Civil Engineering Project (Soil Condition of Lahore)

1 | P a g e

Study of Compaction Characteristics of

Locally Available Sands

By

Arsalan Maseel 2009-civ-30

Fahad Hussain 2009-civ-12

Zain Naqi 2009-civ-33

Farrukh Jamal 2009-civ-18

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of BSc Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering UET LAHORE

2 | P a g e

“Read; in the name of your Lord who created,

Created man from a clot

Read; and your Lord is the most bounteous

Who taught by the pen

Taught man that which he did not know”

(Al-Quran)

3 | P a g e

Dedicated to our PARENTS

Who

Have taken great pains

For bringing us up

And

To our TEACHERS

For providing us with

Best education.

4 | P a g e

ABSTRACT

In the construction of highways, airports, and other structures, the compaction of soils is

needed to improve its strength. In 1933 Proctor developed a laboratory compaction test to

determine the maximum dry density of compacted soils, which can be used for specifications of

field compaction. The Compaction of soils is influenced by many factors, the most common are

the moisture content, the soil type and the applied compaction energy.

The objective of this research is the analysis of the maximum dry density values of the

locally available sands. The method of choice in the determination of the maximum dry density

from different soils samples was the Standard and Modified Proctor Test following the

procedure for the Proctor Test as is explained in ASTM Test Designation D-698 & D-1557.

From this investigation, the maximum dry density of 19 samples of sands were prepared,

by maximum Ravi, Chenab and Lawrencepur sands in different proportions then the maximum

dry density of the type of samples, amount of fines and distribution of the grain size was

determined.

The research revealed some correlations between the maximum dry density of soils with

the fines content. These correlations were measured and some particular behavioral trends were

encountered and analyzed. It was found that maximum dry density of sample decrease as the

percentage of fine sand(Ravi) increased in it. And it was also studied that in field what

combination of two or three sands gives you maximum dry density.

5 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank my professors and staff of the Department of Civil and Environmental

engineering for their encouragement, guidance, and assistance throughout my university years.

We would like specially thanking my advisor, Sir Hassan Mujtaba for helping me all these

years and for encouraging his students to give the best of them.

We are also thankful to the lab attendants for their help in the lab.

We are grateful for our friends and colleagues because their advise, support and knowledge

contributed throughout the development of the thesis.

6 | P a g e

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 General...................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 11

1.3 Compaction characteristics ............................................................................................................ 11

Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 12

Particle size Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 TYPES OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 12

2.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Sieve .................................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.2 Nest of Sieves .................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3 Shaking Period .................................................................................................................. 13

2.3.4 Breaking of Soil Lumps ...................................................................................................... 13

2.3.5 Particles Stuck In the Sieve Screen ................................................................................... 13

2.3.6 How to remove the particles ............................................................................................ 13

2.3.7 Number of Sieve ............................................................................................................... 13

2.3.8 Apparatus Required .......................................................................................................... 14

2.3.9 Test Procedure .................................................................................................................. 14

2.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE ....................................................................................... 14

2.5 GRADATION .............................................................................................................................. 15

2.5.1 Well-Graded Soil ............................................................................................................... 15

2.5.2 Poorly-Graded Soil/Uniformly Graded .............................................................................. 15

2.5.3 Gap-Graded Soil ................................................................................................................ 15

2.5.4 D10, D30, D60: .................................................................................................................. 15

2.6 Soil Classification ...................................................................................................................... 15

2.6.1 PURPOSE OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................... 15

2.6.2 PRINCIPAL OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................. 16

2.6.3 TYPES OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................ 16

2.6.4 ENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ................................................................... 16

2.6.5 Unified Soil Classification system (USCS) .......................................................................... 17

2.6.6 AASHTO Soil Classification system .................................................................................... 18

2.7 Specific Gravity ......................................................................................................................... 19

2.7.1 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: .............................................................................................. 20

2.7.2 Determination of Specific Gravity in the lab .................................................................... 20

7 | P a g e

2.8 COMPACTION: ................................................................................................................................ 21

2.8.1 Compaction Curve: ........................................................................................................... 21

2.8.2 Effects of gradation and soil types .................................................................................... 24

2.8.3 Measurement of compaction: .......................................................................................... 25

2.8.4 Effect of compaction energy: ............................................................................................ 26

2.8.6 Comparison between Standard and Modified Proctor Test: ............................................ 27

2.9 FIELD COMPACTION .................................................................................................................. 27

2.10 Compaction Field Tests ............................................................................................................. 28

2.11 Compaction Equipments: ......................................................................................................... 29

2.12 Equipment Types ...................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 3: Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 31

3.1 Collection of sand : ................................................................................................................... 31

3.2 Preparation of sand samples: ................................................................................................... 31

3.3 Sieve Analysis and Specific gravity: ....................................................................................... 33

3.4 Proctor Tests: ............................................................................................................................ 34

3.5 Results from the experiments: ................................................................................................. 35

Chapter 4: Results ..................................................................................................................................... 36

4.1 Results of Sieve analysis ........................................................................................................... 36

4.2 Results of Specific Gravity Tests ............................................................................................... 39

4.3 Proctor Tests ............................................................................................................................. 40

4.3.1 The Samples giving the maximum compaction: ...................................................................... 41

4.3.2 The effect of compaction energy ...................................................................................... 44

Conclusions: .............................................................................................................................................. 45

Recommendations: ................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A-1: ........................................................................................................................................... 47

Sieve Analysis : ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Ravi 100% .......................................................................................................................................... 47

Ravi 90% Lawrencepur 10% .............................................................................................................. 48

Ravi 80% Lawrecepur 10% Chenab 10% ........................................................................................... 49

Ravi 50% Chenab 50% ....................................................................................................................... 50

Ravi 90 % Chenab 10% ...................................................................................................................... 51

Chenab 70 % Ravi 30% ...................................................................................................................... 52

Ravi30 % Lawerencepur 30% Chenab 40% ....................................................................................... 53

Ravi 70% Chenab 30% ....................................................................................................................... 54

Chenab 100% .................................................................................................................................... 55

8 | P a g e

Lawrencepur 70% Chenab 30% ........................................................................................................ 56

Ravi 30% Lawrencepur 30% Chenab 40% ......................................................................................... 57


Lawrencepur 50 % Chenab 50% ....................................................................................................... 59

Ravi 10% Lawrecepur 10% Chenab 80% ........................................................................................... 60

Lawrecepur 30% Chenab 70% .......................................................................................................... 61




Proctor tests.......................................................................................................................................... 65

Ravi 100% .......................................................................................................................................... 65

Ravi 90% Chenab 10% ....................................................................................................................... 66

Ravi 70% Chenab 30% ....................................................................................................................... 67

Ravi 50% Chenab 50% ....................................................................................................................... 68

Ravi 50% Chenab 50% ....................................................................................................................... 69

Ravi 30% Chenab 70% ....................................................................................................................... 70

Chenab 100% .................................................................................................................................... 71





Ravi 90% Lawrencepur 10% .............................................................................................................. 76

Ravi 30% Lawreencepur 30% Chenab 40% ....................................................................................... 77






Ravi 33% Chenab 33% Lawrencepur 33% ......................................................................................... 83

L100% ................................................................................................................................................ 84

Refrences: ................................................................................................................................................. 85

9 | P a g e

10 | P a g e

Chapter 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 General

Compaction is the artificial improvement of the mechanical properties of the soil. This process

increases the resistance, reduces the deformation capacity, and provides the soils with

inalterability against external agents.

Soil compaction investigations started during the 20th

century due to the automobile

invention along with the paved roads. Then many efficient and economical methods were

developed, and it was proved that there is no compaction method that is efficient for every type

of soils. It was also found that the degree of compaction, for any compaction method, depends

on the moisture content of the soils.

Soils comprise three phases: the solid, the liquid and the gaseous phase. The solid phase

includes the mineral particles of gravel, sands, silts and clays. Particle-size properties are

determined from the size distribution of individual particles in a soil sample. The solid phase

usually includes organic material that is called humus content. The liquid phase usually consists

of water that can move through the pores of the soil. Other liquids may be present, they may be

miscible or immiscible in water and generally they are the result of agricultural and industrial

activities or accidental spills. The principal component of the gaseous phase is air or other

dissolved gases like water vapor and volatile components.

The compaction process consists in the rapid densification of soils without losing

humidity. During compaction the volume of void containing air is diminished and the soil

particles get closer due to the new arrangement. In soil compaction not only the voids are

modified, but the mechanical resistance, deformability and permeability are affected. These

characteristics are modified due to the diminution of the void ratio produced by the soil

densification.

The objectives of the study is to evaluate the effect compaction on locally available

sands. When they are mixed in different proportions. In order to achieve such accomplishment,

the following scope of the activities were performed:

Introduction: This chapter provides a preamble to the compaction process, including

some definitions, and historical references.

Literature Review: This chapter explains the definition of the saturation curve, different

theories of compaction curve, the standard and modified Proctor test method and its

factors of influence.

Methodology: This chapter shows the sample collection that were prepared and selected

to perform the standard and modified Proctor test. Result of Study: This chapter analyzes the effect of different soil characteristics on the

Proctor test results.

Summary and Conclusions: This chapter compiles the results obtained from the

investigation; it also provides the observed limitations, and recommendations for future

research.

11 | P a g e

1.2 Research Objectives

To get an idea which M.C gives maximum compaction using minimum effort?

To economize construction because less compactive effort required at O.M.C.

To measure density of soil for comparing the degree of compaction.

Compaction of soil samples comprising of different percentages of local sands.

To measures the effect of moisture on soil density.

To establish relationships between fine sand (Ravi) content and dry densities.

1.3 Compaction characteristics

For each soil, there is an optimum moisture content that will permit the soil to be compacted

to the maximum degree with the least effort and allow the compacted soil to attain its lowest

permeability. Optimum moisture content for various types of soils is as follows:

Table 1.1

Soil Optimum moisture content for

compaction (range in %)

Clayey sands, sand-clay mix 11 – 10

Sand-silt-clay mix with plastic,

silt + clay fraction 15 – 11

Inorganic silt, clayey silt 24 – 12

Inorganic clay 24 – 12

Organic silt 33 – 21

Inorganic clay, highly plastic 36 – 19

Organic clay 45 – 21

Note: The optimum moisture content is usually 2-3 percent less than the plastic limit of the

soil.

12 | P a g e

Chapter 2

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Particle size Analysis

2.1 General

A knowledgeable of the sizes of the solid particles comparing a certain soil and their relative

proportion in the soil mass is often very useful. Grain size distribution is used in soil

classification, soil filter design and to predict in a general way how a soil may be expected to

behave with respect to shear strength and permeability.

2.2 TYPES OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

There are two types of grain size analysis:

1. Mechanical (or Sieve) analysis

2. Hydrometer (or Fine) analysis

Mechanical analysis determines the particles sizes and their relative distribution for those

particles greater than 0.074mm(0.0029) and is accomplished stacking(grouping) the

sieves, one on top of the other, pouring a known weight of soil into the top services on

the stack, and shaking the sieve in a certain manner to allow oil to fall down through the

stack.

2.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS

2.3.1 Sieve

A Sieve consist of a metal ring, usually made of brass, whose dimensions are typically 2

in deep and 8 in diameter (also available in 12 and 18 in diameter).With a wire mesh or

screen on the bottom.

The sieve is given a number that corresponds to the number of openings per linear inch o f

screen: for example, the U.S Bureau of Standards No.4 Sieve has four 0.187 in openings

per inch. (The reason the openings in a No.4 Sieve are not ¼ inch in size is that the 1-inch

linear measurement also includes the diameter of the strands(thread) that comprise the

mesh).

2.3.2 Nest of Sieves

The stacks are called a nest of sieves. The nest is arranged with the largest screen

openings (smallest sieve number) on top, progressing to sieve with the smallest screen

openings(largest sieve number) on the bottom of the nest. A- lid is placed on top of the

nest and pan is placed below the bottom sieve to catch any soil that passes through the

smallest openings.

13 | P a g e

Care should be exercised when removing a sieve from the nest. Often the sieve fit tightly

and a sudden unexpected dis-engagement could result in the contents being spilled from

sthe sieve and the whole test being ruined. Additionally, a principally horizontal shaking

motion should be used instead of mostly a vertical motion. This motion has been found to

more efficient, and it also results in less soil loss during the test procedure.

2.3.3 Shaking Period

A 10-minute shaking period is suggested in procedure. A large sample requires longer

shaking than a smaller simple. Similarly, a sample comprising primarily of fine-grained

material will require a longer shaking period than a coarse-grained sample of equal weight.

2.3.4 Breaking of Soil Lumps

Nodules or lumps of soil must be broken down into their individual particles, in order for

the grain size analysis to be valid. This is accomplished in two ways. The first is to break

up the lumps with a rubber lipped pestle in a ceramic mortar. It has been found that

rubber-tipped pestles will not grind or crash the individual particles while a ceramic or

metal tipped pestle.

The second is to wet sieve soil. Washing the particles that are retained on the No.200

sieve with water accomplished two things:

1. It separates those small lumps that might not have been broken up with the

rubber-tipped pestle into the individual particles.

2. It washes the ―Dust sized‖ particles off the larger particles and through the No.

200 Sieve.

2.3.5 Particles Stuck In the Sieve Screen

Particles that appear to be stuck in the sieve screen should never be forced on through the

mesh. There are two reasons for not doing this.

1. Forcing these particles through the screen to be retained on the next size would

distort the grain size results.

2. Secondly forcing the particles through the mesh can damage the screen and

necessities its replacement.

2.3.6 How to remove the particles

Particles caught in a screen should be removed by brushing with the proper sieve brush(wire-

bristled brush for coarse screen and a hair brush for fine screens).Brushing should be done

from the underside of the screen in order that the particles can be brushed out screen in the

direction from which it entered the screen opening. Stubborn (obstinate) particles that cannot

be removed by brushing should be left the place rather than being forced out.

2.3.7 Number of Sieve

The number or size of sieve used in the nest depends on the type of soil and the distribution

of particles of the particle size.

14 | P a g e

2.3.8 Apparatus Required

Stack of Sieves including pan and cover

Balance (with accuracy to 0.01 g)

Rubber pestle and Mortar ( for crushing the soil if lumped or conglomerated)

Mechanical sieve shaker

Oven

Figure 2.1 Sieves

2.3.9 Test Procedure

1. Take a representative oven dried sample of soil that weighs about 500 g. (this is

normally used for soil samples the greatest particle size of which is 4.75 mm)

2. If soil particles are lumped or conglomerated crush the lumped and not the particles

using the pestle and mortar.

3. Determine the mass of sample accurately. Wt (g)

4. Prepare a stack of sieves.

2.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

Information obtained from the grain-size analysis is presented in the form of curve on a

semi-logarithmic plot. The aggregate weight as a percentage of the total weight of all grain

smaller than any given diameter (percentage finer) is plotted on the ordinate using an

arithmetic scale, while the size of a soil particle, in millimeters, is plotted on the abscissa

which uses logarithmic scale.

15 | P a g e

2.5 GRADATION

Figure 2.2

2.5.1 Well-Graded Soil

A soil is said to be well-graded when it has good representation of particles of all the sizes.

2.5.2 Poorly-Graded Soil/Uniformly Graded

A soil is said to be poorly-graded if it has an excess of particles of one size and deficiency of

other particles. If it has particle of almost same size then it is known as uniformly graded.

2.5.3 Gap-Graded Soil

A soil is said to be gap-graded soil, if particles of both large and small sizes are present but

with a relatively low proportion of particles of intermediate size.

2.5.4 D10, D30, D60:

From the grain-size distribution curve such as D10, D30, D60: can be obtained. The ―D‖

refers to the grain size, and the subscript (10, 30, and 60) denotes the percentage passing.

D10 = Grain size at 10% passing (also called effective size)

D30 = Grain size at 30% passing

D60 = Grain size at 60% passing

2.6 Soil Classification

2.6.1 PURPOSE OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The purpose of soil classification is to provide a systematic method of categorizing soils into

different groups in accordance with their engineering performance (i.e., probable engineering

behavior). A soil classification system represents, in fact a language of communicating

between engineers. Without the use of a classification system published data or

recommendation on design and construction based on type of material are liked to be

misleading and it will be difficult to apply experience gained in the past to future and

development.

16 | P a g e

In a soil classification system, universal terms of nomenclature are used for different soil

groups with help in reducing the communication gaps between the engineers.

A soil classification system does not eliminate the need for detailed soil testing and

investigation for engineering properties, but it provides sufficient data for preliminary design.

2.6.2 PRINCIPAL OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

A good soil classification system must satisfy the following basic principles:

The terms used in the system must be universal, brief, comprehensive and meaningful

for the users.

The system must utilize some simple field and/or laboratory information and

classification tests.

The groups and sub- groups must categorize soils of similar characteristics and

engineering behavior.

2.6.3 TYPES OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Soils can be classified as many ways depending upon the intended use of the material such as

1. Agronomic classification system

2. Geological classification system

3. Engineering classification system

2.6.4 ENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

From engineering point of view soils can be divided into the following three major groups.

Coarse-grained soils (gravel, sand and their mixtures).

Fine-grained soils (silt, clay and very fine rock flour).

Organic soil (peat, muck etc).

Coarse-grained soils are classified into different groups on the basis of their particle size and

the system is called as Textual Classification System.

Fine-grained soils are classified using data from grain-size analysis and consistency limits(LL

& PL).

Many systems are in use, based on grain size distribution (GSD) and limits of soils, but the

following systems are quite popular worldwide:

1. Unified Soil Classification system (USCS).

2. American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO) systems.

3. The federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Classification for use in the design of airport pavement.

Out of those number (1) and (2) are the most common used systems and their details are

given below.

17 | P a g e

2.6.5 Unified Soil Classification system (USCS)

The Unified Soil Classification system (USCS) was originally developed by A.Casagrande in

1948 and modified in 1952, currently this method is adopted universally.

The basic for this system is that Coarse-grained soils can be classified with respect to

their Particle size based on GSD. Whereas the engineering behavior of Fine-grained soils

is primarily related to their plasticity (consistency limits LL & PL). Therefore only data

from GSD and Atterberg‘s limits are required to completely classify a soil according to

this system.

In this system, soils are divided into three major groups. The various symbols used in this

system are:

Coarse-grained soils G = gravel and gravelly soils

S = sand and Sandy soils

Fine-grained soils

M = inorganic silt and very fine sandy soils

C = inorganic clays and clayey soils O = organic silt and clays

Pt = peat Gradation symbols W = well-graded, fairly clean soils

P = poorly-graded, fairly clean soils Liquid Limit and plasticity symbols H = fine-grained soils with LL>50 indicating high plasticity and compressibility

characteristics.

L = fine-grained soils with LL>50 indicating low to medium plasticity or compressibility

characteristics.

Composite symbols

GW = well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixture with little or no fines.

SW = well-graded sand or gravelly sands, little or no fines.

GP = poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixture with little or no fines.

SP = poorly sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines.

GC =clayey gravels or gravel-sand-clay mixtures.

GM = silty-gravel, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.

SC = clayey sand or sand-clay mixtures.

SM = silty sand or sand silt mixtures.

ML = inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity

MH = inorganic elastic with high plasticity.

CL =inorganic clays of low to medium plastic

CH = inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.

OL = organic silts or silty-clays of low plasticity.

OH = organic clay of high plasticity

18 | P a g e

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Table 2.1 USCS

Major Divisions Group

Symbol Typical Names

Course-Grained Soils More than 50% retained

on the No. 200 sieve

Gravels 50% or more of

course

fraction

retained on

the No. 4

sieve

Clean Gravels

GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Gravels with

Fines

GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay

mixtures

Sands

50% or more of

course

fraction

passes

the No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands

SW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

Sands with

Fines

SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Fine-Grained Soils More than 50% passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50% or less

ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock

four, silty or clayey fine sands

CL Inorganic clays of low to medium

plasticity, gravelly/sandy/silty/lean

clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of

low plasticity

Silts and Clays

Liquid Limit greater

than 50%

MH Inorganic silts or

diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays or high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, muck, and other highly organic

soils

Prefix: G = Gravel, S = Sand, M = Silt, C = Clay, O = Organic Suffix: W = Well Graded, P = Poorly Graded, M = Silty, L = Clay, LL < 50%, H = Clay, LL > 50%

2.6.6 AASHTO Soil Classification system

In the late 1920‘s the U.S. Bureau of Public Road,(now the Federal Highway administration)

conducted extensive research for the construction of roads and Hogentogler and

Terzaghi (1928) developed PRA Classification System, since 1929,several revisions have

been made and in 1945 AASHTO adopted this system. The system in its present form known

as AASHTO Classification System. AASHTO states that the system is useful for evaluation

of soil for use in embankment, sub grades, sub base of roads and airport pavements.

19 | P a g e

In this system boulders are excluded from the sample to be classified, but the amount of

boulders present is recorded. Fines are silty if PI >10 and clayey if PI >10.In this system

inorganic soils are divided into seven major groups A-1 through A-7.The system is based

on the following soil properties.

1. Grain size distribution, GSD.

2. Liquid limit, LL.

3. Plasticity index, PI. Table 2.2 AASHTO Classification

General Classification

Granular Materials (35% or less passing the 0.075 mm

sieve)

Silt-Clay Materials (>35% passing

the 0.075 mm sieve)

Group Classification

A-1

A-3

A-

2

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-1-a

A-1-b

A-2-

4

A-2-

5

A-2-

6

A-2-

7

A-7-5 A-7-6

Sieve Analysis, %

Passing

2.00 mm (No. 10)

50

max

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

0.425 (No. 40)

30

max

50

max

51

min

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

0.075 (No. 200)

15

max

25

max

10

max

35

max

35

max

35

max

35

max

36

min

36

min

36

min

36 min

Characteristics of

fraction passing 0.425

mm (No. 40)

Liquid Limit

…

…

40

max

41

min

40

max

41

min

40

max

41

min

40

max

41 min

Plasticity Index

6 max

N.P.

10

max

10

max

11

min

11

min

10

max

10

max

11

min

11 min

Usual types of

significant constituent

materials

stone fragments,

gravel and sand

fine

sand

silty or clayey gravel and

sand

silty soils

clayey soils

General rating as a

subgrade

excellent to good

fair to poor

2.7 Specific Gravity

It is sometimes required to compare the density of the aggregate soils solids to the density

of water. This comparison is in the form of ratio and is termed as specific gravity of soil

solids. Together with the soil moisture content and unit weight, specific gravity is frequently

used to solve for the various phase relationships such as void ratio, porosity and degree of

saturation. Specific gravity is also required in the calculations associated with the grain size

analysis, consolidation and compaction.

It is the ratio of the density of dry soil to the density of equal volume of distilled water

OR

It is the ratio of the weight of given volume of substance to the weight of equal volume of

distilled water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_Analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_index

20 | P a g e

2.7.1 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:

1) The values of specific gravity helps us upto some extent in identification of soil.

2) It gives us an idea about the suitability of a given soil as a construction material

weight and water content are known.

2.7.2 Determination of Specific Gravity in the lab

For the determination of specific gravity in the lab, volumes of soils solids and water are

taken same.

The volume of a known weight of soil grains can be obtained by using a container of

known volume and Archimedes principle that a body submerged in a volume of water

displaced a volume of water equal to volume of submerged.

The container of known volume is the volumetric flask which holds a standard volume of

distilled water at 20oC . At temperature more than 20 celsius, the volume will be slightly

more. Below the 20 celsius , volume will be slightly less. In routine work. Generally tap

water is used instead of distilled water.

Typical Values Of Gs:

Table 2.3 values of Gs

Type of soil Gs

Sand 2.65-2.67

Silty sand 2.67-2.70

Inorganic clay 2.70-2.80

Soil with mica 2.75-3

Organic soil Variable (<2.0)

21 | P a g e

2.8 COMPACTION:

Compaction is defined as the method of mechanically increasing the density of soil. In construct-

ion, this is a significant part of the building process.

What is soil? Soil is formed in place or deposited by various forces of naturesuch such as glaciers,winds, lakes

and rivers—residually or organically. Following are important elements in soil compaction:

Soil type

Soil moisture content

Compaction effort required

Why compact?

There are five principle reasons to compact soil:

Increases load-bearing capacity

Prevents soil settlement and frost damage

Provides stability

Reduces water seepage, swelling and contraction

Reduces settling of soil

Types of compaction:

There are four types of compaction effort on soil or asphalt:

Vibration

Impact

Kneading

Pressure

2.8.1 Compaction Curve:

The compaction curve is the representation of the dry densities versus the moisture contents

obtained from a compaction test. The achieved dry density depends on the water content during

the compaction process. When samples of the same material are compacted with the same energy

but with different water contents, they present different densification stages, as shown on

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.3 Compaction Curve

22 | P a g e

This densification stages are represented in the compaction curve, which has a particular shape.

Many theories have tried to explain the shape of this curve. The principal theories are presented

following:

Proctor (1933), believed that the humidity in soils relatively dry creates a capillarity

effect that produces tension stress and grouping of the solid particles, that results in a

high difficult the compaction of soils with low water content. He obtained a better

rearrangement of the soil particles by compacting it with higher water content, because of

the increment of lubrication effect will continue until a point where the water content is

increased, the lubrication effect will continue until a point where the water combined

with the remaining air is enough to fill the voids. At this stage the soil is at its maximum

dry density and optimum water content (ⱳ(%)optimum) as represented in point 1 in

Figure 2. For any increment in the water content after the “optimum water content”, the

volume of voids tends to increase, and the soil will obtain a lower density and resistance.

Hogentogler (1936) considered that the compaction curve shape reflects four stages of the

soil humidity: hydration, lubrication, expansion and saturation. These stages are

represented in figure 2.4

As shown in Figure 2.4, Hogentogler’s moisture-density curve differs from Proctor’s curve in the

abscise axe.

Hilf (1956), gave the first modern type of compaction theory by using the concept of pore

water pressures and pore air pressures. He suggested that the compaction curve be

presented in terms of void ratio (volume of water to volume solids). A curve similar to

the conventional compaction curve results, with the optimum moisture content

corresponding to a minimum void ratio. In his chart the zero air voids curve is shown as a

straight line and so are the saturation lines, all originating at zero void ratio and zero

moisture content. Points representing soil samples with equal air void ratios (volume of

air to volume of solids) plot on lines parallel to the zero air voids or 100% saturation line.

According to Hilf, dry soils are difficult to compact because of high friction due to

capillary pressure. Air, however, is expelled quickly because of the larger air voids. By

Figure 2.4 Compaction Curve

23 | P a g e

increasing the water content the tension in the pore water decreases, reducing friction and

allowing better densification until a maximum density is reached. Less-effective

compaction beyond the optimum moisture content is attributed to the trapping of air and

the increment of pore air pressures and the added water taking space instead of the denser

solid particles.

Lambe (1960), explained the compaction curve based on theories that used the soils’

surface chemical characteristics. In lower water contents, the particles flocculation is

caused by the high electrolytic concentrations. The flocculation causes lower compaction

densities, but when the water content is increased the electrolytic concentration is

reduced.

The conclusions they obtained can be summarized as follows:

1. It is logical to suppose that soils with low humidity content remain conglomerated due to

the effective tension caused by the capillarity. The dryer these soils are the bigger the

tensions are. In the compaction process the soil remains conglomerated. By increasing the

water content this tensions are reduced, and the compaction is more effective.

2. The blockage of the air in the soil mass provides a reasonable explanation of the

effectiveness of a used compaction energy.

3. If by increasing the water content the blocked air is not expelled and the air pressure is

increased, the soil will resist the compaction.

Lee and Suedkamp (1972), studied compaction curves for 35 soil samples. They observed

that four types compaction curves can be found. These curves are shown in Figure 4.

Type A compaction curve is a single peak. This type of curve is generally found for soils

that have a liquid limit between 30 and 70. Curve type B is a one-and-one-half-peak

curve, and curve type C is a double-peak curve. Compaction curves of type B and C can

be found for soils that have a liquid limit less than about 30. Compaction curve of type D

does not have a definite peak. This is termed an “odd shape”. Soils with a liquid limit

greater than 70 may exhibit compaction curves of type C or D, soils are uncommon. (Das,

2002).

Figure 2.5 Compaction Curves

24 | P a g e

2.8.2 Effects of gradation and soil types

The strength of compacted soil is very much sensitive to gradation of sandy soil and

percentage of fines present in the material. The strength depends upon particle size

distribution, shape, cohesion not enough on the fine grains in a mixture of different

aggregates.

Every soil type behaves differently with respect to maximum density and optimum

moisture. Therefore, each soil type has its own unique requirements and controls both in the

field and for testing purposes. Soil types are commonly classified by grain size,

determined by passing the soil through a series of sieves to screen or separate the different

grain sizes. Soil classification is categorized into 15 groups, a system set up by AASHTO

(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Soils found in nature

are almost always a combination of soil types. A well-graded soil consists of a wide range of

particle sizes with the smaller particles filling voids between larger particles. The result is a

dense structure that lends itself well to compaction. A soil's makeup determines the best

compaction method to use. There are three basic soil groups:

Cohesive

Granular

Organic (this soil is not suitable for compaction and will not be discussed here)

Cohesive soils Cohesive soils have the smallest particles. Clay has a particle size range of .00004" to

.002". Silt ranges from .0002" to .003". Clay is used in embankment fills and retaining

pond beds.

Characteristics Cohesive soils are dense and tightly bound together by molecular attraction. They are plastic

when wet and can be molded, but become very hard when dry. Proper water content, evenly

distributed, is critical for proper compaction. Cohesive soils usually require a force such as

impact or pressure. Silt has a noticeably lower cohesion than clay. However, silt is still

heavily reliant on water content.

Granular soils

Granular soils range in particle size from .003" to .08" (sand) and .08" to 1.0" (fine to

medium gravel). Granular soils are known for their water-draining properties.

Characteristics

Sand and gravel obtain maximum density in either a fully dry or saturated state. Testing

curves are relatively flat so density can be obtained regardless of water content.

25 | P a g e

The soil type in terms of the grain size distribution, shape of the soil grains, specific gravity of soil

solids, percentage of the fine content and the type of fine. Figure 2.6 shows the typical

compaction curves.

2.8.3 Measurement of compaction:

The degree of compaction of soil is measured by its unit weight or dry density, (γd) and

optimum moisture content (wc). Dry density is the weight of soil solids per unit volume of

the soil in bulk. Knowing the wet unit weight and the moisture content (wc), the dry unit

weight can be determined from:

Compaction Effect:

Figure 2.7 Compaction Effect

Figure 2.6 Typical Comapaction Curves

26 | P a g e

2.8.4 Effect of compaction energy:

The applied energy in a soil compaction is measured by its specific energy value (E), which is

applied per unit volume. When the energy per unit is increased, the maximum dry unit weight is

also increased, while O.M.C is reduced.

2.8.5 Dry densities of different soils:

The table below contains typical values for the different soil types obtained from the Standard

Compaction Test.

Table 2.4 Typical Dry densities

Typical Values

γdry max (kN/m3) OMC (%)

Well graded sand SW 22 7

Sandy clay SC 19 12

Poorly graded sand SP 18 15

Low plasticity clay CL 18 15

Non plastic silt ML 17 17

High plasticity clay CH 15 25

Figure 2.8 Effect of Compaction Energy

27 | P a g e

2.8.6 Comparison between Standard and Modified Proctor Test:

Standard Compaction Test Soil is compacted into a mould in 3 equal layers, each layer receiving 25 blows of a

hammer of standard weight. . The energy (compactive effort) supplied in this test is

12,400 lbft/ft3. The important dimensions are

Volume of mould Hammer mass Drop of hammer

1/30 ft^3 5.5 lbs 12 inch

Because of the benefits from compaction, contractors have built larger and heavier machines

to increase the amount of compaction of the soil. It was found that the Standard Compaction

test could not reproduce the densities measured in the field and this led to the development of

the Modified Compaction test.

Modified Compaction Test The procedure and equipment is essentially the same as that used for the Standard test except

that 5 layers of soil must be used. To provide the increased compactive effort (energy

supplied = 56000 lbft/ft3) a heavier hammer and a greater drop height for the hammer are used.

The key dimensions for the Modified test are

Volume of mould Hammer mass Drop of hammer

1/30 ft^3 10 lbs 18 inch

2.9 FIELD COMPACTION

To control the soil properties of earth constructions (e.g. dams, roads) it is usual to specify

that the soil must be compacted to some pre-determined dry unit weight. This specification is

usually that a certain percentage of the maximum dry density, as found from a laboratory test

(Standard or Modified) must be achieved.

For example we could specify that field densities must be greater than 98% of the maximum

dry unit weight as determined from the Standard Compaction Test. It is then up to the

Contractor to select machinery, the thickness of each lift (layer of soil added) and to control

moisture contents in order to achieve the specified amount of compaction.

28 | P a g e

2.10 Compaction Field Tests

Table 2.5 Field Density Testing Method

Field Density Testing Method

Sand Cone Balloon Dens meter Shelby Tube Nuclear

Gauge

Advantages * Large sample

* Accurate

* Large sample

* Direct

reading obtained

* Open

graded material

* Fast

* Deep sample

* Under pipe

haunches

* Fast

* Easy to redo

* More tests

(statistical

reliability)

Disadvantages * Many steps

* Large area

required

* Slow

* Halt Equipment

* Tempting to accept flukes

* Slow * Balloon breakage

* Awkward

* Small Sample * No gravel

* Sample not always retained

* No sample * Radiation

* Moisture suspect

* Encourages amateurs

Errors * Void under plate

* Sand bulking

* Sand

compacted

* Soil pumping

* Surface not level * Soil pumping

* Void under plate

* Overdrive * Rocks in path

* Plastic soil

* Miscalibrated * Rocks in path

* Surface prep required

* Backscatter

Cost * Low * Moderate * Low * High

29 | P a g e

2.11 Compaction Equipments:

Figure 2.9 Compaction Equipments

30 | P a g e

2.12 Equipment Types

Rammers Rammers deliver a high impact force ( high amplitude) making them an excellent choice for

cohesive and semi-cohesive soils. Frequency range is 500 to 750 blows per

minute. Rammers get compaction force from a small gasoline or diesel engine powering a

large piston set with two sets of springs. The rammer is inclined at a forward angle to allow

forward travel as the machine jumps. Rammers cover three types of compaction: impact,

vibration and kneading.

Vibratory Plates Vibratory plates are low amplitude and high frequency, designed to compact granular soils

and asphalt. Gasoline or diesel engines drive one or two eccentric weights at a high speed to

develop compaction force. The resulting vibrations cause forward motion. The engine and

handle are vibration-isolated from the vibrating plate. The heavier the plate, the more

compaction force it generates. Frequency range is usually 2500 vpm to 6000 vpm. Plates

used for asphalt have a water tank and sprinkler system to prevent asphalt from sticking to the

bottom of the base plate. Vibration is the one principal compaction effect.

Rollers

Rollers are available in several categories: walk-behind and ride-on,

which are available as smooth drum, padded drum, and rubber-tired

models; and are further divided into static and vibratory sub-

categories.

Table 2.6 Equipments Applications

Equipment Applications

Granular Soils Sand and Clay Cohesive Clay Asphalt

Rammers Not

Recommended

Testing

Recommended

Best Application Not

Recommended

Vibratory

Plates

Best Application Testing Recommended

Not Recommended

Best Application

Reversible

Plates

Testing Recommended

Best Application Best Application Not Recommended

Vibratory

Rollers

Not Recommended

Best Application Testing Recommended

Best Application

Rammer

Rollers

Testing Recommended

Best Application Best Application Not Recommended

http://www.concrete-catalog.com/rammers.html

http://www.concrete-catalog.com/vibratory_plate_compactors.html

http://www.concrete-catalog.com/vibratory_rollers.html

31 | P a g e

Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Methodology

We have performed the following steps for this research:

3.1 Collection of sand :

The first step was to collect the locally available sands to perform the tests. This was done with

the help of lab attendants of the concrete lab. About 180 kg of total sand was collected (60 kg of

each type) i.e Ravi, Chenab and Lawrencepur.

3.2 Preparation of sand samples:

The next step was the preparation of soil samples. We prepared 19 different samples by mixing

all the three soils in different proportions. The samples were prepared by mixing (Ravi +

Chenab), (Ravi + Lawrecepur), (Chenab + Lawrencepur) and (Ravi + Chenab + Lawrencepur)

Figure 3.1 Ravi ~Chenab Combo

1 2 3 4 5 6

RaVI 100 90 70 50 30 0

Chenab 0 10 30 50 70 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

%ag

e o

f R

avi/

Ch

en

ab

Ravi ~Chenab Combo

32 | P a g e

Figure 3.2 Chenab ~Lawrencepur Combo

Figure 3.3 Ravi ~Lawrencepur ~Chenab Combo

1 2 3 4 5 6

Chenab 100 70 50 30 10 0

Lawrencepur 0 30 50 70 90 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 %

age

of

Ch

en

ab/L

awre

nce

pu

r Chenab~Lawrencepur Combo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ravi 33 30 30 40 80 10 10

Lawrencepur 33 40 30 30 10 10 80

Chenab 33 30 40 30 10 80 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

%o

f R

/L/C

Ravi~Lawrencepur~Chenab Combo

33 | P a g e

3.3 Sieve Analysis and Specific gravity:

Now after preparing the samples, we performed sieve analysis for each sample. We followed

ASTM D-422. The specific gravities were also determined. The combined results of sieve

analysis is shown in figure 3.5

Figure 3.4 Set of Sieves

Figure 3.5 Sieve Analysis of All Samples

34 | P a g e

Procedure for sieve analysis:

Oven dried sample is required.

500 g of each sample is taken for the sieve analysis.

Arrange the nest of sieves according to specification.

Pour the sample into top of the nest of the sieves and shake for a reasonable time.

After shaking we measured the weight retained on each sieve and determined the

percentage of the weight retained.

Procedure for Specific gravity:

1. Take at least 25gm of soil

2. Clean and dry the pycnometer and find out its mass (M1).

3. Place the dry soil in pycnometer and find out its mass (M2).

4. Add sufficient amount of water in the pycnometer upto the given mark and find out its

mass (M3).

5. Empty the pycnometer and wash it thoroughly and added water upto the given mark and

find out its mass (M4)

6. Determine the specific gravity of the soil sample by the following formula:

3.4 Proctor Tests:

The final step was to perform the standard and modified proctor tests. There were total 19

samples and we divided these tests equally among all the four group member. The tests were

performed and then all the data was then assembled together to get the required results. The

compaction curves were drawn and the results were then studied thoroughly to get the required

output. We were then in a position to know which samples can give best compaction amongst all.

The effect of fine sands % was also studied.

Procedure:

Take the total weight of the given sample before performing the compaction test.

Add different percentage of moisture content. Starting moisture content of the

given sample depends on the composition of that sample.

Properly mix the sample with added water.

Place some quantity of sample into the mould as first layer.

Compact the first layer by applying 25 blows.

Then place the second layer apply 25 blows and same procedure is repeated uptil 3rd

35 | P a g e

Or 5th layer for the first trial of moisture content.

Start the second trial and so on unless reduction is observed in the weight of

the sample with the addition of the moisture content.

After that take amount of sample in the container for determination of the actual

moisture content and take the wet weight of the container.

Place this container in the oven for 24 hours, then take the dry weight of the container.

Perform the calculation and determine the dry density.

Figure 3.6 Standard and Modified Test Apparatus

3.5 Results from the experiments:

Finally, we had completed all the proctor tests on the samples and the final step was to get the

results by performing calculations, drawing graphs and conclude the results from the research.

36 | P a g e

Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Results

4.1 Results of Sieve analysis

The Sieve analysis was done for all the 19 samples. The gradation curves were drawn for all

these samples were drawn and have been shown in the appendix A-1. The gradation curves of all

these samples showed that they were poorly graded sands. The soils soil samples were classified

according to USCS and AASHTO. D10, D30, D60, Cu and Cc were determined. A summary of

these results is presented here in Table 4.1 and 4.2. A combined gradation curve of all the

samples is presented here in figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 Gradation Curve for all the samples

37 | P a g e

Following are the gradation curves for pure ravi lawrencepur and Chenab sands…..

Figure 4. Gradation Curves of Ravi, Chenab and Lawrencepur Sand

The blue curve shows Ravi sand, it is the finest among the three sands. The green line shows

Lawrencepur sand and the purple line represents Chenab Sand.

38 | P a g e

Table 4.1 Sol Classification

Sr # SAMPLE %age

passing #10

%age passing

#40

%age passing

#200

AASHTO Classifica

tion

USCS Classification

Group Symbol

Group Name

1 R100% 95.812 89.962 1.514 A-3 SP Poorly Graded

sand

2 R90%C10% 95.76 86.83 6.83 A-3 SP Poorly Graded

sand


sand

4 R505C50% 98.712 83.15 2.388 A-3 SP Poorly Graded

sand


sand

6 R90%L10% 93.968 86.206 1.902 A-3 SP Poorly Graded

sand

7 C100% 99.042 46.376 0.462 A-1-b SP Poorly Graded

sand

8 C70%L30% 94.572 46.134 1.202 A-1-b SP Poorly Graded

sand


sand


sand


sand

12 R33C33L33 94.79 58.632 2.002 A-3 SP Poorly Graded

sand


sand


sand


sand


sand

17 R10C80L10 95.756 49.98 0.24 A-1-b SP Poorly Graded

sand

18 R10C10L80 88.154 38.29 1.16 A-1-b SP Poorly Graded

sand

39 | P a g e

19 L 100% 94.676 37.446 1.826 A-1-b SP Poorly Graded

sand Table 4.2 Cu an Cc for all the samples

SAMPLE %Gravel %sand %silt+clay D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc

R100% 2.776 95.71 1.514 0.17 0.2 0.3 1.76 0.78

R90%C10% 3.28 89.89 6.83 0.1 0.19 0.29 2.90 1.24

R70%C30% 1.246 98.614 0.14 0.175 0.205 0.3 1.71 0.80

R505C50% 0.43 97.182 2.388 0.15 0.2 0.3 2.00 0.89

R30%C70% 1.3 86.283 12.417 0.075 0.2 0.35 4.67 1.52

R90%L10% 4.212 93.886 1.902 0.17 0.2 0.3 1.76 0.78

C100% 0.26 99.278 0.462 0.185 0.2 0.63 3.41 0.34

C70%L30% 0.81 97.988 1.202 0.185 0.29 0.7 3.78 0.65

C50%L50% 1.648 97.248 1.104 0.18 0.3 0.7 3.89 0.71

C30%L70% 2.026 96.782 1.192 0.18 0.205 0.79 4.39 0.30

C10%L90% 2.9 95.542 1.558 0.185 0.32 0.8 4.32 0.69

R33C33L33 0.876 97.122 2.002 0.17 0.24 0.45 2.65 0.75

R30C30L40 2.536 95.932 1.532 0.16 0.23 0.4 2.50 0.83

R30C40L30 1.082 97.16 1.758 0.18 0.26 0.54 3.00 0.70

R40C30L30 0.74 98.554 0.706 0.17 0.24 0.4 2.35 0.85

R80C10L10 0.44 96.334 3.226 0.17 0.205 0.32 1.88 0.77

R10C80L10 0.844 98.916 0.24 0.18 0.29 0.6 3.33 0.78

R10C10L80 1.862 96.978 1.16 0.19 0.33 0.82 4.32 0.70

L 100 % 1.424 96.75 1.826 0.18 0.34 0.78 4.33 0.82

4.2 Results of Specific Gravity Tests

The specific gravity test was performed for all the 19 samples. These results showed that the

specific gravity for all the samples varied between 2.6 to 2.7. We have also presented the

summary of the specific gravity for all the samples in the table 4.3.

40 | P a g e

Specific Gravity Results:

Sample Specific

Gravity

R100% 2.62

R90%C10% 2.628

R70%C30% 2.64

R505C50% 2.61

R30%C70% 2.656

R90%L10% 2.63

C100% 2.673

C70%L30% 2.654

C50%L50% 2.73

C30%L70% 2.7

C10%L90% 2.689

R33C33L33 2.73

R30C30L40 2.68

R30C40L30 2.661

R40C30L30 2.654

R80C10L10 2.688

R10C80L10 2.674

R10C10L80 2.678

L 100 % 2.698

Table 4.3

4.3 Proctor Tests

We did perform standard as well as the modified proctor test for each of the sample. The results

for all the samples were analyzed. We deduced a few important results which will be explained

here in detail. The main task was to determine that at what composition (Ravi, Chenab and

Lawrencepur), the maximum dry densities could be obtained. This was done because of the

reason that if we have 2 or 3 types of sands available then in what proportion they should be

mixed to get the maximum compaction using minimum effort. This will economize the

compaction process and will reduce the overall cost of the construction. By doing so we achieve

high dry density of the soil which means that the strength of the soil will be increased.

41 | P a g e

The results that have been obtained through this research can be classified into following

categories:

1. The samples giving the maximum compaction.

2. The Effect of Chenab on dry density of Chenab~Lawrecepur and Chenab~Ravi Samples.

3. The local sand best suited for the construction purpose.

4. The local sand which should not be used.

5. The effect of compaction energy on dry density and O.M.C.

4.3.1 The Samples giving the maximum compaction:

In order to know about the samples which give maximum compaction we have summarized the

results in the form of a table 4.4. This table tells about the maximum dry densities obtained from

the standard and the modified proctor tests and the information about the optimum moisture

contents of each sample. Dry density in KN/m^3 and O.M.C in %.

Table 4.4 Results of Compaction Tests

SAMPLE

Standard Proctor Modified Proctor

Max Dry Density OMC Max Dry Density OMC

R100% 16.4 18.2 17.3 17.5

R90%C10% 16.9 18 18.4 14.9

R70%C30% 17 17 18.48 14.5

R505C50% 17.4 16.5 18.6 14.5

R30%C70% 18 16.2 19.1 13

R90%L10% 16.5 17 18.8 15

C100% 17.8 16.5 18.9 15

C70%L30% 18.5 18 19.9 17.5

C50%L50% 18.75 20.5 19.4 13

C30%L70% 18.8 14.8 20.4 11.5

C10%L90% 18.7 16 20.3 13

R33C33L33 18.6 14 19.4 12.5

R30C30L40 18.1 13.5 20.1 12

R30C40L30 17.8 17 18.9 12.2

R40C30L30 18.3 15 18.6 14

R80C10L10 17.3 17 18.8 13

R10C80L10 21 17.1 19 17.5

R10C10L80 18.6 17 20 11.8

42 | P a g e

L 100 18.5 15.8 20.1 13

From the above results we can conclude that the following samples give us the best compaction:

1. Chenab 70 Ravi 30

2. Chenab 30 Lawrencepur 70

3. Lawrencepur 40 Chenab 30 Ravi 30 ( For R-L-C combination)

4. Lawrencepur 100%

Figure 4.3 Effect of Chenab %age on Chenab~ Ravi Samples

Figure 4.4 Effect of Chenab %age on Chenab~ Lawrencepur Samples

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

CHENNAB PERCENTAGE

Chenab Vs Ravi

standard

Modified

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dry

de

nsi

ty

Chenab percentage

Chenab Vs Lawrencepur

Standard

Modified

43 | P a g e

It is recommended in case only one type of sand is to be used it should be Lawrencepur. In case

Chenab sand is available along with the Lawrencepur it should be mixed in the proportion

(Chenab 30 Lawrecpur 70) . If Chenab and Ravi combination is used then it should be mixed in

the proportion (Ravi 30 Chenab 70). For Ravi-Lawrecepur-Chenab combination Ravi 30

Lawrencepur 40 Chenab 30 should be used.

We recommend not to use Ravi sand as it does not give good compaction. Chenab also gives

reasonable compaction but not as good as Lawrencepur.

Figure 4.5 Compaction Curves

44 | P a g e

4.3.2 The effect of compaction energy

We did standard and proctor test for all kind of samples, thus we can make a relation for the

effect of compaction energy. It is evident from all the graphs that as we increased the compaction

energy from 12400 lbft/ft^3 to 56000 lbft/ft^3 the dry density of the sand was increased and

O.M.C was decreased.

The proctor graphs have been shown in detail in appendix A-2. However, two sample graphs to

explain this effect are also shown here.

Figure 4.6 Comparison of Compaction Energy Effect

Figure 4.7 Comparison of Compaction Energy Effect

For both the case the max dry density increased with increase in compaction energy and the

O.M.C decreased.

16.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R30C70

STANDARD

MODIFIED

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

L90%C10%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

45 | P a g e

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions:

In order to get maximum compaction use the following combinations of the

sands: 1. Chenab 70 Ravi 30

2. Chenab 30 Lawrencepur 70

3. Lawrencepur 40 Chenab 30 Ravi 30 ( For R-L-C combination)

4. Lawrencepur 100%

By using only Ravi 100% the max dry density was 17.3 KN/m3 and it at Ravi 30 Chenab

70 , dry density 19.1 KN/m3

was obtained which is the increase of 16.18%

By using Chenab 100% 18.9KN/m3

was obtained and by using sample Chenab 30

Lawrencepur 70 , dry density 20.4 KN/m3

was obtained which is the increase of 8%.

In order to achieve good compaction the compactive effort should be

increased.

The Relation b/w Cu and dry density , D50 and dry desnity is as follows:

Figure 4.8 Dry sensity vs Cu

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

1 2 3 4 5

Dry

De

nsi

ty (

KN

/m^3

)

Cu

Dry density Vs Cu

Dry density Vs Cu

46 | P a g e

Figure 4.9 Drydensity vs D50

Recommendations:

We have studied here a limited number of samples(19) due to shortage of

time so for future research it is recommended that more number of samples

may be used for R-L-C combination so it is possible that by mixing them a

combination may be obtained which gives even much better results than

L100.

We have not done this research for different gradations. It is recommended

that the effect of gradation should also be studied.

Atterberg’s limits should also be determined to get some relation between

compaction results and these limits.

We used only SP sands , more good results can be obtained by using well

graded sands.

The effect of fines (clay and silt) in these samples should also be studied in

future.

From this research we can recommend that use Lawrencepur sand for

construction purpose or use R30-L40-C30 or C 70 L 30.

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Dry

de

nsi

ty(K

N/m

^3)

D 50

Dry density Vs D50

Dry density Vs D50

47 | P a g e

Appendices

Appendix A-1:

Sieve Analysis :

Ravi 100%

Ravi 100% Sieve Analysis

Sieve wt ret cum wt ret % wt ret % pass

100

4 13.88 13.88 2.776 97.224

10 7.06 20.94 4.188 95.812

40 29.25 50.19 10.038 89.962

100 410.4 460.59 92.118 7.882

200 31.84 492.43 98.486 1.514

48 | P a g e

Ravi 90% Lawrencepur 10%

sieve wt ret cum wt ret % wt ret % pass

100

4 21.06 21.06 4.212 95.788

10 9.1 30.16 6.032 93.968

40 38.8 68.96 13.792 86.208

100 383.86 452.82 90.564 9.436

200 37.67 490.49 98.098 1.902


49 | P a g e

Ravi 80% Lawrecepur 10% Chenab 10%


100

4 2.2 2.2 0.44 99.56

10 12.4 14.6 2.92 97.08

40 87.13 101.73 20.346 79.654

100 351.91 453.64 90.728 9.272

200 30.23 483.87 96.774 3.226

Ravi 80% Lawrencepur 10% Chenab 10%

50 | P a g e

Ravi 50% Chenab 50%

Ravi 50% Chenab 50%


100

4 2.15 2.15 0.43 99.57

10 4.29 6.44 1.288 98.712

40 77.81 84.25 16.85 83.15

100 360.14 444.39 88.878 11.122

200 43.67 488.06 97.612 2.388

51 | P a g e

Ravi 90 % Chenab 10%

Ravi 90% Chenab 10%


100

4 16.4 16.4 3.28 96.72

10 4.8 21.2 4.24 95.76

40 44.65 65.85 13.17 86.83

100 358.87 424.72 84.944 15.056

200 41.13 465.85 93.17 6.83

52 | P a g e

Chenab 70 % Ravi 30%


100

4 6.5 6.5 1.3 98.7

10 3.15 9.65 1.93 98.07

40 134.76 144.41 28.882 71.118

100 279 423.41 84.682 15.318

200 14.5 437.91 87.582 12.418

Chenab 70 % Ravi 30%

53 | P a g e

Ravi30 % Lawerencepur 30% Chenab 40%



100

4 5.41 5.41 1.082 98.918

10 22.54 27.95 5.59 94.41

40 200.1 228.05 45.61 54.39

100 242.97 471.02 94.204 5.796

200 20.19 491.21 98.242 1.758

54 | P a g e

Ravi 70% Chenab 30%

Ravi 50% Chenab 30 %


100

4 6.23 6.23 1.246 98.754

10 7.14 13.37 2.674 97.326

40 60.43 73.8 14.76 85.24

100 397.4 471.2 94.24 5.76

200 28.1 499.3 99.86 0.14

55 | P a g e

Chenab 100%


100

4 1.3 1.3 0.26 99.74

10 3.49 4.79 0.958 99.042

40 263.33 268.12 53.624 46.376

100 214.57 482.69 96.538 3.462

200 15 497.69 99.538 0.462

Chenab 100%

56 | P a g e

Lawrencepur 70% Chenab 30%



100

4 10.13 10.13 2.026 97.974

10 36.84 46.97 9.394 90.606

40 248.8 295.77 59.154 40.846

100 180.33 476.1 95.22 4.78

200 17.94 494.04 98.808 1.192

57 | P a g e




100

4 12.68 12.68 2.536 97.464

10 20.34 33.02 6.604 93.396

40 147.61 180.63 36.126 63.874

100 282.78 463.41 92.682 7.318

200 28.93 492.34 98.468 1.532

58 | P a g e



100

4 3.7 3.7 0.74 99.26

10 20.94 24.64 4.928 95.072

40 159.01 183.65 36.73 63.27

100 286.09 469.74 93.948 6.052

200 26.73 496.47 99.294 0.706


59 | P a g e

Lawrencepur 50 % Chenab 50%

Lawrecepur 50% Chenab 50%


100

4 8.24 8.24 1.648 98.352

10 24.2 32.44 6.488 93.512

40 249.89 282.33 56.466 43.534

100 196.1 478.43 95.686 4.314

200 16.05 494.48 98.896 1.104

60 | P a g e


Ravi 10%



100

4 4.22 4.22 0.844 99.156

10 17 21.22 4.244 95.756

40 228.88 250.1 50.02 49.98

100 231.28 481.38 96.276 3.724

200 17.42 498.8 99.76 0.24

61 | P a g e


Laawrencepur 30% Chenab 70%


100

4 4.05 4.05 0.81 99.19

10 23.09 27.14 5.428 94.572

40 242.19 269.33 53.866 46.134

100 209.96 479.29 95.858 4.142

200 14.7 493.99 98.798 1.202

62 | P a g e



100

4 14.5 14.5 2.9 97.1

10 44.69 59.19 11.838 88.162

40 246.29 305.48 61.096 38.904

100 168.2 473.68 94.736 5.264

200 18.53 492.21 98.442 1.558


63 | P a g e



100

4 9.31 9.31 1.862 98.138

10 49.92 59.23 11.846 88.154

40 249.32 308.55 61.71 38.29

100 169.68 478.23 95.646 4.354

200 15.97 494.2 98.84 1.16


64 | P a g e




100

4 4.38 4.38 0.876 99.124

10 21.67 26.05 5.21 94.79

40 180.79 206.84 41.368 58.632

100 259.92 466.76 93.352 6.648

200 23.23 489.99 97.998 2.002

65 | P a g e

Appendix A-2

Proctor tests

Ravi 100%

Standard

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)

bulk unit w.(kN/m^3)

dry unit wt.(kn/m^3)

6.21 4023 1519 1.70 16.64 15.67

11 4124 1620 1.81 17.75 15.99

15.7 4213 1709 1.91 18.72 16.18

17.5 4267 1763 1.97 19.32 16.44

22 4261 1757 1.96 19.25 15.78

Modified

M.C(%) Total Wt. Mass

Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3) bulk unit

w.(kN/m^3) dry unit wt.(kn/m^3)

6.8 4172 1668 1.86 18.28 17.11

11.65 4270 1766 1.97 19.35 17.33

14.89 4338 1834 2.05 20.09 17.49

18.76 4391 1887 2.11 20.67 17.41

21.6 4344 1840 2.06 20.16 16.58

RAVI 100%

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

0 10 20 30

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R 100%

R100%STN

R100% MOD

66 | P a g e

Ravi 90% Chenab 10%

STANDARD


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.8 3980 1470 1.67 16.39 15.49

11.87 4082 1572 1.79 17.53 15.67

16.01 4210 1700 1.93 18.96 16.34

17.8 4310 1800 2.05 20.07 17.04

21.2 4270 1760 2.00 19.63 16.19

MODIFiED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6.87 4129 1621 1.84 18.03 16.87

12.45 4358 1850 2.10 20.58 18.30

13.9 4424 1916 2.17 21.31 18.71

17.84 4450 1942 2.20 21.60 18.33

20.65 4410 1902 2.16 21.15 17.53

RAVI 90% CHENAB 10%

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

RY

DEN

SITY

MC

R90%C10%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

67 | P a g e

Ravi 70% Chenab 30%

STANDARD


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.87 4050.5 1546 1.73 16.94 16.00

11.34 4165 1660.5 1.85 18.19 16.34

15.87 4267.5 1763 1.97 19.32 16.67

17.66 4302 1797.5 2.01 19.69 16.74

21.04 4285 1780.5 1.99 19.51 16.12

MODIIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.76 4267 1735 1.95 19.12 18.08

11.54 4356 1824 2.05 20.10 18.02

16.2 4455 1923 2.16 21.20 18.24

18.4 4467 1935 2.17 21.33 18.01

21.34 4413 1881 2.11 20.73 17.09

Ravi 70% Chenab 30%

15.50

16.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R70%C30%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

68 | P a g e

Ravi 50% Chenab 50%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R50%C50%

STANDARD

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

7.1 4125 1521 1.71 16.77 15.65

13.1 4281 1677 1.88 18.48 16.34

14.76 4382 1778 2.00 19.60 17.08

18.43 4470 1866 2.10 20.57 17.37

21.59 4410 1806 2.03 19.91 16.37


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6.32 4179 1671 1.90 18.63 17.52

11.87 4360 1852 2.10 20.65 18.45

14.87 4416 1908 2.17 21.27 18.52

19.1 4478 1970 2.24 21.96 18.44

22.3 4403 1895 2.15 21.12 17.27

69 | P a g e

Ravi 50% Chenab 50%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

ravi 50 % Chenab 50%

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R50%C50%

STANDARD

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

7.1 4125 1521 1.71 16.77 15.65

13.1 4281 1677 1.88 18.48 16.34

14.76 4382 1778 2.00 19.60 17.08

18.43 4470 1866 2.10 20.57 17.37

21.59 4410 1806 2.03 19.91 16.37


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6.32 4179 1671 1.90 18.63 17.52

11.87 4360 1852 2.10 20.65 18.45

14.87 4416 1908 2.17 21.27 18.52

19.1 4478 1970 2.24 21.96 18.44

22.3 4403 1895 2.15 21.12 17.27

70 | P a g e

Ravi 30% Chenab 70%

Standard

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

4.99 4201 1697 1.93 18.93 18.03

11.98 4360 1856 2.11 20.71 18.49

14.43 4460 1956 2.22 21.82 19.07

17.55 4428 1924 2.19 21.47 18.26

Ravi 30% Chenab 70%

16.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R30C70

STANDARD

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6.49 4105 1601 1.79 17.54 16.47

11.45 4242 1738 1.94 19.04 17.09

14.9 4309 1805 2.02 19.78 17.21

19.1 4349 1845 2.06 20.21 16.97

22.3 4330 1826 2.04 20.01 16.36

71 | P a g e

Chenab 100%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



4.99 4197 1693 1.93 18.89 17.99

12 4378 1874 2.13 20.91 18.67

11.67 4433 1929 2.19 21.52 19.27

19.67 4524 2020 2.30 22.54 18.83

22.3 4509 2005 2.28 22.37 18.29

Chenab 100%

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

C100%

STANDARD

MODIFIED


Sample(g) density(g/cm^3)



5.5 3740 1603 1.82 17.89 16.95

11.76 3865 1728 1.97 19.28 17.25

14.98 3937 1800 2.05 20.08 17.47

19.12 4007 1870 2.13 20.87 17.52

22.3 3845 1708 1.94 19.06 15.58

72 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



6.21 3853 1716 1.94 19.02 17.91

11.43 3985 1848 2.09 20.48 18.38

16.3 4093 1956 2.21 21.68 18.64

19.2 4138 2001 2.26 22.18 18.61

22.43 4190 2053 2.32 22.76 18.59

25.1 4145 2008 2.27 22.26 17.79

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



6.43 4432 1827 2.06 20.25 19.03

12.87 4693 2088 2.36 23.14 20.51

14.81 4730 2125 2.40 23.56 20.52

19.1 4711 2106 2.38 23.34 19.60


17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

L90%C10%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

73 | P a g e


STANDARD

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.73 4350 1802 2.05 20.11 19.02

8.76 4425 1877 2.13 20.94 19.26

11.56 4503 1955 2.22 21.81 19.55

14.89 4414 1866 2.12 20.82 18.12


17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

0 5 10 15 20

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

L70C30%

STANDARD

MODIFIED





6.72 4272 1724 1.96 19.23 18.02

12.89 4397 1849 2.10 20.63 18.27

14.84 4463 1915 2.18 21.36 18.60

17.92 4403 1855 2.11 20.69 17.55

74 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.45 3817 1674 1.88 18.45 17.50

13.1 4017 1874 2.11 20.65 18.26

14.87 4015 1872 2.10 20.63 17.96

19.1 4110 1967 2.21 21.68 18.20

21.65 4213 2070 2.33 22.81 18.75

24 4187 2044 2.30 22.53 18.17

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.69 4376 1771 2.00 19.63 18.57

11.54 4564 1959 2.21 21.72 19.47

14.32 4610 2005 2.27 22.22 19.44

17.82 4630 2025 2.29 22.45 19.05

20.76 4592 1987 2.25 22.03 18.24

LAWRENCEPUR 50% CHENAB 50%

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

L50C50%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

75 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.73 4225 1629 1.83 17.95 16.98

11.87 4383 1787 2.01 19.69 17.60

14.87 4464 1868 2.10 20.59 17.92

19.34 4595 1999 2.25 22.03 18.46

22 4571 1975 2.22 21.77 17.84

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.6 3917 1779 2.01 19.72 18.67

13.2 4145 2007 2.27 22.25 19.65

14.87 4209 2071 2.34 22.96 19.98

18.43 4200 2062 2.33 22.86 19.30

LAWRENCEPUR 30% CHENAB 70%

16.50 17.00 17.50 18.00 18.50 19.00 19.50 20.00 20.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

L30%C70%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

76 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6.43 4125 1521 1.70 16.67 15.66

12.45 4251 1647 1.84 18.05 16.05

16.1 4322 1718 1.92 18.83 16.22

17.43 4382 1778 1.99 19.49 16.60

20.76 4365 1761 1.97 19.30 15.98

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.78 4240 1707 1.91 18.71 17.69

11.76 4381 1848 2.06 20.26 18.12

16.88 4480 1947 2.18 21.34 18.26

19.1 4475 1942 2.17 21.29 17.87


15.00

15.50

16.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R90%L10%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

77 | P a g e

Ravi 30% Lawreencepur 30% Chenab 40%

STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



5.78 4172 1634 1.81 17.75 16.78

11.78 4334 1796 1.99 19.51 17.45

16 4392 1854 2.05 20.14 17.36

19.4 4484 1946 2.15 21.14 17.70

21 4456 1918 2.12 20.83 17.22

MODIFED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.87 3931 1794 2.02 19.77 18.68

11.6 4163 2026 2.28 22.33 20.01

15 4193 2056 2.31 22.66 19.70

17.54 4151 2014 2.26 22.20 18.88

Ravi 30% Lawrencepir 30% Chenab 40%

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R30L30C40%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

78 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



5.97 3713 1576 1.78 17.42 16.44

12.56 3828 1691 1.91 18.69 16.61

15 3936 1799 2.03 19.89 17.29

17.89 3956 1819 2.05 20.11 17.06

20.43 3931 1794 2.02 19.83 16.47

MODIFIED

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



6.99 4159 1655 1.86 18.24 17.05

11.6 4392 1888 2.12 20.81 18.64

14.78 4465 1961 2.20 21.61 18.83

18 4472 1968 2.21 21.69 18.38

20.33 4431 1927 2.16 21.24 17.65

Ravi 80% Lawrecepur 10 Chenab 10%

15.50

16.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R80L10C10%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

79 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



4.32 4213 1703 1.92 18.88 18.10

11.59 4360 1850 2.09 20.51 18.38

15.66 4430 1920 2.17 21.28 18.40

19.1 4490 1980 2.24 21.95 18.43

20.5 4463 1953 2.21 21.65 17.97

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.71 3991 1853 2.07 20.30 19.21

11.34 4168 2030 2.27 22.24 19.98

16.1 4251 2113 2.36 23.15 19.94

18.94 4132 1994 2.23 21.85 18.37


17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R10L80C10%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

80 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

4.99 4142 1546 1.74 17.04 16.23

11.9 4168 1572 1.77 17.33 15.48

15 4283 1687 1.90 18.59 16.17

18 4386 1790 2.01 19.73 16.72

21 4492 1896 2.13 20.90 17.27

23.55 4434 1838 2.07 20.26 16.40

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.67 3841 1703 1.92 18.88 17.86

11.78 4004 1866 2.11 20.68 18.50

14.88 4110 1972 2.23 21.86 19.03

18 4143 2005 2.27 22.22 18.83

21.55 4123 1985 2.24 22.00 18.10

Ravi 80% Lawrencpur10% Chenab 80%

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

YD

ENSI

TY

M.C

R10L10C80%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

81 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



5.78 4177 1629 1.85 18.17 17.18

11.23 4357 1809 2.06 20.18 18.14

15.8 4399 1851 2.10 20.65 17.83

19.23 4433 1885 2.14 21.02 17.63

22.1 4379 1831 2.08 20.42 16.73

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

5.78 4291 1743 1.98 19.45 18.39

11.87 4428 1880 2.14 20.98 18.75

16.23 4504 1956 2.22 21.82 18.78

19 4459 1911 2.17 21.32 17.92


16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R30%L40%C30%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

82 | P a g e


STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



5.87 4216 1668 1.90 18.61 17.58

11.99 4362 1814 2.06 20.24 18.07

16.23 4408 1860 2.12 20.75 17.86

19.81 4441 1893 2.15 21.12 17.63

22.81 4305 1757 2.00 19.60 15.96

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6 4207 1703 1.92 18.88 17.81

12 4370 1866 2.11 20.68 18.47

15 4419 1915 2.16 21.23 18.46

18 4469 1965 2.22 21.78 18.46

21 4439 1935 2.19 21.45 17.73


15.50

16.00

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R40%L30%C30%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

83 | P a g e

Ravi 33% Chenab 33% Lawrencepur 33%

STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



5.98 4210 1606 1.83 17.92 16.91

11.4 4430 1826 2.08 20.37 18.29

15 4515 1911 2.17 21.32 18.54

18 4457 1853 2.11 20.68 17.52

21 4421 1817 2.07 20.27 16.76

MODIFIED


Sample(g)


w.(kN/m^3) dry unit

wt.(kn/m^3)

6.73 3866 1728 1.93 18.94 17.75

13.2 4131 1993 2.23 21.85 19.30

15 4146 2008 2.24 22.01 19.14

19.51 4125 1987 2.22 21.78 18.22

Ravi 33% Chenab 3% Lawrencepur 33%

16.50

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY

M.C

R33%L33%C33%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

84 | P a g e

L100%

STANDARD

M.C(%) Total Wt.

Mass Sample(g)

density(g/cm^3)



6 4012 1502 1.71 16.75 15.80

12 4114 1604 1.82 17.89 15.97

15 4239 1729 1.97 19.28 16.77

18 4454 1944 2.21 21.68 18.37

21 4352 1842 2.09 20.54 16.98

MODIFIED





6 4231 1723 1.95 19.16 18.08

12 4432 1924 2.18 21.40 19.11

15 4479 1971 2.23 21.92 19.06

18 4632 2124 2.41 23.62 20.02

21 4410 1902 2.16 21.15 17.48

L100

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

DR

RY

DEN

SITY

MC

L100%

STANDARD

MODIFIED

85 | P a g e

Refrences:

1. ASTM 1999, Standard Proctor Designation D-698, D-1557.

2. Hilf, J.W. (1956) An Investigation of Pore Water Pressure in Compacted

Cohesive Soils.

3.Wikipedia

4. Soil Mechanics and foundation DAS Lecture 3.3.

5.Soil compaction handbook.(Multiquip).