This paper has been modified from the original to correct the pagination.

No other material has been changed.

Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3

Paper ID GTJ12542
Available online at: www.astm.org

Asuri Sridharan and Puvvadi Venkata Sivapullaiah1

Mini Compaction Test Apparatus for Fine

Grained Soils

ABSTRACT: The standard and modified Proctor compaction tests are devised to establish dry unit weight-water content relationships for a soil
under controlled conditions, such as compactive effort, water content, etc. This paper presents a mini compaction apparatus primarily for use in fine
grained soils, which requires only about 1/10th volume of soil needed for the standard and modified Proctor test. Additionally, the time and effort
involved in carrying out the compaction test is much less. Also, the compacted soil sample, after trimming, can be used for strength tests.

KEYWORDS: compaction, laboratory tests, maximum dry unit weight, optimum water content, standard Proctor test, modified Proctor test

Introduction in Photo 1. The guiding frame is such that the dropping weight is
a floating weight between the bottom of the top portion and top of
Every day thousands of cubic meters of soil are compacted
the bottom portion. The bottom portion of the guiding rod 8 cm
throughout the world, since compaction can improve the engineer-
long and 3.65 cm in diameter acts as an energy transferring foot.
ing properties of soils. In laboratories, the standard ASTM D 698-91
The top portion of the guiding rod is 3.0 cm long and 3.65 cm in
(1995) and modified ASTM D 1557-91 (1995) Proctor compaction
diameter. The top portion of the guiding frame is used to hold in
tests are most commonly used to determine the compaction char-
position before dropping the hammer. The central portion of the
acteristics for proper control over the field compaction and to carry
guiding frame is 19.5 cm long and 1.8 cm in diameter. The verti-
out research works (Goldsmith 1960). This paper presents a mini
cal rod in the middle portion acts as a bore guide for the hammer.
compaction apparatus for use in fine grained soils with particle
The middle portion of the guiding rod, which is screwed to the top
size less than 2 mm. This mini compaction apparatus involves only
and bottom portion of the guiding assembly, can be detached for
about 1/10th volume of the soil required for the standard Proctor
changing dropping weight for Proctor and modified Proctor tests.
test. Further, the effort and time required to perform the compaction
The dropping weight is 1 kg for Proctor test and 2.5 kg for modified
test using this apparatus are considerably less. One can obtain, by
Proctor test. The hammers are 3.5 cm in height and 7-cm and 11-cm
performing a compaction test using this mini apparatus, data for
diameter for Proctor and modified Proctor, respectively, with a cen-
one compaction curve in an hour. An experienced operator can
tral bore of 2.0 cm, and fall freely through a height of 16 cm over
obtain data for three compaction curves in two hours. The com-
the energy transferring foot.
pacted samples, after trimming to required height, can be used for
various strength tests. This compaction apparatus is very useful
for carrying out research studies on large-scale compaction tests
Test Procedure
and compaction tests on fine grained soils, in particular when the
quantity of the soil available is less and when it is required to study For each compaction test about 200 g of soil is used. Required
the compaction behavior of the soil with various admixtures. But amount of water is added to the soil and mixed thoroughly and
the use of the proposed apparatus is restricted to fine grained soils stored in a polythene bag for moisture equilibrium. After allowing
containing particles of size less than 2 mm only. sufficient time for moisture equilibrium, the sample is remixed
thoroughly before compaction.
The mold is cleaned, dried, and greased lightly to reduce the
Proposed Compaction Apparatus
sidewall friction and for easy extrusion of compacted sample after
Figure 1 shows the newly designed apparatus. It consists of a the test. The mold is then fixed to the base plate. The mold with the
brass mold and a steel drop hammer with guide frame. The sample base plate is placed on a rigid platform. The soil is compacted in
mold is of 3.81-cm internal diameter and 4.61-cm external diameter the mold in three layers. Approximate quantity of the soil required
and 10 cm in height. The sample mold assembly has a detachable for the first layer is put in the mold, then the required number of
base plate and a removable collar 3.50-cm height. The hammer blows is applied to the soil by dropping the selected hammer on the
assembly consists of a guiding frame and drop weight. The guid- energy transferring foot of the frame. Care should be taken when
ing frame consists of three detachable portions: top, middle, and the hammer strikes the energy transferring foot that the frame (top
bottom—as shown in Fig. 1. The parts of apparatus are also shown rod) is not in contact with the hand. After the required number of
blows is applied, the soil surface is scarified before second layer
is placed. The mold is filled with the soil for the second layer and
Received February 3, 2004; accepted for publication September 27, 2004;
Published May 2005. again compacted. After the compaction of second layer, top collar is
1 Emeritus Professor and Associate Professor, respectively, Department of positioned to the mold and the third layer is placed and compacted.
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India. The compacted third layer should project above the top of the mold

Copyright by ASTMbyInt'l (all rights reserved);100

Mon JanHarbor
8 07:45:09 EST
PO2018
Copyright © 2005 ASTM International, Barr Drive, Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 240
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
241 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

PHOTO 1—Parts of mini compaction apparatus.

the compaction of the soil. The kinetic energy losses are the energy
dissipated into heat, and dissipated into sound and high frequency
elastic vibrations (Nara 1962; Beer and Johnston 1990). Local de-
formations at the plane of contact of energy transferring foot and
hammer during the time of impact also contribute to energy losses
(Goldsmith 1960).
Similarly, different types of energy losses occur on Proctor and
in modified Proctor compaction tests. In view of the difficulties
involved in calculating different losses that occur in carrying out
the compaction tests, both in the conventional and in the newly
proposed apparatus, attempts to calculate the equivalent energy
required in the new apparatus did not yield satisfactory results.
Hence, efforts were made to obtain equivalent number of blows
in the newly designed apparatus to obtain conventional Proctor’s
and modified Proctor’s maximum dry unit weight and optimum
moisture content through experimental methods.
In order to determine the actual number of blows required for the
proposed apparatus to achieve Proctor unit weight, different number
of blows were tried in the mini apparatus along with the standard
Proctor test for different soils. Table 1 gives the index properties
and physical properties of the soils used, along with their unified
FIG. 1—Proposed compaction apparatus. soil classification. Figure 2 shows the grain size distribution of the
soils. It may be mentioned that the soils tested varied quite widely
in their physical and index properties.
into the collar by not more than 5 mm. After the compaction, the Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the compaction curves for different
collar is removed and excess soil is trimmed off to make even with energies, obtained by the mini apparatus for red earth-1, kaolinite,
the top of the mold. The weight of the compacted soil together with
the mold is measured and the weight of the compacted soil is deter-
mined. The bulk unit weight of the soil is computed from the weight TABLE 1—Index properties of the soils used.
of the compacted soil and the volume of the mold. Knowing the
water content and bulk unit weight, the dry unit weight is calculated. Liquid Plastic Plasticity Shrinkage Specific Unified Soil
Soil Limit, % Limit, % Index, % Limit, % Gravity Classification

Red earth-1 37.0 16.7 20.3 13.7 2.70 CL

Energy Transferred to the Soil Kaolinite 54.5 33.7 20.8 37.0 2.70 MH
In the standard and modified Proctor compaction tests, the ham- BC soil 80.0 20.2 59.8 9.2 2.70 CH
Red earth-2 41.7 21.2 20.5 14.9 2.68 CL
mer directly falls on the soil to compact the soil. In the proposed Bangalore 33.0 19.0 14.0 15.0 2.65 CL
apparatus, the hammer falls on the top of the energy transferring soil
foot of the frame, and thus, the kinetic energy of the hammer White soil 47.0 40.0 7.0 39.0 2.60 ML
is transferred to the frame and the frame compacts the soil. Due Belgaum 65.0 18.8 46.2 9.1 2.77 CH
soil
to impact between hammer and frame there will be energy loss. Illite 131.0 78.0 53.0 45.0 2.56 MH
Hence, the entire kinetic energy of the hammer is not available for

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 8 07:45:09 EST 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 SRIDHARAN AND SIVAPULLAIAH ON MINI COMPACTION TEST 242

FIG. 2—Grain size distribution of soils used. FIG. 4—Unit weight–water content relationship for kaolinite.

FIG. 3—Unit weight–water content relationship for red earth-1. FIG. 5—Unit weight–water content relationship for BC soil.

and black cotton soil, respectively, with 1.0 kg hammer. It is clear diameter of the mold and the collar are nearly the same as that of the
from Figs. 3, 4, and 5 that to get the Proctor compaction curves diameter of the energy transferring foot. Hence, there is no room
from the proposed apparatus, the number of blows required is more for the bulging up of the soil. It is also found from Wilson (1950)
than 33 blows/layer and less than 38 blows/layer. However, it can that Harvard and standard Proctor compaction tests on soils give
be seen that on the wet side of optimum, compaction curves for lower dry unit weight values on the wet side of optimum and higher
28 blows/layer itself have shown slightly higher densities than the dry densities on the dry side of optimum by laboratory studies
Proctor densities. This is because in Proctor mold, on the wet side than field compaction. In the field compaction, due to size of the
of optimum, when blow is applied at one portion of the soil, soil equipment itself, there will be some amount of confinement, which
from the remaining portion bulges out. Hence, the energy applied results in a lesser amount of bulging on the wet side of optimum
is not completely utilized for the compaction (Reddy and Jagadish than the bulging in standard Proctor test. Due to this inefficiency in
1993). However, in the proposed apparatus, energy from each blow compaction, the standard Proctor test gives lower unit weight curve
is transferred to the entire cross section of the soil, since the internal on the wet side of optimum compared to the unit weight curve from

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 8 07:45:09 EST 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
243 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

the proposed apparatus. As seen from Figs. 3, 4, and 5, the number

of blows required to get nearly the standard Proctor compaction
curve for any soil is in between 33 blows/layer and 38 blows/layer.
It is interesting to see that the compaction curves obtained from
the proposed apparatus for different blows have almost the same
degree of saturation at the peak point for a given soil. Degree of
saturation at peak points was found to be about 85, 96, and 95 % for
red earth-1, kaolinite, and black cotton soil, respectively. Careful
examination of the results obtained from Figs. 3, 4, and 5 revealed
that 36 blows/layer in the mini apparatus would be reasonable to
match with conventional Proctor’s compaction curve. Thirty-six
blows per layer would match the conventional compaction curve
on the dry side of optimum. On the wet side, the curves will be
slightly different due to the effect of bulging in the standard Proctor
test.
The difference between Proctor maximum dry unit weight and
optimum water content and the values obtained by the proposed
mini apparatus for 36 blows/layer is within ±0.02 kN/m3 and
0.25 %, respectively, for all the soils studied. These differences
can be neglected for all practical purposes, and the compaction
curve derived from 36 blows/layer can be taken as the Proctor
compaction curve.
Figure 6 shows the Proctor compaction curve and compaction
curve obtained from mini apparatus by applying 36 blows/layer
in three layers for red earth-2. Red earth-2 contains about 14 %
of particles ranging from 1.00–4.00 mm (Fig. 2). It is clear from
Fig. 6 that curves are almost identical, indicating that the mini mold
can even be suitable for the soils containing particles up to 4 mm
size. The proposed mold is small in size, and it cannot be used for
soils containing larger particles, unlike Proctor mold (which can
be used for soils containing particles up to 20-mm size). However,
the proposed apparatus can be considered suitable for fine grained FIG. 7—Unit weight–water content relationship.
soils containing coarser fraction up to 2-mm size.
The compaction test from mini apparatus using 36 blows/layer
in three layers and standard Proctor test were conducted on four
more soils. As seen in Fig. 7, both the tests have given almost the
same compaction curves.

FIG. 8—Bulk unit weight, dry unit weight and water content versus
height of the sample.

In order to see the variation in unit weight, water content with

the height of compacted sample, a compacted sample was ejected
from the mini mold and was cut perpendicular to its longitudinal
axis into six discs of nearly the same size. Bulk and dry unit weights
and water content were determined. The variation in unit weights
and water content with height is shown in Fig. 8. The variation is
FIG. 6—Unit weight–water content relationship for red earth-2. marginal for all practical purposes.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 8 07:45:09 EST 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 SRIDHARAN AND SIVAPULLAIAH ON MINI COMPACTION TEST 244

trends were observed in roller compaction wherein as the number

of passes increases, increase in dry unit weight decreases and be-
comes constant. However, when weight of the roller is increased,
higher unit weights could be achieved at lesser number of passes
(Johnson and Sallberg 1960). Hence, for the modified Proctor’s test
it is proposed to increase the weight of the hammer keeping the
height of drop same as 16 cm and number of layers as 3, and the
number of blows required per layer is determined.

Test with Hammer of 2.5-Kg Hammer

Compaction tests were carried out with the 2.5-kg hammer after
preliminary trials on red earth-1 and the number of blows adopted
were 6(=18/3), 9(=27/3), 20(=60/3), 40(120/3), and 60(=180/3)
blows per layer in three layers. Figure 10 shows the compaction
curves obtained. Proctor compaction curve lies in between com-
paction curves of 6 blows/layer and 9 blows/layer, and modi-
fied Proctor compaction curve lies in between 30 blows/layer and
40 blows/layer compaction curves. As in the case of 1.0-kg ham-
mer, compaction curves of red earth-1 for different energies from
2.5-kg hammer also have almost the same degree of saturation at
optimum point (about 89 %).
Figure 11 shows dry unit weight versus number of blows and
water content versus number of blows plot at the optimum points.
The number of blows per layer required to have Proctor and
modified Proctor maximum dry unit weights was, respectively,
6 blows/layer and 32 blows/layer. The number of blows per layer
required for optimum water content works out to be higher and
are 6.5 blows/layer and 38.5 blows/layer for Proctor and modified
Proctor optimum water contents, respectively.
As seen from Fig. 11, the maximum dry unit weight and opti-
mum water content obtained for 36 blows/layer differ from those
obtained by modified Proctor test by small values and the difference
can be neglected for all practical purposes. Thus, 36 blows/layers
FIG. 9—Dry unit weight and water content versus number of blows for
can be taken as number of blows per layer required by the proposed
red earth-1. apparatus for modified Proctor curve. Table 2 compares some fea-
tures of proposed test with the standard tests.

Standardization of Number of Blows Required for Modified

Proctor Unit Weight
In order to see whether the apparatus can be used to get modified
Proctor compaction curve, tests were conducted on red earth-1. As
modified Proctor energy is 4.5 times the standard Proctor energy,
the blows required per layer for the proposed apparatus using 1.0 kg
hammer to get modified Proctor compaction curve can be taken as
162 (i.e., 4.5 times the blows required for the proposed appara-
tus for Proctor compaction curve (36 blows/layer)). However, the
tests were conducted in the proposed apparatus for 80, 120, and
162 blows/layer. For comparison, modified Proctor test was also
conducted. The compaction curves obtained by the proposed ap-
paratus and modified Proctor test are shown in Fig. 3. Compaction
curve obtained from the proposed apparatus for 162 blows/layer
is considerably lower than the modified Proctor compaction curve.
This can be explained as follows. Application of energy increases
the dry unit weight of the soil. However, dry unit weight cannot
increase continuously with increase in number of blows. The rate
of increase of dry unit weight with number of blows decreases and
finally becomes negligible. Figure 9 shows dry unit weight and
water content versus number of blows at optimum point for red
earth-1 from the proposed apparatus with 1-kg hammer. The rate of
increase in dry unit weight and rate of decrease in optimum water FIG. 10—Dry unit weight–water content relationship for red earth-1
content have become almost constant after 120 blows/layer. Similar (2.5-kg hammer).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 8 07:45:09 EST 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
245 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 2—Comparison of some features of proposed compaction test apparatus with the standard tests.

Proposed Compaction Test

Standard Modified
Feature Proctor Test Proctor Test For std. Proctor Unit Weight For modified. Proctor Unit Weight

Size of the mold Internal diameter 10.15 cm 3.81 cm

Height 11.7 cm 10 cm
Volume 945 cm3 114 cm3
Hammer Mass 2.5 kg 4.54 kg 1.0 kg 2.5 kg
Height of fall 30.5 cm 45.7 cm 16 cm
Mode of energy transfer Energy directly transferred Energy of the hammer is transferred through
to the soil from hammer the foot of the frame to the soil and hence
some loss of energy due to impact
Number of layers 3 5 3
Number of blows per layer 25 36 36
Soil Finer than 20 mm Finer than 2.0 mm

tor curve, the hammer weight is 2.5 kg and number of blows per
layer is 36, in three layers.
2. The energies per unit volume applied in the apparatus for stan-
dard and modified Proctor densities are, respectively, larger than
the energies per unit volume of the standard and modified Proc-
tor tests. This is due to loss of energy during the impact between
the hammer and the energy transferring foot, higher sidewall
friction and lesser effect of impact on the soil in making it
denser, in the proposed apparatus. Due to nonaccountability of
exact value of coefficient of restitution, effect of impact and side-
wall friction and other losses, the number of blows required with
the proposed apparatus was actually obtained by comparing the
compaction curves obtained from the proposed apparatus and
the standard and modified Proctor compaction curves instead of
theoretical calculation.
3. In standard and modified Proctor tests, there will be bulging of
soil when the test is conducted on the wet side of optimum.
In the proposed apparatus, there is no chance of bulging as
the internal diameter of the mold and the energy transferring
foot are almost equal. Due to this inefficiency in compaction,
standard and modified Proctor tests give relatively lower dry unit
weights on the wet side of optimum when compared with the
results obtained with the new apparatus. The difference between
the dry unit weight and optimum water content obtained from
standard and proposed apparatus is negligible for all practical
purposes.
4. The proposed apparatus is simpler and quicker, and the amount
of effort involved is comparatively much less, and also saves a
considerable amount of soil.
5. Samples for strength tests can be obtained with a minimum
disturbance and lesser time.

References
FIG. 11—Dry unit weight and water content versus number of blows ASTM D 698-91, 1995: Test Method for Laboratory Compaction
with 2.5-kg hammer for red earth-1. Characteristics of Soil using Standard Effort [12, 400 ft-lb/ft3
(600 kN-m/m3 )], Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, Sec. 4, Vol. 04.08, pp. 69–76.
ASTM D 1557-91, 1995: Test Method for Laboratory Com-
Conclusions
paction Characteristics of Soil using Modified Effort [56, 400
1. A mini compaction apparatus has been designed to generate ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3 )], Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Proctor and modified Proctor compaction curves for fine grained ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Sec. 4, Vol. 04.08,
soils containing particles finer than 2 mm. The developed appa- pp. 118–125.
ratus consists of mold of 3.81-cm internal diameter and height of Beer, F. P. and Johnston, Jr., E. R., 1990, Vector Mechan-
10 cm with falling hammer of weight 1.0 kg with 36 blows/layer ics for Engineers—Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
in three layers for Proctor compaction curve. For modified Proc- Singapore.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 8 07:45:09 EST 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 SRIDHARAN AND SIVAPULLAIAH ON MINI COMPACTION TEST 246

Bowles, J. E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, The Nara, H. R., 1962, Vector Mechanics for Engineers, John Wiley
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York. and Sons, New York.
Goldsmith, W., 1960, Impact—The Theory and Physical Behavior Reddy, B. V. and Jagadish, K. S., 1993, “The Static Compaction of
of Colliding Solids, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., London. Soils,” Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 337–341.
Johnson, A. W. and Sallberg, J. R., 1960, “Factors that Influence Wilson, S. D., 1950, “Small Soil Compaction Apparatus Dupli-
Field Compaction of Soils,” Highway Research Bulletin 272, cates Field Results Closely,” Engineering News Record, Nov. 2,
Washington, D.C. pp. 34–36.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 8 07:45:09 EST 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Inst of Science Bangalore (Indian Inst of Science Bangalore) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.