CIVL3501 - SOIL MECHANICS

COMPACTION

Asst. Prof. Dr. Ehsan Etminan

 Compaction

Compaction is the use of equipment to compress

soil into a smaller volume, thus increasing its dry
unit weight and improving its engineering properties.

The solids and water are virtually incompressible,

so compaction produces a reduction in the volume of
air
Figure 6.19 Three phase diagrams showing the changes in soil as it moves from its
naturel location to a compacted fill.
 Compaction Equipments

 Differences between compaction equipment and the other

excavation equipment:

 Most construction equipment is intentionally designed to

have low contact pressures between the tires or tracks and the
soil. This allows them to travel more quickly and easily
through soft ground. For example. A Caterpillar 973 track
loader has a contact pressure of only 83 kPa. Such pressures
are too low to produce the required compaction in normal-
thickness lifts.

 Incidental traffic usually follows common routes, so their

compactive effort is not uniformly distributed across the fill.
Thus, some areas may receive sufficient compaction, while
others receive virtually none.
All compaction equipment uses one or more of the following four methods (Spann,
1986):

Pressure: The contact pressure between the equipment and the ground is
probably the most important factor in the resulting compaction of the
underlying soils. A typical sheepsfoot roller has a contact pressure of about
3500 kPa (500 lb/in2), which is far greater than the track-mounted
equipment described earlier.

Impact: Some equipment imparts a series of blows to the soil, such as by

dropping a weight. This adds a dynamic component to the comp active effort.

Vibration: Vibratory compaction equipment utilizes eccentric weights or

some other device to induce strong vibration into soil, which can enhance its
compaction . These vibrations typically have a frequency of 1000—3500
cycles per minute.

Manipulation: Compaction equipment that imparts some shearing forces to

the soil can also contribute to better compaction. This action is called
kneading or manipulation. However excessive manipulation, such as in an
overly wet fill, can be detrimental. When such fills are simply being
moved around with no compaction occurring , we have a condition called
pumping.
Note: The proper selection of compaction equipment and
methods depends on the type of soil, the size of the project
compaction requirements required production and other
factors. No single device is the best choice for all situations.
Figure 6.20 shows typical ranges of soil types for various
types of compactors.
Figure 6.20 Soil types best suited for various kinds of compaction equipment
(Adapted from Caterpillar,1993).
 Sheepsfoot roller

Sheepsfoot rollers compact soil by pressure and

manipulation. They can be used on a variety of soils, but
work best in silts and clays. Most sheepsfoot rollers can
accommodate soil lifts with loose thicknesses of about 200
mm (8 in).

Tamping foot rollers

Tamping foot rollers are very similar to sheep foot rollers,

except they use larger feet with a correspondingly smaller
contact pressure. They can be operated at a faster speed,
But do not compact to as great a depth.
Figure 6.21 Sheepsfoot rollers: a) Towed rollers
Figure 6.21 Sheepsfoot rollers: b)Self-propolled roller. (Caterpillar Inc.)
Sheepsfoot rollers • Has many round or rectangular
shaped protrusions or “feet”
attached to a steel drum
• 8% ~ 12 % coverage
• Contact pressure is from 1400 to
7000 kPa
• It is best suited for clayed soils.
• Compactive effort: static weight
and kneading.
Tamping foot roller • About 40% coverage
• Contact pressure is from 1400 to
8400 kPa
• It is best for compacting fine-
grained soils (silt and clay).
• Compactive effort: static weight
and kneading.
 Pneumatic rollers

 Pneumatic rollers (also known as rubber-tire rollers) are heavy

units resting on several tires. The contact pressure is typically
about 600 kPa (85 1b/in). Each tire is able to move up and down
independently, so this device is good at finding small soft spots that
rigid compaction equipment, such as sheep foot rollers, can miss.
The tires also provide a kneading action that enhances compaction.
These rollers can compact lifts with loose thicknesses of 250—300
mm (10—12 in).
Pneumatic (or rubber-tired) roller • 80% coverage under the wheel
• Contact pressure up to 700 kPa
• Can be used for both granular
and fine-grained soils.
• Compactive effort: static weight
and kneading.
• Can be used for highway fills or
earth dam construction.
 Vibratory rollers

Vibratory rollers, such as the one in Figure 6.22, are similar

to sheep foot or tamping foot rollers with the addition of a
vibrating mechanism. Thus, they use pressure manipulation,
and vibration to compact the soil. Vibration is especially
effective in sandy and gravelly soils. The heaviest of these
rollers can accommodate loose lift thicknesses of up to 1 m
(3 ft), and they provide some compactive effort to depths of
about 2 m (7 ft)
Figure 6.22 Self-propelled vibratory roller.
 Smooth steel-wheel rollers

• Smooth steel-wheel rollers (don’t call them “steamroller”), such as the

one in Figure 6.23, leave a smooth compacted soil surface. The non-
vibratory types are not well suited for compacting soil because the
contact pressure is much lower than that of sheepsfoot rollers.
However, they may be used to proof roll a subgrade just before paving
(i.e., a final rolling to confirm compaction of the upper most soils), and
to compact the aggregate base course and asphalt pavement.
Figure 6.23 A smooth steel- wheel roller preparing to compact an
asphalt pavement.(Caterpillar Inc.)
Smooth-wheel roller (drum) • 100% coverage under the wheel
• Contact pressure up to 380 kPa
• Can be used on all soil types
except for rocky soils.
• Compactive effort: static weight
• The most common use of large
smooth wheel rollers is for proof-
rolling subgrades and compacting
asphalt pavement.
Vibrating drum on smooth-wheel • Vertical vibrator attached to
roller smooth wheel rollers.
• The best explanation of why roller
vibration causes densification of
granular soils is that particle
rearrangement occurs due to cyclic
deformation of the soil produced
by the oscillations of the roller.
• Compactive effort: static weight
and vibration.
• Suitable for granular soils
Mesh (or grid pattern) roller • 50% coverage
• Contact pressure is from 1400 to
6200 kPa
• It is ideally suited for compacting
rocky soils, gravels, and sands.
With high towing speed, the
material is vibrated, crushed, and
impacted.
• Compactive effort: static weight
and vibration.

Holtz and Kovacs, 1981

Elephant and Compaction
Question?
The compaction result is
not good. Why?

Heavy Weight
 SOIL COMPACTION STANDARDS AND
ASSESSMENT

For geotechnical engineers, soil compaction is one of the

most important parts of earthwork construction.

Compaction improves the engineering properties of the fill

in many ways including:
 ADVANTAGES OF COMPACTION

 Increased shear strength, which reduces the potential for slope stability
problems, such as landslides, and enhances the fill’s capacity for supporting
loads, such as foundations.

 Decreased compressibility , which reduces the potential for excessive

settlement.

 Decreased hydraulic conductivity, which inhibits the flow of water through

the soil. This may be desirable or undesirable, depending on the situation.

 Decreased void ratio, which reduces the amount of water that can be held in
the soil, and thus helps maintain the desirable strength properties.

 Increased erosion resistance which helps maintain the ground surface in a

serviceable condition?
 Compaction Requirements
 Nearly all compaction specification is based on achieving a certain dry unit
weight, gd.

 Then, during construction, the geotechnical engineer usually has a staff of field
engineers and technicians who measure the unit weight achieved in the field to
verify the contractor’s compliance with these specifications.

 However, it is important to recognize that dry unit weight itself is not particularly
important. We use it only because it is an indicator of quality, is easy to measure,
and correlates with the desirable engineering properties listed above. In others
words, we want favourable strength, compressibility, hydraulic conductivity, void
ratio, and erosion resistance properties, and know that we have attained them
when the dry unit weight criteria has been met.
 Proctor Compaction Test
During the 1930s,Mr.R.R Proctor, an engineer with the City of Los
Angeles, developed a method of assessing compacted fills that
has since become a nearly universal standard (Proctor, 1933 ).

This method consists of compacting the soil in the laboratory to

obtain the maximum dry unit weight, (gd)max , then requiring
the contractor to achieve at least some specified percentage
of this value in the field.

The original version of the laboratory test is now known as the

standard proctor test , while a later revision is called the
modified proctor test . The dry unit weight achieved in the field
is determined using several types of field density tests.
 Standard Proctor Test

1. Obtain a bulk sample of the soil to be used

in the compacted fill and prepare it in a
specified way .
2. Place some of the prepared soil into a
Standard 1/30 ft3 (9 .44x10-4 m3) cylindrical
steel. This mold is shown in figure 6.27.
3. Compact the soil by applying 25 blows from
a special 5.5-1b (2.49-kg ) hammer that
drops from a height of 12 in (305 mm).
4. Place a second layer of the prepared soil into the
mold until it is about 75 percent full and
compact it using 25 blows from the standard
hammer.

5. Place the third layer of the prepared soil into the

mold and compact it in the same fashion . Thus,
we have applied a total of 75 hammer blows.
6. Trim the sample so that its volume is full, then
weigh it. The unit weight. 𝛾, is thus :

7. Perform a water content test on a representative

portion of the compacted sample, then compute the
dry unit weight , 𝛾𝑑 using equation below:

8. Repeat steps 2-7 four or five times , each with the

soil at a different water content.
Figure 6.27 Mold and hammer for a Proctor compaction test. The standart test uses
three layers, as shown, while the modified test uses five.
Standard Proctor test equipment
 Laboratory Test Results

The test results are then plotted on a gd vs. w diagram

as shown in Figure 6.28.

The curve connecting the data points represents the

dry unit weight achieved by compacting the soil at
various water contents.

Higher gd values indicate higher quality fill , so there is

a certain water content , known as the optimum water
content, wo, that produces the greatest gd . The latter is
called the maximum dry unit weight , (gd )max.
Figure 6.28 Results from a Proctor compaction test
Results

Line of
Dry density d (Mg/m3)

Dry density d (lb/ft3)

Peak point optimums
d max
Line of optimum
Zero air void
Modified
Proctor

Standard
Proctor

wopt
Water content w (%)
The mechanics behind the shape of this curve are very
complex (Hilf,1991).

In a dry soil, we achieve better compaction by first

adding water to raise its water content to near-optimum.
This water provides lubrication , softens clay bonds, and
reduces surface tension forces within the soil.

However, if the soil is to wet, then there is little or no

air left in the voids , and it thus becomes very difficult
or impossible to compact. Such soils need to be dried
before they are compacted.
Usually, the peak of the compaction curve occurs at a
degree of saturation, S ,of about 80 %.

Although most soils have compaction curves similar to that

in figure 6.28, clean sands and gravels (SP, GP, and some
SW and GW soils) often do not. They typically have much
flatter compaction curves (i.e., they are less sensitive to
water content than clays) and these curves sometimes have
two small peaks.

 Fortunately, these soils compact easily in the field. So

quality assessments might rely more on observations of the
contractor’s procedures and less on test results.
Before drawing the compaction curve, it is best to first
draw two other curves: one representing S = 100%
(sometimes called the zero air voids curve), and the other
representing S = 80%, as shown Figure 6.28. These two
curves can be developed using Equation below, and are
intended to help us draw the Proctor Compaction curve.
The S = 100% curve represents an upper limit for the
Proctor data, for it is impossible to have
S>100%.

The S = 80% curve should go nearly through the peak

in the proctor curve.

 In addition, the right branch of the proctor curve should

be slightly to the left of S = 100%, because compaction
does not remove all of the air.
Example
Solution
 Relative compaction
Once the maximum dry unit weight has been established for the
soil being used the compacted fill, we can express the degree of
the achieved in the field by using the relative compaction, R(%)
or R.C.
 Modified Proctor Test

During the 1940s and 1950s, geotechnical engineers found the standard
proctor test was no longer sufficient for airport and highway projects
because fills were not providing adequate support for heavy trucks and
aircraft. The U.S. army corps of engineers addressed this problem by
developing the modified proctor test, which used greater levels of
compaction and thus produced higher values of (gd)max.

The principal differences between the standard and modified test are
shown in figure 6.30 and table 6.3. This method was later adapted by
the American association of state highway and transportation officials
( AASHTO) and ASTM , and is now the most commonly used
standard. The concurrent development of heavier and more efficient
earthmoving and compaction equipment made it practical to implement
this higher compaction standard.
Comparison - Standard and Modified Proctor Test

Higher compacting energy

 -Comparison-
Summary of Standard Proctor Compaction Test
Specifications (ASTM D-698, AASHTO)
 -Comparison-
Summary of Modified Proctor Compaction Test
Specifications (ASTM D-698, AASHTO)
Figure 6.30 Comparision of standart proctor test and modified Proctor test results
on the same soil
 Variables of Compaction
Proctor established that compaction is a function of four variables:
(1)Dry density (d) or dry unit weight gd.
(2)Water content w
(3)Compactive effort (energy E)
(4)Soil type (gradation, presence of clay minerals, etc.)
Height of Number of
For standard Weight of
hammer
 drop of  blows per  Number of
layer layers
Proctor test hammer
E=
Volume of mold

2.495 kg(9.81m / s 2 )(0.3048 m)(3 layers)(25 blows / layer)

E
0.944  103 m3
 592.7 kJ / m3 (12,375 ft lb / ft 3 )
Compaction Methods and Soil Fabric

Figure 6.31 Effect of water content during

compaction on soil fabric in clays
When compacted dry of optimum, clays have a
flocculated fabric as shown in Figure 6.31. Such
soils have a higher hydraulic conductivity (i.e.,
they pass water more easily ) and a greater shear
strength than those compacted wet of optimum,
even though gd is the same for both.

Conversely, clays compacted wet of optimum have a

more oriented fabric, which also affects the engineering
properties.
 Structure of Compacted Clays

• For a given compactive

effort and dry density, the
soil tends to be more
flocculated (random) for
compaction on the dry side
as compared on the wet side.
• For a given molding water
content, increasing the
compactive effort tends to
disperse (parallel, oriented)
the soil, specially on the dry
side.
 Field Density Tests
The final link in assessing fill compaction by the
Proctor method is to measure gd in the fill, thus
enabling us to use equation 6.2. Several methods have
been developed to do so, and they are known as field
density tests.

All of these methods can be performed in the

field, thus making it possible to immediately present
the test results to the contractor. Such rapid feedback
is important, because the contractor must rectify any
inadequately compacted zones before they are buried by
additional fill.
 Sand Cone Test

One of the most field density test methods is the sand cone test (ASTM
D1556). The test procedure is essentially as follows (see ASTM for
details):

1) Prepare a level surface in the fill and dig a cylindrical hole about
125 mm (5 in) in diameter and about 125 mm (5 in) deep. Save all
of the soil that comes out of the hole and determine its weight, W

2) Fill the sand cone apparatus, shown in figure 6. 32, with special free-
flowing SP sand similar to that found in an hourglass. Then
determine the weight of the cone and the sand, W1.
 Sand Cone Test

3) Place the sand cone over the hole, as shown in figure 6, 33. Then
open the valve, and allow the sand to fill the hole and the cone.

4) Close the valve, remove the sand cone from the hole, and determine
its new weight, W2
Figure 6.32 Use of a sand cone to measure the unit weight of a fill.
Figure 6.33 A sand cone test being performed in the field.
 Drive Cylinder Test

Another field density test method is the drive cylinder test (ASTM
D2397). It consist s of driving a thin - wall still tube into the soil
using a special drive head and a mallet as shown in a figure 6.34. The
cylinder is then dug out of the fill using a shovel, the soil is trimmed
smooth, and it is weighed. The unit weight of the fill is then computed
based on this weight and the volume of the cylinder, and the water
content is determined as discussed earlier.

The drive cylinder test is much faster than the sand cone method and
only slightly less precise. However, it is only suitable for fills with
sufficient silt and clay to provide enough dry strength to keep the
sample inside the cylinder. It is not satisfactory in clean sands, because
they fall out too easily, or in gravely soils.
Figure 6.34 the drive cylinder test
 Nuclear Density Test

A third type of field density test is the nuclear density test (ASTM D2922). It consists of a
special device, shown figure 6.35 that emits gamma rays and detects how they travel though the
soil. The amount of gamma rays received back into the device correlates with the unit weight of
the soil. The nuclear density test also measures the water content of the soil in a similar way
using alpha particles.

 Both the unit weight and water contents depend on empirical correlations, which ultimately
must be programmed into the device. This allows it to directly display both parameters on digital
electronic readouts.

The nuclear test can encounter problems in fills with unusually chemistries, and needs regular
calibrations to maintain its accuracy.

In spite of its use of “hi-tech” equipment, the nuclear method is slightly less accurate than the
sand cone. This is because it is based on empirical correlations with the transmission of
radiations, while the sand cone uses direct measurements of weight and volume.

However, the nuclear test has sufficient accuracy for compaction assessments of normal fills,
and is faster than the sand cone. This saves time in the field, so its chief attraction is an economic
one. Therefore, it has generally become the preferred method for many geotechnical firms and
agencies.
Figure 6.35 Performing a nuclear density test in the field.
Example
 Solution

(M sand )cone  hole  5.912kg  2.378kg  3.534kg

( M sand )cone  hole 3.534kg 3 3

Vcone  hole   3
 2 .718x10 m
Psand 1300m

Vhole  Vcone  hole  Vcone  2.718x10 3 m3  1.114x103 m3  1.604x103 m3

1kN
Wsoil  M soil xg  (2.883kg )(9.81m / s )(
2
)  2.828x10  2 kN
1000N
 Wsoil 2.828x102 kN
g    17.63kN / m 3

Vhole 1.604x10 3 kN

g 17.63kN / m 3
gd    16.5kN / m 3

1 w 1  0.070

gd 16.5kN / m 3
CR  x100%  x100%  86.8%
(g d ) max 19.0kN / m 3

Conclusion and Recommendation

The relative compaction is less than the required 90%, so the specifications
have not been met. This may be at least partially due to the low water
content, which is well below optimum. Suggest pulling the soil, adding water,
mixing, and recompacting .