STANDARD COMPACTION TEST

Author: Tirelo Pekenene

The objective of this study is to determine the optimum moisture content and the maximum dry
density of a given soil.

Compaction is the process of increasing the soil density by packing the particles closer together to
which there is air volume reduction but no significant change in the water volume in the soil
(Knappett et al, 2012). The aim of compaction is to expel air voids. The process of soil compaction
involves the application of external forces by mechanical means of rolling, tamping or soil vibration.
There is a mechanism of soil compaction, which involves application of a load to a given soil sample.
The applied load compresses the soil, and at the same time the volume of air is reduced as air is
driven out. This process is analogical to the process of kneading dough as the kneading and rolling
effects removes the air pockets. Load application is cumulative and occurs over a given time. During
this time more air escapes. Ultimately the volume of air approaches zero. Continuous loading
causes compaction and some solids end up moving into spaces left by escaping air.

The extent of compaction is usually determined by finding the relationship between soil dry density
and moisture content. This is achieved by carrying a laboratory test on soil sample (Proctor Test), in
which the varying volumes of water are added to the dried and sieved soil. The mixture is then
compacted in a proctor mould. The soil is then trimmed at the top of the mould and weighed. The
moisture content is determined by oven-drying while dry density is calculated from the bulk density
and the moisture content. The test is repeated for several moisture contents and dry density is
plotted against moisture content to obtain a curve in which the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) are obtained. A typical dry density and moisture content curve
(figure1) is shown opposite.

Source:
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SoilMech/compaction/compaction.htm

Relationship between the dry density and moisture

content can be deduced:

ρD =MS/V

ρb =M/V
 ρb =MS + MW/V ; m=MW/MS

ρb =MS + mMS/V

ρb =MS(1 + m)/V ; MS/V=ρD

ρb =ρD(1 + m)

Hence

ρD =ρb/1 + m

This equation can also be expressed in terms of unit dry and bulk weights as

ɣD =ɣb/ 1+ m

The maximum possible value of dry density is called “the zero voids” or “the saturation dry density”
or “dry density’’. The aim of achieving zero voids is practically unattainable. The results obtained in
a laboratory compaction test are not directly applicable to field compaction because compacting
efforts in the laboratory tests are varying. They are applied in the different manner from those
produced by field equipment. Also, laboratory tests are carried out only on materials with particle
sizes less than 20mm or 37.5 mm (materials at most 19mm). The essence of soil compaction is as
follows;

1. To increase the density, which in turn, increases soil strength?

2. To reduce the air voids.
3. To reduce settlement of soil under loading.
4. To reduce the permeability of material (essential for drainage).
5. To increase soil stability, for instance, in slopes. This aids in reducing possible hazards due to
landslides and erosion.

Apparatus used

1. Compaction Mould
2. Metal Rammer, weighing 2.5kg, sliding freely in a tube which controls the height of drop to
300mm.
3. 20mm B.S sieve
4. Measuring cylinder
5. Large Metal Tray
6. Balance
7. Jacking apparatus for extracting material from the mould
8. Drying oven
Test Procedure

Apparatus were prepared by cleaning the mould, extension collar and the base plate before usage.
The mould was weighed to the nearest 1.o mg (as M1). Its mean internal diameter and height were
measured by measuring them at several places and mean dimensions found. The internal volume of
the mould was calculated and noted together with the dimensions.

Mould assembling was done and the mould was wiped with a slightly oily cloth on the internal
surfaces to aid in the removal of the soil afterwards. A disc of thin film paper was placed on the base
plate for the same purpose. The mould assembly was placed on the solid base. Loose soil was
added to the mould so that it was half filled. The soil was compacted by applying27 blows of the
rammer dropping from a controlled height of 300mm. The surface of the compacted first layer was
slightly scarified with the tip of the spatula to make it rough for easy bonding of soil between the
layers. A second approximately equal layer of soil was placed in a mould and compacted with 27
blows as the first layer and also scarified. The third layer was lastly added and compacted in a
similar fashion as the first and second layers. After compaction the extension collar was carefully
removed and excessive soil was trimmed off carefully. The top of the mould was levelled off,
checking with the straight edge. Whenever there were small cavities resulting from the removal of
stones at the surface, fine material of wet mixed sample was used for filling the cavities.

The base plate was removed carefully, and soil at the lower end of the mould was trimmed
whenever necessary. The soil and the mould were weighed to the nearest 1mg (as M2). The soil
was then removed by fitting the mould on the extruder and jacking the soil out. The compacted soil
sample was collected for oven-drying and its moisture content was determined.

The above procedure (paragraph 2, 3, and 4) was repeated with addition of 8%, 11%, 14% and 17%of
water and until the weight of the compacted soil began to decrease due to addition of more water.

Observations

Diameter of the mould = 100mm

Height of the mould =115mm

Volume of the mould =9.03 x 10-4 m-3

Table 1: showing the determined bulk and dry unit weights of the samples.

Measurement No. 1 2 3 4 5
Water added % 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00
Wt. Of Mould, M1 (kg) 2.705 2.705 2.705 2.705 2.705
W1 + Soil, M2 (kg) 4.510 4.597 4.725 4.700 4.705
Wt. Of Soil (M2-M1) (kg) 1.805 1.892 2.020 1.995 2.000
Bulk Unit Wt of Soil (KNm-3) 19.61 20.95 21.94 21.67 21.73
Dry Unit Wt of Soil (KNm-3) 18.68 19.40 19.77 19.01 18.57
Table 2: showing the moisture contents for the samples

Container No. 106 111C 104 107 103

Wt of Container, M1 (g) 53.4 49.6 57.8 56.4 48.1
W1 + Wet Soil, M2 (g) 116.0 125.9 150.8 135.8 56.9
W1 + Dry Soil, M3 (g) 113.5 121.0 142.9 127.2 144.0
Dry Soil , M4 (g) 60.1 71.4 85.1 70.8 95.9
Water in Soil (g) 2.5 4.9 7.9 8.6 12.9
Water Content % 4.2 6.9 9.3 12.1 13.5

Calculations

Volume of the mould = πd2h/4=π*(0.1)2*(0.115)/4=9.03 x 10-4m3

For table1 (Using sample 1with 5% water added)

Mass of soil =M2-M1 =4.510-2.705 =1.805 kg

Bulk Unit Weight,ɣb =Total in-situ weight/Total volume

=W/V =mg/V

= 1.805 * 9.81/9.03 * 10-4 =19.61KNm-3

Dry Unit Weight, ɣD =ɣb/1 + m

= 19.61/1 + 0.05 = 18.68KN m-3

For table 2

Mass of Dry SOIL =M3-M1=113.5-53.4 =60.1kg

Mass of water in the soil +M2-M3 =116.0-113.5 =2.5g

% water content = (mass of water in the soil/mass of Dry soil)*100%

= (2.5/60.1) * 100% =4.2%

The graph of Dry unit weight Vs percentage water content is plotted below.
 Dry Unit weight vs Water content curve to de-
termine OMC and MDD

20
19.8
Dry unit weight (KNm)

19.6
19.4
19.2
19
18.8
18.6
18.4
18.2
18
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Water content (%)

Discussions

The pattern of the plotted graph of dry unit weight vs. percentage water content follows the
postulated pattern (see figure 1). This shows that the results obtained are in line with the
theoretical ones. The graph is also a pictorial representation of the results. It shows that the dry
unit weight increased as the moisture content was increased. However, this holds up to a point of
optimum moisture content, at which the compacted soil assumes the maximum dry unit weight (or
dry unit density). Beyond this point the dry unit weight reduced with the addition of more moisture,
as an increasing proportion of the soil volume was being occupied by the water.

However, the experiment was affected by some errors that may have occurred during compaction
and tempered with the results obtained. The rammer was manually operated by hand hence there
was uneven distribution of external force on the soil during compaction. In some occasions the
rammer was not dropped from the stipulated height of 300mm hence the load might have not been
constant. The act of compacting was not done by one person only hence the consistency of the
results was affected. It was slightly hot during the day on which the test was conducted hence some
water might have escaped into the air as vapour, resulting in lower weights and densities. The
container for the mixed samples were never covered after mixing with different amounts of water,
therefore, some moisture loss might have occurred hence lower values of weight ,bulk densities and
dry densities were obtained. Parallax error might have occurred when measuring the volumes of
water that were added. The observer’s eye was positioned slightly above the level of the bottom of
the meniscus and he was estimating the reading. As a consequence of this, the volumes were
affected. Soil layers were never weighed prior to addition and it was assumed that they were
approximately equal. This affected the densities because different soil amounts are compacted to
different degree of compaction using the same effort. It is expected that less for the same effort soil
of lower weight will be compacted more than that of more weight.

To improve on the validity of the results errors should be dealt with and factored into computations
(for those that cannot be totally eliminated). During compaction it should be ensured that a rammer
hits the top of the metal guide and allowed to drop freely by gravity into the soil so that it drops
from the recommended height. The test should be carried out at temperatures around room
temperature to avoid moisture loss into the air. Also, the containers of wet soil awaiting compaction
should always be covered as a way of avoiding moisture loss. Parallax error should be dealt with by
ensuring that the eye level is in line with the bottom of the meniscus when taking readings from a
measuring cylinder. Soil layers to be added for compaction can be weighed prior to addition into the
mould to ensure constant addition of the layers.

Conclusions

The Optimum Moisture Content was found to be 9.4% while the maximum dry density was 19.7
KNm. According to the results obtained it can be noted that for the same compaction effort the dry
density of the soil rose to 19.4KNm while the moisture content on the other hand was 7.1%
However, this holds up to point of optimum moisture content, any further increment in moisture
content would have resulted in a reduction in density.

Reference

1. Day, Robert W. (2001). Soil Testing Manual: Procedures, Classification Data and Sampling
Practices. McGrow Hill, Inc. New York, USA
2. Davis, Tim (2008). Geotechnical Testing, Observation and Documentation second edition.
Reston, Virginia:American Society of Civil Engineers
3. environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SoilMech/compaction/compaction.htm
4. Laboratory Manual for Testing Soils, University of Botswana (2014)
5. J.A. Knappett and R.f. Craig (2012). Craig Soil Mechanics Eighth Edition. Spon Press
6. Technical Methods for Highways. Standard Methods of Testing Road Construction Materials
(1979). National Institute for Transport and Road Research of the Council for Scientific and
International Research, Pretoria, South Africa