International

Journal of Civil Engineering

and OF
Technology
ISSN 0976 6308
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
CIVIL(IJCIET),
ENGINEERING
AND(Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 IAEME

TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 6316(Online)
Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
IAEME

COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM

MOISTURE CONTENT AND STRENGTH OF GRANULAR
SOILS USING DIFFERENT METHODS OF COMPACTION
Shahid Bashir Bhat1,

Danish Kunroo2,

Zahid Ahmad3

M.Tech (Structural Engineering) NIT-Srinagar

2
B.Tech Civil Engineering NIT-Srinagar
3
M.Tech (Structural Engineering) NIT-Srinagar

ABSTRACT
The project aims at comparing the various compaction characteristics of granular soils in
selecting the appropriate method of soil stabilization. The difference in the behavior of granular soils
to standard and modified proctor test was studied.
Keywords: California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Maximum dry density (MDD), Optimum moisture
content (OMC), Soil compaction.
I. INTRODUCTION
Soil compaction is one of the most critical components in the construction of roads,
airfields, embankments, and foundations. The durability and stability of a structure are related
to the achievement of proper soil compaction. Structural failure of roads and airfields and the
damage caused by foundation settlement can often be traced back to the failure to achieve
proper soil compaction.
In this project, the various compaction characteristics of granular soils were studied.
The parameters of interest were the maximum obtained dry density, the optimum moisture
content required and finally the strength of the soil using the California Bearing Ratio test.
2. METHODOLOGY
The samples for testing were taken from the site Isham to Nowarunda for a 15 km
stretch. The site Isham to Nowarunda falls in the Uri district of Jammu and Kashmir and

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 IAEME

gravelly soil is characteristic of the area and because the interest of the project happened to be
the granular soils, the site was chosen.
The samples were taken at a kilometer interval and the soil was excavated at appropriate
depths to ensure the organic components and the roots were excluded.
Firstly, the particle size distribution analysis was done using dry sieve analysis, wet sieve
analysis and hydrometer test when required. Of these 15 samples the most granular 5 samples
were chosen for compaction behavior study.
This was followed by compaction of the samples using the standard and modified
proctor tests. The maximum dry density(MDD) and corresponding optimum moisture
content(OMC) was obtained.

Figure 1. Compaction of soil using Proctor tests.

The California Bearing Ratio(CBR) tests using static compaction method corresponding
to the Maximum dry density and the optimum water content were done on three different
samples.
3. RESULTS
The results obtained from compaction of granular soils using different compactive effort, ie,
the standard and modified proctor tests are summed up below:
3.1 Soil Sample no.1 (km-3)
Gravel and sand content-66.99%
Clay and silt content-33.01%

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 IAEME

Table 1. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 1.
MDD
OMC
Method of Compaction
CBR
(g/cc)
Light Compaction

1.89

0.139

Heavy Compaction

2.06

0.093

1.376
4.022

3.2 Soil Sample no.2 (km-5)

Gravel and sand content-51.12%
Clay and silt content-48.88%
Table 2. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 2.
MDD
Method of Compaction
OMC
CBR
(g/cc)
Light Compaction

1.88

0.167

0.564

Heavy Compaction

1.994

0.103

1.270

3.3 Soil Sample no.3 (km-6)

Gravel and sand content-51.60%
Clay and silt content-49.40
Table 3. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 3.
MDD
Method of Compaction
OMC
CBR
(g/cc)
Light Compaction

1.90

0.141

3.405

Heavy Compaction

2.09

0.107

8.89

3.4 Soil Sample no.4 (km-7)

Gravel and sand content-52.05%
Clay and silt content-47.95%
Table 4. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 4.
MDD
(g/cc)

OMC

CBR

Light Compaction

1.875

0.135

2.105

Heavy Compaction

2.02

0.10

6.168

Method of Compaction

3.5 Soil Sample no.5 (km-9)

Gravel and sand content-53.05%
Clay and silt content-46.95%%

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 IAEME

Table 5. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 5.
MDD
Method of Compaction
OMC
CBR
(g/cc)
1.82
0.14
Light Compaction
2.4
Heavy Compaction

1.96

0.116

5.454

4. DISCUSSION
The Maximum Dry Density, Optimum Moisture Content and California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of granular soils compacted by standard and modified proctor test are compared.
Table 6. Comparison of heavy and light compaction characteristics for all soil samples.
MDD ratio
OMC ratio
CBR Ratio
S no.
Soil Sample
Light/heavy
heavy/light
Light/Heavy
1
KM3
0.917
0.669
0.342
2
KM5
0.943
0.617
0.444
3
KM6
0.909
0.759
0.383
4
KM7
0.928
0.741
0.341
5
KM8
0.929
0.829
0.440
Average
0.925
0.723
0.390
The inferences made therefrom follow.
1.
By standard proctor test, the MDD obtained was about 92% of the MDD obtained by
modified proctor compaction test.
2.
The OMC for modified proctor compaction test was about 72% of the OMC obtained in
case of standard proctor compaction test.
3.
From the average of various samples it was noticed that the strength obtained in light
compaction was only about 39 % of the strength obtained using heavy compaction
method.
5. CONCLUSION
From the average of various samples it was noticed that the strength obtained in light
compaction was only about 39 % of the strength obtained using heavy compaction method.
Since the thickness of base material used in roads depends on the CBR of the subgrade
material, so adopting light compaction methods, although tend to decrease the road
construction cost in terms of light equipment and less labour. But owing to the reduced
subgrade strength due to light compaction, at the same time increases the material costs by
substantial amounts.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
a)
b)

As compared to light compaction, heavy compaction is suitable when subgrade material is

costly.
In areas of limited availability of water, heavy compaction is suitable as the OMC is 27% less
for heavy compaction as compared to light compaction.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 IAEME

REFERENCES
1. Quality Assurance Handbook for Rural Roads developed by: Indian Roads Congress
2. Craigs Soil Mechanics R.F. Craig Formerly Department of Civil Engineering University of
Dundee UK
3. Soil Mechanics T. William Lambe and Robert. V. Whitman
4. IRC: SP-20-2002
5. Soil mechanis William Powrie
6. http://www.iitk.ac.in
7. http://www.aboutcivil.com/california-bearing-ratio-test.html
8. Muthuraj.M.P, Subramanian. K, Experimental Investigation On Glass Fibre Reinforced
Plastic bridge Decks Subjected To Static And Fatigue Loading International Journal of Civil
Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 321 - 331, ISSN Print:
0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
9. Harini Hn and Sureka Naagesh, Predicting CBR of Fine Grained Soils by Artificial Neural
Network and Multiple Linear Regression International Journal of Civil Engineering &
Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 119 - 126, ISSN Print: 0976 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
10. Dr. Ch. Sudha rani, Prediction of Swelling Pressure of Expansive Soils Using
Compositional and Environmental Factors International Journal of Civil Engineering &
Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 134 - 142, ISSN Print: 0976 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 6316.