Aim:

To experimentally determine the relationship between the optimum moisture content and
maximum dry unit weight of a given soil sample.

Apparatus:
4`` Mold, Manual rammer, extruder, balance, drying oven, mixing pan, trowel, #4 sieve, moisture
can, graduated cylinder, straight edge.

Theory:
Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together, reducing pore space between
them. Heavily compacted soils contain few large pores and have a reduced rate of both water
infiltration and drainage from the compacted layer. This occurs because large pores are the most
effective in moving water through the soil when it is saturated. Soil Compaction is one of the
most popular and cost effective methods of stabilizing soils. Increasing the soil density will
improve most engineering properties such as strength, stiffness, resistance to shrinkage and
imperviousness of the soil. The foundation that roads are built on are created by compacted
material. The Standard Proctor test determines the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum
water content.
Advantages of soil compaction:
1. Increased soil strength.
2. Increased load-bearing capacity.
3. Reduction in settlement (lower compressibility).
4. Reduction in the flow of water (water seepage).
5. Reduction in soil swelling (expansion) and collapse (soil contraction).
6. Increased soil stability.
7. Reduction in frost damage
Disadvantages of soil compaction:
1. Structural distress from excessive total and differential settlements.
2. Cracking of pavements, floors, and basements.
3. Structural damage to buried structures, water and sewer pipes, and utility conduits.

4. Soil erosion.

Procedure:
1) The Test Method used was the Standard Proctor Method A (ASTM 698).
2) The weight of base, 330.2g and weight of base and prepared sample were both read using
the digital balance and was then recorded. The weight of the soil sample was deducted to
3000g.
3) The soil sample was then dispersed into the mixing pan.
4) 5% water content was then poured throughout the 3000g soil sample, from the graduated
cylinder and then the soil sample was mixed with the 5% water content.
5) The trowel was then used to fill the mold a little above a third of its height with the 5%
water content soil sample.
6) The mold was then placed on the ground and the manual rammer was used to compact
the soil, delivering twenty five blows on the cross sectional area at the top of the mold.
7) After the first layer was compacted the trowel was used to fill the mold a little more than
the two third mark with the soil sample of 5% water content.
8) Step 6 was then repeated.
9) The trowel was then used to fill the mold with the final layer of the sample almost to the
top of the cylinder and step 6 was again repeated.
10) The final layer after compaction was slightly above the collar joint so the straight edge
was used to trim off the excess soil.
11) The weight of the compacted soil while in the mold and to the base was recorded. The
wet mass of the soil was calculated by subtracting the weight of the mold and the base.
12) A sample of the soil was then extruded from the mold and placed into a marked can and
weighed.
13) The remaining soil in the mold was then knocked out into the mixing pan using a hammer
and was then broken up by hand to seem as if it passed through a sieve #4.
14) Steps 5-13 was repeated on the soil sample with 3% higher water content than the last,
that is it was repeated for 8%, 11% and 14% water content soil samples respectively.

Results and Calculations

Compaction Data
Run no

Cylinder NO.

Wt. of Sample & Cylinder (kg)

6.28

6.354

6.299

6.194

Wt. of Cylinder (kg)

4.203

4.203

4.203

4.203

2.077

2.151

2.096

1.991

Unit Wet weight (kg/m )

2200

2278.6

2220.3

2109.1

Moisture Content % Dry Weight

5%

8%

11%

14%

2101

2117.26

2013.15

1864

20.61

20.77

19.74

18.285

2395

2239

2114

1994

23.494

21.964

20.738

19.561

Can No.

A2

K3

J3

NO8

Wet Weight Gross (g)

48.86

68.9

97.7

85.91

Dry weight gross (g)

48.05

66.2

91.48

79.54

WT of water Ww (g)

0.81

2.7

6.22

6.37

Tare weight (g)

30.87

30.96

31.02

31.1

Dry weight of soil Ws (g)

17.18

35.44

60.46

48.44

Moisture Content %dry weight

4.71%

7.62%

10.29%

13.15%

Wet Wt of Sample (kg)

3

Dry Density (kg/m )

Unit dry weight KN/m

Zero air voids Dry Density (kg/m3)

3

Zero air voids Dry weight (kN/m )

Water Content Data

Sample Calculations
Compaction Data:
Wet wt of sample = Wt of sample & Cylinder Wt of cylinder
= 6.28 4.203 = 2.077kg

Unit Wet weight = Wet Wt of sample/ Volume of mold

= 2.077 kg/0.000944 m3 = 2200 kg/m3

Dry Density = Unit Wet weight/ 1+ M.C

= 2200/ 1 + 0.471 = 2101 kg/m3
Unit dry weight = 20.61 kN/m3

Zero air voids = Density of water/ (w.c% + (1/ Specific gravity of soil being tested))
= 1/ (0.0471 + (1/2.70)) = 2.395 g/cm3 = 2395 kg/m3

Water Content Data:

Wt of Water, Ww = Wet weight gross dry weight gross
= 48.86 48.05 = 0.81g
Dry weight of soil, Ws = Dry weight gross - Tare weight
= 48.05 30.87 = 17.18g
Moisture content % dry weight = (Wt of water,Ww/ Dry weight of soil, Ws) * 100
= (0.81/ 17.18) * 100 = 4.71%

Graph of Dry Density vs Water Content

Dry Density ( Unit dry weight) vs Water Content

25

20

15
Soil Sample
Dry Density ,Kn/m^3
(Unit dry weight)

Zero air voids

10

0
0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

Water Content %

15.00%

Discussion
The main purpose of this laboratory experiment was to obtain the optimum moisture content and
the maximum dry density of a soil sample. Optimum Moisture content or Optimum water
content is the water content required to allow a soil to attain its maximum dry unit weight
following a specified means of compaction. Optimum Moisture content is used in specifications
for compacting embankments. Maximum dry unit weight is the maximum unit weight that a soil
can attain using a specified means of compaction. The zero air void curve gives the maximum
value of dry density with all air removed which was 2395 kg/m3.
The Optimum moisture content obtained in this experiment was 7.9% with a max dry unit weight
of 20.85 kN/m3 and dry density. The zero air void curve shows that at moisture content, 4.71% it
gives a dry weight of 23.494 Kn/m3. The soil sample used was a type of sandy silty clay. At the
first layer which was at 5% moisture content the soil sample compacted without much moving
about and deforming. At the end of the twenty five blows, the sample was observed to have a flat
surface easily. However as represented by the graph, as the moisture content increased with
increments of 3%, the soil particles moved about much easier. This was done for moisture
contents of 8%, 11% and 14%. From the graph, it can be seen that as the moisture content
increases the dry density increases slightly as seen on the left hand side of the graph, until it
reaches the point of optimum moisture content and its maximum dry unit weight where after as
the moisture content keeps increasing, the dry weight decreases, as shown on right hand side of
graph.
The soil sample exhibits such properties as the moisture content increases because of suction
potential. (Soil mechanics notes). Between each two particles of the sample, there is a water
content with a radius, r. This radius, r is responsible for the suction between the particles since
suction is inversely proportional to radius. This means that the greater the radius, r the less
suction and the smaller the radius, r the suction increases. So as the water content increases the
suction potential increases and the ability of the soil to be compacted decreases. The optimum
moisture content will increase shear strength which will decrease compressibility after soil has
been compacted It was then observed that the soil was exhibiting properties of a slurry which
was due to increasing water content which reduces the dry unit weight.
The planned procedure was to also do a Run No. five (5) but at Run No. four (4) where the
moisture content was at 13.15% the soil was now becoming saturated in which it would off
turned into a slurry. At this point, it was realized that the soil can be no longer compacted and
therefore a Run No.5 could not have been performed. Although this was not done, it did not
affect the main purpose of obtaining the optimum moisture content and max dry unit weight.

Sources of error which may have occurred in the experiment:

Parallax errors associated with the reading of the heavy duty solution scale
Systematic errors associated with the digital scale.
During compaction some of the sample may have been lost
Some water may have been lost in the mixing process from being absorbed by the hands.

Precautions that were taken in the experiment:

The measuring cylinder was read at eye level to minimize parallax errors.
Preservation of as much soil as possible when compacting and mixing.

Conclusion
It can be concluded that within experimental errors, the optimum moisture content and maximum
dry unit weight of a given soil sample was 7.9% and 20.85 kN/m3 respectively.

References
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/3115s01.
html#section1
Soil Mechanics and foundations 3rd ed. M.Budhu (Wiley, 2010)
Soil Mechanics notes