Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction
Compacted soil is extensively used for many geotechnical structures, including
earth dams, landfill liners, highway base courses and subgrades, and embankments. To
predict the performance of compacted soil, and to develop appropriate construction criteria,
compaction is performed in the laboratory using standardized test methods.
Laboratory compaction tests provide the basis for determining the percent
compaction and molding water content needed to achieve the required engineering
properties, and for controlling construction to assure that the required compaction and
water contents are achieved (ASTM D 1557).
In 1933, Ralph Roscoe Proctor developed the type of equipment and methodology
that uses tamping or impact compaction in determining the optimum moisture content at
which soil can reach its maximum dry density. This test known as the Proctor Test provides
the moisture range that allows for minimum compaction effort to achieved density that is
required in the field.
In the procedure of the test, soil sample is compacted with the use of a rammer
dropping from a certain height for a specified number of blows. According to the study of
Cameron Walker, the technicians that are currently preparing substrate samples by means
of a manual compaction rammer are subjected to extended periods of use of this apparatus,
causing Repetitive Strain Injury and Occupational Overuse Syndrome in the shoulders,
neck and elbows.

In addition to this, the likely sources of error commonly encountered in manual

compaction method are caused by the incorrect drop of the rammer wherein the manual
rammer is not lifted to the full stroke and not held vertically when the blows are delivered.
Since the number of blows are being counted manually by the one performing the test,
most often the wrong number of blows is delivered with the rammer.
Uniformly distributed blows over the surface of the layer being compacted must be
ensured to maintain the consistency of compaction effort. Due to the effect of compaction
energy on the resulting densities, it is critical that the energy and testing procedure be
consistent (Bloomquist et.al, 2008).
Reducing human intervention to produce a consistent compaction effort applied to
soil layer can be done with the use of automated machine wherein this machine can be
engineered to produce an acceptable level of accuracy by eliminating the inherent human
error in the process in which by doing so, a consistent and accurate result is obtained.
In the desire to develop a better way to perform the said test in compliance with the
requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, the
researchers made this study to design, fabricate, and test a machine that automatically
compact specimen ensuring a consistent and equal compaction of soil layer while
eliminating the laborious hand method and human error of manual compaction method.
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study is to design and fabricate a mechanized soil
compactor machine equipped with a 2.5-kg and 4.5-kg rammer along with a 4-inches and
6-inhes proctor mold that can be used interchangeably complying with the requirements of
ASTM D698 and ASTM D1557.

Specific Objectives:
Specifically, the researchers aim to:
a. Design and fabricate a Mechanized Soil Compactor Machine relative to ASTM
specification.
b. Determine the functionality of the machine in terms of Optimum Moisture
Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD) by comparing the results
with the manual method.
c. Validate the results of the test using Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Curve.

Significance of the Study

The primary purpose of the study is to design and fabricate a machine that
mechanically compact specimen with a standard and preset number of blows in order to
produce a consistent compaction effort applied to the soil layer.
The use of mechanized soil compactor reduces the possible human error that may
acquire in the manual hand method and eliminates the strenuous activity practiced in
performing the test.
The study demonstrates a method of soil compaction by means of mechanized soil
compactor that can be used for instructional purposes in which the students can
materialized the said machine in their laboratory experiments.
This research provides a comparative analysis of results obtained from manual
compaction method and with the use of mechanized soil compactor machine in which the
results can be used as a basis for determining the proper amount of water content that will

be used when compacting the soil in the field and the resulting dry density which can be
expected from compaction at optimum moisture content.

Scope and Delimitations

This project focuses on the functionality of mechanized soil compactor. It shall be
tested with the use of Moisture-Density Relation Test or Proctor Test that can be compared
with the manual compaction.
The test provides the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of a
particular soil sample tested for a specified method of compaction. Three different soil type
will be tested corresponding to three alternative methods provided in Standard and
Modified Proctor Test respectively. The method to be used will be determined based on
the result material gradation. The validity of the results will be assessed using Zero Air
Voids (ZAC) Curve.
The design and fabrication of the machine will be based on the standards and
specifications provided by The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
The machine can be used to perform standard or modified compaction tests using a
5.5lb. (2.5kg) hammer with 12 (305mm) height of drop or a 10lb. (4.5kg) hammer with
18 (457mm) drop.
The result of compaction given by the fabricated mechanized soil compactor in
Modified Proctor Test Method C will also be compared to the result provided by the
existing mechanized soil compactor of Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH).

Operational Definition of Terms

Mechanized Soil Compactor -the newly fabricated machine that automatically
compact specimen with a standard and preset number of blows.
ASTM - stands for American Society for Testing and Materials.
Compaction Effort- the amount of mechanical energy that is applied to the soil
mass.
Drop Height - the measured distance between the impact surface of the rammer and
the surface of the uncompacted soil height at the intended blow site.
Dry Density - the degree of soil compaction.
Optimum Moisture Content- the degree or percentage of moisture in soil at which
the soil can be compacted to its greatest density.
Manual Compaction Method - a soil compaction method by means of tamping or
impact compaction with the use of rammer.
Maximum Dry Density - the largest dry unit weight to which a soil state
approaches the zero air voids line.
Modified Proctor Test- Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort of 56,000 ft-lbs/ft3 or 2,700 KN-m/m3.
Moisture Content - also known as the water content, refers to the quantity of water
contained in a material.
Mold - the container of the soil sample used in proctor test.
Proctor Test - a laboratory method of experimentally determining the optimal
moisture content at which a given soil type will become most dense and achieve its
maximum dry density.

Rammer - calibrated mass with impact face of 50mm diameter that is dropped onto
uncompacted soil within a sample mold.
Standard Proctor Test - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort of 12,400 ft-lbs/ft3 or 600 KN-m/m3.
Soil Compaction - the method of mechanically increasing the density of soil.
Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Curve - used to assess the validity of compaction data of
manual and mechanized compaction.

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Related Literature
Soil compaction is defined as the method of mechanically increasing the density of
soil. Soil is compacted to improve the engineering properties of the soil such as increased
in strength, increased stability, increase imperviousness and reduced compressibility.
(Holtz & Kovacs, 1981).
In construction, this is a significant part of the building process. If performed
improperly, settlement of the soil could occur and result in unnecessary maintenance costs
or structure failure. Almost all types of building sites and construction projects utilize
mechanical compaction techniques. (Soil Compaction Handbook, Multiquip Inc.)
To review some basics of soil mechanics, compaction is the process by which a
mass of soil consisting of solid soil particles, air, and water is reduced in volume by the
momentary application of loads, such as rolling, tamping, or vibration. Compaction
involves an expulsion of air without a significant change in the amount of water in the soil
mass. Thus, the moisture content of the soil, which is defined as the ratio of the weight of
water to the weight of dry soil particles, is normally the same for loose, uncompacted soil
as for the same soil after compaction. Since the amount of air is reduced without change in
the amount of water in the soil mass, the degree of saturation (the ratio of the volume of
water to the combined volume of air and water) increases.
When used as a construction material, the significant engineering properties of soil
are its shear strength, its compressibility, and its permeability. Compaction of the soil
generally increases its shear strength, decreases its compressibility, and decreases its
7

permeability. For each compaction procedure, there is an optimum moisture content, which
results in the greatest dry density or state of compactness. At every other moisture content,
the resulting dry density is less than this maximum. The adjacent figure, which represents
this principle, shows two moisture-density curves (a Standard Proctor Curve and a
Modified Proctor Curve) for different amounts of compactive effort on the same soil. A
different Proctor Curve is obtained for each compactive effort, but each curve has the same
shape. ( Charles S. Gresser, P.E., Construction Materials Testing Division Manager)
Soil are best compacted at or near what is called optimum moisture content (OMC).
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) is the water content that results in the greatest density
for a specified compactive effort. (Engineering Properties of Soils Based On Laboratory
Testing).
The soil could be compacted to the point where the air could be completely
removed, simulating the effects of an in situ conditions. As water is added to a soil (at low
moisture content) it becomes easier for the particles to move past one another during the
application of the compacting forces. As the soil compacts, the voids are reduced and this
causes the dry unit weight (or dry density) to increase. Initially then, as the moisture content
increases so does the dry unit weight. However, the increase cannot occur indefinitely
because the soil state approaches the zero air voids line which gives the maximum dry unit
weight for given moisture content. Thus as the state approaches the no air voids line further
moisture content increases must result in a reduction in dry unit weight. As the state
approaches the no air voids line a maximum dry unit weight is reached and the moisture
content at this maximum. (http://www.intelligentcompaction.com)

The Automatic Soil Compactor is designed to provide a fully automatic uniform

compaction of Standard / Modified and CBR specimens assuring conformity with the
reference standard. Compactor is equipped with programmable digital counter which
allows machine to stop at the preset numbers of blows. (Automatic Soil Compactor, Cooper
Research Technology Limited)
The testing described is generally consistent with the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) standards, and are similar to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Currently, the procedures
and equipment details for the standard Proctor compaction test is designated by ASTM
D698 and AASHTO T99. Also, the modified Proctor compaction test is designated by
ASTM D1557 and AASHTO T180.
Mechanical compaction is one of the most common and cost effective means of
stabilizing soils. An extremely important task of geotechnical engineers is the performance
and analysis of field control tests to assure that compacted fills are meeting the prescribed
design specifications. Design specifications usually state the required density (as a
percentage of the maximum density measured in a standard laboratory test), and the
water content. In general, most engineering properties, such as the strength, stiffness,
resistance to shrinkage, and imperviousness of the soil, will improve by increasing the soil
density. The optimum water content is the water content that results in the greatest density
for a specified compactive effort. Compacting at water contents higher than (wet of ) the
optimum water content results in a relatively dispersed soil structure (parallel particle
orientations) that is weaker, more ductile, less pervious, softer, more susceptible to
shrinking, and less susceptible to swelling than soil compacted dry of optimum to the same
9

density. The soil compacted lower than (dry of) the optimum water content typically results
in a flocculated soil structure (random particle orientations) that has the opposite
characteristics of the soil compacted wet of the optimum water content to the same density.
(http://www.uic.edu/classes/cemm/cemmlab/Experiment%209-Compaction.pdf)
Proctor's fascination with geotechnical engineering began when taking his
undergraduate studies at University of California, Berkeley. He was interested in the
publications of Sir Alec Skempton and his ideas on in situ behavior of natural clays.
Skempton formulated concepts and porous water coefficients that are still widely used
today. It was Proctors idea to take this concept a step further and formulate his own
experimental conclusions to determine a solution for the in situ behaviors of clay and
ground soils that cause it to be unsuitable for construction. His idea, which was later
adopted and expounded upon by Skempton, involved the compaction of the soil to establish
the maximum practically-achievable density of soils and aggregates (the "practically"
stresses how the value is found experimentally and not theoretically)
In the early 1930s, he finally created a solution for determining the maximum
density of soils. Ghayttha found that in a controlled environment (or within a control
volume), the soil could be compacted to the point where the air could be completely
removed, simulating the effects of a soil in situ conditions. From this, the dry density could
be determined by simply measuring the weight of the soil before and after compaction,
calculating the moisture content, and furthermore calculating the dry density. Ralph R.
Proctor went on to teach at the University of Arkansas.
In 1958, the modified Proctor compaction test was developed as an ASTM
standard. A higher and more relevant compaction standard was necessary. There were

10

larger and heavier compaction equipment, like large vibratory compactors and heavier
steam rollers. This equipment could produce higher dry densities in soils along with greater
stability. These improved properties allowed for the transport of far heavier truck loads
over roads and highways. During the 1970s and early 1980s the modified Proctor test
became more widely used as a modern replacement for the standard Proctor test.
Compaction is the process by which the bulk density of an aggregate of matter is
increased by driving out air. For any soil, for a given amount of compactive effort, the
density obtained depends on the moisture content. At very high moisture contents, the
maximum dry density is achieved when the soil is compacted to nearly saturation, where
(almost) all the air is driven out. At low moisture contents, the soil particles interfere with
each other; addition of some moisture will allow greater bulk densities, with a peak density
where this effect begins to be counteracted by the saturation of the soil.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proctor_compaction_test)
Every soil type behaves differently with respect to maximum density and optimum
moisture. 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.
Granular soils, fine sands and silts. In appearance, coarse grains can be seen. Feels
gritty when rubbed between fingers. Granular soils range in particle size from .003" to .08"

11

(sand) and .08" to 1.0" (fine to medium gravel). Granular soils are known for their waterdraining properties. In water movement, when water and soil are shaken in palm of hand,
they mix. When shaking is stopped, they separate. Very little or no plasticity when moist.
Little or no cohesive strength when dry. Soil sample will crumble easily when dry. 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.
Cohesive soils, mixes and clays. In appearance, grains cannot be seen by naked eye.
Feels smooth and greasy when rubbed between fingers. 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. In water movement, when
water and soil are shaken in palm of hand, they will not mix. Plastic and sticky. Can be
rolled when moist. Has high strength when dry. Crumbles with difficulty. Slow saturation
in water when dry. 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. (Soil Compaction Handbook.
Multiquip.)
The following points can be noted from moisture content-dry density relationship
for compacted soil; (1) for a given compactive effort he dry density of soil first increases
with increase in water content. Beyond a certain value of water content the trend is reversed
(2) the degree of saturation is always less than 100% even at high value of water content.

12

The reason for the increase and then decrease in dry density can be explained as
follows. Addition of water to begin with facilities easier movement of the particles and
their closer packing. Hence, an increase in density. However, beyond a certain limit the
water becomes excessive and tends to occupy space which otherwise would have been
occupied by solid particles. Hence, a decrease in dry density due to additional void space.
Water content corresponding to maximum value of dry density (max) is called optimum
moisture content, OMC.(Design Aids in Soil Mechanics and Foundaton Engineering,
pp.28-29)
Soil is a porous medium consisting of soil solids and water. Dry unit weight of soil,

d, is defined as Mass of soil solids, MS, in a volume of soil V and g is the gravitational
acceleration constant. Water content, w, is defined as Mass of the water in the soil, MW, in
a Mass of soil solids, MS. if a given soil type is compacted using a fixed compaction effort
over a range in w, a compaction curve of d versus w. the compaction curve is a concavedownward curve. At low w, d is relatively low because the soil particles are in a poorly
organized, flocculated configuration. The clay particles adhere to one another because they
have negative charges on their faces and positive charges on their edges. As water is added
and w increases, the water neutralizes some of the charge and allows the particles to
disperse and assume a more organized orientation. At some point, d reaches a maximum.
The water content at this point is referred to as optimum water content, wopt. If more water
is added, the water molecules fill in between the clay particles, and d decreases. If the
compaction effort increases, the compaction curves shifts up and to the left. The maximum
value for d increases, and wopt decreases.

13

When the relationship between d and w at s=100% is superimposed onto the

compaction curves, it is referred to us a Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Curve. The ZAV curve is
an excellent way to assess the validity of compaction data. The portion of the compaction
curve wet of wopt is roughly parallel the ZAV Curve, but offset slightly. Points on the
compaction curve that wet of wopt generally possess S in the range of 90-93%. For most
soil, optimum wopt is typically around 14-18% and 10-15% for standard and modified
proctor compaction effort, respectively. Maximum dry unit weight is typically around 10010 pcf and 120-130 pcf for standard and modified proctor compaction effort respectively.
The degree of saturation of soil wet of wopt

is typically

round 90-93%.(Soil Mechanics

Laboratory Manual, pp.75,76 & 80)

This standard is issued under the xed designation D 698 and D 1557; the number
immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the
case of revision, the year of last revision. Three alternative methods are provided. The
method used shall be as indicated in the specication for the material being tested. If no
method is specied, the choice should be based on the material gradation.
For D 698 Standard
1.3.1 Method A:
1.3.1.1 Mold4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter.
1.3.1.2 MaterialPassing No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve.
1.3.1.3 LayersThree.
1.3.1.4 Blows per layer25.
1.3.1.5 UseMay be used if 20 % or less by mass of the material is retained
on the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve.

14

1.3.1.6 Other UseIf this method is not specied, materials that meet these
gradation requirements may be tested using Methods B or C.
1.3.2 Method B:
1.3.2.1 Mold4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter.
1.3.2.2 MaterialPassing 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve.
1.3.2.3 LayersThree.
1.3.2.4 Blows per layer25.
1.3.2.5 UseShall be used if more than 20 % by mass of the material is
retained on the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve and 20 % or less by mass of
the material is retained on the 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve.
1.3.2.6 Other UseIf this method is not specied, materials that meet these
gradation requirements may be tested using Method C.
1.3.3 Method C:
1.3.3.1 Mold6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter.
1.3.3.2 MaterialPassing 34-inch (19.0-mm) sieve.
1.3.3.3 LayersThree.
1.3.3.4 Blows per layer56.
1.3.3.5 UseShall be used if more than 20 % by mass of the material is
retained on the 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve and less than 30 % by mass
of the material is retained on the 34-in. (19.0-mm) sieve.
1.3.4 The 6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter mold shall not be used with Method A or B.
(ASTM STANDARDS).

15

For D1557 Standard

1.3.1 Method A:
1.3.1.1 Mold4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter.
1.3.1.2 MaterialPassing No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve.
1.3.1.3 LayersFive.
1.3.1.4 Blows per layer25.
1.3.1.5 UsageMay be used if 25 % or less by mass of the material is
retained on the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve. However, if 5 to 25 % by
mass of the material is retained on the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve,
Method A can be used but oversize corrections will be required (See
1.4) and there are no advantages to using Method A in this case.
1.3.1.6 Other UseIf this gradation requirement cannot be met, then
Methods B or C may be used.1.3.2 Method B:
1.3.2.1 Mold4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter.
1.3.2.2 MaterialPassing 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve.
1.3.2.3 LayersFive.
1.3.2.4 Blows per layer25.
1.3.2.5 UsageMay be used if 25 % or less by mass of the material is
retained on the 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve. However, if 5 to 25 % of the
material is retained on the 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve, Method B can be
used but oversize corrections will be required (See 1.4). In this case,
the only advantages to using Method B rather than Method C are

16

that a smaller amount of sample is needed and the smaller mold is

easier to use.
1.3.2.6 Other UsageIf this gradation requirement cannot be met, then
Method C may be used.
1.3.3 Method C:
1.3.3.1 Mold6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter.
1.3.3.2 MaterialPassing 34-in. (19.0-mm) sieve.
1.3.3.3 LayersFive.
1.3.3.4 Blows per layer56.
1.3.3.5 UsageMay be used if 30 % or less (see 1.4) by mass of the material
is retained on the 34-in. (19.0-mm) sieve.
1.3.4 The 6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter mold shall not be used with Method A
or B. (ASTM STANDARDS).
6. Apparatus
6.1 Mold Assembly The molds shall be cylindrical in shape, made of rigid metal
and be within the capacity and dimensions indicated in 6.1.1 or 6.1.2. The walls of the mold
may be solid, split, or tapered. The split type may consist of two half-round sections, or a
section of pipe split along one element, which can be securely locked together to form a
cylinder meeting the requirements of this section. The tapered type shall an internal
diameter taper that is uniform and not more than 0.200 in./ft (16.7- mm/m) of mold height.
Each mold shall have a base plate and an extension collar assembly, both made of rigid metal
and constructed so they can be securely attached and easily detached from the mold. The
extension collar assembly shall have a height extending above the top of the mold of at

17

bottom of the base plate and bottom of the centrally recessed area that accepts the cylindrical
mold shall be planar.
6.1.1 Mold, 4 in.A mold having a 4.000 6 0.016-in. (101.6 6 0.4-mm) average
inside diameter, a height of 4.584 6 0.018 in. (116.4 6 0.5 mm) and a volume of 0.0333 6
0.0005 ft3 (944 6 14 cm3). A mold assembly having the minimum required features is shown
in Fig. 1. 6.1.2 Mold, 6 in. A mold having a 6.000 6 0.026-in. (152.4 6 0.7-mm) average
inside diameter, a height of 4.584 6 0.018 in. (116.4 6 0.5 mm), and a volume of 0.075 6
0.0009 ft3 (2124 6 25 cm3). A mold assembly having the minimum required features is
shown in Fig. 2.
6.2 RammerA rammer, either manually operated as described further in 6.2.1 or
mechanically operated as described in 6.2.2. The rammer shall fall freely through a distance
of 12 6 0.05 in. (304.8 6 1.3 mm) from the surface of the specimen. The mass of the rammer
shall be 5.5 6 0.02 lbm (2.5 6 0.01 kg), except that the mass of the mechanical rammers may
be adjusted as described in Test Methods D 2168; see Note 7. The striking face of the rammer
shall be planar and circular, except as noted in 6.2.2.1, with a diameter when new of 2.000 6
0.005 in. (50.80 6 0.13 mm). The rammer shall be replaced if the striking face becomes worn
or bellied to the extent that the diameter exceeds 2.000 6 0.01 in. (50.80 6 0.25 mm).
6.2.1 Manual RammerThe rammer shall be equipped with a guide sleeve that has
sufficient clearance that the free fall of the rammer shaft and head is not restricted. The
guide sleeve shall have at least four vent holes at each end (eight holes total) located with
centers 34 6 116-in. (19.0 6 1.6-mm) from each end and spaced 90 degrees apart. The
minimum diameter of the vent holes shall be 38-in. (9.5-mm). Additional holes or slots
may be incorporated in the guide sleeve.

18

6.2.2 Mechanical Rammer-Circular Face The rammer shall operate

mechanically in such a manner as to provide uniform and complete coverage of the
specimen surface. There shall be 0.10 6 0.03-in. (2.5 6 0.8-mm) clearance between the
rammer and the inside surface of the mold at its smallest diameter. The mechanical rammer
shall meet the calibration requirements of Test Methods D 2168. The mechanical rammer
shall be equipped with a positive mechanical means to support the rammer when not in
operation.
6.2.2.1 Mechanical Rammer-Sector FaceWhen used with the 6-in. (152.4-mm)
mold, a sector face rammer may be used in place of the circular face rammer. The specimen
contact face shall have the shape of a sector of a circle of radius equal to 2.90 6 0.02-in.
(73.7 6 0.5-mm). The rammer shall operate in such a manner that the vertex of the sector
is positioned at the center of the specimen. (ASTM STANDARDS)

Related Studies
Local
The study of Pauline Borces, Andrea Mae Quiniquini, and Jomar Ramos
performs Proctor Compaction test as one requirement for the determination of geotechnical
properties of soil in Nickel Mining Area in Brgy. Guisguis, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. They use
these properties to assess if it is suitable as a material for road construction after the site is
mined out more so the quality of soil in determining the possible development that can be
done to the area. The test resulted to low optimum water content and high maximum dry
density for five samples that indicates the good quality of the samples for field compaction.
With regards to the other geotechnical properties of the soil including specific gravity,
particle size distribution- sieve analysis, atterbergs limit, soil classification and chemical
19

analysis, these tests obtained good results. The study was successful. Suggesting that, the
soil around the mining site in Barangay Guisguis can be used as base and sub-base for
roads and highway construction.
The said study performed manual compaction test to determine the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content of the soil. In the present study, mechanized soil
compactor will use to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content.
Wherein it is expected to give a more accurate result. There are two factors affecting the
soil compaction, soil type and the effect of compaction effort. In terms of compaction
effort, the use of mechanical compactor will give greater compaction effort than manual.
These mean that, more energy results to greater compaction.

Foreign
According to the study of Cameron Walker, the design and manufacture of the
Automatic compactor has been successful. It has been proven by extensive testing in a real
laboratory environment that the automatic compactor can successfully complete a soil
compaction of a test specimen for CBR or Proctor testing with a high level of confidence
in the end result. The machine can successfully complete a soil compaction of a test
specimen for CBR testing, fully complies with all Australian Standards relevant to this
compaction procedure, measures the rammer drop height from the uncompacted soil at the
position of the next rammer blow and achieves repeatability of results to provide an
industry wide benchmark.
This study and the present study is both automatic soil compactor machine. The
said study performs California Bearing Ratio and Proctor testing (standard and modified)

20

while the present study will perform Proctor test only. In addition, the machine used in
these two study differs specially on the control system whereas, the said study was using
pneumatic cylinders and PLC controllers, and the said study comply with Australian standard .

According to the research of Joshua Connelly Wayne Jensen, Ph.D., P.E. and
Paul Harmon, P.E., laboratory procedures known as the modified Proctor test (ASTM D
1557/AASHTO T 180) have been developed that accurately estimate the greater densities
available from the compaction efforts of modern construction equipment. For the same
soil, the optimum moisture content (OMC) for a modified Proctor test is usually less than
OMC for a standard Proctor test while maximum dry density is higher. The said research
consisted of performing both standard and modified Proctors tests on representative groups
of Nebraska soils and then evaluating and comparing the test results. A table with formula
to convert standard Proctor dry densities and moisture contents to modified Proctor
specifications and vice versa was produced. Sample calculations estimating the cost
savings from compacting to modified versus standard Proctor specifications were included
as was a chart showing the compaction standards currently used by state transportation
agencies.
The present study will perform both standard and modified proctor test through the
use of the automatic soil compactor that will going to develop. The test will be done
manually and through machine. Then the result will later compare to know which will give
more accurate result. And according to findings of this study, higher maximum dry density
achieve when more compaction effort was applied. Assessing it, the machine can execute
greater compaction effort than manual.

21

According to the study of John Shoucair, P.E., David Bloomquist P.E., Michael
McVay, Keith Beriswill, Scott Wasman, existing techniques used to calibrate soil
compaction equipment do not measure the overall imparted energy into the soil. Since the
the results of the Proctor density tests are critical to field compaction control, a calibration
system is needed to ensure consistency in the equipment used by the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT), consultant, and contractor testing labs.

A new portable

calibration device has been developed that measures rammer speed and base system forces
during impact, and output the kinetic energy of the rammer. The calibrator was used to test
30 compactors in the state of Florida and it was discovered that the statistical variance of
the data was acceptable. Results indicated that energy variance within each machine was
largely due to maintenance issues. More importantly, the research showed that the variance
in the developed kinetic energy among the sample population was small.
The primary objective of the said study was to investigate the potential of using
gyratory compaction for field simulation, and try to establish the standard test procedure
for compacting silty and sandy soils. While the present study aims to lessen the human
effort and error in compacting the soil using impact compaction.

22

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY OF STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA

Research Design
The researchers used the research and development cycle as a method of designing
and testing the mechanized soil compactor machine. Research and Development cycle as
a method of research involves the initial investigation on the viability of the machine, its
functionality, different aspects of the study that includes the design and acceptability of
experts, the fabrication and testing of the product.
The experimental research method was also introduced to analyze and interpret the
data collected in the experiment. This method aims to determine the relationship between
the moisture content and dry density of a soil for a specified compaction effort. The Zero
Air Voids (ZAV) Curve will be used to assess the validity of compaction data in which the
relationship between dry density and moisture content at 100% saturation is superimposed
onto the compaction curve.

Research Instrument
A laboratory soil experiment called Moisture-Density Relation Test also known as
Proctor Test was conducted to gather data in order to determine the functionality of the
machine in terms of optimum moisture content and maximum dry density by comparing
the results to manual compaction method and existing mechanized soil compactor machine.

23

Applicable ASTM Standards

ASTM D698: Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of

Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3))

ASTM D698: Modified Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of

Soil Using Standard Effort (56,000 ft-lb/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))

Test Parameters
The test procedure should be done in accordance to the parameters set by the
applicable ASTM Standards:
Table 1. The Standard Proctor Test and Modified Proctor Test
Using ASTM Standard
Standard Proctor Test
AASHTO T-99

Material

Method A Method B
Soil passing
Sieve No.
Mold
Rammer
No. of
Layer
No. of
Blows
Drop
Height

Modified Proctor Test

AASHTO T180

Method C Method A Method B

Method C

Sieve
No.4
4 DIA
2.5 kg

3/8
Sieve
4 DIA
2.5 kg

3/4
Sieve
6 DIA
2.5 kg

Sieve
No.4
4 DIA
4.5 kg

3/8
Sieve
4 DIA
4.5 kg

25

25

56

25

25

56

12

12

12

18

18

18

3/4 Sieve
6 DIA
4.5 kg

Note: These test methods apply only to soils (materials) that have 30 % or less by mass of
their particles retained on the 34-in. (19.0-mm) sieve and have not been previously
compacted in the laboratory.

24

Material Gradation
Three alternative methods are provided. The method used shall be as indicated in
the specication for the material being tested. If no method is specied, the choice should
be based on the material gradation.
Method A:

May be used if 20 % or less by mass of the material is retained on the

No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve

Method B:

May be used if 20 % or less by mass of the material is retained on the

38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve

Method C:

May be used if 30 % or less by mass of the material is retained on the

34-in. (19.0-mm) sieve.

Sampling
The soil sample to be used corresponds to what particular method will be specified
in the material gradation. Three different soil types will be tested conforming to three
alternative methods provided in Standard and Modified Proctor Test respectively.
Sample A

20 % or less of soil mass retained on the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve

Sample B:

20 % or less of soil mass retained on the 38-in. (9.5-mm) sieve

Sample C:

30 % or less of soil mass of retained on the 34-in. (19.0-mm) sieve.

The different soil samples are obtained from different locations specified as
follows:
Sample A

Tarlac State University -Lucinda Campus

Sample B:

Brgy. Baculong, Victoria Tarlac

Sample C:

Nortern Builders, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac

25

Preparation of Apparatus
1. Select the proper compaction mold, collar, and base plate in accordance with the
Method (A, B, or C) being used. Check that the volume of the mold is known and
whether the volume was determined with or without the base plate. Also, check that
the mold is free of nicks or dents, and that the mold will t together properly with
the collar and base plate.
2. Check that the manual or mechanical rammer assembly is in good working
condition and that parts are not loose or worn. Make any necessary adjustments or
repairs. If adjustments or repairs are made, the rammer must be restandardized.

Test Procedure
The procedure covers the determination of the moisture-density relations of soils in
compliance with ASTM specifications: The following procedure is generally applicable to
both manual and automated method.
1. Obtain a sufficient quantity of air-dried soil in large mixing pan and run it through
34-in sieve. If 30 % or less by mass of soil particles retained on the sieve, the test
is applicable.
2. Identify what method to be used based on the result of material gradation.
3. Apply a certain amount of initial water to the soil and then mix it thoroughly into
the soil using the trowel until the soil gets a uniform color. Remember that a gram
of water is equal to approximately one milliliter of water.
4. Assemble the compaction mold to the base, place some soil in the mold and
compact the soil in the number of equal layers specified by the type of compaction
method employed. The specified number of blows will be applied to each soil layer.
26

5. The soil should completely fill the cylinder and the last compacted layer must
extend slightly above the collar joint.
6. Carefully remove the collar and trim off the compacted soil so that it is completely
even with the top of the mold using the trowel. Replace small bits of soil that may
fall out during the trimming process.
7. Weigh the compacted soil sample as well as the compaction mold with its base
(without the collar) by using the balance and record the weights. Determine the wet
mass of the soil by subtracting the weight of the mold and base.
8. Remove the soil from the mold using a mechanical extruder and take soil moisture
content samples from the top and bottom of the specimen. Fill the moisture cans
with soil and put it inside the drying oven maintaining a uniform temperature of
230 6 9F (110 6 5C).
9. Place the remaining soil specimen in the large tray and add more water based on
the original sample mass, and re-mix as in step 3.
10. Repeat steps 4 through 9 until based on wet mass, a peak value is reached followed
by two slightly lesser compacted soil masses.
11. Remove the moisture cans from the drying oven after 12 to 24 hours, measure and
record the weight.

Method of Data Collection

The following are the procedure of collecting data needed to determine the
relationship between the moisture content and the dry density of a soil for a specified
compaction effort.

27

1. Determine the mass of the clean, dry mold. Include the base plate, but exclude the
extension collar.
2. Determine the mass of the mold and compacted soil.
3. Determine the wet mass of the sample by subtracting the mass in Step 1 from the
mass in Step 2.
4. Calculating wet density can be accomplished by multiplication using a Mold
Factor, by division using a Mold volume; or by division using a measured volume.
Volume
3

Calculate the wet density, in kg/m (lb/ft ), by dividing the wet mass from Step 3
by the appropriate volume of the mold from ASTM D698/D1557.
Measured Volume
3

Calculate the wet density, in kg/m (lb/ft ), by dividing the wet mass from Step 3
by the measured volume of the mold.
5. Determine the moisture content for each compacted sample by dividing the water
content (loss between wet mass and dry mass of moisture sample by the dry mass
of the sample and multiplying by 100.

w = [(A B)/(B - C)] x 100

where:
w = Moisture content, as a percentage
A = Mass of original (wet) sample, and container
B = Mass of dry sample, and container
C = Mass of container
28

6. Calculate the dry density as follows.

d =

w
w
(100) + 1

where:
d = Dry density, g/cm3
w = Wet density, g/cm3
w = Moisture content, as a percentage

7. Continue determinations by repeating Step 2 up to Step 6 until there is either a

decrease or no change in the wet density.

Data Analysis Procedure

Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
Determination
The following are the steps for determination of the values of maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content.
1. As the process of compaction and addition of water to the soil is repeated, more
values of moisture content and its dry density are obtained for soil samples.
SAMPLE DATA
Water Content

4.84

7.11

8.35

10.67

12.67

Dry Density

1.92

1.95

2.01

2.06

2.02

29

2. From these values, points will be plotted in a dry density versus moisture content.
Curve will then be fitted from these points.

3. An excel program is used to fit the points into a polynomial curve with a second
degree order. From the curve generated, the program will automatically solve for
the maximum point where the maximum dry density and optimum water content is
located.

PEAK POINT
MDD

OMC

30

Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Curve

Plotting of the Zero Air Voids (ZAV) Curve will assess the validity of the results.
The procedure are as follows:
1. Once the plotting of compaction curves of the data gathered from the Manual and
Mechanized has been done, the zero air voids curve will also be traced on the same graph.
2. Assume values of moisture content with the same interval within the range of the
compaction curve.

d
3. Using the formula

Gs w
1 wGs , solve for the corresponding dry density of the soil at

different moisture content. Note that the soil is considered to be fully saturated or S = 1.
4. After the points of dry density vs. moisture content have been established, trace the Zero
Air Voids Curve on the same graph where the compaction is also plotted.

31

Worksheet for Moisture Density Relation of Soil

METHOD

D698

D1557

Trial Number

RAMMER,
KGS.

NO. OF
LAYERS

NO. OF
BLOWS

2.5

25

4.5

56

VOL. OF
MOLD

Water Added, ml.

Mass of Mold + Wet Soil, g.
Mass of Mold, g.
Mass of Wet Soil, g.
Volume of Mold, cc.
Wet Density, g/cc.
Container No.
Mass of Container + Wet Soil,
g.
Mass of Container + Dry Soil,
g.
Mass of Water, g.
Mass of Container, g.
Mass of Dry Soil, g.
Moisture Content, %
Dry Density of Soil, g/cc.

32

Design of the Apparatus

The design of the mechanized soil compactor machine will be based on the
standards and specifications set by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
This includes the weight, dimension and shape of the mold and rammer in accordance to
the manual equipment. The free-fall concept of the manual method should also be observed
in the operation of the machine.
For 4-in mold, circular shaped rammer with a diameter of 2 inches was used in such
a manner as to provide uniform and complete coverage of the specimen surface.
For 6-inch mold, sector shaped rammer with a radius equal to 2.90 inches and an
area about the same as the circular face.

Machine Sub-Assemblies
The machine was dealt with in five sub-assemblies; the base, the mast, the chain
and hook assembly, the rammer and the control box.
The base was to provide a footing for the machine that would also house the motor
and sensors from the bottom part and also to allow the positioning of the mold. A heavy
round platen was to also be incorporated above the base.
The mast provides the framework for the linear guide, sensors and also for the
rammer. It serves as the backbone for the whole mechanism. The chain and hook will cause
the lift and release mechanism of the rammer. The rammer predominantly designed as this
item is so defined by the standards while the control box was programmed to regulate the
operation of the machine.

33

The Base Assembly

The base assembly was the first subassembly to be fully designed. A round plate is
placed above the base that will handle the rotation of the mold in such a way that it will
spin and stop in nine equal partitions in sequence with the fall of the rammer.
The plate was designed to be substantially heavier than the rammer. This plate was
made from 292.1mm diameter, 75mm thick steel disc. After machining, it weighed
approximately 8 kg. It was positioned directly above the pillow block that was installed on
the center of the base assembly.
Two pillow blocks were placed and supported by an angular bar welded on the
frame. The motor and speed controller were directly mounted to the plate. The base housing
itself was constructed from a grade 16 galvanized iron steel plate.
To carry the mast and to resist the free fall force of 4.5-kg rammer, the base was
designed to be particularly firm. Aside from the four corner supports of the base, the center
was reinforced by welded angular bars that serve as the base support of the round plate and
the motor.

The Mast Assembly

The mast assembly is the back bone of the entire machine. The stiffness of the mast
is not only critical to the installation of the linear guide where the rammer is connected but
it is also critical to the stability of the machine. To increase stiffness, the mast was
manufactured from two lengths of 1 x 1 x 1.7 m angular bars.

34

The Chain and Hook Assembly

The chain and hook assembly was designed to apply the lift and release mechanism
of the rammer. Two hooks were attached to the chain and another hook was connected to
the rammer in a way that when the chain runs, the hook attached to it will anchor the hook
connected to the rammer lifting it to the desired height. An adjustable stopper positioned
in between the chain and rammer will disjoint the hooks causing the release of the rammer.

The Rammer
Two types of rammer were used to satisfy the test parameters set by the ASTM
standards; a circular face rammer with a diameter of 2 inches and a sector face rammer
with a radius equal to 2.9 inches and has area about the same as the circular face.
To ensure a consistent and complete coverage of the specimen surface, the circular
face rammer is intended for 4-inch mold while the sector face rammer is for 6-inch mold
in which this rammer shall operate in such a manner that the vertex of the sector is
positioned at the center of the specimen.
The two types of rammer was design for 2.5kg and 4.5kg complying with the test
parameter specified by ASTM standards. Initially, each rammer was weighing 2.5 kg and
to adjust the weight to 4.5kg, an additional 2kg can be attached on the rammer.
A height adjustment rod was intended to indicate the drop height for particular test
method. The stopper was installed to the rod to limit the drop height of the rammer.
The Control Box Assembly
Switches and sensor were installed, one on the top for the rammers count, another
is for the rotation of the mold located at the base. For each sensor comes with switches and
35

terminal logs. The main components are located at a box for the switches, emergency stop
button, reset button and stop button.

Cycle Sequencing
A number of simultaneous movements are made by the machine to condense the
period of each cycle to a minimum. The process follows the following steps:
1. Rammer lowers and touches the soil.
2. The stopper is adjusted to a drop height.
3. The rammer is released and a blow is made.
4. The rammer is lifted off the soil surface.
5. Upon lifting the rammer, the base plate rotates at an angle of 43.
6. The cycle will continue until the desired number of blows is completed.

Materials for the Fabrication of the Machine

Materials, tools and equipments of the machine and their corresponding quantities
are summarized in the following table:
Table 2 Materials Used in the Fabrication of the Machine
Materials/Tools/Equiments
1" x 1" x 1/2 thk Angular Bar
1m 1 1/2 x 1/4 Angular Bar
21 inch 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 Angular Bar
1 ft 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 Angular Bar
#16 Auto Wire
Emergency Stop Button
Limit Switch
Linear Guide
P205 Pillow Block Bearing
Magnetic Contractor
M4 Bolt

Quantity
2 pcs
1 pc
2 pcs
1 pc
8m
1 pc
4 pcs
1 pc
6 pcs
2 pcs
1 pack
36

M3 Metal Screw
#12 5/16 x 2 Anchor w/ Bolt
4 x 10 Bolt
5 x 70 Bolt
S/S Allen Bolt
4 mm S/S Allen Bolt w/ nut
Push Button Normally Close
10" x 2" Shaft
2" x 2" Shaft
4.3 x 60 Shaft
4' x 8mm Stainless Steel
7.5 x 50mm Solid Steel
3m x 14/3 Steel Bar
Gear Motor w/ Speed Controller
16T Steel Sprocket
1.25 mm Terminal Log Block
20" x 1 1/2" x 1/4 Tubular Bar
1.5 m x 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 Square Tube
3/32 Welding Rod
3/32 Special Welding Rod
HD - 120 Kryon Chain
9" x 27" Acrylic Glass
Piano Hinges
#3 Hinge
#240 Hinge
Spray Paint
Grade 16 G.I. Sheet
Galva - Wash
1/2 S-40 x 47" G.I. Pipe
S/S Metal Rod
Moret Cutting
Steel Plate
12 x 12 x 4 Tool Box
Cutting Disc
Hole Saw
Din Rail
Elbow Pipe
Liquid Conduit Pipe
1 m Sand Flex
Eagle Grounding Plug
Universal Adaptor
Brass Plate

1 pack
4 pcs
15 pcs
4 pcs
2 pcs
9 pcs
3 pcs
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc
3 pcs
2 pcs
2 pcs
7 pcs
1 pc
1 pc
1 1/2 kilo
1/2 kilo
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc
3 pcs
2 pcs
5 pcs
1 pc
1 liter
1 pc
3 pcs
3 pcs
1 pc
1 pc
13 pcs
1 pc
1 pc
2 pcs
2 pcs
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc
37

Fig.1 Design of the Mechanized Soil Compactor Machine

38

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter discussed the findings obtained from the primary instrument used in
the study. The researchers performed a laboratory soil compaction test called Proctor Test
to determine its Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Water Content. The test made use
of both the manual and mechanized compaction to assess the functionality of the machine
in terms of the value of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the soil
being tested. The test was strictly based on the American Society of the International
Association for Testing and Materials or ASTM Standards (ASTMD698 and
ASTMD1557).

Physical Features of the Machine.

The researchers assured that the machine apparatus such as rammers and molds
comply with specifications stated in the ASTM Standards. Table 4.1 summarizes the
standard and actual features of the rammer and molds.
Table 3 Physical Features of the Mold.
STANDARD

ACTUAL

101.6 0.4mm

103mm

Height

116.4 0.5mm

115mm

Height

Volume

944 14cm3

958.21cm3

Volume

MOLD 1
Inside
diameter

MOLD2
Inside
diameter

STANDARD
152.4
0.7mm
116.4
0.5mm
2124 25cm3

ACTUAL
154mm
115mm
2142.05cm3

39

Table 4 Physical Features of the Rammer.

RAMMER 1

STANDARD

ACTUAL

RAMMER 2

Weight

2.5 0.01kg

2.5 kg

Weight

Drop height
Circular face
- diameter

12 0.05 in.
2.0
0.005mm

12in.

Drop height

2 in.

Diameter

STANDARD
4.5360.000
9kg
18 0.05 in.
2.0
0.005mm

ACTUAL
4.5kg
18in.
2in.

Comparison of Manual and Mechanized in Terms of Maximum Dry Density and

Optimum Water Content of Soil.
The researchers conducted the Proctor Test in three different methods A, B and C
as specified in the ASTM standards. Each method corresponds to a specific soil sample
depending on its material gradation. In addition, each method was performed in standard
(ASTM D698) and modified (ASTM D1557) type of compaction both in manual and
mechanized.

Compaction of Soil in Method A.

Soil with 20% or less by its mass retained in sieve No. 4 is to be compacted using
Method A. The two graphs below show the comparison of the compaction curve of soil
using mechanized and manual in standard and modified of Method B.

40

Fig. 2 Comparison of compaction data curves from manual and mechanized compaction
both in Standard-Method A (ASTM D698)

COMPACTION CURVE
2.00
D
1.90
R
1.80
Y
1.70
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

Mechanized

1.60
1.50

Manual

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
3.00

8.00

13.00

18.00

23.00

28.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (OMC)

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (MDD)

MECHANIZED

15.79%

1.64 g/cm3

MANUAL

17.4%

1.62 g/cm3

As seen on Fig. 2, the compaction curve of soil using Mechanized Compaction is

relatively higher than the compaction curve of the same soil using the manual. This
indicates that the Mechanized Compaction provides a higher value of maximum dry
density of the soil (1.64 g/cm3) than the result of soils maximum dry density using Manual
Compaction (1.62 g/cm3) in Method A of ASTM D698. This also suggests that the
mechanized compactor gives a higher compactive effort/energy than the manual
compaction considering that the weight and drop height of the rammer are the same.

41

Fig. 3 Comparison of compaction data curve from manual and mechanized

compaction both in Method A of ASTM D1557

COMPACTION CURVE
2.25
D 2.15
R 2.05
Y
1.95
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

Mechanized

1.85
1.75
1.65

Manual

1.55
1.45
1.35
1.25
5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (OMC)

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (MDD)

MECHANIZED

12.71%

1.97 g/cm3

MANUAL

16.42%

1.78 g/cm3

Fig. 3 also shows the same result as with the previous graph indicating that the
values of maximum dry density for the same soil is higher using the mechanized compactor
than using the manual compaction method. Using the same sample, higher compactive
effort/energy was given by the mechanized soil compactor.

Compaction of Soil in Method B.

Soil with more than 20 % by mass of the material that is retained on the No. 4 sieve
and 20 % or less by mass of the material is retained on the 38-in. sieves is to be compacted

42

using method B. The two graphs below show the comparison of the compaction curve of
soil using mechanized and manual in standard and modified of Method B.
Fig.4 Comparison of compaction data curves from manual and mechanized
compaction both in Method B of ASTM D698

COMPACTION CURVE
D
R
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

2.00

Mechanized

1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60

Manual

1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (OMC)

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (MDD)

MECHANIZED

14.9 %

1.73 g/cm3

MANUAL

15.5 %

1.64 g/cm3

Figure 4 shows the compaction curve of soil that was compacted using Standard
Method B. The compaction curve of the soil using Mechanized Compaction is relatively
higher than the compaction curve of the same soil using the manual compaction. It indicates
that the Mechanized Compaction provides a higher value of maximum dry density of the
soil (1.73 g/cm3) than the result of soils maximum dry density using Manual Compaction
(1.64 g/cm3) in Method B of ASTM D698. This also suggests that the mechanized
43

compactor gives a higher compactive effort/energy than the manual compaction

considering that the weight and drop height of the rammer are just the same.
Fig. 5 Comparison of compaction data curves from manual and mechanized compaction
both in Method B of ASTM D1557.

COMPACTION CURVE
Mechanized

2.10
D
1.90
R
Y 1.70
1.50
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

1.30

Manual

1.10
0.90
0.70
0.50
5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (OMC)

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (MDD)

MECHANIZED

10.26%

2.35 g/cm3

MANUAL

18.55%

1.65 g/cm3

Fig.5 also shows that Mechanized Compaction provides a higher value of

maximum dry density of the soil than the maximum dry density of from manual
compaction. 2.35 g/cm3 for the mechanized compaction while only 1.65 g/cm3 for the
manual compaction.

44

Compaction of Soil in Method D.

Soil with more than 20 % by mass of the material is retained on the 38-in. sieve
and less than 30 % by mass of the material is retained on the 34-in sieve are to be
compacted using Method C.
The soil used was passed first though the No. 4 sieve but it recorded more than 20
% by mass retained. The soil sample was then sieved through 3/8 in. The percent of mass
retained was more than 20 % thats why it was sieved through the in. sieve.
Fig. 6 Comparison of compaction data curve using manual and mechanized
compaction both in Method C of ASTM D698
D
R
Y

COMPACTION CURVE
2.20

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

2.10

Mechanized

2.00

1.90
1.80
1.70

Manual

1.60
1.50
1.00

6.00

11.00

16.00

21.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (OMC)

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (MDD)

MECHANIZED

10.35%

2.04 g/cm3

MANUAL

9.66 %

1.83 g/cm3

45

Fig. 6 shows the plot of the compaction curves of soil using mechanized and manual
compaction using the method C of ASTM D698 (Standard). It shows that Mechanized
Compaction provides a higher value of maximum dry density of the soil indicating a higher
compaction effort as compared to the Manual Compaction using Method C of ASTM
D698.

Fig. 7 Comparison of compaction data curve using manual and mechanized

compaction both in Method C of ASTM D1557

COMPACTION CURVE

D
R
Y
2.35
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

2.15

Mechanized

1.95
1.75
1.55

Manual

1.35
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

MOISTURE CONTENT

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (OMC)

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (MDD)

MECHANIZED

8.21 %

1.78 g/cm3

MANUAL

8.4 %

1.70 g/cm3

Fig. 7 shows the compaction curves of the same soil compacted using manual and
mechanized. As seen on the figure, the curve of mechanized compaction is much higher

46

than the compaction curve of the manual. This also suggest that the compactive energy
exerted on the soil being compacted is higher in the mechanized than in the manual taking
into account that weight and drop height of the rammer used are just the same.

Validation of Compaction Data

The research study make used of the Zero Air Void Curve to determine if the
compaction results from mechanized and manual are valid and acceptable. The following
graphs below show the compaction curves of soil from Mechanized Compaction and
Manual Compaction as well as their corresponding zero air void curve
Fig. 8 Compaction curve using manual and mechanized in method A-ASTMD698 of soil
with its corresponding zero air voids curve

COMPACTION CURVE
D
R
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

ZERO AIR VOIDS

2.00

CURVE

1.90
1.80

Mechanized

1.70

1.60
1.50

1.40

Manual

1.30
1.20
1.10
3.00

8.00

13.00

18.00

23.00

28.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

47

Fig. 8 shows that the portions of the curve after the point of MDD for both
mechanized and manual are slightly parallel to the zero air voids curve. These means
that the values of MDD and OMC obtained from the test experiment are correct and of
no error.
Fig. 9 Compaction curve using manual and mechanized in method A of ASTMD1557 of
soil with its corresponding zero air voids curve

COMPACTION CURVE
2.45
D
R 2.25
Y

ZERO AIR VOIDS

CURVE
Mechanized

2.05
D
E 1.85
N
S 1.65
I
T 1.45
Y
1.25

Manual

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

Fig. 9 shows that the portions of the curve after the point of MDD for both
mechanized and manual are slightly parallel to the zero air voids curve. These means
that the values of MDD and OMC obtained from the test experiment are correct and of
no error.

48

Fig. 10 Compaction curve using manual and mechanized in method B of

ASTMD698 of soil with its corresponding zero air voids curve

COMPACTION CURVE
2.60

ZERO AIR VOIDS

D 2.40
R
Y 2.20
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

CURVE

2.00

Mechanized

1.80
1.60
1.40

Manual

1.20
1.00
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

Fig. 10 shows that the portions of the curve after the point of MDD for both
mechanized and manual are slightly parallel to the zero air voids curve. These means
that the values of MDD and OMC obtained from the test experiment are correct and of
no error.

49

Fig. 11 Compaction curve using manual and mechanized in method B of

ASTMD1557 of soil with its corresponding zero air voids curve

COMPACTION CURVE
2.60

ZERO AIR VOIDS

D 2.40
R
Y 2.20
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

CURVE

2.00

Mechanized

1.80
1.60
1.40

Manual

1.20
1.00
5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

Fig. 11 shows that the portions of the curve after the point of MDD for both
mechanized and manual are slightly parallel to the zero air voids curve. These means
that the values of MDD and OMC obtained from the test experiment are correct and of
no error.

50

Fig. 12 Compaction curve using manual and mechanized in method C of

ASTMD698 of soil with its corresponding zero air voids curve

COMPACTION CURVE
ZERO AIR VOIDS

2.20
D
2.10
R
Y 2.00
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

CURVE
Mechanized

1.90
1.80

Manual

1.70

1.60
1.50
1.00

6.00

11.00

16.00

21.00

MOISTURE CONTENT, %

Fig. 12 shows that the portions of the curve after the point of MDD for both
mechanized and manual slightly parallel to the zero air voids curve. These means that
the values of MDD and OMC obtained from the test experiment are correct and of no
error.

51

Fig. 13 Compaction curve using manual and mechanized in method C of

ASTMD1557 of soil with its corresponding zero air voids curve

COMPACTION CURVE
ZERO AIR VOIDS
D
2.35
R
Y
2.15

CURVE

D
1.95
E
N
S 1.75
I
T 1.55
Y
1.35

Mechanized
Manual

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

MOISTURE CONTENT

Fig. 13 shows that the portion of the curve after the point of MDD for both
mechanized and manual slightly parallel to the zero air voids curve. These means that
the values of MDD and OMC obtained from the test experiment are correct and of no
error.

52

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDTIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings from the test conducted, conclusions
and recommendations drawn out from the collective data.
Summary of Findings:
The machine was tested for 6 different methods comprising of Standard Proctor
Test (Method A, B and C) and Modified Proctor Test (Method A, B and C) as specified by
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The following findings are obtained
from the test conducted:

Standard Proctor Test (Method A):

Mechanized Compaction provides a higher value of maximum dry density
of

the soil (1.64 g/cm3) than the result of soils maximum dry density using Manual
Compaction (1.62 g/cm3)

Modified Proctor Test (Method A)

Using the same soil in Modified Proctor Test (Method A), Mechanized
Compaction still gives a higher value of maximum dry density (1.97 g/cm3) than
the maximum dry density (1.78 g/cm3) in Manual Compaction.

Standard Proctor Test (Method B)

The result of maximum dry density of the soil (1.73 g/cm3) in
Mechanized Compaction (Method B) indicated a higher compaction effort than
with

the result of maximum dry density (1.64 g/cm3) in Manual Compaction.

53

Modified Proctor Test (Method B)

Testing the same soil using Modified Proctor Test, the value of maximum
dry density (2.35 g/cm3) in Mechanized Compaction is still higher than the
maximum dry density (1.65 g/cm3) in Manual Compaction.

Standard Proctor Test (Method C)

Mechanized Compaction (Method C) provides a higher value of maximum
dry density of the soil (2.04 g/cm3) indicating a higher compaction effort as
compared to the Manual Compaction. (1.83 g/cm3).

Modified Proctor Test (Method C)

The value of maximum dry density of the soil (1.78 g/cm3) using
Mechanized

Compaction is still higher than maximum dry density (1.73 g/cm3) in

Manual

Compaction when tested with Modified Proctor Test.

Conclusion:
Based from the different methods and series of test conducted, the researchers came
up with the following conclusions:
1. The development of the Mechanized Soil Compactor has been efficient. It has been
proven by extensive testing in a laboratory that the machine can successfully
complete a soil compaction of a test specimen for Moisture-Density Relation Test
with a great level of assurance in the end result.
2. Comparing to manual method, it is much convenient to use the machine for this
type of laboratory test that requires laborious performance of the procedure.

54

3. The consistent application of blows to the soil surface ensuring an equal

compaction distribution to the test specimen can also be achieved using the
machine.
4. By complying with the standards and specifications of ASTM, the machine is thus
suited to be used in every laboratory that conducts MDD and OMC test.
5. Based from the OMC and MDD results provided by the automated and manual
compaction, the machine has been proven that it produces higher compaction effort
than the manual compaction which indicates a better result of soil compaction.
6. When compared to existing mechanized soil compactor, the time to finish the blows
(25 blows or 56 blows) using the newly fabricated machine is faster than the
machine used by Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region 3.
Recommendation:
To further improve the study, the following recommendations may be done:
1. Although it is quite costly, it may be more efficient to use PLC system as the main
control box that will be used to control and give power to the whole machine for
future study
2. The number of tests could be increased to extend the ranges of moisture contents
and bulk densities to provide better insight on the surface soil displacement.
3. The researchers recommend to perform the test complying with the parameters set
by AASHTO Standards. In AASHTO, four methods are being introduced (Method
A, B, C and D) as compared to three methods specified by the ASTM Standards.

55