An Evaluation of the Constant Dry Weight Compaction Method

Report 81-3 Apri 1 , 1981

STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION

t1ATERIALS & RESEARCH DIVISION

P.J. GARAHAN,P.E. ,SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION S.J. GAGE, P.E. ,DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION

R.F. NICHOLSON, P.E. ,WHERIALS & RESEARCH ENGINEER

Prepared By C. H. Cookson

Transportation Technician

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . .

INTRODUCTION.

THE PROC10~ METHOD.

THE CONSTANT DRY WEIGHT METHOD.

PHASE

Page 1

2

3

5

I Frequency of Construr.tion Compaction Test. Resu l ts . 6

II Side-by-Side Laboratory Compaction Tests. . 8

III Wet Density Comparison . 12

IV Pairs of Proctor Tests. . 14

V Optimum Moisture Estimation . 14

DISCUSSION . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDI X ...

REFERENCES.

15

16

17

21

"The contents of this report reflect the views of the

authors \'Jho are res pons i b 1 e for the facts and the accuracy of

the data presented herein. This report does not constitute a

standard, specification, or regulation. Anyone, other than the

Agency using this report does so with awareness that the Agency

does not guarantee the opinions, findings, or conclusions

contained herei n. 11

ABSTRACT

There has been a need in the highway construction industry for a

rapid and economical method of compaction testing. 1\ method devel­

oped by the Ontario Department of High1-1ays in the late 1960 1 s is

called the Constant Dry \4eight (CDH) compaction test. It is a

comparison of two volumes.

Thi s study has examined the merits from a precision standpoint

as well as a time saving method. A series of actual tests on a typical

construction project were tabulated and analyzed as \vell as laboratory

controlled comparisons. The Proctor method of test was used as a

standard comparison. Side-by- side tests, mol ding comparisons and

moisture estimations were considered.

The CDH method produces test results \·lhich are comparable to the

Proctor Method. It has the additional benefit of not needing a complete

evaluation (i.e. M-D curves, gradation, etc.) resulting in a cost savings.

1

INTRODUCTION

The success of a hi ghway building program depends on a good qual ity

contro l program of which embankment compaction testi ng is an integral part.

The const ruction industry has, in recent years, developed ne\'1 sophisticated

equipment which cuts building time cons iderabl y. In view of this, new

and faster methods of compact ion testing have been developed, and still

are being so ught . The best known of these i s the Proctor dry density

method of measuring field density of the embankment materia l. Nuc l ea r

non-destruct ive methods have recently been developed to a hi gh degree

of accuracy . Any nuclear system i s quite expensive initially to purchase,

but it can save time and labor because of t he number of tests which can

be pe rformed in a day's time.

A new method of promise ha s been developed in Canada by the Ontario

Mini stry of Transportation and Commun icat ion. It i s ca lled the Constant . Dry Weight (COW) rrethod and i s a var i at ion of the Standard Proctor Test,

AASHTO T-99, Method C. In the COW test, the percent of compaction i s

determined by comparing the in place volume of a soil sampl e with the

vo l ume of the same sampl e in the Proctor mo l d after sta ndard compaction

at abol:lt its optim1:1m mo is t~:~re, Sinc e no moist 11re calc!!latians are involved,

a cons iderable savi ngs of time i s r ealized in performing the test.

A project 1·1as undertaken to evaluate the constant dry \·Ie ight method

and to prove its 1·10rth as a rap id means of embankment test ing. The sand

cone Proctor test was used as a basis for comparison. The invest iga t ion was

divided into five phases. The f irst phase was to tabulate and ana lyze the

compact ion values of a construction project, in the form of a frequency

distribution, on which bot h t he Proctor test and the COW test were used.

2

The second phase involved pairs of the two compaction methods taken side­

by-side in the lcboratory. The third phase \'las to determine the accuracy

of the dip stick wet density compared to the Proctor wet density. The

forth phase v1as to analyze paired compaction tests of the Proctor method.

The fifth phase was also done in the Centra l Lab and concerned the esti­

mating of optimum moisture of various types of materials.

The comparison of the two methods requires an understanding of each

in order to make an intelligent eval uat ion. A brief description of each

method is included here I'Jith a step- by-step procedure.

THE PROCTOR METHOD

The standard of the industry is known as the Proctor dry dens ity

method l·lhic h was developed by R. R. Proctor in 1934. It is based on dry

unit weight of the mater ial. A series of moisture-density control curves

are constructed from representative mater i al s which will be encountered

on the project. They are used to determine the maximum density and opti­

mum moisture of the test sample under cons iderati on. In order to construct

a moisture-density curve to comply with AASHTO designation T-99, it takes

parts of three consecutive days, or longer, if a clay type soil is involved.

Since no two sampl es of the same type of material are exact duplicates, the

curves are only good gu ides. They truly onl y represent the sample of

material from v1hich they v1ere developed. This test is, hovtever, the most

well known and has been successfully used throughout the industry.

A test hole is dug at the embankment s i te using standard equipment

and t he materi al returned to the mobile l aboratory and the in place density

calcula ted. After the moisture determination has been made, the material

is compacted into a Proctor mold using a standard compactive effort. The

3

molded unit dry density is determined as is its moisture content. These

values are pl otted on an appropriate moisture-density curve and the maxi­

mum dry density and optimum moisture are determined. These maximum and

optimum values are related to the embankment values to calculate the

percent compaction and the moisture condition. This complete process will

take about forty-five minutes, depending on the distance from the site to

the mobile 1 a b.

The following is a general step by step descri ption of the Proctor

method. It is assJmed that all equipment and sand has been cali brated and

is ready for operation and al l necessary moisture-density curves have been

provided by the Central Laboratory.

1. Heigh sand j ug, f ul l.

2. Proceed to site and perform on s i te operations and return to lab.

3. Re-weigh sa nd jug to determi ne 1 oss of sand.

4. Determi ne hole vo lume us i ng the weight of lost sand and its density.

5. \leigh materia l taken from hole .

6. Determine its wet dens i ty.

7. Remove a rroisture sampl e and weigh.

8. Dry moisture sampl e.

9. Re-weigh mo i sture sample to determine loss of 1·1ater .

10. Calculate the percent moisture.

11 . Determine the dry density of the in place materia l .

12 . Compact the material into the Proctor mo l d usi ng standard effort.

13. We i gh mo l d and soil and determi ne the weight of the soi l .

14. Remove moisture sampl e from mol ded mater ia l and we i gh.

15. Dry mo i sture sample.

16. Re-weigh moisture sample to determi ne loss of water.

17. Calc ulate t he percent of moisture.

4

18. Determine the dry density of the molded material.

19. Choose an appropriate moisture-density curve and apply the molded

dry density and its moisture percent to determine the maximum

dry density and its optimum moisture.

20. Oetermire the percent compaction by dividing the field dry density

by the maximum dry density.

21. Determine the moisture condition by comparing the optimum moisture

to the field moisture.

THE CD\~ I~ETHOO

The COl~ 1·1ethod of testing was developed as a rap i d test for percent

compaction of highway embankments . It could be ca l led a volumetric test

since it compares volumes, not dry densities or moistures. The equipment

required for the test is the same as that for the Proctor method. The only

addition is the rreasuring device ca l led a ca l ibrated dipst i ck. The dipstick

is a six inch piece of pl astic whi ch has been divided on one side into units

of one one-thousandth of a cubic foot when used with a Proctor mo ld. The

other side of the dipstick is cal ibrated with the number of blows required

to achieve max i mum density based on hole volume. The divis i ons can be

estimated to one ten-thousandth of a cubic foot without any difficulty. This

d1pst1c1< 1s usea to determine the volume of 111ater ial con~pacted ifl tfle fflold.

A diagram of the di pst i ck can be found on page 21 of the Appendix.

The on site procedure is the same for this test as it is for the Proctor

test except that slightl y less material is taken for a sample from the

embankment. This is necessary because all of the material must be compacted

i nto the mold 1·1hereas for the Proctor method any excess materia l can be

di scarded. The completion of the test may be done at the mobi le soils lab,

5

or at the site. The material, after having been removed from the embankment,

is adjusted to contain about the optimum amount of moisture and compacted

into the Proctor mold. The compactive effort is determined from the volume

of the hole. After the molding is completed, the volume of the compacted

material is determined by use of the dipstick using four points around the

mold and one in the center. The resulting average of these values is divided

by the volume of the hole in the embankment; this is the embankment percent

compaction.

The whole procedure can be done in about ten minutes or less if done

at the site; if done at the soils l ab, it of course, depends on the travel

time.

The foll01·1ing is a general step-by-step description of the COW method.

1. Heigh sand jug, full.

2. Perform on-site operations.

3. Re-1·1e i gh sand jug to determine 1 oss of sand.

4. Determine hole volume us i ng the weight of lost sand and

its density.

5. Evaluate moisture condition and adjustto near optimum.

6. Com~act mater ial into Proctor mold.

7. Using the dipstick, determine the volume of material in the

8. Determine the percent compaction by dividing the volume of

the materi al in the mold by the volume of the hole.

PHASE I

ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION COMPACTION TEST RESULTS

A typical interstate highway construction project was chosen where both

Proctor and Constant Dry Weight compaction testing methods were used at random

6

throughout the season. The test values were tabulated into a frequency

distribution with a one percent i nterval value as shown in Table II, page

9. The purpose of this distribution was to see if there was any simi l arity

in the occurrence of passing and failing test values bet\oJeen the Proctor

density method and the COW method of compaction testing. The materials

tested were most ly of a granul ar nature, although a fair number fel l into

the silt range. All t he tests \'tere performed by the same person l'lhich l'toul d

remove any personal bias that coul d influence the resulti ng values. The

embankments were all constructed in the standard manner using conventional

compacting equi pment. Moisture wa s not a problem since most of the embankments

were made from dry, well drained materials.

All of the t ests were performed at the mobile t est ing laborato ry in

order to minimize any incons i stencies in weighing and molding. The same

field equi pment was used in taking the tests as well as the same l ab equ ip­

ment. Standard Ottawa sand meet ing'ASTM designati on C-190 was used and was

calibrated regularly.

Test sites were not chosen in ·order to provide directly comparable.

test results. The choi ce of test sites wa s of a random nature and equa l

ca re 1;1as taken in the processing of each test. The t1·10 methods may or may

not have been done at the same time or the same pl ace; only as chance \'IOu ld

have it.

There were a total of 791 Proctor tests and 595 consta nt dry weight

tests performed. Table I on page 8 provides a breakdown of test result s

obtained fro~ eaGh of the methods in a co~paratfve form.

7

TABLE I

Proctor cow

Total Number of Tests in Frequency 791 595

Number of tests passing 757 574

Number of tests fa i 1 i ng 34 21

Percent of tests failing 4.3 3.6

t1ean 94.3 94.2

Standard Deviatior. 3,7 3.4

The soil types on this project were fairly uniform so it would be logical to

assume that there is no variation due to soil types. Mathematical analysis shows

that the mean of the frequency of pass I fail results does not differ significantly

with test type. The standard deviations of 3.4 and 3.7 percent are in close agreement.

These results compare favorably with the results of a study done by the Ontario

Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The Ontario study shows that the COW

test produced a range of standard deviation of 2.3 to 2.5 percent while the 1 standard P.roctor results produced a range of 2.0 to 2.7 percent. The ranges

encompass standard deviations for three different soil types.

PHASE II

SIDE-BY-SIDE l ABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS

As with any comparison testing the ideal is to have identi cal test conditions.

In practical application this is difficult. To provide conditions ~s nearly ident­

ical as possible a container large enough accommodate two sand cones and plates,

side by side, with an adequate quantity of soi l was necessary.

1R. SHONFELD, 11 The Constant Dry ~teight Method - A No-Weighing Fi eld Compaction

Test, 11 DHO Report No. RR 141, Ontario Department of Highways, (September, 1968)

Table4,P17. 8

TABLE II

PERCENT OF TOTAL TESTS BY COMPACTION t~ETIIOD

Percent Com~a ct ion Proctor CD\ol

90% 11.9 15.9

91 11.4 7.6

92 8.7 9.5

93 10.6 1 0. 5

94 10.4 10.8

95 9.6 10.0

96 7.7 9.0

97 6.6 8.1

98 7.8 7. 1

99 5.2 5.9

100 4. 7 2.2

1 01 1.0 0

1 02 0

1 03

9

A rectangular box was constructed of three-quarter inch marine ply­

wood and coated with several l ayers of epoxy pai nt inside and out. The

dimensions of the box were twelve by tl-tenty i nches and eight inches deep.

Sturdy two by four inch handles were at t ached to the outside for li fting.

The handles also reinforced the sides to prevent bulging when compacting

the so il . f\ removable col l ar s i mi l ar to that of a Proctor mold 1-1as made

to fit ever the top of the box.

f\ fa lling hammer arrangement on a vertica l steel shaft was built to

provide the compactivc effor t. A flat four by four inch by half inch

steel pad was attached to the bottom of the steel s haft. A s i x inch pad

1·1as first used, but it did not transmit enough energy to the so il and

proved to be cumbersome to operate. no attempt 1-1as made to 1·1ei gh the

hammer or calculate the amo unt of energy created .

The r ema i ning equipment used 1·1as Standard Proctor test in g equipment

1·1ith the exception of a Fairbanks pl atform scale for 1·1eighing the full box

of so il and a COW dipstick.

The objective in using the box mold i s to provide a container for the

soil. The soil 1·1as compacted as uniformly as poss i bl e so t hat all areas

were as close to the same density as poss i ble. The soil was pl aced in the

box iR five ~o~niform layers and tamped 1vitb thirty-nine blows of the hammer.

The so il extended up into the collar and was leveled with a stra ight­

edge in a manner s imilar to the Proctor mold procedure.

In the beginning t he blows were distributed evenly over the sur face of

the so i l . It 1-1as subsequently discovered that the so il density wa s higher

in the center of the box than on the edges , apparentl y due to the resistance

of the s ides of the box. The pattern of the blows was cha nged so that more

effort was placed on the edges of each layer. This seemed to correct the

problem. The thirty-nine blo\-tS 1.,ras chosen because it put the percent

10

compact ion i n t he ninety percent range.

A quantity of so i l of different types was col l ected sufficient to

fi ll t he box with some left over. It was thoroughl y mi xed at low moisture

content i n order t hat it be uniform throughout. Sampl es \·Jere taken for a

Proctor moisture- dens i ty cur ve and for cl ass i ficat ion. Just prior to mo l di ng ,

t he moisture content was raised to near opt i mum as determi ned by the mo i sture­

density curve. Once the des i red mo i sture content v1as obtai ned, it vJas

entered on the wor k sheet dur i ng the t est p~ocedure. A moisture determinat i on

1·:as made for eac h test i n the set. It v1as found that the mate r ia l did dry

out some1·1hat dur i ng t he day' s t est ing .

After eac h set of tests 1·tas compl eted, the box v:as emptied, the soi l

thoroughly r e-mixed and the process repeated .

S~vera l so il types were used in t he study . These were chosen at random

and wer e t ypical of the so il s in the sta t e whi ch wo uld be encountered dur ing

a construct ion project.

All data obtained from the test in g was tabulated on wo r k sheets . This

inc luded t he box v1et dens ity, v1et and dr y density from bot h the COH and

Proctor me thods , t he mo l ded wet density of both methods , t he dry dens i ty

of eac h m~thod and of pri me i nterest , the percent compaction.

There \tlere two main concerns of thi s phase of testing. The first was a

comparison of the percent compact ion determinations obtained from each of the

test methods and the second was t he reliability of the "dipstick" method of

measuring mold volume .

Pairs of tests were run and t he difference in percent compaction determin­

ation were analyzed. The evalua t ion, broken down by soil t ype, of these

differences is s hown in TABLE III following.

11

TABLE I I I

Soi 1 Type t·:ean Difference Std . Oev i at ion JJ of Sampl es r.

A-4 Si lt 0.45 l. 67 23

/\-1-b Sa nd -0.32 1. 4t1 28

A- 2- t1 tlix 0. 40 1.35 25

A-2- 4 Sand 0.85 1. 71 36 A-2- 4 Sil ty Sand - 0.06 1.19 15

Total Combined Sar:1ples 0.1\5 1. 67 127

Figure l i s a graph of the percent compaction results obtai ned by the Proctor

method versus the results obtained by the Constant Dry lrleight t1ethod.

The best-fit regression has been plotted along with the confidence limi ts.

PHASE II I

WE T DENSITY COMPARISON

rhe results of the differences obtained from the wet density moldings

of the Proctor method versus that of the COW method are li sted in the

fo ll owi ng table:

Soil Type Mean Difference Std. Devia t ion If of Sampl es

fl-4 Silt - 0.56 1. 09 21 fl-1-b Sand - 1 • 92 1. 92 28 A-2-4 MiX -0.03 1.24 25 fl-2-4 Sa nd - 1.22 1. 62 36 A-?-4 <:;iltv Snnrf -0.43 1. 06 14 Total -0 .95 1. 62 124

Mathemati cal Analysis of the results revealed the following . The diff­

erence between so i l types i s stati sticall y s i gn i fica nt . Although the mean

differs signi ficant l y from zero and t here i s a statistica l difference be-

tween soil types, t he differences in the means are experimentally insi gn i fica nt .

According to ASTM 0698, the s ingle operator precis ion for molded wet

density i s 1.9% of the value obtained. Thi s is a greater figure than the

amount by which confidence in t he table above or t he difference between soil

types. 12

\ . . • :;

• • \ \ . •

co 0'1

~ • •

• ~

• • • • • I'-

'\ ,,

~·\ • 4 • .. "\_

• • .. ,. •••• • • • \ • ·-· - -l . 4 • \ • ~~ ..... ••• • • .: • I .... ., . • I • • •••• .. ~\ •• •

•• I\ • \. .

\ • c::-0 ..... J'

J'~ "(

~' ·,>~

~...., ~

~. ·~~

- - ----N 0'1

c::-0. v J .

"()I~

%

0 0'1

1.0 . q-N

:::;: 0. u q-r--. . 0

II

QC 0 1-u 0 0:: 0..

.. ... ·~

-.?

• ..... ~ . .... /A, \ •

.._," ~

• ~ ·~ ;;,0 • v

.... e'%:

~. o, '0-~ .... • ..,y '

-.?J'

~

\ • \

\__ _ ._ ~---co co

PROCTOR MOLD - PERCENT COMPACTION

0 0 .....

co 0'1

1.0 0'1

q-0'1

N 0'1

0 0'1

co co

-z-0 ..... 1-u ex:: 0.. :a: 0 u 1-z: UJ u 0:: UJ 0..

1-:X: (.!) ..... UJ :::;:

>-0:: Cl

1-z: ex:: 1-tn :z 0 u

PHASE IV

PAIRS OF PROCTOR TESTS

The differences between standard Proctor job and progress compaction tests

1·1ere analyzed for 206 samples. These tests are done side-by-side, simultan­

eously as part of an assurance testing program. A standard deviation of 1 .8

was obtained which is 4 t i mes the average difference between the

Proctor and the COW percent compact ion, as shown on page 12.

PHASE V

OPTJt.1UI~ 1·10ISTURE ESTIMI\TION

A sma l l project was set up i n the Central Laboratory to determine how

near optimum t he mo i stur e of a soil sampl e coul d be estimated by an exper­

i enced compaction i nspector. The onl y cri teri a a l lowed were t he abili ty

to observe by handli ng , squeez ing, and s haking. Four samples of di fferent

mate r ials we re air dri ed and each person adjusted the water content unti l

they felt that the mater i al had reached i ts optimum. The soi l s ranged f rom

an A-~ si l t to an A-l-b coarse sand.

A total of ei ghteen sepa rate tests were performed by a group of

five experienced compact i on personnel. Arrangements were made to see to i t

that the results 1·1ere nnt knmm until all the testing had hero performed

This removed any i nfluence of one person ' s opinion on another. A standard

mo i sture-dens i ty cur ve was co nstr ucted for each materia l and was used to

establish t he optimum moisture of each.

lt 1·1as demo nstrated that ei ghty-three percent of the est imates of these

persons were within two percent of optimum. The results also showed that

slightly over ha l f of the test results 1-1ere on the dry side of optimun. Of

the estim.Jtes v1hich 1·1ere less than opt i mum, the average diff<?rc:nce 1·1as 1 .8

percent; those above optimum averaged 0. 6 percent.

14

The overall average difference from optimum moisture for all samples

was -0.9 percent.

DISCUSSION

The frequency and occurrence of pass I fail results on an actual

construction job was compiled from test reports. There was no si gnificant

difference in the frequency of pass I fail results attributable to test method.

In general it appeared that an experi enced compaction testor is able

to estimate optimum moisture levels for various soil types within a reasonable

degree of accuracy.

The wet density comparison established that the use of the dipstick for

volume determination is feasible and accurate. This point is essential

to the use of this test.(CDW)

The lesser number of procedural steps in the COW vs Proctor tests allows

fewer opportunities for error.

The 21 steps in the Proctor method do not include the steps necessary

to construct the moisture-density curve at the laboratory. It must also be

noted that the sample submi tted for a moisture-density curve may not exactly

duplicate the embankment being tested. It is not possibl e to have a curve

for each and every different soil on a project and it is often necessary to

11 find a curve that fits 11 a particular sample. A materia l i s fitted to a curve

by using its molded moisture-density relationship and apparent so il type. Time

does not permit a compl ete analysis of a material from an embankment. The

analysis is done vi sually and its accuracy depends upon the judgement and

experience of the inspector.

The COW method involves the comparison of one volume from an embankment

with a standard volume for comparison. It i s dependent upon the ski ll and

experience of the operator to correctly estimate 11 optimum moisture 11•

There i s a substantil sav ing of time possible with COW due part i ally

to the fewer steps and partially because all operations can be done at or near

15

the test site thus affording the operator greater opportunity to supervise

the filling operation and reducing travel time.

CONCLUSION

From this study it is apparent that the COW test is a viable alternative

to the Standard Proctor Method when employed by an experienced inspector.

16

A P P E N D I X

!

t

(01\PACTIQN I 1

CHECI: •

! CONHANI P lY I 'IWZ~ IL.!Ttt01> 1

I ~OULP

' 1 I --.001~

1-.000 C.F. I .---1--1 ---'2--·---l ___j , __ , ___j

:--.5--{ ,--6=::] ,--1 I --a I ~-- 9 ·-- I O__J I I 4--1 1 I .--12 I --13 --:--u ----{ --1.5 --1--16--1 ' I {--17 l --I& :--19 ___j ·--20 ___j 1--2 1--1

1--22--1

·--23 --1

;--'24 --1 ;--2.5 --' --26 --

1 • I ,--27 --, --23 - -• I --29 ----"1 ·--30--·--JI--' ' I ,--32 -4-, :--- 33 --, --J~ -----1 '--:1.5 --' !--36-- 1

'--37 --! L--Ja--1

·L-39-- 1 1-- tO ___j r-41 ___~ --42 ----' }--43--1 - -H ___j 1- - ts ----' ~t6 I L-- 47

FRONT VIEW

z 3: 0 :I:

"' "' -<

"' 3: l 0 ~ .. "' w ~ ~ -< ::z: ... 0

I a: w

I 0

~

l :::.

1 z

I 0 j w I ...

j v w at a: 0 v w

l "' :::.

j -

·-I r L_

' -I

I I ~-,-·-l ,-t= I l ,-I 1 ,

z < ... ._ ... -0 ...

~ :::. -< 0 "' ...

w z ::z: -< v ~

"" ~ 0 >-a:

w 0

"" :::. "' ... 0

6 ~ ~ z

;::: ::!:

._ .... :::. 3: ~ ... ,_ ... ... 0

w ... :c -< :I w 0 .... ... > ~

"' < "' "' -.... .... < ::z: ::!: ...

"' ~ -<

.5 7 .5 9 61 6 4 6 6 6 8 ~ 70 g 73 "' 7.5 u. 77 0 110 "' 82.

w ... 8 -4 ~

8 6 :I z 8 9

0 9 1 w

9 3 cr: ::I

9 .5 0 98 w

Cit

100 102 105 107

REAR VIEW

I ! I

l ! l I j 1 I . t

I l I 1 I I I I l.

I

l

THE CALIBRATE D DIPSTICK

17

C. D.W. RESEARCH

"i::S 'i' o '{

.,_

I

I I

I I I l l ......

co '

Percent % x weight

Pan

Pan & Soil

No . blows per layer

Dipstick readings: 1

2

3

4

5

Total of readings

Average

Mold Correction

Corr. r eading

Wet Density

lOS lC O 97

-·-'

26+2 5 24+1

It- ·

STATE OF VEi\!10:-.."t DEPARTI::S~rr OF HIGlillAYS

SOILS L:\DCRATORY

COi·~!.CTION TEST \·:CRl~ SHEET Cm!STA!U DRY- \·,'E lGlrr NETHOD

DATE

95 9~ 90

23+1 22+2 22+1

87 85 .

22 .. 21+1

Soil Type: % Stone:

Sand: Silt:

Wet Density: Wt. of Soil:

83

20+1.

•

- -

80

19+2

77 I . I . I

19

I

I I

I I

I . I . :

I I I I : I J

-1.0

! I I I

OJ ~GT:

DY:

1. Test No.

2. Station

"\ (')ff!':Pt

4. Depth Bclm-r Sub2rade

5. Soil Type ·

6. Wst . Sand Jug (uefore)

7. Wgt, Sand 'Jug (aft e r )

8. W~t. Sand Used (6- 7)

9. Cone Corr ection . lQ, Net Sand in....fu>.JP f~_q,

11. Sand Dcnsitv . 12. Net Hole Volume (lQ.;.ll'

13. Dipstick Readin2s 1.

2.

3.

4.-

s. 14. Total of Readings

f---l...S.....__AY.C r . YoJ..ur~cl inc 16. ! Cocpaction {15~12)

17. t~iGture Condition ~ --

~

-

VER.HONT AGENCY OF TRAK3?0RJ.'A7ION MATERIALS & RESEARCH DIVISION

CON'fRACl'OR· . . .

'

'

.

---- ------ - - --- ---- -

'

I

I i

I

I

l

I

' I I I I . I '

i I I

I

I

I

I I

I

Slate of Vermont

AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION

MATERIALS DIVISION- SOILS SUBDIVISION

COMPACTION TEST WORK SH EET

PROJECT -------------------------r--------------~ CONTRACTOR. _____________ _

TEST BY

In-Place Density

l 1. Test No. 1

2. Wgc. Sand Jug (Defore) T I I I

I I - i

I I i

-3. Wgc. Sand Jug (After ) I 1

<i. _Wgr. Sand Used (2- 3) I 5. Cone Correction I . I

G. Ncr Sand in Hole ( 4 - 5) I 7. Sand Density l I I -

I I I I I I 9. Wgr. Soil -1- Sample Can J I 8. Net Hole Volume (6-:- 7) I

I I I I I I 1 -1~-· -~_prt. S~mplc Can 1_ ____ +-+'-----

11. Wgr. Sou (9 - 10) I · I I I I I I r----~---~---·-- - .

i I . I

12. W cr Density (11 -:-- 8) I , ' --- - ---~---+-;.------+--

-__ --- ~ --·-·

- .. I

13. Wgr. Plus X" -+- s;,.v,. ~ · iT"'wg;-s-iev,.

I 1s. Wgt. Plus W' (13 - 14 )

16. %Plus X" (15 -:- 11 ) (100) I I 17. Corr. Wet Density I I I

I I I .I _j__ 18. 100 + % Moisture• 19. Dry Density• •

In-Place Moisture

1. Test No. I I I I 1 2. Can No. I I' ---- -~- I 3. Wgt. Can & Soil & Water I I I I 1\. Wgt. Can & Soil (Dry) I -5~0 gr. Can I -()_-w-g'Z"War~(3- 4) I

7. Wgr. Soil (4 - 5) I I I I I I R. % Moisture (6-:- 7 ) (100) I 1_1 __ ~-----_,_] __ __,_ __

HD 181 SM 3-74

Report Data

1. Test No. ---------- I I

I I 2. Station -··

I I 3. Offset 4. Depth Below Sub-Grade I I 5. Curve No. - - -·- -··-· I I 6. I Soil Type

_?~aximum Density I I 8. Optimum Moisture I I 9. Field Moisntce Condition I I ------

10. % Compaction I I

Moisture-Density Check Point

1. Test No. I 2. Wgc. Mold & Soil il 3. Wgt. Mold I

· :r-wgt. Soit <2 - 3> 5. Can No. 6. Wgc. Can & Soil & Water I 7. - Wgc. Can & Soil (Dry ) I 8. Wgt. Can 9. Wgc. Water (6 - 7) I

10. Wgt. Soil (7 - 8) I 11. % Moisru.re (9 -:-- 10) (100) i 12. Dry Density• • • I .

• "!o Dry Moisture from No. 8 of In-Place Moisture Test •• Dry Delllllty = <Corr. Wet Density + No. 18! <100) ••• Dry Delllllty = (No. 4 X 3000) + (100 + No. 11)

I I I

I I I I I I I I

I

I I

I I l I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I

I

I I I

. I I I

I I

I

I I I I I

I I . I I

REFERENCES

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (1980), "Soil and Rock; Building Stones," Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 19, Philadelphia, pp. 201-207.

ANDERSON, T.W., AND SCLOVE, S.L. (1974), "Introductory Statistical Analysis, " Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 499 pp.

HOUGH, B.K. (1957), "Basic Soils Engineering,'' Ronald Press, New York, 513 pp.

SCHONFELD, R. (1968) , "The Constant Dry ~Ieig ht Method- A No-Heighing Field Compaction ~1ethod, " Department of Highways, Ontario, Report RR 141, 21 pp.

TAYLOR, D.~~ . (1960) , "Fundamenta 1 s of Soi l s t;lechani cs," John Wil ey & Sons, New York, 11 th Edi ti on, 700 pp.

WALPOLE, R.E., and MYERS, R. H. (1972), "Proba bi l ity and Stati stics For Engi neers and Sc i enti sts, " Macmill ia n Publicat ions, New Yor k, 506 pp.