TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENT PAGE
Title 2
Introduction 3
Objective 5
Apparatus & Procedure 6
Result & Calculation 13
Discussion 31
Conclusion 34
Reference 35

1
TITLE: L2- SOIL COMPACTION

2
INTRODUCTION:

Compaction is a process of increasing the soil density by removing air voids,

usually by mechanical means. Soils must be compacted before construction to
improve the strength of the foundation of the buildings. This is proved to be important
in high rise building that needs stable foundation especially for earthquake prevention.

Figure 1: Apparatus of standard proctor thest

The main use of standard proctor test is to evaluate the value of compaction for
the soil sample at the site. The soil behaviour is investigated based on the relationship
the less amount of air voids in the soil, then the soil is more compacted. The value
that need to be obtain from this test is unit weight, moisture content, and
density[ CITATION Wee18 \l 17417 ]. This test applied in the construction site to evaluate
the condition of soil before foundation of building is build and for cost estimation.
When the density and moisture content is obtained from the sample, engineers will
know how many more efforts we need to compact the soil. The formula for
calculating;

3
 M

1. Bulk density, V


d 
2. Dry unit density, 1 w

W

3. Bulk unit weight, V

wGS
S  100
GS W
(  1)
4. Degree of Saturation, d

GS  W
d 
wGS
1
5. Dry unit Weight, S

Figure 2: Apparatus for sand replacement method

As for Sand Cone Replacement Method, the experiment is used to determine the
field density of soil from which the sample is taken. There are a lot of method to
obtain the field density, but this method is used because of the coarse-grained
particles to the results. The field density is obtained by dividing the weight of
excavated soil by the volume[ CITATION Glo18 \l 17417 ].

4
OBJECTIVE:

 To determine maximum dry density and optimum water content for the
selected soil sample.

5
APPARATUS & MATERIALS:

1. Compaction rammer
2. Proctor mould + extension collar
3. Measuring cylinder
4. Scoop
5. Moisture container
6. Steel straightedge
7. No. 4 sieve (425 m)
8. Aluminum foil container
9. Electronic balance
10. Vernier caliper
11. Ruler
12. 5 kg of collected soil

Figure 3: Compaction rammer

6
 Figure 4: Scoop

Figure 5: Proctor mould + extension collar

Figure 6: No. 4 sieve (425 m)

7
 Figure 7: Moisture container

Figure 8: Steel straightedge

8
In-situ Density: Sand Cone Replacement Method [Field Work]

1. Hole template
2. Sand cone
3. Sand

Figure 9: Sand cone

Figure 10: Hole template on the top of the surface of the soil

9
PROCEDURE:

1. 5 kg of collected soil that passed through the No. 4 sieve (425m) was taken
as a sample.
2. About 350 ml of water which 7% from 5 kg of collected soil was added into
the soil sample and been mixed well.
3. The height and diameter of proctor mould was measured by using a ruler. The
empty proctor mould has been weighed by using electronic balance. All data
were recorded in the table.
4. Extension collar was attached to the mould and been placed on a solid base.
5. Three scoops of well mixed soil sample have been poured into the mould and
compacted with 25 blows of rammer for the first two layer.
6. After that, two scoops of well mixed sample have been poured into the mould
and been compacted with 25 blows of rammer for the third layer.
7. The moist soil was poured into the proctor mould and been divided into three
layers. Each layer of soil was compacted by using a rammer with 25 blows per
layer before each additional layer of soil was poured.
8. Top of the mould was carefully strike by using steel straightedge. The last
compacted layer must be higher than the collar joint before the top of the
mould been strike by the straightedge.
9. The mould with the compacted soil sample has been weighed and recorded.
10. Three moisture containers have been weighed and all the data were recorded.
11. The soil sample from the top, bottom and the middle layer were taken and
have been placed into three aluminum foil containers and have been weighed.
12. The moisture containers were placed into the oven for 24 hours to allow the
moisture in the soil to dry.
13. Another 100 ml of water was added into the sample and been mixed. These
steps were repeated for at least eight times.
14. After 24 hours, the dry samples were removed from the oven and have been
weighed and recorded.
15. The bulk density, dry density and air void were calculated by using the
formula below.

10
 m 2−m1
o Bulk density, ρ=
v
100
o Dry density, ρd = ( 100+ w)
×ρ

o Dry density (Air void), ρd =

(1− 100a
)
1 w
( +
ρs 100 ρ w )
 In-situ Density: Sand Cone Replacement Method [Laboratory Work]

1. The height and diameter of the cone were measured to determine the volume
of calibrating container.
2. The sand was filled into the sand pouring cylinder.
3. Empty hole template and the filled sand pouring cylinder have been weighed
by using electronic weighing balance.
4. The hole template was placed on a cone and the filled sand pouring cylinder
has been placed on the hole template that is located above the cone.
5. The sand from the sand pouring cylinder was poured into the calibrating
container by opening the shutter. The shutter was kept open until the
calibrating container was fully filled with the sand which there is invisible
movements of the sand that could be observed.
6. The sand pouring cylinder with the remaining sand has been weighed after the
shutter been closed. The sand on the hole template was been split to side using
ruler and been weighed.
7. The step 2 until step 6 were repeated for two times to obtain an average result.
The volume and mass of the sand in the cone were required to obtain the
density of the sand been used.

 In-situ Density: Sand Cone Replacement Method [Field Work]

11
1. A smooth and a flat area outside the laboratory was cleaned for hole template
by removing the small pebbles.
2. The hole template was placed on the top of the surface and the inner template
ring was adjusted until there is no visible void in contact with the ground.
3. A hole was excavated, and all the removed soil were collected into the hole
template.
4. The sand cone was placed on the inner ring of the template with the shutter
closed. The shutter then been opened to allow the sand to fall into the hole and
to fill the hole. When the sand ceased to pour, the shutter was closed, and the
sand cone was lifted off.
5. The apparatus was brought back into the laboratory to carry out further
analysis.

 In-situ Density: Sand Cone Replacement Method [Immediate Laboratory

Work]

1. The hole template was filled with the soil excavated has been weighed
immediately to get an accurate result and to prevent the further loss of
moisture content.
2. A small portion of soil excavated was poured into the dish and been weighed.
Then, it was placed into the oven for oven-drying.
3. The partially filled pouring cylinder has been weighed and its mass been
recorded.

 In-situ Density: Sand Cone Replacement Method [Later Laboratory

Work]

1. The sample from the soil excavated has been left inside the oven about 24
hours.
2. Dry mass of the soil was determined by weighing the oven-dry specimen.

12
 3. The moisture content, bulk unit weight and dry unit weight of the sample have
been computed.

RESULTS:
Table 1.0 Density and Unit Weight of the sample

Test No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Water added, 350 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Vw (ml)
Mould + Soil, 6152 6157 6198 6240 6319 6331 6328 6280
m1 (g)
Mould + 4381 4381 4381 4381 4381 4381 4381 4381
Base, m2 (g)
Compacted 1771 1776 1817 1859 1938 1950 1947 1899
soil, m3 (g)
Mould 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899
Volume, Vm
(cm3)
Bulk Density, 1793 1798 1839 1882 1962 1974 1971 1922


(kg/m3)
Dry Density, 1608 1600 1594 1622 1653 1621 1601 1524
d

(kg/m3)
Bulk Unit 17.589 17.638 18.041 18.462 19.247 19.365 19.336 18.855
Weight, 

(kN/m3)
Dry Unit 15.774 15.696 15.637 15.912 16.216 15.902 15.706 14.950

Weight, d

13
(kN/m3)

Table 2.0 Moisture content of the sample

Test No 1 2 3
Container No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wet Soil+ 71 157 100 95 163 134 102 176 125
Container, m4
(g)
Dry Soil + 67 145 94 89 148 123 93 157 113
Container, m5
(g)
Container, m6 37 37 34 35 34 37 34 35 35
(g)
Moisture Loss, 4 12 6 6 15 11 9 19 12
m7 (g)
Dry Soil, m8 30 108 60 54 114 86 59 122 78
(g)
Moisture 13.33 11.11 10.00 11.11 13.16 12.79 15.25 15.57 15.38
Content, w
(%)
Average
Moisture
11.48 12.35 15.40
Content, wavg
(%)

14
Test No 4 5 6
Container No 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Wet Soil+ 77 81 97 80 96 98 104 99 96
Container, m4
(g)
Dry Soil + 70 74 88 72 86 86 93 86 84
Container, m5
(g)
Container, m6 29 29 30 29 29 26 45 23 29
(g)
Moisture Loss, 7 7 9 8 10 12 11 13 12
m7 (g)
Dry Soil, m8 41 45 58 43 57 60 48 63 55
(g)
Moisture 17.07 15.55 15.52 18.60 17.54 20.00 22.92 20.63 21.82
Content, w
(%)
Average
Moisture
16.05 18.71 21.79
Content, wavg
(%)

15
Test No 7 8
Container 19 20 21 22 23 24
No
Wet Soil+ 101 93 123 132 102 116
Container,
m4 (g)
Dry Soil + 87 81 109 110 86 98
Container,
m5 (g)
Container, 28 29 47 27 24 29
m6 (g)
Moisture 14 12 14 22 16 18
Loss, m7 (g)
Dry Soil, m8 59 52 62 83 62 69
(g)
Moisture 23.73 23.08 22.58 26.51 25.81 26.09
Content, w
(%)
Average
Moisture
23.13 26.14
Content,
wavg (%)

16
CALCULATIONS:

Diameter of mould = 10.46 cm

Height of mould = 11.50 cm

= r h
2
Volume of mould

2
 10.46 
   11 .50
=  2 

= 988 cm3

Calculation for test no 1

Compacted Soil = m1  m2

= 6152 - 4381

= 1771 g

m3
Bulk Density,  = v

1771
= 988

= 1.793 g/cm3

= 1793 kg/m3

Bulk Unit Weight,  =   g

= 1793 × 9.81

= 17589 N/m3

= 17.589 kN/m3

17
 m4  m5
 100%
Moisture content, w = m5  m6

71  67
100%
w1 = 67  37

= 13.33%

157  145
100%
w2 = 145  37

= 11.11%

100  94
 100%
w3 = 94  34

= 10.00%

w1  w2  w3
wavg 3
=

13.33  11 .11  10.00

= 3

= 11.48%


Dry Density,  d = 1 w

1793
= 1  0.1148

= 1608 kg/m3

Dry Unit Weight,  d =  d  g

= 1608 × 9.81

= 15.774 kN/m3

18
Calculation for test no 2

Compacted Soil = m1  m2

= 6157 - 4381

= 1776 g

m3
Bulk Density,  = v

1776
= 988

= 1.798 g/cm3

= 1798 kg/m3

Bulk Unit Weight,  =   g

= 1798 × 9.81

= 17638N/m3

= 17.638 kN/m3

m4  m5
 100%
Moisture content, w = m5  m6

19
 95  89
 100%
w1 = 89  35

= 11.11%

163  148
 100%
w2 = 148  34

= 13.16%

134  123
 100%
w3 = 123  37

= 12.79%

w1  w2  w3
wavg 3
=

11 .11  13.16  12.79

= 3

= 12.35%


Dry Density,  d = 1 w

1798
= 1  0.1235

= 1600 kg/m3

Dry Unit Weight,  d =  d  g

= 1600 × 9.81

= 15.696 kN/m3

20
 For test no 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the calculation is the same as test no 1 and 2

21
By using data from Table 1.0 and Table 2.0, a smooth compaction curve is being
plotted.

Graph of Dry unit weight against Average Moisture content

16.40

16.22
16.20

16.00
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m³)

15.91 15.90

15.80
15.71
15.64

15.60

15.40

15.20

15.00
14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00

Average Moisture Content (%)

Graph 1.0 Compaction Curve for the soil

The degree of saturation at maximum dry unit weight can be calculated by using
formula

Gs  w
d 
wGs
1
S

wGs
S 100
Gs  w
1
d

0.187  2.67
S 100
2.67  9.81
1
16.22

S = 81.21%

22
Where Gs = 2.67 and w = 9.81 kN/m3

23
To plot smooth compaction curve 0, 5 and 10% air voids, this formula is used and the
result obtained is recorded in Table 3.0 and Graph 2.0.

Gs  w
d 
wGs
1
S

Table 3.0 Dry unit weight to construct Zero Air Void Line (ZAVL), 5% and 10% air
void line

Average 11.48 12.35 15.40 16.05 18.71 21.79 23.13 26.14

Moisture
Content, w
(%)
Dry Unit 15.774 15.696 15.637 15.912 16.216 15.902 15.706 14.950
Weight,  w
(kN/m3)
 d for ZAVL, 20.048 19.698 18.561 18.335 17.467 16.559 16.195 15.426
S = 100%
(kN/m3)
 d for ZAVL, 19.803 19.444 18.281 18.050 17.166 16.244 15.876 15.100
S = 95%
(kN/m3)
 d for ZAVL, 19.538 19.169 17.979 17.744 16.843 15.909 15.536 14.752
S = 90%
(kN/m3)

Calculation for  d for ZAVL, S = 100% when average moisture content,w is 11.48

(2.67)  (9.81)
d 
0.1148 (2.67)
1
100

= 20.048 kN/m3

24
Calculation for  d for ZAVL, S = 95% when average moisture content,w is 11.48

(2.67)  (9.81)
d 
0.1148 (2.67)
1
95

= 19.803 kN/m3

Calculation for  d for ZAVL, S = 90% when average moisture content,w is 11.48

(2.67)  (9.81)
d 
0.1148 (2.67)
1
90

= 19.538 kN/m3

Calculation for  d for ZAVL, S = 100% when average moisture content,w is 12.35

(2.67)  (9.81)
d 
0.1235(2.67)
1
100

= 19.698 kN/m3

Calculation for  d for ZAVL, S = 95% when average moisture content,w is 12.35

(2.67)  (9.81)
d 
0.1235(2.67)
1
95

= 19.444 kN/m3

Calculation for  d for ZAVL, S = 90% when average moisture content,w is 12.35

(2.67)  (9.81)
d 
0.1235(2.67)
1
90

25
= 19.169 kN/m3

 For average moisture content of 15.40, 16.05, 18.71, 21.79, 23.13 and 26.14, the
calculation is the same as average moisture content of 11.48 and 12.35.

A smooth compaction curve with 0, 5 and 10% air void line is drawn and is shown in
Graph 2.0.

21
Graph of dry unit weight against moisture content

20
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m³)

19

ZAVL
18 S=95%
S=90%
Compaction Curve
17

16

15

14
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Average Moisture Content (%)

26
Graph 2.0 Smooth compaction curve with 0, 5 and 10% air void line

27
Diameter of mould = 10.0 cm

Height of mould = 14.4 cm

Empty Mould = 2592.0 g

Mass of moisture can = 29.0 g

Mass of wet soil + moisture can = 82.0 g

Mass of dry soil + moisture can = 69.0 g

Moisture loss = 13.0 g

Table 4.0 Results from Laboratory Test

Trial No Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Empty Cylinder 4581 4581 4581
Cone, (g)
Cylinder Cone + 8106 7565 7153
Sand (g)
Cylinder Cone 6068 5528 5111
After Use (g)
Sand Used (g) 2038 2037 2042
Hole Tray (g) 1011 1011 1011
Hole Tray + Sand 1434 1422 1441
(g)
Sand (g) 423 411 430

Average sand cone weight 421

28
 Table 5.0 Results from Field Test

Trial No Trial 1
Empty Cylinder Cone, (g) 4581
Cylinder Cone + Sand (g) 7771
Cylinder Cone After Use (g) 5964
Sand Used (g) 1807
Hole Tray (g) 1011
Hole Tray + Soil (g) 2763
Soil (g) 1752

= r h
2
Volume of mould

2
 10.46 
   11 .50
=  2 

= 1131 cm3

Calculation for Field Tes

Dry Soil = (Mass of dry soil + moisture can) - (Mass of moisture can)

= 69 - 29

= 40 g

m
Bulk Density,  = v

1752
= 1131

= 1.549 g/cm3

29
 = 1549 kg/m3

Bulk Unit Weight,  =   g

= 1549 × 9.81

= 15196 N/m3

= 15.196 kN/m3

MoistureLo ss
100
Moisture content, w = DrySoil

13
100
= 40

= 32.50%


Dry Density,  d = 1 w

1549
= 1  0.3250

= 1169 kg/m3

Dry Unit Weight,  d =  d  g

= 1169 × 9.81

= 11.468 kN/m3

wGs
100
G s w
1
Degree of saturation, S=
d

30
 0.325  2.67
S 100
2.67  9.81
1
11 .468

S = 67.58%

31
DISCUSSION:

In this experiment, we have been conducting soil compaction test. Compaction is

the process of removing air from the soil by applying mechanical energy to increase
the dry density of soil. Soil compaction is very important to increase the durability
and stability of a structure especially in roads construction, embankments, airfields
and also foundations. The factors that affects the degree of compaction of soil are the
moisture content, compaction effort and the type of soil.

Based on the result and the calculation that we have obtained above, the
highest value of the dry unit weight that we get from this experiment is 16.126 kN/m³
with the average moisture content of 18.71%. The dry density is 1608 kg/m³ with the
average moisture content of 11.48% for the first set of the experiment while the dry
density and average moisture content for the final set of the experiment is 1524 kg/m³
and 26.14% respectively. The degree of compaction of soil is indicated and measured
in terms of its dry density. For a given compaction energy, every soil will obtain the
maximum dry density at a particular water content which is known as optimum
moisture content (OMC) (Reddy & Sastri, 2002).

Graph of Dry unit weight against Average Moisture content

16.40
16.22
Dry Unit Weight, ϒd (kN/m³)

16.20

16.00 15.91 15.90

15.80 15.71
15.64
15.60

15.40

15.20

15.00
14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00

Average Moisture Content, wavg(%)

Graph 1: Compaction curve for the soil

After the dry unit weight and average moisture content is calculated for all sets
of experiment, a compaction curve was constructed as shown in Graph 1. The
maximum dry unit weight obtained is 16.22 kN/m³ with the optimum moisture

32
content of 18.70 %. The degree of saturation at the maximum dry unit weight of the
soil sample is 81.21%. By conducting the standard compaction test, we can relate the
lubrication theory with the moisture content and dry unit weight relationship. When
the moisture content in soil is lower, the soil will be stiff and it produce higher
resistance to compaction. Therefore, higher moisture content in soil will cause the
particles to become larger and increase greater water film around it which then
lubricate the particles causing the dry unit weight to become higher and lower the air
voids. As the dry unit weight continues increasing, the lubrication effect is at the
maximum point where the optimum moisture content has reached. When further
moisture content is increase, the water will start to replace the soil particles causing
the dry unit weight to decrease (Ranjan & Rao, 2005). We can conclude that the soil
achieves its densest state when the moisture content is 18.70%.

Graph of Dry unit weight against Average moisture content

21
Dry Unit Weight, ϒd (kN/m³)

20
ZAVL
19
S=95%
18 S=90%
17 Compaction
Curve
16

15

14
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Average Moisture Content, wavg (%)

Graph 2: Smooth compaction curve with 0, 5 and 10% air void line

Based on Graph 2 above, the Zero Air Void Line (ZAVL) is obtained by
substituting S = 100% in the equation as below:

γ Gs γ
d= w

w Gs
1+
S

Zero Air Void Line (ZAVL) exist when the soil is fully saturated where air is
no longer present in the pores of the soil. The degree of saturation becomes 100%.
Hence, there is no intersection between the compaction curve and the Zero Air Void

33
Line (ZAVL). Apart from that, we have also conducted the sand cone replacement
test which is the laboratory test and also field test. The average sand cone weight for 3
trials that we have obtained is 421g for the laboratory test. For the field test that we
have conducted, we are required to put the soil sample that has been excavated in the
oven for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the dry unit weight and moisture content obtained
is 11.468 kN/m³ and 32.50% respectively. Therefore, the degree of saturation for the
dry unit weight obtained from the field test soil sample is 67.58%.

There are several errors that occurs which can affect the accuracy of the result
and precaution steps to improve the accuracy. First of all, the compaction rammer
should be raised to its maximum height to achieve its maximum effort so that the soil
can be compacted uniformly over the surface for every layer of the soil. Then, water
should be mix evenly with the soil because improper mixing of water with the soil can
affect the moisture content results. During the field test for the sand cone replacement
test, we must ensure the volume of the excavated hole is equal to the volume of the
calibrating container. Last but not least, we should use the hand gloves, mask and
safety boot especially when dealing with the compaction rammer to avoid any
accident during the experiment.

34
CONCLUSION:

In this experiment, standard proctor test and sand-cone replacement method was used
to determine the maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content for the poorly
graded soil (SP). Result from standard proctor test and sand-cone replacement method
obtained is compared to get the relative density of compacted test. (An introduction to
soil compaction testing, 2014). For the standard proctor test, the maximum dry unit
weight is 16.22 kN/m3 at the optimum water content of 18.70% which were obtained
from Graph 1.0 mean while for sand-cone replacement method, the maximum dry unit
weight obtained is 11.468kN/m3 at the optimum water content of 32.50%. The dry
density for the standard proctor test is 1608 kg/m³ with the average moisture content
of 11.48% for the first set of the experiment while the dry density and average
moisture content for the final set of the experiment is 1524 kg/m³ and 26.14%
respectively meanwhile for sand-cone replacement method, the dry density and
average moisture content obtained is 1169 kg/m³ and 32.50% respectively. The degree
of saturation at the maximum dry unit weight of the soil sample for standard proctor
test is 81.21% while for sand cone replacement method is 67.58%. From Graph 2.0,
there are no intersection point between the experiment compaction curve and the zero-
air void line (ZAVL). When the degree of saturation decreases, the dry unit weight
will decrease too.

35
REFERENCES:

Das, B. M., & Sobhan, K. (2018). Principles of geotechnical engineering. Boston,

USA: Nelson Education Ltd.

GlobalGilson.com. (2018, October 24). Proctor Compaction Test: A Basic Guide.

Retrieved from Gilson Company, Inc.: https://www.globalgilson.com/proctor-
compaction-test-a-basic-guide

Ranjan, G., & Rao, A. S. R. (2005). Basic and applied soil mechanics. New Delhi,
India: New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers.

Reddy, E. S., & Sastri, K. R. (2002). Measurement of engineering properties of soils.

New Delhi, India: New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers.

Weebly. (2018, October 24). Compaction Test - Proctor Test. Retrieved from Civil
Engineering Notes: http://civilengineering-notes.weebly.com/compaction-
test---proctor-test.html

36