The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper

No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

Determining Compaction and Water Content Ratio of Compacted Soil Using Hilf Rapid Method
Shahriar Shahrokh Abadi1, Armin Yekkalam1, Mohammad Bagheri Kaffash Rafsanjani 1
1- Department of Civil Engineering, Valiasr University of Rafsanjan *shahrokhabadi@mail.vru.ac.ir

Abstract
Compaction is a substantial parameter in geomechanics, and can be determined by using Hilf method. This method determines water content ratio using equations; hence oven is not required. Thereby the time which is needed to dry soil has been eliminated. The test needs 3 points for determining optimum Compaction and water content ratio. Experimental data must initially be accumulated for particular soil in order that the moisture variation can be reliably assessed. In this research Hilf method is performed in laboratory using CH clay obtained from Sarcheshmeh mines and sand. Purpose of investigation is to introduce method and to compare its accuracy with usual Proctor Method. Results show that accuracy of Hilf method is more than 99% in both clay and sandy clay. Keywords: Soil compaction, Hilf, Proctor, Moisture content.

1. INTRODUCTION
Compaction is the compression of a non-saturated soil resulting in reduction of the volume and increase in the density of a given mass of soil [1]. In other words, the maximum bulk density resulting from an application of a certain quantity of energy on the soil mass is called compactibility [2]. Soil compaction is widely used in geo-engineering and is important parameter in road construction, dams, landfills, airfields, foundations, hydraulic barriers, ground improvements, and etc. Compaction is applied to the soil, with the purpose of finding optimum water content to maximize its dry density, and therefore, to decrease soil s compressibility, increase shearing strength, and in some cases, to reduce its permeability. This observation is due to the fact that the high compaction energy fractures the coarse grains of gravel in the samples and the fractured particles fill the pores between the granular soil and hence the maximum dry unit weighs increases considerably [3]. Proper compaction of materials ensures the durability and stability of earthen constructions. A typical compaction curve presents different densification stages when the soil is compacted with the same apparent energy input but different water contents. The water content at the peak of the curve is called optimum water content and represents the water content in which dry density is maximized for a given compaction energy. Since Proctor`s pioneering work in 1933, many researchers have attempted to explain the leading mechanisms in the densification stages, mainly on the dry side of optimum water content. The compaction curve was explained in terms of capillarity and lubrication [4], viscous water [5] pore pressure theory in unsaturated soils [6], determination of dry density by using vertically

vibrating table [7], sand compaction using vibrating roller [8] and determination of moisture content by calcium carbide speedy method [9]. These works provide predominantly
qualitative explanations of the shape of the curve. Despite this research work, and the importance and high demand of the compaction process in engineering practice, it still remains that the compaction of soil is quite complex and not well explained, particularly from a quantitative sense. It can be concluded that the selected parameters, -1-

The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

namely soil texture expressed by silt plus clay or clay, can be used to roughly estimate the Proctor test s maximum bulk density as well as critical water content of agricultural and recently abandoned soils [10]. Therefore, research is needed on fundamental level to understand the evolution of compaction characteristics of soil. This paper presents a comparison between Hilf and Standard Proctor method on clay and sandy clay and determines its accuracy and time saving. In order to achieve this aim, approaches developed by Hilf are simulated. This article considers reliance of this method on different water content, and shows its acceptable limits in field.

2. HILF THEORY
Hilf test is mostly based on Proctor test. During the Proctor test procedure moisture content is determined at which the soil reaches the highest bulk density, commonly called maximum bulk density (MBD). This moisture content is called the critical water content (CWC) [11]. The Hilf method sets out a rapid method for determining compaction control parameters for soils. The method involves relating converted wet density (CWD) of the laboratory-compacted soil to added moisture (Z) without the need to determine moisture content [12]. Because it is a rapid method, minor differences results obtained by that rapid procedure and the results obtained by method of compaction control may occur. The procedure is applicable to that portion of soil which passes a 37.5 mm sieve. Corrections for up to 20% oversized materials can be made to values determined by this method. Soil which all passes a 19.0 mm sieve is compacted in 105 mm diameter mold according to Proctor type A. Soil which contains more than 20% of material retaining on a 19.0 mm sieve is compacted in a 152 mm diameter mold according to Proctor type C [13]. Because of omission of proper curing, the method might not be reliable for soils that are much wetter or dryer than the optimum moisture content. Further, because of empirical basis for the calculation of moisture variation, the method is limited to added moisture values (Z) between -4% and +6%, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Moisture correction curves for standard compaction

-2-

The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

2.1 Sampling and Preparation It is needed to determine the field wet density of the soil ( w), and then a bulk sample of the soil should be obtained for the compaction test from the material excavated during the in situ density test [12]. The total mass (m) of the wet material and the mass of oversized material (m0, mass of retained soil on 19.0 mm sieve) needs to be determined; thereby percentage of m0, P0, is calculated by the following equation: (1) Where P0 is the percentage of material by mass retained on sieve, m0 is the wet mass of oversize material, in grams and m is the wet mass of total sample before screening, in grams. Hence, test mold type is chosen according to the Table 1.
Table 1. Size fraction and mold type

Percent retained 37.5 mm sieve >20 20 19.0 mm sieve >20 20

Test Mold type

Portion to be tested Not testable using this method All material passing 37.5 mm sieve All material passing 19.0 mm sieve

152 mm dia. mold 105 mm dia. mold

3 portion of screened soil should be split, each of sufficient quantity to produce a compacted volume in excess of the volume of the mold. 2.2 Compaction In this step, a portion of screened soil should be taken. Next moisture should be added or removed or leaved as is so that the soil is judged to be at the optimum moisture content. Then converted wet density of compacted soil should be calculated from the following equation: (2) Where CWD is converted wet density, in tons per cubic meter, is wet density of the compacted specimen, in tons per cubic meter and Z is the added moisture based on the original mass of the wet soil, in percent. It is needed to prepare 2 other portions which water is added to one of them and removed from another one, and it is important to consider that the additional and removal percentage of water should be the same. Subsequently CWD should be calculated. CWD as ordinate versus moisture increment as abscissa should be plotted and maximum of CWD should be determined. Then moisture correction (wc) should be determined from the nearest 0.1% curve to the peak point, see figure 1. 2.3 Calculation The moisture variation (wv) should be calculated using the following equation: (3) Where is moisture variation, in percent, Zm is the added moisture corresponding to the peak point, in percent and is moisture correction, in percent. When oversized material is present, the peak converted wet density (PCWD) is adjusted using the following equation:

-3-

The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

(4) Where APCWD is the adjusted peak converted wet density of material, in tones per cubic meter and V0 is volume of material retained on 19.0 mm or 37.5 mm sieve, in grams and PCWD is peak converted wet density of the material, in tons per cubic meter When oversized material is present, wv should be adjusted using the following equation: (5) Where Awv is adjusted moisture variation, in percent. Finally, Hilf density ratio (RHD) can be calculated using the following equations: (6) Or (7) Where is Hilf density ratio, in percent.

3. EXPERIMENTAL DATA The purpose of these investigations is to determine the accuracy of Hilf method in predicting optimum field moisture and density, In case of using clay or mixture of clay and sand in soil compaction. Clay quarry is located in Sarcheshmeh. In the USCS soil classification system this soil was CH clay that has plasticity index of 25. The sand has obtained from local sources and the portion which used in experiments passed 4.75 mm sieve in order to have grains that almost have same diameter. At the first step, the portions were hydrated for least 16 hours prior to compaction [13]. Then they were compacted in 105 mm molds according to ASTM standards [14].
3.1 Experiment on clay

At this step, clay portions were tested and optimum moisture content and maximum dry density were resulted according to figure below, see figure 2:
1.7 Dry Densuty (gr/ cm3) 1.65 1.6 Compaction Points 1.55 1.5 1.45 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% Water Content (%)

Figure 2. Compaction curve for clay

-4-

The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

Then moisture content and dry density of experiment calculated; and the results were: wopt = 24.16 %
Dry Density = 1.667 gr/cm3 In next step parameters of Hilf method calculated based on the first 3 points, see table 2: Table 2. Hilf results for experiment on clay

Hilf Data
Points: A Added Moisture (g): -40 Soil Sub-Sample (g): 2000 Added Moisture (%): -2 Mould + Wet Soil (g): 5257 Mould (g): 3335 Wet Soil (g): 1922 Mould Volume (cm3): 950 Wet Density (t/m3): 2.023 Dry density according to 1.618 proctor test: Converted Wet Density 2.064 (t/m3): Peak Wet Density = YM + (CWD)A (t/m3) = ZA + XM Moisture Correction (From Curves) = WO WF = ZM + ZC (Wet if Negative) Hilf Density Ratio = FW/PWD Density ratio of point B according to proctor test: Accuracy of Hilf (%) B 0 2000 0 5320 3335 1985 950 2.089 1.654 2.089 C 40 2000 2 5203 3335 1868 950 1.966 1.61 1.928 2.102 -0.732 0.100 -0.632 0.994 0.992 99.8

CWD PWD ZM MC WV RHD

3.1 Experiment on mixture of sand and clay In this part, 25% sand and 75% clay were mixed and laboratory tests were performed as before, see figure 3 and table 3:
1.65 1.6 Dry Densuty (gr/ cm3) 1.55 1.5 1.45 1.4 15.00% 25.00% 35.00% 45.00% Water Content (%) Compaction Points

Figure 3. Compaction curve for mixture of sand and clay

-5-

The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

Then moisture content and dry density of experiment calculated; and the results were,: wopt = 26.67 % Dry Density = 1.6 gr/cm3 And parameters of Hilf method calculated based on the first 3 points, see table 3: Table 3. Hilf results for experiment on mixture of sand and clay

Hilf data
Points: A Added Moisture (g): -44 Soil Sub-Sample (g): 2200 Added Moisture (%): -2 Mould + Wet Soil (g): 5185 Mould (g): 3335 Wet Soil (g): 1850 Mould Volume (cm3): 950 Wet Density (t/m3): 1.947 Dry density according to 1.578 proctor test: Converted Wet Density 1.987 (t/m3): Peak Wet Density = YM + (CWD)A (t/m3) = ZA + XM Moisture Correction (From Curves) = WO WF = ZM + ZC (Wet if Negative) Hilf Density Ratio = FW/PWD Density ratio of point B according to proctor test: Accuracy of Hilf (%) B 0 2200 0 5270 3335 1935 950 2.037 1.595 2.037 C 88 2200 4 5261 3335 1926 950 2.027 1.527 1.949 2.038 -0.275 0.100 -0.175 0.999 0.997 99.8

CWD PWD ZM MC WV RHD

10. CONCLUSIONS
According to importance of soil compaction parameters in geotechnical engineering, determining compaction parameters is a very important and special issue, which should be performed accurately for every single layer of soil. On the other hand, determining maximum dry density and optimum moisture content should be performed fast enough in order to save project time. Determining soil optimum moisture content by using regular methods that need oven for drying soils is a time consuming step. The aim of this research was to introduce a rapid method for determining soil compaction ratio and optimum moisture content that fulfills needs of a rapid access with accurate results. In general, following results were obtained from this research: Determining optimum moisture content for fine soils (clay) using this method in comparison with Proctor test is highly acceptable. Having sand in fine soil (clay) causes reduction in wet density and increase in optimum moisture content. Having sand up to 25% of fine soil weight does not affect the accuracy of Hilf method.

-6-

The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran Paper No. & Code: 553 (TDTSHA)

REFERENCES
1. Bodman, G.B., Constantin, G.K., (1965). Influence of particle size distribution in soil compaction Hilgardia 36, 567 591. 2. Bradford, J.M., Gupta, S.C., (1986). Compressibility. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. Physical and Mineralogical Methods American Society of Agronomy - Soil Science Society of America, WL, USA, pp. 476 479. 3. Mehrab Jesmani (2008). Optimum Water Content and Maximum Dry Unit Weight of Clayey Gravels at Different Compactive Efforts . EJGE Vol. 13, Bund. L. 4. ASTM, (1999). Standard Proctor Test Designation D-698 .

5. Hogentogler C.A. (1936). Essentials of soil compaction . Proc. HRB, vol.16, pp. 209-216.

6.Hilf, J.W. (1956) An Investigation of Pore Water Pressure in Compacted Cohesive Soils , US Bureau of Reclamation,Tech. Memo. 654.
7. ASTM D4253 00 (2006). Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table .

8.TRB Transportation Research Information Services - Sand Compaction with Vibratory Rollers Vol 95,
No SM1, PROC. PAPER 6366, PP 263-284. 9. Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (1993). Moisture By Speedy Tester - STP 205-4. 10. Alfredo B.J.C. Nhantumbo , Armindo H. Cambule (2006). Bulk density by Proctor test as a function of texture for agricultural soils in Maputo province of Mozambique . Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 231 239. 11. Etana, A., Comia, R.A., Hakansson, I., (1997). Effects of uniaxial bstress on the physial properties of four Swedish soils . Soil Tillage Res. 44, 13 21. 12. AS 1289.5.7.1 (2006) Method 5.7.1: Soil compaction and density tests - Compaction control test density ratio and Hilf moisture variation (rapid method) 13. Michael Kalinski (2006). Soil Mechanics Lab Manual . ISBN-13 978-0-471-78830-0. P80-81. 14. ASTM D698 - 07e1 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort Hilf

-7-