Department of Civil Engineering

Soil Mechanics Laboratory

CIVE 366: Compaction Laboratory Exercise

Problem Statement:
Mr. Glenn Mann, a consulting engineer in Redmond, needs some Proctor compaction tests
conducted on samples of Vashon till taken from the site of a new housing development near
Woodinville. The till will be excavated on site and it is proposed to use it for fill in low-lying
areas of the site to provide foundations for 1- and 2-storey townhouses and for roadway and
parking lot subgrades. In order to design the foundations and roadways, Mr. Mann needs the
results of the Proctor compaction tests on the till. He has engaged your laboratory testing firm
to perform the tests for him, and would appreciate any comments on the suitability of this soil as
a compacted fill for the purposes described above.

Report:
Write a letter-report to Mr. Glenn Mann, P.E., Creative Engineering Options, Inc., 5418 159 th Place NE,

Redmond, WA 98052, and present your Proctor test results. Your letter should include, either in the letter

itself or the appendices: the purpose, test results, visual classification, test procedures, remarks and

comments on the validity of the results. You should also comment on the suitability of the till to support

foundations of small buildings, roadways and parking areas.

University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

Laboratory Exercise 4: Compaction

References
§ ASTM D 698-91 “Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Standard Effort”.
§ ASTM D 1557-91 “Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Modified Effort”.
§ Lambe, T. W., "Soil Testing for Engineers", John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1951,
Chapter V.
§ Bowles, Joseph E,, "Engineering Properties of Soils and Their Measurement", McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., 1970 Chapter 9.
§ U. S. Army, Engineering and Design, "Laboratory Soils Testing". EM 1110-2-1906, 1965
Appendix VI.

Introduction

Many types of earth construction, such as dams retaining walls, highways, and airports, require
man-placed soil, or fill. To compact soil, that is, to place it in a dense state, is desirable for the
following reasons:
1. An increase in shear strength since this is a function of density (the other variables
are structure, internal angle of friction and cohesion).
2. An increase in swell potential.
3. An increase in density.
4. A decrease in shrinkage.
5. A decrease in permeability.
6. A decrease in compressibility.

Although the fundamentals of compaction are not completely understood, it is known that water
plays an important part, especially in the finer-grained soils. Soil particles adsorb a film of water
when water is added to a dry soil; upon the addition of more water, these films get thicker and
permit soil particles to slide over each other more easily. This process is often called
"lubrication." Since the thickness of a water film on a coarse particle is negligible in comparison
with the particle diameter, lubrication effects are limited to the fine-grained soils .

Because of lubrication, the addition of a small amount of water to a dry soil aids the compaction
process. Up to a certain point additional water replaces air from the soil voids, but, after a
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

relatively high degree of saturation is reached, the water occupies space which could be filled
with soil particles and the amount of entrapped air remains essentially constant. There is,
therefore, an optimum amount of mixing water for a given soil and compaction process which
will give a maximum weight of soil per volume.

The purpose of a laboratory compaction test is to determine the proper amount of mixing water
to use when compacting the soil in the field and the resulting degree of denseness which can be
expected from compaction at this optimum water content. To accomplish this purpose, a
laboratory test which will give a degree of compaction comparable to that obtained by the-field
method used is necessary. In the early days of compaction, because construction equipment
was relatively light and gave relatively low densities, a laboratory method that used a small
amount of compacting energy was required. As construction equipment and procedures were
developed which gave higher densities, it became necessary to increase the amount of
compacting energy in the laboratory test.

In 1933, Proctor published a series of four articles on soil compaction. In the second of this
series, he described a laboratory compaction test which is now called the "standard Proctor"
compaction test. Table 1, which gives a comparison of some of the common laboratory tests,
shows that the amount of compacting energy per volume used in the modified test is over four
and one-half times that of the original Proctor test.

The methods of compaction along with the field techniques and laboratory simulations are shown
in Table 2.

The critical question to be asked about any laboratory compaction test is, "How well does it
represent field compaction?" Figure 5.4 in Holtz & Kovacs (1981) shows a comparison for a
silty clay. For this soil, the laboratory tests indicate optimum mixing water contents which are
lower than the actual field optimum; this trend has been observed with most soils. Figure 5.4
also illustrates the difficulty of choosing the proper laboratory test to use for a given soil and field
compaction process.
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF SEVERAL COMPACTION TESTS

Test Mold Size Hammer No. of Ht. Of No. of Compactive
Wt. (lbs) Lifts Hammer Blows Energy per Unit
Drop (in.) per Volume (ft-lb/ft3)
Layer
Standard 4.6 x 4 in. dia. 5.5 3 12 25 12400
Proctor
Standard 5 x 6 in. dia. 5.5 3 12 55 12400
Proctor
Modified 4.6 x 4 in. dia. 10 5 18 25 56300
Proctor
Modified 5 x 6 in. dia. 10 5 18 55 56000
Proctor
15 Blow 4.6 x 4 in. dia. 5.5 3 12 15 7400
Proctor
15 Blow 5 x 6 in. dia. 5.5 3 12 35 7800
Proctor

TABLE 2: COMPACTION METHODS: FIELD TECHNIQUES AND LAB SIMULATIONS

Method Lab Simulation Field Technique
Impact Standard compaction test Nothing comparable
Kneading Harvard miniature apparatus; Sheepsfoot roller, wobble wheel;
Hveem method Rubber-tired roller
Vibration Vibratory table Vibratory rollers and compactors
Static (or dynamic) Compression machines Smooth wheel rollers
compression
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

Laboratory compaction tests are either dynamic or static; dynamic tests are used much more
than static ones. The results of the two types of tests are compared later in this chapter. None
of the commonly used laboratory tests lend themselves well to the study of the compaction
characteristics of clean sands or gravels. Although the regular laboratory methods are often
used for these soils, their densities are not as significant functions of water content as the
densities of the fine-grained soils, because of the negligible effects of lubrication on the coarse-
grained soils. There are laboratory compaction tests used on coarse-grained soils which employ
vibrations and which have gained wide acceptance at the present time.

From the list of soil properties affected by compaction, it can be seen that there is more to the
problem of specifying compaction than merely requiring compaction to increase the density. It is
also important to consider side effects, fortunately, this is not as serious as might be expected at
first in view of the method of stipulating compaction which is often used - X percent of standard
compaction, or the modified AASHTO methods. This comes about in specifying the type of soil
to be used; that is, limiting the type of soil to which compaction criteria are applied on a given
project to eliminate, for example, volume-change problems.

It is now recognized that the structure of the resulting soil mass (especially when fine-grained
soils are present) is intimately associated with the compaction process and the water content at
which the mass is compacted. This concept is extremely important for compacting the clay
cores of dams (as one example), where settlements could cause cracks in the core. It has been
found that the oriented soil structure obtained by compacting these soils on the wet side of
optimum results in a soil which has a somewhat lower shear strength but which can undergo
large deformations without (cracking) failure and the resulting large leakage and/or actual dam
failure. Compaction of the soil on the wet side of optimum also reduces the permeability, as
compared with compacting the soil on the dry side of optimum.

Conversely, the flocculated structure resulting from compacting a clayey soil on the dry side of
optimum is less susceptible to shrinkage but is more susceptible to swell. The strength of soils
with flocculated structures is higher than for oriented structures at low strains (deformations); at
large strains, it reduces and becomes about the same to less than the strength of the same soil
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

with a oriented structure. Thus, for highway work, where strains should be low beneath rigid
pavements, the soil would be compacted from dry of optimum to optimum. The external soil
(shell) surrounding the earth-dam core would also be compacted from optimum to dry of
optimum since strength is more important; the core would be compacted wet of optimum
because avoidance of settlement cracks is more important than strength in this zone.

From this discussion it can be seen that in some cases increased density results in decreased
strength, depending on the soil structure obtained and the strain value which can be tolerated or
to which the soil will be subjected.

Compaction criteria, then, should be based on a consideration of the soil structure desired as well
as on any other properties it is desired to impart to the soil rather than simply on obtaining a
characteristic compaction curve in the laboratory and requiring that the soil is compacted on the
site to form 90 to 105 percent of this density value - although, as pointed out earlier, in many
cases this does (and has) provided adequate soil performance.

The plot of dry density vs. water content indicates that the process of compaction at any given
effort (i.e., the standard test is a given effort, the modified test is a second compaction effort)
becomes more efficient up to a certain water content, termed optimum moisture; then the
efficiency decreases.

The soil mass involved in the laboratory compaction process starts as a three-phase system (soil,
air, and water). During the initial trials, one has a cylinder of soil with voids - some of the voids
are partially filled with water, and the remainder are filled with air. As more water is added, the
efficiency of the compaction process increases due to the lubrication effect of the water and the
breaking of interparticle bonds, the void spaces become smaller, and the amount of air in the
voids reduces (the degree of saturation increases) as water replaces the air in the voids. If the
process were completely efficient, it might be possible -to expel all the air from the voids, in
which case one could compute a dry density corresponding to a state of zero-air voids. Since it
is never possible to get all the air out of the voids (a condition of S = 100 percent), any
compaction curve wi11 always fall below the "ideal" or zero air-voids curve.
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

For any given water content w, the zero-air-voids dry density γzav is computed as:
γzav = (Gsγw)/(1 + wGs)
and it should be particularly noted that the locus of points of γzav vs. water content is not a
straight line but is slightly concave upward.

Equipment
SPECIAL:
§ Compaction device
(a) Mold 4.6 in. high, 4 in. diameter, 1/30 cu ft volume
(b) Removable mold collar 2.5 in. high, 4 in. diameter.
(c) Hammer 2 in. diameter face, 5.5 or 10 lb. weight (see Table 1), and means for
controlling its drop.
GENERAL:
§ Moisture sprayer
§ No. 4 sieve
§ Rubber-tipped pestle
§ Scoop
§ Straight edge and knife
§ Large mixing pan
§ Balances (0.01 lb. sensitivity and 0.01 g sensitivity)
§ Drying oven
§ Drying cans

Procedure
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
The amount of soil required for the standard compaction test varies with the kind and gradation
of the soil to be tested. For soils passing the No. 4 sieve that are to be tested in the 4.0-in. mold,
30 lb. soil is normally sufficient for the test. The soil to be tested shall be air-dried.
Aggregations present in the sample shall be thoroughly broken, but care should be taken that the
natural size of the individual particles is not reduced. The material shall then be screened
through a No. 4 sieve. Each group in the lab section will be expected to produce a complete
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

compaction curve. This means at least 5 compaction tests will need to be carried out per group.
Obviously, this will require the preparation of 5 soil samples at 5 different water contents.
1. Obtain an initial water content of the soil using the microwave.
2. Determine the mass of soil required for the first test. It is required that 2500g weight of
solids be used for the test. This does not mean 2500g of soil. The amount of soil to use will
depend upon the initial water content of the soil, and can be determined using phase
relations. Your instructor will cover this quick calculation during class.
3. Obtain the required mass of soil.
4. Calculate the amount of water to be added to your group’s soil sample in order to obtain the
required water content. Once again, this may be done using phase relations knowing the
initial and final water contents, and will be covered by the instructor.
5. Using the spray bottle, slowly add the necessary water to your soil sample while thoroughly
mixing it. You should attempt to obtain as even a distribution of water throughout the soil as
possible. Small pockets of extremely wet or dry material can severely affect compaction
test results.

TEST PROCEDURE:
1. Obtain the mass of the compaction mold and its base—do not include the collar, but leave
the wing nuts on (the reason will become apparent later)!
2. Use either the standard or the modifie d method, as specified by the instructor, and compact
a cylinder of soil. Be sure to scarify the sample between layers. When compacting, try not
to let the hammer hit the specimen more than once per drop. If you watch (and listen)
closely, you will discover that if simply dropped on the soil, the hammer will hit, bounce and
rebound on the soil. It sounds like it hits only twice, but it can actually rebound several
times. This increases the energy imparted to the specimen.
3. Carefully strike the top of the compacted cylinder of soil with a steel straight edge. Use a
slow sawing motion. Fill in any holes in the compacted specimen with soil if the smoothing
process removes any small pebbles.
Note: If the mold is not filled above the collar joint from the last compacted layer, do not
add soil to make up the deficiency: redo the test. You can avoid this unpleasant situation,
however, by carefully watching and, after about 10 blows on the last layer, if the soil is
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

below the collar joint, adding enough material to fill above the collar joint and then continuing
with the remainder of the blows. You should try not to have more than about ¼ in. of soil
above the collar joint on the other extreme. If you have much more than this amount of
excess and are not careful, you will remove the last layer of compacted soil cake when you
remove the collar. If you do this, redo the test since you can never replace the soil cake
properly. If the collar is hard to remove, do not risk twisting off the third (or last) layer of
soil; take a spatula and trim along the sides of the collar until it comes off easily. Remember
that you have an error multiplier of 30 in this project; therefore, an error of 15 g of soil is
about 1 pcf of compaction error - and 15 g of soil is not a very large quantity.
4. Weigh the mold, base, and cylinder of soil.
5. Extrude the cylinder of soil from the mold, split it, and take two water-content samples from
the center of the specimen: one near the top and the other near the bottom. Obtain as much
soil as the moisture cups will hold (about 100 g).
6. Repeat the above procedure at 5 different water contents. The instructor will provide
guidelines as to which water contents to use, but the actual decision rests with your group.
The goal is to produce an accurate compaction curve; optimally, you should have at least 2
points on either side of the optimum water content value. After your first 2 tests, you should
roughly plot the points obtained. This will give you an idea of where you might need to “fill
in” gaps in the data in order to produce a nice curve.
7. Return to the laboratory the following day and weigh the oven-dry water-content samples to
find the actual average water content of each test.

Calculations

1. The dry density, ρ (in units of Mg/m3), can be computed from:

ρ d = M / [ V (1 + w) ]
in which: M = total mass of moist compacted soil in cylinder
V = volume of the mold
w = water content of moist compacted soil
2. To plot the degree of saturation (air void curves) curves, use
ρ d = Gsρ w / [ 1 + (wGs / S) ]
in which Gs = the specific gravity of the soil
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

ρ w = density of water
S = degree of saturation ( = 100% for zero air voids curve)
3. The relation between dry density and void ratio, e, is
ρ d = Gsρ w / (1 + e)

Report
1. The report style is to be in the form of a letter to your client, Mr. Glen Mann, as requested in
the problem statement given to you previously.
2. Include your visual classification of the soil.
3. Include the compaction curve for your laboratory group. The results of the standard
compaction test shall be presented in the form of a compaction curve on an arithmetic plot
as shown in Figure 1. The dry densities in pounds per cubic foot are plotted as ordinates and
the corresponding water contents, in percentage of dry weight, as abscissas. The plotted
points shall be connected with a smooth curve; for most soils the curve produced is generally
parabolic in form. A typical compaction curve is shown in Figure1. The water content
corresponding to the peak of the compaction curve is the optimum water content, and this
value shall be recorded to the nearest 0.1 percent. The dry unit weight of the soil in pounds
per cubic foot at the optimum water content is the maximum dry density.
FIGURE 1: TYPICAL COMPACTION CURVE

Modified Proctor Compaction Curve for Tsai Clayey Soil

1.9

1.88

1.86

1.84 Compaction
Curve

1.82 ZAV Curve

Gs=2.74

1.8

1.78

1.76
10 12 14 16 18 20

Water Content (%)

University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

4. 100% Saturation curve. The 100% Saturation curve (see example in Fig.1) represents the
dry density and water content of a soil completely saturated with water, The zero air voids
curve shall be shown with the compaction curve. The zero air voids curve can be calc ulated
using the Gs value given by the instructor. You should check that the ZAV curve fits your
compaction curve well. It should look like that presented in Figure 1: close to the
compaction curve, but never touching or crossing it. If either of these occurs, you should
modify the specific gravity value accordingly.
5. Comment on the suitability of this soil for its intended purpose.
6. As always, describe specific test errors and comment on the validity of the test results.
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

Compaction Test
Analyst Name:_ ____________________________ Date:____________ Test No._________

Project Information:
Project Name:____________________________ Project
Location:________________________
Boring No.:_______________ Sample No.:________________

Sample Description:
Source:_____________________________
Condition:_________________________________
Vis. Class. & USCS
Symbol:_______________________________________________________
Plasticity:________ Dilatancy:__________ Toughness:___________ Dry
Strength:___________

Specific Gravity:____________ Test Type:________________ Mold:

Volume:________________

Mass:__________________
Density:
Determination # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mold+Compacted Soil (g)
Mold (g)
Compacted Soil (g)
Wet Density (Mg/m3)
Dry Density (Mg/m3)
Void Ratio, e
Porosity, n (%)

Water Content:
Determination # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Container #
Container+Wet Soil (g)
Container+Dry Soil (g)
Wt. Of Water, Ww (g)
University of Washington Department of Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics Laboratory

Wt. Of Container (g)

Wt. Of Dry Soil, Ws (g)
Water Content, w, (%)