)

Soil Compaction

, a r t h d a m s ,a n d m a n y o t h e r e n g i n e e r o f h i g h w a ye m b a n k m c n t se ln the construction to increasethcir unit weights. Commust be compacted ing structurcs,loose soils which increasethe bearing caol'soils. charactcristics the strength paction incrcases the amount also dccreases Compaction ovcr them. pacity of [oundationsconstructed o f s l o p e so f e m t h e s t a b i l i t y i n c r c a s c s s t r u c t u r c s a n d s e t t l e m c n to f of undesirablc rollers, and virubber-tired rollcrs, rollers. shccpsfoot bankments. Smootl.r-wl'rccl Vibratory rollers for soil compaction. in thc ficld bratory rollers arc generally used are also used Vibroflot devices sclils. ol'granular arc uscclmostly for the densification in of soil Compaction depth. to a considerzrblc frtr compacting granular soil deposits the in dctail discusscs some This chapter this manner is known as vihntflotutioz. p r i n c i p l e so f ' s o i l c o m p a c t i o ni n t h e l a b o r a t o r ya n d i n t h e f i c l d .

5.1

Compaction-

General Principles

Compaction, in gencral, is the dcnsificationol'soil by removal of air, which requires mechanicalenergy.Thc degreeo1compactionof a soil is measuredin terms of its dry unit weight. When water is addcd to the soil during compaction, it acts as a softening agent on the soil particles.The soil particlcs slip over each other and move into as the a denselypacked position.The dry unit weight after compaction first increases : 0, w c o n t e n t a t a m o i s t u r e ( S e e N o t e t h a t F i g u r e 5 . 1 . ) i n c r e a s e s . m o i s t u r ec o n t e n t (7,,), ot weight (7) to the dry unit is equal the moist unit weight
7 : |t(r-.tt: 7l

When the moisturc content is gradually increasedand the same compactiveeffort is usedfor compaction,the weight of the soil solidsin a unit volume graduallyincreases. F o r e x a m p l e .a t w : t ' 1 , f :7: However, the dry unit weight at this moisture content is given by
f ,tr,,,, 1: 1 a 1 , ,' , , tr 17,1

100

5.2 Standard Proctor Test

101

"{z
J ,:!

.:
'5

> .: 7 l
. l = l F I l t l - l
l t l

> l

>-l

Moisturc contentr, Figure 5. I principle s of compaction B e y o n da c e r t a i nm o i s t u r cc o n t c n t w : w t ( F i g u r e- 5 . 1 )a , ny incrcasc in thc moisture c o n t c n t t e n d s t o r c d u c e t h e d r y u n i t w e i g h t .T h i s p h e n o m e n o n o c c u r sb c c a u s ct h c w a t e r t a k e su p t h c s p a c e s .l-hc t h a t w o u l d h a v c b c e n o c c u p i e db y t h c s o l i c lp a r t i c l c s . m o i s t u r ec o n t e n t a t w h i c h t h e m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w e i g h t i s a t t a i n e di s g e n c r a l l yr e ferred to as the opfimum moisturc content. T h e l a b o r a t o r yt e s t g e n e r a l l yu s c c lt o o b t a i n t h e m a x i m u r r dry unit weightof compaction and thc optimum moisturc content is called the Proctor t'ctntput'tipn test (Proctor, 1933).The procedurefor conclucting this typc of test is describecl in the lbllowingsection.

5.2

Standard Proctor Test

In the Proctor test,the soil is compactedin a mold that hasa volune o1'944 cmr (.1i ft.). T h e d i a m e t e ro f t h e m o l d i s 1 0 1 . 6 m m ( a i n . ) . D u r i n g t h e l a b o r a t o r yt e s t ,t h e m o l d is attached to a baseplateat the bottom and to an extensionat the tqp (Figure 5.2a). The soil is mixed with varying amounts of water and then compacted in three equal layers by a hammer (Figure 5.2b) that delivers2,5blows to each layer.The hammer has a massof 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) and has a drop of 30.5mm ( r2 in.). Figure -5.2c is a pho_ tograph of the laboratory equipment required for conducting proctor a standard test. For each test, the moist unit weight of compaction! can be calculatedas 7,

,' :

V,,,,

(-5.1 )

where 14/: weight of the compactedsoil in the mold (,,y : volume of the mold 1944cm3 (rafC)]

t
102
Chapter 5 Soil Compaction
I 1 4 . 3m m diameter (4.5 in.) --*l
I

bxtensron

;=::==:::::-:
t'.' l. I r r .r j

= DroP nm 304.8 (l2in.)

(a)

W e i g h to f harnmer= 2.5 kg - 5.5 lb) (rnass

l.-l
5 0 . 1m 1m (2 in.) (b)

(c)

: (a) mold; (b) hammer (c) photograph of laboProctortest equipment Figure 5.2 Standard ratory equipmentusedfor test

5.2 Standard Proctor Test

\25
Zeroair-void curve (G' = 2.69,

120

19.0

l8.s z a
Maximum 1.,
il

J
| l-)

l a i . lI d

.E

17..5 0

r0-5
5

Optimum n.lol sture contcnt t

t0 l-5 Moisture content, w (%)

tu

Figure 5.3 Standard Proctor compaction test results for a silty clay

For each test, the moisture content of the compacted soil is determined in the laboratory. With the known moisture content, the dry unit weight can be calculated as

r u -_ $ 6
t1oo

( s.2)

where w ("/") : percentageof moisture content. The values of 7,1determined from Eq. (5.2) can be plotted againstthe correspondingmoisture contentsto obtain the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content for the soil. Figure 5.3 showssuch a plot for a silty-claysoil. The procedure for the standardProctor test is elaboratedin ASTM Test Designation D-698 (ASTM, 1999)and AASHTo resr DesignationT-99 (AASHTO, 1982). For a given moisture content w and degree of saturation $ the dry unit weight of compaction can be calculatedas follows: From chapter 3 [Eq. (3.16)],for any soil, ,., : where G" : specific gravity of soil solids 7,, : unit weight of water e : void ratio G'f'' l + e

104

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction a n d ,f r o m E q . ( 3 . 1 8 ) , Se : G,rl or

- . s
Thus.
Grlr,
i /

G,trr

Id

: -

(s.3)

t*

Glo

| I I

Fgr a given moisture content, the theclreticalmaximum dry unit weight is obequals s - t h a t i s ,w h c n t h e d c g r e eo f s a t u r a t i o n t a i n e dw h c n n o a i r i s i n t h c v o i c ls p a c e l 0 g % . H c n c e , t h c m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w c i g h t a t a g i v e n m o i s t u r ec o n t e n t w i t h z e r o .r S - I i n t o E q . ( - 5 . 3 )o a i r v o i d sc a n b e o b t a i n e db y s u b s t i t u t i n g

rzu,,: #*:

-rT
' w + G..

(s.4)

unit weight. where y-,^.: 7.ero-air-void To obtain thc variertion of 7.,,,.with moisturc content, use the following proccdure: 1. 2. 3. 4. Determine the specificgravity of soil solids. Know the unit weight of water (7,,,). and so on. valuesof w, such as 57o, 10"/",15"/", Assume severatl w. valucs of y various f or to calculate r,,,, I-Jse Eq. (-5.a)

Figure 5.3 also showsthe variation of 7.u"with moisture content and its relative should any location with respectto thc compaction curve. Under no circumstances part of the compaction curve lie to the right of the zero-air-voidcurve.

5.3

Factors Affecting ComPaction

The preceding section showed that moisture content has a strong influence on the degree of compaction achievedby a given soil. Besidesmoisture content, other important factors that affect compaction are soil type and compaction effort (energy per unit volume). The importance of each of these two factors is describedin more detail in the followins two sections.

5.3 FactorsAffecting Compaction Iu.u6

Sandy silt

t8.-50

Iu.(x)
,P !

Siltyclay
l7 <rt

E z
J s

s ._. .zr I il)

Highly plastic clay

'a

'| 7 ' 't r' t'r =

Poorly gradcdsand

'E

r05

I6.-50

r6.(x)
l (X) 5 t0 l-5 M o i s t u r cc o n t c n t , r . ( ? ) 'I'ypical 15 . 7 a 20

Figure 5.4

conrpaction curves li)r lirur soils (AS.l.M D_69u)

Effect of Soil Type 'l'he soil type - that is, grain-sizedistribution, shapeof the soil grains,specilicgrav_ ity of soil solids,and amount ancl type of clay minerals p."r.ni- has a grcat inllu_ c n c e o n t h e m a x i m u m d r y u n i t w e i g h t a n d o p t i m u m m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t .F i e u r e 5.4 showstypical compaction curvesobtained lrom lirur soils.The laboratory teits were conducted in accordancewith ASTM Test Designation D-691t. Note also that the bell-shapedcornpactioncurvc shown in Figure ,5.3 is typical of most clayey soils. Figure -5.4 sh'ws that for sands,the dry unit ,i,eighthas a general tendencylirst to decrease as moisture content increases, and then to increaseto a maxinlum value with further increaseof moisture. The initial decreaseo1 dry unit weight with increaseof moisture content can be attributed to the capillary tension effect.At lower moisture contents,the capillary tensionin the pore water inhibits the tendency of the soil particles to move around and be denselvc'mnacted. Lee and Suedkamp (1912)studiecl compactioncurvesfbr 35 soil samples. They observed that four types of compaction curves can be found. These curves are shown in Figure 5.5.Type A compaction curvesare those that have a singlepeak. This type of curve is generally found tbr soils that have a liquid limit betweJn 30 and 70. Curve type B is a one-and-one-half-peak curve, and curve type c is a double-peak curve.

106

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction

@ o

M0isture content,t|'

ion curvc Figure 5.5 Typcsof compacl

Compaction curves of types B and C can be found for soils that have a liquid limit lessthan about 30. Compaction curves of type D do not have a definite peak. They are termed odd shuped.Soils with a liquid limit greater than about 70 may exhibit compaction curvesof type C or D. Such soils are uncommon. Effect of Compaction Effort

The compaction energy per unit volume used for the standardProctor test described i n S c c l i o n 5 . 2 c a n b e g i v e na s

..(,*"In") (,)T*:) , (,*:i''), (iTJ:?)

E : or, in SI units, \p", tny"r/ \ tuy.r,,/ \t.,o*,n"r/ \ nut,n"r 7
Volume of mold

(s.s)

(2s)(3) (%p
E : In Englishunits,
E -

-) r.N)to.:os
: 594kN-m/m3: 600kN-m/m3

944> l0"mj

/L 7Js \J 1 1 ) :5 /J5 t)*r l) t : \ )\ -t :J

D375 ft-lb/ft3 :

l 2 . 4 t J 0f t - l b / f t r

i r \ \30i

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 Figure 5.6, which shows four compaction curves for a 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 to 50, which varied the energy per unit volume.

5.4 Modified Proctor Test

ttJ

107

19.85 Sandyclay L i q u i dl i n i t = 3 1 Plastic limit = 26

Line of optlmum

19.00

E i

rr<

.E : ll0

in k
12

E z 3 Ir,i.00

;
.s!

')

.= =
q

\,2-5 blows/ layer

17.(x)

2 0 b l o w s /l a y e r

t0

t1 16 It { 2(\ Moisture (.2,) content, 11,

22

24

Figure 5.6 Effect of compaction cnergy on the compaction of a sancryclay From the preccding observation and Figure 5.6, we can see that

l. As the compaction effort is increascd,the maximum drv unit weight of compaction is also increased. 2. As the compaction effort is increased, the optimum moisture content is decreasedto some cxtent. The preceding statementsare true for all soils. Note, however, that the degree of compaction is not directly proportional to the compaction eftbrt.

Modified Proctor Test

With the developmentof heavyrollers and their usein field compaction,the standard Proctor test was modified to better represent field conditions. This revised version is sometimesreferred to as the modified Proctor /esl(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 944 cm3 (1/30 ft3) as in the caseof the standard Proctor test. However, the soil is compacted in five layers by a hammer that has a massof 4.54 kg (10 lb). The drop of the hammer is 457 mm (1s in.). The number of hammer blows for each layer is kept at 25 as in the caseof the standard proctor test.

7
108 Chapter 5 Soil Compaction The compaction energy for this type of compaction test can be calculated as 2700 kN-m/m3 (56.000ft-lb/lbr). Becauseit increasesthe compactivceffort, the modifieclProctor test resultsin an increasein the maximum dry unit weight of the soil. The increasein the maximum dry unit weight is accompaniedby a decreasein the optimum moisture content. given for Proctor testsadopted the specifications In the precedingdiscussions, by ASTM and AASHTO regardingthe volume of the mold and the number of blows are gcnerally those adopted for fine-grainedsoils that pass through the U.S. No. 4 methods that sicve.However, under each test designation,there are three suggested reflectthe mold size,the number of blows per layer, and the maximum particle sizein usedfor testing.A summary of thc test methods is givenin Table 5.1. a soil aggregate

anclModificdProctorCompaction ol Standard Table5.7 Sunrn.rary (ASTM D-69,S and D-1557) TcstSpecifications

Description PhvsicalData lor rhc'l'ests Matcrial Method A Passing No. 4 sicvc Ljsed if 207u or lcss by wcight ol rnatcrial i s r c l a i n c do n N o . , l ( 4 . 7 5r n m ) s i c v c
Method B Method C

9.,5 mnl Passing ( I in.) sicvc Ljscd il'more than 207" by wcight ol'material is r c t a i n c do n N o . 4 (4.7-5 r n m ) s i c v ca n d 2 0 % , or lcssby wcight o[ nratcrial is rclaincd on 9.-5 r n r n( i i n . ) s i e v e 944 crnr ( + ftt) 101.6 mm (4 in.) n4 .) 116.4 m r n ( 4 . . 5 1 i3 24.4 N (5.5 tb) 3 0 5 m n r ( 1 2i n . ) 3 25

Passing19 mm ( ] in.) sieve 20'l" Ljscd if morc tl.ran by wcight of matcrial i s r e t a i n c do n 9 . 5 m m ( l i n . ) s i c v ea n d l e s s than 30% by wcight of material is rctaincd o n 1 9m m ( I i n . ) s i e v e 944 crnr ( ; l1t) 101.6 mm (4 in.) ,1 .) I 1 6 . 4m m ( 4 . - 5 1itn 24.4 N (-5-5lb) 3 0 5m m ( 1 2i n . ) 3

Lisc

Mold volurnc Mold diamctcr Mold hcight Standard Proctor Test Wcight ol' hammer Heightol drop Numberof soil laycrs Number of blows/laycr Modified Proctor Test W e i g h to f hammer Height of drop Numberof soil layers Numbcr of blows/layer

944 crnr ( ..1, ltt) 101.6 mm (4 in.) 116.4 m m ( 4 . - 5 t ti4 n.) lb) 24.4 N (-5.5 3 0 5m m ( 1 2 i n . ) 3 25

56

4 4 . 5N ( l 0 l b ) 457 mm (18 in.) 5 25

44.-5 N (l0lb) 457 mm (18 in.) 5 25

4 4 ' 5N ( 1 0 l b ) '157mm (1t3in.) ,5 56

5-4

Modified

Proctor Test

109

Example 5.1
For a compacted soil,G" : 2.72, w = 187o, andya : 0.97rn . Determine the dry unit weight of thecompacted soil. Solution FromEq.(5.4),
Tzo'': --JU,-" ,,+ I

9.81 ;=*:17.9
16 1

kN/mr

G,

100

2.72

Hence,for the compacted soil, - 16.tkN/m3 t,r = 0.91,u,: (0.9)(17.9)

Example 5.2
The laboratorytestresults of a standard Proctortestaregivenin thefollowingtable:
Volume of mold (fr3l Weight of moist soil in mold 0b) Moisture content, u/ (V"l

ih ,l $

3.63 3.86 4.oz

10 t2 14

+
*

3.e8
3.tts

16
18

Determine the maximumdry unit weightof compactionand the optimum moist.ure content. Solution The following table can be prepared:
Volume of mold,V

(ft3l
I I

Weight of sgi!W

Moist unit weight,y

ilb) 3.63 3.86

4r)) 3.98 3.88 3.73

Moisture conrent,w

[bltfy'
108.9 115.8 120.6 119.4 116.4 111.9

Dry unit weight,76

to/"I
10
IL

truTrtdl;

l0 ,L 30
I

fuo:.+
,105.8 142.9 98.6 93.3

r 99.0

30 I 30 1 l0

I4 16 18 20

"y=WV oto = ylll + [w (%)i100]]

110

Chapter5

Soil ComPaction

.E

lt,l

= ;
t

.1D loo
E

o 9 5

90 ."n

l0

16 14 t2 'r'({./.') contcnt. Moisture

llt

20

Figure 5.7 Moisture content, w (%)

From the plot, we seethat the maxr.r,' is shownin Figure5,.7. The plot of 74versus : and that the optimum moistureconimum dry unit weight (7ar-""1) 106lb/ft3 I tent is 14.4"/".

5.5

Structure of Compacted ClaY Soil

o1 compaction on thc structure of cliry soils,and the Lambe ( l95u) studied the cfTect If clay is compactcd with zrmoisture in Figure 5.11. illustratecl resultsol his study arc ur by point A, it will posscss r e p r csentcd a s o p t i m u m , o f t h c contcnl on the dry sidc content. moisture low at because, results o[ structure type flocculent structure.This the dilTuscclouble layers of ions surrounding the clay particles cannot be fully dehence,the interparticle rcpulsion is rcduced.This reduccd repulsion rcsults velopecl; in a more random particle orientation and a lower dry unit weight. Whcn the moisturc content of compaction is increascd,as shtlwn by point B, the diffuse double the repulsion between thc clay layers arounclthc particles cxpand, which increases a higher dry unit weight. A conand flocculation of degree particlesand givesa lowcr the double laycrs more. B to C expands from content tinued increasein moisture the particlesand between of repulsion increase continued This expansionresultsin a less dispersedstrucor a more and particlc orientation of thus a still greater degrce water dilutes the the bccause added decrcases weight ture. However, the clry unit per volume. unit concentration of soil solids At a given moisture content, higher compactive effort yields a more parallel orientation to the clay particles, which gives a more dispersedstructure. The parlicles are closer and the soil has a higher unit weight of compaction.This phenomenon can be seenby comparing point,4 with point E in Figure -5.8 Figure 5.9 showsthe variation in the degree of particle orientation with molding water content for compacted Boston blue clay.Works of Seed and Chan (1959) have shown similar results for compacted kaolin clay.

! E

E U

High compactive effort

Low compactive effort

M o l d i n g w a t e rc o n t e n t

Figure 5'8 Effect of compaction on structurc of clay soils (re<Jrawn after Lambc, l95tj) t00
c a

Parallel

o r

-50 25

o l0
ll4

t2

t4

l8

24

ll0

1 7 . 0 0^

E' t06
J

z
l/. On ; , il6

.d t{)2

.: tr

= 9 8

94

Higher compactionenergy Lower compactionenergy

15.00 5

l0

t2

14

16

l8

t4.14

20

22

24

Molding moisturecontent(7c)

Figure 5.9 Orientationagainst moisturecontentfor Bostonblue clay (after Lambe,1958)

111

112

Chapter 5

I
t-

Figure 5.70 Srnooth-whcclrollcr (coultesy ol'Davicl A. C'arroll.Austin. Texas)

,*x"\

nrller (courtesy of DavidA. Carroll.Austin,Texas) rubber-tircd Figure 5. 11 Pneumatic

112

5.6 Field Compaction

113

5.6

Field Compaction
Compaction Equipment Most of the compaction in thc field is done with rollers.The four most common types of rollers are l. 2. 3. 4. S m o o t h - w h e er l o l l e r s( o r s m < t o t h - d r u m rollers) P n e u m a t i cr u b b e r - t i r c dr o l l c r s Sheepsfootrollers Vibratory rollers

S m o o t h - w h e cr l o l l e r s( F i g u r e. 5 . 1 0a ) r e s u i t a b l cf o r p r o o f r o l l i n gs u b g r a d e s and f o r l i n i s h i n go p e r a t i o no f f i l l sw i t h s a n d ya n c lc l a y e ys o i l s . T h e s er o l l e r sp r o v i d e 1 g 0 % coverase undcrthe whecls. w i t h g r o u n dc o n t a c tp r e s s u r e a s s h i g h a s3 1 0t g 3 u 0k N / m 2 (4-5to -5-5 lb/inr). They.arc_norsuirablc lirr producing high un'it weights of compac_ t i o n w h e n u s e cc l t nt h i c k e r l a v e r s . Pncumtrtic r u b b c r - t i r e cr l trlle r s ( F i g u r c - 5 . 1 1a ) re bcttcr in many respects than t h c s r n o o t h - w h c cr l t l l l c r s .l ' h c l i r r m c r a r e h e a v i l yk r a d c dw i t h s e v e r a l rowsof tires. 'fhcse - I'our to six in a row. T'hc contact pressure lircs are closcly spacecl undcr the tircscanritns| er o n t 6 ( X ) t o 7 ( X ) k N / m r ( t l - 5 o) l b / i r r 2 ) , a n l ltx tc h le y p r o d u c e a b o u t T 0 to lJ0'Z'covcrage.Pncunralic rollers can be used lirr sanclyancl .t,iy"y soil compaction. c-'ompaction i s a c h i c v e cb ry a cornbinaticln o | p r . r r u r " a n c lk n e a d i n ga c t i o n . Shcepsli*rt r.llcrs (F-igurc.5. l2) arc drunrs with a large number .f projections. The arca .l'c.ch pro.icctionmay rilnsc ll-.rn 2-5 t. g5 cm2( j + to l3 i'2). Theserollers

.,..,,:l:,..,,

..,,:-

.,.

Figure 5' 72 Sheepstoot roiler (courtesy of David A. Carrolr,Austin, Texas)

114

Chapter 5

Soil ComPaction
Ofl'-center rotating weight

*H'* *
OfI'-center rotating weight

-Vibratof * - -

(hr

of vibratory rollers Figure 5. 13 Principles

are most effective in compacting clayey soils. The contact pressure under the projections can range from 1400to 7000kN/m2 (200 to 1000Ib/in2).During compaction in the field, the initial passescompact the lower portion of a lift. Compaction at the top and middle of a lift is done at a later stage. Vibratory rollers are extremely efficient in compacting granular soils. Vibrato smooth-wheel,pneumatic rubber-tired, or sheepsfootrollers tors can be attachecl effectsto the soil. Figure 5.13demonstratesthe principles of vivibratory provide to is produced by rotating off-center weights. The vibration rollers. bratory Handheld vibrating plates can be used for effective compaction of granular These soilsover a limited area.Vibrating platesare also gang-mountedon machines. plates can be used in lessrestricted areas. Factors Affecting Field Compaction

ln addition to soil type and moisture content, other factors must be consideredto achievethe desiredunit weight of compaction in the lield. These factors include the thickness of lift, the intensity of pressure applied by the compacting equipment, and the area over which the pressure is applied. These factors are important becausethe pressure applied at the surface decreaseswith depth, which results in a decreasein the degree of soil compaction. During compaction, the dry unit weight of soil is also affected by the number of roller passes.Figure 5.14 shows the growth curves for a silty clay soil. The dry unit weight of a soil at a given moisture content increasesto a Beyond this point, it remains approxicertain point with the number of roller passes. mately constant. In most cases,about 10 to 15 roller passesyield the maximum dry unit weight economically attainable. Figure 5.15a shows the variation in the unit weight of compaction with depth for a poorly graded dune sand for which compaction was achieved by a vibratory drum roller. Vibration was produced by mounting an eccentric weight on a single rotating shaft within the drum cylinder. The weight of the roller used for this compaction was 55.6kN (12.5kip), and the drum diameter was 1.19m (a7 in). The lifts were kept at 2.44 m (8 ft). Note that, at any given depth, the dry unit weight of compaction increaseswith the number of roller passes.However, the rate of increase in unit

5.6 Field Compactian

t8
Moisture content= l7

115

l7
= I1.67c M o i s t u r ec o n t e n t

16e
g ti

z
15 .-t
j

{ '0 ) t

'4o t4>
c

l l n

Silty clay L i q u i dl i m i t = . 1 3 Plasticity i n d e x= l 9 rJ t6 24 Number of roller passes

1a

l2
r l l

Figure 5.14 Growth curves for a silty clay * relationship between dry unit weight and number ofpassesof U4.5kN (19 kip) three-wheelroller when the soil is compactedin229 mm (9 in) toose layersat different moisture contents(redrawn after Johnson and Sallberg, 1960)

t,-

^ t00

Dry unit weight,y,1 (lb/fi:.y t04

lt'8, ,r.ttt,

Relative density, D,. (%) ^,, 5o "ut_r, 60 70 |1{) 9Q,

Relative density, D,. (o/o)

0.0P

60 -E--U

10

80

90..

0.50 0.5 E
'l '{ - X l A a

Curnpaetitrn lticr

5 roller passes

0.5

+
0.46 (l8 in.)
I I

I I

2 3 o

E
o r r r o r.v

e
- ; : _ .
E ;: t.u

Nurnber of rollerpasses

t.5
1.83

l.)

l .83

r6.00 16.50 Dry unitweighr, 17(kN/m:.t

(a)

17.00

r.83

Figure 5.15 (a) Vibratory compaction of a sand-variation of dry unit weightwith number of roller passes; thickness of lift : 2.45m (8 ft); (b) estimationof compaction lift thickness for minimum requiredrelativedensityof 75"/"with five roller passes (ifter D,Appolonia, Whitman,and D'Appolonia, 1969)

116

Chapter5

Soil ComPaction weight gradually decreasesafter about 15 passes.Another fact to note from Figure 5.15ais the variation of dry unit weight with depth for any given number of roller The dry unit weight and hence the relative density,D,, reach maximum values passes. at a depth of about 0.5 m (1.5 ft) and gradually decreaseat lesserdepths. This decrease occurs becauseof the lack of confining pressure toward the surface. Once the relationship between depth and relative density (or dry unit weight) for a given soil with a given number of roller passesis determincd, estimating the approximate (D'Appolonia, thickncssof each lift is easy.This procedure is shown in Figure -5.15b 1 9 6 9 ) ' D ' A P P o l o n i a . a n d Whitman,

5.7

Specifications for Field Compaction

a comfor earthwork, the contractor is instructed to zrchieve In most specifications pacted field dry unit weight of 90 to 9-5%of the maximum dry unit weight determined in the laboratory by eithcr the standard or modificd Proctor test. This is a as bc expressed specificationfor relativc compaction,which cern

fi(%)=

7'1(Ii"r'r) x100
7d(rnax * lab)

(-s 6)

written in For the compaction of granular soils, spccificationsare sclmetimes Relarelativc compaction. required D, or thc relativc density required terms of the 3, we From Chapter compaction. relative with be confused not tive density should canwrite

a:l
. c s e et h a t ) n d ( . 5 . 7 )w C o m p a r i n gE q s . ( - 5 . 6 a

(-5 7)

R *

Ro

1-D,(1-Ro)

(s.8)

where Ro:
711(nin) 7rl(max)

1 5q \

on the basisof observationof 47 soil samples,Lee and Singh (1971) deviseda correlation between R and D, for granular soils:

R:80+0.2D,

(s.10)

5.7 Specifications for Field Compaction

117

.3t i
E

4r t,,,rt,,." .,,,,,i11. ,,

r'l

Figure 5.76 Mostcconornical contpaction condition

The specificatior for field compacticlnbasedon relativc compaction or on rel'l'hc ative density is an cnd-product specificaticln. contractor is expectedto achievea rninimurn dry unit wcight regardless o1'thc field procedure ad'pied. The most eco_ n o m i c a l c o m p a c t i o nc o n c l i t i o nc a n b c e x p l a i n c dw i t h t h c a i d o f F i g u r e 5 . 1 6 .T h e conrperction curvcs A,B, and C arc for thc same soil with verrying compactiveeffort. Let curve ,4 rcprcsent the conditions of ntaximum compactive eifort that can be obt a i n c d f r o n l t h e e x i s t i n ge q u i p m e n t .L e t t h e c o n t r a c t o rb e r e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v ca m i n imum clry unit weight of 7,r(ri"ru) - R7,r1n,"*,. To achievcthis, the conrracror must ensure that the moisture content r.r, falls between w, and w2. As can be seen from cornp.ction curve c, the requirccl can be achievecl with a lower compactiveef7,r1ri"ra1 fort at a moisture c()nten1|| : wt. Howcver, for most practical conditions, a com_ pacted field unit weight o[ 7,i16"ray : Ry,r1n,u,, cannot be achievedby the minimum compactive effbrt. Hcnce, equipment ivith slightly more than the minimum competctiveeflbrt should bc used. The compaction curve B represents this condition. Now we can see from Figure 5.16 that the most economicalmoisture content is between w3 and wr. Note that || : wt is the optimum moisture content for curve ,4, which is for the maximum compactiveeftbrt. The concept described in the prece<lingparagraph, along with Figure 5.16, is historically attributed to Seed (1964), who was a giant in modern geotechnical engineering. This concept is elaborated on in more detail in Hortz and Kovacs

(re81).

Table 5.2 givessome of the requirementsto achieve95-to-100% relative com_ paction (basedon standardproctor maximum dry unit weight) by various field com_ paction equipment (U.S. Department of Navy, 1971).

EFe!^ , 4,
' ! - : C ) . a

z!s
6 6 -

=
t i : : t r

: 0

c
o a ( J D l q ' a h a

6 O P iEq,

q, 1 Pa,
tQc

F F >.=

5*Z F = : E : ? i E R e EzE

9!ir;$o:i:E4-n

ii E= E# i g = r ;E
- 0 - 6 . l - , a U ' 4 L r '

;::i+iie::E:=E:
& E g s : ! ; r L : Ei e g

o o.

Fg::ETE=8b;g *? :t ? i l i t = : F , i E ! ! FE?T:i:;;i:;A,E
F d = * ^

E a !) 7 1 7 =zEelZ ' i - 5 : 6 . { =
) i , ?
. r 9 * E -

. lt r ! i= -t oF vT ' =l -sOp- i; U : . = - . ;. d 9 1

< : . e 9 ,a E ; - q 5 I F

,zz4=il22*:7i
tlE 2 .? t r! r- -; g ;. !27=.

6'

'6 'i, e '- '3 '-? += ''e -! 8 3 EA1 - 8 . 2 1 *i.zn: . , 2 | ; .1 : r+ x. i+ . i5 -s\ i-t r -' r; F - j, -=-A -Y 2 E o ^
=

'=ii P !:S >i>-

o
+

ct o) o o)

VtV6e;Ei^

obo
(!

B
o o
\ o P

3
G th

o,=' e (1,

X 6

o 3
o > o -

eissi
! _ _

:is3:

c ?:

'i.? Z.i

'=.:- "='l E.= F.=

'36 ?2 i '

zEi

: !*< ==22

8<. ;:

sL
=

??

=
VE

==

iPg

4+';= Zfig.;?,9r^

azZ;Ft

lO'--

o o o

E E
T I :
2 6 ii. c-i a
v . C

iS{. p f A I Z =t F F ; . q:EaE=asflrB
= = _ . =

=+Z'

r!E=izzL

| g E ' =7 2 l l ;

E E 9 FF E I E E E i S
7 _ a = V == l r i _' E .= y,!:2 = o - 1 =.7
6 O bo t ^ 9 r , ) E D > o \ o ^ e T t o q O ho

a ! t E

H = g.E
F X e E o o o

EsrE gEEZ E;EE ;;;o;;i E*z

2 V i '
^ ^ ^ ( J w - , c

5F

;g
o-E

f,i
f
r) \o

.=
E o G

Q)

+"Y

&t

'c&

5o

- >^

s U

E g o o
S

FEE

E a
; u
d _ * N

o E *
x x
J

. eg 6 in.= * F 6 o F z t A H i S !
E 9 a " i 6 - " E ; : r 3 " P o . e : ' Fa i Z d
r . J -

6 : ' 0

- A O
. , L

a a * - : F = o - o . , =

6 ' eA ' 2

o : 9

a A o

;;:I E^I F F EI F , , E = * : !I a E
E 9 : ; \ E
6

t ;i -'. -o

o o r 9 : J l 9 6 t . : 9

9 . 9 = -

! i o -" :Y F : - ! o ' ) E j = : . 0 , .- =- a / ' .

r_ c , q c - i ? . o 6 . - i U G q b \

E 6 . E -_ 3 a >-g
_._

I ] . = q - J >l a
-" ^ a O

E 3 t y Z V1 1 a ;
a .E= :" iA s 3: E :" o o G O ! . = L ' o t . =
N

z = 2 =+ i : F
o ' = : ti;= o s I 3 i : . u 6o=2

ro o a .G

o t r o !+ >. |lJ

2 a ) o

: -

;'o
! ^

.)

a i

118

.-:

g$iiigglg gg fi*iiig;giir
^ F

> y!=

r j a

^ ! t r

-;i-

' U X o >6to

z
^

d -

O E -

^
C

i. Y ' v

: , ^ ^ u o : l x = : ^.a Y ; o
= v o

, F r - a >

9 a d s
i Y v

ca
i ' -

6
!

E 4J >'.9
C,^ 7, a i: .9 v|E
e ^ o : or) @ k O c B _ b.l)

Y Z E':, Ylz 9 1 , ^ c d

'pjjU
a I

7^2

- - :v : "'
hoi
a ^ . -

Z u ; 7

- c
> Y

o -; : c i q X u p d * ^

^ = i

=
9 P L * q , ! q : , 2

I
^

": crtr
L L

: b o

E . , - - *

'i:

tr oco 'E

6 : Z

h E ?
L l z l

O d 7* z^
L ^ 6 N p

9.Y co H :Eco ai f Fcn s .LAr)ar E U r o .

c Y . 3 a . l i i 9 F b 0 5 n -

> . ! " . : ; 1 d 6 Z a >, - !\ . o

^ ' . ! a - 9 , o ^

> 0 -

o
U l

E
v E

r d
^ a ^ a

p -

A J 5 - -

o a

F
U
6

&'c3

u Z . E d i - - ^ t r : l C ' .Eq e g i
ac t

o._

b0_

6 c ,

z*E

aD:!

U
!

oo

oo
6 ! O ^ (! O

bo bo
(d

bo

0 t

9 > c.)o

.-:

O : E^ . _ n

trN
i

o E
^

l',

;
t r ' t

t rh I : v S i d

;
a

- - N - 3 o ) F . )

x x

: - j X Y C
-

^
I :

o E \ o = L i ^ q d ! E ^ ' F , , . ; y ' E
C r ) r , N N =
6 1 6 v

H H ' : ! a ' : : X F = ; J . Y Z Y U 5 0
o E 9 tr_
^ ^

r|1 a i

e E,F
+ = d E E
! ^ J

Ir E
a w

* : a

i8s
o * 3 o o

. 5 i = : t r
= t 2 J L

, i E a o - . = : i

Eg;*:
6 = 2 > =
q ; E 5 =

e : t F 3
'E ; -o6 ^ d r X

-S ! 'o t Eor u.!i: 8:'a H oo'o

E : d i:;r
l o

- a a 7 , . a

< 6 b E > 5 0 3 5

F.s ;;

: n= t .i -?= .iF

5Fz5s; s_gEe 9g F f r ; 8 9 ;i F o s ! 3 ?.-z t

h i t j ^ 5

r E Z {e :

X : ' ag + I
Ut

Y3 -c * ao o J
F

gc
e,,Y
o

.oER^6 >, ; ; ;e =3 0 '9= ;- o

q Y o - o 9 B

: i iiT6

3 5,; d e E
= ( t vr v

di cr

9 s i: . !

E Y

4'43 d a u E;'E

,t-

F^ 4

" t& r z E fi;3.

f iS E t : E
z
a
O !

boo o

:.):
a t Y

5 e e
> - d ;

c-;i

E 9 c g o

o-tr

,:

119

120

Chapter 5

Soil Comqaction

5.8

Determination of Field Unit Weight of Compaction

When the compaction work is progressingin the field, knowing whether the specified unit weight has been achievedis useful. The standard proceduresfor determining the field unit weight of compaction include l. Srnd conc mcthoL 2 . R u b b e r b a l l o o nm e t h o d 3. Nuclear method Following is a bricf description of each of thesemethods. Sand Cone Method (ASTM Designation D-I556) The sand conc device consistsof a glassor plasticjar with a metal cone attached at . h c i a r i s f i l l e d w i t h u n i f o r m d r y O t t a w a s a n d .T h e c o m b i n e d i t s t o p ( F i g u r c - 5 . 1 7 )T w c i g h t o l ' t h c i a r . t h c c o n e ,a n d t h e s a n df i l l i n g t h e j a r i s d e t e r m i n e d( W ' ) . l n t h e f i e l d , 1 small holc is excavatedin the area where the soil has been compacted.lf the weight o1'themoist soil excavatedfnrm the hole (Wr) ir determined and the moisture contcnt of thc cxcavatcdsoil is known. the dry wcight of thc soil can be obtained as

W3l +

W. u)e/") l(x)

(s.11)

whcrc tr,

n t o i s t u tc c ( ) t t l c n t .

Figure 5. 17 Glass jar filled with Ottawa sand with sand cone attached

5.8 Determination of Fietd IJnit Weight of Compaction

I, .lar

'.,
'

*/'
Ottawa sand

..'
\ C,rnc * t'"t .,i.......... vill\c Mctrl plrrle '/

Hut" fiiled with C)ttawa sand

(a)

(b) Figure 5. 18 Field unit weight determined by sand cone method: (a) schematiccliagram; (b) a test in progress in the field

Chapter 5 Soil ComPaction After excavation of the hole, the cone with the sand-filled jar attached to it is inverted and placed over the hole (Figure 5.18).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 (lVa)' so Ws: Wt - Wq where W, : weight of sand to fill the hole and cone. The volume of the excavatedhole can then be determined as
tv/ -

( s.12)

- W,. W. '
7ri(sand)

(s.13)

where I42.: weight of sand to fill the cone only : dry unit weight of Ottawa sand used 7ri(sancl) are determined from the calibration done in the laboand 7,1(sanct) The values of I4z, ratory. The dry unit weight of compaction made in the field can then be determined as follows: Dry weight of the soil excavatedfrom the hole
f,t

w1

(-s.14)

Volume of the hole

Rubber Balloon Method

(ASTM Designation

D-2167)

The procedure for the rubber balloon method is similar to that for the sand cone metltod; 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, fiom which the volume can be read clirectly.The dry unit weight of thc compacted soil can be determined by using Eq. (5.1a).Figure 5.19showsa calibratedvessclthat would be used with a rubber balloon.

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 ruriu.". The instrument measuresthe 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 soilian be determined by subtracting the weight of water from the moist unit weight of soil. Figure 5.20 shows a photograph of a nuclear density meter.

Figure 5.19 Calibrated vesselused with rubber balloon (not shown) (courtesyof John Hester, Carterville, Itlinois)

Figure 5.20 Nucleardensitymeter (courtesy of David A. Carroll, Austin, Texas)

123

124

Chapter 5

Soil ComPaction

silt aregivenin the followingtable: for a clayey testresults Laboratorycompaction

Moisture content(%)
b

Dry unit weight {kN/m3) 14.80 1.7.45 18.52 18.9 18.5 t6.9

8 o 1l t2 1"4

performedon Followingare the resultsof a field unit weight determinationtest method: the samesoil by meansof the sand-cone kg/m3 . Calibrateddry densityof Ottawasand : 1570 r Calibratedmassof Ottawasandto filIthe cone : 0'545kg o Massof jar + cone* sand(beforeuse): 7.59kg r Massof jar + cone + sand(after use) : 4'78kg . Massof moist soil from hole = 3.007kg r Moisture contentof moist soil : 10'2% Determine in the field a. Dry unit weightof compaction field in the b. RelativecomPaction Solution a. In the field, : : Massof sandusedto fill the hole and cone 7.59kg 4.78kg 2'81kg = Massof sandusedto fill the hole : 2'81kg 0'545kg 2'265kg 2.265kg Volume of the hole(Y) : of Ottawa sand density Dry kg .2'265 - = 0.0014426 m3 1570kg/m' soil : Moist densityof comPacted Massof moist soil Volume of hole 0.0014426 j (2084.4)(e.81 ) : 2O.45kN/m3 1000

ke/ml ? 92''^.: 2084.4

Moist unit weight of compactedsoil Hence,

td

v
1 + ^
w (o/"\

2A.45 : 18.56kN/m3
1+."--_ 100

t0.z

100

5.9 Compaction of Organic Soil and Waste Materials

125

z
>

*'

('/c)

Figure 5.21 Plot of laboratorycompaction testresults b. The results of the laboratory compaction test are plotted in Figure 5.21. : 19 kN/m3. Thus, from Eq. (5.6), From the plot, we see that 7rl(max) _ - 7,rrri"r.r) 18.56 -: 97'70/" lg"o ,rr""

5.9

Compaction of Organic Soil and Waste Materials

The presenceof organic matcrials in a soil reducesits strength. In many cascs,soils with it high organic content are gcnerally discardedas fill material; however,in certain economic circumstanccs, slightly organic soils are uscclfor compaction. In fact, organic soils are desirablein many circumstances (e.g.,fbr agriculture,decertificat i o n , m i t i g a t i o n ,a n d u r b a n p l a n n i n g ) .M o r e r c c e n t l y , the highcosts o f w a s t ed i s p g s a l have sparked an intercst in the possibleuse of waste materials (e.g.,bottom ash obtained from coal burning, copper slag,paper mill sludge.shreddedwastetires mixed with inorganic soil, and so forth) in various landfill operations.Such use of wastematerials is one of the major thrusts of prescnt-dayenvironmcntal geotechnology. Following is a discussionof thc compaction characteristics of somc of these materials. Organic Soil Franklin. Orozco, and Scmrau (1973) conductedseverallaboratory teststo observe the effect of organic content on the compactioncharacteristics of soil. In the test program, various natural soils and soil mixtures were tested.Figure 5.22 shows the effect of organic content on the maximum dry unit weight. When the organic content exceeds8 to 10%, the maximum dry unit weight of compaction decreases rapidly. Conversely, the optimum moisture content for a given compactive effort increases with an increasein organic content. This trend is shown in Figure 5.23.Likewise, the maximum unconfined compressionstrength (see Chapter l0) obtained from a compacted soil (with a given compactive effort) decreaseswith increasing organic content of a soil. From thesefacts,we can seethat soilswith organiccontentshigher than about 10% are undesirable for compaction work.

126

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction
105
to

100 l5
o
,?

o\' qn

z
t l

E il

Oven-dried
c x t

.:
E t l !

Air-dried --

tr = R o 'i

=
E

n >
o Mixture-oven-dried . Nalurrl silmple oven-dried a Mixture-air-dried

l t

t0.22

1 5 2 0 (o/o) content Organic

Figure 5.22 Yariation of maximum dry unit weight with organic content (after Franklin, Orozco, and Semrau, 1973)

^ 3 0

o o '6

t<

E r o
'a

o t 5

l0 "0

20 15 l0 (70) content Organic

25

Figure 5.23 Yariatton of optimum moisture content with organic content (after Franklin, Orozco, and Semrau, 1973)

5.9 Compaction of OrganicSoitand Waste Materials

127

Soiland Organic Materiat Mixtures Lancasteret al. (1996)conductedseveralmodified Proctor teststo determinethe effect of organiccontent on the maximum dry unit weight urrJ opti-u- moisture contentof soil and organicmaterialmixtures.The soils iested.onrirt"d of a poorly gradedsandy soil (Sp-SM)mixed with either shredded redwoodbark, shredded rice hulls,or municipal sewage sludge. Figures 5.24 and5.25 showthe variations of

z
.:l
I lll

O Redwoodbark 1 R i c eh u l l s O Sludge
11

':
!

r l.

.E

20

10

60

80

t(x)

Organic content (o/o)

Figure 5.24 Yariatictn .f maximum^dry unit weight of compaction with organic content _ soil and organic material mixtures. st,Lirce: Aftei"The gffect of organic clontent on Soil compaction." by J. Lancaster, R. waco. J. Towre, and R. chane y, tioo. rn proceedings, 7'hird Internationar syrnposium on Environmentar Geotechnrroly, p. tsv. used with permis_ sion of the author.

1t

s 'c o a

11

)t I

= 'I
6
'E

t r '

rr

rU

l+

I2 Organic content (7o) Figure 5'25 Yatiation of optimum moisture content with organic content - soil and organic material mixtures. Source: After "The Effect of organic content on Soil compaction,,, by J' Lancaster, R' waco, J' Towre, and R. chaney, 1sg6. proceedings, tn iii)a nternatronat Symposium on Environmentar Geotechnology,p. 159. Used with pJrmission of the author.

128

Chapter 5 Soil ComPaction maximum dry unit weight of compaction and optimum moisture content, respectively, with organic content. As in Figure 5.22, Ihe maximum dry unit weight dethe optimum creascdwith organic content in all cases(seeFigure 5.24).Conversely, redwith shredded mixed for soil content with organic incrcased moisture content How5.23. in Figure pattern shown the similar to (see 5.2-5), Figure wooclor rice hulls sludge mixtures, the optimum moisture content ever, for soil anclmunicipal sewurgc (sec Figure 5.25). constant remained practically Paper Mill Sludge Paper mill sludge.despite a high watcr content and low sttlid contents,can be comhave both pactecland uscd for landfill. The statcsof Wisconsin and Massachusctts ( 1 9 9 6 )p r o v i d e d u s c c lp a p e r m i l l s l u c l g ct o c a p l a n d { i l l s .M o o - Y o u n g a n d Z i m m i e and paper mill sludges, for several thc standarclProctor compaction charactcristics s h o wn a r e . h c p h y s i c a lp r o p c r t i e so l ' t h e s es l u d g e s t h c s c a r e s h o w n i n F i g u r c . 5 . 2 6T in Tlblc -s..1 Bottom Ash from Coal Burning and Copper SIag

Labgratory standard Proctor tcst rcsults for bottont ash f'ront coal-burning power plants ancl I'rtrcopper slag arc also availablc in thc litcraturc. These waste products as lantllill. A summary of some shown to bc cnvironnrcntallysal'cl'or r-rse have bccr-r 'l'able -5.4. ol'thcsc tcst rcsults is giver.rin

r a o o

S l u t l g cA S l u t l g c1 3 S l u t l g cl ) Sludgc I.i

z
! /

c c a

-50

"'utn,r,u,.'lln,"n, ,'r"lt"'

2s0

300

Figure 5.26 Yariatt<tnof dry unit weight of compaction with moisture content for paper mill sludge. Source: From "Geotechnical Properties of Paper Mill Sludgesfor Use in Landfill Covers," by H. K. Moo-Young, T. F. Zimmie, 7996,Journal o.f Geotechnical Engineering, 122 (9),p.768-775. Copyright O 1996American Societyof Civil Engineers.Used by permission.

5.10 Special Compaction Techniques

Table 5.3 Physical properties of SlurJges Shown in Figure 5.26 Moisture content (%) Organic content (%l Specific gravity of solids, G, Plasticity index

129

A B D E

-25i) 1.50 200-250 -200 l -50 -200 I -50

-50 4-5 -56 41 35-44

I.88-1.96 l.f.i3-l.u5 r.93-1.9-5 1.962.08

191 1.5 lt7.-5

proctorTestResults Table 5'4 standarcr of BottomAsh ancr cioppcrSrag

Maximum dry unit weight
tb /ft3

Optimum moisture content (%l

Bottom ashbituminous coal (WestVirginia)

Bottom ash lignitecoal Copper slag

Fort Martin Kamntcr K a n a w h aR i v c r Mirchcll Muskingham Willow Island [3ig Stonc Powcr P l a n t ,S o u t h D a k o t a Anrcr-ican Smclter ancl Rclincry Clompany, Ill Paso,Jtxas

I3.4 16.0 I 1.4 I IJ.3 14.3 14..5 16.4 19.8

8-s t02 72.6 l 16.6 9 l. l L)2.4 104..1 t26

24.5 13.t3 26.2 14.6 22.0 2 1. 2 20.5 l8.ri

Scals. Moulton,and Ruth

(1e72)

Das. Selinr. and pl'cifle ( I e78) D a s , ' l h r q u i n ,a n d J o n c s

( ler]3)

5.10

Special Compaction Tech n iques

Severalspccial types of compaction techniques have becn dcvcropecl r.orcleepcom_ pactiol"tof in-placc soils, ancl these techniques are used in the fietd fbr large-scale compaction works. Among_these, the popurar methods are vibroflotation, jynamic and brasring.Derairs of the.scmethods are provi<lcd in the foirowing ::L:i::tr"' Vibroflotation vibroflotation is a technique for in situ d,ensification of thick layersof loose granular soil deposits.It was devcloped in Germany in the 1930s. The first vibroffotation device was used in the United Statesabout l0years later. rn.fro..r,' involves the use of a vibroflot 5.27 (arso cailed the vibrating unit), whichis about 2.1 m (:7 tt) long' (asshown in Figure 5.27.)This vibrating unit has an eccentricweight inside it and can develop a centrifugal force, which enibles the vibrating urit to vibrate horizontally. There are openings at the bottom and top of the vib'iating unit for water jets' The vibrating unit is attached to a folrow-up pipe.Figure 5.27 showsthe entire assembly of equipment necessaryfor conducting the field"compaction.

130

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction

,ffi#fu ee*scr*;--Follow-up

fir.,
-. j ; " i C y l i n d c ro l c o r n p a c t c d nrateriirl, addedl'rom the surlace to compensatc lirr the loss of volume causedhy the increasc ol' d e n s i t yo f t h e c o m p a c t e d soil B C y l i n d c ro f c o m p a c t e d nraterial,producedby a s i n g l ev i b r o f l o tc o m p a c t i o n

Figure 5.27 Yibrofrotationunit (after Brown, 1977)

The entire vibroflotation compaction process in the field can be divided i four stages(Figure 5.28): The jet at the bottom of the Vibroflot is turned on and lowered i the ground. Stage2: The water jet creates a quick condition in the soil and it allows the brating unit to sink into the ground. Stage3: 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 the sranular material down the hole. Stagel:

5.10 Special Compaction Techniques

131

S t a g c3

Figure 5'28 Compaction hy vibroflotation proccss(alter flrown. 1977) Table5.5 Types of Vibroflot Units'. Motor type a, Vibrating tip Length Diameter Weight Maximummovemcnt when full Centlifugal force b. Eccentric: Weight Offset Length Speed c. Pump Operatingflow rate Pressure 75 kW electric and hydraulic

23 kW electric

2 . 1m ( 7 . 0I ' t ) z 1 0m 6 n r( 1 6i n . ) r 7 . 8k N ( 4 ( X n )) lb 1 2 . -m 5m (0.49 in) 160 k N ( l t 3t o n ) 1.2 k N ( 2 6 0t b ) 3lJmnr ( l.-5 in) 6 1 0m m ( 2 4i n ) 1800rpm 0 - 1 . 6m r / m i n (0-4(n gal/min) 700-10-5 k0 N / m ,( 1 0 0 _ 1 . 5 0/ i n 2 ) lb

l.fi6m(6.llf'r) 3ttl rnnr( 1.5 in) l7.lJ kN (4(XX) ltr) 7 . 6m m ( { ) . 3 in.) lJg k N ( 1 0t o n ) 0.76 kN (170lb) 3 2m m ( 1 . 2 5 in) 3 t Xm ) m (15.25. ) in Itt00rpnr 0 - 0 . 6 m r / n i n ( 0 - 1 5 0g a l / m i n ) 700-10-5 k0 N / m r( 1 0 0 l 5 0 t b / i n r ) 3 0 5m m ( 1 2i n . ) 3.6.5 kN/m (2s0lb/fr)

d. Lower follow-up pipe und extensions Diameter 305mm (12 in.) Weight 3.6-5 kN/m (2,50

lb/ft)

*AfterBrown (1977.)

Stage4: The vibrating unit is gradually raised in about 0.3 m (:l ft) lifts and held vibrating for about 30 seconds at eachlift. This processcompacts the soil to the desiredunit weight. The details of various types of Vibroflot units used in the United States are given in Table 5.5. Note that 23 kw (30-hp) electric units have been used since the latter part of the 1940s.The 75 kw (100-hp) units were introduced in the earlv 1g70s.

132

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction

\ /

fl::,:l';,H:".."
for vibroflotation Figure 5.29 Probcspacing The zone of compaction around a singleprobe varieswith the type of Vibroflot useil.the cylindrical zone of compactionhas a radius of about 2m (:6 ft) for a 23 kW (30-hp) unir. This radius can exrcnd ro about 3 m (: l0 ft) for a 75 kw (100-hp) unit. dependingon Compaction by vibroflotation is done in various probe spacings, the zone of compaction. This spacingis shown in Figure 5.29.The capacity for sucirt situsoil dependson severalfactors,the most important of cessluldcnsification ctl' which is the grain-sizeclistributionof the soil and the type of backfill used to fill the holes during the withdrawal period of the Vibroflot. The rangc of the grain-sizediscompaction tribution of in situsoil marked Zonc I in Figure 5.30is most suitable1'or amounts of finc sand and silt-sizeparby vibroflotation. Soils that contain excessive ticles arc difticult to compact,and considcrableeffort is necded to rcach the proper is thc approximate lowcr limit Zone 2 in Figure -5.30 relative density of compactictn. of grain-sizedistribution for which compaction by vibroflotation is effective.Soil deposits whose grain-sizedistributions fall in Zone 3 contain appreciableamounts of gravel.For these soils.the rate of probe penctration may be slow and may prove uneconomicai ln the long run.
n ystern U n i f l e dS o i l C l a s s i l i c a t i o S

Grain size (mm) Figure 5.30 Effective range of grain-size distribution of soil for vibroflotation

5.10 Special Compaction Techniq The grain-sizedistribution of the backfiil material is an imoorran controls the rate of densification.Brown (Igjll has defined a quantit suitability number for rating backfill as

(Y)

{35

- i 3 r,ry:LV1r;

orrt,

(-5.1s)

where Dsc,, D.u, and D',, are the diameters (in mm) through which. respectivery,50, 20, and 10./" of the material Dasses. T h e s m a l l e rt h c v a l u e . , t S r . t h " m o r e d e s i r a b l et h e b a c k f i l lm a t e r i a l .F o l l o w ing is a backfill rating systemproposed by Brown:
Range of S, Rating as backfill E,xcellcnt Good Fair Poor L]nsuitablc

0-10 I0-20 20-30 30-.s0 >-50

Dynamic Compaction D y n a m i c c o m p a c t i o ni s a t e c h n i q u ct h a t h a sg a i n e dp o p u l a r i t yi n t h e U n i t c c lS t a l e s for the densificationof granular soil deposits. This proccssconsists primarily of dropping a heavy weight repeatedlyon thc ground at regular intervals.The weight of the h a m m e r u s e d v a r i e so v e r a r a n g e o f 8 0 t o 3 6 0 k N ( 1 l Jt o g 0 k i p ) , a n d t h e h e i g h t o f the hammcr drop varies betwcen 7.-5 ancl 30.-5 m (2.,5and 100 ft). The stresswaves generated by the hammer drops aid in the dcnsification.The desree of compaction achieved a t a g i v e ns i t e d e p e n d so n t h c l b l l o w i n g l h r e e l a c t o r s : 1. Weightof hammer 2. Height of hammer drop 3. Spacingof locations at which the hammer is dropped Leonards, cutrer, and Holtz (19u0) suggestedthat the significant depth of influencefor compaction can be approximated by using the equation

D:(lSlw,n
where D : significantdepth of densification(m) : dropping weight (metric ton) W11 /.t : height of drop (m) In English units, the preceding equation takes the form

(,5. t6)

D: 0 . 6 1 v w
where the units of D and h are fr, and the unit of I4zais kip.

( s.17)

134

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction Blasting in many projects (Mitchell, Blasting is a technique that has been used successfully 1970)for the densificationof granular soils.The general soil grain sizessuitable for compaction by blasting are the same as those for compaction by vibroflotation. The process involves the detonation of explosive charges such as 60% dynamite at a certain depth below the ground surfacein saturatedsoil. The latcral spacingof the detonations chargesvariesfrom about 3 to 10 m (10 to 30 ft). Thrce to five successful up to a relative Compaction compaction. desired to achieve the necessary usually are density of:rbout 80% and up to a depth of about 20 m (60 ft) over a large arca can easily be achievedby using this process.Usually,the explosivechargesare placed at a clepthof about two-thirds of the thicknessof the soil layer desiredto be compacted.

Exa mp l e5 .4
Followingare the detailsfor the backfillmaterialusedin a vibroflotationproject: ' Dn: 0.36 mm t Dzl'= 0'52mm :1.42mm . Dso Determine the suitability number S". What would be its rating as a backfill material? Solution From Eq. (5.15),
SN *1 1

' ' ' V|

m
*

r - - - j - + - .

(4,,)t

(Dri'

(D,,,)'

t '1 '\

m
(t.442 (0.s2)'z (0.36)'z

= 6.1 Ratins: Excellent

Example5.5
weight of hammer : For a dynamiccompactiontest we are giventhe followi -ng: : depth D of 15 metric tons and height of drop 12 m' Determine t$ significant ; in meters. influencefor compaction, Solution From Eq. (5.16),

D : G){wrt: (l){rsXra : 6.71m

Problems

135

5.11

Summary and GeneralComments

Laboratory standard and modified Proctor compaction tests described in this chapter are essentially for impact or dynamic compaction of soil; however, in the laboratory, static compaction and kneading compaction can also be used. It is important to realize that the compaction of clayey soils achieved by rollers in the field is essentially the kneading type. The relationshipsof dry unit weight (7,1) and moisture con_ tent (rv) obtained by dynamic and kneading compaction ur. noi the same. proctor compaction test resultsobtained in the laboratory are used primarily to determine whether the roller compaction in the field is sufficient.The siructuresof compacted cohesivesoil at a similar dry unit weight obtained by dynamic and kneading .o-_ paction may be different. This dift'erence, in turn, affectsphysical properties such as hydraulic conductivity,compressibility, and strength. For most fill operations,the final selectionof the borrow site dependson such factors as the soil type and the cost of excavationand haulins. Fill materials for compaction are generally brought to the site by trucks and wagons.The fill material may be end-dumped,side-tlumped,or bottsm-4umpetl atthe site in piles. If the material is too wet, it may be cut and turned to aerate and dry before being spread in lifts for compaction.If it is too dry, the clesired amount of water is added by sprinkling irrigation.

Prohlems
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Given G, : 2.72,calculatethe zero-air-voidunit weight for a soil in lb/ft3 at w : 5"/" , 8y", 10"/", 12"/", and 15% . Repeat Problem 5.1 with G" : 2.62.plot a graph of (kN/m3) againstw. 7,nn* calculate the variation of dry unir weighr (kN/m3) of i ioil 1c. : i.es1 at w : 10"/" and 20"/" for degree of saturation (S) : g0% 90yo, and 100"/o. , The resultsof a standard proctor test are given below. Determine the maximum dry unit weight of compaction and the optimum moisture content.

Vorume or
Proctormold (ft3)

T?:::frt
in the mold flb)

Moisture
content (/"1

l/30 U30 l/30 t/30 t/30

5.5

3.26
4.l-)

8.4 10.2
1L-,)

4.67 4.02
-r.o-t

14.6 16.8

5.6

For the soil describedin Problem 5.4, if G" :2.72, determine the void ratio and the degree of saturation at optimum moisture content. The results of a standard Proctor test are given in the following table. Determine the maximum dry unit weight of compaction and the optimum mois-

Chapter 5

Soil Compaction ture content. Also. determine the moisture content required to achieve95% of 7a(-o*). Massof
Volume of Proctormold (cm3) wet soil in the mold (kS) Moisture content t%l

943.3 943.3 943.3 943.3 943.3 943.3 943.3 943.3

1.68 1.71 1.7'7 1.83 1.86 t.[3tt 1.87 1.t35

9.9 10.6 t2.1 t 3.[t l -5.1 17.4 19.4 21.2

5.7

5.9

A field unit weight detcrmination test for the soil describedin Problem 5.6 moisture content : 10.27"and moist unit vielded the following datzr: : 16.1kN/ml. Determine the relative compaction' weight The in sl/& moisture content of a soil is 18% and the moist unit weight is 105 fb/ft3.The specihcgravity of soil solids is2.15.This soil is to be excavated ancltransported to a constructionsite for use in a compactedfill. If the specicall for the soil to be compactedto a minimum dry unit weight of ficzrtions yards of lb/ftr at thc samc moisture content of 18%, how many c-ubic 103.-5 yd' of compacted 10,000 produce soil from the excavationsitc are nceded to fill? How many 20-ton truckloads are nceded to transport the excavatedsoil? A proposed embankment fill requires 5000 m3 of compactedsoil. The void ratio of the compactedllll is specifiedas 0.7. Four borrow pits are available void ratios of as dcscribed in the following tablc, which lists the respective proposed conto the soil the soil and the cost pcr cubic meter for moving the pit from which the to select calculations struction site. Make the necessary to be the same at G. Assume thc soil should be bought to minimize the cost. all pits. Borrowpit A B C D Void ratio 0.u5 1.2 0.95 0.75 Cost{$/m3} 9 6 7 l0

5.10 The maximum and minimum dry unit weightsof a sand were determined in the laboratory to be 104 lb/fc and 93 lb/ft3, respectively.what would be the relative compaction in the field if the relative density is 78Y"? 5.11 The maximum and minimum dry unit weights of a sand were determined in the laboratory to be 16.5 kN/m3 and 14.6 kN/m3, respectively.In the field, if the relative density of compaction of the same sand is7O"/",what are its relative compaction (%) and dry unit weight (kN/m3)?

References

197

5'12 The relative compaction of a sand in the field is 94o/o.Themaximum ancl minimum dry unit weights of the sand are 103lb/ft3 and ss tblrc, ."rp".tively.For the field condition, determine a. Dry unit weight b. Relative density of compaction c. Moist unit weight at a moisture content of l0% 5.13 Laboratory compaction test resultson a crayeysilt are given in the fblrowing table: Moisture
content (%)

Dry unit
weight (kN/m3)

u
9 ll t2 t4

r4.80 t7.45 1u..52 I u.9

I fi.6 16.9

Following arc the resurtsof a field unit weight determination test on the s a m es o i l w i t h t h e s a n dc o n e m c t h o d : . C a l i b r a t e dd r y d c n s i r y o l O t t a w a s a n d : 1 6 6 7k g / m 3 o calibrated mass.,f ottawa sanclto fill the cone : 0. l r 7 kg . Mass of jar * cone + sand (before use) : 5.99 kg . M a s so f j a r * c o n e + s a n d ( a l t e r u s e ) - 2 . t i 1k g . Mass of moist soil from hole : 3.33I ks . M o i s l u r cc o n t c n to l m o i s t soil _ | I.by, Determine a. Dry unit weight of compaction in the fielcl b. Relative compaction in the field 5.14 The backfill matcrial fbr a vibrollotation project has the following grain sizes: . D r , , : 0 . 1 Im m . D z , t : 0 .l 9 m m . D s , : 1 . 3m m Determine the suitability number, S1u, for each 5.15 Repeat Prcblem -5.14 using the followins values: D , , , : 0 . 0 9m m D1, : 0.25 mm D 1 , : 0 . 6I m m

References
Av'r<rcaN Assocranr.rN op Srane Hrcrrwev aNo TRaNspoR.rATroN o.pr.raLs (1gg2). part II, Washington. AASHTO Materials, D.C. AveRrceN S.cre'v poR TesrrNcro"o irot..nrnr-s (1999). ASTM standards, vor 04.0g, pa. WestConshohocken.

138

Chapter 5

Soil ComPaction
"Vibroflotation Compaction of Cohesionless Soils," Journal of the GeoBRowN, E. (19'7'7). Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT12' 1437-\457' Engineering technical D'AppoloNra, D. J., WHrrnaRN,R. V., and D'AppoloNte, E. D. (1969)."Sand Compaction with Vibratory Rollers," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.95, No. SMl,263-284. A. A., and Pnelnl-r, T. W. (1978). "Effective Use of Bottom Ash as a GeDa.s, B. M., Sgr-rr,,r, otechnical Material," Proceedings,5th Annual UMR-DNR Conference and Exposition on Energy, University of Missouri, Rolla' 342-348' Dns. B. M., Tenerrrr, A. J., and.IoNes. A. D. (1983)."Geotechnical Propertiesof a Copper Slag," Trunsportation ResearchRecord No. 941, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., l-,1. Fn,rNrr-rN. A. F., Orrozco. L. F., and Snunau, R. ( 1973)."Compaction of Slightly Organic and Fountlatkns Division, ASCE, Vol.99, No. SM7' t oJ the SoitMechanics Soils,"Jorrrna 541-5-57. Engineering,Pren' to Geotechnical D., and K6vRcs, W. D. (1981).An IntroductioLt H<'tut7..R. tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. JogNsctN.A. W., and Snr-LeERc,J. R. (1960)."Factors That lnfluence Field Compaction of Soil." Highway ResearchBoard. Bulletin No- 272. LnHreE. T. W. ( 1958)."The Structure of Compacted Clay," .lournal of the Soil Mechanics and Divisiort,ASCE, Vrl. lJ4,No. SM2, l6-54-1 to 1654-34' Foundatiotrs J., Wac.o, R., Towlu, J.. and cHnNev, R. (1996)."The Effect of organic conLnN<.as.r'nn, 3rd lnternational Symposiumon Environmcntent on Soil Compaction," Proceeding.s, tal Geotechnology,San Diego, 152-161' LpE. K. W., an6 SrNc;lt,A. (1971). "Relative Density and Rclativc Compaction," Journal of the soil Mechanicsand FoundutionsDivision, ASCE, Vol.97, No. SM7, 1049-1052. p. Ler,.. y.. and SrrEornvp, R. J. (1972)."Characteristicsof Irregularly Shaped Compaction curves 6f Soils," Highway ResearchReatrd No.38l, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,D.C., l-9. W. A., anrJ Hots'2, R. D. (1980). "Dynamic compaction of LpcrNa.nos,G. A., Cr;.r-rER, Division, ASCE, Vol. 106' of the Geotechnical Eng,ineering, ,/gurnal Granular Soils," No. GTl.35-44. J. K. (1970). "ln-Place Treatmcnt of Foundation Soils," Journul of the Soil MeMrr.c.rrEr.r. chunicsantl FoundutionsDivision, ASCE, Vol. 96' No. SMI ' 73-110' Moa;-YogNc;, H. K.. and ZIMMIE, T. F. (1996). "Geotechnical Properties of Paper Mill Sludges for Use in Landfill Covers," Journal of Geotechnical Eng,ineering,ASCE, Vol. 1 2 2 ,N o . 9 , 7 6 8 - 7 ' 7 5 . pnocrcrn, R. R. ( 1933)."Design and Constructionof Rolled Earth Dams," EngineeringNews Recor d. Y ol. 3, 245 -248, 286-289, 348-35 1, 372 -31 6. "Bottom Ash: An Engineering MateSEnrs. R. K. MoUu|oN, L. K., and Ru rs, E . (19'72). rial," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founrlations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM4' 311-325. SEep, H. B. (1964).Lecture Notes, CE 271, Seepageand Earth Dam Design, University of California, BerkeleY. U.S. DepanrMENT oF Nevv (1971). "Design Manual-Soil Mechanics,Foundations, and Structures."NAVFAC DM-7,U.5. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C'