Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Compaction PDF
Compaction PDF
Compaction PDF
Compaction
Soil is used as a basic material for construction
Retaining walls,
Airports,
•Rubber-tired equipment
•Sheepsfoot rollers
•Free-falling weight; dynamic
compaction (low frequency •Rubber-tired rollers
vibration, 4~10 Hz)
Vibration Kneading
The Standard Proctor Test
Hammer
Weight
2.6kg
Drop Height
h=310mm
Diameter 150 mm
soil Height 127.3mm
Volume
Equipments Needed
For Compaction
Layer or lift # 3
soil Layer or lift # 2
Layer or lift # 1
25 Blows/Layer
Standard Energy
• Compactive (E) applied to soil per unit volume:
Maximum dry
• Optionally, the unconfined
unit weight compressive strength of
Dry Density (gd)
g m
gm
Mg
g d Where
V
1
g d • =Dry Unit weight
• =Bulk Density
• =Water Content
V • =Total Soil Volume
M • =Total Wet Soil Mass
g • =Gravitational Acceleration
Water Role in
Compaction Process
Water lubricates the soil grains so that
they slide more easily over each other
and can thus achieve a more densely
packed arrangement.
Increase of
Density due Dry + mass of water added
3
1.8
to compaction
1.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water content w (%)
Modified Proctor Test
Was developed during World War II
By the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering
For a better representation of the compaction
required for airfield to support heavy aircraft.
Modified Proctor Test
Same as the Standard Proctor Test
with the following exceptions:
The soil is compacted in five layers
soil # 3 E MP 2700kJ / m3
# 2
E MP 2700 kJ / m 3
# 1
4 . 55
E SP 592 kJ / m 3
Effect of Energy on Compaction
E2 > E1
Modified E=E2
Dry Density (gd)
Standard E=E1
Modified E=E2
Standard E=E1
Double-peaked
Odd-shaped
Zero-Air-Void
Degree of Saturation ZAV:The curve represents
the fully saturated
2.0 60% 80% 100% condition (S=100%).
"Zero ZAV cannot be reached by
( Mg 3/ m )
Air
w S
1.9 w S w
Voids" s Gs
Modified
You can derive the equation
1.8
Proctor
Dry density
by yourself, Hint
1.7
Standard s
Proctor d
1 e
1.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Se wG s
Water content w (%)
Results-Explanation
Below womc At womc Above womc
Dry of Optimum The density is at the Wet of Optimum
•As the water content maximum, and it does not Water starts to
increases, the increase any further. replace soil particles
particles develop OMC in the mold, and
larger and
water films around
larger
Dry Density (gd)
since w<<s the dry
density starts to
them, which tend to
“lubricate” the
decrease.
Entrapped
air
Dry side Wet side
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981; Das, 1998
1
2.1 Well graded
Zero air voids, S= 100 1 88 10 2 16 NP
loamy sand
2.0 2 %
Well graded
2 72 15 13 16 NP
sandy loam
1.9
3 Med graded
3 73 9 18 22 4
sandy loam
Dry density
1.8
4 Lean sandy
4 32 33 35 28 9
5 silty clay
1.7
6 Lean silty
5 5 64 31 36 15
clay
1.6 7
8 6 Loessial silt 5 85 10 26 2
5 10 15 20 25 7 Heavy clay 6 22 72 67 40
Water content w (%) 8
Poorly graded
94 6 6 NP NP
sand
Compaction Characteristics
Unified Soil Classification
Compaction
Group Symbol
Characteristics
GW
GP
GM
GC Good
SW
SP
SM
SC
Good to Fair
CL
ML Good to Poor
OL, MH, CH, OH, PT Fair to Poor
Embankment Materials
Unified Soil Classification
Group Symbol Value as Embankment Material
GW
Very Stable
SW
CL Stable
GP
GM
Reasonably Stable
GC
SC
SP
Reasonably Stable when Dense
SM
ML Poor, gets better with high density
OL, MH, CH, OH, PT Poor, Unstable
Subgrade Materials
Unified Soil Classification
Group Symbol Value as Subgrade Material
GW Excellent
GP
Excellent to Good
GM
GC
Good
SW
SP
SM Good to Fair
SC
ML
Fair to Poor
CL
OL, MH, CH, OH, PT Poor to Not Suitable
Typical Compaction Curve for
Cohesionless Sands & Sandy Gravel
Complete saturation
(increasing) Density
Air dry
The low density that is obtained at
bulking low water content is due to capillary
Forces resisting arrangements of
the sand grains.
High Compactive
Effort Dispersed Structure
or
parallel
Dry Density
Low
Flocculated Structure Compactive
or Effort
Honeycomb Structure
or
Random
Water Content
Structure
Particle Arrangement Dry side more random
Dry side more deficient; thus imbibes more water,
Water Deficiency
swells more, has lower pore pressure
From Lambe and Whitman, 1979;
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
10-7
Effect of Compaction on
Permeability
permeability
Permeability at constant
compactive effort decreases
with increasing water content
and reaches a minimum at about
the optimum.
10-9
If compactive effort is
increased, the permeability
Density
Water content
Permeability
Magnitude Dry side more permeable
Dry side permeability reduced much more by
Permanence
permeation
From Lambe and Whitman, 1979;
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
Effect of Compressibility
Dry compacted or Dry compacted or
undisturbed sample undisturbed sample
Void ratio , e
Void ratio , e
GW
Very Little
GP
GM
Slight
GC
SW
Very Little
SP
SM Slight
SC
Slight to Medium
ML
CL Medium
OL, MH, CH, OH, PT High
From Lambe and Whitman, 1979
Effect of Strength
150
Samples 100
500
wet of 400
optimum
300
200
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Axial Strain (%)
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
55 blows / layer
75 26 blows / layer The CBR (California bearing ratio)
115
A greater compactive effort
110 produces a greater CBR for the
dry of optimum. However, the CBR
105 is actually less for the wet of
100 optimum for the higher
compaction energies
95 (overcompaction).
90
10 15 20 25
Water content (%)
Comparison of Soil Properties
Dry of Optimum & Wet of Optimum Compaction
Strength
As molded
a :Undrained Dry side is much higher
b :Drained Dry side is some how higher
After saturation
Dry side higher if swelling prevented,wet sidecan be
a :Undrained
hiher if swelling is permitted
b :Drained dry side the same or slpghtly hiher
Stress-strain modulus Dry side much greater
Sensitivity Dry side more apt to be sensitive
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
Effect of 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.
OMC
Dry Density (gd)
Higher
Higher
Swelling Dry Wet Shrinkage
Potential Side Side Potential
S = 100%
1.75
1.70
Legend
Kneading compaction
Permeability More
permeable
Strength Higher
Summary
UCS
Compaction Compressibility Value as
Group Value as Embankment Material
Characteristics and Expansion Subgrade Material
Symbol
GW Very Stable Excellent
Very Little
GP
Excellent to Good
GM Reasonably Stable
Slight
GC Good
Good
SW Very Stable
Very Little
SP
Reasonably Stable when Dense
SM Slight Good to Fair
ML Good to Poor Slight to Medium Poor, gets better with high density
Fair to Poor
CL Good to Fair Stable
OL, MH, CH,
Fair to Poor High Poor, Unstable Poor to Not Suitable
OH, PT
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981 Hand Out 03_2