Geotechnical Engineering 1 (Soil Mechanics)

Module 4: Soil Compaction

Objectives:
After studying these topics the students will be able to:
1. Understand the significance of soil compaction in foundation analysis.

2. Determine the compaction of soil in field test.

Content:

A. Introduction

Compaction is the densification of soil by removal of air, which requires mechanical energy.
The degree of compaction of a soil is measured in terms of its dry unit weight.
B. Two Tests of Soil Compaction
1. Standard Proctor Test

The soil is compacted in a mold that has a volume of 1/10 ft3 (943.3 cm3). The diameter of
the mold is 4 in. (101. 6 mm). During the laboratory test, the mold is attached to a base plate at the
bottom and to an extension at the top. The soil is mixed with varying amounts of water and then
compacted in three equal layers by a hammer that delivers 25 blows to each layer. The hammer
weighs 5.5 lb (mass = 2.5 kg) and has a drop of 12 in. (304. 8 mm). For each test, the moist unit
weight of compaction, , can be calculated as follows:

W
 =
Vm
Where: W = weight of the compacted soil in the mold
Vm = volume of the mold ( = 1/30 ft3 )
For each test, the moisture content of the compacted soil is determined in the laboratory.
With the known moisture content, the dry unit weight, d , can be calculated as follows:

d = (%)
1+
100

Where:  (%) = percentage of moisture content

The procedure for the standard Proctor test is elaborated in ASTM Test Designation D-698
(ASTM, 1982) and AASHTO Test Designation T-99 (AASHTO, 1982).

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 1

 For given moisture content (w) and degree of saturation (S), the dry unit weight of
compaction can be calculated as follows:
Gs w
d =
1+e

Where: Gs = specific gravity of soil solids

w = unit weight of water
e = void ratio
 Gs
e=
S

Thus,
Gs w
d = G
1+ S s
For given moisture content, the theoretical maximum dry unit weight is obtained when no air
is in the void spaces – that is, when the degree of saturation equals 100%. Thus, the maximum dry
unit weight at given moisture content with zero air voids can be obtained by substituting S = 1 into:
Gs w w
ZAV = =
1 + Gs  +
1
Gs
Where: zav = zero-air-void unit weight

To obtain the variation of zav with moisture content, use the following procedure:
a. Determine the specific gravity of soil solids
b. Know the unit weight of water (w)
c. Assume several values of w, such as 5%, 10%, 15% and so on.
d. Use zav to calculate for various values of w.

Factors Affecting Compaction

a. Effect of Soil Type – that is, grain size distribution, shape of the soil grains, specified gravity of soil
solids, and amount and type of clay minerals present – has a great influence on the maximum dry
unit weight and optimum moisture content. The laboratory tests were conducted in accordance
with ASTM Test Designation D-698.

b. Effect of Compaction Effort – the compaction energy per unit volume used for the standard
Proctor Test described as follows:

Number Number Weight Height

|of blows | | of | | of | | drop |
per layer layers Hamme of Hammer
E=
Volume of Mold

If the compaction effort per unit volume of soil is changed, the moisture-unit weight curve
also changes. This fact can be demonstrated with the aid of the given figure 4.7, which shows four
compaction curves for sandy clay. The standard Proctor mold and hammer were used to obtain these
compaction curves. The number of layers of soil used for compaction was three for all cases.
However, the number of hammer blows per each layer varied from 20 – 50. The compaction energy
used per unit volume of soil for each curve can easily be calculated by using E. These values are
tabulated in the following table:

Curve number Number of Compaction energy

in given figure blows/layer ( ft-lb/ft3)a
1 20 9, 900
2 25 12, 375
3 30 14, 850
4 50 24, 750

a 1 ft-lb/ft3 = 47. 88 J/m3

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 2

 From the preceding tabulation, we can see that

a. As the compaction effort is increased, the maximum dry unit weight of compaction is also
increased.
b. As the compaction effort is increased, the optimum moisture content is decreased to some extent.

2. Modified Proctor Test

With the development of heavy rollers and their use in field compaction, the standard Proctor
test was modified to better represent field conditions. This revised version is sometimes referred to
as the modified Proctor test (ASTM test Designation D – 1557 and AASHTO Test Designation T – 180).
For conducting the modified Proctor test, the same mold is used with a volume of 1/30 ft 3 (943. 3
cm3) as in the case of the standard Proctor test. However, the soil is compacted in five layers by a
hammer that weighs 10 lb (mass = 4.54 kg). The drop of the hammer is 18 in. (457. 2 mm). The
number of hammer blows for each layer is kept at 25 as in the case of the standard Proctor test. Figure
4.8 shows a comparison between the hammer used for the standard Proctor test and that used for
the modified Proctor test. The compaction energy per unit volume of soil in the modified test can be
calculated as follows:

blows ft
(5 layers) (25 ) (1.5 )
layer drop
E=
1
( )
30 ft 3
kJ
E = 56, 250 ft − lb or 2, 693.3 3
m

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 3

C. Field Compaction: Compaction Equipment
Most of the compaction in the field is done with rollers. The four most common types of
rollers are
1. Smooth- wheel rollers ( or smooth-drum rollers )

2. Pneumatic rubber-tired rollers

3. Sheepsfoot rollers

4. Vibratory rollers

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 4

D. Factors Affecting Field Compaction

In addition to soil type and moisture content, the other factors must be considered to achieve
the desired unit weight of compaction in the field. These factors include:

1. The thickness of lift

2. The intensity of pressure applied by the compacting equipment
3. The area over which the pressure is applied

These factors are important because the pressure applied at the surface decreases with
depth, which results in a decrease in the degree of soil compaction. During compaction, the dry unit
weight of soil is also affected by the number of roller passes. In most cases, about 10 – 15 roller passes
yield the maximum dry unit weight economically attainable.

E. Specifications for Field Compaction

In most specifications for earthwork, the contractor is instructed to achieve a compacted field
dry unit weight of 90 – 95 % of the maximum dry unit weight determined in the laboratory by either
the standard or modified Proctor test. This is a specification for relative compaction, R, which can be
expressed as:
d(field)
R(%) = x 100%
d(max−lab)

For the compaction of granular soils, specifications are sometimes written in terms of the
required relative density, Dr, or the required relative compaction. Relative density should not be
confused with relative compaction.
d(field) − d(min) d(max)
Dr = [ ][ ]
d(max) − d(min) d(field)

Ro
R=
(1 − Dr )(1 − R o )
d(min)
Where: R o =
d(max)

F. Determination of Field Unit Weight of Compaction

When the compaction work is progressing in the field, knowing whether the specified unit
weight has been achieved is useful. The standard procedures for determining the field unit weight of
compaction include:

1. Sand Cone Method ( ASTM Designation D-1556 )

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 5

 The sand cone device consists of a glass or plastic jar with a metal cone attached at its top.
The jar is filled with uniform dry sand. The combined weight of the jar, the cone, and the sand filling
the jar is determined (W1). In the field, a small hole is excavated in the area where the soil has been
compacted. If the weight of the moist soil excavated from the hole (W 2) is determined and the
moisture content of the excavated soil is known, the dry weight of the soil (W 3) can be obtained as
follows:
W2
W3 =
(%)
1+
100

Where:  = moisture content

After excavation of the hole, the cone with the sand-filled jar attached to it is inverted and
placed over the hole. Sand is allowed to flow out of the jar to fill the hole and the cone. After that, the
combined weight of the jar, the cone, and the remaining sand in the jar is determined (W4), so

W 5 = W1 – W4

Where: W5 = weight of sand to fill the hole and cone

The volume of the excavated hole can then be determined as follows:

W5 − Wc
V=
d(sand)

Where: Wc = weight of sand to fill the cone only

d(sand) = dry unit weight of sand used

The values of Wc and d(sand) are determined from the calibration done in the laboratory. The
dry unit weight of compaction made in the field can then be determined as follows;

Dry weight of the soil excavated from the hole

d =
Volume of the hole
W3
d =
V

2. Rubber Balloon Method (ASTM Designation D-2167)

The procedures for the rubber balloon method are similar to that for the sand cone method;
a test hole is made and the moist weight of soil removed from the hole and its moisture content are
determined. However, the volume of the hole is determined by introducing into it a rubber balloon
filled with water from a calibrated vessel, from which the volume can be read directly. The dry weight
of the compacted soil can be determined by using d from sand cone method.

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 6

3. Nuclear Method

Nuclear density meters are often used for determining the compacted dry unit weight of soil.
The density meters operate either in drilled holes or from the ground surface. The instrument
measures the weight of wet soil per unit volume and the weight of water present in a unit volume of
soil. The dry unit weight of compacted soil can be determined by subtracting the weight of water
from the moist unit weight of soil.

G. Compaction of Organic Soil and Waste Materials

The presence of organic materials in a soil reduces its strength. In many cases, soils with a
high organic content are generally discarded as fills material; however, in certain economic
circumstances, slightly organic soils are used for compaction. In fact organic soils are desirable in
many circumstances (e.g., for agriculture, decertification, mitigation and urban planning). More
recently, the high costs of waste disposal have sparked an interest in the possible use of waste
materials (e.g.; bottom ash obtained from coal burning, copper slag, paper mill sludge, shredded
waste tires mixed with inorganic soil, and so forth) in various landfill operations. Such use of waste
materials is one of the major thrusts of present-day environmental geotechnology. Following is a
discussion of the compaction characteristics of some of these materials.

1. Organic Soil

Franklin, Orozco and Semru (1973) conducted several laboratory tests to observe the effect
of organic content on the compaction characteristics of soil. In the test program various natural soils
and soil mixtures were tested. When the organic content exceeds 8 – 10 %, the maximum dry unit
weight of compaction of decreases rapidly. Conversely, the optimum moisture content for a given
compactive effort increases with an increase in organic content. Likewise, the maximum unconfined
compressive strength obtained from a compacted soil (with a given compacted effort) decreases with
increasing organic content of a soil. From these facts, we can see that soils with organic contents
higher than about 10% are undesirable for compaction work.

2. Soil and Organic Material Mixtures

Lancaster et. Al. (1996) conducted several modified Proctor tests to determine the effect of
organic content on the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of soil and organic
material mixtures. The soils tested consisted of a poorly graded sandy soil (SP – SM) mixed with
either shredded redwood bark, shredded rice hulls or municipal sewage sludge.

3. Paper Mill Sludge

Paper mill sludge, despite high water content and low solid contents, can be compacted and
used for landfill. The states pf Wisconsin and Massachusetts have both used paper mill sludge to cap
landfills. Moo-Young and Zimmie (1996) provided the standard Proctor compaction characteristics
for several paper mill sludge’s.

4. Bottom Ash Coal Burning and Copper Slag

Laboratory standard Proctor test results for bottom ash from coal-burning power plants and
for copper slag are also available in the literature. These waste products have been shown to be
environmentally safe for use in landfill.

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 7

H. Special Compaction Technique

Several special types of compaction techniques have been developed for deep compaction of
in-place soils, and these techniques are used in the field for large-scale compaction works. Among
these, the popular methods are vibroflotation, dynamic compaction and blasting. Details of these
methods are provided in the following sections.

1. Vibroflotation

Vibroflotation is a technique for in situ densification of thick layers of loose granular soil
deposits. It was developed in Germany in the 1930’s. The first vibroflotation device was used in the
United States about 10 years later. The process involves the use of a Vibroflot, which is about 7 ft ( =
2. 13 m ) long. This vibrating unit has an electric weight inside it and can develop a centrifugal force,
which enables the vibrating unit to vibrate horizontally. These are openings at the bottom and top of
the vibrating unit for water jets. The vibrating unit is attached to a follow-up pipe.

The entire vibroflotation compaction process in the field can be divided into four stages:

Stage 1. The jet at the bottom of the Vibroflot is turned on and lowered into the
ground.
Stage 2. The water jet creates a quick condition in the soil. It allows the vibrating
unit to sink into the ground.
Stage 3. Granular material is poured from the top of the hole. The water from the
lower jet is transferred to the jet at the top of the vibrating unit. This water carries
a granular material down the hole.
Stage 4. The vibrating unit is gradually raised in about 1-ft ( = 0.3 m ) lifts and
held vibrating about 30 seconds at each lift. This process compacts the
soil to the described unit weight.
The grain size-distribution of the backfill material is an important factor that controls the rate
of densification. Brown (1977) has defined a quantity called the suitability number ( S N ) for rating
backfill material:

3 1 1
SN = 1.7 √ + +
(D50 )2 (D20 )2 (D10 )2

Where: D50, D20 and D10 are the diameters (in mm) through which, respectively, 50, 20 and
10% of the material passes.

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 8

 The smaller the value of SN, the more desirable the backfill material. The following is a backfill
rating system proposed by Brown:

Range of SN Rating as Backfill

0 – 10 Excellent
10 – 20 Good
20 – 30 Fair
30 – 50 Poor
> 50 Unsuitable

2. Dynamic Compaction

Dynamic compaction is a technique that has gained popularity in the United States for the
densification of granular soil deposits. This process consists primarily of dropping a heavy weight
repeatedly on the ground at regular intervals. The weight of the hammer used varies over a range of
18 to 80 kip (80 to 356 kN), and the height of the hammer drop varies between 25 and 100 ft (= 7. 5
and 30. 5 m). The stress waves generated by the hammer drops aid in the densification. The degree
of compaction achieved at a given site depends on the following three factors:
a. Weight of hammer
b. Height of hammer drop
c. Spacing of locations at which the hammer is dropped

Leonard’s, Cutter and Holtz (1980) suggested that the significant depth of influence for
compaction can be approximated by using the following equation:

√WH h
D=
2

Where: D = significant depth of densification (m)

WH = dropping weight (metric ton)
h = height of drop (m)

In English units, the preceding equation takes the following form:

D = 0.61 √WHh

Where the units of D and h are in ft, and the unit of WH is kip

3. Blasting

Blasting is a technique that has been used successfully in many projects (Mitchell, 1970) for
the densification of granular soils. The general soil grain sizes suitable for compaction by blasting are
the same as that compaction by vibroflotation. The process involves the detonation of explosives

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 9

charges such as 60% dynamite at a certain depth below the ground surface in saturated soil. The
lateral spacing of the charges varies from about 10 to 30 ft (3m to 9m). Three to five successful
detonations are usually necessary to achieve the desired compaction. Compaction (up to a relative
density of about 80%) up to a depth of about 60 ft (18 m) over a large area can easily be achieved by
using this process. Usually, the explosive charges are placed at a depth of about two-thirds of the
thickness of the soil layer desired to be compacted. The sphere of influence of compaction by a 60%
dynamite charge can be given as follows (Mitchell, 1970):
WEX
r=
0.0025

Where: r = sphere of influence ( ft )

WEX = weight of explosive – 60% dynamite (lb)
Problems
1. The backfill material for a Vibroflotation project has the following grain sizes:
D10 = 0. 36 mm, D20 = 0. 52 mm, D50 = 1. 42 mm
Determine the suitability number.

2. The following data are taken from a Dynamic compaction test. Determine the significant depth of
influence for compaction in meters.
Weight of hammer – 18 metric tons
Height of drop = 14 meters

3. A field – compact sample of sandy loam was found to have a wet density of 21. 4 kN/m 3 at a water
content of 10%. The maximum dry density of the soil obtained in a Standard Proctor Test (SPT)
was 19. 7 kN/m3. Assuming specific gravity of soil sample to be 2. 65, determine the percent
compaction of the field.

4. The relative compaction of the sand in the field is 94%. The maximum and minimum dry unit
weights of the sand are 16. 2 kN/m3 and 14. 9 kN/m3 respectively. For the field condition,
determine the relative density of compaction.

5. The results of a Standard Proctor Test follow. Determine the maximum dry unit weight of
compaction and the optimum moisture content. Also, determine the void ratio and the degree of
saturation at the optimum moisture content. Given: Gs = 2. 68.

Volume of Weight of Wet Moisture Moist Unit Dry Unit

Proctor Soil in Mold Content Weight Weingt
Mold (ft3) (lb) (%) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3)
1
3. 69 12
30
1
3. 82 14
30
1
3. 88 16
30
1
3. 87 18
30
1
3. 81 20
30
1
3. 77 22
30

References:
1. Images are Retrieved from https://www.google.com
2. Geotechnical Engineering (Revised Third Edition) by C. Venkatramaiah, 2012
3. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (Seventh Edition) by Braja M. Das, 2010
4. Soil Mechanics and Foundations (Third Edition) by Muni Budhu, 2011
5. Soil Mechanics 7th Edition, R.F. Craig, 2004
6. Basic Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering by Venancio L. Besavilla Jr., 1998
7. Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering by Diego Inocencio T. Gillesania, 2006

MBV Geotechnical Engineering 1 Page | 10