UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

KNS 2591
CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 3
LABORATORY REPORT

Code & Title L2- Soil Compaction

Date of Experiment 12/ 11/ 2019
Lecturer Ir Dr Norazzlina M.Sa'don
Group 1B

Group Members Aidel Bin Abdul Rahman (64598)

Dian Syazni Binti Jamal (64695)
Esther Lim Shin Yi (65910)
Lythia Farishya Binti Mohd Farhan Isaac (64825)

Siti Humairah Binti Shabri (65210)

Dfsfsdfdsfsdfsdfsd
vsdffdsf
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

Group No : Group 1B
WK01 Civil
Semester : Semester 1 2019/2020 Programme: Engineering
Instructor : Ir Dr Norazzlina M.Sa'don
Project/Experiment : L2 Soil Compaction
Instruction: Please rate your student according to the marking criteria below. Fill in column “MARKS’ for
each criterion with 0/1/2/3/4 (Marks in decimal point is not allowed)

Total Marks
Weightage

Mark

(n*w)
Marking Criteria

n
Criteria CO PO n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4
Introduction No Very little Some introductory Introduction is Introduction is
backgrou background information, but nearly complete, complete and well-
nd information still missing some missing some written; provides all
2 4 informati provided or major points. minor points. necessary 3
on information is background
provided. incorrect. principles for the
experiment
Experimenta No Student is Shows evidence of Shows evidence of Clearly carrying out
l procedure project unfamiliar with carrying out lab carrying out lab lab works
approach the lab works, works, but with works excellently.
es/ depending on some errors. appropriately. Students execute lab
2 4 methods partner for help. Students execute Students execute works with correct 3
provided. Incorrect lab works, but not lab works with procedures, using
procedures necessarily with acceptable appropriate
cause the appropriate procedures using apparatus.
ineffective apparatus. appropriate
investigation. apparatus.
Results and No Incomplete or Some of the results Almost all results All results are
Discussions : results incorrect are correctly are correctly correctly presented
Data and interpretation of presented and presented and and have been
Handling discussio results have been clearly have been clearly clearly made.
and Analysis ns indicating a lack made. Student made. Student able to
2 4 provided. of able to generate Student able to generate, create, 7
understanding and create ideas generate, create analyse and evaluate
of results. but many are and analyse ideas. ideas and shows
Students only misstated, good understanding.
able to generate indicating a lack of
ideas. understanding.

Conclusions No Conclusions Conclusions All the important All the important

conclusio missing or regarding major conclusions have conclusions have
ns missing the points are drawn, been drawn, could been clearly made,
2 4 provided. important points but many are be better stated. student shows good 2
misstated, understanding.
indicating a lack of
understanding.

2
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

Appearance Poor Sections out of Sections in order, All sections in All

and formattin order, sloppy formatting are order, formatting grammar/spelling
formatting g. formatting. rough but are generally well correct and very
Poor readable. but can be well-written.
grammar Frequent improved.
and grammar and/or Occasional
writing spelling errors, grammar/spelling Less
2 4 style. All writing style is errors, generally grammar/spelling 2
sections rough and readable with errors, mature,
are in immature some rough spots readable style.
order, in writing style.
well-
formatted
and
readable.

References No Most references Some references All references All references were
and Citations reference were not reliable were not reliable were apparently reliable (e.g
s/ (e.g internet (e.g internet reliable (e.g journals) and
citations content) and content) and journals) and relevant.
2 4 provided. relevant. relevant. relevant. 3
Citation of
Most citation of Some citation of Some citation of references was done
references was references was not references was critically
not done done properly. done properly
properly.
Complex No Able to state Able to identify Able to analyse Able to evaluate
Problem attribute problems in problems in vague problems in vague problems and give
Solving 2 4 of vague and and complex and complex justifications in 5
complex complex situation. situation. vague and complex
problem situation situation.
solving
Critical No Find and Find and analyse Find and analyse Find and
Thinking attribute identify ideas ideas. ideas. evaluate ideas.
2 4 of critical Make decision. Make decision based 5
thinking on the best choice.

Others
(Please
specify)

Total: w= n= (n*w

)=
30

Final Mark :   (n * w)  100%  =

 4 w 
 

Comment:

Examined : Signature :
by

Date :

3
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page number

Introduction 5-6

Objective 7

Apparatus 7

Procedure 7-9

Results 10 - 18

Discussion 18 - 21

Conclusion 22

References 22

4
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

INTRODUCTION

In the construction of high load structures such as dams, paved roadways and
construction projects that rely on the stability of embankments; soil compaction is used to
increase soil strength. Loose soil can be compacted by using mechanical equipment to remove
air-voids, thereby densifying the soil and increasing its dry unit weight (VertekCPT, 2014).

The Proctor compaction test is a laboratory geotechnical testing method used to

determine the soil compaction properties, specifically, to determine the optimal water content
at which soil can reach its maximum dry density. The original test is often referred to as
Standard Proctor Test, which was later modified and referred to as Modified Proctor Test. The
difference between the two tests lies mainly in the compaction energy (Geotechdata.info, 2016).
It is the most common laboratory soil test and the basis for all engineered compacted soil
placements for embankements, pavements, and structural fills. In-place measured densities of
the compacted fill are compared to the Proctor test results to determine the degreee of soil
density (Backus, n.d.).

The moisture-density relationship of a soil is a graph of dry density versus water content,
for a given compaction effort. The data points obtained from compacting several samples at
different water contents forms a smooth curve, called the compaction curve, which is used to
obtain the optimum water content and the maximum dry density.

Figure 1.0 Soil compaction curve

5
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

The dry density of the compacted soil or pavement material is a common measure of
the amount of the compaction achieved during the construction. Knowing the field density
test and field moisture content, the dry density is calculated. The field density test of soil is
conducted in the field to know whether the specified compaction is achieved or not. Normally
sand replacement method is adopted for this purpose. Sand replacement method is also
known as Sand Cone Method.

Determination of field density using the sand replacement method involves three
steps. The first step involves calibration of a sand-pouring cylinder. The soil density is
measured in the second step and then the water content and dry density is measured in the
third step (Patel, 2019). The various stages of the sand replacement method are shown
in Figure2.0.

Figure 2.0 Sand replacement method

𝑴/𝑽
Dry density of soil, 𝝆𝒅 =
𝟏+𝒘

Dry unit weight, γd = 𝝆𝒅 × 𝒈

𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆

Moisture content, 𝒘 (%) = 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒓𝒚 𝒔𝒐𝒊𝒍
×100

Where M is the mass of soil

V is the volume of soil

w is the water content

g is the gravitational acceleration 9.81𝑚𝑠 −2

6
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

OBJECTIVE

To construct a compaction curve and obtain the maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content (OMC).

APPARATUS

1. Proctor mould with collar

2. Proctor hammer
3. Measuring cylinder
4. Steel straightening tool
5. Calibrating container
6. Sand- pouring cylinder
7. Hole tray template
8. Shovel

PROCEDURE

A. Proctor Compaction Test

Sample preparation:

1. Soil is taken from the field behind the Chemical Department building.
2. Soil sample of 5kg is obtained by passing through the 425µm sieve.

Procedure:

1. The diameter and the height of the proctor mould is measured. The empty proctor
mould without the collar and moisture content cups are also weighed. All the data are
recorded.
2. The collar is attached to the mould and the proctor mould is placed on a flat floor.
3. 400 𝑚𝑙 of water (8% moisture content) is added to the soil and sample and it is
mixed.

7
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

4. Then the proctor mould is filled with soil sample layer by layer, with a total of three
layers. The third layer is made sure to be filled slightly above the collar joint.
5. Each layer is compacted with a proctor hammer with 25 blows. Before placing a new
layer, the soil surface is scratched to ensure uniform distribution of compaction
effects.
6. After 3 layers are filled, the top of the mould is stroked using a steel straight edge so
ensure a smooth surface.
7. The mould with compacted soil is weighed and the soil sample is taken out.
8. The top, middle, and bottom part of the soil sample is taken for moisture content
sample. They are later placed into the oven dry oven for 24 hours.
9. Then, 250 𝑚𝑙 of water (5% moisture content) is added to the soil. Steps 1 to 8 are
repeated 4 more times with 250 𝑚𝑙 of water added each time.
10. The dry moisture content samples are weighed after 24 hours.

B. Sand cone replacement test

Calibration for bulk density

1. The height and diameter of calibrating container is measured to determine its volume.
2. The sand pouring cylinder is filled with sand and they are weighed.
3. The sand pouring cylinder is put onto the calibrating container.
4. The shutter of sand pouring cylinder is opened and the sand is let to fill the calibrating
container until there is no further visible movement of the sand.
5. The sand pouring cylinder with the remaining sand is weighed.
6. The cylinder is then placed on a glass plate and the shutter is opened to let sand fill
the container until sand has no further visible movement.
7. The cylinder is removed and the sand collected on the glass plate is removed.
8. The experiment is repeated two more times to get the average results.

Determination of dry density of soil

1. The sand pouring cylinder is filled with sand and they are weighed.
2. At the location of soil sample obtained, the surface of the ground where the test will
be performed is trimmed.

8
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

3. A hole template tray is place onto the surface and a hole to a depth of 15cm is
excavated.
4. The soil removed from the hole is collected onto the hole template tray.
5. The soil collected is weighed.
6. The sand pouring cylinder filled with sand is placed onto the hole of the template tray.
Then the shutter is opened to let the sand fill the hole until there is no further visible
movements of the sand.
7. The cylinder with the remaining sand is weighed.
8. A portion of the soil excavated from the hole is taken for moisture content sample and
is then put into the oven 24 hours.
9. The dry moisture sample is weighed after 24 hours. The moisture content, wet unit
weight density and dry unit weight density are determined.

Figure 3.0 A hole is excavated according to the hole template tray

Figure 4.0 Sand pouring cylinder is placed onto the hole to let the sand fill in the hole

9
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

RESULTS
A. STANDARD PROCTOR TEST

Table 1.0 Tabulation of data for bulk unit weight, dry density & dry unit weight
Test no 1 2 3 4 5

Water added, vw 400 250 250 250 250

Weight mould 4.696 4.741 4.958 4.904 4.778

+soil, m2 (kg)

Weight mould, m1 2.141 2.141 2.141 2.141 2.141

(kg)
Compacted soil, 2.555 2.600 2.817 2.763 2.637
m3 (kg)

Volume of mould 9.0566 104 9.0566 104 9.0566 104 9.0566 104 9.0566 104
( m3 )

kg 2821.14 2870.83 3110.44 3050.81 2911.69

Bulk density(
m3 )

Bulk Unit Weight 27.675 28.162 30.513 29.928 28.563

kN
( 3
m )

kg 2253.31 2276.81 2452.06 2403.54 1950.23

Dry density(
m3 )

Dry Unit 22.104 22.335 24.054 23.578 19.131

kN
Weight( 3
m )

10
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

Table 2.0 Tabulation of data of container 1, 2 &3 for moisture content

Container 1 2 3
A B C A B C A B C
Wet Soil + 64 47 35 57 75 45 37 48 46
Container,
m₄(g)
Dry soil + 55 40 30 49 62 39 34 40 43
Container,
m₅ (g)
Container, 22 10 10 21 20 7 21 22 20
m₆ (g)
Moisture 9 7 5 8 13 6 3 8 3
loss,m₇ (g)
Dry soil, m₈ 33 30 20 28 42 32 13 18 23
(g)
Moisture 22.27 23.33 25 28.57 30.95 18.75 23.08 44.44 13.04
content, w
(%)(g)
Average 25.2 26.09 26.85
moisture
content,
w(avg)%

Table 2.1 Tabulation of data of container 4 & 5 for moisture content

Container 4 5
A B C A B C
Wet Soil + 105 52 35 58 75 49
Container, m₄(g)
Dry soil + Container, 36 42 36 49 61 39
m₅ (g)
Container, m₆ (g) 22 7 10 21 20 7
Moisture loss,m₇ (g) 14 10 5 9 13 10
Dry soil, m₈ (g) 50 35 26 28 41 32
Moisture content, w 28.00 28.57 31.25 32.14 31.71 31.25
(%)(g)
Average moisture 29.27 31.70
content, w (avg)%

11
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

Table 3.0 Data to construct Zero Air Void Line (ZAVL), 25%, and 50% air void line

Test Average Dry Unit  d for ZAVL, S  d for S =  d for S =

no Moisture Weight, = 100% (kN/m3) 75% (kN/m3) 50% (kN/m3)
Content, w (%) (kN/m3)

1 25.20 22.104 22.666 22.622 22.534

2 26.09 22.335 22.661 22.616 22.525

3 26.85 24.054 22.657 22.610 22.517

4 29.27 23.152 22.644 22.593 22.492

5 31.70 21.688 22.632 22.577 22.467

CALCULATIONS

Height of mould, h = 10.6cm

Diameter of mould, d =10.43cm
Weight of mould, m1 =2.141kg

Volume of mould, v

d 2
 h
4
 (10.43) 2
  10.6
4
 905.66cm3
 9.0566 10  4 m 3

Test 1
Compacted soil, m3  m2  m1

=4.696kg-2.141kg
=2.555kg

12
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

m3
Bulk density,  
v
2.555
=
9.0566 10 4
kg
=2821.14
m3
Bulk Unit Weight,     g

kg
= 2821.14  9.81
m3
kN
= 27.675
m3

m4  m5
Moisture content, w  100%
m5  m6
64 − 55 ]
𝑤𝐴 = × 100% = 27.27%
55 − 22
47 − 40
𝑤𝐵 = × 100% = 23.33%
40 − 10
35 − 30
𝑤𝐶 = × 100% = 25.00%
30 − 10
27.27 + 23.33 + 25.00
𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑔 = = 25.20%
3


Dry density,  d 
1 w
2821.14

1  0.2520
 2253.31kg / m3

Dry unit weight,  d  d  g

 2253.31 9.81
 22.104kN / m3

13
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

Test 2
Compacted soil, m3  m2  m1

=4.741kg-2.141kg
=2.600kg
m3
Bulk density,  
v
2.600
=
9.0566 10 4
kg
=2870.83
m3
Bulk Unit Weight,     g

kg
= 2870.83  9.81
m3
kN
= 28.162
m3
m4  m5
Moisture content, w  100%
m5  m6

57  49
wa  100%  28.57%
49  21
75  62
wb  100%  30.95%
62  20
45  39
wc  100%  18.75%
39  7
28.57  30.95  18.75
wavg   26.09%
3

Dry density,  d 
1 w
2870.83

1  0.2609
 2276.81kg / m3

Dry unit weight,  d  d  g

 2276.81 9.81
 22.335kN / m 3

14
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

For Test 3, 4, 5, the steps of calculation is the same as Test 1 and Test 2.

For test 1, average moisture content, w = 25.20% when

 d for ZAVL,S = 100%( kN / m3 )

Gs w
d 
wGs
1
S

2.324  9.81
 = 22.666 kN / m3
0.252  2.324
1
100

 d for S = 75% ( kN / m3 )

Gs w
d 
wGs
1
S

2.324  9.81

0.252  2.324
1
75

=22.622 kN / m3

 d for S = 50%( kN / m3 )

Gs w
d 
wGs
1
S

2.324  9.81

0.252  2.324
1
50

=22.534 kN / m3

For test 2, 3, 4, and 5, the calculation is the same as test 1

15
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

A compaction curve with 0, 25, and 50% of air void line are drawn and shown in

Graph 1.0.

B. SAND REPLACEMENT TEST

Table 4.0 Tabulation data of calibration for bulk density

Description in kg Test no.

1 2 3
Sand Cone (empty) 4.58 4.58 4.58

Hole Tray (empty) 0.731 0.731 0.731

Sand Cone + Sand (before) 8.226 8.058 8.002

Sand Cone + Sand (after) 6.289 6.121 6.066

Sand Outside Cone 1.937 1.937 1.936

Table 5.0 Tabulation data of sand replacement method for in-situ density

Description Weight in kg
Empty Sand cone 4.58

Sand cone + Sand (before) 8.121

Sand cone + Sand (after) 5.953

Sand Used 2.168

Hole Tray 0.458

Hole Tray + Soil 2.414

Soil 1.956

16
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

CALCULATIONS
Height of cylinder = 15cm
Diameter of cylinder =9.8cm
Volume of cylinder

d 2
 h
4
 (9.8) 2
  15
4
 1131.44cm3
 1.131 10 3 m 3

Dry soil = (Mass of dry soil+Moisture can)-(Moisture can)

=27g - 19g
=8g

m
Bulk density,  
v
1.956
3
= 1.13110

 1729.44kg / m3

Bulk unit weight,     g

 1729.44  9.81
 16965.80kN / m3

MoistureLoss
Moisture content, w  100
DrySoil

1
 100%
8
 12.5%

17
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)


Dry density,  d  Dry unit weight,  d  d  g
1 w
1729.44
  1537.28  9.81
1  0.125
 15080.72kN / m3
 1537.28kg / m3

DISCUSSION

Graph of Dry Unit Weight Against Average Moisture Content

Dry Unit Weight, 𝛾d ( kN/m3)

Average water content (wavg)%

Graph 1.0 Compaction curve for the soil

From the graph,

Maximum γd = 24.1 kN/m2

Optimum moisture content= 27%

18
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

Graph of Dry Unit Weight Against Average Moisture Content

23
22.9
22.8
Dry Unit Weight, 𝛾d, kN/m3

22.7
22.6
22.5
ZAVL,S=100%
22.4
S=75%
22.3
S=50%
22.2
22.1
22
25 27 29 31 33
Average water content (𝑤avg)%

Graph 2.0 Compaction curve with 100%, 75% and 50% air void line

From the experiment conducted in soil compaction, the value of maximum dry unit weight
and optimum moisture content can be obtained. Theoretically, increasing water content will
increase the dry unit weight to certain limit called Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).
However, after this limit increasing moisture content will decrease the dry unit weight.
Moisture content acts as the driving force in controlling the dry unit density such that if water
is added to a soil at low moisture content, it becomes easier for the particles to move past one
another during the application of the compacting forces.

As the soil compacts the voids are reduced and this causes the dry unit weight to increase.
Initially, as the moisture content increases so does the dry unit weight as what can be seen in
Graph 1.0 where the dry unit weight increase when the water content from 25.20% to 26.85%.
This is due to the addition of the water, the soil particles will slip more on each other causing
more reduction in the total of volume, which will result in adding more soil, hence the dry unit
weight is increases accordingly. However, the increase cannot occur indefinitely because the
soil state approaches OMC which indicates that the voids are filled with water and prohibits
the solids to compact with each other as what can be seen in Graph 1.0 where the dry unit
weight start to decrease when the water content from 26.85% to 31.7%. Thus, from the graph

19
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

we could infer that the highest compaction of soil possible which is the maximum dry unit
weight is 24.1kN/m3 at the optimum moisture content of 27%.

There are some error that might occur while conducting this experiment. Firstly, is the
volume of water taken might not be accurate where it can be more or lesser than the volume
needed. This is due to parallax error. Parallax error is the shift in apparent position of an object
due to different viewing position. Therefore, eyes must be perpendicular to the scale to avoid
parallax error. Besides, the success of this experiment depends on thorough mixing of soil and
water. Sufficient time should be allowed, after mixing soil and water, for permeation and
distribution of moisture throughout the voids of the wet soil before compaction of soil in each
trial in order to remove the bubbles and also the lump of the soil. Lastly, the inside surface of
the mold and collar and also the inside surface of the rammer tube should be kept clean before
each trial or silicon grease may be smeared to the surface of the mold to facilitate removal of
compacted soil at the end of each trail.

As for the sand cone replacement test, the dry density and dry unit weight of the soil
sample can be obtained. The dry density of the compacted soil or pavement material is a
common measure of the amount of the compaction achieved during the construction. Knowing
the field density and field moisture content, the dry density is calculated. Therefore field
density test is importance as a field control test for the compaction of soil or any other pavement
layer. There are several methods for the determination of field density of soils such as core
cutter method, sand replacement method, rubber balloon method, heavy oil method and more.
Out of the common methods of determining field density of fine-grained soils is core cutter
method; but this method has a major limitation in the case of soils containing coarse-grained
particles such as gravel, stones and aggregrates. Under such circumstances, field density test
by sand replacement method is advantageous, as the presence of coarse-grained particles is
given by the weight of the excavated material divided by the in-situ volume.

The test was divided by two parts which are calibration for dry density of sand and dry
density of soil for field test. For the first test, it was conducted in the geotechnical laboratory
and repeated for 3 times to get the average value of the dry density of the sand. Next is to obtain
the dry density of soil for field test. The field test was conducted at the field behind the
Chemical Department building. In order to avoid some errors, the soil sample was taken at a

20
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

flat surface. The value of the dry density and dry unit weight of the soil obtained from the field
test is 2276.81 kg/m3 and 22.335 kN/m3 respectively. The moisture content obtained is 26.09%.

There are some precaution need to be taken in order to minimize the error. Firstly, sand
used for the calibration test should be dry because a dry sand gives a smooth movement.
Secondly, the excavated soil should be collected as the whole in order to get the accurate value
of the dry density and also dry unit weight of the soil. Next is the sample collected for
determination of moisture content should be brought quickly to the laboratory in order to
prevent water loss from the soil taken by evaporation.

21
 CT(QM)-FE-S(i)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
KNS 2591 Civil Engineering Laboratory 3
Laboratory (Civil Engineering)

CONCLUSION

Objective of the experiment is achieved which is by constructing the compaction curve,

the maximum dry density and optimum water content for the soil sample can be determined.
After performing the experiment, it has been concluded that the maximum dry unit weight of
24.1kN/m3 can be achieved using 27% moisture content and a standard effort 594 kJ/m 3. The
values obtained can be a great use in construction using a test sample if maximum compaction
is wanted in order to support the maximum load possible.

There was no way in order to compute the error of the experiment and thus it is
recommended to perform the experiment more than once in order to provide more precise and
accurate data.

REFERENCES

Backus, B. (n.d.). Proctor compaction test: A basic guide. Retrieved from

https://www.globalgilson.com/blog/proctor-compaction-test-a-basic-guide

Geotechdata.info. (2016, October 4) Proctor Compaction Test Retrieved from

http://www.geotechdata.info/geotest/proctor-compaction-test.html

Patel, A. (2019). Geotechnical investigations and improvement of ground conditions. :

Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishing. Retrieved
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/sand-replacement

VertekCPT. (2014, June 19). An introduction to soil compaction testing. Retrieved from
http://www.vertekcpt.com/blog/soil-compaction-test-intro#.Xc9DX1czZPY

22