International Conference on Advances in Civil and Environmental Engineering 2015

© Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pulau Pinang

ESTIMATING MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM

MOISTURE CONTENT OF COMPACTED SOILS

NG K.S.*, CHEW Y.M., OSMAN M.H., MOHAMAD GHAZALI S.K.

Faculty of Civil Engineering, UiTM Pulau Pinang,

13500, Permatang Pauh, Penang, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: ngkokshien@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

Abstract
Laboratory determination of compaction properties namely the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content is both time consuming and costly.
Therefore, it is useful if simple correlation equations can be developed to
estimate the compaction properties using relatively easier index properties test.
This study aims to investigate the relationship between maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content and their correlation function with index
properties. Based on the results of nine soil samples using standard proctor
compaction test, the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content
was well correlated. These two compaction properties have much better
correlation with the plasticity index than they have with other index properties.
Three best predictive models were proposed to estimate the compaction
properties based on multilinear regression (MLR) analyses. Additional variables
are included in the MLR analyses such as grain size distribution and specific
gravity other than the index properties. The recommended model requires only
the plasticity index and specific gravity.
Keywords: Maximum dry density, Optimum moisture content, Index properties,
Regression analyses

1. Introduction
Compaction of soil by mechanical mean is a common soil modification method to
improve the engineering properties of soils. The effectiveness of the compaction
LVXVXDOO\PHDVXUHGE\WKHVRLO¶VPRLVWXUHFRQWHQWDQGGU\GHQVLW\LQUHIHUHQFHGWR
maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC).
Understanding of the soil compaction properties (MDD and OMC) is important in
construction project such as earth dams, road and railway embankments, landfill
liners and backfills of retaining structure. However, considerable of time and
effort are required in the laboratory tests in order to obtain the compaction

B-1
B-2 K.S. Ng et al.

Nomenclatures

E Compaction energy
F Fines
G Gravel
R Coefficient of correlation
S Sand
Gs Specific gravity

Abbreviations
LL Liquid limit
MDD Maximum dry density
MLR Multilinear regression
OMC Optimum moisture content
PI Plasticity index
PL Plastic limit
SE Standard error

properties. It would be useful if predictive models can be developed to relate the

compaction properties with the physical properties of soils which can be obtained
easily.
Few prediction models can be found in the literature to predict the compaction
properties of soil based on several geotechnical properties such as grain size,
plastic limit (PL), liquid limit (LL), plasticity index (PI) specific gravity (Gs) and
compaction energy (E). Based on the compaction results of 22 clayey soils, Blotz
et al. [1] discovered that the compaction properties were best correlated with
liquid limit and thus proposing the following relationships:
MDDB (2.27 log LL  0.94) log E  0.16 LL  17.02 (1)

OMCB (12.39 12.21log LL) log E  0.67 LL  9.21 (2)

On the other hand, Sridharan& Nagaraj [2] developed the prediction model for
standard proctor test using only plastic limit:
MDDR 0.23 (93.3  PL) (3)

OMCR 0.92 PL (4)

Meanwhile, Noor et al. [3] incorporated plastic limit, plasticity index and
specific gravity to predict the compaction properties of the standard proctor test.
The relationships are presented as:
Gs
MDDN 27  PL0.6  PI 0.33  (5)
2.7
Gs
OMCN 0.55 PL  0.36 PI  (6)
2.7
The aim of the current study is to develop empirical predictive models based
on regression equations to estimate the maximum dry density and the optimum
moisture content using standard proctor (SP) test data. The statistical data consist
 B-3

of consistency indexes (LL, PL & PI), grain size distribution (gravel, sand and
fines content percentages) and specific gravity (Gs).

2. Materials and methods

Nine soil samples were collected from various sites in Penang and fall in the ML
and MH regions of the plasticity chart. The fines content ranges from 34% to 91%
while the LL ranges from 43% to 52% and plastic limit ranges from 26% to 34%.
Basic tests such as particle size distribution, specific gravity and Atterberg limits
were performed according to British Standard practice (BS 1377) [4]. All soils
were compacted using standard proctor test procedure with compaction energy of
592.5 kJ/m3. The results of these geotechnical properties tests are summarized in
Table 1 and are used in the multilinear regression (MLR) analyses. The accuracy
of the results by MLR is verified with statistical tool such as the coefficient of
correlation (R) and the standard error (SE).

Table 1. Experimental results used in the current study.

No. Gravel Sand Silt Clay Fines LL PL PI Gs OMC MDD
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (Mg/m3)
Soil 1 7 39 41 13 54 43 27 16 2.55 18 1.66
Soil 2 9 46 36 9 45 53 34 19 2.45 24 1.47
Soil 3 3 28 50 19 69 51 33 18 2.56 24 1.48
Soil 4 1 8 64 27 91 47 30 17 2.57 19.5 1.60
Soil 5 20 46 31 3 34 44 28 16 2.56 14 1.72
Soil 6 0 25 40 35 75 46 29 17 2.54 17 1.57
Soil 7 10 46 32 12 44 42 26 16 2.55 17 1.65
Soil 8 26 30 26 18 44 43 28 15 2.58 14.5 1.72
Soil 9 20 46 23 11 34 41 26 15 2.60 13.5 1.74

3. Maximum dry density versus optimum moisture content

The plot of maximum dry density versus optimum moisture content for nine
samples is presented in Fig. 1. The maximum dry density reduces as the optimum
moisture content increases. The correlation of the maximum dry density and the
optimum moisture content is strong (Coefficient of correlation, R = 0.91) and the
relationship can be well represented as a linear equation:
MDD 2.065  0.024 OMC (7)

Fig. 1. Maximum dry density versus optimum moisture content.

B-4 K.S. Ng et al.

The above equation gives the maximum SE of 5.5 % for soil no.7. The
compaction properties in the current study are further compared with the power
function equations developed by Sivrikaya et al. [5] and Matteo et al. [6] (shown
as Eq. 8 and Eq. 9 respectively) and the results are presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
Both prediction models over predict the maximum dry density with the maximum
discrepancies of 11% in the former model and 8% in the latter model.
MDDS 23.72 e0.0184OMC (8)
MDDM 36.635 OMC0.2564 (9)

Fig. 2. Comparison with model Fig. 3. Comparison with model

proposed by Sivrikaya et al. [5]. proposed by Matteo et al. [6].

4. Compaction properties and index properties

In this study, the correlations of MDD and OMC with Atterberg limit are given in
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. It is clear that as the index properties (i.e. LL, PL, & PI)
increases, the maximum dry density reduces and the optimum moisture content
increases. The maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content have a
considerably good correlation with plasticity index in comparison to liquid limit
and plastic limit. This study also shows that liquid limit has a better correlation
than plastic limit. It is found that the linear correlation of MDD with PI has an R
of 0.96 while it is R = 0.92 for correlation between OMC and PI. The relation
equations for MDD and OMC with PI are established as the following:
MDD 2.845  0.073 PI       (10)
OMC 2.726 PI  27.19       (11)

The compaction properties from this study are compared with different
prediction models (Eq. 1 ± 6) as shown in Fig. 6-8. Generally, Noor et al. [3]
gives the best prediction for MDD with the average error (i.e. bias) of 0.008
Mg/m3 compared to Blotz et al. [1] and Sridharan & Nagaraj [2] with the average
error of 0.166 Mg/m3 and 0.115 Mg/m3 UHVSHFWLYHO\2YHUDOO%ORW]HWDO¶VPRGHO
predicts higher MDD with the maximum error of 16.8% while Sridharan &
Nagaraj [2] under predict MDD as much as 11.1%. On the other hand, OMC is
best predicted by Blotz et al.[1] with the average error of 0.04% while the average
error for Noor et al. [3] is 3%. Sridharan & Nagaraj [2] significantly over predicts
the OMC with average error of 8.7%. The large discrepancies of this prediction is
because the correlation (i.e. Eq. 4) is solely based on plastic limit which the
current results viz. Fig. 5 has shown that plastic limit is not well correlated to
OMC compared to plasticity index and liquid limit.
 B-5

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 4. (a) MDD versus LL, (b) MDD vs PL, and (c) MDD vs PI.

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 5. (a) OMD versus LL, (b) OMD vs PL, and (c) OMD vs PI.
B-6 K.S. Ng et al.

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Comparison of current study with Blotz et al. [1].

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Comparison of current study with Sridharan & Nagaraj [2].

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Comparison of current study with Noor et al. [3].

5. Multilinear regression analyses

Besides correlation with index properties, the relationship of compaction
properties (MDD and OMC) with other properties such as grain size distribution
and specific gravity were investigated in this study. Multilinear regression (MLR)
analyses are performed by the method of least squares where OMC and MDD are
the dependent variables while gravel (G), sand (S), fines (F), liquid limit (LL),
plastic limit (PL), plasticity index (PI) and specific gravity (Gs) are the
 B-7

independent variables. The unit for all variables are in the percentage except the
unit for MDD is Mg/m3 and specific gravity is non unit variable. In this study,
several models are constructed and three best fit models are shown in Table 2 for
estimating MDD and Table 3 for estimating OMC. In these relationships, the
correlation of coefficient (R) and standard error (SE) are determined to verify the
accuracy from a statistical point of view. Among these models, model no.3 is
relatively easy since it requires only plasticity index and specific gravity which
the tests only require small amount of soil sample and easy to carry out. Hence,
model no. 3 is recommended.

Table 2. Correlation Equation for MDD.

Model Correlation equations R SE
no. (Mg/m3)
1 MDD = 0.0285G + 0.0273S+ 0.0270F ± 0.0666PI 1.0 0.03
2 MDD = 0.0219G + 0.02347S + 0.02457F ± 1.0 0.03
0.01854LL
3 MDD = -0.0475PI + 0.9443G 1.0 0.05

Table 3. Correlation Equation for OMC.

Model Correlation equations R SE
no. (%)
1 OMC = -0.2929G ± 0.1174S ± 0.1551F + 0.998 1.70
0.7378LL
2 OMC = -0.2646G ± 0.2612S ± 0.2452F + 0.997 1.91
2.6111PI
3 OMC = 2.4480PI - 8.8502G 0.996 1.74

6. Conclusion
Maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) are
important compaction properties used for field compaction control. This study
investigated the relationship between the compaction properties and the index
properties of fine grained soils for standard proctor test. Multilinear regression
(MLR) analyses were conducted to develop predictive model from a statistical
point of view to estimate MDD and OMC. Several conclusions can be made from
this study:

i) Maximum dry density was well correlated with optimum moisture content.
ii) MDD and OMC were best correlated with plasticity index (PI) compared to
liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL).
iii) Correlation equations by Sivrikaya et al. [5] and Matteo et al. [2] over
predicted MDD when the values for OMC are known.
iv) Predictive model by Noor et al. [3] gave the best estimation for MDD while
OMC was best predicted by Blotz et al. [1] work.
v) MLR analyses provide reliable predictive models and Model no.3 which only
involve index properties and specific gravity (Gs) is recommended. However,
these models should be limited to soils with similar characteristics as the soil
in this study and more samples are needed to improve the prediction with
broader scope in terms of OMC, MDD, LL, PI, and Gs.
B-8 K.S. Ng et al.

References
1. Blotz, L. R.; Benson, C. H.; and Boutwell, G. P. (1998). Estimating optimum
water content and maximum dry unit. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 907±912.
2. Sridharan, A.; and Nagaraj, H. B. (2005). Plastic limit and compaction
characteristics of finegrained soils. Proceedings of the ICE-Ground
Improvement, 9(1), 17-22.
3. Noor, S. C. (2011). Estimation of proctor of compacted fine grained soils
fron index and physical properties. International Journal of Earth Sciences
and Engineering, 4, 147 - 150.
4. Standard, B. 1377 (1990). Methods of Test for soils for civil Engineering
Purposes. British Standards Institution, London.
5. Sivrikaya, O.; Togrol, E.; and Kayadelen, C. (2008). Estimating compaction
behavior of fine-grained soils based on compaction energy. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 45(6), 877-887.
6. Matteo, L. Di; Ph, D.; Bigotti, F.; and Ricco, R. (2009). Best-Fit Models to
Estimate Standard Proctor Properties of Compacted Soil. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 992±996.