6

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Introduction

Soil compaction changes pore-space size, particle distribution and soil strength.
One way to quantify the change is by measuring the bulk density. As the pore space
is decreased within a soil, the bulk density is increased. Soils with a higher
percentage of clay and silt, which naturally have more pore space, have a lower bulk
density than sandy soils.

Theories of soil compaction seek to explain the typical moisture-density

relationships as represented by the compaction curve obtained in laboratory tests or
field compaction (Hausmann, 1990). Many interpretations of the basic phenomena
have been put forward since Proctor (1933) did his pioneering studies. They began
with the lubrication concept and proceeded to examining pore water and air
pressures, and finally, the soil microstructure. Each of the theories has its merits,
although it may have to be placed in the context of the state of development of soil
mechanics at the time and the soil types and methods of compaction used in
obtaining the experimental data.

7
2.2

Soil Compaction

Compaction is a common process in urban areas (Kelsey, 2000). Typically, to

build stable infrastructure, soils are compressed until they have been compacted to
more than 90% or 95% of a laboratory maximum dry density. Urban horticulture
relies on these compacted materials for the rooting space of trees, shrubs, and other
plants. Compaction is generally difficult to alleviate and perhaps even more difficult
to measure. Without effective methods for measuring soil compaction, it is difficult
to assess whether the soil is compacted or not or and whether a treatment has
reversed any of the compaction in a soil. Bulk density (weight per unit volume) is the
most common measure of compaction.

Table 2.1 Definitions of parameters of a compaction test

TERMS
Compaction

DEFINITION
the process of packing soil particles more
closely together, usually by mechanical means,

Optimum moisture content (OMC)

increasing the density of the soil

The moisture content of the soil at which a
specified amount of compaction will produce

Maximum dry density (MDD)

the maximum dry density

The dry density obtained using a specified
amount

of compaction at the optimum

Dry density moisture content

moisture content
The relationship between dry density and

relationship

moisture content of a soil under a given

Percentage air voids (Va)

compactive effort
The volume of air voids in a soil expressed as a

Air voids line

percentage of the total volume of the soil

Aline showing the dry density-moisture
content relationship for a soil containing a

Saturation line (Zero air void line)

constant percentage of air voids

The line showing the dry density-moisture
content relationship for a soil containing no air
voids

2.2.1 Compaction characteristics of soils

The density at which a soil can be placed as fill or backfill depends on the
placement water content and the compaction effort. Figure 2.1 presents typical

Figure 2.1 Typical Engineering Properties of Compacted Materials (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers)

engineering properties of compacted soils.

10
2.3

Compaction Theory

The performance of a standard laboratory compaction test on material from

each field density test usually give the most accurate relationship of the in-place
material to optimum water content and maximum density. But it is not generally
feasible to do so in-field because the testing could not keep pace with the rate of fill
placement. However, standard compaction tests should be performed during
construction when an insufficient number of the compaction curves were developed
during the design phase, when borrow material is obtained from a new source, and
when material similar to that being placed has not been tested previously. In any
event, laboratory compaction tests should be performed periodically on each type of
fill material (preferably one for every ten field density tests) to check the optimum
water content and maximum dry density values being used for correlation with field
density test results.

Mitchell et al. (1965) state, the nature and magnitude of compaction in finegrained soil significantly influences their mechanical behavior. It is generally known
that when a clayey soil is compacted to a given dry density (or relative compaction),
it is stiffer if it is compacted dry-of-optimum than if it is compacted wet-of-optimum.
Lambe and Whitman (1969), Hilf (1975), and Mitchell (1976), attribute this effect to
soil fabric, as a result of different remolding water contents. However, these
references imply that for sand, the drained shear strength and compressibility are
independent of the remolding water content; i.e., these properties are uniquely
determined, once the relative compaction, or void ratio, is specified.

Soil consists of organic matter, minerals and pore space. The mineral fraction
of the soil is made up of a combination of sand, silt, and clay particles. These
particles do not fit together tightly, but are surrounded by open pore spaces. This
open space is important because it allows soil to hold air and water. Spaces between
the particles are filled with air in dry soil, water in saturated soil, or both in moist
soil. Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together, limiting the

11
space for air and water. The amount of soil water is a critical factor in soil
compaction potential. A dry soil, which has friction between the soil particles, is not
easily compacted. Water acts as a lubricant between the particles, making the soil
easier to compact. However, as soil water content increases, a point is reached where
most pore spaces in the soil are filled with water, not air. Water cannot be
compressed, so water between the soil particles carries some of the load of the soil,
resisting compaction. Therefore, a very wet soil will not compact as much as a
moderately moist soil.

Compaction can be applied to improve the properties of an existing soil or in

the process of placing fill. There are three main objectives:
i. to increase shear strength and therefore bearing capacity
ii. to increase stiffness and therefore reduce future settlement
iii. to decrease the voids ratio and so permeability, thus reducing potential frost
heave

Similar to Mitchell et al. (1965), Carrier (2000) also found that the samples of
compacted dry-of-optimum were to be stiffer than samples compacted wet-ofoptimum at the same relative compaction. This difference in stress-strain behavior is
not generally expected for sand; fabric and/or overconsolidation may explain these
results. Thus, for the case of shallow depth (such as backfill for a flexible conduit
located within a few meters of the ground surface) it is important to consider the
water content and the method of compaction, as the degree of compaction by itself
will not necessarily achieve the desired modulus.

12
2.4

Influence Factors For Compaction

Soil texture (the percentage of sand, silt, and clay in a soil) has some effects
on compaction, although compaction can be a problem to one degree or another in
almost all soil types (Kok et al., 1996). Soils made up of particles of about the same
size compact less than soil with a variety of particle sizes. Smaller particles can fill
the pores between larger particles making for a more dense soil. A sandy loam soil
(67 percent sand, 24 percent silt, and 9 percent clay) is the most susceptible to
compaction. Soil texture is not easily changed. The structure of a soil (how well the
soil breaks up into small, cohesive clumps when crumbled) also plays a role in its
potential for compaction. A soil with higher levels of organic matter generally has
better structure and resists compaction better than soils with lower organic matter
levels. Organic matter helps create larger and stronger soil aggregates. Hard, dense,
low organic-matter soils suffer more from compaction than loose, friable, highorganic matter soils.

Whitlow (1999) states that the effectiveness of compaction process is

dependent on several factors:
i. The nature and type of soil, i.e. sand or clay, uniform or well-graded, plasticity.
ii. The water content at the time of compaction.
iii. Site conditions, i.e. weather, type of site, layer thickness.
iv. Amount of compactive effort: type of hammer or compaction tools (weight,
vibration, number of passes).

13
2.5

Dry-Density Versus Water-Content Relationship

The relationship between dry density and moisture content for soil subjected
to a given compactive effort, established by laboratory compaction test, provides
reference data for the specification and control of soil placed as fill. In many projects
the laboratory compaction tests are supplemented by field compaction trials by using
the actual placing and compacting equipment which is to be employed for
construction (Williams, 1949).

Sometimes it is necessary to adjust the natural moisture content of a soil to a

value at which it can be most effectively compacted, or at which it has the highest
strength. The required moisture content, and dry density to be achieved, can be
assessed on the basis of the dry density-moisture content relationship derived fro
laboratory compaction tests on samples taken fro the borrow area.

The state of compaction of a soil is conveniently measured using the dry

density, the attainable values of which are related to the water content. As water is
added to a dry soil, film of adsorbed water form around the particles. As the adsorbed
water films increase in thickness the particles become lubricated and are able to pack
more closely together, thus the density increases. At a certain point, the pore-water
pressure in adsorbed film tend to push the particles apart and so with further
increases in water content the density decreases. The maximum dry density therefore
occurs at optimum water content as shown in Figure 2.2. Curves for different air
contents also can be added to the d/w plot using this expression:

Gs w
1 A v
1 w G s

(2.1)
Where:

14
d = dry density
Gs = specific gravity of soil particles
w = density of water
Av = air voids content
w = water content

The air-void content corresponding to the maximum dry density and optimum
water content can be read off the d/w plot or calculated from this expression.

Figure 2.2 Dry density versus water content plot with air void curves

2.5.1

Explanation of the shape of the curve

15
As illustrated in the typical compaction curve of Figure 2.3, water has an
important effect on soil compaction. Even at low water content, the soil grains are
surrounded by a thin film of water. A small increase in water content tends to
increase the repulsion of particles and to facilitate their orderly arrangement. Until
the optimum water content is reached, the addition of water expels more air from
soils, and enables to reach larger dry unit weight. The maximum-densed soil is
obtained at the optimum water content. When the water content exceeds the optimum
value, the water pushes the grains apart. Since water is much more incompressible
than the grain assembly and has no time to drain, the dry unit weight starts to
decrease. There are three conditions to be considered:

i.

At low water content in clays (<wopt)

The material being compacted is generally recently excavated saturated

lumps having relatively high undrained strength; too stiff to compact. As the water
increases the lumps soften and weaken. So it can be compacted easily.

ii.

At low water content in sands (<wopt)

At low water content, the soil is unsaturated and derives strength from pore
water suction at grain contacts. As the water content increases this suction
decreases and the soil grains are more easily displaced into a denser arrangement,
and therefore easily compacted.

iii.

At high water content (clays and sands) (> wopt)

At relatively high water content the compacted soil is nearly saturated (nearly
all of the air has been removed) and so the compactive effort is in effect undrained

16
loading and so the void volume does not decrease. As the water content further
increases the air content remains almost constant and the extra water increases the
volume thus the compacted density achieved decreases.

Figure 2.3 Dry density versus water content plot

2.5.2

Dry density and air-void content

A fully saturated soil has zero air content. However, in practice, even quite
wet soil will have small air content.

Volume of air

Air voids content, A v Total volume

(2.2)

17

2.5.3

Effect of compactive effort

Whitlow (1999) states that the compactive effort will be greater when using
either a heavier roller on site or a heavier rammer in the laboratory. With greater
compactive effort:
maximum dry density increases
optimum water content decreases
air-void content remains almost the same.

Figure 2.4 Dry density versus water content curves for different compactive efforts

18

Table 2.2 Specification of BS 1377:1990 (Whitlow, 1999)

Name of test

Light compaction

Heavy compaction

Vibrating
hammer

Rammer:
mass

2.5 kg

4.5 kg

300400 N

face diameter

50 mm

50 mm

150 mm

drop height

300 mm

450 mm

Soil size

<20 mm

>20 mm

<20 mm

>20 mm

>20 mm

5 kg

25 kg

5 kg

25 kg

25 kg

Volume

1000 ml

2300 ml

1000 ml

2300 ml

2300 ml

Internal diam.

105 mm

152 mm

105 mm

152 mm

152 mm

115.5 mm

127 mm

115.5 mm

127 mm

127 mm

27

62

27

62

(60 s)

Soil quantity
Mould:

Internal
height
No. of layers
No. of blows per
layer

2.5.4

Effect of soil type and condition

Poulos (1988) states that there are two errors that affect degree of
compaction, which are the mismatch and the oversize correction. The mismatch error
arises when the compaction test and the field density test are not performed on the
same soil specimen. It is common practice in land-development projects to determine

19
the percent compaction of hundreds of field-density tests based on a few laboratory
compaction curves on representative samples. But minor variations in soil gradation
can cause significant errors in the degree of compaction.

The soil compaction has become more of a problem in recent years due to
increased equipment size and lack of crop rotations (Kok et. al., 1996). In continuous
mono-cropping, more tillage passes may be needed to control weeds and bury crop
residue that could foster diseases. Increased vehicle traffic increases the potential for
compaction. Increase in field size can contribute to compaction, too. Larger fields
may contain more variation in soil conditions. When working in a large field, some
sections might be dry while others are still too wet. When fields are smaller, each
field is in more uniform condition and tilled only when ready.

Whitlow (1999) explains that well-graded granular soils can be compacted to

higher densities than uniform or silty soils. Clays of high plasticity may have water
contents over 30% and achieve similar densities (and therefore strengths) to those of
lower plasticity with water contents below 20%.

Figure 2.5 Dry density versus water content curves for range of soil types

20
2.6

Atterberg Limits

Smith (1981) states that as moisture removed from fine-grained soil it passes
through a series of states, which are liquid, plastic, semi-solid and solid. The
moisture contents of a soil at the points where it passes from one stage to the next are
known as consistency limits (Atterberg limit). These limits are defined as:
i.

liquid limit (LL) the minimum moisture content at which the soil will
flow under its own weight.

ii.

plastic limit (PL) the minimum moisture content at which the soil can
be rolled into a thread 3 mm diameter without breaking up.

iii.

shrinkage limit (SL) the maximum moisture content at which further

loss of moisture does not cause a decrease in the volume of the soil.

Das (2003) mentions that when a clayey soil is mixed with an excessive
amount of water, it may flow like a semi- liquid. If the soil is gradually dried, it will
behave like a plastic, semisolid, or solid material, depending on its moisture content.
The moisture content, in percent, at which the soil changes from a liquid to a plastic
state is defined as the liquid limit (LL). Similarly, the moisture content, in percent, at
which the soil changes from a plastic to a semisolid state and from a semisolid to a
solid state are defined as the plastic limit (PL) and the shrink age limit (SL),
respectively. These limits are referred to as Atterberg limits (Figure 2.6).

The range of moisture content over which a soil is plastic is known as the
plasticity index (PI).
PI = LL PL

(2.3)

21

Figure 2.6 Changes of volume of soil with moisture content with respect to Atterberg
limits

Consistency varies with the water content of the soil. The consistency of a
soil can range from (dry) solid to semi-solid to plastic to liquid (wet). The water
contents at which the consistency changes from one state to the next are called
consistency limits (or Atterberg limits). Measures of liquid and plastic limit values
can be obtained from laboratory tests. Two of these are utilized in the classification
of fine soils:
i.

Liquid limit (LL) - change of consistency from plastic to liquid.

ii.

Plastic limit (PL)

- change of consistency from brittle/crumbly to plastic.

22

Figure 2.7 Plasticity Chart

A plasticity chart (Figure 2.7) is provided to aid classification. In the British

Standard Soil Classification fine soils are divided into ten classes based on their
measured plasticity index and liquid limit values: CLAYS are distinguished from
SILTS, and five divisions of plasticity are defined:

2.7

Low plasticity

LL = < 35%

Intermediate plasticity

LL = 35 - 50%

High plasticity

LL = 50 - 70%

Very high plasticity

LL = 70 - 90%

Extremely high plasticity

LL = > 90%

Correlation Between Compaction Parameters With Atterberg Limit

Boutwell (1961) reported that a linear relationship existed between the

maximum dry unit weight (d max) and the base 10 logarithm of the compaction energy
(log E), based on tests he conducted on a micaceous silty fine sand.

23
Hammond (1980) studied three groups of soils in Ghanna and performed a
linear regression analysis of the relationships between wopt and either wp, wL, Ip, ws,
or (% fines). Some of the expressions derived are:

For lateritic soils (predominantly clayey and sandy gravels):

wopt = 0.42 wp + 5
(2.4)

For micaceous soils (clayey silty sands, with Atterberg limits of the fines
plotted below the A line):

wopt = 0.45wp + 3.58

(2.5)

wopt = 0.5wL 6

(2.6)

For black cotton soils (silty clays):

wopt = 0.96wp - 7.7

(2.7)

A discussion of Atterberg limits correlations and comparison of results with

the compaction parameters were given by Torrey (1970). In order to determine a
mathematical relationship between the variables of interest (that is liquid limit,
plastic limit, optimum water content, maximum dry density) using the methods of
statistics, it is necessary to assume a frequency distribution between the variables. It
was assumed that there is a normal or Gaussian distribution between the variables. A
normal distribution has a very specific mathematical definition and, although the
assumption of normal distribution is reasonable, it must be pointed out that there is

24
no insurance that the assumption is valid. Additionally, it was assumed that the
relationship between the variables of interest is linear. The results of the analysis of
the data by Torrey (1970) are presented in Figures 2.8 and 2.9. It showed that the
linear correlations between optimum water content and liquid limit (shown in Figure
2.8 a) and maximum density and liquid limit (shown in Figure 2.8 b) explain only
77.6 percent and 76.3 percent, respectively, of variation between the regression line
and the data points.

The equations derived by Torrey (1970) were :

wopt = 0.240LL + 7.549

(2.8)

d max = -0.414LL + 125.704

(2.9)

wopt = 0.263PI + 12.282

(2.10)
d max = -0.449PI + 117.372
(2.11)

25

Figure 2.8

Plots of Optimum Water Content and Maximum Dry Density versus

Liquid Limit (Torrey, 1970)

26

Figure 2.9

Plots of Optimum Water Content and Maximum Dry Density versus

Plasticity Index (Torrey, 1970)

27
Hausmann (1990) states that the optimum water content increases and the
maximum dry density decreases with the increasing plasticity of the soil, as defined
by the Atterberg limits. The Design Manual (U.S. Navy (1960)), gives the
following rules of thumb in the relation to the parameters determined in standard
laboratory compaction (not modified proctor compaction):
wp 5 at wopt = 10%
wopt = (std.) =

(2.12)

wp 2 at wopt = 30%

(2.13)

Where wp is the plastic limit. Alternatively wopt and dmax for standard
compaction can be estimated from the liquid limit wL and the plasticity index Ip
defined as the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit:

wopt = 6.77 + 0.43 wL 0.21 Ip

(2.14)

dmax = 20.48 0.13 wL + 0.05 Ip

(2.15)

Al-Khafaji (1993) examined the relationship between the Atterberg limits and
soil compaction as measured by the use of the standard proctor compaction test. The
relationship of liquid limit, wL, and plastic limit, wp,, to proctor maximum dry
density, d, and optimum moisture content, wopt, were determined quantitatively for
soils from Iraq and USA. Using the curve fitting techniques, empirical equations
were derived and charts were prepared. From these it is possible to estimate the
potential optimum moisture content and maximum dry density for standard proctor
compaction from the knowledge of Atterberg limits only. The accuracy of these
charts (refer to Figures 2.10 and 2.11) is considered in relation to the basic data. He
also did the comparison for the compaction parameters of the Iraqi and the United
States soils.

28
For Iraqi soils, the following equations were derived:

dmax = 2.44 - 0.02 wp - 0.008 wL

(2.16)

wopt = 0.24 wL + 0.63 wp - 3.13.

(2.17)

and

For the US soils, the following equations were derived:

dmax = 2.27 - 0.0 19 wp - 0.003 wL

(2.18)

wopt = 0.14 wL + 0.54 wp

(2.19)

and

Where;
dmax = maximum dry density
wopt = optimum moisture content
wL = liquid limit
wp = plastic limit

Figure 2.10 Estimation of maximum dry density (d) and optimum moisture content (wopt) from Atterberg limits based on Iraqi data (AlKhafaji , 1993)
29

Figure 2.11 Estimation of maximum dry density (d) and optimum moisture content (wopt) from Atterberg limits based on U.S data (AlKhafaji, 1993)

30

31
Blotz et al. (1998) used an empirical method to describe the estimation of
maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content of clayey soils at any rational
compactive effort E. All soils were compacted using two to four compactive efforts
including Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698), Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557),
Reduced Proctor and Super-Modified Proctor. One variation of the method uses
the liquid limit (LL) and one compaction curve, whereas the other uses only the LL.
Linear relationships between d max and the logarithm of compaction energy (log E),
and wopt and log E, both of which are a function of the LL, are used to extrapolate to
different compactive energies. Data for twenty two (22) clayey soils were used to
develop the empirical relationship, and data for five additional soils were used for the
validation of the empirical relationship. The variation employing the LL and one
compaction curve is slightly more precise, with typical errors of about 1% for wopt
and 2% on d max. For the variation employing only the LL, typical errors are about
2% for wopt and 6% on d max. The equations obtained were:

Ek

2.20

Ek

2.21

d max, E d max, k 2.27 LL 0.94 log

and

w opt, E w opt, k 12.39 12.21LL log

Where :
E = Compaction energy (unknown) (kJ/m3)
Ek = Compaction energy (known) (kJ/m3)

Figure 2.12 shows relationships between dmax, wopt and LL with Reduced
Proctor (RP), Standard Proctor (SP) and Modified Proctor (MP) corresponding to
reduced, standard and modified Proctor efforts. From the research, wopt increases and
dmax decreases when the LL becomes larger. These curves can be used directly to
estimate the optimum point for standard or modified Proctor effort if the LL is
known.

32

Figure 2.12 Maximum Dry Unit Weight (Eq. 2.20) and Optimum Water
Content (Eq. 2.21) Versus Liquid Limit For Reduced (RP), Standard (SP) and
Modified (MP) Proctor Compactive Efforts (Blotz et al., 1998)

Teo (2000) has developed a relationship between compaction parameters with

liquid limit and plasticity index. Both relationships are linear single regression
equations. The equation derived are:

(a)

Correlation of optimum moisture content and Atterberg limits with

corresponding coefficient of determination, R2

OMC = 0.1411 LL + 0.0725

(R2 = 0.3755)

(2.22)

OMC = 0.1703 PI + 0.1073

(R2 = 0.1933)

(2.23)

and

(b)

Correlation of maximum dry density and Atterberg limits with corresponding

coefficient of determination, R2

33

MDD = 2.0403 0.4872 LL

(R2 = 0.5089)

(2.24)

MDD = 1.9331 0.6523 PI

(R2 = 0.3219)

(2.25)

and

Redzuan (2002) stated that the correlation of maximum dry density and
Atterberg limits is more suitable compared to optimum moisture content. The linear
relationship derived as follows:

(a)

Correlation of maximum dry density and Atterberg limits with corresponding

coefficient of determination, R2

dmax = -0.058LL + 2.0532

(R2 = 0.5091)

dmax = -0.0082PI + 1.9262

(R2 = 0.3603)

(2.26)

and

(2.27)

(b)

Correlation of optimum moisture content and Atterberg limits with

corresponding coefficient of determination, R2

wopt = 0.1821LL + 5.9869

(R2 = 0.4236)

(2.28)

wopt = 0.2494PI + 10.127

(R2 = 0.2882)

(2.29)

and

34
(c)

Correlation of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content with

corresponding coefficient of determination, R2

dmax = -0.026 wopt + 2.1526

(R2 = 0.7935)

(2.30)

Khainoriyani (2002) also found that maximum dry density has a strong
relationship with Atterberg limits compared to optimum moisture content. Following
are the linear relationships that have been developed:

(a)

Correlation of maximum dry density and Atterberg limits corresponding

coefficient of determination, R2

dmax = 2.0398 0.0057LL

(R2 = 0.5101)

(2.31)

dmax = 1.9178 - 0.0084PI

(R2 = 0.3890)

(2.32)

and

(b)

Correlation of optimum moisture content and Atterberg limits with

corresponding coefficient of determination, R2

wopt = 0.168LL + 6.8215

(R2 = 0.4320)

(2.33)

wopt = 0.2316PI + 10.792

(R2 = 0.3031)

(2.34)

and

35
(c)

Correlation of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content with

corresponding coefficient of determination, R2

dmax = -0.0258 wopt + 2.1388

(R2 = 0.7942)

(2.35)

2.8 Summary of Literature Review

Thorough the literature review, there are several relationships exist between
maximum dry density, dmax and optimum moisture content, wopt with the Atterberg
limits parameters. The review of data in the literature also reveals that a linear
relationship between maximum dry density, dmax and Atterberg limits parameters as
well as optimum moisture content, wopt with the Atterberg limits parameters exists for
cohesive soil. There are also exist linear relationships between d max and the
logarithm of compaction energy (log E), and wopt and log E for compacted cohesive
soil.

The literature also shows that there are negative regression relationships for
maximum dry density versus liquid limit and plasticity index. The maximum dry
density decreases with increasing liquid limit and plasticity index. However, the
relationships between the optimum moisture content versus liquid limit and plasticity
index are positive-regression correlated. In other words, the optimum moisture
content increases with increasing liquid limit and plasticity index.

36
Based on these findings, one can make a conclusion that there is a simple
method to predict compaction parameters, maximum dry density, dmax and optimum
moisture content, wopt based on the liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index. The
regression analysis maybe in a linear relationship or curve relationship. Thus it
means that this study has its own significance and very useful for others. However
the success of the results obtained or correlation produced depends on the method of
compaction used and the quality of the collected data.