IOSRJournalofMechanicalandCivilEngineering(IOSRJMCE)

eISSN:22781684,pISSN:2320334X,Volume12,Issue4Ver.III(Jul.Aug.2015),PP3036
www.iosrjournals.org

DevelopmentofMathematicalModelforEvaluationof
CompactionCharacteristicofLateriticSoilUsingQuadratic
Equation

J.A.Ige
DepartmentofCivilEngineering,LadokeAkintolaUniversityofTechnology,OgbomosoNigeria

Abstract:
The research focusedon experimentalevaluation of compaction characteristic of laterite soil using
quadratic function.
This was with a view to obtain empirical relationshipsbetween optimum moisturecontent
and maximum dry density. Six samples of lateritic soils were obtained. The samples were subjected to
laboratory analysisin their natural states and there compaction characteristicswere determined.Quantitative
relationshipsbetween optimum moisture content and maximumdry density of the soil samples weredeveloped
using second order polynomial function. From the findings ofthis projectwork,the following conclusions are
made in relation to the objectives of the project: the dry density of thestudiedsoilsamplesgenerallydecrease
with decrease in moisture content, the best fitting between the moisture content and dry density of the soil

samples wasfound bythe polynomialexpressionforsample1 6:(Yd

=0.0002w2
+1.0545w+1.7281 Yd
=
2
2

0.0036w
0.1995w + 4.3646 Yd
=0.0019w
+0.0641w + 1.3800 Yd
=0.0209w2
+0.8455w 5.7607 Yd
=

0.0102w2
+ 0.2402w + 0.6922Yd
=0.0361w2
+1.1431w 6.9188),whereYd
isdrydensityingm/cm3
andw is
moisturecontentin%.
Keywords
:
Compaction,drydensityandmoisturecontent

I. Introduction
Asoil classification system isthearrangementofdifferentsoilwhensimilarpropertiesintogroupsand
subgroups based on their application. Classification system providesa common languagetobrieflyexpressthe
general characteristics of soil, which are infinitely varied without detailed description. Most of the soil
classification system that have beendeveloped for engineering purposes are based on simple index properties,
such as particles size distribution and plasticity. Although there are several classificationsystemnow in use,
There is no total definitive of any soil for all possible application because of the wide diversity of the soil
properties(Braja.2000).
In a general way, it has been found that soil can be classifiedinto groupwithineachofthe significant
engineering properties are somehow similar. Consequently, proper classificationof subsurface materials is an
important step inconnection with any foundation job, because it providesthe first clues to the experience that
may be anticipated during and after construction.The ability to identify and classify soil propertyis therefore
basictotheanalysesofallengineeringproblemsdealingwithearthmaterials(Raphetal,2003).
Theaimof this projectistodeterminetheevaluationof compactioncharacteristicoflateritic soilusing
polynomialfunction.Thestudyaimeddevelopmentof relationshipbetween,moisturecontentandmaximumdry
density.

II. MaterialsandMethod
Descriptionofstudyarea
Thestudyarea chosen for this study isOgbomosoSouth,inWestern partofNigeriaand sampleswere
collectedin6locationswithinthestudyareaandsubjectedtolaboratorytests

Laboratorytest
There are many test to be carried out on the soil samples toascertain their compaction characteristics
and alsosuitability for required purposed. This is necessary becausesome soils possess physicalcharacteristic
which are of engineering importancebutdonotpossesotherengineeringproperties that qualifythemtobeused
fromtheproposedproject.

Particlesizeanalysis

DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org30|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...
This was carried out to analyze the soil particle according to their aggregate. Using a set of sieve
(rangingfrom8mmsievetosieveno.75microns).
Thefinest available materialwaswashedover75mm sieveswithwater.Thecoarseportionwaskeptin
0
the oven for24hoursat105
cbeforesievingwascarriedoutonitwithsetofsievescontainingsieveofdifferent
diameter(rangingfrom8mmsievetosieveno.75microns)andabasepanreceiver.
After sieving, the portion retainedon each sieve was weighted andthe percentagepassing each sieve
wascalculated.(SmithandSmith,1998)

MoistureContent
Thenaturalmoisturecontentcanbeeasilymeasuredinthelaboratorybythefollowingprocedures
i. TheemptymoisturecanbeholdbesamplebeweightedandweightrecordwasW
1
ii. ThesampleplacedintothecanwouldbeweightedandweightrecordedasW
2
0
iii. Thesamplewouldbeovendrywithconstanttemperatureofabout110
Cuntilitiscompletelydried
iv. ThemassofthedrysamplewouldbeweightedandweightrecordedasW
3
v. Themoisturecontentwouldbecomputedusing

equ

Atterberglimittest
This is aimed at determining the liquid limit and plastic limit of soil.Liquid limit is described as the
water content at which soil posses anarbitrary fixed small amount of shear strength and it isthewatercontent
that represents the boundarybetween the liquid limitand plasticstate of soil while plasticlimitisthemoisture
content atwhichathreadofthesoilsample(about3mmdiameter),beginstorupture orcrumblewhenit isbeing
o
tried to be mould. The thread was put in the oven for24hours at 105
C to determinemoisturecontentasusual
usinglabelledmoisturecan.
Therange of water content at which thesoil behaves like plasticmaterials, that is differencebetween
liquidlimitandplasticmaterial,(LLPL)istermtheplasticityindex.(Bell,2004)

Compactiontest
This test was carried out to determine the soil shear strength and compactionenergy employed was
West Africa Standard (WAS) which involved applicationof 25 blows per layerof 5 inch a mould of volume
3
2305cm
with a 4.5 kg rammer. The dry unit weight of the compacted soil is computedusing expression in
equation1(Donald1999)

equ2
Where:Y
isdryunitweight
d
Yiswetorbulkunitweightand
wismoisturecontent

CaliforniaBearingRatio(CBR)test
This was carried out to determine the bearing capacity ratio of the soil to use in sub grade and base
courseThe reading at 2.5 penetrations and 5.0 penetrations are the two point of most important. The correct
reading at 2.5 penetrations was multiplied by 0.0212 due to calibration of the machine. The process would be
carried out for both top and bottom of the compacted soil and average of value in both top and bottom
penetration is the actual CBRat the point. The same operationwould be carried outuntil thereis a fall inthe
loadgaugereading.(John,1993)

Quadraticfunctionforthecompaction
Specimens for eachsoil mixture were compacted in accordance with standard compaction procedures
,
(ASTMD 698). The optimum water content, w
opt and the maximum dry unit weight, Y
d maxfor the resulting
compaction data were determined by regressing themeasure data with a second order polynomialequationof
thefollowingform.(Stroud,1992)
2
Y
=Aw
+Bw+C
Equ3
d
DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org31|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...
3
WhereY
isthedryunitweight,g/cm

d
W is the corresponding moulding (compaction) water content A,B,andCare constantresultingfrom thefitting
process.

III. Results
NaturalmoistureContent
Soilsampleswithlowmoisturecontentindicatesadrysoil,whilehighmoisture contentisanindication ofa wet
soil. The value of moisture content of the samples ranges from 2.49% 11.08% whichare less comparetothe
valueinthefield(370%).Table1
Table1:
NaturalMoistureContentwithdept
SampleNo
1
2
3
4
5
6

Depth(m)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

N.M.C(%)
2.49
11.08
6.39
6.83
5.25
7.22

GrainSizeAnalysis
Theparticlesize distribution curve shows not only the range of particle sizes present in soil but also
thetypeofdistributionofvarioussizeparticles.
Thegrain size analysis shows that the samples are well graded.Theresultof thewellgradedsamples
shows that the smaller particles filled the space between the larger particles, giving highly dense mass
interlockingparticleswithhighershearstrengthandlowcompressibility.(Table2)

Table2:
Summaryofsieveanalysisresult

SieveNo
8
4
2
1
0.425
0.250
0.125
0.075

Percentagepassing
Sample1
100
99.7
54.41
21.58
6.08
3.04
0.61
0.00

Sample2
100
99.12
55.88
26.76
12.35
5.59
1.18
0.00

Sample3
100
98.73
58.12
32.74
14.97
4.82
1.27
0.00

Sample4
100
99.38
51.34
14.50
8.33
3.08
0.62
0.00

Sample5
100
97.33
50.66
11.33
8.00
1.33
0.00
0.00

Sample6
100
98.42
71.84
43.16
23.42
6.31
1.05
0.00

Atterberg LimitTest: Table3 gives a summary of thevaluesof liquidlimit,plasticlimitandplasticity

indexat various fines contentofthe soil samples. Sample 1, 2 and 4 has lowestvalue of liquidlimit 9%, 8%,
and9%respectivelywhilesample6hasintermediateplasticityof13%, sample3and5hashighplasticitydueto
their liquid limitmore than40%plasticityindex(PI)of22%and21%respectively, whichimpliesthatsample3
and5hasthehighestinherentswellingpotentialshrinkagetendency

Table3:
AtterbergLimitforSample16
SampleNo
1
2
3
4
5
6

MoistureContent
3733443541
5250543932
4033375243
4343344947
4344494354
4944383443

Noofblows
4539302414
4641312412
4738322513
4434251811
4838312118
4538271812

AveragePL(%)
27
27
30
25
28
25

LL(%)
36
35
52
34
46
38

P.I(%)
9
8
22
9
21
13

CompactionTest
The main aim of carrying out the compaction test is to determine the optimum moisture content
(OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD). From the result obtained for W.A.Scompaction test,sample 2 has
the higher OMC, which is 33.75% while sample1 has the lowest OMC which is 9%. For the maximum dry
3
density, sample 1 has the highest MDD, which is 2.20 g/cm
while sample 2has the lowest MDD, which is
3
1.75g/cm
.(Table4)
Table4:
DynamiccompactionforWestAfricanStandard(WAS)

Sample1

Sample2

Sample3

Sample4

Sample5

Sample6

DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org32|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...
Dry
Density
(g/cm3)

1.89
1.95
2.11
1.94
3.01
4.65
9.12
16.74

Moisture
Content
(%)

1.62
1.75
1.57
1.52
26.19
33.74
49.16
49.17

1.83
1.93
1.95
1.80
9.49
14.23
18.08
22.72

1.72
1.73
1.78
1.70
13.07
23.32
27.18
27.45

1.90
2.10
2.06
1.96
7.30
11.46
13.72
15.51

1.88
1.91
1.76
1.60
13.20
18.28
32.97
33.49

CaliforniaBearingRatioTest
Theresult of un soaked California bearing ratiotestonsoilsamplesrevealedthatsample 1and2has
C.B.RvaluessuitableforsubgradeasshowninTable5

Table5:
SummaryofCaliforniaBearingRatioTestResultforWASCompaction
Pen

(mm)

Sample1

BaseTop

Sample2

BaseTop

0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7

0.3820.106
0.4880.191
0.7420.233
0.8480.445
0.9330.530
0.9960.615
1.0600.700
1.1240.763
1.2510.848
1.3140.890
1.3780.975
1.4841.124
1.5481.230
1.5901.272

0.2120.148
0.3180.297
0.5510.445
0.6780.572
1.0390.678
1.3780.848
1.5670.912
1.8231.208
1.9081.442
2.0781.866
2.2261.950
2.3112.035
2.3742.056
2.4602.078

Sample3

Base
Top
0.0850.042
0.2540.170
0.3820.212
0.4240.254
0.5510.318
0.5940.424
0.6780.572
0.7420.615
0.7840.657
0.8480.700
0.9750.806
1.0600.912
1.1240.933
1.1660.975

Sample4

BaseTop

Sample5

Base
Top
0.1480.212
0.1270.064
0.1700.254
0.2120.191
0.1910.339 0.2540.233
0.3180.509
0.4240.339
0.4030.594
0.5300.403
0.5090.721
0.6150.466
0.5720.806
0.7000.509
0.7000.912
0.7840.572
0.8481.039
0.8480.678
0.9121.081
0.9120.763
0.9541.145
0.9960.848
1.0601.230
1.1660.954
1.1241.336
1.2720.975
1.1661.378
1.4421.039

Sample6

BaseTop
0.2970.127
0.5720.318
0.6570.424
0.9120.509
1.0600.806
1.4200.954
1.5481.060
1.7381.187
1.8441.314
1.9081.442
1.9931.569
2.0351.738
2.0991.823
2.1201.910

Table6:
CaliforniaBearingRatiovaluesforW.A.Scompactionofsamples.
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6

CBR(%)
12
10
4
5
4
9

Polynomialfunctionforthecompaction
The results of the correlations between moisture content and dry densityofthe soil samples are as
shown in Figs. 1 to 6, while Table 7 gives a summary of the equations representing relationships between
moisturecontentanddrydensityofsoilsamples.

DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org33|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...

Figure1:
DrydensityvsMoisturecontentforSample1

Figure2:
DrydensityvsMoisturecontentforSample2

Figure3:
DrydensityvsMoisturecontentforSample3

DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org34|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...

Figure4:
DrydensityvsMoisturecontentforSample4

Figure5:
DrydensityvsMoisturecontentforSample5

Figure6:
DrydensityvsMoisturecontentforSample6
DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org35|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...

Thelocalmaximumand minimum of a second order polynomialfitcanbeascertainedbysettingthe

derivativesofEqn3,withrespecttowequaltozeroor
2Aw+B=0
Equ4

andsolvingtheresultingquadraticequationforthetworootsofw,or

Equ5

ThevalueofwcorrespondingtoY

isw
andY

isdeterminedbysubstitutingw
into
d
max
opt
d
max
opt
2

=Aw
+Bw
+C

Equ6
d
max
opt
opt

Polynomialfunctionforthecompaction
Sample1
2
Y
Aw
+Bw+C

Equ7
d=

dY
=2Aw+B

Equ8
d
dw

2Aw+B

Equ9

AtmaximumdrydensityandoptimummoisturecontentandsubstitutingforY
andwinequation7.
d
2
2.2=A9
+B9+C

Equ10
2
2.0=A81
+B81+C

Equ11
2
1.89=A3.01
+B3.01+C

Equ12
A=0.00023
B=1.05446
C=1.72812

Table7:
Equationrepresentingrelationshipbetweenmoisturecontentanddrydensityofsoilsamples.
Samples
1
2
3
4
5
6

Equation

2
Y
0.0002w
+1.0545w+1.7281
d=
2
Y
0.0036w
0.1995w+4.3646
d=
2
Y
0.0019w
+0.0641w+1.3800
d=
2
Y
0.0209w
+0.8455w5.7607
d=
2
Y
0.0102w
+0.2402w+0.6922
d=
2
Y
0.0361w
+1.1431w6.9188
d=

IV. Conclusion
Based on the results obtained from the laboratory tests carried on the six(6) samples from various
locationswithinthestudyareaitwereestablishedthat
i. Soil sample 1, 2 and4belongstogroupA25 andsamples 6belongstogroupA27respectively fromthe
AASHTO soil classificationsystem, and they aregenerallyratedasexcellenttogoodconstructionmaterial
with good drainage characteristic. Sample 3 and 5 belongs to group A75 from the AASHTO soil
classification system and are therefore described as highly compressible soil and therefore notsatisfactory
asaroadconstructionmaterial.
ii. Liquid limits for sample1, 2, 4 and6arelessthan40percent.This valueisalsoanindicationofagoodsub
graderatingandsuitabilityofthesoilforroadconstruction.
iii. Thegrainsizeanalysistestonsamplesshowsthatallthesamplesarewellgraded.
iv. The dry density of the studied soil samples generallydecrease with decrease in moisture content,the best
fitting between the moisture content and dry density of the soil samples was found by the quadratic
DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org36|Page

DevelopmentOfMathematicalModelForEvaluationOfCompaction...
2
2
expression for sample 1 6 : (Y
+ 1.0545w +1.7281 Y
0.1995w+4.3646
d = 0.0002w
d = 0.0036w
2
2
2
Y
+ 0.0641w+ 1.3800 Y
+ 0.8455w 5.7607 Y
+ 0.2402w+
d = 0.0019w
d = 0.0209w
d = 0.0102w
2
3
0.6922Y
+1.1431w6.9188),whereY
andwismoisturecontentin
d=0.0361w
disdry densityin gm/cm
%.

References
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].
[6].
[7].
[8].

Bell,F.G.(2004):EngineeringGeologyBlackWellScientificPublicationsOxford,London.
nd
Braja,M.D.(2000):PrincipleofGeotechnicalEngineering,2
Edition,U.S.A,ThomsonInternational.
Donald, P.C. (1999): Geotechnical Engineering Principlesand practices, PrenticeHall International, California. Developmentin
GeotechnicalEngineering.19769:554.
John,A.(1993):IntroductiontotheMechanicsofSoilandFoundations,MCGRAWHILLBookCompany,England.
Malomo,S. (1997)The Nature and Engineering Propertiesof some Red Soils, N.E. Brazil,
Ph.D. ThesisUniv.Of Leeds,
Leeds,292pp.
nd
Ralph,B.P,Walter,E.H.andThomasH.J.(2003)FoundationEngineering,2
Edition,WileyInternational,U.S.A.
Smith,G.NandSmith,G.N.E.(1998)ElementofSoilMechanics,SeventhEditionUnitedStateofAmericaBlackwellScience.
Stroud,K.A.(1992)EngineeringMathematicsProgrammesandProblems,ThirdEdition,ELBS.,UK.

DOI:10.9790/168412433036www.iosrjournals.org37|Page