Steve J.
Poulos 1
Compaction Control and the Index Unit Weight
REFERENCE: Poulos, S. J., "Compaction Control and the Index Unit
Weight," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 11, No. 2, June
t988, pp. 100-108.
ABSTRACT: Procedures for measurement of percent compaction and
several related practical issues are discussed. When measuring percent
compaction, the "maximum" unit weight should be determined for
each field unit weight test or nuclear unit weight measurement because
minor differencesin gradation and grain shape that are neither visually
observable nor apparent from conventional gradation tests can have a
significant effect on the "maximum" unit weight. A one-point compac-
tion test should be performed as a minimum in most cases to reduce
errors and the number of tests needed, to help focus on the soil type,
and to help reduce conflicts with contractors.
It would be very desirable to standardize on the use of only one com-
paction test for all types of construction control. Use of multiple com-
paction tests in specificationsfor various fill types causes confusion in
practice without adding any complementary benefit.
ASTM Test Method for Moisture-DensityRelations of Soilsand Soil-
Aggregate MixturesUsing 10-1b(4.54-kg) Rammer and 18-in.(457-mm)
Drop (D 1557) is the test preferred by the author for controlling fill in
dam embankments, building foundations, highways, and other fills and
for establishing the degree of compaction of natural soils. Since the
"maximum" unit weight is not a true maximum, it is suggested that the
value measured with the selected standardized test be referred to as the
index unit weight (IUW).
Field unit weight tests for compaction control should be done within
one layer, below surface disturbance, and in representative locations.
Compaction test procedures for measurement of the index unit weight
of clean sands and a discussionof the effects of grain breakage are pre-
sented.
KEYWORDS. compaction, density, field unit weight, index unit
weight, maximum unit weight, minimum unit weight, percent compac-
tion, relative compaction, relative density
Nomenclature
eVoid ratio. Volume of voids divided by volume of solids in a
specimen.
e, Minimum void ratio, ASTM Test Methods for Maximum
Index Density of Soils Using a Vibratory Table (D 4253).
ex Maximum void ratio, ASTM Test Methods for Minimum
Index Density of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density
(D 4254).
G Specific gravity of soil solids.
IUW Index unit weight, maximum dry unit weight determined
by ASTM D 1557, lb/ft 3. Note: The term unit weight is
used instead of density throughout this paper. The term
~Prineipal, GEl Consultants, Inc., 1021 Main St., Winchester, MA
08190.
0149-6115/88/0006-0100502.50
100
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
density is reserved by ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and
Rock for mass density.
P Percent compaction. Field dry unit weight (corrected for
oversized particles) divided by the IUW of the same sam-
ple, %.
Ra Relative density (unit weight) = (ex -- e)/(ex -- e,), %.
S Degree of saturation. Volume of water in a soil specimen
divided by the volume of voids, %.
w Water content. Weight of water divided by weight of solids
in a specimen, %.
Wopt Optimum water content, %.
"Ca Dry unit weight, Ib/ft3.
7a, Minimum dry unit weight, ASTM D 4254, lb/fP.
3'~ Maximum dry unit weight, ASTM D 4253, lb/ft 3.
Yw Unit weight of water, Ib/ft3.
The purposes of this paper are (1) to present and explain the
concepts and recommended procedures for compaction control in
engineering practice and (2) to give reasons for and to recommend
that one maximum unit weight test method be standardized and
used in all cases for construction control.
Introduction
Measurement of percent compaction in the field requires (1) the
field unit weight and (2) the "maximum" unit weight. Percent
compaction P is defined as the ratio of field unit weight to the
"maximum" unit weight. This value P is sometimes referred to as
the relative compaction.
Selection of a required percent compaction and water content
for an embankment or fill under a structure or highway is the first
important step in assuring good field behavior of a given design.
Selection should be based on appropriate past practice or measure-
ment of the engineering properties of the soil involved [1-4].
Having selected a percent compaction, the next step is to assure
proper and efficient control in the field. The first few layers placed
are often used as a test zone to determine whether the field com-
paction procedures will achieve the required percent compaction.
For some projects a specifically designed test fill is desirable. Hav-
ing established proper field compaction procedures, it is advisable
to have the placement and compaction of fill observed by experi-
enced personnel. To check and document the percent compaction,
its value is measured during the progress of filling.
It is fairly common practice to perform compaction tests on one
specimen and to determine the field unit weight on a separate spec-
© 1988 by the American Society for Testing and Materials
 POULOS O N C O M P A C T I O N C O N T R O L 101

imen, so long as the two appear visually to have the same grada-
tion. This practice leads to significant error in determination of
percent compaction. Proper measurement of percent compaction
,oo GRAVEL ] SAND .... I

,
FINES

0
t--
i
requires that the field unit weight and "maximum" unit weight L9
80 20 uJ
both be obtained for the same soil.
Lack of attention to use of the same soil has, in the author's >-
m
opinion, led to very large economic losses because inadequate com- 4O
60 n.-
paction was not detected during performance of the work. Use of LLI
the incorrect "maximum" unit weight also causes errors that may CO
n,"
increase the difficulty of establishing effective field compaction ~ 4o 60 <
0
procedures. c)
t--
In'Fig. 1 compaction curves are shown for nine different speci- z
~ zo 80 W
mens of one soil, a clean sand. The "maximum" unit weight occurs
at, or very near, 100% saturation, as would be expected for a clean nr
LU
(3_
sand [5,6]. The "maximum" unit weight ranges from 116 to 123 o I00
lb/ft a (1856 to 1968 kg/m3), a difference of 7 lb/ft 3 (112 kg/m3). I00 50 I0 5 1 0.5 OA O.O1
Part of this variation in "maximum" unit weight can be attributed GRAIN SIZE, MILLIMETERS
to test error. But the range of error of the "maximum" unit weight
for a single operator performing compaction tests on different FIG. 2--Band of grain size curves for soils used in Fig. 1.
specimens of the "same" soil in one laboratory, which was the case
for these tests, usually is less than +_ 1 lb/ft3 (+- 16 kg/m3).
All nine specimens have gradations that fall into the extremely For example, if only 2% of the fines fill voids loosely in one case,
narrow band shown in Fig. 2. The nine specimens appeared "iden- without contributing to the soil structure, whereas in another case
tical" when observed visually. But small differences in the grada- the fines are part of the structure, the resulting "maximum" unit
tion mean that the finer particles may fill voids between larger par- weight difference could be 4 or 5 lb/ft 3 (64 or 80 kg/m3). In addi-
ticles to a greater or lesser degree, thus affecting the "maximum" tion, variations in particle shape and other details of the geometry
unit weight noticeably. of each particle affect the "maximum" unit weight.
This case illustrates that the practice of relying on visual obser-
vation to judge whether two soil specimens have the same "maxi-
mum" unit weight is unsatisfactory for the purpose of compaction
control. There would have been a +--3% error in the percent com-
paction if a measured field unit weight fell in the middle of the
range of "maximum" unit weights for these specimens. Usually the
I50 I I I
gradation variation will be even greater than shown in Fig. 2, and
23
the range of "maximum" unit weight may be larger.
Zero Air Voids for
140 G:2.6B . 22
0 0 0 % Saturation) Brl¢| History of the Compaetion Test
~d = ~w (-w*~ I
G Proctor [7] and Kelso [8] first published the observation that
Q" 130 unit weights achievable when compacting in the field varied with
water content, and that a " m a x i m u m " unit weight 2 could be
)0 % achieved at a certain water content, which is now called the "opti-
CI z
mum" water content. From the 1930s to the present, this observa-
I 120
tion was used by engineers throughout the world to specify com-
W -o paction water contents and required unit weights as a percentage
~0
of the maximum unit weight.
I-- I10 During this same period, standards were developed for the com-
Tt
paction test. One such standard was referred to as the Standard
>- Proctor compaction test, which in its latest form is ASTM Test
n,"
r~ I00 Methods for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggre-
gate Mixtures, Using 5.5-1b (2.49-kg) Rammer and 12-in. (304.8-
I%
Scale R a t i o
mm) Drop (D 698) [9]. Proctor's name became associated with this
test even though he apparently felt that a standard was not needed,
90; I
5
I
I0
I
15
I
20 25 but that the compactive effort should be varied to model field com-
WATER CONTENT, w, % paction procedures [10].
Early during World War II, 1941 through 1942, United States
Soil T e s t e d : C l e a n , medium sand (9samples) military personnel began constructing military airfields on an ur-
Compaction P r o c e d u r e : A S T M DI557, Method D gent basis throughout the Pacific and in Europe. At that time
Year T e s t e d : 1 9 7 7
ZUnlessotherwise indicated, the term "unit weight" will be used to mean
FIG. 1--Summary of compaction curves_for clean medium sand [21]. "dry unit weight."

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
102 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

heavy compaction equipment became available, which enabled
rapid compaction to higher unit weight in thicker lifts than was
previously possible [10]. In fact, the unit weights achieved in the
base course of airfield pavements often exceeded 100% of the max-
imum unit weight based on the Standard Proctor test. According
to Casagrande [10], this development caused concern that the
Standard Proctor was not appropriate for compaction control
when such heavy equipment was used, and that a higher compac-
tire effort was needed to achieve maximum unit weight similar to
those being reached in the field.
This need led to development of the Modified Proctor test,
ASTM Test Methods for Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-1b (4.S4-kg) Rammer and 18-in.
(457-mm) Drop (D 1557) [9]. The energy imparted to the soil dur-
ing a Modified Proctor test is about four times greater than for the
Standard Proctor. As shown in Fig. 3, the Modified Proctor may
yield "maximum" unit weights about 5 to 18 Ib/ft 3 (80 to 288 kg/
m 3) higher than the Standard Proctor, for soils with plasticity.
In parallel with the above changes, other standards for impact
compaction tests were developed in Great Britain, France, Russia,
and by various agencies in the United States [11]. Each developed
a standard based on experiences with the soils and types of fills of
most concern to the individuals involved.
Vibratory compaction techniques were also being developed,
starting as early as the 1930s, chiefly for granular materials, since
it was recognized that use of appropriate vibration is efficient for
compacting such soils. The vibratory maximum unit weight test,
ASTM Test Methods for Maximum Index Density of Soils Using a
Vibratory Table (D 4253), and the Providence Vibrated Density
test [12] resulted from these efforts. Development of these tests led
to their use for controlling compaction of granular fills.
Soon after World War II, during 1945 through 1955, the Har-
vard Miniature compaction test was introduced [13]. In this test a
"kneading" type of compaction was used to model the sheepsfoot
roller. The compaction curves apparently modeled field compac-
tion with a sheepsfoot more closely than did impact compaction
[13]. The Harvard Miniature device also was convenient for prepa-
ration of laboratory specimens of fine-grained soils: clay, sandy
clays, and silt. The compactive energy could be easily varied to
match unit weights achievable in the field. As shown in Fig. 4,
there is a regular change in "maximum" unit weight with the com-
pactive energy used. It was postulated that specimens prepared at
a given percent compaction with the Harvard Miniature device
might have similar strength and deformation characteristics to
soils compacted in the field with a sheepsfoot roller to the same
percent compaction.
The gyratory compaction machine was developed during the
post World War II period to apply high shear stress together with
high confining pressure to achieve compaction [14]. This combina-
tion is probably efficient because shear stresses permit the particles
to move into denser packing as the confining stress is maintained.
The gyratory device also simulated construction equipment that
consisted of large heavy plates that were moved laterally on the
ground surface to compact by both shear and vertical stress.
Since the 1950s, there have been no further compaction tests in-
troduced, to the author's knowledge.
An understanding of the mechanics of compaction gradually has
developed since the 1930s, for example, see Olsen [15]. Also results
from several test programs have been published to show the effect
of various types of compaction on stress-strain and strength char-
acteristics [1-4]. These stress-strain data show that the peak
drained and undrained strengths of compacted specimens and
their moduli of deformation are quite dependent on the type of
compaction as well as the unit weight and water content. These
effects result from variations in the compacted soil structure for
each type of compaction. Thus moduli and peak strengths are in-
fluenced by type of compaction, but the steady state strength is not
affected by type of compaction, unit weight, or initial water con-
tent [16,17].
At present there remain in common use at least four "standard"
compaction tests in this country and a variety of others throughout
the world.

STANDARD PROC~R MODIFIED PROCTOR

ASTM ~698 ASTM DI557
130 I'i t
-20

-19

-18
I 3)
L~ tt0
-17 "~
% % E
I-- Soil LL Pl ~=ZO0 <0.002
SC :51 12 33 20 -16 2
ml00
>- CL(A) 51 15 79 32
cL(B) 32 II 93 17
a CL-ML 5t 8 98 16
t5 ~o
CH 67 43 91 ,57
D 90

8(
/, 20,~
I l I
40,000
t I
60,000
I I
80,000
-14

-15

IMPACT COMPACTION EFFORT, ft. l b . / c u , ft.

FIG. 3--Effect of compaction effort on "maximum ""unit weight [22].

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 POULOS ON COMPACTION CONTROL 103

120 nature of the compaction test when used for compaction control
and would eliminate the confusion that sometimes arises if unit
weights greater than the "maximum" unit weight are achieved in
116
the field. The IUW would be a function only of the soil itself since
the test procedure would no longer be a variable if only one com-
112 paction test were used.
The recommendation to use only one compaction test for con-
struction control should not be used to infer that the engineering
108
c-,. properties of the soil in the field are necessarily correlated with per-
cent compaction, no matter which test may be used. But having
~ 104 ~E decided by other means that a certain percent compaction is ade-
quate to achieve the desired performance, only one type of compac-
Z
-r .ag
tion test is needed to control fill placement.
IJJ
For the purposes of this paper the term Index Unit Weight
(IUW) will be used to refer to the "maximum" unit weight ob-
F- tained when using ASTM D 1557 [9].
N 96

n,. Comments on Relative Density

~ 92
It is commonly accepted that relative density (unit weight)
should be used to control compaction of sands [12], where relative
88
density is defined as

84 e x -- e "~d - - "~dn ~[dx

I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 R d(%) -- - - X 100 = - - -- X 100 (1)
ex - - en "Ydx - - "~dn ~fd
MOLDING WATER CONTENT, %

Soil Tested: Rusty Brown Silty Clay (Canyon

The maximum vibrated unit weight, 7dx, is measured using ASTM
Dam Cloy) D 4253, and the minimum unit weight "Yd, using ASTM D 4254.
Compaction Procedure: Harvard Miniature Relative density is a function of "maximum" and "minimum"
Year Tested: 1959 dry unit weights. Both are functions of the soil composition, that
is, gradation, grain shape, mineralogy, and so forth. For this rea-
FIG. 4--Effect of compaction effort on compaction curve for Canyon son, as is shown in Fig. 5, the "minimum" and "maximum" unit
Dam clay [1]. weights are linearly related, with some scatter, for a large number
of similar specimens having the gradation band shown in Fig. 6.

T h e C o m p a c t i o n T e s t as an I n d e x T e s t

The major factor that affects the "maximum" unit weight ob- 6d, kN'/m5
tained from a given compaction test for any soil is the soil composi- 13~ 14 15 16 17
I I I I I I I I I//
tion, which is defined by its gradation, grain shape distribution, / -21
TEST PROCEDURE= ASTM 02049 (Replaced by ~ e
mineralogy, and composition of the pore fluid. The maximum unit ASTM D4253, 04254) / = ,
weight test is an index test, analogous, say, to the liquid limit. The SOIL TESTED= Cleon, Medium Sonde / = . , , / ~ = ="
= .f
maximum unit weight is a function only of the composition of the 13o YEAR TESTED= 1966 a.~o t e~/,//~ -
soil tested and the particular compaction test method used. One
20
would not be likely to suggest that the standard method to deter-
mine the liquid limit be altered to fit each application, or that see-
eral different liquid limit standards should be used for various pur-
~ 125

•
¼y. Z
poses) Similarly, errors would be reduced, uniformity of ... ee
• •
compaction improved, and dollars saved if one compaction test "19 ~°
~

were standardized for use in construction control and all others ..a 12o
discarded, except for research purposes. Any particular "maxi- • )T/
mum" unit weight test that is selected should be carefully stan-
dardized so that test errors are minimized and reproducible results ~ I I5 ° 0 °e -18
achieved.
The author suggests that the "maximum" unit weight obtained
in the selected compaction test be referred to as the "Index Unit I I I I I
~o 85 90 95 IO0 105 II0
Weight," or IUW. This term would focus attention on the index
"MINIMUM" DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcf
3It is unfortunate that two liquid limit standards, British and American,
now exist, which causes difficultywhen trying to correlate data obtained in FIG. S--Maximum and minimum dry unit weightsfor clean sandsfrom
different countries. one deposit [6].

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 104 GEOTECHNICALTESTINGJOURNAL

U.S. STANDARD U.S, STANDARD

Comments on Compaetlon Control Procedure
SIEVE OPENING, in, SIEVE NUMBERS
6 4 3 Zl~'41~',~'o 3 4 6 8 14 50 50 100 ZOO Variation of I U W with Gradation and the One-Point Method
To measure the percent compaction accurately, it is necessary to
F'-
measure the IUW of the precise soil for which the field unit weight
,L9
was measured, as was described in the Introduction. In the au-
thor's practice the gradation variations in a fill during construction
are nearly always considerably greater than shown in Fig. 2. The
corresponding variation of the IUW can therefore be expected to
w
Z be greater than that shown in Fig. 1.
A simple, relatively accurate method for obtaining the IUW of
i-
lal
the particular soil specimen for which the field unit weight has
been measured is illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8. Compaction tests are
w
el
performed on several specimens to represent the range of gradations
of the soil being compacted in the fill. A "family" of compaction
curves is obtained in advance. Then a one-point compaction test is
IOO 50 tO 5 I 0.5 O.l 0.05 O.OI
performed on the soil removed from the field unit weight test hole
GRAIN SIZE, MILLIMETERS
or from the walls immediately surrounding the test hole. If a nu-
FIG. 6--Band of grain size curvesfor specimens usedfor Fig. 5. clear unit weight meter is used, the one-point compaction test is
performed on the material through which the radiation passed.
For example, Point A in Fig. 7 shows the result of a one-point
compaction on a particular field unit weight specimen of a silty fine
This linear relationship means that only one of the two tests is sand. The one-point test is carried out at the in-situ water content.
needed for compaction control in practice. But if the in-situ water content is too far above the optimum water
The above conclusion is not surprising, since the unit weight of content, the sample must be dried back to a value near or below
clays is controlled only with use of a "maximum" dry unit weight. optimum because the compaction curves for different soils merge
For the same reason, it is not necessary to use a second test when at water contents above optimum. By sketching the entire esti-
controlling compaction of sands. One could choose either the mated compaction curve through Point A based on the family of
"minimum" or the "maximum" dry unit weight as a standard for curves, one obtains the IUW at Point B for this particular speci-
controlling compaction of sands.
Some engineers prefer use of relative density of sands because
they feel it is better correlated with engineering properties than
percent compaction. But the only data known to the author on
138.-
which a true comparison can be made between relative density and
percent compaction indicate that percent compaction is a slightly
better index of engineering properties than relative density (Figs. Zero Air Voids for
6-8 and 6-9 of Ref 18). 13o G =2.67
20
In engineering practice the "minimum" dry unit weight is not of
great interest. Application of compressive loads in the field always
causes the unit weight to move towards or above the IUW. Contin- 122
uous application of shear stress in drained shear causes the unit
weight to move towards the unit weight at the steady state of defor- A 7"
mation [16,17]. Both the IUW and the steady state dry unit weight, ~ 114 ~ -t8 "~.
One-Point Z
..z
which represent the usual range of unit weights at which soils are
used in the field, are considerably greater than the "minimum" dry ~ -
\
unit weight. ~ tO6 Compact
"io~n Test
~",~
s ~~ -19
Also the "minimum" dry unit weight can be obtained accurately D
only for clean, narrowly graded sands that have zero dry strength ~ -
- \~
[9]. One seldom knows in advance whether the mixture of soils to o
9 8 - Note:One-PointTestmustbe ~ .
be used for a particular fill will satisfy these restrictions. Thus the performed on some sieve froction -- 15
"minimum" dry unit weight has a narrow range of practical appli- F os compoction tests,or corrected
cation. for oversized particles.
For the above reasons, the author recommends that the "mini- 90 o
L 4 8 12 16 20 24
mum" dry unit weight test and relative unit weight be eliminated WATER CONTENT,w, %
from use in practice for control of compaction of sands.
The "minimum" dry unit weight may have use as a possible Soil Tested= Silty Fine Sand
model for in-situ deposition of sands. Also the minimum and maxi- Compaction Procedure: ASTM D[557,Method D
mum dry unit weights, taken together, could be useful for classifi-
Year Tested: 1982
cation of sands in a manner analogous to the use of the liquid and
plastic limits for classification of clays. But for compaction control, FIG. 7--Compaction curves and field unit weight tests for a silty fine
only one test is needed. sand [231.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 POULOS ON COMPACTION CONTROL 105

138 point test, for example, if data show that the maximum unit weight
does not vary significantly. These choices should be based on test
Note= For all test \/-Zero Air Voids for 21 results obtained and on the accuracy desired in each case.
data shown the samples'~j G= 2,67
appeared to be identical.\ The one-point procedure for construction control has the same
t30 purpose as the Rapid Method for Construction Control used by the
20 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hiif [20], that is, to obtain a reason-
ably accurate IUW value for each field unit weight test specimen.
o. 122 The rapid method involves compacting two or more specimens for
19 each field unit weight test and using their wet weights to estimate
the IUW. The choice between the two procedures lies in a trade-off
between the accuracy of estimating dry unit weight from wet unit
I
(.9 114
18 7, weight and the time involved in drying the specimens to measure
W water content directly.
Several districts and divisions of the Corps of Engineers, the Bu-
17
reau of Reclamation, some state highway departments, and some
~- ao6
firms use the family of curves with the one-point test, a full com-
paction curve, or the rapid method. However, these procedures are
I% 16
C3 Scale Ratio not in common use, especially by commercial laboratories. Also
98 • One-Point Compaction Tests the need to use exactly the same soil for both the field unit weight
from Field Density Samples 15 test and the one-point test has neither been satisfactorily empha-
@ Full (5-point) Compaction Tests sized nor widely accepted, to the author's knowledge.
In part there seems to be resistance to use of a one-point proce-
906 4 8 12 16 20 dure because it is felt that the additional accuracy does not justify
WATER C O N T E N T , w , % the added time and cost. The cost-effectiveness of the one-point or
similar test procedures should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Soil Tested: Clean, Gravelly Sand It is the author's opinion that the one-point test is practically al-
ways justified because it reduces uncertainty, provides more con-
Compaction Procedure: ASTM Dt557, Method D
sistent results, focuses attention on the soil being delivered, and
Year Tested: 1982
therefore, tends to reduce the likelihood of conflicts with the con-
FIG. 8--Corapaction curves and field unit weight tests for a clean sand tractor.
[241.
Selection of Maximum Unit Weight Test Method

men. Additional compaction test points can be obtained in the
field if there is doubt about the accuracy of this "one-point" proce-
dure. The one-point procedure requires about 45 to 60 min to com-
plete if the water content is determined, using a "rapid" method or
a field stove to dry the specimen quickly. For clay soils longer times
are needed.
An example for a clean sand is shown in Fig. 8. The points la-
beled FDS, FD9, and FDI3 are one-point test results for three dif-
ferent field unit weight specimens. The corresponding IUW-values
for each specimen are obtained by sketching each estimated com-
paction curve. For FD5 the IUW is about 119 lb/ft° (18.7 kN/m3).
For FD9 it is about 114 lb/ft 3 (17.9 kN/m 3) and for FD13, about
118 lb/ft 3 (18.5 kN/m3). The three soil specimens used for the
compaction curves shown in Fig. 8 appeared identical, in spite of
the difference between their IUW values. One cannot tell by look-
ing at a soil whether the IUW is the same as, or closer to, one or the
other compaction curve.
Torrey [19] has indicated that use of the one-point test may not
be sufficiently accurate in some cases. He pointed out that sketch-
ing a compaction curve through only one point, as described
above, can result in selection of an incorrect IUW. This error arises
if the shape of the compaction curve for the particular soil being
tested is different from the shapes of the family of curves being
used for compaction control.
During the process of construction control, one should deter-
mine whether one or more points on the compaction curve are
needed to make a sufficiently accurate estimate of the IUW value.
In some cases it may be possible to avoid even the use of a one-
The author recommends use of one of the two impact compac-
tion tests as the standard for obtaining the IUW value.
The modified compaction test, ASTM D 1557, has the advan-
tage that test errors are likely to be smaller than for standard com-
paction, ASTM D 698. As shown in Fig. 3, the maximum unit
weight increases more rapidly at low than at high compactive
energies.
The standard compaction test, on the other hand, has the ad-
vantage that it is faster and easier to perform because the hammer
is lighter and the number of tamps per layer is smaller than for
modified compaction. Also when used for granular soils, there is
less likelihood of breaking soil grains during standard compaction
than during modified compaction. This latter factor is discussed
under the next subheading.
For granular soils, clean sands, one disadvantage of either im-
pact compaction test is that the test error may be larger than that
for the vibrated maximum unit weight test, using ASTM D 4253.
Granular soils tend to spurt out of the mold with each impact, and
the water content is difficult to measure if water drains out during
compaction. However, there is good evidence that both ASTM D
1557 and ASTM D 4253 give similar IUW values if the procedures
described below under Compaction of Clean Sands are used [6].
Grain Breakage During Impact Compaction of Sands
Use of ASTM D 1557, and to a lesser extent ASTM D 698, for
sands has been criticized because grain breakdown occurs during
testing that does not occur in the field. This criticism is appropri-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
106 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
ate but may be overstated. Grain breakage probably occurs chiefly
on the top of each layer. Therefore, the effect of breakage may be
limited. However, soils with friable grains, such as residual soils,
may be more prone to this test error. For silts and clays the error is
not likely to be important.
In any specific case, one can check whether grain breakdown
changes the IUW appreciably. For example, the gradation can be
measured before and after the compaction test and the change in
gradation observed. Unfortunately, this procedure cannot be ex-
pected to be too accurate since the IUW may vary significantly
even for small gradation changes.
It is preferable to check the effect of grain breakage on IUW by
performing a compaction test on re-used soil. If the IUW changes,
one can assume that grain breakdown is the cause, and one can
estimate the effect on the I U W for the purposes of compaction con-
trol in the field by carrying out a series of such tests.
Compaction of Clean Sands
A criticism of any impact compaction test for sands, especially
clean sands, is that the I U W may be smaller than the "maximum"
unit weight achieved using vibration by ASTM D 4253, in spite of
the important shortcomings of the latter test. For example, regular
vibrations may not cause "maximum" unit weight, widely graded
soils segregate during vibration, and only sands with zero dry
strength fines can be tested reasonably well using ASTM D 4253
[9]. Other criticisms of the impact compaction of sands is that the
tests are difficult to perform and the results are not reproducible.
However, when clean sandy soils are compacted using ASTM D
1557, a reproducible unit weight can be achieved. To do so, the
water content range should be near full saturation during impact,
and the layers should have some confinement [10]. The first layer is
unlikely to become well compacted until the next layer is placed.
The mold should be set up to drain at the bottom. Before the sec-
ond layer is placed in the mold, water should be added to wet the
first layer thoroughly so that the capillary stresses that prevent
compaction are not present during compaction. Excess water may
be added since it drains rapidly. But it is preferable to prevent the
sand from becoming so wet that it splashes out with each impact.
Then the new layer should be placed, wetted, and the compaction
carried out. This procedure should be continued until nearly a full
layer is in the collar of the mold. In the new procedure for ASTM D
1557 proposed by members of Committee D-18 [9], it is suggested
that the last layer protrude 3/4 in. (19 ram) into the collar. This
proposed change is quite beneficial for obtaining consistent data
for dean sands.
The compaction curves in Fig. 1 were obtained using the above
procedure for the points near the line of Zero Air Voids. If this
procedure had not been used, the points near full saturation would
not have been observed because water drains too rapidly from each
layer as it is placed. Also the uppermost layer in the mold would
not have been compacted sufficiently because of its lack of confine-
ment during compaction. Therefore, the measured IUW would
have been lower.
This procedure is recommended for all sands, but particularly
for clean sands having less than about 5% fines passing the No.
200 (75-/~m) mesh sieve and coefficients of permeability of about
10 -a cm/s or higher. Tests show that use of the above steps for
clean sands will yield "maximum" unit weights that are quite
reproducible.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Measurement of Field Unit Weight Below Fill Surface
The field unit weight test is sometimes performed at the surface
of the fill. The surface usually is so disturbed and poorly com-
pacted that measurements at the surface generally should not be
used. For clean sands the field unit weight test should be per-
formed at a depth of 4 in. (10.2 cm) or greater to reach the zone
that is representative of the compaction being achieved below the
disturbed surface. Sands usually do not become well compacted
near the fill surface because of the lack of confinement. Note, how-
ever, that if the test is done near the surface and the percent com-
paction proves to be satisfactory, one can be relatively sure that the
deeper soil is more highly compacted. If this approach is used, the
recorded unit weight measurements are likely to be lower than the
unit weight of the majority of the fill, if the layer thickness is 12 in.
(30.5 cm) or less.
When a sheepsfoot roller is used to compact finer-grained soils,
the field unit weight test should be taken at a depth greater than
the depth of penetration of the foot.
Measurement of Field Unit Weight in One Layer
The field unit weight test, whether obtained with a sand cone or
a nuclear unit weight meter, usually is performed without regard to
whether the layer below is being penetrated. However, it is impor-
tant that the measurement be made in a single layer because each
layer has slightly different gradation and hence a different IUW.
The IUW of the mixture will be different from the IUW of either
layer. Mixing of two layers often causes the I U W to increase, and
sometimes to decrease. Two different soils, when mixed, form a
new soil, not a soil that has a unit weight that is the average of the
unit weights for the two soils that were mixed. Therefore, the IUW
of the mixture will not be applicable to the field unit weight except
by coincidence.
The layers in the field are often so thin that the field unit weight
test hole is extended into the layer below because it is desirable to
obtain enough soil for an accurate measurement. A large diameter
field unit weight hole can be used to help improve measurement
accuracy without entering the second layer. If the layers are too
thin to make a measurement, the likelihood that the resulting per-
cent compaction is a true measure of the percent compaction of
each layer, and hence related to their engineering properties, is
greatly reduced.
Measurement of Field Unit Weight in Proper Location
The selection of test location can be made properly only in the
field. The factors that affect selection of the test locations should
be discussed with those performing field unit weight tests. Im-
proper selection often may cause more difficulty in practice than
any of the errors in the test procedure itself.
The test location should be selected with a view toward obtaining
both the average percent compaction and the percent compaction
in any significant zones where the percent compaction may be dif-
ferent from the design value. The zone where traffic is particularly
heavy should not be tested unless it is representative of the fill.
Applications
The information provided in this paper is applicable for control
of unit weight in fills composed of gravels, sands, silts with low or

no plasticity, and clays. Very coarse-grained materials, such as
crushed stone and rock fill, can be controlled using test fills or spe-
cial large-scale field unit weight tests.
The techniques are applicable for compaction control for build-
ing foundation fills, embankments for dams or highways, for most
other compacted fills, and for natural soils in situ.
Summal7 and Conclusions
For controlling compaction, the procedure most likely to achieve
uniform and proper compaction efficiently is to have thefield com-
paction process observed by an experienced engineer or technician.
Such observation should be supported by measurement of the per-
cent compaction frequently enough to assure that the engineering
properties of the fill are at least as good as intended. The proce-
dures for measurement of the percent compaction and several re-
lated practical issues are discussed in this paper.
The "maximum" unit weight of a soil is an index that reflects
soil composition. Minor differences in gradation and grain shape
that are neither visually observable nor apparent from the results
of conventional gradation tests can have a significant influence on
"maximum" unit weight for any given compaction test.
Since "maximum" unit weight is an index, only one well stan-
dardized compaction test is needed in practice for compaction con-
trol for building foundations, dams, airfields, highways, and other
fills, as well as for determination of the degree of compaction of
natural soils in situ.
It is urged that only one maximum unit weight test be standard-
ized for compaction control in practice. The test procedure should
be carefully defined to ensure proper application for various soil
types. ASTM Test D 1557, with some modifications, is the one that
the author prefers. It is recommended that the "maximum" unit
weight using ASTM D 1557, or whichever test ultimately is used as
a standard, be given the name "Index Unit Weight" (IUW) to em-
phasize that it is an index or a reference and not a true maximum
unit weight.
Because the IUW varies widely for soils that appear to be identi-
cal, the IUW should be determined for each field unit weight speci-
men so that percent compaction can be computed properly. For
this purpose, a one-point compaction test should be performed, as
a minimum, for each field unit weight test, even if a nuclear unit
weight meter is used, unless data for a specific case show that the
variation of the IUW is negligible. More points should be used if
doubts arise as to the accuracy of the one-point test.
Although relative density (unit weight) is used frequently to con-
trol compaction of clean sands, the author recommends that this
parameter and the associated " m i n i m u m " unit weight be dis-
carded from use in geotechnical practice for construction control.
Use of the one-point procedure with the other suggestions made
in this paper simplifies compaction control by reducing required
number of tests, reducing scatter of measured percent compaction,
helping to ensure that the required percent compaction is uni-
formly achieved, and helping to reduce conflicts with contractors.
Also attention is more clearly directed to the character of the soil,
so that changes in procedures or the sources of materials can be
implemented.
An advantage of using only one maximum unit weight test is that
errors and confusion about which test should be used in specifica-
tions will be eliminated. Use of one test nationwide and worldwide
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
POULOS ON COMPACTION CONTROL 107
will facilitate collection of experience on the relation between engi-
neering properties and percent compaction.
The one-point procedure requires about an hour to determine a
percent compaction after the field unit weight test is complete.
However, if the one-point procedure is not used, the percent com-
paction will be in error in most cases. The error will sometimes be
favorable and sometimes unfavorable to the contractor or the
owner.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Mr. David Hammer, Chief,
Geotechnical Branch, Ohio River Division, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; and Mr. John L. Enos, Laboratory Director, Mr. R.
Lee Wooten, Geotechnical Engineer Grade IV, and Dr. Ronald C.
Hirschfeld, Principal, GEl Consultants, Inc., for their review and
suggestions. Mr. Wooten contributed by carrying out some of the
reported tests and by reviewing this paper in several stages. A semi-
nar on the subject held at GEI, during which many individuals who
perform construction control gave comments on their experiences,
was particularly useful.
References
[I] Casagrande, A. and Hirschfeld, R. C., "First Progress Report on In-
vestigation of Stress Deformation and Strength Characteristics of
Compacted Clays," Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No. 61, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, 1960, Fig. 3.
[2] Casagrande, A. and Hirschfeld, R. C., "Stress Deformation and
Strength Characteristics of a Clay Compacted to a Constant Dry Unit
Weight," Research Conference on Shear Strength of Soils, ASCE,
Boulder, CO, June 1960, pp. 359-417.
[3[ Casagrande, A. and Hirschfeld, R. C., "Second Progress Report on
Investigation of Stress Deformation and Strength Characteristics of
Compacted Clays," Harvard, Soil Mechanics Series No. 65, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, April 1962.
[4] Seed, H. B., Mitchell, J. K., and Chan, C. K., "The Strength of Com-
pacted Soils," ASCE Research Conferenceon Shear Strength of Cohe-
sive Soils, Boulder, CO, June 1960, pp. 877-964.
[5] Leonards, G. A., Foundation Engineering, McGraw Hill, New York,
1962, p. 1101.
[6| Poulos, S. 1. and Hed, A., "Density Measurements in a Hydraulic
Fill," Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical
Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils, STP 523. American Societyfor
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1973, pp. 402-424.
[7] Proctor, R. R., "Description of Field and Laboratory Methods," En-
gineering News-Record, Vol. 111, No. 10, 7 Sept. 1933.
[8] Kelso, A. E., "The Construction of Silvan Dam, Melbourne Water
Supply," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 239,
1934-35, p. 403.
[9] ASTM, Annual Book of A S T M Standards, Vol. 04.08, Section 4,
Construction, American Societyfor Testing and Materials, Philadel-
phia, 1985, see also revised standard for Test D t557 prepared by
Committee D-18 on 30 Dec. 1986.
[10] Casagrande, A., Lectures in Soil Mechanics l and II, Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge, MA, 1959.
[11] Lambe, T. W., Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York, 1951.
[12] U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Laboratory SoilsTesting, Engineering
Manual EM 1110-2-1906, Washington, DC, 30 Nov. 1970, Appendix
XII.
[13] Wilson, S. D., "Comparative Investigation of a Miniature Compac-
tion Test With Field Compaction," Preprint of a paper to be pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting, ASCE, 1950 Jan., pp. 1-9.
[14] U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Sum-
mary of Capabilities, Vicksburg, MS, 1980.
[15] OIsen, R. E., "Effective Stress Theory of Soil Compaction," Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No.
SM2, March 1963, pp. 27-45.
108 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
[16] Poutos, S. J., "The Stress-Strain Curves of Soils," Geotechnical Engi-
neers Inc., Winchester, MA, Jan. 1971.
[17] Poulos, S. J., "The Steady State of Deformation," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT5, May
1981, pp, 553-562.
[18] Castro, G., Poulos, S. J., France, J. W., and Enos, J. L., Liquefaction
Induced by Cyclic Loading. Research Report to National Science
Foundation, Geotechnical Engineers Inc., 1 March 1982, pp. 1-80
plus appendices (NTIS No. PB-82235508).
[19] Torrey, V. H., III, "Analysis of Field Compaction Data, Report 1:
Perry Dam, Delemore River, Kansas and Report 2: Littleville Dam,
Westfield River, Massachusetts," U.S. Army Waterways Experiment
Station, Miscellaneous Paper S-70-1, Vicksburg, MS, 1970.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 3 02:04:30 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
luis miguel millan galante (none) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
[20] Hilf, J. W., "Rapid Method of Construction Control for Embank-
ments of Cohesive Soils," Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Engineering Monograph 26, 27 Sept. 1961.
[211 Report on "Investigation of Causes of Crack in Discharge Pipe, Wy-
man Station, Central Maine Power Company," Geotechnical Engi-
neers Inc., Winchester, MA 16 Aug. 1977.
[22] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Basic Soil Mechanics, (Course SM-
10), Vols. 1 and 2, Jan. 1966 (revision Aug. 1969).
[23] Report on "Percent Compaction Data in Sewer Trenches, Town of
Hudson, New Hampshire," Geotechnical Engineers Inc., Winchester,
MA, 1982.
[24] Report on "Compaction Control Data for Marshall's Wharf II, Lynn,
Massachusetts," Geotechnieal Engineers Inc., Winchester, MA,
1982.