Chapter 12

Compaction Test
Using Standard
Effort

SCOPE AND This chapter provides information on determining the compaction character-
SUMMARY istics of soil. The compaction test measures the variation in compacted dry
density as a function of water content. The test also provides the maximum
dry density and the optimal water contact for compaction. Procedures are de-
tailed to perform a laboratory compaction test on a coarse-grained soil us-
ing the standard effort dynamic hammer in general accordance with ASTM
D698 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
(12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). The background section discusses other meth-
ods of determining compaction characteristics, such as the compaction test
using modified effort for simulation of larger field equipment, and the Harvard
Miniature test for fine-grained soils.

TYPICAL The compaction curve, including the maximum dry density and optimal water content, is
M AT E R I A L S commonly determined on soil materials ranging from clay to gravel. While larger parti-
cles are often included in field construction, these particles are removed (and quantified)
prior to applying compactive effort in the laboratory and reintroduced into the results by
calculation. The limitation on largest particle size is dependent upon the composition of
the material and can vary from 4.75 mm (No. 4) to 19 mm (3/4 in.) in diameter.

210 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers

Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers John T. Germaine and Amy V. Germaine
Copyright © 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Compaction is the reduction in void ratio (or increase in density) due to the application BACKGROUND
and removal of a static or dynamic force. The process generally happens at constant
water content and only air is expelled from the material. As such, the process occurs
very quickly for all types of soils. Saturation is always less than 100 percent and the
air voids are continuous throughout the specimen. Compaction also imposes a compli-
cated and nonuniform stress increment to the material involving both normal and shear
stresses. Compaction should not be confused with consolidation, compression, creep,
or shear, which are also volume change processes of soil. These processes will be dis-
cussed in subsequent chapters of this text.
The dry density achieved by imparting energy on the soil is dependent upon the
initial water content, termed the molding water content. Understanding the relationship
between the achievable density and the molding water content has been a research topic
for many decades. Starting from the dry condition, an increase in the molding water
content will result in a higher compacted dry density. This trend will continue up to the
maximum dry density, which occurs at the optimum molding water content. Further
increases in water will result in a continuous reduction in the dry density. This relation-
ship is referred to as the compaction curve.
The process of compaction depends on a complicated interaction of interparticle
forces and relative particle movements. On the dry side of optimum (water content
is implied), surface friction prevents particles from sliding past each other, limiting
densification of the material. Addition of water provides better lubrication allowing the
particles to move into a denser arrangement under the dynamic force. Counteracting
the lubrication mechanism is energy absorption by the water and air in the pore space.
Energy lost to the pore fluid reduces particle movement resulting in a lower density. On
the wet side of optimum, addition of water causes further reduction in the achievable
dry density. The competition of these mechanisms results in a compaction curve that
resembles an inverted parabola.
The test method measures the change in density achieved under a given applied
energy over a range of water contents. The molding water content and the dry density
resulting from applying the same amount of energy to six specimens (points) prepared
at different water contents are plotted, as shown in Figure 12.1.
A curve is then constructed connecting the points, and the maximum dry density
(MDD) and optimum moisture (ωopt) content are interpreted using some level of judg-
ment. It is unlikely that the peak of the interpreted compaction curve will correspond to
a particular compaction point. Refer to Figure 12.2 for an example determination of the
maximum dry density and optimum water content.
The water content and energy used to compact a particular soil has a significant
impact on the resulting engineering properties. On the dry side of optimum, the mate-
rial is generally stiffer and stronger, and has a higher hydraulic conductivity. As the dry
density approaches the maximum dry density, the engineering properties of that material
ρd

Figure 12.1 Example plotted

ωc compaction points.

Compaction Test Using Standard Effort 211

 S
80% S
100%
MDD

ρd
Dry of Wet of
optimum optimum
Figure 12.2 Determination of
the maximum dry density (MDD) ωopt
and optimum water content
(ωopt). ωc

generally improve. Strength is increased, and hydraulic conductivity, compressibility,

and brittleness are decreased. On the wet side of optimum, the material is weaker and
more ductile, and has much lower hydraulic conductivity. These principles have applica-
tions in highway construction, dam design, hazardous waste containment, and, as seen
in the previous chapter, in laboratory specimen reconstitution.
The degree of compaction is the ratio, in percent, of a specimen density to the
maximum dry density for that soil as obtained by a specified method. Degree of com-
paction is the primary quality control tool for field placement of soils. A laboratory test
is performed to determine the expected field behavior. The results are adjusted for the
presence of large particles, resulting in the maximum dry density and optimum water
content for the field compaction. There is usually a maximum limit on the amount of
fines acceptable in materials for highway construction because fines cause pumping or
freezing problems. During construction, field testing methods are used to verify that the
soil has been compacted to the specified criteria.
There are several laboratory methods for determining the compaction characteris-
tics. The two most commonly used methods are the standard and the modified dynamic
hammer tests. These methods are standardized as ASTM D698 Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 [600 kN-m/m3]) and
D1557 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000
ft-lbf/ft3 [2,700 kN-m/m3]). The compactive effort (energy per unit volume) applied to
the specimen is selected to model the equipment that will compact the soil in the field.
Drum and vibratory field compactors compare favorably with compaction achieved in
the laboratory using dynamic hammer tests. With the advent of larger, more efficient
field compaction equipment, the modified effort energy more typically models the com-
pactive effort that can be achieved in the field. Fine-grained soils, which are typically
used for hydraulic conductivity barriers, are often compacted in the field with sheep’s
foot rollers. This equipment relies on a shearing action to compact the material. Field
performance for this type of equipment is better simulated by kneading action using the
Harvard Miniature apparatus.
For the dynamic compaction methods of D698 and D1557, the applied energy is deter-
mined by the number of drops of a mass from a specified height divided by the volume of
the final specimen. For D698, the standard effort test, a 2.5 kg mass (having a static weight
of 24.5 N or 5.5 lbf) hammer is used to compact three layers and a drop height of 305 mm
(12 in). The equipment used for the test method is shown in Figure 12.3. For D1557, the
modified effort test, a 4.5 kg mass (having a static weight of 44.5 N or 10 lbf) hammer
with five layers and a drop height of 457.2 mm (18 in) are used. The mold size and the
number of drops per layer are varied to accommodate different material gradations.
Each permutation is a different “method” within the test, as shown in Table 12.1.
The large particles are removed from the sample prior to compaction. These particles
are referred to as the oversize fraction. While compaction is generally characterized by

212 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers

 Figure 12.3 24.5 N (5.5 lbf)
compaction hammer, 101.6 mm
(4 in.) and 152.4 mm
(6 in.) diameter molds with
collars used to perform ASTM
D698. Also pictured is a straight
edge used to square off the top
of the specimen.

energy per unit volume, it is recognized that the results do vary slightly with specimen
size and geometry of hammer.
A compaction test is sometimes referred to as a “Proctor,” as in Standard Proctor or
Modified Proctor. The name is in recognition of R. R. Proctor (1933), who performed a
tremendous amount of work to determine compaction properties.
The procedure for performing a compaction test according to D698 and D1557
requires a measure of the oversize fraction in order to select the appropriate mold size
and number of drops per layer. The first step is to estimate which method would be most
likely and then to separate the material on the appropriate sieve (4.75 mm, 9.5 mm, or
19 mm). While a material meeting the limitation of Method A will also meet limitations
of the other two methods, it is not permissible to use Method B or C unless so specified
by the requesting agency.
In most cases, a grain size analysis will be performed along with the compaction
test. It is most efficient to process and separate the material for both tests at the same
time using one of these sizes as the Designated A sieve as discussed in Chapter 8 for the
composite sieve analysis.
As with previous tests, if fines are present the material should not be oven-dried
prior to compaction. The total mass of the sample is obtained along with the portion
of coarser and finer fractions in the moist condition. The oversize percentage can
be estimated immediately using these mass measurements (and then finalized after the grain
size analysis has been performed), eliminating any delay in proceeding with the
compaction test. Blend the finer fraction and estimate the initial water content and the
optimum water content. Experience with compaction and with the specific material is

Table 12.1 Table of mold size,

Material used in Number of Blows Maximum Particle
number of blows per layer, mate-
Method Mold Diameter Specimen per Layer Size Limitations
rial used, and material limitations
Method A 101.6 mm (4 in) Fraction passing 25 25% or less for the various methods in ASTM
the 4.75 mm retained on the 4.75 698 and ASTM D1557. (Adapted
(No. 4) sieve mm (No. 4) sieve from ASTM D1557-07)
Method B 101.6 mm (4 in) Fraction passing 25 25% or less
the 9.5 mm retained on the 9.5
(3/8 in) sieve mm (3/8 in) sieve
Method C 152.4 mm (6 in) Fraction passing 56 30% or less
the 19 mm retained on the 19
(3/4 in) sieve mm (3/4 in) sieve

Compaction Test Using Standard Effort 213

 extremely helpful in making these two estimates. Split the material into six portions.
Use one portion for a water content determination. Using distilled water, prepare the
remaining portions at five different water contents, bracketing what is expected as
the optimum moisture content. Prepare the middle specimen at the estimated optimum
water content, along with two higher water contents and two lower water contents.
The water content increments will increase as the gradation becomes finer and as the
plasticity of the material increases.
Seal each portion in a container and temper the soil if necessary. Refer to Table 9.2
for the minimum tempering time according to soil classification. Compact the specimen
in the required number of layers and blows per layer as specified for each method. To
prevent arching, be sure to use the edge of a frosting spatula or knife to make grooves in
(i.e., scarify) the top of each layer before adding material for the overlying layer. Trim
the top of the specimen using the mold as a guide. Obtain the mass of the total speci-
men. Extrude the specimen from the mold and obtain a water content specimen from a
pie-shaped slice cut throughout the entire depth of the specimen. Repeat the process for
the other points of the test.
The total mass density (ρt) of the compacted specimen is calculated using
Equation 12.1:

Mt
ρt
(12.1)
Vt

Where:
ρt
total mass density of the compaction specimen (g/cm3)
Mt
total mass of the compaction specimen (g)
Vt
volume of the compaction mold (cm3)
The water content is obtained from a pie-shaped section of the compacted specimen.
The value of the dry mass density of the compacted specimen is calculated using
Equation 12.2:

ρt
ρd
(12.2)
ω
1 C
100
Where:
ρd = dry mass density of the compaction specimen (g/cm3)
ωC = water content from pie slice shaped section of the compacted specimen (%)
As shown on Figure 12.2, lines of constant saturation are also included on the density
versus moisture curve for reference. Sometimes the 100 percent saturation line is referred
to as the zero air voids (ZAV) line. The lines of constant saturation are calculated using
GsωC = Se, which can be rearranged as shown in Equation 12.3:

Gs ω C
S

⎛ ρ ⎞⎟ (12.3)
⎜⎜ w ⎟ G  1
⎜⎝ ρ ⎟⎟⎠ s
d

Where:
Gs
specific gravity (dimensionless)
ρw
mass density of water (g/cm3)
As can be seen in Table 12.1, there is a limit to the maximum particle size that
can be accommodated in the specimen. These limits are similar to other mold to par-
ticle diameter specifications and in this case are set at between 8 and 12. The limit is
intended to provide adequate mobility of particles during densification and to prevent
excessive particle crushing due to impact with the hammer.

214 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers

 The Proctor mold is relatively small (4 in. or 6 in. diameter) compared to the maxi-
Stones
mum size of particles used in construction. Therefore, the largest of the particles are
scalped off the material prior to the compaction test. The dry density achieved for the
modified test specimen and the molding water content are then adjusted to account for
the removed oversize particles. The concept behind the corrections is that the oversize Matrix
particles float in a matrix of the finer material (i.e. there is no particle to particle contact
of these oversize particles). Figure 12.4 is a schematic of the coarser materials in the
finer matrix. The numerical limit of this assumption is clearly approximate and has been
set based on engineering judgment. Considerable research has been conducted over the Figure 12.4 Example of coarse
years to better quantify the effect of removing oversize particles from the test specimen, particles sitting in a finer matrix.
but this simplification remains an important approximation in the application of com-
paction data to the field.
The method of applying the oversize correction is covered in ASTM D4718 Cor-
rection of Unit Weight and Water Content for Soils Containing Oversize Particles.
The percent finer fraction (F) is calculated using Equation 12.4. A companion sample
(or the results of the grain size analysis) is used to determine this fraction rather than
drying the test specimens prior to compaction.

Mm
F
(12.4)
Mm  Ms
Where:
F
fraction of dry soil mass less than the separation sieve used to prepare the
compaction specimens (decimal)
Mm
mass of the dry soil comprising the fine matrix (g)
Ms
mass of the dry soil comprising the coarse particles (g)
The dry density that would be achieved in the field when both the finer fraction and
coarser fraction are compacted is then calculated using Equation 12.5. The equation is
applied to each compaction point obtained in the laboratory.

ρd Gs ,C ρw
ρdf
(12.5)
ρd (1  F )  Gs ,C ρw F
Where:
ρdf
dry density achievable in the field (g/cm3)
ρd
dry density achieved in the lab (g/cm3)
Gs,C
specific gravity of the coarse materials (dimensionless)
ρw
mass density of water (g/cm3)
If not assumed, the bulk specific gravity of the coarse materials can be determined
using ASTM C127 Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of
Coarse Aggregate. This test method describes three measures of bulk specific gravity,
namely the oven-dry, saturated surface-dry, and apparent specific gravity. The value
for apparent specific gravity used in C127 is the actual specific gravity of the miner-
als contained in the coarse materials, that is, the same specific gravity as measured in
Chapter 3 of this text.
The water content must also be corrected to account for the presence of the coarse
particles. Calculate the water content of the coarse particles (ωcs) and use Equation 12.6
to determine the corrected field water content (ωcf):

ωcf
(1  F )ω cs  F (ω cm )
(12.6)

Where:
ωcf
corrected water content of the material, as compacted in the field (%)
ωcs
water content of the oversize material, as received (%)
ωcm
water content of compaction test specimen (%)

Compaction Test Using Standard Effort 215

 Uncorrected Compaction
Curve
Corrected for Oversize
Material
Saturation
100%

ρd
Figure 12.5 Example compac-
tion curves demonstrating the
effect of correcting for oversize
ωc
particles.

2.0
GM
CL
1.9 ML
SP
CH
S = 100%
1.8
Dry Mass Density (Mg/m3)

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3
Figure 12.6 Typical compaction 0 5 10 15 2 25 30
curves for various materials. Water Content (%)

Since the density of the coarse particles will be greater than the density achieved by
the finer fraction for that volume, the calculated dry density achievable in the field will
be higher than that for the specimen with the material scalped. Likewise, after correc-
tion, the water content will be less since the largest particles will usually have a much
lower water content than the finer matrix. The result is a corrected compaction curve as
shown in Figure 12.5.
There are numerous other factors to consider on the topic of compaction, the first
of which is the impact of the soil type on the position and general shape of the com-
paction curve. The soil type will have dramatic effects on the shape of a compaction
curve achieved. In general, coarser materials will have a higher maximum dry density
and lower optimum water content than soils with fine-grained components. In addi-
tion, well-graded coarse materials will have well defined peaks, while uniform coarse-
grained materials will be flatter, and may not even have a peak. Figure 12.6 shows
typical compaction curves for a range of soil types.

216 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers

 S
100%

Energy

ρd

Figure 12.7 Effect of energy

level on the position of the
ωc
compaction curve.

The amount of energy imparted on a specimen causes a shift in the curve as well.
In general, as the energy increases, the compaction curve moves up and to the left, as
shown in Figure 12.7. This is why the energy level used to generate the compaction
curve must be matched to that of the field equipment placing the material. Using too
low an energy level in the laboratory can mislead the contractor to use too much water
and overcompact the soil.
Compaction can be performed using various forms of input energy. Dynamic com-
paction, sometimes referred to as impact compaction, is the method described thus far in
this chapter: dropping a mass repeatedly onto soil. Static compaction involves applying a
constant compressive force. Vibratory compaction is a force that rapidly and repeatedly
increases and decreases on the soil surface. Kneading action is when soil particles are
moved past one another. Each method creates a different interparticle structure, resulting
in different mechanical properties. As an example, Figure 12.8 (After Seed and Chan,
1959) shows the relative strength of a particular soil achieved with various compac-
tion methods versus molding water content as compared to kneading compaction. Other

Reference Method:
Kneading Compaction
Increasing Relative Stiffness (at 5% strain)

Static Compaction

Vibratory Compaction

Impact Compaction
1

Figure 12.8 Effect of method of

compaction on the strength
of soil as referenced to kneading
compaction. (Adapted from Seed
Increasing Molding Water Content (%) and Chan, 1959)

Compaction Test Using Standard Effort 217


Figure 12.9 Effect of reusing
material on the position of the
compaction curve.
5 classification.
4 6
1 2
3 the energy, and that each layer is spread out evenly across the mold.
8 • Compact each layer using the sequence of hammer drops shown in Figure
and so on
Figure 12.10 Hammer drop
pattern when using the
101.6 mm (4 in.) diameter mold.
218 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers
S
100%
Reused
ρd
New
ωc
soils will have different scales, but the relative positions of the curves with increasing
water content should remain about the same.
Reusing material causes a considerable increase in the dry density achieved at a
particular water content. Previously compacted fine-grained materials will clump.
Coarse-grained materials will experience particle crushing during compaction. Reus-
ing material will affect the shape of the curve and the resulting interpretation of the
maximum dry density. A schematic comparison between using completely new material
versus reusing the same material for each point is shown in Figure 12.9. For the plot
of the reused material, the driest point is compacted first, and then the same material is
reused for each successively wetter point.
Other important considerations for determining compaction characteristics include:
• The compaction properties of some soils are sensitive to drying and there-
fore soils should not be dried prior to performing a compaction test unless it
can be shown that the results are independent of drying. The fine fraction of
soils should not be oven-dried prior to compaction. It is important to note that
air-drying is not precluded in test methods D698 and D1557; however, the moist
method is the preferred specimen preparation method and a warning is given
concerning possible altering soil properties by air-drying.
• Make sure the material is homogeneous across the portions. Use the blending
and splitting procedures described in Chapter 1 to obtain the testing specimens.
• Temper soils that contain fine-grained materials. Refer to Table 9.2 in Chapter 9,
“Atterberg Limits” for suggested tempering times according to USCS group
• Secure the mold to a solid base prior to imparting energy. Make sure the solid
base has a mass of at least 100 kg, and the mold is securely attached using
devices such as clamps. The surface of the base shall be level, and flat such
that the compaction mold is fully supported and does not tilt or translate during
7
application of compaction energy.
• Make sure the layers have approximately the same volume to distribute
12.10 to ensure uniform energy for the 101.6 mm (4 in.) diameter mold or
Figure 12.11 for the 152.4 mm (6 in.) diameter mold.
• After compaction, the surface of each layer should be relatively flat. If sig-
nificant unevenness occurs, adjust the tamping pattern to obtain a flat surface.
Note that pumping may occur at water contents above optimum, particularly for
fine-grained soils.
 • After compaction, verify that the mold is not overfilled. Specifically, the surface
of the final compacted layer must not extend more than 6 mm (0.25 in.) above
4
the top of the mold.
6 9
• Obtain a representative water content of the extruded specimen by cutting vertically
down through the material and obtaining a pie-shaped slice through the center.
• Check to see if water is seeping out of the bottom of the mold of any compac- 1 5 2
tion point. This is referred to as bleeding and indicates that the water content
obtained will not be representative of the molding water content. This is more
8 7
likely to occur for poorly graded coarse-grained soils and for points very wet of
3
optimum. Such points should be noted on the data sheet.
• Do not reuse material compacted in the laboratory, because the resulting dry
density will be erroneously high.
• Be sure to choose a reasonable scale to plot compaction curve. Interpretation of Figure 12.11 Hammer drop
the curves is very sensitive to the scale of the plot. The ASTM standards provide pattern when using the
examples of reasonable scale dimensions. The suggested plot has a range in 152.4 mm (6 in.) diameter mold.
water content of 14 percent and a range in dry density of 5.6 kN/m3 (28 lbf/ft3).
If the aspect ratio is distorted or the scale is overexpanded, it will be very dif-
ficult to define the curve.

Typical values of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content as deter- T Y P I C A L VA L U E S
mined by the method specified are listed in Table 12.2.

Equipment Requirements

1. Scale with a capacity of at least 10 kg and readable to 1 g for deter-

mination of the mass of the compacted specimens in the mold
2. Mold: Either a 101.6 mm (4 in.) or 152.4 mm (6 in.) diameter mold,
depending on grain size distribution characteristics of the mate-
rial being tested. The actual dimensions of these molds are
101.6  0.4 mm in diameter by 116.4  0.5 mm in height or
152.4  0.7 mm in diameter by 116.4  0.5 mm in height.
Include the base plate and the collar assembly for the mold used.
3. Base: A solid base with a mass of at least 100 kg or a weight of
about 200 lbf, and clamps to secure the mold to the base
4. Hammer: A 24.47  0.09 N (5.50  0.02 lbf) dynamic ham-
mer having a drop height of 304.8  1 mm (12  0.05 in.).
The mass of this hammer at sea level is 2.495  0.023 kg. An
automated mechanical rammer meeting the specifications in D698
may be used instead, if preferred.
5. Calipers readable to 0.02 mm
6. Sieve for separation of particles, if using oversize material
7. Frosting spatula or knife
8. Straight edge
9. Extruding jack for removal of specimens from the mold, if necessary
10. Mixing and splitting equipment
11. Equipment necessary for determination of water contents: forced
draft oven, desiccator, scale, water content tares, and the like

Compaction Test Using Standard Effort 219

Table 12.2 Typical values of
the maximum dry density and ρmax ωopt
Soil (Mg/m3) (%) Method
optimum moisture content.
Maine Clay* 1.80 17.7 Harvard Miniature
Vicksburg Buckshot Clay** 1.56 22.8 D698
Annapolis Clay** 1.75 16.6 D698
Vicksburg Silt** 1.70 17.1 D698
Well-graded clean gravels, 2.0 to 2.2 8 to 11 D698
gravel-sand mixtures***
Poorly graded clean gravels, 1.8 to 2.0 11 to 14 D698
gravel-sand mix***
Silty gravels, poorly graded 1.9 to 2.2 8 to 12 D698
gravel-sand-silt***
Clayey gravels, poorly graded 1.8 to 2.1 9 to 14 D698
gravel-sand-clay***
Well-graded clean sands, 1.8 to 2.1 9 to 16 D698
gravelly sands***
Poorly graded clean sands, 1.6 to 1.9 12 to 21 D698
sand-gravel mix***
Silty sands, poorly graded 1.8 to 2.0 11 to 16 D698
sand-silt mix***

*Unpublished laboratory data.

**After ASTM D698; values converted from pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to megagrams per cubic meter (Mg/m3).
***After Naval Facilities Engineering Command (1986), Design Manual: 7.02; values converted from pcf to Mg/m3.

C A L I B R AT I O N 1. Determine the mass of the sample mold and mold base to the nearest gram. Do not
include the collar.
2. Measure the mold depth (3 places) and mold diameter (6 places) to  0.02 mm.
3. Check hammer for damage, square edges, proper mass, and proper drop height.

SPECIMEN Using a well-graded sand with less than 5 percent fines eases the process of laboratory
P R E PA R AT I O N instruction. These procedures assume such a material is being used. Select material with
oversize particles only if it will be desired to demonstrate those aspects of the test.
1. Select enough of the moist material to provide about 12 kg of dry soil.
2. Obtain the natural water content.
3. Estimate how much material is required for each compaction point and prepare five
samples having water contents separated by about 1.5 percent. Adjust the water
contents such that they bracket the optimum value.
4. Temper the soil overnight. For laboratory instruction purposes, it may be necessary
to skip this step; however, not tempering soils may increase the scatter in the data
and make it more difficult to define the compaction curve.

PROCEDURE The compaction test will be performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test
Method D698, although D1557 can be used instead with minor modifications.
1. Assemble the mold and clamp to the solid base or floor.
2. Compact each specimen in three equal layers using 25 blows per layer.
3. Before compacting the second and third layers, scarify the top surface of the under-
lying layer with a knife to about 3 mm depth.

220 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers

 4. The last layer must completely fill the mold but should not exceed the mold by more
than 6 mm. If this condition is not met, the point is not valid.
5. Compact each layer using the recommended sequence of hammer drops shown in
Figure 12.10 or Figure 12.11 (whichever is appropriate) to ensure uniform energy.
6. Remove compaction collar and check that the surface of the soil is not too high.
The soil surface must extend above the top of the mold, but less than or equal to 6
mm (0.25 in.).
7. Scrape the surface flat with a knife, using the top of the mold as a guide. Be sure
to check the straightness of the knife edge. A slight curvature of the top surface can
result in significant errors in the dry density.
8. Determine the mass of the specimen and mold.
9. Extrude the specimen, using a hydraulic jack if necessary.
10. Obtain a representative water content specimen. Be sure to cut a pie-shaped slice
through the entire specimen.

1. Calculate the total density at each point using Equation 12.1. Calculations
2. Calculate the molding water content at each point from the post-compacted slice.
Do not use the prepared value. If oversize material has been included, calculate the
corrected water content at each point using Equation 12.6.
3. Calculate the dry density at each point using Equation 12.2. If oversize material has
been included, obtain the water content and specific gravity of the oversize frac-
tion, and calculate the corrected dry density at each point using Equation 12.5.
4. Plot the dry density and corresponding molding water content of each point on a
compaction curve. If oversize material has been included, plot the corrected com-
paction points as well, and distinguish between the two curves.
5. Calculate the 80 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent saturation lines using Equa-
tion 12.3, and plot on the compaction curve.
6. Draw a best fit line through the compaction points, and determine the maximum dry
density and optimum water content.

Report the uncorrected and corrected maximum dry density and optimum water content Report
for the material, along with the method used to determine the values. Include the raw
data sheets, a plot of the compaction curve (ρd versus ωC) with 80, 90, and 100 percent
saturation lines indicated.

Criteria for judging the acceptability of test results obtained by test method D698 PRECISION
(Standard Effort Compaction) are given as follows for three soil types used in the inter-
laboratory study (ILS) conducted by the ASTM Reference Soils and Testing Program.
Note that Method A and the dry preparation method were used on three soil types (CH,
CL, and ML) to produce these results. The precision was found to vary with soil type,
and it is expected that the precision will also change with the methods and mold size
used. The study was performed using units of pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The values
have been converted to megagrams per cubic meter (Mg/m3).

• Within Laboratory Repeatability: Expect the standard deviation of your results

on the same soil to be on the order of 0.01 Mg/m3 for the maximum dry density
and 0.3 percent for the optimum water content.
• Between Laboratory Reproducibility: Expect the standard deviation of your
results as compared to others on the same soil to be on the order of 0.02 Mg/m3
for the maximum dry density and 0.7 percent for the optimum water content.

Compaction Test Using Standard Effort 221

DETECTING For laboratory instructional purposes, it is recommended that a minimum of five data
PROBLEMS WITH points are produced to define the compaction curve. If the data are highly scattered,
R E S U LT S preventing a typical shaped curve to be created, the experiment should be repeated on
previously uncompacted soil. If the results are still varied, probable causes of error are
poor blending and splitting techniques, sloppy control of the energy imparted to the
specimen, improper clamping of the mold to the base, insufficient tempering time, or
lack of a control volume.
If the results fall outside of typical ranges, likely sources of error are in the calcula-
tion of the oversize correction, poor establishment of the percent of finer and coarser
fractions, incorrect mold volume, or equipment calibration problems.

REFERENCE ASTM D698 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12
PROCEDURES 400 ft-lbf/ft3 [600 kN-m/m3])

REFERENCES Refer to this textbook’s ancillary web site, www.wiley.com/college/germaine, for data
sheets, spreadsheets, and example data sets.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1986. Foundations and Earth Structures,
Design Manual 7.02, Alexandria, VA.
Proctor, R. R.1933. “Fundamental Principles of Soil Compaction.”Engineering News
Record, vol. 111, no. 9.
Seed, H. B. and C. K. Chan. 1959. “Structure and Strength Characteristics of
Compacted Clays,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
Vol. 85, SM5, October.
Calculate the dry density at each point using Equation 12.2. If oversize material has been
included, obtain the water content and specific gravity of the oversize fraction, and
calculate the corrected dry density at each point using Equation 12.5.

222 Geotechnical Laboratory Measurements for Engineers