f
harnmer= 2.5 kg
( r n a s s- 5 . 5 l b )
l.-l
5 0 . 1m
1m
(2 in.)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5.2 StandardProctortest equipment: (a) mold; (b) hammer (c) photograph of labo-
ratory equipmentusedfor test
5.2 Standard Proctor Test
\25
Zero-
air-void
curve
(G' = 2.69,
19.0
120
E
l 8 . sz
a
Maximum 1.,
J
il | l-)
l a i . lI d
.E
o 1 7 . . 50
Optimum
n.lolsture
contcnt t
r0-5
5 t0 l-5 tu
Moisturecontent,w (%)
Figure 5.3 Standard Proctor compaction test results for a silty clay
For each test, the moisture content of the compacted soil is determined in the labo-
ratory. With the known moisture content, the dry unit weight can be calculated as
r u -_ $ 6 ( s.2)
t-
1oo
a n d ,f r o m E q . ( 3 . 1 8 ) ,
Se : G,rl
or
G,trr
- . s
Thus.
Grlr,
i /
Id
: - (s.3) |I
Glo
t* I
s I
Fgr a given moisture content, the theclreticalmaximum dry unit weight is ob-
t a i n e dw h c n n o a i r i s i n t h c v o i c ls p a c es - t h a t i s ,w h c n t h e d c g r e eo f s a t u r a t i o ne q u a l s
l 0 g % . H c n c e , t h c m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w c i g h t a t a g i v e n m o i s t u r ec o n t e n t w i t h z e r o
a i r v o i d sc a n b e o b t a i n e db y s u b s t i t u t i n gS - I i n t o E q . ( - 5 . 3 )o. r
Figure 5.3 also showsthe variation of 7.u"with moisture content and its relative
location with respectto thc compaction curve. Under no circumstancesshould any
part of the compaction curve lie to the right of the zero-air-voidcurve.
Iu.u6
t8.-50
S a n d ys i l t
Iu.(x)
,P
!
E
Siltyclay z
l7 <rt
s ._. J
.zr I il) s
H i g h l y p l a s t i cc l a y 'a
E 'E
'| 7' 't r' t'r =
Poorly gradcdsand
r05 I6.-50
r6.(x)
l (X) 15 . 7 a
5 t0 l-5 20
M o i s t u r cc o n t c n t , r . ( ? )
'I'ypical
Figure 5.4 conrpaction curves li)r lirur soils (AS.l.M D_69u)
@
o
M0isture content,t|'
Compaction curves of types B and C can be found for soils that have a liquid limit
lessthan about 30. Compaction curves of type D do not have a definite peak. They
are termed odd shuped.Soils with a liquid limit greater than about 70 may exhibit
compaction curvesof type C or D. Such soils are uncommon.
..(,*"In")
(,)T*:) , (,*:i''),
(iTJ:?)
\p", tny"r/ \ tuy.r,,/ \t.,o*,n"r/ \ nut,n"r 7
E : (s.s)
Volume of mold
or, in SI units,
(2s)(3)
(%p -)
r.N)to.:os
E : : 594kN-m/m3: 600kN-m/m3
944> l0"mj
In Englishunits,
\/ L7Js) \\J1- t1: J) :5
/J5t)*r l)t
E - : D375 ft-lb/ft3 : l 2 . 4 t J 0f t - l b / f t r
i r \
\30i
If the compaction effort per unit volume of soil is changed, the moisture-unit weight
curve also changes.This fact can be demonstrated with the aid of Figure 5.6, which
shows four compaction curves for a sandy clay.The standard Proctor mold and ham-
mer were used to obtain these compaction curves. The number of layers of soil used
for compaction was three for all cases.However, the number of hammer blows per
each layer varied from 20 to 50, which varied the energy per unit volume.
5.4 Modified Proctor Test 107
ttJ 19.85
Sandyclay
L i q u i dl i n i t = 3 1
Line of P l a s t i cl i m i t = 2 6
optlmum 19.00
E
i
.E
rr<
in k ')
z
3
Ir,i.00
E
;
.s!
.=
: ll0 q
=
\,2-5 blows/ layer
17.(x)
2 0 b l o w s /l a y e r
t0 12 t1 16 It { 2(\ 22 24
Moisturecontent,11,
(.2,)
From the preccding observation and Figure 5.6, we can see that
The compaction energy for this type of compaction test can be calculated as
2700 kN-m/m3 (56.000ft-lb/lbr).
Becauseit increasesthe compactivceffort, the modifieclProctor test resultsin
an increasein the maximum dry unit weight of the soil. The increasein the maximum
dry unit weight is accompaniedby a decreasein the optimum moisture content.
In the precedingdiscussions,the specificationsgiven for Proctor testsadopted
by ASTM and AASHTO regardingthe volume of the mold and the number of blows
are gcnerally those adopted for fine-grainedsoils that pass through the U.S. No. 4
sicve.However, under each test designation,there are three suggestedmethods that
reflectthe mold size,the number of blows per layer, and the maximum particle sizein
a soil aggregateusedfor testing.A summary of thc test methods is givenin Table 5.1.
ol StandardanclModificdProctorCompaction
Table5.7 Sunrn.rary
(ASTM D-69,S
TcstSpecifications and D-1557)
Lisc Ljsed if 207u or lcss Ljscd il'more than 207" Ljscd if morc tl.ran20'l"
by wcight ol rnatcrial by wcight ol'material is by wcight of matcrial
i s r c l a i n c do n N o . , l r c t a i n c do n N o . 4 i s r e t a i n c do n 9 . 5 m m
( 4 . 7 5r n m ) s i c v c (4.7-5 r n m ) s i c v ca n d 2 0 % , ( l i n . ) s i c v ea n d l e s s
or lcssby wcight o[ than 30% by wcight of
nratcrial is rclaincd on material is rctaincd
9 . - 5r n r n( i i n . ) s i e v e o n 1 9m m ( I i n . ) s i e v e
Mold volurnc 944 crnr ( ..1,ltt) 944 crnr ( + ftt) 944 crnr ( ; l1t)
Mold diamctcr 1 0 1 . 6m m ( 4 i n . ) 1 0 1 . 6m m ( 4 i n . ) 1 0 1 . 6m m ( 4 i n . )
Standard Wcight ol' 24.4 N (-5.5lb) 24.4 N (5.5 tb) 24.4 N (-5-5lb)
Proctor Test hammer
Heightol drop 3 0 5m m ( 1 2 i n . ) 3 0 5 m n r ( 1 2i n . ) 3 0 5m m ( 1 2i n . )
Numberof 3 3 3
soil laycrs
Number of 25 25 56
blows/laycr
Modified W e i g h to f 4 4 . 5N ( l 0 l b ) N (l0lb)
44.-5 4 4 ' 5N ( 1 0 l b )
Proctor Test hammer
Height of drop 457 mm (18 in.) 457 mm (18 in.) '157mm (1t3in.)
Numberof 5 5 ,5
soil layers
Numbcr of 25 25 56
blows/layer
5-4 Modified Proctor Test 109
Example5.1
For a compacted soil,G" : 2.72,w = 187o,andya : 0.97rn. Determinethe dry
unit weightof thecompacted soil.
Solution
FromEq.(5.4),
--JU- 9.81
Tzo'': ;=*:17.9 kN/mr
I 16 1
,-"
,,+
G, 100 2.72
Hence,for the compactedsoil,
t,r = 0.91,u,: (0.9)(17.9)
- 16.tkN/m3
Example5.2
The laboratorytestresultsof a standardProctortestaregivenin thefollowingtable:
Volume Moisture
of mold Weight of moist content, u/
(fr3l soil in mold 0b) (V"l
ih 3.63 10
,l 3.86 t2
$ 4.oz 14
+ 3.e8 16
* 3.tts 18
.E lt,l
=
;
t
.1D loo
o 9 5
90
."n 20
l0 t2 14 16 llt
'r'({./.')
contcnt.
Moisture
M o l d i n g w a t e rc o n t e n t
Figure 5'8 Effect of compaction on structurc of clay soils (re<Jrawnafter Lambc, l95tj)
t00
Parallel
c
a
o -50
r
25
o
l0 t2 t4 l8 24
ll4
ll0
1 7 . 0 0^
E' t06 z
J
.d t{)2 l/. On ;
, il6
.:tr
= 9 8
Higher compactionenergy
15.005
94
Lower compactionenergy
t4.14
l0 t2 14 16 l8 20 22 24
Molding moisturecontent(7c)
111
112 Chapter 5
I
t-
,*x"\
112
5.6 Field Compaction 113
l. S m o o t h - w h e e rl o l l e r s( o r s m < t o t h - d r u m
rollers)
2. P n e u m a t i cr u b b e r - t i r c dr o l l c r s
3. Sheepsfootrollers
4. Vibratory rollers
S m o o t h - w h e crl o l l e r s( F i g u r e. 5 . 1 0a) r e s u i t a b l cf o r p r o o f r o l l i n g
s u b g r a d e sa n d
f o r l i n i s h i n go p e r a t i o no f f i l l sw i t h s a n d ya n c lc l a y e ys o i l s .T h e s e
r o l l e r sp r o v i d e 1 g 0 %
c o v e r a s eu n d c r t h e w h e c l s .w i t h g r o u n dc o n t a c tp r e s s u r e a s s h i g h a s3 1 0t g 3 u 0k N / m 2
(4-5to -5-5 lb/inr). They.arc_norsuirablc lirr producing high un'it weights
of compac_
t i o n w h e n u s e c cl t nt h i c k e r l a v e r s .
P n c u m t r t i cr u b b c r - t i r e c rl t r l l er s ( F i g u r c - 5 . 1 1a) r e b c t t c r i n m a n y
r e s p e c t st h a n
t h c s r n o o t h - w h c crl t l l l c r s .l ' h c l i r r m c r a r e h e a v i l yk r a d c dw i t h
'fhcse s e v e r a lr o w s o f t i r e s .
lircs are closcly spacecl- I'our to six in a row. T'hc contact pressure
undcr the
t i r c s c a n r i t n s |er o n t 6 ( X ) t o 7 ( X ) k N / m r ( t l - 5l ltxo) l b / i r r 2 ) , a n c l
theyproduceaboutT0
to lJ0'Z'covcrage.Pncunralic rollers can be used lirr sanclyancl
.t,iy"y soil compac-
tion. c-'ompaction i s a c h i c v e cbr y a c o r n b i n a t i c l n o | p r . r r u r " a n c lk n e a d i n ga c t i o n .
Shcepsli*rt r.llcrs (F-igurc.5.l2) arc drunrs with a large number
.f projections.
The arca .l'c.ch pro.icctionmay rilnsc ll-.rn 2-5t. g5 cm2( j + to
l3 i'2). Theserollers
Ofl'-center
rotating
weight
-Vibratof * - -
(hr
*H'**
OfI'-center
rotating
weight
are most effective in compacting clayey soils. The contact pressure under the pro-
jections can range from 1400to 7000kN/m2 (200 to 1000Ib/in2).During compaction
in the field, the initial passescompact the lower portion of a lift. Compaction at the
top and middle of a lift is done at a later stage.
Vibratory rollers are extremely efficient in compacting granular soils. Vibra-
tors can be attacheclto smooth-wheel,pneumatic rubber-tired, or sheepsfootrollers
to provide vibratory effectsto the soil. Figure 5.13demonstratesthe principles of vi-
bratory rollers. The vibration is produced by rotating off-center weights.
Handheld vibrating plates can be used for effective compaction of granular
soils over a limited area.Vibrating platesare also gang-mountedon machines.These
plates can be used in lessrestricted areas.
t8
Moisture content= l7
l7
M o i s t u r ec o n t e n t= I 1 . 6 7 c
16e
g z
15 .-t
ti
j
{
'0
'4o
)
t4>
c
t
l l n
Figure 5.14
Silty clay Growth curves for a silty clay * relationship
l2 between dry unit weight and number ofpassesof
L i q u i dl i m i t = . 1 3
P l a s t i c i t yi n d e x= l 9 U4.5kN (19 kip) three-wheelroller when the soil
r l l is compactedin229 mm (9 in) toose layersat dif-
rJ t6 24 1a
ferent moisture contents(redrawn after Johnson
Number of roller passes
and Sallberg, 1960)
0.50
I
I
0.5
Curnpaetitrn lticr
5 roller passes 0.5 +
I
2 I 2
0.46
E E € e (l8 in.)
'l '{ - X l A o r r r
- ; : _ . 3 €
a o r.v E ;: t.u
Nurnberof o
rollerpasses
t.5 l.)
1.83 l .83
r.83
r6.00 16.50 17.00
Dry unitweighr,
17(kN/m:.t
(a)
Figure 5.15 (a) Vibratory compactionof a sand-variation of dry unit weightwith number
thicknessof lift : 2.45m (8 ft); (b) estimationof compactionlift thickness
of roller passes;
for minimum requiredrelativedensityof 75"/"with five roller passes(ifter D,Appolonia,
Whitman,and D'Appolonia, 1969)
116 Chapter5 Soil ComPaction
7'1(Ii"r'r)
fi(%)= x100 (-s6)
7d(rnax * lab)
a:l (-57)
C o m p a r i n gE q s . ( - 5 . 6a) n d ( . 5 . 7 )w
. c s e et h a t
Ro
R * (s.8)
1-D,(1-Ro)
where
711(nin)
Ro: 1 5q \
7rl(max)
R:80+0.2D, (s.10)
5.7 Specifications for Field Compaction 117
.3t
i
E
4r r'l
t,,,rt,,."
.,,,,,i11.
,,
Figure 5.76 Mostcconornical
contpaction
condition
E= E#i g = r ;E
ii
i : t r 0 l q ' a a
6
O P
9!€ir;$o:i:E4-n - 0 - 6 . l - , a U ' 4 L r '
iEq,
F F
F = : E : ? i E R e EzE5 * Z E a !) 717' i =- 5 z: 6 E. { =e l Z
q, 1
>.= ;::i+iie::E:=E: ) i , ?
. r 9 * E -
!F!E*?? :Tt ?
F d = * - ^
Pa,
o
o.
tQc i l i t =
:i:;;i:;A,E
: F , i EFg::ETE=8b;g
-t oFv T
' =l -sOp- i; U
: . =
- . ;. d
9 1. lt r! i=
,zz4=il22*:7i
& E g s : € ! ; r L : Ei e g < : . e 9 ,a E ; - q 5 I € F
'i, '6
' ' e' - ' 3 ' - ? + =e - ! ' = i iP tlE
- €8 €8 €3 EA1 !:S 2
t r! r- -; g. ?; .
6' * i . z n : - . 2 1 . , 2 | ; .1 : >i>- !27=.
o ct =
+ .i 5-s\ i-t rr +
- -x -. i+' r; F- j, -=-A- Y 2 E o ^ VtV6e;Ei^
o)
bo
o-
o 'i.? '=.:- "='l
zEi := != *2 <2 azZ;Ft
(!
'36? 2i ' 4+';=
B Z.i E.= F.= Zfig.;?,9r^
o
o
o)
3 c ?: 8<. ;: iPg r!E=izzL
\ o P
:is3: ?? == =+Z' | g E ' =7 2 l l ;
eissi sL €= iS{. pq f: E A
a €I E
Z ==ta Fs fFl r; B.
o,=' G
e (1, th
- o 3 o
X
6
lO'--
o >
o
o
! _ E E _ =
E E 9€FF E I E E E i S
= = _ . =
o - o 5F T I : VE y , ! : 2 =. =7o_ -a1= V= . 7= =l r i _' E
a
!
H =
g.E
F X
; ; ; o ; ; i E * zE ; E EE s r E g E E Z
t e E
E o
;g 2 6
ii. c-i a
2 V i '
6
O
bo
q
O
ho
f,i
o ^ ^ ^ ( J
v . - w - , c t r ) E \ o t s
C ^ D ^ U
o
o-E
9 > e
- >^
Q)
+"Y &t 'c& 5o f , o T o
o
.=
E
o
G E
o o
g
E a o E *
FEE r) \o ; u x x ^
S f d _ * N J
, 6 : ' 0 - A O
. eg 6 in.= * F . , L
0
6 o F z t A H i S ! ' eA ' 26 o : 9
a A o
a a * - : F = o - o . , =
E 9 a " i 6 - " E ; : r t- ' .;- oi Ea 6> -.g E -_ 3
3 " P o . e : ' Fa i Z d
; ; : I E ^ IF F E - ! i o -" :Y F : - ! o
' ) E j
I ]
. =
I F , , E = * : !I a E r . J -
6
= : . 0 ,
a / ' . .- =- -
_._
q- J> l a
-"
E 9 : ; \ E 9 . 9 = - r_ O
o o r 9 : J l 9 6 t . : 9 c , q c - i ? . o b ^ a
6 . - i U G q \ - O
E 3 t y Z V1 1 a ; z = 2 =+ i : F
a .E=t . =:" iA so o 3:
L ' o
E :"
G O ! . =
o ' = :
ti;= s
o I
3
i : . u
6o=2
N
o
ro t r o
o 2 - Q a
!+ >. a ) o ;'o .)
a
.G
: - - ! ^
|lJ a i
118
.-:
r j a
> y!=
g$iiigglg
gg
fi*iiig;giir
^
^ ! t r
-;i-
' U X o
>6to
- F
t r ^
z d
-
O
E i. C
r Y ^ - Y ' v
: , ^ ^ u ca
o : l x = 9 a d s i ' -
, F r - a >
: ^.a Y i - Y v
6 E 4J >'.9 Z u ; 7
; o t
!
C,^ 7, a
7^2
- - : v : -" '
= v o
.9 v|E i: 'pjjU - c
Y Z E ' : -, e ^
o :
@ O -
c B _
hoi
Ylz - I -
9 1 , ^ c d€ or) k b.l)
a a ^ .
> Y
= I ": crtr
i ^ = i 9 P ^ L L
: b o
qo -; : cX i u E . , - - * u
L , ! : ,
'i: tr o-
p d * ^ * q q - 2
O > . ! " . : ; 1 'E
6 : Z c co
h E ? h d € d 6 Z
7* z^ a >,
9.Y co H - !\ . o
:Eco ai L l z l L
^ p
^
-
. !
- 9
a ^
- >
f Fcn s o E r d - - p ^ -
.LAr)ar - A J ^ 6 N - ' , o ,
0 -
5 - - a b0_
E U r o . o._ !
u Z . E d i
c Y . 3 a
U v a
o a
^
- - ^ t r : l
C ' 6 c , z*E
. l i i 9 -
l E
.Eq e g i
F b 0 5 n F &'c3 ac t aD:!
U U
oo oo bo
6 6 (d
! !
O
bo
(! -
^ O
bo
0 9 >
t c.)o N
c .-: ; ; c a
trN l',
t
t rh I :
v S i d
;
-O : E^ . _
t r ' t a
o E € o E \ o = L i ^ q d
! E ^ ' F , , . ; y ' E
n a i ^ ^ :
- - - x x ^ C r ) r , H H ' : ! a ' : : X F
N - 3 : - j X Y N N = 6 1 6 v = ; J . Y Z Y U 5 0 r|1
I a
o ) F . ) C :
E , Fe Ir E- a w
-S ! 'o t
Eor u.!i: E
o 9
tr_
i
* : a , i E a € 8:'a H oo'o Y3 -c * aoJ gc
+ = - o - . = : i Fo
d E E . 5 i = : t r e : t € F 3 X : ' ag + I
^ ^
e,,Y o
i8s Eg;*: 'E
; -o6 ^ r E Z {e : Ut di cr
- ! ^ J , = t 2 J L d r X
: i iiT6 3 5,;
o * 3
E : d
- a a 7 , . a
6 = 2 > = 5Fz€5s; q Y o - o 9 B
.oER^6 >,
d e E
s € _ g E e9 g 4'43
l o o o ? = q ; E 5 '9= ;- o
; ;; e= 3 0 d a u ,-
i:;r i -?=: €. i Fn =t . i F f r ; 8 9 ;i F
?.-z t os!3 -
E;'E t-
F . s; ; h i t j ^ 5
€
9
!
s i: . _
E
Y
=v ( t vr F^
4
119
120 Chapter 5 Soil Comqaction
Figure 5. 17 Glass jar filled with Ottawa sand with sand cone attached
5.8 Determination of Fietd IJnit Weight of Compaction
I, .lar
'.,
*/'
'
Ottawa sand
..'
\ Mctrl
C,rnc * vill\c
plrrle
t'"t '/
.,i..........
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. 18 Field unit weight determined by sand cone method:
(a) schematiccliagram;
(b) a test in progress in the field
Chapter 5 Soil ComPaction
After excavation of the hole, the cone with the sand-filled jar attached to it is
inverted and placed over the hole (Figure 5.18).Sand is allowed to flow out of the jar
to fill the hole and the cone. After that, the combined weight of the jar, the cone, and
the remaining sand in the jar is determined (lVa)' so
Ws: Wt - Wq ( s.12)
W.' - W,.
tv/ -
- (s.13)
7ri(sand)
Nuclear Method
Nuclear density meters are often used for determining the compacted dry unit
weight of soil. The density meters operate either in drilled holes or from the ground
ruriu.". The instrument measuresthe weight of wet soil per unit volume and the
weight of water present in a unit volume of soil. The dry unit weight of compacted
soilian be determined by subtracting the weight of water from the moist unit weight
of soil. Figure 5.20 shows a photograph of a nuclear density meter.
Figure 5.19
Calibrated vesselused with rubber
balloon (not shown) (courtesyof
John Hester, Carterville, Itlinois)
Figure 5.20
Nucleardensitymeter (courtesyof
David A. Carroll, Austin, Texas)
123
124 Chapter 5 Soil ComPaction
table:
Laboratorycompactiontestresultsfor a clayeysilt aregivenin the following
Moisture Dry unit weight
content(%) {kN/m3)
b 14.80
8 1.7.45
o 18.52
1l 18.9
t2 18.5
1"4 t6.9
performedon
Followingare the resultsof a field unit weight determinationtest
the samesoil by meansof the sand-conemethod:
. Calibrateddry densityof Ottawasand : 1570kg/m3
r Calibratedmassof Ottawasandto filIthe cone : 0'545kg
o Massof jar + cone* sand(beforeuse): 7.59kg
r Massof jar + cone + sand(after use) : 4'78kg
. Massof moist soil from hole = 3.007kg
r Moisture contentof moist soil : 10'2%
Determine
a. Dry unit weightof compactionin the field
b. RelativecomPactionin the field
Solution
a. In the field,
: - :
Massof sandusedto fill the hole and cone 7.59kg 4.78kg 2'81kg
- =
Massof sandusedto fill the hole : 2'81kg 0'545kg 2'265kg
2.265kg
Volume of the hole(Y) :
Dry density of Ottawa sand
kg
.2'265 - = 0.0014426
m3
1570kg/m'
Massof moist soil
Moist densityof comPactedsoil : Volume of hole
? 92''^.: 2084.4
0.0014426 j
ke/ml
(2084.4)(e.81
) :
Moist unit weight of compactedsoil 2O.45kN/m3
1000
Hence,
v 2A.45 :
18.56kN/m3
td
w (o/"\ t0.z
^1 + 1+."--_
100 100
5.9 Compaction of Organic Soil and Waste Materials 125
z
>
*' ('/c)
Organic Soil
Franklin. Orozco, and Scmrau (1973) conductedseverallaboratory teststo observe
the effect of organic content on the compactioncharacteristicsof soil. In the test pro-
gram, various natural soils and soil mixtures were tested.Figure 5.22 shows the ef-
fect of organic content on the maximum dry unit weight. When the organic content
exceeds8 to 10%, the maximum dry unit weight of compaction decreasesrapidly.
Conversely, the optimum moisture content for a given compactive effort increases
with an increasein organic content. This trend is shown in Figure 5.23.Likewise, the
maximum unconfined compressionstrength (see Chapter l0) obtained from a com-
pacted soil (with a given compactive effort) decreaseswith increasing organic con-
tent of a soil. From thesefacts,we can seethat soilswith organiccontentshigher than
about 10% are undesirable for compaction work.
126 Chapter 5 Soil Compaction
105
to
100
l5
o
,? o\'
z
qn
t l
E
il
Oven-dried
c x t
.: E
Air-dried --
t l
€ !
tr
= R o =
'i E
n >
o Mixture-oven-dried
. Nalurrl silmple oven-dried l t
a Mixture-air-dried
t0.22
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0
Organiccontent(o/o)
Figure 5.22 Yariation of maximum dry unit weight with organic content (after Franklin,
Orozco, and Semrau, 1973)
^ 3 0
t
o t<
o
'6
E r o
'a
o t 5
-l 0" 0
5 l0 15 20 25
Organiccontent(70)
Figure 5.23 Yariatton of optimum moisture content with organic content (after Franklin,
Orozco, and Semrau, 1973)
5.9 Compactionof OrganicSoitand WasteMaterials
127
Soiland Organic Materiat Mixtures
Lancasteret al. (1996)conductedseveralmodified Proctor
teststo determinethe
effect of organiccontent on the maximum dry unit weight
urrJ opti-u- moisture
contentof soil and organicmaterialmixtures.The soils
iested.onrirt"d of a poorly
gradedsandy soil (Sp-SM)mixed with either shredded
redwoodbark, shredded
rice hulls,or municipalsewagesludge.Figures5.24
and5.25showthe variationsof
O Redwoodbark
1 R i c eh u l l s
z O Sludge
- 11
.:l
I lll
':
r 8
l.
!
.E
u 20 10 60 80 t(x)
Organic content (o/o)
1t
s'-
11
c
o
a )t I
=
'I
t r '
rr
6
'E rU
l+
I2
Organic
content
(7o)
Figure 5'25 Yatiation of optimum moisture content
with organic content - soil and organic
material mixtures. Source: After "The Effect of
organic content on Soil compaction,,, by
J' Lancaster, R' waco, J' Towre, and R. chaney, 1sg6. proceedings,
tn iii)a nternatronat
Symposium on Environmentar Geotechnology,p.
159. Used with pJrmission of the author.
128 Chapter 5 Soil ComPaction
maximum dry unit weight of compaction and optimum moisture content, respec-
tively, with organic content. As in Figure 5.22, Ihe maximum dry unit weight de-
creascdwith organic content in all cases(seeFigure 5.24).Conversely,the optimum
moisture content incrcasedwith organic content for soil mixed with shredded red-
wooclor rice hulls (seeFigure 5.2-5),similar to the pattern shown in Figure 5.23.How-
ever, for soil anclmunicipal sewurgcsludge mixtures, the optimum moisture content
remained practically constant (sec Figure 5.25).
r S l u t l g cA
a S l u t l g c1 3
o S l u t l g cl )
o Sludgc I.i
z
! /
Figure 5.26 Yariatt<tnof dry unit weight of compaction with moisture content for paper mill
sludge. Source: From "Geotechnical Properties of Paper Mill Sludgesfor Use in Landfill
Covers," by H. K. Moo-Young, T. F. Zimmie, 7996,Journal o.f Geotechnical Engineering, 122
(9),p.768-775. Copyright O 1996American Societyof Civil Engineers.Used by permission.
5.10 Special Compaction Techniques 129
Table 5.3 Physical properties of SlurJgesShown
in Figure 5.26
Maximum
Optimum
dry unit moisture
weight
content
tb /ft3 (%l
Bottom ash- Fort Martin I3.4 8-s 24.5 S c a l s .M o u l t o n , a n d R u t h
bituminouscoal Kamntcr 16.0 t02 13.t3 (1e72)
(WestVirginia) K a n a w h aR i v c r I 1.4 72.6 26.2
Mirchcll I IJ.3 l 16.6 14.6
Muskingham 14.3 9 l. l 22.0
Willow Island 14..5 L)2.4
Bottom ash -
2 1. 2
[3ig Stonc Powcr 16.4 104..1 20.5 Das. Selinr. and pl'cifle
lignitecoal P l a n t ,S o u t h D a k o t a
Copperslag ( I e78)
Anrcr-icanSmclter ancl 19.8 t26 l8.ri D a s , ' l h r q u i n ,a n d J o n c s
Rclincry Clompany,
( ler]3)
Ill Paso,Jtxas
Vibroflotation
vibroflotation is a technique for in situ d,ensification
of thick layersof loose granu-
lar soil deposits.It was devcloped in Germany
in the 1930s.The first vibroffotation
device was used in the United Statesabout l0years
later. rn.fro..r,' involves the
use of a vibroflot 5.27 (arso cailed the vibrating
unit), whichis about 2.1 m (:7 tt)
long' (asshown in Figure 5.27.)This vibrating
unit has an eccentricweight inside it
and can develop a centrifugal force, which enibles
the vibrating urit to vibrate hori-
zontally. There are openings at the bottom and
top of the vib'iating unit for water
jets' The vibrating unit is attached
to a folrow-up pipe.Figure 5.27 showsthe entire
assembly of equipment necessaryfor conducting
the field"compaction.
130 Chapter 5 Soil Compaction
fir.,
,ffi#fu
ee*scr*;--- -. ;
Follow-up j i
"
C y l i n d c ro l c o r n p a c t c d
nrateriirl,addedl'rom the
s u r l a c et o c o m p e n s a t c
lirr the loss of volume
causedhy the increascol'
d e n s i t yo f t h e c o m p a c t e d
soil
B
C y l i n d c ro f c o m p a c t e d
nraterial,producedby a
s i n g l ev i b r o f l o tc o m p a c t i o n
S t a g c3
75 kW electric
Motor type and hydraulic 23 kW electric
a, Vibrating tip
Length 2 . 1m ( 7 . 0I ' t ) l.fi6m(6.llf'r)
Diameter z 1 0m 6 n r( 1 6i n . )
3ttl rnnr( 1.5in)
Weight r 7 . 8k N ( 4 ( X nl b)) l7.lJkN (4(XX) ltr)
Maximummovemcnt when full 1 2 . -m5 m ( 0 . 4 9i n ) 7 . 6m m ( { ) . 3i n . )
Centlifugal force 1 6 0k N ( l t 3t o n ) l J gk N ( 1 0t o n )
b. Eccentric:
Weight 1 . 2k N ( 2 6 0t b ) 0 . 7 6k N ( 1 7 0 l b )
Offset 3lJmnr ( l.-5in) 3 2 m m ( 1 . 2 5i n )
Length 6 1 0m m ( 2 4i n ) 3 t Xm) m ( 1 5 . 2 -i n
5. )
Speed 1800rpm Itt00rpnr
c. Pump
Operatingflow rate 0 - 1 . 6m r / m i n( 0 - 4 ( n g a l / m i n ) 0 - 0 . 6 m r / n i n ( 0 - 1 5 0g a l / m i n )
Pressure 7 0 0 - 1 0 - 5k0N / m , ( 1 0 0 _ 1 . 5l b0/ i n 2 ) 7 0 0 - 1 0 - 5k0N / m r( 1 0 0 l 5 0 t b / i n r )
d. Lower follow-up pipe und extensions
Diameter 305mm (12 in.) 3 0 5m m ( 1 2i n . )
Weight 3.6-5
kN/m (2,50 lb/ft) 3.6.5kN/m (2s0lb/fr)
*AfterBrown (1977.)
\
/
fl::,:l';,H:".."
Figure 5.29 Probcspacingfor vibroflotation
U n i f l e dS o i l C l a s s i l i c a t i o S
n ystern
- i 3 | 1
r,ry:LV1r; * * (-5.1s)
6 orrt,
where Dsc,,D.u, and D',, are the diameters (in mm) through which. respectivery,50,
20, and 10./" of the material Dasses.
T h e s m a l l e rt h c v a l u e . , t S r . t h " m o r e d e s i r a b l et h e b a c k f i l lm a t e r i a l .F o l l o w -
ing is a backfill rating systemproposed by Brown:
Dynamic Compaction
D y n a m i c c o m p a c t i o ni s a t e c h n i q u ct h a t h a sg a i n e dp o p u l a r i t yi n t h e U n i t c c lS t a l e s
for the densificationof granular soil deposits.This proccssconsistsprimarily of drop-
ping a heavy weight repeatedlyon thc ground at regular intervals.The weight of the
h a m m e r u s e d v a r i e so v e r a r a n g e o f 8 0 t o 3 6 0 k N ( 1 l Jt o g 0 k i p ) , a n d t h e h e i g h t o f
the hammcr drop varies betwcen 7.-5ancl 30.-5m (2.,5and 100 ft). The stresswaves
generated by the hammer drops aid in the dcnsification.The desree of compaction
a c h i e v e da t a g i v e ns i t e d e p e n d so n t h c l b l l o w i n g l h r e e l a c t o r s :
1. Weightof hammer
2. Height of hammer drop
3. Spacingof locations at which the hammer is dropped
D:(lSlw,n (,5.t6)
where D : significantdepth of densification(m)
W11: dropping weight (metric ton)
/.t : height of drop (m)
D: 0 . 6 1 v w ( s.17)
where the units of D and h are fr, and the unit of I4zais kip.
134 Chapter 5 Soil Compaction
Blasting
Blasting is a technique that has been used successfullyin many projects (Mitchell,
1970)for the densificationof granular soils.The general soil grain sizessuitable for
compaction by blasting are the same as those for compaction by vibroflotation. The
process involves the detonation of explosive charges such as 60% dynamite at a
certain depth below the ground surfacein saturatedsoil. The latcral spacingof the
chargesvariesfrom about 3 to 10 m (10 to 30 ft). Thrce to five successfuldetonations
are usuallynecessaryto achievethe desiredcompaction.Compaction up to a relative
density of:rbout 80% and up to a depth of about 20 m (60 ft) over a large arca can
easily be achievedby using this process.Usually,the explosivechargesare placed at
a clepthof about two-thirds of the thicknessof the soil layer desiredto be compacted.
Exa mp l e5 .4
SN
-* 1 1
' ' ' V|
m *
r - - - j - + - .
(4,,)t (Dri' (D,,,)'
-- t' 1'\ m
l
(t.442 (0.s2)'z (0.36)'z
= 6.1
Ratins: Excellent
Example5.5
For a dynamiccompactiontest we are giventhe followi -ng:weight of hammer :
15 metric tons and height of drop : 12 m' Determine t$ significantdepth D of
influencefor compaction,in meters. ;
Solution
From Eq. (5.16),
Prohlems
5.1 Given G, : 2.72,calculatethe zero-air-voidunit weight for a soil in lb/ft3 at
w : 5"/" , 8y", 10"/", 12"/", and 15% .
5.2 Repeat Problem 5.1 with G" : 2.62.plot a graph of
7,nn*(kN/m3) againstw.
5.3 calculate the variation of dry unir weighr (kN/m3) of i ioil
1c. : i.es1 at
w : 10"/" and 20"/" for degree of saturation (S) : g0% 90yo, and 100"/o.
,
5.4 The resultsof a standard proctor test are given below. Determine the maxi-
mum dry unit weight of compaction and the optimum moisture content.
Vorume
or T?:::frt Moisture
Proctormold in the mold content
(ft3) flb) (/"1
l/30 3.26 8.4
U30 4.l-) 10.2
l/30 4.67 1L-,)
t/30 4.02 14.6
t/30 -r.o-t 16.8
5.5 For the soil describedin Problem 5.4, if G" :2.72, determine the void ratio
and the degree of saturation at optimum moisture content.
5.6 The results of a standard Proctor test are given in the following table. Deter-
mine the maximum dry unit weight of compaction and the optimum mois-
Chapter 5 Soil Compaction
Massof
Volume of wet soil Moisture
Proctormold in the mold content
(cm3) (kS) t%l
5.7 A field unit weight detcrmination test for the soil describedin Problem 5.6
vielded the following datzr:moisture content : 10.27"and moist unit
weight : 16.1kN/ml. Determine the relative compaction'
The in sl/& moisture content of a soil is 18% and the moist unit weight is
105 fb/ft3.The specihcgravity of soil solids is2.15.This soil is to be excavated
ancltransported to a constructionsite for use in a compactedfill. If the speci-
ficzrtionscall for the soil to be compactedto a minimum dry unit weight of
103.-5 lb/ftr at thc samc moisture content of 18%, how many c-ubicyards of
soil from the excavationsitc are nceded to produce 10,000yd' of compacted
fill? How many 20-ton truckloads are nceded to transport the excavatedsoil?
5.9 A proposed embankment fill requires 5000 m3 of compactedsoil. The void
ratio of the compactedllll is specifiedas 0.7. Four borrow pits are available
as dcscribed in the following tablc, which lists the respectivevoid ratios of
the soil and the cost pcr cubic meter for moving the soil to the proposed con-
struction site. Make the necessarycalculationsto selectthe pit from which
thc soil should be bought to minimize the cost. Assume G. to be the same at
all pits.
5.10 The maximum and minimum dry unit weightsof a sand were determined in
the laboratory to be 104 lb/fc and 93 lb/ft3, respectively.what would be the
relative compaction in the field if the relative density is 78Y"?
5.11 The maximum and minimum dry unit weights of a sand were determined in
the laboratory to be 16.5 kN/m3 and 14.6 kN/m3, respectively.In the field, if
the relative density of compaction of the same sand is7O"/",what are its rela-
tive compaction (%) and dry unit weight (kN/m3)?
References 197
5'12 The relative compaction of a sand in the
field is 94o/o.Themaximum ancl
minimum dry unit weights of the sand are 103lb/ft3
and ss tblrc, ."rp".-
tively.For the field condition, determine
a. Dry unit weight
b. Relative density of compaction
c. Moist unit weight at a moisture content of
l0%
5.13 Laboratory compaction test resultson
a crayeysilt are given in the fblrowing
table:
6 r4.80
u t7.45
9 1u..52
ll I u.9
t2 I fi.6
t4 16.9
References
Av'r<rcaN Assocranr.rN op Srane Hrcrrwev aNo
TRaNspoR.rATroN
o.pr.raLs (1gg2).
AASHTO Materials,part II, Washington.D.C.
AveRrceN S.cre'v poR TesrrNcro"o irot..nrnr-s (1999).
ASTM standards,vor 04.0g,
WestConshohocken. pa.
138 Chapter 5 Soil ComPaction