Soil Mechanics Aysen 468p
Soil Mechanics Aysen 468p
Soil Mechanics Aysen 468p
September 7 984
Engineering and Research Center
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N
R E P O R T NO.
Robert Scavuzzo
GR-84- 14
9. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N NAME A N D ADDRESS 10. WORK U N I T NO.
Bureau of Reclamation
Engineering and Research Center 1 1 . C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO.
Denver, Colorado 80225
13. T Y P E O F REPORT AND PERIOD
COVERED
12. S P O N S O R I N G A G E N C Y N A M E A N D A D D R E S S
Same
14. S P O N S O R I N G A G E N C Y C O D E
DlBR
15. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y N O T E S
Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Engineering and Research Center, Denver,
Colorado.
Editor: JMT(c)
16. A B S T R A C T
A study was performed t o investigate the use of the Harvard miniature apparatus as a
potentially viable means for obtaining moisture-unit weight relationships of soils. A literature
search was performed along with a series of pilot tests on representative soil samples t o
compare the results obtained from the Harvard miniature apparatus with those from the
USBR Proctor compaction test procedure. The use of the Harvard miniature apparatus is
recommended for obtaining moisture-unit weight relationships under certain conditions for
t w o reasons: ( I ) it saves time and (2) less material is required t o perform the test.
1 7 . K E Y WORDS A N D D O C U M E N T A N A L Y S I S
a. DESCRIPTORS-- *Harvard miniature apparatus/ "Proctor compaction test/moisture-unit
weight relat~onship/construction control/ soil compaction/ dry density/ optimum
moisture content/ Proctor curves/ compaction/ compaction tests/ "compaction
equipment/ field tests/ laboratory tests
by
Robert Scavuzzo
Geotechnical Branch
Division of Research and Laboratory Services
Engineering and Research Center
Denver, Colorado
September 1984
ii
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction. . .. . . . . . . .. .... . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . ... . . .. . "" .., ... . ... . .. . ... . .., . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . .. . 1
" "" '" '" " " " '"
Conclusions """""'"
,
... """"""" 3
Bibliography """"""" 7
FIGURES
Figure
Field and laboratory results compared for various methods of obtaining moisture-density
curves """"""""""""""'" 3
"""""""""""""""" '" """""""""""""'" """
2 Harvard miniature vs. USBR E-11 compaction test results (3 sheets) 4
iii
INTRODUCTION
Optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight are two important criteria for evaluating
the state of compactness for most cohesive soil masses whether they are deposited naturally or
placed by man. The "Proctor Compaction Test (Moisture-Density Relations of Soils)," USBR (Bu-
reau of Reclamation) Designation E-11 [1]*, is performed in all USBR soil laboratories, both at the
E&RCenter (Engineering and Research Center) and in the field. Two disadvantages of the currently
used test method are (1) the amount of material required to complete the test - approximately
25 to 50 Ibm (11.4 to 22.7 kg), depending on the type of material being evaluated; and (2) the
length of time required to perform the test.
This report is intended to introduce a new test procedure, "USBR 5510, Performing Laboratory
Compaction of Soils - Harvard Miniature" and present the results of a search of the literature
comparing the results obtained from standard Proctor compaction with those obtained from the
Harvard miniature apparatus.
The compaction test was originally developed as a basis for controlling compaction in the field.
It was intended as a tool to obtain a maximum unit weight that would aid in construction control;
Le., improved settlement characteristics and strength. However, some engineers have erroneously
come to accept "maximum unit weight" and "optimum moisture content" as fixed values irre-
spective of the soil type or compactive effort.
The traditional standard Proctor compaction test requires that the soil specimen be compacted
in 3 layers, with 25 blows per layer, in a mold having a volume of 1/30 ft3 (944 cm3). The
compactive effort is achieved by dropping a 5.5-lbm (2.5 kg) ram mer from a height of 12 in (30.5
cm). The standard USBR procedure also requires that the soil specimen be compacted in 3 layers,
with 25 blows per layer. However, the standard USBRtest uses a mold having a volume of 1/20
ft3 (1416 cm3), and the compactive effort is achieved by using a 5.5-lbm (2.5 kg) rammer dropped
from a height of 18 in (45.7 cm).
Both techniques impart the same compactive effort, 12,375 ft-lbf/ft3 (5.925 x 105 N.m/m3), to
the soil specimen. A moisture-unit weight plot is obtained when a series of soil specimens are
Recently, the Harvard miniature compaction apparatus, introduced by Wilson in 1950 [2], has
been used by researchers for preparing triaxial specimens [2, 3] and by others to obtain moisture-
unit weight relationships of soils [2, 4]. The use of this device results in a quick moisture-unit
weight determination and requires only 4 to 6 Ibm (1.8 to 2.7 kg) of material. The current USBR
test procedure for compacting soil specimens using the Harvard miniature compaction apparatus
is presented in the appendix. This procedure was adapted from the method suggested by Wilson
in 1970 [4] and from the experience of USBR personnel.
In 1962, the Highway Research Board studied a number of factors that could influence compaction
test results [5]. The report concentrated on three principal types of compaction efforts currently
used: impact type, kneading type, and the vibratory type. In addition to the different types of
compaction efforts, the Highway Research Board report also cited other variations that influence
the moisture-unit weight relationships of soils:
. Size of mold
. Amount of compactive effort
. Maximum size aggregate permitted
. Method of supporting the mold
. Method of preparing the soil for testing
In 1950, Wilson [2] compared field compaction characteristics that had been studied extensively
by the Waterways Experiment Station [6] with the results obtained using the Harvard miniature
compaction apparatus. Figure 1 shows the results obtained from compacting a clayey sand and
a silty clay. Fig'Jre 1 shows that it is possible to obtain moisture-unit weight curves that closely
duplicate field compaction curves by selecting suitable spring force, number of layers, and tamps
per layer. The test results obtained by Wilson also indicate that no standard procedure can
successfully duplicate field compaction curves for all soil types.
Similar compaction tests were performed at the E&R Center geotechnical laboratories. The USSR
compaction procedure (Designation E-11) and Harvard miniature compaction tests were per-
2
Figure 1. - Field and laboratory results compared for various methods of obtaining moisture-unit weight
curves.
formed on a number of soil types. Harvard miniature compaction tests were performed by
applying 25 tamps with a 20-lbf (89-N) spring force to each of the 5 lifts in the Harvard miniature
mold (see appendix A for a detailed description of the testing procedure). Results of the com-
paction tests are shown on figure 2.
The Harvard miniature compaction test resulted in optimum moisture contents that were 1.1
to 1.8 percent greater than those obtained from the USBR compaction method. Maximum dry
unit weights from the Harvard miniature compaction ranged from 0.4 to 3.3 Ibf/ft3 (6.4 to 52.8
kg/m3) lower than maximum dry unit weights obtained from the USBR compaction method.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of the Harvard miniature compaction apparatus produces moisture-unit weight curves in
less time than the Proctor compaction test and requires only a fraction of the material. Com-
parative results indicate that the Harvard miniature method can be used to match standard
compaction values when the spring force, the number of layers, and the number of tamps per
layer are adjusted according to the soil type. Because time and materials could be saved by
using the Harvard miniature apparatus instead of the standard Proctor device, similar investi-
gations should be conducted on a variety of soil types to develop a data base, from which
laboratory and field personnel can draw, to ensure quality moisture-unit weight determinations.
3
CLASS I FICA TI ON SY~L 5 C.
GRADATION SUMMARY
GRAVEL .
SAND ~
FINES ~
ATTERBERG LIMITS
'!JO
LIQUID LIMIT ;)., .
120 PLASTICITY I NOEX 10
THEORETICAL
COMPLETE
CURVE AT
SATURATION. '80 SHRINKAGE LIMIT .
'\ NUMERALS INDICATE
PERCENTAGE QF VOIDS
SPECI FIC GRAVITY
"\
,..c- 1--- ,.'35' MINUS NO. 4 ;1..'73
"\ PLUS NO. 4
!5 1.130 BULK
~.. I0 /[ [f' L:Jr'(?~ '< ~ APPARENT
".. /10
u ABSORPT I ON J
D / / "'~
"\ 1.7~ ~
..
..
\:;
I ~ v
IEkb'
1.70
~
~
COMPACT I ON
b/ft3
-~.
~.c
01 \. .. ~~~:~ ~~~;~~~ ~I
.j::>. .. I" (,. ,as
kg/c)
. 'v~ f.b5
.r .Ibf/tn2
~
OPTIMUM ~ISTURE CONT
~-
II: 100
\. 1.60
c
::s PENETRATIONRESISTANC ~
::s cl.:vj.Sjj~Re.-1 ( (p kg/c)
>-
L ~""
>- '" 0
0
L
- H~RvAIRIt> i--I/lflI ~1/)~~ ." 1.65 NOTES: UN IT #1,
cl~
i"-. ~
/.5e
'\.
_ik.f'V~ ,cl M.~,,~~ -+Vt'~
Cfo " I.4-5
10 IS 20 25 30 ~~ blows (i) ;1.0' ~.f'
MoIsture content -. of dry weIght
.for ~4t-l 5 Ii.f+s
COMPACTION - PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES
><rw~){::. IJj.S Ib/f:t3
Lc) 0 PT ~ 11,." ~D
Figure 2. - Harvard miniature VS.USBR E-11 compaction test results (sheet 1 of 3).
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLSM-SC. .
GRADATIONSU*ARY
GRAVEL ~(;) .
SAND .5 J
FINES Yf .
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT ;L (.. .
/20 "j PLASTICITY INDEX ~
\ v'" THEORETICAL CURVE AT
COMPLETE SATURATION. '.<:jO SHRINKAGE LIMIT J
NUMERALS INDiCATE
\ PERCENTAGEOF VOIDS SPECIFIC GRAVITY
\ -- i--
-- ,.~5 MINUS NO. 4 .
:>. 7'~
PLUS NO. 4
V --< ~\; €c:::
/
l.'a'O... BULK
1-
.... /C '\,
~D liD
0/ P r:-:;) '\ u APPARENT
ABSORPT ION J
"-
/ b/ ~~'\ '.7£ 01
..
U1
+-
.t:
..
01
..
/
V \
" ~'\ PO ~
+-
.t:
..
COMPACTION (1)561.)
. lARGER THAN TESTED
MAX. DRY UNIT WEIGHT ~Ib/ft'
. li '\, o,.\D 1.65 +- d . t)(,:J kg/cml)
-+-§ '\ -C:I OPTI MUM Me I STURE
PENETRATIONRESISTANC~lbf/ln2
OOHT. I~ .
{CO '- I.60
>- ( 10.3 kg/cm2)
>-
" 1"'- el-
0
I- ~\.5 ~R E - \ 1.5S" NOTES: UN \T """'3
[J ) ~IVI' ~c. ,.j~
I-M \If ~R I"tlI'll
" I.'$"0 _+1a ~ Q rd YY\'i ,..\d. ~ ~
d5bJDWS(O) ~O Lbf
90 I.liS
10 ,~ 20 25 30 ~r eqd- 5 ,:~+s
MoIsture content - . of dry weIght '(I:> M4~::=- lID uJ.#3
COMPACTION - PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES v.JoPT ::::- If~
Figure 2. - Harvard miniature VS. USBR E-11 compaction test results (sheet 2 of 3).
CLASS I FICA TI ON SY~L C L-
GRADATION SUMMARY
GRAVEL .
SAND If If ~
FINES .5~ .
ATTERBERG LI MI TS
12.0 1'\
p'"' THEORETICAL CURVE AT
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITV INDEX
",
.;l~
.
'" COMPLETE SATURATION. 1.90 SHRINKAGE LIMIT J
-
NUMERALS INDICATE
" ~/
1--,-
PERCENTAGE OF VO IDS
1.'65
SPECI FIC GRAVIn
MINUS NO. 4
PLUS NO. 4
;)..?O
'\. /,go BULK
'".....+- "
',:>":J .... APPARENT
...... u
.... 110 " ABSORPT ION .
J:I 1.75 ~
"........ ---i ..
.. .......- ~I"" ~~i,.70 +- COMPACTION
+-
.I:.
It:'\' /"
'& . LARGER THAN TESTED
C]) 01
..
r;1
~0- I ,.b5 .
.. MAX. DRY UNIT WEIGHT
I07),='b/f-t3
. [~ ~~,,0 I
( t. 7~8' kg/c >
+- r "< -+-::)c OPTIMUM r.«)ISTURE
PENETRATION
roNT. /7.$.
RESISTANCE Ibf/ln2
~ 100 l.bO (
>-
L.
<:>- V ;8 R. E 1\
"" >-
L.
0
kg/cml>
0
:]: H'\I< Uf R
) r
/-II !\T JAE " '" It,
1.~5 NOTES:
""
" <
,.50 -~ ~ n;l Y'V\'\ ~ ~Q..-\.v('~
~ ~O\A)S Q ~C Ibf
'10 " 1.45
1O It)" 20 2:5" :?IJ -tor ea.c.~.l) I.'fts
MoIsture content -. of dry weIght d'\) r,.a',l ;;:. ID7. b Lb 1f'+3
COMPACTION - PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES ~ nPT :::. \~. 3 ~
Figure 2. - Harvard miniature VS. USBR E-ll compaction test results (sheet 3 of 3).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Earth Manual, 2d edition, Bureau of Reclamation, 810 pp., U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C., reprint 1980.
[2] Wilson, S.D., "Small Soil Compaction Apparatus Duplicates Field Results Closely," Engineering News-
Record, vol. 135, No. 19, pp. 34-36, November 1950.
[3] Highter, W. H., A. G. Attschaeffl, and C. W. Lovell, "Low-Temperature Effects on the Compaction
and Strength of Sandy Clay," Paper for Symposium, Highway Research Board 49th Annual Meeting,
Washington, D.C., Reprinted from Highway Research Record No. 304, pp. 45-51, 1970.
[4] Wilson, S. D., "Suggested Method for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using Harvard Compaction
Apparatus," Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes, ASTM STP 479,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., June 1970.
[5] Johnson, A. W., and J. R. Sallberg, "Factors Influencing Compaction Test Results," Highway Research
Board Bulletin 319, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Washington, D.C., 1962.
[6] Soil Compaction Investigation, Compaction Studies on Silty Clay, TMS-271 Report No.2, Waterways
Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss., July 1949.
Kaufman, L. P., "Percentage Silt Content in Sands and Its Effect on Liquefaction Potential," Masters
Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 1981.
Soil Compaction Investigation, TM3-271, Report No.1, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.,
April 1949.
Tavenas, F. A., R. S. Ladd, and P. LaRochelle, "Accuracy of Relative Density Measurements: Results of
a Comparative Test Program," Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects
Involving Cohesionless Soils, ASTM STP 523, pp. 18-60, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pa., 1973.
LIBRARY
JUN 2 1 2005
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado
7
APPENDIX
9
'1"
-<'
USBR ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~A
PROCEDURE FOR
PERFORMING LABORATORY COMPACTION OF SOILS -
HARVARD MINIATURE
INTRODUCTION
1. Scope
1.1 This designation outlines the procedure for performing laboratory
compaction of soils using the Harvard miniature compaction apparatus.
1.2 The test procedure is used to determine the relationship between
the moisture content of the portion of soil passing the No. 4 sieve and
the corresponding dry unit weight when the soil is compacted using the
Harvard miniature compaction apparatus.
2. Auxiliary Tests
2.1 A representative soil sample must be obtained in accordance with
USBR 5205 prior to performing this test procedure. The moisture content
must be determined in accordance with USBR 5300 as part of performing
this test procedure. The specific gravity of the soil sample must be
determined in accordance with USBR 5320 in order to plot the zero air
voids curve on the compaction plot.
11
3. Applicable Documents
3.1 USBR Test Designations:
USBR 1009, Calibrating Compaction Molds
USBR 1012, Calibrating Balances or Scales
USBR 1020, Calibrating Ovens
USBR 1025, Calibrating Sieves and Screens
USBR 3900, Standard Definitions of Terms and Symbols Relating to Soil
Mechanics
USBR 5000, Determining Unified Soil Classification (Laboratory
Method)
USBR 5005, Determining Unified Soil Classification (Visual Method)
USBR 5205, Preparing Representative Soil Samples for Laboratory Use
USBR 5300, Determining Moisture Content of Soils by the Oven Method
USBR 5320, Determining Specific Gravity of Soils
3.2 ASTMStandard:
Ell, Specification for Wire-Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes1
4. Summary of Method
12
6. Terminology
6.1 All definitions are in accordance with USBR 3900. Terms of
particular signifi~ance are listed here:
6.1.1 Compaction curve (moisture-unit weight relationship). The
curve showing the relationship between the dry unit weight and the
-
moisture content of a soil for a given compactive effort
6.1.2 Optimum moisture content. -
The moisture content at which a
soil can be compacted to the maximum dry unit weight by a given
compactive effort
6.1.3 Maximumunit weight.
of a compaction curve
- The dry unit weight defined by the peak
13
COLLAR
REMOVER
SPECIMEN
EJECTOR
15
10.2.3 Pass the material through a No.4 sieve and mix thoroughly.
10.2.4 Split this material into six representative portions such
that each portion contains enough material for two specimens (or one
specimen if not enough material is available, see note 1).
10.2.5 Prepare a series of five specimens by adding increasing
amounts of water to five of the portions prepared in accordance witr.
subparagraph 10.2.4. The moisture contents selected are to be such
that at least two specimens wet of optimum moisture and at least two
specimens dry of optimum moisture are obtained. The moisture
contents selected should normally vary by approximately 1-1/2 to
2 percent. One portion should be kept at the air-dried moisture
content in case an additional specimen is needed.
10.2.6 Optimummoisture content is estimated for a given soil type
by experience or can be done by using the following values (from
ref. 2):
Soil classification Maximum Optimum
group dry uni t wei ght moisture contents
USBR5000 or 5005 (kN/m3) (lbf/ft3) (%)
SM 3
Ml, Cl, Ol, SC 18
MH, CH, OH, PT 36
16
10.2.10 In normal situations, it is important that material from a
compacted specimen not be remixed and reused. If, due to lack of
material, this must~ done, it must be noted in the report.
11. Calibration and Standardization
11.1 Check to see that the equipment is currently calibrated in
accordance with the applicable calibration procedure. If the
calibration is not current, perform the calibration before using the
equipment for this test procedure.
USBR 1009, Calibrating Compacton Molds
USBR 1012, Calibrating Balances or Scales
USBR 1020, Calibrating Ovens
USBR 1025, Calibrating Sieves and Screens
17
13. Procedure
NOTE 3. -
The compaction mold and tamper must be clean, dry, and
free of any lubricants.
13.4.4 Insert the tamper in the mold until it is in contact with the
soil surface.
13.4.5 Press down firmly until the spring is compressed to the full
calibrated load (20 pounds force).
13.4.6 Release the force and shift the tamper to a new position.
13.4.7 Each of the first four tamps should be applied in separate
quadrants and adjacent to the mold. The fifth tamp should be in the
center, making one complete coverage.
13.4.8 Repeat the cycle outlined in subparagraph 13.4.7 until
25 tamps have been applied. The tamps should be applied at the
approximate rate of one tamp per second.
13.4.9 It is important to slightly offset the location of the tamps
during the compaction effort to ensure complete and even coverage of
the specimen surface.
13.4.10 Repeat subparagraphs 13.4.2 through 13.4.9 until five layers
have been placed.
18
Harvard Miniature Compaction Test
Test designation USBR 5510-J(Jt~
Project E /V1 Feature 40. W\p Ie. Samp1e No. .1-
Tested by (3. s. Computed
by 8. S. Checked by D. Co.
Date IY Fe 8 '8L/ Blows per 1ayer ;J..S No. of layers 5
Compaction calibration (7.0 ,0 II, Volume of mold /,;2.t.f cm3
Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wet unit weight determinations
Desired moisture content (~)
1'/. a //',D I~.{) ~.D ~~.D
Water added (g) or (mL) or (cm3)
If.5 ;).7. V 3{'.f, c/'!J.~ SJ.S
Mass of mold + wet soil (g) ;l '11.I :J.5:2.'f ;>.O;1.fSp ,50.
)31.'
~Massof mold (g)
J~34 1:>3.¥ I)).C/ I).. ~.<I'''~,cf
Mass of wet soil (g) )~ t5.7
"1,.$ .}~'.5 '~'.«f 1:>7.0
Wet unit weight (kN/m3) 1(.3 ~.3 ~o.O
".8 ').0.'1
Moisture content determinations
Dish No. L-~, L-')..7 ;).0'1
L'31 50
Mass of dish + wet soil (g)
~3t(." ;1-5').7 Ci-f,
(., ~9,.g ~7.()
Mass of dish + dry soil (g)
,~.8 1~35.3 ').t{/.7 ,.,'.0 ~75.V
Mass of dish (g)
H~. '3 1;>.-').;21'3:2.1 '70.7 170.'
Mass of water (g)
J~.8 1'7.'1 t't.t{ ~.g ~(.~
Mass of dry soil (g)
1/()~.5 lO~.1 Jo~. {O8.:3 105.3
(~ of dry mass)
"
Moisture content 1).5 1(,.f f7./ l't. c? ~.5
Dry unit weight determinations
Dry unit weight (kN/m3)& I /p.1
/7.0 17.' "., -!)
,~~,.~
19
13.4.11 The top layer should extend at least 1/2 inch, but not more
than 3/4 inch, into the extension collar. If, after the last layer
is compacted, the specimen is too short or too long, it should be
discarded and a new specimen placed.
13.4.12 Transfer the mold assembly to the collar remover and release
the collar clamps.
13.4.13 Press down firmly on the piston and at the same time pull up
on the handle prying the collar loose from the compacted soil.
13.4.14 Removethe mold from the base and, uSing the straightedge,
carefully trim away any excess soil from the top and bottom of the
mold.
13.4.15 Determine the mass of the mold and the compacted soil to the
nearest 0.1 gram and record the value.
13.4.16 Remove the specimen from the mold using the sample ejector.
13.4.17 Place the specimen in a suitable container for drying and
determination of moisture content.
13.7 Calculate the w~t and dry unit weights for each compacted
specimen.
13.8 Plot the moisture contents and corresponding dry unit weights as
shown on figure 3.
13.9 If the plotted points do not fallon both sides of the optimum
moisture content, additional specimens must be prepared and compacted at
appropriate moisture contents.
13.10 If additional material is not available, see subparagraph 10.2.10.
13.11 Determine the specific gravity for the soil sample in accordance
with USBR 5320.
13.12 Use table X2, Points for Curve of Complete Saturation (zero air
voids curve), to obtain appropriate dry density and corresponding
moisture content values assuming the voids are completely filled with
water.
13.13 Plot the zero air voids curve as shown on figure 3 and outlined
in appendix X2.
20
14. Calculations
w= (: : ~) x 100 (1)
where:
w = Percentage of moisture in the specimen
A = Mass of dish and wet soil (g)
B = Mass of dish and dried soil (g)
C = Mass of dish (g)
100 = Constant to convert to percent
14.2 Calculate the wet unit of the compacted soil specimen as follows:
(2)
Y wet = (A V
C) x 9.8067
where:
y wet = Wet unit weight of compacted soil (kN/m3)
V = Volume of mold (cm3)
9.8067 = Constant to convert from g/cm3 to kN/m3 (see note 5)
NOTE5. - Three constants are combined into one in this
calculation. Density in g/cm3 is multiplied by 1000 to convert to
kg/m3; that number is multiplied by the acceleration of gravity, g
(9.8067 m/s2), to convert to unit weight in N/m3.
14.3 Calculate the dry unit weight of the soil specimen as follows:
Yd - (wy+wet
100 ) x 100
(3)
where:
21
COMPACTION. PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES
N
s::
rtI
0..
--
'+-
.0
.>< ~
w w
w -- w
z
eI:
l-
~l-
V'>
...... V'>
......
V'>
W V'>
W
D::: i D:::
Z z
0 I 0
...... ......
I-
eI:
! I-
D:::
I-
r- eI:
D:::
w I-
w
Z z
W W
0.. 0..
19
THEORETICAL CURVE AT COMPLETE I'ZO
SATURATION; NUMERALS INDICATE
~30 PERCENTAGE OF VOIDS
\.
/I 5;;-.jJ
/8
'<i' \ i
--'+-'+-
£ 1\ .0
.>< ~
.......
I-
:r: ~\. 35 1/01- :r:
~ ~
...... .L/ ......
~\.
~ 17 / \ \. w
3:
I-
...... I-......
z , \. '\.
=> / "\ [\.. f-/(055
>-
D::: >-
a D:::
<:)
Ji "'
/b ,
,..- ----
" 4()
f-It '00
15
10 IS 20 25' .30
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
22
15.2 See appendix X3 for blank data sheets.
REFERENCES
23
APPENDIX Xl
XI.I Scope
XI.I.I This appendix outlines the procedure for determining the amount
of water to be added to test specimens in order to achieve the desired
moisture contents.
XI.2 Procedure
XI.2.1 All data are to be recorded on the Added Water Determination for
Compaction Test Specimens form, as shown on figure XI.I. A blank data
sheet in included in appendix X3.
XI.2.2 The air-dried moisture content of the soil specimens is to be
predetermined in accordance with USBR 5300. Record the moisture content
value in column (1) on the form as the "initia1 moisture content (%)."
XI.2.3 The desired moisture content for each specimen is predetermined.
Record the values in column (2) on the form as the "desired moisture
content (%)."
XI.2.4 Calculate the moisture content difference for each test specimen
using the following expression:
(3) = (2) - (1)
where:
(3) = Moisture content difference (%)
(2) = Desired moisture content (%)
(1) = Initial moisture content (%)
Record the values for each test specimen in column (3) of the form as
"moisture content (%) differenie."
Xl.2.5 Determine the mass of each soil specimen and container. Record
the value in column (4) of the form as "mass of specimen and container."
Xl.2.6 Determine the mass of the container and record the value in
column (5) of the form as "mass of container.11
24
ADDED WATER DETERMINATION
0
0
....
--
--LO
)(
~~-
--
I
-
1 )(
-
....... .......
N
'""" "'"
25
where:
(6) = Mass of specimen (g)
(4) = Mass of specimen and container (g)
(5) = Mass of container (g)
(6)
(7) - 1100 + (l)}
x 100
where:
(7) = Dry mass of specimen (g)
(6) = Mass of specimen (g)
(1) = Initial moisture content (%)
Record the val ue in co1 umn (7) of the form as "dry mass of specimen.1I
Xl.2.9 Calculate the mass of water to add to each soil specimen using
the following expression:
(3)
(8) - (7) x
100
where:
(8) = Mass of water to add {g)
(7) = Dry of specimen (g)
(3) = Moisture content difference (%)
Record the value in column (8) of the form as "mass of water to add."
NOTE Xl.2. -
The water may be measured by volume. rather than mass.
For the purpose of this procedure, consider 1 9 = 1 mL = I cm3.
26
APPENDIX X2
X2.1 Scope
X2.1.1 This appendix outlines the procedure for obtaining and plotting
appropriate dry unit weight and corresponding moisture content values
given the specific gravity of the soil. along with a completed
moisture-unit weight plot.
X2.2 Procedure
Yd = YwGs 1 --roo
nyw
w =
Yd
where:
27
Table X2. - Points for curve of complete saturation (sheet 1 of 3).
Percent votds
Percent 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
voids 15J
j
I I I I I I I I
'-
Specific Dry unIt .etght 1n pounds force per cub1 c fooi'
lTavil1 Mot.ture content 1n percent
2.54- U-'hh_h- un. 142.8 134.9 126.9 119.0 111.1 103.1 95.2 87.2 79.3 I 7t.4 63.4
4.4 6.9 9.9 i3.1 16.8 21.2 26.2 32.2 39.4 48.1 59.1
2.55- hh__n_h.u-u 143.2 135.3 127.3 119.4 111.4 103.4 95.5 87.5 79.6 71.6 63.6
4.4 6.9 9.8 13.1 16.8 21.1 26.2 32.1 39.2 47.9 58.9
2.56. _,'nn'h"n"- 143.8 135.8 127.8 119.8 111.8 103.8 95.8 87.9 79.9 71.9 63.9
4.3 6.9 ; 9.8 13.0 16.11 21.1 26.1 32.0 39.1 47.7 58.6
2.57_-- nn.- n'____h 144.3 136.3 128.3 120.3 112.3 104.2 96.2 88.2 72.2 64.1
4.3 6.9 9.7 13.0 16.7 21.0 26.0 31.8 38.9~'I 47.5 58.4
2.58_hn_.._..- 'h__- 144.9 136.8 128.8 120.7 112.7 104.6 96.6 88.5 80.5 72.4 64.4
4.3 6.8 9.7 12.9 16.7 20.9 25.9 31.7 38.8 47.4 58.1
2.59_. ,'n... -h.
-
..h 145.5
4.3
137.4
6.8
129.3
9.7
121.2
12.9
113.1
16.6
105.1
20.8 I
97.0
25.6 II
88.9
31.6
80.8
38.6
I: 72.7
47.2
64.6
57.9
Table X2. - Points for curve of complete saturation (sheet 2 of 3).
Percent votds
Percen&
voids 10
I
15
I_~I_~I 30 I
I
35
I
40
Spedftc
..vll, .,
~1stur. content 1n percent
------" -..
105.5 97.3 89.2 8U 73.0 64.9
2.1I1'-__n- _-u__n____. 1411.0
4.3
137.9
6.8
129.8
9.6
121.7
12.9
113.11
16.5 20.7 25.7 I 31.5 38.5 47.0 57.7
138.4 130.3 122.2 114.0 105.9 97.7 89.6 81.4 73.3 65.1
2.61_- -- - - - - n ---- -- - -. 146.6
4.3 6.7 9.6 12.8 16.4 20.6 25.6 3t.3 38.3 46.8 57.5
106.3 98.1 89.9 81.8 73.6 65.4
2.62un_- - -n__n__n 147.2 138.9 130.8 122.6 114.5
57.3
4.2 6.7 9.6 12.7 16.4 20.6 25.5 31.2 38.2 46.6
98.5 90.3 82.1 73.8 65.6
2.63_h- __n - --- - - - --- 147.7 139.5 131.3 123.1 114.9 106.7
46.5 57.1
4.2 6.7 9.5 12.7 16.3 20.5 25.4 31.1 38.0
140.0 131.8 123.6 115.3 107.1 98.9 90.6 82.4 74.1 65.9
2.64n_u _uuuu_-- -. 148.3
9.5 12.6 16.3 20.4 25.3 31.0 46.3 56.8
6.7
2.65--- _n --__-_--n-
_.
4.2
148.8 140.6 132.3 124.0 115.8 107.5 99.2 91.0 :;: 74.4 66.1
9.4 12.6 16.2 20.3 25.2 30.8 37.7 46.1 56.6
4.2 6.6
132.8 124.5 116.2 107.9 99.6 91.3 83.0 74.7 66.4
N 2.66- -n- -- - -- - - -n- - -. 149.4 141.1
9.4 12.5 16.1 20.3 25.1 30.8
I
45.9 56.4
co 4.2 6.6 37.61
2.67 -______h_U___---' 150.0 141.6 133.3 125.0 116.6 108.3 100.0 91.6 83.3 '15.0 i 66.6
9.4 12.5 16.1 20.2 25.0 30.7 37.5 45.7 56.2
4.2 6.6
117.1 108.7 100.3 92.0 83.6 75.3 66.9
2.68_- n n- _u 150.5 142.2 133.8 125.4
-- - - nU' 4.1 6.6 9.3 12.4 16.0 20.1 24.9 30.5 37.3 45.6 56.0
117.5 109.1 100.7 92.3 83.9 75.5 67.1
2.69n___- -_nu- 151.1 142.7 134.3 125.9
--- - -. 4.1 6.6 9.3 12.4 16.0 20.0 24.8 30.4 37.2 4'5.5 55.8
t17.9 109.5 IOU 92.7 84.2 75.8 67.4
2.70- - u - - - - - - U---_U' 151.6 143.2 134.8 126.4
15.9 19.9 24.7 30.3 37.0 45.3 55.6
4.1 6.5 9.3 12.3
135.3 126.8 118.4 109.9 10t.5 93.0 84.6 76.1 67.6
2.71--- n_-n--- ---_U' 152.2 143.7
15.8 19.9 24.6 30.2 36.9 45.1 55.4
4.1 6.5 9.2 12.3
118.8 110.3 101.8 93.4 84.9 76.4 67.9
2.72_- - -- -h- - - _h_n_. 152.8 144.3 135.8 127.3
15.8 19.8 24.6 30.1 36.8 44.9 55.2
4.1 6.5 9.2 12.3
119.3 110.7 102.2 93.7 85.2 76.7 68.1
2.73-- nn- _n_n 153.3 144.8 136.3 127.8
- - - -- 15.7 19.7 24.4 29.9 36.6 I 44.7 55.0
4.1 6.4 9.2 12.2
119.7 11t.l 102.6 94.0 85.5 ' 76.9 68.4
2.74_- _n. 153.9 145.3 136.8 128.2
- --- - - - nn- -
4.1 6.4 9.1 12.2 15.7 19.7 24.4 29.9 36.5 44.6 54.8
120.1 111.5 103.0 94.4 85.8 77.2 68.6
2~5______-----------_. 154.4 145.9 137.3 128.7
15.6 19.6 24.3 29.8 36.4 44.4 54.6
4.0 6.4 9.1 12.1
120.6 103.3 94.7 86.2 77.5 68.9
2.76_m___n_----_ml 155.0 146.5 137.8 129.1 It 1.9
15.7 19.5 24.2 29.7 36.2 44.3 54.4
4.0 6.4 9.1 12.1
121.0 112.4 103.7 95.1 86.5 77.8 69.2
2.77 __un__n_--___n' 155.6 147.0 138.3 129.6
15.5 19.4 24.0 29.5 36.2 44.2 54.2
4.0 6.4 9.0 12.0
12t.4 112.8 104.1 95.4 86.8 78.1 69.4
2.78____n__n- nu-__' 156.1 147.5 138.8 130.1
12.0 15.4 19.4 23.9 29.4 36.0 44.0 54.0
4.0 6.4 9.0
121.9 113.2 104.5 95.8 87.1 78.4 69.7
2.79_- n_--_- 156.8 148.1 139.3 130.6
- u------. 23.8 29.3 35.9 43.8 53.8
4.0 6.3 9.0 12.0 15.3 19.3
Table X2. - Points for curve of complete saturation (sheet 3 of 3).
Percent voIds
Percenc 10 30 35 40 45 so 55 60
yoldl
I__~._I_~_-'_~~_I J I I I I J
Specillo Dry unIt .8 Igilt In pounds force per cubic foot
...."k, M91.ture content In percent
---- - -
.-
2.10_--_--- _. __n_n__. 157.4 14'.6 139.'
I 131.0 122.3 113.61 IOU 96.1
!
I '7.5 7'.7 70.0
4.0 6.3 '.9 11.9 15.3 19.2 23.' 29.2 j 35.7 43.6 53.5
2.81 __n- n n__n__. 157.8 149.0 140.0 131.5 122.7 114.0' IOU I
96.4 87.7 7'.9 70.1
- -- I I,
4.0 6.3 '.9 11.9 1S.2 19.2 , 23.7 I 29.1 35.6 43.4 53.4
1S8... .
w 149.6 140.' 132.0 123.2 114.4 i 105.6 79.2 70.4
2.'2_--_- --- --h____--. 96.' ".0
0 3.9 6.3 8.9 II.' 15.2 19.1 23.6 29.0 35.5 43.3 53.2
2.83- - n__-_n__-- 1S9.0 150.2 141.3 132.4 123.6 114.' 106.0 97.1 88.3 79.5 70.7
----' 3.9 8.8 11.8 IS. 1 19.0
6.2 23.6 2'.9 3S.3 113.2 S~.O
2.'4__-___n__- ---_-n. 159.6 lSO.7 141.8 132.9 124.1 l1S.2 I 106.3 97.S '8.7 79.8 70.9
3.9 6.2 8.' 11.7 15.1 18.9 23.S 2'.8 3S.2 43.0 52.'
2.85___- n - - -. 160.1 151.2 142.2 133.4 124.S 115.6 , 106.7 97.91 89.0 80.1 71.2
- - - -- -- - -
3.9
160.7
6.2
151.8
'.8 I 11.7
134.9
15.0
124.9
18.9
116.0 ,
23.4 28.7
98.2
3S.1 42.9 52.6
2.86__-_--_-- n-n_--- 142.81 107.1 89.3 80.J 71.4
3.9 6.2 8.7 11.6 15.0 23.3 i 35.0
2.87
--------- --------_.
160.1 151.2 143.3 134.3 125.4
18.8
116.4 i 107.5
28.61
98.5 ; 89.6
42.8
80.7
52.5
71.7
3.9 6.2 8.7 11.6 14.9 18.8 I 23.2 28.5 34.8 42.5 52.3
2.88--- - - - - - - -- _n_- - - 161.8 152.8 143.8 134.8 125.8 116.8 107.8 89.9 80.9 71.9
98.81
3.9 6.1 8.7 11.6 14.9 18.7 23.2 28.4 34.7 42.4 52.1
2.89- - --- - - -- - - - - - -- - -. 162.4 153.4 144.2 135.2 126.2 117.2 108.2 99.2 90.2 81.2 72.2
3.8 6.1 8.7 11.S 14.8 18.6 , 23.0 28.3 : 34.6 42.3 51.9
2.90-----__--__n 162.9 153.9 144.8 135.7 126.7 117.6 108.6 99.5 i 90.5 8LS 72.4
- ---_.
3.8 6.1 8.6 1t.S 14.8 18.6 iI 23.0 28.2 i 34.5 42.1 51.7
, I I I
----_.. ..
BLANK DATA SHEETS
31
Harvard Miniature Compaction Test
Test designation USBR 5510-
Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32
COMPACTION. PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES
.......
....... (\j
-
ftI c:
0..
~ ....
....
~
uz:
""'
~ LoJ
U
-
V)
z:
-
V) ce
l-
V)
a::
""' V)
z: LoJ
0
-lce- a::
z:
0
f!: --
lce
z:
""' 0:
0..
""'
I-
LLJ
z:
LLJ
0..
....... .......
~ ("')
e
.... +->
....
z: ....
~ ....
~
.....
I-
::z: --
I-
-LoJ
t!:!
::z:
t!:!
-LLJ
-
=-
~
z:
:::>
3:
I-
-z;::):
>-
a::
0 >-
0:
0
METHOD
GRAVEL
SAND
FINES
-%
%
%
MINUS NO.4
PLUS NO. 4
BULK
- PERCENT LARGER THAN TESTED
MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT ~N/m3
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT %
APPARENT
ABSORPTION ~ DEGREE OF SATURATION %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT ~ PENETRATION RESISTANCE kPa
PLASTICITYINDEX ,
NOTES
SHRINKAGE LIMIT %
SAMPLE NO. HOLE NO. DEPTH ft
33
ADDED WATER DETERMINATION
0
0......
)(
-
.......
......
-
.......
Ln
§:I§
Comments:
-
N
I
....... '
.......
-
o:t"
i
Auxil i ary Tests:
)(
-"'"
""'"
USBR 5300-
--
GPO 846-285
34
Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation