De La Salle University- Dasmarias

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

Engineering Department

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

EXERCISE NO. 1

PROCTOR TEST

Name: Mendoza, Adrian Frances S. Rating:

CEE 51 1st Sem. SY 2017- 2018 Group No. 2 2nd batch

Date Performed: Date Submitted: Dec. 1, 2017

Submitted to: Engr. Roberlene S. Abitona

 RUBRICS FOR LABORATORY REPORTS

Criteria 4 (20pts.) 3 (15 pts.) 2 (10pts.) 1 (5pts.)

Introduction Background Background Background Background is
information is information is information is vague vague or brief, and
researched, cited researched and or too brief. some necessary
and explained cited. informations are
clearly. missing.

Format and Lab report submitted Most of the Some of the Student did not
Lab Protocols as directed, and on excellent conditions excellent conditions follow directions,
time. Directions were were met; possible met, directions were practiced unsafe
followed, stations minor errors in not explicitly procedures,
were cleaned. All format or followed, lab goofed around in
safety protocols procedures stations may have the lab, left a
followed. been left unclean or mess or
group not practicing equipment lost
good safety.

Methods Description or step- The description Description -and Would be difficult

by-step process (as gives generalities, photos- included, to repeat, reader
presented in photos) enough for reader some steps are must guess at how
is included, could be to understand how vague or unclear. the data was
repeated. the experiment was gathered or
conducted experiment
conducted

Data and Results and data are Results are clear Results are unclear, Results are
Analysis clearly recorded, and labeled, trends missing labels, disorganized or
organized so it is are not obvious or trends are not poorly recorded,
easy for the reader there are minor obvious, do not make
to see trends. All errors in disorganized, there sense ; not
appropriate labels organization is enough data to enough data was
are included show the taken to justify
experiment was results
conducted

Conclusions All important All important Conclusions No Conclusions,

conclusions are conclusions are regarding major or conclusions are
clearly stated, drawn, but not very points are drawn, missing the
student shows clearly stated but statement, important points
good indicate lack of
understanding understanding

TOTAL
1.1 Objective:

To determine the optimal water content at which a soil can reach its maximum dry density.

1.2 Equipments / Apparatus:

Moulds 2250cc capacity with base plate, stay rod and wing nut
Collar
Spacer Disc
Metal rammer
Expansion measuring apparatus with the adjustable stem, perforated plates, tripod
Dial gauge two numbers reading to 0.01mm.
IS sieves 19mm and 4.75mm.
Vernier caliper
Balance

Miscellaneous apparatus such as mixing bowl, straight edge, scales,, filter paper, dishes and
calibrated measuring jar.

1.3 Theory:
There are two types of tests that can determine the optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density of a soil; the Standard Proctor and the Modified Proctor. The results of the
tests are used to determine appropriate methods of field compaction and to provide a standard by
which to judge the acceptability of field compaction. The results of the compaction tests are
typically plotted as dry density versus moisture content. Tests have shown that moisture content
has a great influence on the degree of compaction achieved by a given type of soil. In addition to
moisture content, there are other important factors that affect compaction. The soil type has a
great influence because of its various classifications, such as grain size distribution, shape of the soil
grains, specific gravity of soil solids, and amount and type of clay mineral present. The compaction
energy also has an affect because it too has various conditions, such as number of blows, number
of layers, weight of hammer, and height of the drop.

Zero-air-void unit weight: At certain water content, what is the unit weight to let no air in the voids
 It is clear that in the above equation, specific gravity of the solid and the water density are constant,
the zero-air-void density is inversely proportional to water content w. For a given soil and water
content the best possible compaction is represented by the zero-air-voids curve. The actual
compaction curve will always be below. For dry soils the unit weight increases as water is added to
the soil because the water lubricates the particles making compaction easier. As more water is
added and the water content is larger than the optimum value, the void spaces become filled with
water so further compaction is not possible because water is a kind like incompressible fluid. This
is illustrated by the shape of the zero-air-voids curve which decreases as water content increases.

1.4 Procedure
Preparation of remolded specimen by Dynamic Compaction

1. Obtain 7kg of soil passing No. 4 sieve

2. Record the weight of the Proctor mold without the base and the (collar) extension.

3. Assemble the compaction apparatus.

4. Place the soil in the mold in 3 layers and compact using 25 well distributed blows of the
Proctor hammer.

5. Detach the collar without disturbing the soil inside the mold

6. Remove the base and determine the weight of the mold and compacted soil.

7. Remove the compacted soil from the mold and take a sample (20-30 grams) of soil and find
the moisture content

8. Place the remainder of the molded soil into the pan, break it down, and thoroughly remix it
with the other soil, adding 100 g of water.

9. Repeat step 1 to prepare another specimen until at least 5 specimens have already been
prepared.

10. Plot the compaction curve: ( dry unit weight versus the moisture content in percent), and
then determine the maximum compaction (peak of the curve) at the optimum moisture
content.
1.5 DATA, OBSERVATION and CALCULATIONS

Sample type: _____________________

Compaction process: Dynamic Compaction____
Weight of rammer: _____________________
Number of blows: 56 blows______________
Layers of compaction: 3 layers of compaction__

Specimen no. 1

Weight of container with wet soil, W1 27.43 g

Weight of container with dry soil, W2 24.40 g

Weight of empty container, Wc 15.83 g

Weight of water, Ww=W1-W2 3.03 g

Weight of dry soil,Wd= W2-Wc 8.57 g

MOISTURE CONTENT, MC =
(Ww/Wd)x100
35.36 g

Mould no. 1

Volume of mould,Vm 0.00211 m3

Weight of the mould, Wm 4.25 kg

Weight of the mould plus compacted soil,

Wb
7.8 kg

1682.464
Wet Density m = ( Wb- Wm ) / Vm
kg/m3
1625.004
Dry Density d = m/(1+MC)
kg/m3
 Dry unit weight versus moisture content

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1.6 ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION of DATA/RESULTS

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
1.7 CONCLUSION

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________