Field Compaction

Compaction Equipment
Most of the compaction in the field is done with rollers. The four most common
types of rollers are
1. Smooth-wheel rollers (or smooth-drum rollers)
2. Pneumatic rubber-tired rollers
3. Sheepsfoot rollers
4. Vibratory rollers
Smooth-wheel rollers (Figure 6.15) are suitable for proof rolling subgrades and
for finishing operation of fills with sandy and clayey soils. These rollers provide
100% coverage under the wheels, with ground contact pressures as high as 310 to
380 kN/m2 (45 to 55 lb/in2). They are not suitable for producing high unit weights of
compaction when used on thicker layers.
Pneumatic rubber-tired rollers (Figure 6.16) are better in many respects than
the smooth-wheel rollers. The former are heavily loaded with several rows of tires.
These tires are closely spacedfour to six in a row. The contact pressure under the
tires can range from 600 to 700 kN/m2 (85 to 100 lb/in2), and they produce about 70
to 80% coverage. Pneumatic rollers can be used for sandy and clayey soil
compaction. Compaction is achieved by a combination of pressure and kneading
action

Sheepsfoot rollers (Figure 6.17) are drums with a large number of projections. The
area of each projection may range from 25 to 85 cm2 ( 4 to 13 in2). These rollers
are most effective in compacting clayey soils. The contact pressure under the
projections can range from 1400 to 7000 kN/m2 (200 to 1000 lb/in2). During
compaction in the field, the initial passes compact the lower portion of a lift.
Compaction at the top and middle of a lift is done at a later stage.
Vibratory rollers are extremely efficient in compacting granular soils.
Vibrators can be attached to smooth-wheel, pneumatic rubber-tired, or sheepsfoot
rollers to provide vibratory effects to the soil. Figure 6.18 demonstrates the
principles of vibratory rollers. The vibration is produced by rotating off-center
weights.
Handheld vibrating plates can be used for effective compaction of granular
soils over
a limited area. Vibrating plates are also gang-mounted on machines. These plates
can be
used in less restricted areas.
Factors Affecting Field Compaction
In addition to soil type and moisture content, other factors must be considered to
achieve the desired unit weight of compaction in the field. These factors include the
thickness of

lift, the intensity of pressure applied by the compacting equipment, and the area
over which the pressure is applied. These factors are important because the
pressure applied at the surface decreases with depth, which results in a decrease in
the degree of soil compaction. During compaction, the dry unit weight of soil also is
affected by the number of roller passes. Figure 6.19 shows the growth curves for a
silty clay soil. The dry unit weight of a soil at a given moisture content increases to
a certain point with the number of roller passes. Beyond this point, it remains
approximately constant. In most cases, about 10 to 15 roller passes yield the
maximum dry unit weight economically attainable.
Figure 6.20a shows the variation in the unit weight of compaction with depth for
a poorly graded dune sand for which compaction was achieved by a vibratory drum
roller. Vibration was produced by mounting an eccentric weight on a single rotating
shaft within the drum cylinder. The weight of the roller used for this compaction was
55.6 kN (12.5 kip), and the drum diameter was 1.19 m (47 in). The lifts were kept at
2.44 m (8 ft). Note that, at any given depth, the dry unit weight of compaction
increases with the number of roller passes. However, the rate of increase in unit
weight gradually decreases after about 15 passes. Another fact to note from Figure
6.20a is the variation of dry unit weight with depth for any given number of roller
passes. The dry unit weight and hence the relative density, Dr, reach maximum
values at a depth of about 0.5 m (1.5 ft) and gradually decrease at lesser depths.
This decrease occurs because of the lack of confining pressure toward the surface.
Once the relationship between depth and relative density (or dry unit weight) for a
given soil with a given number of roller passes is determined, estimating the

approximate thickness of each lift is easy. This procedure is shown in Figure 6.20b

(DAppolonia, Whitman, and DAppolonia, 1969)

Specifications for Field Compaction

In most specifications for earthwork, the contractor is instructed to achieve a
compacted
field dry unit weight of 90 to 95% of the maximum dry unit weight determined in
the laboratory by either the standard or modified Proctor test. This is a specification
for relative
compaction, which can be expressed as

where R
relative compaction.
For the compaction of granular soils, specifications sometimes are written in terms
of the required relative density Dr or the required relative compaction. Relative
density
should not be confused with relative compaction. From Chapter 3, we can write

Comparing Eqs. (6.10) and (6.11), we see that

On the basis of observation of 47 soil samples, Lee and Singh (1971) devised a
correlation between R and Dr for granular soils:

The
specification for field compaction based on relative compaction or on relative
density is an end product specification. The contractor is expected to achieve a
minimum dry unit weight regardless of the field procedure adopted. The most
economical compaction condition can be explained with the aid of Figure 6.21. The
compaction curves A,B, and C are for the same soil with varying compactive effort.
Let curve A represent the conditions of maximum compactive effort that can be
obtained from the existing equipment. Let the contractor be required to achieve a
minimum dry unit weight of gd(field) Rgd(max). To achieve this, the contractor
must ensure that the moisture content w falls between w1 and w2. As can be seen
from compaction curve C, the required gd(field) can be achieved with a lower
compactive effort at a moisture content w w3. However, for most practical
conditions, a compacted field unit weight of gd(field) Rgd(max) cannot be achieved
by the minimum compactive effort. Hence, equipment with slightly more than the
minimum compactive effort should be used. The compaction curve B represents this
condition. Now we can see from Figure 6.21 that the most economical moisture
content is between w 3 and w4. Note that w w4 is the optimum moisture content
for curve A, which is for the maximum compactive effort.
The concept described in the preceding paragraph, along with Figure 6.21, is
attributed historically to Seed (1964) and is elaborated on in more detail in Holtz
and Kovacs (1981).
Table 6.2 gives some of the requirements to achieve 95-to-100% relative
compaction
(based on standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight) by various field compaction
equipment (U.S. Department of Navy, 1971).