Laboratory compaction

Proctor Tests Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D-698, AASHTO T-99)- R R Proctor devised this
test in 1933 & and Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557, AASHTO T-180)

Equipment, Test procedure and Energy (Standard Proctor Test)

Collar
Rammer

1 3
Volume= ft
30
(943.3 cm3)
Mould

Base
plate

Standard Proctor Test: Equipments (a) mould (b) hammer :

 Soil is mixed with an amount of water (say 8%))

 Placed in mould in 3 equal layers
 Each layer is compacted by 25 blows of hammer
W
 Moist unit weight g is determined as γ 
V
m
W = Weight of compacted soil in mould
Vm = Volume of mould
 Moisture content of the compacted soil is determined

 d is calculated as  
d 1 w
 The above steps are repeated for various moisture contents (say 12%, 16%, 20%, 24% etc.)
 Compaction curve is plotted and from it d(max) and OMC is determined
 Rammer for
Modified
Proctor
Rammer for
Standard
Proctor

Drop
height 18″

Drop
Base plate
height 12″

Collar Mould

MDD – Maximum Dry Density

MDD

OMC – Optimum Moisture Content

Automatic Laboratory Plot of laboratory compaction test results

Compactor
 Compaction energy (E) per unit volume in Standard Proctor Test
Number of × Number of Weight of Height of fall
blows per layer layers × hammer × of hammer
E=
Volume of mould
25 × 3 × 5.5 lbs × 1 ft
=
1/30 ft3

= 12,375 ft-lb/ft3 ( ≈ 592.5 kJ/m3) ( J i.e. Joule  N.m)

Modified Proctor Test : Equipment, Procedure and Energy

 Mould is same i.e. dia = 4 in. (101.6 mm), Wt. of hammer = 10 lbs (4.54 kg);
Height of fall = 18 in (457.2 mm)
 Soil is placed in mould in 5 equal layers
 Each layer is compacted by 25 blows of hammer
 Energy per unit volume = 56,250 ft-lb/ft3 (≈ 2693.3 kJ/m3)
(about 4.55 times the energy applied in Standard Proctor)
The ASTM/ASHTO test procedure allows different mould size and number of blows
per layer depending on maximum particle size of the soil sample.

Notice: Mold dia/volume & nos. of blow – different

Hammer (wt./drop ht.), nos. of layers, energy - same
B M Das, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 4 th edn., p.765
Effect of various factors on the compaction curve e.g. compaction energy, soil type etc.?

Effect of compaction energy on the compaction of a sandy clay (Fig.4.7/B M Das)

Zero air void line
For a given moisture content, theoretically, maximum dry unit weight is achieved when there is no
air in the void spaces i.e. degree of saturation is 100% or S =1. (Is the reverse true?)
The dry unit weight may be expressed as
G 
γ  s w Vw
d G w Ww
1 s
S
V
Substituting S = 1 in this expression W
Gs  w Vs Ws
γ zav 
1 G sw

zav = Unit weight at zero air void Ww

Ws = Gs w Vs Vs =
Ws Vw =
Gs w w

V = Vs+Vw =
Ws + Ww = WS  G s Ww
Gs w w Gs w
Not a straight line (How can we say that?)
Ws Ws G s  w Gs  w
d   
V Ws  G s Ww 1  G s w

We can plot the above equation on the compaction curve. Under no circumstances, any
part of the compaction curve can be above the zero-air-void line. This also gives a check
for the laboratory test data. If we find a compaction curve like this, it must be considered
that something is wrong.
However, lines drawn for other
degree of saturation (e.g. 90%, 80%
etc.) may cross the compaction
curve.

(Fig.4.9/B M Das)
Structure of compacted clay

Dry side (pt. A) - flocculent structure, random particle orientation and lower dry unit weight
Near OMC (pt.B) – lower degree of flocculation, higher dry unit weight
Wet side (pt.C) – more or less dispersed structure
At a given moisture content, higher compactive effort (compare pt. A & E) more parallel
orientation of particles resulting more dispersed structure

Flocculated Dispersed
Field Compaction and Equipment - surface compaction

The compactive energy to be applied in the field should be compatible (equipment and moisture
content) with the laboratory compaction test.
Standard (Light) compaction : Local road (minor road; light weight vehicle)
Modified (Heavy) compaction : Major road (Express way, National highway; heavy vehicle)

In the field compaction is done by rollers of various types. Compaction level is achieved by
field moisture control
appropriate lift thickness (about 150 to 300 mm i.e. 6 to 12 inch)
appropriate type of rollers (1 to 20 ton weight range)
increasing the number of passes of the roller
adjusting the vibrating frequency of plate compactors (1600 cycles/min or higher; granular
soil)

Vibrofloat – for granular soil deposits to a considerable depths

Smooth Steel Drum Roller Sheep Foot Roller Pneumatic Rubber-Tired Roller

Vibratory Plate Compactor Sheep Foot Roller Vibratory Roller

Smooth wheel roller:
 appropriate for proof rolling of fills with sandy and clayey soils. Proof rolling (also termed test
 Wheel coverage 100% rolling), a practice to examine
 Contact pressure 45 to 55 lb/in2 (310 to 380 kPa) the mass response of sub-grade
to vehicle-type loads before
 Not suitable for compacting thick layer
pavement layers are
Pneumatic rubber-tired roller: constructed.
 Compaction is achieved by pressure and kneading
 Has one or more rows of closely spaced tires – 4 to 6 in a row
 70 to 80% coverage
 Contact pressure 85 to 100 lb/in2 (585 to 690 kPa)

Sheep-foot roller:
 Most effective for compacting clay soils
 Have projections (4 to 13 in2 i.e. 25 to 85 cm2) around the drum
 Contact pressure under the projections – 200 to 1000 lb/in2 ( 1380 to 6900 kN/m2)
 During initial passes lower portion of the lift is compacted; middle and top portions are compacted in
subsequent passes.

Vibratory roller:
 Very effective for compacting granular soils
 Vibrators can be attached to smooth-wheel, pneumatic rubber-tired or sheepfoot roller; vibration is
produced by rotating off-center weights.

Vibratory Plate Compactor (hand held):

 Effective for granular soils over a limited area

Field and laboratory compaction may vary significantly

(as shown in this figure). OMC obtained by laboratory
test need to be adjusted for field condition. Field trials
may be required for this.
Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils (J E Bowels/2nd edn./p.217