R. S.

L a d d t

Preparing Test Specimens Using Undercompaction

I D Inside diameter
L Cyclic strength index
Au Change in pore ,water pressure
Aac Change in cell pressure

REFERENCE: Ladd, R. S., "Preparing Test Specimens Using

Undereompaetion," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 1,

No. 1, March 1978, pp. 16-23.

ABSTRACT: A specimen preparation procedure is presented that

offers an improved method of preparing reconstituted sand specimens

for cyclic triaxial testing. The method leads to more consistent and
repeatable test results. This procedure (1) minimizes particle segregation, (2) can be used for compacting most types of sands having a
wide range in relative densities, and (3) permits determination of the
optimum cyclic strength of a given sand at a given dry unit weight.

Introduction
The specimen preparation procedure most commonly described
in the literature on cyclic triaxial strength testing [1-3] requires
the sand to be saturated, poured into a water-filled forming mold
(usually attached to the bottom pedestal of a triaxial cell), and
then densified to the required density by some means, usually
by vibrations. This method is referred to herein as the wet-pouring
(pluvial) method.
Several problems are associated with this wet-pouring method.
The two most significant are (1) the segregation of particles when
using silty and relatively well-graded sands, and (2) the difficulty
of readily preparing test specimens having a prescribed dry unit
weight with uniform density. A more precise means of preparing
specimens is needed so that cyclic test results will be consistent,
repeatable, and less influenced by specimen preparation.
Presented herein is a method of reconstituting cyclic triaxial
strength test specimens that minimizes most of the problems
outlined previously. In addition, the concepts presented can be
applied to the preparation of reconstituted test specimens for
other types of tests and materials. It should be noted that there
is no inference here that this method of reconstitution results in
specimens which are representative of in-situ conditions.
The procedure incorporates a tamping method of compacting
moist coarse-grained sand in layers. Each layer is compacted to a
selected percentage of the required dry unit weight of the specimen; this procedure differs from the application of a constant
compactive effort to each layer required by ASTM Tests for
Moisture-Density Relations of Soils, Using S.5-1b (2.5-kg) Rammer and 12-in. (304.8-mm) Drop (D 698-70) and ASTM Tests
for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils, Using 10-1b (4.5-kg)
Rammer and 18-in. (457-mm) Drop (D 1557-70). This new
approach was selected since it is generally recognized (especially
for loose- to medium-dense sands) that when a typical sand is
compacted in layers, the compaction of each succeeding layer can
further densify the sand below it. The method uses this fact to
achieve uniform specimens by applying the concept of undercompaction. In this case, each layer is typically compacted to a
lower density than the final desired value by a predetermined
amount which is defined as percent undercompaction U,. The
U, value in each layer is linearly varied from the bottom to the
top layer, with the bottom (first) layer having the maximum
U. value. The method of variation is illustrated in Fig. 1. (See

KEY WORDS: sands, compaction, triaxial tests, specimen preparation, percent undercompaction, dynamic testing
Nomenclature

~3c Effective isotropic consolidation stress

+--Od Cyclic axial deviator stress
D10, D30, Soil diameters of which 10, 30, 50, and 60% of
D50, and D6o soil weights are finer, respectively
Cc Coefficient of curvature
c. Coefficient of uniformity
D, Relative density
+ tYd/2ff3c Applied cyclic stress ratio
epp Peak-to-peak axial strain
N Number of loading cycles
Ne Number of loading cycles to obtain a given peakto-peak axial strain
Number of loading cycles to failure
N / N f Normalized number of cycles
W T Total wet weight of material required
3/dr Required dry unit weight of test specimen
Wa Average water content (as a decimal) of prepared
material
Vm Final volume of compacted material
WL Weight of material required for each layer
h. Height of compacted material at the top of the
layer being considered
ht Final (total) height of the specimen
nt Total number of layers
n Number of the layer being considered
u. Percent undercompaction for layer being considered
Uni Percent undercompaction selected for first layer
Unt Percent undercompaction selected for final layer
ni First (initial) layer
u. Average percent undercompaction for layers
compacted
1Associate and laboratory director, Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
Clifton, N.J. Member of ASTM.
0149-6115/7810003-0016500.40

16

1978 bythe American Society for Testing and Materials

17

LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATION USING UNDERCOMPACTION

in this paper. In addition, to illustrate how the cyclic behavior is

affected by the Uni value selected, a series of cyclic triaxial
strength tests was performed on specimens of Monterey No. 0
sand in which the Uni value was varied.

MaximumValue

nder m

8
,,=,
r~
5

~ n t l

n in la

,on
~x~

Material Tested

-ilerfa~tilrc=nt ii(ir_

The particle size distribution curve and the selected index

properties of the Monterey No. 0 sand, obtained by Mulilis [4],
are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1, respectively. The sand is a
washed uniform medium-to-fine beach sand (SP). The maximum
and minimum dry unit weight determinations were performed in
general accordance with ASTM Test for Relative Density of
Cohesionless Soils (D 2049-69) and Kolbuszewski's method [5],
respectively. The specimens tested had initial relative densities
Dr of approximately 60%.

compaction

==
MinimumValue
(usuallyzero) n i = 1

nt

LAYER NUMBER
Where: A. Percentunder-compactionin layerbeingconsidered,Un
Un = Uni

pUni- u.tl

L n--~-~_
1 x (n- 1)

Specimen Preparation Procedure

B. Averagepercentunder-compactionfor layerscompacted, On
_ Un
Un= ~

Each test specimen, 74 mm (2.9 in.) in diameter and 152 mm

(6 in.) high, had an initial molding water content of approximately 6% and was compacted in eight layers in a split compaction mold not attached to the triaxial cell ("external" split
compaction mold). Further details of this method of specimen
preparation are given in Appendix A.
After compaction, the split mold was removed and the weight,
height, and diameter of the specimen were measured. The specimen was then placed in the triaxial cell and confined with a
rubber membrane. The triaxial cell was filled with deaerated
water, and a cell pressure o3~ of 36 k N / m z (750 psf) was applied.

Uni = Percentunder-compactionselectedfor first layer

Unt = Percentunder-compactionselectedfor final layer(usuallyzero)
n

= Numberof layerbeingconsidered

ni = First (initial) layer

nt = Total numberof layers(final layer)

FIG. 1--Concept of undercompaction procedure.

also Appendix A.) If this method of variation is appropriate and

the proper/.1, value is selected for the first layer (U,i), the end
product is a specimen having a virtually uniform unit weight
throughout.
The method used to arrive at this proper U,i value is presented

COBBLES

COARSE

FINE

DIAMETER
6"
I-

I-r
r~

so!
70

>.

so

gD

Z
F-

O
rr

4" 3"

s0
4o

20

MEDIUM

3/4"

3/8 "

10

20

l [ Ill ] [
1
1 lI l
~____ [! [ !

I~l

L
1-~

Ig]

I.

3o]

Each specimen was saturated prior to being consolidated by

flushing deaerated water through the specimen under a back
pressure of between 625 and 960 kN/m 2 (13 000 and 20 000 psi).

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

40

60
I

100

200

IliIl'~ I
J Ill
]l[I[
~I]lll

II

Illl

Ill

]l',I]i
[
i!;i

llJ]
-

! II J '.....

' "

'....

+ ~

III[~I[ I I--

.....

IIIt:[:t.:[-

200

100

10

--Ill!Ill- I

1,0
0.1
GRAIN SIZE iN MILLIMETERS

FIG. 2--Particle size distribution curve.

i
i
[I

I
-I-.. -I ....

SILT OR CLAY

FINE

U,S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

l'h"

1]:1
Ill[
I~l
Igl
]~l
lffl
[~[

cq,ARSE [

Test Procedure

I[

I
I
I

0.01

0.001

18

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 1--Index data for Monterey No. 0 sand.

Unified soil classification system symbol

Particle size data
Ds0, mm
Cc~
Cu
Dry unit weight data e
Maximum, lb/ft 3
Minimum, lb/ft 3

Test Results and Discussion

The results of the cyclic triaxial strength tests are summarized

in Table 2. A plot of the cyclic strength index versus the percent
undercompaction of the first layer of each specimen is given
in Fig. 3. The cyclic strength index Ic is defined as the ratio of
the number of cycles to obtain a given peak-to-peak axial strain
Are to the product of relative density in percent D, and applied
stress ratio _+ad/2F3~, that is, Ne/Dr( +-Od/253c); Ic was used to
normalize small differences in relative density and applied stress
ratio from one test to another.
The data show that Ic, which is directly related to the cyclic
strength, varies with U,i or the uniformity of dry unit weight
within a test specimen. For the U,i values evaluated (0 to 18%),
the number of cycles to obtain a peak-to-peak axial strain of
10% at an applied stress ratio of 0.26 varied between 16 and 41
(see Table 2). Furthermore, a peak Ic value (optimum cyclic
strength) was obtained. The U,i value where this peak occurred
is defined as the optimum percent undercompaction.
Another important factor in understanding the cyclic behavior
of sand is its strain development characteristics. Axial strain in
compression and extension versus the logarithm of the number of
loading cycles is plotted in Fig. 4. The shapes of the curves vary
considerably, and it was almost impossible to determine trends
visually. To determine whether there was a relationship between
U,i and the strain development characteristics, as was found with
cyclic strength, the cyclic data were normalized. The curves of
the normalized peak-to-peak strain versus the normalized number
of cycles are plotted in Fig. 5. The normalized peak-to-peak
strain e,p/~pp = 10% is defined as the ratio of peak-to-peak
strain at a given number of cycles N to a peak-to-peak strain of
10% (selected failure criteria), while the normalized number of
cycles N / N f is defined as the ratio of the number of cycles required to obtain a given e,p to the number of cycles required to
obtain an Epp of 10%. This figure shows that as U,~ becomes
closer to the optimum percent undercompaction, the normalized
strain development curves become more concave.

SP
0.36
0.9
1.5
105.7
89.3

aCc= (1)30)2/(960 D10).

bcu = D60/D~o.
c 1 lb/ft 3 = 16 kg/m 3.

During back-pressuring, an effective confining stress of 36 k N / m 2

(750 psf) was maintained. This low confining stress minimizes
unrecorded volume changes during saturation; however, if the
specimen has a tendency to swell, higher values should be selected.
In addition, a small axial stress, sufficient to maintain the specimen in an isotropic state of stress, was applied. Saturation was
assumed when the B factor (ratio of the change in pore water
pressure Au to the change in cell pressure Aa~) was equal to or
greater than 95%.
The specimen was then consolidated to the required effective
stress F3~. Changes in volume and axial height were recorded
during consolidation. The relative density of the specimen prior
to cyclic loading is based on these measurements.
The specimens were cyclically loaded without drainage by
using an eleetrohydraulic closed-loop loading system manufactured
by the MTS Systems Corp. The MTS system applied a sinusoidally
varying load about an ambient load at a frequency of 1 Hz.
Therefore, a cyclic sinusoidally varying axial deviator stress +_oa
was applied to the specimen in which the stress varied between
peak compression and peak extension values. During cyclic
loading, the cell pressure was kept constant, and the changes in
axial load, axial deformation, and pore water pressure were
recorded.

TABLE 2--Summary of results of tests preformed on Monterey sand No. O.

Water Content,
Dry Unit
%
Weight, lb/ft 3a

Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Number of Cycles for

Dr, %

Percent
After
,After
After
Initial
UnderConsoliConsoliConsoliLiquecompaction Initial dation Initial dation Initial dation +_Od/2iY3
c faction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

6.0
8.8
6.0
5.8
5.8
6.3
5.7
6.0
6.0
6.0

24.7
24.8
24.6
25.6
23.8
24.9
24.2
24.6
25.1
25.3

98.3
98.6
98.5
98.4
98.8
98.0
98.2
98.5
98.5
98.5

99.2
99.4
99.7
99.3
99.5
98.9
99.1
99.3
99.3
99.6

59.2
60.8
60.3
59.8
61.7
57.2
58.7
60.3
60.1
60.4

64.0
65.5
67.2
65.0
66.3
62.6
63.8
65.0
65.0
66.9

0.26
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26

24
23
33
33
20
22
19
30
18
10

Peak-to-Peak
Strain, %
2.5

10

20

Remarks b

24
22
33
33
19
22
18
28
18
9

26
24
36
36
22
24
20
30
20
11

30
28
41
40
27
29
25
35
24
16

54
42
67
57
62
47
44
64
130
43

see Note 1
see Note 1
see Note 1
see Note 1
see Note 1
see Note 1
see Note 1

a 1 lb/ft 3 = 16 kg/m 3.
b Notes:
1. A significant (> 10%) decrease in peak-to-peak axial load occurred after a peak-to-peak axial strain of 10% had occurred.
2. Test specimens were 74 mm (2.9 in.) in diameter by 152 mm (6 in.) in height and were compacted in eight layers by using the moist tamping method presented in Appendix A.
3. Consolidation pressure 03c equaled 44.6 kN/m 2 (2088 lb/fl 2).

19

LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATION USING UNDERCOMPACT~ON

Symbol

Peak to Peak
Axial Strain, %

O
A

5
lO

Test Conditions
Relative Density, Dr (%)
After
(~-3c
ConsoliInitial
Ib/ft 2
57-62

Note:

63-67

2,088

Stress
Ratio
+_ l:Td/2 ~3c
0.25-0.26

1 KN/m 2 = 20.88 Ib/ft 2

Number of Cycles to Obtain a Given

X
,,'
E3
z
-1iL9
zuJ
n~

.J
~D
>cD

Cyclic Strength Index = Peak to Peak Axial Strain

Relative Density (%) x Stress Ratio

Optimum Cyctic
Strength Index - ~

/0

A --. _ A l l

E)

O
~ 1
I
0

I
2

I
4

Optimum Percent Under-Compaction

6

I
8

I
10

I
12

I
14

I
16

I
18

PERCENT UNDER-COMPACTION OF FIRST LAYER

FIG. 3--Cyclic strength index versus percent undercompaction of first layer for Monterey No. 0 sand.

Conclusions

A specimen preparation procedure is presented in Appendix A

that offers an improved method of preparing reconstituted sand
specimens for cyclic strength testing. The method leads to more
consistent and repeatable test results and a reduction in the
number of uncertainties inherent in presently used procedures.
This procedure, termed the undercompaction procedure, (1) minimizes particle segregation, (2) can be used for compacting most
types of sands, which have a wide range in relative densities, and
(3) permits determination of the optimum cyclic strength of a
given sand at a given dry unit weight.

Acknowledgment
Portions of this investigation were sponsored by the Professional
Development Program of Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC).
This support is acknowledged with appreciation. Special acknowledgment is given to P. Dutko of WCC who developed the percent
undercompaction equations. Members of the staff of WCC who
made considerable contributions are, in particular, K. Hau,
H. M. Horn, Y. Kim, and J. H. Wilson. Special thanks are also
due to D. Koutsoftas of Dames and Moore, M. L. Silver of the
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, and D. J. Leery of Langan Engineering Associates for their reviews of and comments on
this paper.

APPENDIX A--RECONSTITUTED
SPECIMEN PREPARATION PROCEDURE
FOR COARSE-GRMNED SOILS
A procedure is presented below for preparing coarse-grained
specimens for dynamic cyclic testing or static triaxial testing.

The procedure (1) produces specimens that have a relatively

uniform stress-strain response, (2) minimizes the tendency for
particle segregation, and (3) can be used to compact most types
of coarse-grained soils, with a relative density ranging between
very loose and very dense. Although the procedure has been
developed for the preparation of cohesionless test specimens, the
concepts presented can be applied to the preparation of many
different material types for various types of tests.
Specimens can be prepared either by attaching a split mold to
the bottom pedestal of the triaxial cell ("internal" split mold), as
shown in Fig. 6, or in a split mold which is separate from the
triaxial cell ("external" split mold), as shown in Fig. 7. A split
mold is required since it eliminates many of the problems associated with the extrusion of the compacted specimen from a nonsplit mold. Most specimens, especially those containing fines,
compacted in an external split mold at relative densities above
about 50%, will have sufficient strength as a result of capillary
force so that they may be set up in the triaxial cell without significant change in their fabric. However, extreme care is required
in transferring specimens to avoid disturbing the specimen.

1. Adjust the water content of the air-dried material so that

that initial degree of saturation of the compacted material will be
between 20 and 70%. Oven-drying of the material is not recommended. The lower the percentage of fines in the material, the
lower the degree of saturation required. A degree of saturation
greater than 70% can be used if water does not bleed from the
specimen during compaction. The material should be mixed with
water about 16 h before use.
2. Determine the average water content of the prepared material using a minimum of t~vo determinations.
3. Assemble and check all the necessary equipment to be
used in preparing the test specimen. Determine the inside diameter and the height of the mold to within _+0.02 mm ( 0.001

20

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

20

15

10
uJ

Percent under c o m p a c t i o n value

'for first layer

Z
<
eT-

.~_

10

i I

~pp = 10%

@
20

<
X

<

15

UJ

o.

10

15

10

50

100

200

NUMBER OF CYCLES
FIG. 4--Axial strain versus number o f cycles for Monterey No. 0 sand.

in.) and calculate the volume based on these measurements. If an

internal split mold is used, correct the diameter measurement for
the average thickness of the rubber membrane.
4. Select the number of layers to be used in the preparation of
the specimen. The maximum thickness of the layers should not
exceed 25 mm (1 in.) for specimens having diameters less than
102 mm (4 in.). Typically, the required number of layers increases
as the required dry unit weight increases. Layers having a thickness of about 12 mm (V2 in.) are recommended.
5. Determine the total wet weight of material required for
sample preparation:
WrfT~r

x (1 + w = ) x

Vm

6. Determine the moist weight of material required for each

layer:

WL = WT/nt

7. For the first layer to be compacted, select a value of Uni.

Typically, this value ranges between zero for the preparation of
dense specimens to about 15% for the preparation of very loose
specimens. For the preparation of very dense specimens, it has
been found that negative values are sometimes required. Each
subsequent layer receives a lesser percentage of undercompaction,
conforming to the relationship shown in Fig. 1.
The correct (optimum) value of percent undercompaction may
be determined experimentally by one of the following methods:
a. Run a series of cyclic triaxial strength tests with the same
effective consolidation stress and applied stress ratio, but with
different U,i values, to determine the optimum value (see Fig. 8).
b. Observe the behavior of the specimen during cyclic loading. Excessive necking or bulging in a layer or layers, either at

LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATIONUSING UNDERCOMPACTION

21

1.0

O Percent-under-compaction
of First i a y e r
//~J

II
Q.

t~

z"
<n o0
v
<
LU

0.75

0.5

,ncreasingCyc,,cStrength

v
<
LU
a.

E3 0.25

LU
N
.J

<
nO
z

0.2
0.4.
0.6
0.8
NORMALIZEDNUMBEROF CYCLES,N/Nf = N/N Cpp = 10%

1.0

FIG.5--Normalized peak-to-peak strain versus normalized number of cycles.

6-in.Travel---..._.~.~
Vertical Dal ~[~

~Tamping Rod

I-

~ Z ~ )

Rae
fmep~n~
eG~i~llarAssembiy

Bushings

I
MembraneProtection
Collar

RubberMembrane
CompactionF o o t ~
I--]
(Diameter=V2ID
~L]TJ
of Mold)
- ' ~
PorousStone ~

VacuumApplied
~

Split Mold

v"/////'~ n l ~
1I

TriaxialCell

=~[.
n

O-Ring
~[ ~ B o t [lt o m Drani age
ValvesLine

Top DrainageLine

FIG.6--Split compaction mold attached to triaxial cell ("internal" split mold).

22

GEOTECHNICAL

6-In. Travel

Vertical

TESTING

JOURNAL

Dial
Vertical Dial Setting-h n, Inches

?
~i

Reference-Collar

~j~

/',

____~

Ihitial'Vertieal S~tting R, Inches

I-~

-Bushing.

~,f---Tamping Guide Assembly

--.
I

I~"

/'I,I

Collar-~

I1

i\ .,.,%

lI' l _l

E=
Compaction Foot

///~-

(Diameter='A ID
of Mold)

~/Spacer'/~
/ 1 / /

II

Bottom Porous Stone

2 " I X / /1

K////'/

SYSTEM PRIOR TO COMPACTION

t~-~

"1

II

II

II

II

I//A/

/J

Air Outlets

' I
/

/ / / / //

SYSTEM DURING COMPACTION

~/,Spacer//

If

, !

i;l

I;i

l,,

Ill

'11

Hi

'

//

III I

'

IP

X / / /

,i i

/V

II./
/

Spacer-Disk Assembly
, rCo

.~

L/

iv"
,I

ar

"~

I1

~-~

Sintered Brass

Disk

SYSTEM FOR COMPACTIONOF FINALLAYER

FIG. 7--"External" s p l i t
the top or at the bottom of the specimen, indicates a specimen
with an inappropriate value of U.z.
c. Observe the behavior of the specimen during unconsolidated-undrained loading. Nonuniform vertical strains indicate
an inappropriate value of U.z.
d. Observe the fabric of the specimen. A honeycomb structure at either the top or the bottom of the specimen indicates an
inappropriate value of U.i.
e, Measure the dry unit weight of the prepared test speci-

compaction

mold.

men as a function of its height. A dry unit weight not uniform

with height indicates an inappropriate value of U.i.
8. Calculate the required height of the specimen at the top of
thenth layer:

23

LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATION USING UNDERCOMPACTION

"',\

cl

I
15

i~ 8
~
u

o
~g

I
I
I
I

~-

Material sensitive t o percent under compaction

\
\

\
\
\

Material relatively insensitiveto percent

under compaction

PERCENT UNDER COMPACTION OF FIRST LAYER

FIG. 8--Expected relationship between strength index and percent

undercompaction of first layer.

9. Weigh the amount of material required for the layer, as

determined in Step 6, and place it into a closed container. If
each layer requires a weight greater than about 80 g, it is usually
easier to weigh the amount of material required for each layer
and place it into small closed containers.
10. Adjust the reference collar on the tamping rod to obtain
the proper h , . Weigh, if you have not already done so, the
amount of material required for the layer, and place it into the
mold. During weighing, care must he taken to lose as little
moisture as possible. Using the tamping rod, guided by the
tamping guide assembly, compact the surface of the material
(after it has been leveled) in a circular pattern starting at the
periphery of the mold and working toward the center of the mold.
Initially, a light tamping force should be used to distribute and
seat the material uniformly in the mold. The force should then
be gradually increased until the reference collar uniformly hits
the top of the tamping rod guide assembly. For the last few coverages, it may be necessary to hit the tamping rod with a rubber
mallet in order to compact the material into a dense state. Next,
scarify the compacted surface to a depth equal to about one tenth
of the thickness of the layer.
11. Repeat Steps 9 (if required) and 10 until the last layer is in
place. During the compaction of the last layer, the tamping rod
should be used until the surface of the compacted material is
about 0.4 mm (1/64 in.) higher than required. Then, for specimens
prepared in an external split mold, place the spacer disk assembly into position and lightly strike it with a rubber mallet
until it is seated; see Fig. 7. For specimens prepared with the
internal split mold, place the top cap and the porous stone
directly on the specimen. The top cap should be attached to the
loading piston, which, in turn, should be guided by the bushing
located in the top of the triaxial cell. Then lightly strike the
loading piston with a rubber mallet until the compacted material
reaches the prescribed height. This procedure ensures that there
is proper alignment and seating of the top cap in relation to the
specimen and the loading mechanism of the triaxial cell.
12. For specimens compacted in an external split mold,

remove the specimen from the split mold (using extreme caution
to prevent disturbance) and obtain its weight, height, and diameter. The weight should be determined to the nearest 0.01 g;
however, for specimens weighing greater than 1000 g, measuring
to the nearest 0.1 g is adequate. The height and diameter should
be determined to the nearest 0.02 mm (0.001 in.) using a dial
gage comparator. The dial gage contact points on these instruments should have a flat surface with a minimum diameter of
about 5 mm (IA in.).
For specimens compacted in an internal split mold, the initial
weight cannot be directly checked. Therefore, the oven-dry
weight of the specimen should be checked after the test. However, the height and diameter of the compacted specimen should
be measured after a slight vacuum is applied and the mold is
removed. A pi tape (Pi Tape, Lemon Grove, Calif.) is recommended for measuring the diameter.
The author has also used this procedure, with some modifications, for compacting fine-grained soils and found that appropriate specimens are obtained much more readily than when the
Harvard compaction apparatus [6] is used. In the latter case, one
must determine experimentally the appropriate compactive effort
(number of layers, number of tamps per layer, and the tamping
force) required to obtain the prescribed value of ~/dr"
A brief description of the required modifications is as follows:
a. A U,i value of zero should be used.
b. The compaction of each layer is initiated by using a Harvard tamping device [6], having a spring force of 18 kg
(40 Ib) and with a compaction foot having a diameter
equal to about 1/4 the diameter of the specimen. The
compaction is continued by using this tamper until the
surface of the material is relatively level. The tamping
force should be reduced if the compaction foot appears to
penetrate below the proper h, value. Then the tamping
rod, as mentioned in Step 10, is used to compact the
material to the proper h, value.
References

[1] Finn, W. D. L., Picketing, D. J., and Bransby, P. L., "Sand

Liquefaction in Triaxial and Simple Shear Tests," Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 97, No. SM4, April 1971, pp.

639-659.
[2] Lee, K. L. and Fitton, J. A., "Factors Affecting the Cyclic Loading
Strength of Soil," in Vibration Effects of Earthquakes on Soils and
Foundations, STP 450, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1969, pp. 71-95.
[3] Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., "Dynamic Strength of Anisotropically
Consolidated Sand," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,

Vol. 93, No. SM5, Sept. 1967, pp. 169-190.

[4] Mulilis, J. P., "The Effects of Method of Sample Preparation on the
Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of Sands," Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
[5] Kolbuszewski, J. J., in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam,
1948, Voi. 7, pp. 47-49.
[6] Wilson, S. D., "Suggested Method of Test for Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils Using Harvard Compaction Apparatus," in
Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes, STP 479, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-

delphia, 1970, pp. t01-103.