Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi

Soil Engineering Lab

REPORT TITLE (03)

Proctor Compaction Test

Submitted By:
Abhinav Kumar

Disclaimer: This presentation is for educational purposes only. Opinions or points of

view expressed in this presentation represent the view of the presenter, and does
not necessarily represent the official position or policies of IIT Delhi. Nothing in this
presentation constitutes legal advice. The individuals appearing in this
presentation, if any, are depicted for illustrative purposes only and are presumed
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under no circumstance shall we have
any liability to you for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use
of the data or reliance on any information provided. Your use of the document and
your reliance on any information is solely at your own risk

1
Objective: Determination of water content-dry density relation using light compaction.
(Standard Proctor Test)

Apparatus:
1. Cylindrical Metal Mould - conforming to the requirements
as given in IS: 10074-1982.
2. Container- any suitable non-corrodible airtight container to
determine the water content for tests conducted in the
laboratory.
3. Balances- one of capacity 10 kg sensitive to 1 g and other of
capacity 200 g sensitive to 0.01 g.
4. Oven- Thermostatically controlled with interior of non-
corroding material to maintain temperature between 105°C
and 110°C
5. Steel Straightedge- it is about 30 cm in length and having
one bevelled edge.
6. Mixing Tools- miscellaneous tools, such as tray or pan, spoon, trowel and spatula, or a suitable
mechanical device for thoroughly mixing the sample of soil with addition of water.
7. Metal Rammer- conforming to IS: 9198-1979

Testing methods and Procedures:

1. Soil Specimen (Dhanauri Clay)
A representative portion of air dried soil material and large enough to provide
about 6 kg of material passing a 20-mm IS sieve (for soils not susceptible to
crushing during compaction), or about 15 kg of material passing a 20-mm IS
sieve (for soil susceptible to crushing during compaction), shall be taken. This
portion shall be sieved on a 20-mm IS sieve and the coarse fraction rejected
after its proportion of the total sample has been recorded.
Aggregations of particles shall be broken down so that if the sample was sieved
on a 4.75 mm sieve, only separated individual particles would be retained.

2. For Soil not susceptible to crushing during compaction:

A 3-kg sample of air-dried soil passing the 20 mm IS test sieve was taken. The
sample was mixed thoroughly with a suitable amount of water depending on the
soil type starting with 10% water of total soil sample weight.
The mould. with baseplate attached was weighed to the nearest 1 g ( W1 ). The
mould was placed on a solid base. such as a concrete floor or plinth and the
moist soil was compacted into the mould, with the extension attached, in three
layers or approximately equal mass, each layer being given 25 blows from the
2.6 kg rammer dropped from a height of 310 mm above the soil. The blows shall
be distributed uniformly over the surface of each layer.
2
The operator ensured that the tube of the rammer was kept clear of soil so
that the rammer always falls freely. The amount of soil used was sufficient
to fill the mould, leaving not more than about 6 mm to be struck off when
the extension was removed. The extension was removed and the
compacted soil was bevelled off carefully to the top of the mould by means
of the straightedge. The mould and soil were then weighed to 1 g (W2).
The compacted soil specimen was removed from the mould and placed on
the mixing tray. The water content of a representative sample of the
specimen was determined as in IS: 2720 (Part 11)-1973.
The remainder of the soil specimen was broken up, rubbed through the
20mm IS test sieve, and then mixed with the remainder of the original
sample, Suitable increment of water was added successively and mixed into
the sample, and the above procedure was repeated for each increment of
water added. The total number of determinations made was at least five
and the range of moisture content was such that the optimum moisture
content, at which the maximum dry density occurs, is within that range.

Calculations:
• Mass in grams of mould and base (W1)
• Mass in grams of mould, base, soil (W2)
• Avg Diameter of mould = 99.89 mm
• Avg Height of mould = 127.66 mm
• Theoretical Volume of mould (Vt) = 1000.13 cm³
• Assumed Specific Gravity of Soil (G) = 2.65
• Bulk Density in g/ml (γm) = (W2 – W1)/Vt
• Dry Density in g/ml (γd) = 100γm/(100+w); w = moisture content of soil in percent.

Data Table

DENSITY
Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unit
Wt. of Wet Soil +Mould 5658 5695 5825 5913 5967 5946 5420 grams
Wt. of Mould 3945 3945 3945 3945 3945 3945 3945 grams
Wt. of Wet Soil 1713 1750 1880 1968 2022 2001 1475 grams
Wet Density 1.712 1.749 1.879 1.967 2.021 2 1.474 g/cc
Dry density 1.56 1.561 1.65 1.69 1.71 1.66 1.2 g/cc
Zero Air Void Density 2.107 2.007 1.931 1.857 1.785 1.71 1.643 g/cc
Void Ratio 0.698 0.697 0.606 0.568 0.549 0.596 1.208
Saturation (%) 36.9 45.93 61.39 75.21 88.33 92.17 50.74 %

3
 WATER CONTENT
Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unit
Container No. C3 B6 33 NB3 7 13 G24
Wt. of Cont. + Wet Soil 79.22 54.34 30.98 49.35 61.31 44.95 53.45 grams
Wt. of Cont. + Dry soil 73.64 49.8 28.44 44.25 53.73 38.83 45.33 grams
Wt. of Container 16.26 12.23 10.28 12.62 12.32 9.31 10.22 grams
Wt. of Dry Soil 57.38 37.57 18.16 31.63 41.41 29.52 35.11 grams
Wt. of Water 5.58 4.54 2.55 5.1 7.58 6.12 8.12 grams
Water Content (w%) 9.72 12.08 14.04 16.12 18.3 20.73 23.13 %

Compaction Curve
Dhanauri Clay Zero Air Void Line

1.9
1.87
1.84
1.81
1.78
Dry Density (γd )

1.75
1.72
1.69
1.66
1.63
1.6
1.57
1.54
11 13 15 17 19 21
Water Content (w%)

Result:
1. Maximum dry density (MDD) = 1.72 g/cm³
2. Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) = 18.3 %
3. Max. Saturation = 92.17 %
4. Min. Void Ratio = 0.549

4
Discussion:

Compaction Curve
Delhi Silt Clay (30%):Silt (70%)
Dhanauri Clay Clay(50%):Silt(50%)
1.9
1.87
1.84
1.81
1.78
Dry Density (γd )

1.75
1.72
1.69
1.66
1.63
1.6
1.57
1.54
9.5 11.5 13.5 15.5 17.5 19.5 21.5
Water Content (w%)

1. The dry densities, Yd obtained in a series of determinations were plotted against the
corresponding moisture contents w. A smooth curve was drawn through the resulting points and
the position of the maximum on this curve was determined.
2. Dry density first increases with increase in moisture content due to diffused double layer
formation, becomes maximum at a specific value and then decreases with further increase in
moisture content because the water (having less specific gravity than soil solids) starts taking
place of soil particles thus reducing its density.
3. Out of four samples, in Delhi Silt highest value of max. dry density = 1.86 g/cc was achieved at a
moisture content of 13% as compared to 1.72 g/cc for Dhanauri clay at 18.3%.
It is seen that as the proportion of clay is increased in the soil mix the Optimum Moisture
Increases and the Maximum Dry Density Decreases.

4. The dry density in g/cc corresponding to the maximum point on the moisture content vs dry
density curve was reported as the maximum dry density to the nearest 0·01.

5
 5. The "acceptable zone" shown in Fig. 1
represents the zone of acceptable water
content vs dry unit weight combinations
based on typical current practice. The
designer will usually require that the dry
unit weight γd of the compacted soil be
greater than or equal to a percentage P of
the maximum dry unit weight Γd, max from a
laboratory compaction test.
6. Herrmann and Elsbury (1987) reported
that P is usually 95% of Γd, max from
standard Proctor compaction (ASTM D-
698) or 90% of Γd, max from modified
Proctor compaction (ASTM D-1557). The
range of acceptable water content varies with the characteristics of the soil, but, for soil liners and
covers, might typically be about zero-four percentage points wet of standard or modified Proctor
optimum.

References:
1. IS: 2720 (Part VII) – 1980
2. IS: 10074-1982
3. IS: 2720 (Part 11)-1973
4. IS: 9198-1979
5. Article on WATER CONTENT-DENSITY CRITERIA FOR COMPACTED SOIL LINERS
By David E.Daniel, Member, ASCE, and Craig H . Benson,2
Associate Member, ASCE
.