Vol of

Water Compaction Mold + Soil Empty Tin Tin + Moist Tin+Dry

Group #
added Mold (kg) (Kg) (g) soil (g) soil (g)
(mL)
13.8 49.4 47.16
1 200 2.0761 3.827 13.78 60.04 57.29
14.02 46.1 44.03
13.94 20.59 20.08
2 240 1.8471 3.7696 13.98 23.34 25.57
13.97 23.53 22.76
13.9 53.62 49.57
3 280 1.9871 13.81 49.35 46.06
14.17 50.64 47.14
13.79 39.84 37.08
4 320 2.0493 4.0898 13.9 49.72 45.86
13.88 42.35 39.35
Table 1. Data used through the calculations, the value 25.57 of dry soil was not considered because
is greater than the moist soil.
M w M i −M f
ω (%)= = ×100 % (Eq.1)
M s M f −M c

● M w = Mass of Water = M i−M f (g)

● M s= Mass of dry Sample = M f −M c(g)
● M i= Mass of container + moist sample (g)
● M f = Mass of container + dry sample (g)
● M c= Mass of empty container (g)

For example for the group #1 using Eq.1: M c =13.8 g

M i=49.4 g

M f =47.6

49.4−47.6
ω ( % )= × 100 %=6.71%
47.6−13.8
Then we average the three results using the next relation:

( ωtop + ωmiddle + ωbottom )

ω avg= (Eq.2)
3
For example, for the group #1 using Eq.2:

(6.71+6.32+6.90)
ω avg= =6.64 %
3
The data for ω avg of the samples is summarized in the table 2.
For determining the γ wet and γ dry :

( M t −M m )∗g
γ wet = (Eq.3)
V mold
γ wet
γ dry = (Eq.4)
(1+ω avg)
Where:

M t is the mass of the compaction mold and compacted soil (kg).

M mis the mass of the compaction mold (kg).

g=9.81 m/ s2
V mold is the total volume of the compaction mold (V mold =0.00094 m3 )

γ dry is the dry unit weight of the soil (kN /m3 ¿ ¿

γ wet is the wet (or moist) unit weight of the soil ¿ ¿

ω avg is the average water content of the sample taken from the top, middle, and bottom ¿ ¿of the
compaction mold along its height.

For example for the group 1, ω avg=6.32 %, M t =3.827 kg, M m=2.0761 kg , using Eq.3 and Eq.4.

( 3.827−2.0761 ) 9.81
γ wet = =18.25 KN / m3
0.00094
18.25
γ dry = =17.12 KN /m3
(1+0.0632)
For determining γ zav and e :

y w ∗G s
y zav= (Eq.5)
1+(ωavg∗G s)

G s∗y w
e= ( y dry)−1 (Eq.6)

Where:

y zav is the unit weight for the zero air void (ZAV) curve.

y ω is the unit weight of water.

e is the void ratio

For example for ω avg=6.32 , y dry=17.12 KN /m3∧Gs=2.71(Value from the first laboratory),
using Eq.5 and Eq.6:
 9.81∗2.71
y zav= =22.53 KN /m3
1+(0.0632∗2.71)

e= ( 2.71∗9.81
17.12 )
−1=¿0.55

The values of ω avg , y dry , y wet , y zav ,∧e are summarized in the table 3.

Results.
Using Eq. 1 and Eq.2:

Empty Tin + Tin+Dry Water Soil Moisture Average

Group #
Tin (g) Moist (g) (g) Content weight Content Moisture
13.8 49.4 47.16 2.24 33.36 6.71%
1 13.78 60.04 57.29 2.75 43.51 6.32% 6.64%
14.02 46.1 44.03 2.07 30.01 6.90%
13.94 20.59 20.08 0.51 6.14 8.31%
2 8.53%
13.97 23.53 22.76 0.77 8.79 8.76%
13.9 53.62 49.57 4.05 35.67 11.35%
3 13.81 49.35 46.06 3.29 32.25 10.20% 10.72%
14.17 50.64 47.14 3.5 32.97 10.62%
13.79 39.84 37.08 2.76 23.29 11.85%
4 13.9 49.72 45.86 3.86 31.96 12.08% 11.90%
13.88 42.35 39.35 3 25.47 11.78%
Table 2. Average Moisture of the samples

Compactio Soil Soil Volume Ywet Average Ydry Yzav

Grou Mold +
n Mold mass(Kg Weight Mold (kN/m3 Moistur (kN/m3 e (kN/m3
p# Soil (Kg)
(Kg) ) (N) (m3) ) e ) )
0.5
1 2.0761 3.827 1.7509 0.00094 6.64% 22.53
17.16 18.254 17.12 5
0.4
2 1.8471 3.7696 1.9225 0.00094 21.59
18.84 20.043 8.53% 18.47 4
0.4
3 0.00094 20.60
  1.9871 19.47 20.717 10.72% 18.71 2
0.4
4 2.0493 4.034 1.9847 0.00094 20.10
19.45 20.692 11.90% 18.49 4
Table 3. values of ω avg , y dry , y wet , y zav ,∧e of the samples.
 Standar Proctor Compaction
23.00

22.00

21.00

Ydry
Ydry (KN/m3)

opt
20.00 wop
Yzav
Ydry(95%)
wopt

19.00

18.00

17.00
5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13%

Moisture Content

Fig.1 Compaction Curve for the soil tested

Compaction Curve Values

Yopt (kN/m3) 18.72
Wopt 10.6
Yopt-95% (kN/m3) 17.784
Wopt-95% 7.48
 Table 4. Compaction curve values

Using LL
=31.11 and PL=23.63 from our last laboratory, and according to this figure, our theoretical
optimum moisture content should be between 15 and 16%. However, we determine aω opt = 10.6%.
It could be because the compaction not only depend on the Liquid Limit or the Plastic Limit, other
factors must be assessed, such as the G.S, the grain size distribution, and the type and content of
clays.

According to this graph, our soil may correlate with the sandy silt compaction curve with theoretical
γ opt between 18.5 and 18.8 kN/m3 and ω opt between 11.5 – 12.5. The values determined in the
laboratory for the sample is γ opt =18.72 and ω opt =10.6%. However, there is no correlation between
the type of soil in the graph and the one determined in the last laboratory. According to this graph,
the sample should be a sandy silt, but, the name for the soil sample in the last laboratory was poorly
graded sand. It could be due to several factors such as, the poorly graded sand in the graph may
have low values of the Uniformity coefficient, and for our sample was 3.916.

The sample
could correlate with the bell shaped curve which has theoretical values of LL between 30 and 70,
and the value of LL for the sample determined in the last laboratory was 31.11.

Conclusion
The optimum unit dry weight for the soil is 18.72kN/m3, and the optimum moisture is 10.6%. The
shape of the compaction curve is more close to a bell shaped which has liquid limit between 30 and
70 (Das, 2018), and according to our data lab the liquid limit for the sample is 31.1. The zero air
void curve is above the compaction curve, which means that our analysis of compaction is correct
and also the value of G.S used from the first lab (G. S=2.71). There is one value of dry mass of soil
which is greater than the moist mass of soil, this value was neglected in the analysis for the
moisture content. According to the figure 6.4 from the book, the theoretical value of optimum
moisture for LL=31.1 and PL=23.3 (values from the last laboratory) should be between 15% and
16%, however our optimum moisture value is 10.6, it could be due to several factors that control the
compaction such as the G.S, type and content of clays, etc. The optimum unit dry weight at 95% is
17.784kN/m3 and the optimum moisture content at this point is 7.48%, it means that in a field
compaction work, the contractor must get points of unit dry weight between 17.784 and
18.72kN/m3 and with moisture contents between 7.48 and 10.6%. The compaction curve was
determined with 4 proctor standard test, however for a complete analysis is recommended using 6
points.