Civil Engineering Project (Soil Condition of Lahore)

1 | P a g e
Study of Compaction Characteristics of
Locally Available Sands
By
Arsalan Maseel 2009-civ-30
Fahad Hussain 2009-civ-12
Zain Naqi 2009-civ-33
Farrukh Jamal 2009-civ-18
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of BSc Civil Engineering
in the Department of Civil Engineering UET LAHORE

2 | P a g e
“Read; in the name of your Lord who created,
Created man from a clot
Read; and your Lord is the most bounteous
Who taught by the pen
Taught man that which he did not know”
(Al-Quran)

3 | P a g e
Dedicated to our PARENTS
Who
Have taken great pains
For bringing us up
And
To our TEACHERS
For providing us with
Best education.

4 | P a g e
ABSTRACT
In the construction of highways, airports, and other structures, the compaction of soils is
needed to improve its strength. In 1933 Proctor developed a laboratory compaction test to
determine the maximum dry density of compacted soils, which can be used for specifications of
field compaction. The Compaction of soils is influenced by many factors, the most common are
the moisture content, the soil type and the applied compaction energy.
The objective of this research is the analysis of the maximum dry density values of the
locally available sands. The method of choice in the determination of the maximum dry density
from different soils samples was the Standard and Modified Proctor Test following the
procedure for the Proctor Test as is explained in ASTM Test Designation D-698 & D-1557.
From this investigation, the maximum dry density of 19 samples of sands were prepared,
by maximum Ravi, Chenab and Lawrencepur sands in different proportions then the maximum
dry density of the type of samples, amount of fines and distribution of the grain size was
determined.
The research revealed some correlations between the maximum dry density of soils with
the fines content. These correlations were measured and some particular behavioral trends were
encountered and analyzed. It was found that maximum dry density of sample decrease as the
percentage of fine sand(Ravi) increased in it. And it was also studied that in field what
combination of two or three sands gives you maximum dry density.

5 | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank my professors and staff of the Department of Civil and Environmental
engineering for their encouragement, guidance, and assistance throughout my university years.
We would like specially thanking my advisor, Sir Hassan Mujtaba for helping me all these
years and for encouraging his students to give the best of them.
We are also thankful to the lab attendants for their help in the lab.
We are grateful for our friends and colleagues because their advise, support and knowledge
contributed throughout the development of the thesis.

6 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 General...................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Research Objectives....................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Compaction characteristics............................................................................................................ 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 12
Particle size Analysis............................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 General...................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 TYPES OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 12
2.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Sieve.................................................................................................................................. 12
2.3.2 Nest of Sieves.................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.3 Shaking Period .................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.4 Breaking of Soil Lumps...................................................................................................... 13
2.3.5 Particles Stuck In the Sieve Screen ................................................................................... 13
2.3.6 How to remove the particles ............................................................................................ 13
2.3.7 Number of Sieve ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3.8 Apparatus Required .......................................................................................................... 14
2.3.9 Test Procedure.................................................................................................................. 14
2.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE ....................................................................................... 14
2.5 GRADATION .............................................................................................................................. 15
2.5.1 Well-Graded Soil............................................................................................................... 15
2.5.2 Poorly-Graded Soil/Uniformly Graded.............................................................................. 15
2.5.3 Gap-Graded Soil................................................................................................................ 15
2.5.4 D10, D30, D60:.................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Soil Classification ...................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.1 PURPOSE OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION................................................................................... 15
2.6.2 PRINCIPAL OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION................................................................................. 16
2.6.3 TYPES OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................ 16
2.6.4 ENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM................................................................... 16
2.6.5 Unified Soil Classification system (USCS) .......................................................................... 17
2.6.6 AASHTO Soil Classification system.................................................................................... 18
2.7 Specific Gravity......................................................................................................................... 19
2.7.1 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: .............................................................................................. 20
2.7.2 Determination of Specific Gravity in the lab .................................................................... 20

7 | P a g e
2.8 COMPACTION: ................................................................................................................................ 21
2.8.1 Compaction Curve: ........................................................................................................... 21
2.8.2 Effects of gradation and soil types.................................................................................... 24
2.8.3 Measurement of compaction: .......................................................................................... 25
2.8.4 Effect of compaction energy:............................................................................................ 26
2.8.6 Comparison between Standard and Modified Proctor Test:............................................ 27
2.9 FIELD COMPACTION.................................................................................................................. 27
2.10 Compaction Field Tests............................................................................................................. 28
2.11 Compaction Equipments: ......................................................................................................... 29
2.12 Equipment Types...................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................................................................................... 31
3.1 Collection of sand : ................................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Preparation of sand samples: ................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Sieve Analysis and Specific gravity:....................................................................................... 33
3.4 Proctor Tests:............................................................................................................................ 34
3.5 Results from the experiments: ................................................................................................. 35
Chapter 4: Results..................................................................................................................................... 36
4.1 Results of Sieve analysis ........................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Results of Specific Gravity Tests ............................................................................................... 39
4.3 Proctor Tests............................................................................................................................. 40
4.3.1 The Samples giving the maximum compaction:...................................................................... 41
4.3.2 The effect of compaction energy...................................................................................... 44
Conclusions:.............................................................................................................................................. 45
Recommendations:................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix A-1: ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Sieve Analysis :...................................................................................................................................... 47
Ravi 100%.......................................................................................................................................... 47
Ravi 90% Lawrencepur 10%.............................................................................................................. 48
Ravi 80% Lawrecepur 10% Chenab 10%........................................................................................... 49
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%....................................................................................................................... 50
Ravi 90 % Chenab 10%...................................................................................................................... 51
Chenab 70 % Ravi 30%...................................................................................................................... 52
Ravi30 % Lawerencepur 30% Chenab 40%....................................................................................... 53
Ravi 70% Chenab 30%....................................................................................................................... 54
Chenab 100% .................................................................................................................................... 55

8 | P a g e
Lawrencepur 70% Chenab 30% ........................................................................................................ 56
Ravi 30% Lawrencepur 30% Chenab 40%......................................................................................... 57
Lawrencepur 50 % Chenab 50% ....................................................................................................... 59
Ravi 10% Lawrecepur 10% Chenab 80%........................................................................................... 60
Lawrecepur 30% Chenab 70% .......................................................................................................... 61
Proctor tests.......................................................................................................................................... 65
Ravi 100%.......................................................................................................................................... 65
Ravi 90% Chenab 10%....................................................................................................................... 66
Ravi 70% Chenab 30%....................................................................................................................... 67
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%....................................................................................................................... 68
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%....................................................................................................................... 69
Ravi 30% Chenab 70%....................................................................................................................... 70
Chenab 100% .................................................................................................................................... 71
Ravi 90% Lawrencepur 10%.............................................................................................................. 76
Ravi 30% Lawreencepur 30% Chenab 40%....................................................................................... 77
Ravi 33% Chenab 33% Lawrencepur 33%......................................................................................... 83
L100%................................................................................................................................................ 84
Refrences:................................................................................................................................................. 85

10 | P a g e
Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 General
Compaction is the artificial improvement of the mechanical properties of the soil. This process
increases the resistance, reduces the deformation capacity, and provides the soils with
inalterability against external agents.
Soil compaction investigations started during the 20th
century due to the automobile
invention along with the paved roads. Then many efficient and economical methods were
developed, and it was proved that there is no compaction method that is efficient for every type
of soils. It was also found that the degree of compaction, for any compaction method, depends
on the moisture content of the soils.
Soils comprise three phases: the solid, the liquid and the gaseous phase. The solid phase
includes the mineral particles of gravel, sands, silts and clays. Particle-size properties are
determined from the size distribution of individual particles in a soil sample. The solid phase
usually includes organic material that is called humus content. The liquid phase usually consists
of water that can move through the pores of the soil. Other liquids may be present, they may be
miscible or immiscible in water and generally they are the result of agricultural and industrial
activities or accidental spills. The principal component of the gaseous phase is air or other
dissolved gases like water vapor and volatile components.
The compaction process consists in the rapid densification of soils without losing
humidity. During compaction the volume of void containing air is diminished and the soil
particles get closer due to the new arrangement. In soil compaction not only the voids are
modified, but the mechanical resistance, deformability and permeability are affected. These
characteristics are modified due to the diminution of the void ratio produced by the soil
densification.
The objectives of the study is to evaluate the effect compaction on locally available
sands. When they are mixed in different proportions. In order to achieve such accomplishment,
the following scope of the activities were performed:
 Introduction: This chapter provides a preamble to the compaction process, including
some definitions, and historical references.
 Literature Review: This chapter explains the definition of the saturation curve, different
theories of compaction curve, the standard and modified Proctor test method and its
factors of influence.
 Methodology: This chapter shows the sample collection that were prepared and selected
to perform the standard and modified Proctor test.
 Result of Study: This chapter analyzes the effect of different soil characteristics on the
Proctor test results.
 Summary and Conclusions: This chapter compiles the results obtained from the
investigation; it also provides the observed limitations, and recommendations for future
research.

11 | P a g e
1.2 Research Objectives
 To get an idea which M.C gives maximum compaction using minimum effort?
 To economize construction because less compactive effort required at O.M.C.
 To measure density of soil for comparing the degree of compaction.
 Compaction of soil samples comprising of different percentages of local sands.
 To measures the effect of moisture on soil density.
 To establish relationships between fine sand (Ravi) content and dry densities.
1.3 Compaction characteristics
For each soil, there is an optimum moisture content that will permit the soil to be compacted
to the maximum degree with the least effort and allow the compacted soil to attain its lowest
permeability. Optimum moisture content for various types of soils is as follows:
Table 1.1
Soil Optimum moisture content for
compaction (range in %)
Clayey sands, sand-clay mix 11 – 10
Sand-silt-clay mix with plastic,
silt + clay fraction
15 – 11
Inorganic silt, clayey silt 24 – 12
Inorganic clay 24 – 12
Organic silt 33 – 21
Inorganic clay, highly plastic 36 – 19
Organic clay 45 – 21
Note: The optimum moisture content is usually 2-3 percent less than the plastic limit of the
soil.

12 | P a g e
Chapter 2
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Particle size Analysis
2.1 General
A knowledgeable of the sizes of the solid particles comparing a certain soil and their relative
proportion in the soil mass is often very useful. Grain size distribution is used in soil
classification, soil filter design and to predict in a general way how a soil may be expected to
behave with respect to shear strength and permeability.
2.2 TYPES OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
There are two types of grain size analysis:
1. Mechanical (or Sieve) analysis
2. Hydrometer (or Fine) analysis
Mechanical analysis determines the particles sizes and their relative distribution for those
particles greater than 0.074mm(0.0029) and is accomplished stacking(grouping) the
sieves, one on top of the other, pouring a known weight of soil into the top services on
the stack, and shaking the sieve in a certain manner to allow oil to fall down through the
stack.
2.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS
2.3.1 Sieve
A Sieve consist of a metal ring, usually made of brass, whose dimensions are typically 2
in deep and 8 in diameter (also available in 12 and 18 in diameter).With a wire mesh or
screen on the bottom.
The sieve is given a number that corresponds to the number of openings per linear inch of
screen: for example, the U.S Bureau of Standards No.4 Sieve has four 0.187 in openings
per inch. (The reason the openings in a No.4 Sieve are not ¼ inch in size is that the 1-inch
linear measurement also includes the diameter of the strands(thread) that comprise the
mesh).
2.3.2 Nest of Sieves
The stacks are called a nest of sieves. The nest is arranged with the largest screen
openings (smallest sieve number) on top, progressing to sieve with the smallest screen
openings(largest sieve number) on the bottom of the nest. A- lid is placed on top of the
nest and pan is placed below the bottom sieve to catch any soil that passes through the
smallest openings.

13 | P a g e
Care should be exercised when removing a sieve from the nest. Often the sieve fit tightly
and a sudden unexpected dis-engagement could result in the contents being spilled from
sthe sieve and the whole test being ruined. Additionally, a principally horizontal shaking
motion should be used instead of mostly a vertical motion. This motion has been found to
more efficient, and it also results in less soil loss during the test procedure.
2.3.3 Shaking Period
A 10-minute shaking period is suggested in procedure. A large sample requires longer
shaking than a smaller simple. Similarly, a sample comprising primarily of fine-grained
material will require a longer shaking period than a coarse-grained sample of equal weight.
2.3.4 Breaking of Soil Lumps
Nodules or lumps of soil must be broken down into their individual particles, in order for
the grain size analysis to be valid. This is accomplished in two ways. The first is to break
up the lumps with a rubber lipped pestle in a ceramic mortar. It has been found that
rubber-tipped pestles will not grind or crash the individual particles while a ceramic or
metal tipped pestle.
The second is to wet sieve soil. Washing the particles that are retained on the No.200
sieve with water accomplished two things:
1. It separates those small lumps that might not have been broken up with the
rubber-tipped pestle into the individual particles.
2. It washes the ―Dust sized‖ particles off the larger particles and through the No.
200 Sieve.
2.3.5 Particles Stuck In the Sieve Screen
Particles that appear to be stuck in the sieve screen should never be forced on through the
mesh. There are two reasons for not doing this.
1. Forcing these particles through the screen to be retained on the next size would
distort the grain size results.
2. Secondly forcing the particles through the mesh can damage the screen and
necessities its replacement.
2.3.6 How to remove the particles
Particles caught in a screen should be removed by brushing with the proper sieve brush(wire-
bristled brush for coarse screen and a hair brush for fine screens).Brushing should be done
from the underside of the screen in order that the particles can be brushed out screen in the
direction from which it entered the screen opening. Stubborn (obstinate) particles that cannot
be removed by brushing should be left the place rather than being forced out.
2.3.7 Number of Sieve
The number or size of sieve used in the nest depends on the type of soil and the distribution
of particles of the particle size.

14 | P a g e
2.3.8 Apparatus Required
 Stack of Sieves including pan and cover
 Balance (with accuracy to 0.01 g)
 Rubber pestle and Mortar ( for crushing the soil if lumped or conglomerated)
 Mechanical sieve shaker
 Oven
Figure 2.1 Sieves
2.3.9 Test Procedure
1. Take a representative oven dried sample of soil that weighs about 500 g. (this is
normally used for soil samples the greatest particle size of which is 4.75 mm)
2. If soil particles are lumped or conglomerated crush the lumped and not the particles
using the pestle and mortar.
3. Determine the mass of sample accurately. Wt (g)
4. Prepare a stack of sieves.
2.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE
Information obtained from the grain-size analysis is presented in the form of curve on a
semi-logarithmic plot. The aggregate weight as a percentage of the total weight of all grain
smaller than any given diameter (percentage finer) is plotted on the ordinate using an
arithmetic scale, while the size of a soil particle, in millimeters, is plotted on the abscissa
which uses logarithmic scale.

15 | P a g e
2.5 GRADATION
Figure 2.2
2.5.1 Well-Graded Soil
A soil is said to be well-graded when it has good representation of particles of all the sizes.
2.5.2 Poorly-Graded Soil/Uniformly Graded
A soil is said to be poorly-graded if it has an excess of particles of one size and deficiency of
other particles. If it has particle of almost same size then it is known as uniformly graded.
2.5.3 Gap-Graded Soil
A soil is said to be gap-graded soil, if particles of both large and small sizes are present but
with a relatively low proportion of particles of intermediate size.
2.5.4 D10, D30, D60:
From the grain-size distribution curve such as D10, D30, D60: can be obtained. The ―D‖
refers to the grain size, and the subscript (10, 30, and 60) denotes the percentage passing.
D10 = Grain size at 10% passing (also called effective size)
D30 = Grain size at 30% passing
D60 = Grain size at 60% passing
2.6 Soil Classification
2.6.1 PURPOSE OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
The purpose of soil classification is to provide a systematic method of categorizing soils into
different groups in accordance with their engineering performance (i.e., probable engineering
behavior). A soil classification system represents, in fact a language of communicating
between engineers. Without the use of a classification system published data or
recommendation on design and construction based on type of material are liked to be
misleading and it will be difficult to apply experience gained in the past to future and
development.

16 | P a g e
In a soil classification system, universal terms of nomenclature are used for different soil
groups with help in reducing the communication gaps between the engineers.
A soil classification system does not eliminate the need for detailed soil testing and
investigation for engineering properties, but it provides sufficient data for preliminary design.
2.6.2 PRINCIPAL OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
A good soil classification system must satisfy the following basic principles:
 The terms used in the system must be universal, brief, comprehensive and meaningful
for the users.
 The system must utilize some simple field and/or laboratory information and
classification tests.
 The groups and sub- groups must categorize soils of similar characteristics and
engineering behavior.
2.6.3 TYPES OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soils can be classified as many ways depending upon the intended use of the material such as
1. Agronomic classification system
2. Geological classification system
3. Engineering classification system
2.6.4 ENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
From engineering point of view soils can be divided into the following three major groups.
 Coarse-grained soils (gravel, sand and their mixtures).
 Fine-grained soils (silt, clay and very fine rock flour).
 Organic soil (peat, muck etc).
Coarse-grained soils are classified into different groups on the basis of their particle size and
the system is called as Textual Classification System.
Fine-grained soils are classified using data from grain-size analysis and consistency limits(LL
& PL).
Many systems are in use, based on grain size distribution (GSD) and limits of soils, but the
following systems are quite popular worldwide:
1. Unified Soil Classification system (USCS).
2. American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO) systems.
3. The federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Classification for use in the design of airport pavement.
Out of those number (1) and (2) are the most common used systems and their details are
given below.

17 | P a g e
2.6.5 Unified Soil Classification system (USCS)
The Unified Soil Classification system (USCS) was originally developed by A.Casagrande in
1948 and modified in 1952, currently this method is adopted universally.
The basic for this system is that Coarse-grained soils can be classified with respect to
their Particle size based on GSD. Whereas the engineering behavior of Fine-grained soils
is primarily related to their plasticity (consistency limits LL & PL). Therefore only data
from GSD and Atterberg‘s limits are required to completely classify a soil according to
this system.
In this system, soils are divided into three major groups. The various symbols used in this
system are:
Coarse-grained soils
G = gravel and gravelly soils
S = sand and Sandy soils
Fine-grained soils
M = inorganic silt and very fine sandy soils
C = inorganic clays and clayey soils
O = organic silt and clays
Pt = peat
Gradation symbols
W = well-graded, fairly clean soils
P = poorly-graded, fairly clean soils
Liquid Limit and plasticity symbols
H = fine-grained soils with LL>50 indicating high plasticity and compressibility
characteristics.
L = fine-grained soils with LL>50 indicating low to medium plasticity or compressibility
characteristics.
Composite symbols
GW = well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixture with little or no fines.
SW = well-graded sand or gravelly sands, little or no fines.
GP = poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixture with little or no fines.
SP = poorly sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines.
GC =clayey gravels or gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
GM = silty-gravel, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
SC = clayey sand or sand-clay mixtures.
SM = silty sand or sand silt mixtures.
ML = inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity
MH = inorganic elastic with high plasticity.
CL =inorganic clays of low to medium plastic
CH = inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OL = organic silts or silty-clays of low plasticity.
OH = organic clay of high plasticity

18 | P a g e
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Table 2.1 USCS
Major Divisions Group
Symbol
Typical Names
Course-Grained Soils
More than 50%
retained
on the No. 200 sieve
Gravels
50% or
more of
course
fraction
retained on
the No. 4
sieve
Clean
Gravels
GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Gravels
with
Fines
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Sands
50% or
more of
course
fraction
passes
the No. 4
sieve
Clean
Sands
SW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands,
little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands,
little or no fines
Sands
with
Fines
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Fine-Grained Soils
More than 50% passes
the No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit 50% or less
ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock
four, silty or clayey fine sands
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly/sandy/silty/lean
clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticity
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit greater
than 50%
MH Inorganic silts or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic
silts
CH Inorganic clays or high plasticity, fat
clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, muck, and other highly organic
soils
Prefix: G = Gravel, S = Sand, M = Silt, C = Clay, O = Organic
Suffix: W = Well Graded, P = Poorly Graded, M = Silty, L = Clay, LL < 50%, H = Clay, LL > 50%
2.6.6 AASHTO Soil Classification system
In the late 1920‘s the U.S. Bureau of Public Road,(now the Federal Highway administration)
conducted extensive research for the construction of roads and Hogentogler and
Terzaghi (1928) developed PRA Classification System, since 1929,several revisions have
been made and in 1945 AASHTO adopted this system. The system in its present form known
as AASHTO Classification System. AASHTO states that the system is useful for evaluation
of soil for use in embankment, sub grades, sub base of roads and airport pavements.

19 | P a g e
In this system boulders are excluded from the sample to be classified, but the amount of
boulders present is recorded. Fines are silty if PI >10 and clayey if PI >10.In this system
inorganic soils are divided into seven major groups A-1 through A-7.The system is based
on the following soil properties.
1. Grain size distribution, GSD.
2. Liquid limit, LL.
3. Plasticity index, PI.
Table 2.2 AASHTO Classification
General Classification Granular Materials (35% or less passing the 0.075 mm
sieve)
Silt-Clay Materials (>35% passing
the 0.075 mm sieve)
Group Classification A-1 A-3 A-
2
A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7
A-1-a A-1-b A-2-
4
A-2-
5
A-2-
6
A-2-
7
A-7-5 A-7-6
Sieve Analysis, %
Passing
2.00 mm (No. 10) 50
max
… … … … … … … … … …
0.425 (No. 40) 30
max
50
max
51
min
… … … … … … … …
0.075 (No. 200) 15
max
25
max
10
max
35
max
35
max
35
max
35
max
36
min
36
min
36
min
36 min
Characteristics of
fraction passing 0.425
mm (No. 40)
Liquid Limit … … 40
max
41
min
40
max
41
min
40
max
41
min
40
max
41 min
Plasticity Index 6 max N.P. 10
max
10
max
11
min
11
min
10
max
10
max
11
min
11 min
Usual types of
significant constituent
materials
stone fragments,
gravel and sand
fine
sand
silty or clayey gravel and
sand
silty soils clayey soils
General rating as a
subgrade
excellent to good fair to poor
2.7 Specific Gravity
It is sometimes required to compare the density of the aggregate soils solids to the density
of water. This comparison is in the form of ratio and is termed as specific gravity of soil
solids. Together with the soil moisture content and unit weight, specific gravity is frequently
used to solve for the various phase relationships such as void ratio, porosity and degree of
saturation. Specific gravity is also required in the calculations associated with the grain size
analysis, consolidation and compaction.
It is the ratio of the density of dry soil to the density of equal volume of distilled water
OR
It is the ratio of the weight of given volume of substance to the weight of equal volume of
distilled water.

20 | P a g e
2.7.1 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:
1) The values of specific gravity helps us upto some extent in identification of soil.
2) It gives us an idea about the suitability of a given soil as a construction material
weight and water content are known.
2.7.2 Determination of Specific Gravity in the lab
For the determination of specific gravity in the lab, volumes of soils solids and water are
taken same.
The volume of a known weight of soil grains can be obtained by using a container of
known volume and Archimedes principle that a body submerged in a volume of water
displaced a volume of water equal to volume of submerged.
The container of known volume is the volumetric flask which holds a standard volume of
distilled water at 20o
C . At temperature more than 20 celsius, the volume will be slightly
more. Below the 20 celsius , volume will be slightly less. In routine work. Generally tap
water is used instead of distilled water.
Typical Values Of Gs:
Table 2.3 values of Gs
Type of soil Gs
Sand 2.65-2.67
Silty sand 2.67-2.70
Inorganic clay 2.70-2.80
Soil with mica 2.75-3
Organic soil Variable (<2.0)

21 | P a g e
2.8 COMPACTION:
Compaction is defined as the method of mechanically increasing the density of soil. In construct-
ion, this is a significant part of the building process.
What is soil?
Soil is formed in place or deposited by various forces of naturesuch such as glaciers,winds, lakes
and rivers—residually or organically. Following are important elements in soil compaction:
 Soil type
 Soil moisture content
 Compaction effort required
Why compact?
There are five principle reasons to compact soil:
 Increases load-bearing capacity
 Prevents soil settlement and frost damage
 Provides stability
 Reduces water seepage, swelling and contraction
 Reduces settling of soil
Types of compaction:
There are four types of compaction effort on soil or asphalt:
 Vibration
 Impact
 Kneading
 Pressure
2.8.1 Compaction Curve:
The compaction curve is the representation of the dry densities versus the moisture contents
obtained from a compaction test. The achieved dry density depends on the water content during
the compaction process. When samples of the same material are compacted with the same energy
but with different water contents, they present different densification stages, as shown on
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.3 Compaction Curve

22 | P a g e
This densification stages are represented in the compaction curve, which has a particular shape.
Many theories have tried to explain the shape of this curve. The principal theories are presented
following:
 Proctor (1933), believed that the humidity in soils relatively dry creates a capillarity
effect that produces tension stress and grouping of the solid particles, that results in a
high difficult the compaction of soils with low water content. He obtained a better
rearrangement of the soil particles by compacting it with higher water content, because of
the increment of lubrication effect will continue until a point where the water content is
increased, the lubrication effect will continue until a point where the water combined
with the remaining air is enough to fill the voids. At this stage the soil is at its maximum
dry density and optimum water content (ⱳ(%)optimum) as represented in point 1 in
Figure 2. For any increment in the water content after the “optimum water content”, the
volume of voids tends to increase, and the soil will obtain a lower density and resistance.
 Hogentogler (1936) considered that the compaction curve shape reflects four stages of the
soil humidity: hydration, lubrication, expansion and saturation. These stages are
represented in figure 2.4
As shown in Figure 2.4, Hogentogler’s moisture-density curve differs from Proctor’s curve in the
abscise axe.
 Hilf (1956), gave the first modern type of compaction theory by using the concept of pore
water pressures and pore air pressures. He suggested that the compaction curve be
presented in terms of void ratio (volume of water to volume solids). A curve similar to
the conventional compaction curve results, with the optimum moisture content
corresponding to a minimum void ratio. In his chart the zero air voids curve is shown as a
straight line and so are the saturation lines, all originating at zero void ratio and zero
moisture content. Points representing soil samples with equal air void ratios (volume of
air to volume of solids) plot on lines parallel to the zero air voids or 100% saturation line.
According to Hilf, dry soils are difficult to compact because of high friction due to
capillary pressure. Air, however, is expelled quickly because of the larger air voids. By
Figure 2.4 Compaction Curve

23 | P a g e
increasing the water content the tension in the pore water decreases, reducing friction and
allowing better densification until a maximum density is reached. Less-effective
compaction beyond the optimum moisture content is attributed to the trapping of air and
the increment of pore air pressures and the added water taking space instead of the denser
solid particles.
 Lambe (1960), explained the compaction curve based on theories that used the soils’
surface chemical characteristics. In lower water contents, the particles flocculation is
caused by the high electrolytic concentrations. The flocculation causes lower compaction
densities, but when the water content is increased the electrolytic concentration is
reduced.
The conclusions they obtained can be summarized as follows:
1. It is logical to suppose that soils with low humidity content remain conglomerated due to
the effective tension caused by the capillarity. The dryer these soils are the bigger the
tensions are. In the compaction process the soil remains conglomerated. By increasing the
water content this tensions are reduced, and the compaction is more effective.
2. The blockage of the air in the soil mass provides a reasonable explanation of the
effectiveness of a used compaction energy.
3. If by increasing the water content the blocked air is not expelled and the air pressure is
increased, the soil will resist the compaction.
 Lee and Suedkamp (1972), studied compaction curves for 35 soil samples. They observed
that four types compaction curves can be found. These curves are shown in Figure 4.
Type A compaction curve is a single peak. This type of curve is generally found for soils
that have a liquid limit between 30 and 70. Curve type B is a one-and-one-half-peak
curve, and curve type C is a double-peak curve. Compaction curves of type B and C can
be found for soils that have a liquid limit less than about 30. Compaction curve of type D
does not have a definite peak. This is termed an “odd shape”. Soils with a liquid limit
greater than 70 may exhibit compaction curves of type C or D, soils are uncommon. (Das,
2002).
Figure 2.5 Compaction Curves

24 | P a g e
2.8.2 Effects of gradation and soil types
The strength of compacted soil is very much sensitive to gradation of sandy soil and
percentage of fines present in the material. The strength depends upon particle size
distribution, shape, cohesion not enough on the fine grains in a mixture of different
aggregates.
Every soil type behaves differently with respect to maximum density and optimum
moisture. Therefore, each soil type has its own unique requirements and controls both in the
field and for testing purposes. Soil types are commonly classified by grain size,
determined by passing the soil through a series of sieves to screen or separate the different
grain sizes. Soil classification is categorized into 15 groups, a system set up by AASHTO
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Soils found in nature
are almost always a combination of soil types. A well-graded soil consists of a wide range of
particle sizes with the smaller particles filling voids between larger particles. The result is a
dense structure that lends itself well to compaction. A soil's makeup determines the best
compaction method to use. There are three basic soil groups:
 Cohesive
 Granular
 Organic (this soil is not suitable for compaction and will not be discussed here)
Cohesive soils
Cohesive soils have the smallest particles. Clay has a particle size range of .00004" to
.002". Silt ranges from .0002" to .003". Clay is used in embankment fills and retaining
pond beds.
Characteristics
Cohesive soils are dense and tightly bound together by molecular attraction. They are plastic
when wet and can be molded, but become very hard when dry. Proper water content, evenly
distributed, is critical for proper compaction. Cohesive soils usually require a force such as
impact or pressure. Silt has a noticeably lower cohesion than clay. However, silt is still
heavily reliant on water content.
Granular soils
Granular soils range in particle size from .003" to .08" (sand) and .08" to 1.0" (fine to
medium gravel). Granular soils are known for their water-draining properties.
Characteristics
Sand and gravel obtain maximum density in either a fully dry or saturated state. Testing
curves are relatively flat so density can be obtained regardless of water content.

25 | P a g e
The soil type in terms of the grain size distribution, shape of the soil grains, specific gravity of soil
solids, percentage of the fine content and the type of fine. Figure 2.6 shows the typical
compaction curves.
2.8.3 Measurement of compaction:
The degree of compaction of soil is measured by its unit weight or dry density, (γd) and
optimum moisture content (wc). Dry density is the weight of soil solids per unit volume of
the soil in bulk. Knowing the wet unit weight and the moisture content (wc), the dry unit
weight can be determined from:
Compaction Effect:
Figure 2.7 Compaction Effect
Figure 2.6 Typical Comapaction Curves

26 | P a g e
2.8.4 Effect of compaction energy:
The applied energy in a soil compaction is measured by its specific energy value (E), which is
applied per unit volume. When the energy per unit is increased, the maximum dry unit weight is
also increased, while O.M.C is reduced.
2.8.5 Dry densities of different soils:
The table below contains typical values for the different soil types obtained from the Standard
Compaction Test.
Table 2.4 Typical Dry densities
Typical Values
γdry max (kN/m3
) OMC (%)
Well graded sand SW 22 7
Sandy clay SC 19 12
Poorly graded sand SP 18 15
Low plasticity clay CL 18 15
Non plastic silt ML 17 17
High plasticity clay CH 15 25
Figure 2.8 Effect of Compaction Energy

27 | P a g e
2.8.6 Comparison between Standard and Modified Proctor Test:
Standard Compaction Test
Soil is compacted into a mould in 3 equal layers, each layer receiving 25 blows of a
hammer of standard weight. . The energy (compactive effort) supplied in this test is
12,400 lbft/ft3
. The important dimensions are
Volume of mould Hammer mass Drop of hammer
1/30 ft^3 5.5 lbs 12 inch
Because of the benefits from compaction, contractors have built larger and heavier machines
to increase the amount of compaction of the soil. It was found that the Standard Compaction
test could not reproduce the densities measured in the field and this led to the development of
the Modified Compaction test.
Modified Compaction Test
The procedure and equipment is essentially the same as that used for the Standard test except
that 5 layers of soil must be used. To provide the increased compactive effort (energy
supplied = 56000 lbft/ft3
) a heavier hammer and a greater drop height for the hammer are used.
The key dimensions for the Modified test are
Volume of mould Hammer mass Drop of hammer
1/30 ft^3 10 lbs 18 inch
2.9 FIELD COMPACTION
To control the soil properties of earth constructions (e.g. dams, roads) it is usual to specify
that the soil must be compacted to some pre-determined dry unit weight. This specification is
usually that a certain percentage of the maximum dry density, as found from a laboratory test
(Standard or Modified) must be achieved.
For example we could specify that field densities must be greater than 98% of the maximum
dry unit weight as determined from the Standard Compaction Test. It is then up to the
Contractor to select machinery, the thickness of each lift (layer of soil added) and to control
moisture contents in order to achieve the specified amount of compaction.

28 | P a g e
2.10 Compaction Field Tests
Table 2.5 Field Density Testing Method
Field Density Testing Method
Sand Cone Balloon Dens meter Shelby Tube Nuclear
Gauge
Advantages * Large sample
* Accurate
* Large sample
* Direct
reading obtained
* Open
graded material
* Fast
* Deep sample
* Under pipe
haunches
* Fast
* Easy to redo
* More tests
(statistical
reliability)
Disadvantages * Many steps
* Large area
required
* Slow
* Halt
Equipment
* Tempting to
accept flukes
* Slow
* Balloon breakage
* Awkward
* Small Sample
* No gravel
* Sample not
always retained
* No sample
* Radiation
* Moisture
suspect
* Encourages
amateurs
Errors * Void under
plate
* Sand bulking
* Sand
compacted
* Soil pumping
* Surface not level
* Soil pumping
* Void under plate
* Overdrive
* Rocks in path
* Plastic soil
* Miscalibrated
* Rocks in path
* Surface prep
required
* Backscatter
Cost * Low * Moderate * Low * High

29 | P a g e
2.11 Compaction Equipments:
Figure 2.9 Compaction Equipments

30 | P a g e
2.12 Equipment Types
Rammers
Rammers deliver a high impact force ( high amplitude) making them an excellent choice for
cohesive and semi-cohesive soils. Frequency range is 500 to 750 blows per
minute. Rammers get compaction force from a small gasoline or diesel engine powering a
large piston set with two sets of springs. The rammer is inclined at a forward angle to allow
forward travel as the machine jumps. Rammers cover three types of compaction: impact,
vibration and kneading.
Vibratory Plates
Vibratory plates are low amplitude and high frequency, designed to compact granular soils
and asphalt. Gasoline or diesel engines drive one or two eccentric weights at a high speed to
develop compaction force. The resulting vibrations cause forward motion. The engine and
handle are vibration-isolated from the vibrating plate. The heavier the plate, the more
compaction force it generates. Frequency range is usually 2500 vpm to 6000 vpm. Plates
used for asphalt have a water tank and sprinkler system to prevent asphalt from sticking to the
bottom of the base plate. Vibration is the one principal compaction effect.
Rollers
Rollers are available in several categories: walk-behind and ride-on,
which are available as smooth drum, padded drum, and rubber-tired
models; and are further divided into static and vibratory sub-
categories.
Table 2.6 Equipments Applications
Equipment Applications
Granular Soils Sand and Clay Cohesive Clay Asphalt
Rammers Not
Recommended
Testing
Recommended
Best Application Not
Recommended
Vibratory
Plates
Best Application Testing
Recommended
Not
Recommended
Best
Application
Reversible
Plates
Testing
Recommended
Best Application Best Application Not
Recommended
Vibratory
Rollers
Not
Recommended
Best Application Testing
Recommended
Best
Application
Rammer
Rollers
Testing
Recommended
Best Application Best Application Not
Recommended

31 | P a g e
Chapter 3
Chapter 3: Methodology
We have performed the following steps for this research:
3.1 Collection of sand :
The first step was to collect the locally available sands to perform the tests. This was done with
the help of lab attendants of the concrete lab. About 180 kg of total sand was collected (60 kg of
each type) i.e Ravi, Chenab and Lawrencepur.
3.2 Preparation of sand samples:
The next step was the preparation of soil samples. We prepared 19 different samples by mixing
all the three soils in different proportions. The samples were prepared by mixing (Ravi +
Chenab), (Ravi + Lawrecepur), (Chenab + Lawrencepur) and (Ravi + Chenab + Lawrencepur)
Figure 3.1 Ravi ~Chenab Combo
1 2 3 4 5 6
RaVI 100 90 70 50 30 0
Chenab 0 10 30 50 70 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
%ageofRavi/Chenab
Ravi ~Chenab Combo

32 | P a g e
Figure 3.2 Chenab ~Lawrencepur Combo
Figure 3.3 Ravi ~Lawrencepur ~Chenab Combo
1 2 3 4 5 6
Chenab 100 70 50 30 10 0
Lawrencepur 0 30 50 70 90 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
%ageofChenab/Lawrencepur
Chenab~Lawrencepur Combo
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ravi 33 30 30 40 80 10 10
Lawrencepur 33 40 30 30 10 10 80
Chenab 33 30 40 30 10 80 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%ofR/L/C
Ravi~Lawrencepur~Chenab Combo

33 | P a g e
3.3 Sieve Analysis and Specific gravity:
Now after preparing the samples, we performed sieve analysis for each sample. We followed
ASTM D-422. The specific gravities were also determined. The combined results of sieve
analysis is shown in figure 3.5
Figure 3.4 Set of Sieves
Figure 3.5 Sieve Analysis of All Samples

34 | P a g e
Procedure for sieve analysis:
 Oven dried sample is required.
 500 g of each sample is taken for the sieve analysis.
 Arrange the nest of sieves according to specification.
 Pour the sample into top of the nest of the sieves and shake for a reasonable time.
 After shaking we measured the weight retained on each sieve and determined the
percentage of the weight retained.
Procedure for Specific gravity:
1. Take atleast 25gm ofsoil
2. Clean and dry the pycnometer and find out its mass (M1).
3. Place thedrysoilin pycnometer and find out its mass (M2).
4. Add sufficientamount ofwater in the pycnometer upto the given mark and find outits
mass (M3).
5. Empty thepycnometer and wash it thoroughly and added water upto the given mark and
find out its mass (M4)
6. Determine the specific gravityofthesoilsample by the following formula:
3.4 Proctor Tests:
The final step was to perform the standard and modified proctor tests. There were total 19
samples and we divided these tests equally among all the four group member. The tests were
performed and then all the data was then assembled together to get the required results. The
compaction curves were drawn and the results were then studied thoroughly to get the required
output. We were then in a position to know which samples can give best compaction amongst all.
The effect of fine sands % was also studied.
Procedure:
 Take the total weight of the given sample before performing the compaction test.
 Add different percentage of moisture content. Starting moisture content of the
given sample depends on the composition of that sample.
 Properly mix the sample with added water.
 Place some quantity of sample into the mould as first layer.
 Compact the first layer by applying 25 blows.
 Then place the second layer apply 25 blows and same procedure is repeated uptil 3rd

35 | P a g e
Or 5th
layer for the first trial of moisture content.
 Start the second trial and so on unless reduction is observed in the weight of
the sample with the addition of the moisture content.
 After that take amount of sample in the container for determination of the actual
moisture content and take the wet weight of the container.
 Place this container in the oven for 24 hours, then take the dry weight of the container.
 Perform the calculation and determine the dry density.
Figure 3.6 Standard and Modified Test Apparatus
3.5 Results from the experiments:
Finally, we had completed all the proctor tests on the samples and the final step was to get the
results by performing calculations, drawing graphs and conclude the results from the research.

36 | P a g e
Chapter 4
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Results of Sieve analysis
The Sieve analysis was done for all the 19 samples. The gradation curves were drawn for all
these samples were drawn and have been shown in the appendix A-1. The gradation curves of all
these samples showed that they were poorly graded sands. The soils soil samples were classified
according to USCS and AASHTO. D10, D30, D60, Cu and Cc were determined. A summary of
these results is presented here in Table 4.1 and 4.2. A combined gradation curve of all the
samples is presented here in figure 4.1
Figure 4.1 Gradation Curve for all the samples

37 | P a g e
Following are the gradation curves for pure ravi lawrencepur and Chenab sands…..
Figure 4. Gradation Curves of Ravi, Chenab and Lawrencepur Sand
The blue curve shows Ravi sand, it is the finest among the three sands. The green line shows
Lawrencepur sand and the purple line represents Chenab Sand.

38 | P a g e
Table 4.1 Sol Classification
Sr # SAMPLE
%age
passing
#10
%age
passing
#40
%age
passing
#200
AASHTO
Classifica
tion
USCS Classification
Group
Symbol
Group
Name
1 R100% 95.812 89.962 1.514 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
2 R90%C10% 95.76 86.83 6.83 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
3 R70%C30% 97.326 85.24 0.14 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
4 R505C50% 98.712 83.15 2.388 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
5 R30%C70% 98.07 71.118 11.97 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
6 R90%L10% 93.968 86.206 1.902 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
7 C100% 99.042 46.376 0.462 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
8 C70%L30% 94.572 46.134 1.202 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
9 C50%L50% 93.512 43.534 1.104 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
10 C30%L70% 90.606 40.846 1.192 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
11 C10%L90% 88.162 38.904 1.558 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
12 R33C33L33 94.79 58.632 2.002 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
13 R30C30L40 93.396 63.874 1.532 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
14 R30C40L30 94.41 54.39 1.758 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
15 R40C30L30 95.072 63.27 0.706 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
16 R80C10L10 97.08 79.654 3.226 A-3 SP
Poorly Graded
sand
17 R10C80L10 95.756 49.98 0.24 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
18 R10C10L80 88.154 38.29 1.16 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand

39 | P a g e
19 L 100% 94.676 37.446 1.826 A-1-b SP
Poorly Graded
sand
Table 4.2 Cu an Cc for all the samples
SAMPLE %Gravel %sand %silt+clay D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
R100% 2.776 95.71 1.514 0.17 0.2 0.3 1.76 0.78
R90%C10% 3.28 89.89 6.83 0.1 0.19 0.29 2.90 1.24
R70%C30% 1.246 98.614 0.14 0.175 0.205 0.3 1.71 0.80
R505C50% 0.43 97.182 2.388 0.15 0.2 0.3 2.00 0.89
R30%C70% 1.3 86.283 12.417 0.075 0.2 0.35 4.67 1.52
R90%L10% 4.212 93.886 1.902 0.17 0.2 0.3 1.76 0.78
C100% 0.26 99.278 0.462 0.185 0.2 0.63 3.41 0.34
C70%L30% 0.81 97.988 1.202 0.185 0.29 0.7 3.78 0.65
C50%L50% 1.648 97.248 1.104 0.18 0.3 0.7 3.89 0.71
C30%L70% 2.026 96.782 1.192 0.18 0.205 0.79 4.39 0.30
C10%L90% 2.9 95.542 1.558 0.185 0.32 0.8 4.32 0.69
R33C33L33 0.876 97.122 2.002 0.17 0.24 0.45 2.65 0.75
R30C30L40 2.536 95.932 1.532 0.16 0.23 0.4 2.50 0.83
R30C40L30 1.082 97.16 1.758 0.18 0.26 0.54 3.00 0.70
R40C30L30 0.74 98.554 0.706 0.17 0.24 0.4 2.35 0.85
R80C10L10 0.44 96.334 3.226 0.17 0.205 0.32 1.88 0.77
R10C80L10 0.844 98.916 0.24 0.18 0.29 0.6 3.33 0.78
R10C10L80 1.862 96.978 1.16 0.19 0.33 0.82 4.32 0.70
L 100 % 1.424 96.75 1.826 0.18 0.34 0.78 4.33 0.82
4.2 Results of Specific Gravity Tests
The specific gravity test was performed for all the 19 samples. These results showed that the
specific gravity for all the samples varied between 2.6 to 2.7. We have also presented the
summary of the specific gravity for all the samples in the table 4.3.

40 | P a g e
Specific Gravity Results:
Sample
Specific
Gravity
R100% 2.62
R90%C10% 2.628
R70%C30% 2.64
R505C50% 2.61
R30%C70% 2.656
R90%L10% 2.63
C100% 2.673
C70%L30% 2.654
C50%L50% 2.73
C30%L70% 2.7
C10%L90% 2.689
R33C33L33 2.73
R30C30L40 2.68
R30C40L30 2.661
R40C30L30 2.654
R80C10L10 2.688
R10C80L10 2.674
R10C10L80 2.678
L 100 % 2.698
Table 4.3
4.3 Proctor Tests
We did perform standard as well as the modified proctor test for each of the sample. The results
for all the samples were analyzed. We deduced a few important results which will be explained
here in detail. The main task was to determine that at what composition (Ravi, Chenab and
Lawrencepur), the maximum dry densities could be obtained. This was done because of the
reason that if we have 2 or 3 types of sands available then in what proportion they should be
mixed to get the maximum compaction using minimum effort. This will economize the
compaction process and will reduce the overall cost of the construction. By doing so we achieve
high dry density of the soil which means that the strength of the soil will be increased.

41 | P a g e
The results that have been obtained through this research can be classified into following
categories:
1. The samples giving the maximum compaction.
2. The Effect of Chenab on dry density of Chenab~Lawrecepur and Chenab~Ravi Samples.
3. The local sand best suited for the construction purpose.
4. The local sand which should not be used.
5. The effect of compaction energy on dry density and O.M.C.
4.3.1 The Samples giving the maximum compaction:
In order to know about the samples which give maximum compaction we have summarized the
results in the form of a table 4.4. This table tells about the maximum dry densities obtained from
the standard and the modified proctor tests and the information about the optimum moisture
contents of each sample. Dry density in KN/m^3 and O.M.C in %.
Table 4.4 Results of Compaction Tests
SAMPLE
Standard Proctor Modified Proctor
Max Dry Density OMC Max Dry Density OMC
R100% 16.4 18.2 17.3 17.5
R90%C10% 16.9 18 18.4 14.9
R70%C30% 17 17 18.48 14.5
R505C50% 17.4 16.5 18.6 14.5
R30%C70% 18 16.2 19.1 13
R90%L10% 16.5 17 18.8 15
C100% 17.8 16.5 18.9 15
C70%L30% 18.5 18 19.9 17.5
C50%L50% 18.75 20.5 19.4 13
C30%L70% 18.8 14.8 20.4 11.5
C10%L90% 18.7 16 20.3 13
R33C33L33 18.6 14 19.4 12.5
R30C30L40 18.1 13.5 20.1 12
R30C40L30 17.8 17 18.9 12.2
R40C30L30 18.3 15 18.6 14
R80C10L10 17.3 17 18.8 13
R10C80L10 21 17.1 19 17.5
R10C10L80 18.6 17 20 11.8

42 | P a g e
L 100 18.5 15.8 20.1 13
From the above results we can conclude that the following samples give us the best compaction:
1. Chenab 70 Ravi 30
2. Chenab 30 Lawrencepur 70
3. Lawrencepur 40 Chenab 30 Ravi 30 ( For R-L-C combination)
4. Lawrencepur 100%
Figure 4.3 Effect of Chenab %age on Chenab~ Ravi Samples
Figure 4.4 Effect of Chenab %age on Chenab~ Lawrencepur Samples
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DRYDENSITY
CHENNAB PERCENTAGE
Chenab Vs Ravi
standard
Modified
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Drydensity
Chenab percentage
Chenab Vs Lawrencepur
Standard
Modified

43 | P a g e
It is recommended in case only one type of sand is to be used it should be Lawrencepur. In case
Chenab sand is available along with the Lawrencepur it should be mixed in the proportion
(Chenab 30 Lawrecpur 70) . If Chenab and Ravi combination is used then it should be mixed in
the proportion (Ravi 30 Chenab 70). For Ravi-Lawrecepur-Chenab combination Ravi 30
Lawrencepur 40 Chenab 30 should be used.
We recommend not to use Ravi sand as it does not give good compaction. Chenab also gives
reasonable compaction but not as good as Lawrencepur.
Figure 4.5 Compaction Curves

44 | P a g e
4.3.2 The effect of compaction energy
We did standard and proctor test for all kind of samples, thus we can make a relation for the
effect of compaction energy. It is evident from all the graphs that as we increased the compaction
energy from 12400 lbft/ft^3 to 56000 lbft/ft^3 the dry density of the sand was increased and
O.M.C was decreased.
The proctor graphs have been shown in detail in appendix A-2. However, two sample graphs to
explain this effect are also shown here.
Figure 4.6 Comparison of Compaction Energy Effect
Figure 4.7 Comparison of Compaction Energy Effect
For both the case the max dry density increased with increase in compaction energy and the
O.M.C decreased.
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R30C70
STANDARD
MODIFIED
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
20.00
20.50
21.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DRYDENSITY
M.C
L90%C10%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

45 | P a g e
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions:
 In order to get maximum compaction use the following combinations of the
sands:
1. Chenab 70 Ravi 30
2. Chenab 30 Lawrencepur 70
3. Lawrencepur 40 Chenab 30 Ravi 30 ( For R-L-C combination)
4. Lawrencepur 100%
 By using only Ravi 100% the max dry density was 17.3 KN/m3
and it at Ravi 30 Chenab
70 , dry density 19.1 KN/m3
was obtained which is the increase of 16.18%
 By using Chenab 100% 18.9KN/m3
was obtained and by using sample Chenab 30
Lawrencepur 70 , dry density 20.4 KN/m3
was obtained which is the increase of 8%.
 In order to achieve good compaction the compactive effort should be
increased.
 The Relation b/w Cu and dry density , D50 and dry desnity is as follows:
Figure 4.8 Dry sensity vs Cu
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
1 2 3 4 5
DryDensity(KN/m^3)
Cu
Dry density Vs Cu
Dry density Vs Cu

46 | P a g e
Figure 4.9 Drydensity vs D50
Recommendations:
 We have studied here a limited number of samples(19) due to shortage of
time so for future research it is recommended that more number of samples
may be used for R-L-C combination so it is possible that by mixing them a
combination may be obtained which gives even much better results than
L100.
 We have not done this research for different gradations. It is recommended
that the effect of gradation should also be studied.
 Atterberg’s limits should also be determined to get some relation between
compaction results and these limits.
 We used only SP sands , more good results can be obtained by using well
graded sands.
 The effect of fines (clay and silt) in these samples should also be studied in
future.
 From this research we can recommend that use Lawrencepur sand for
construction purpose or use R30-L40-C30 or C 70 L 30.
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Drydensity(KN/m^3)
D 50
Dry density Vs D50
Dry density Vs D50

47 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix A-1:
Sieve Analysis :
Ravi 100%
Ravi 100% Sieve Analysis
Sieve wt ret cum wt ret % wt ret % pass
100
4 13.88 13.88 2.776 97.224
10 7.06 20.94 4.188 95.812
40 29.25 50.19 10.038 89.962
100 410.4 460.59 92.118 7.882
200 31.84 492.43 98.486 1.514

48 | P a g e
Ravi 90% Lawrencepur 10%
sieve wt ret cum wt ret % wt ret % pass
100
4 21.06 21.06 4.212 95.788
10 9.1 30.16 6.032 93.968
40 38.8 68.96 13.792 86.208
100 383.86 452.82 90.564 9.436
200 37.67 490.49 98.098 1.902

49 | P a g e
Ravi 80% Lawrecepur 10% Chenab 10%
100
4 2.2 2.2 0.44 99.56
10 12.4 14.6 2.92 97.08
40 87.13 101.73 20.346 79.654
100 351.91 453.64 90.728 9.272
200 30.23 483.87 96.774 3.226
Ravi 80% Lawrencepur 10% Chenab 10%

50 | P a g e
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%
100
4 2.15 2.15 0.43 99.57
10 4.29 6.44 1.288 98.712
40 77.81 84.25 16.85 83.15
100 360.14 444.39 88.878 11.122
200 43.67 488.06 97.612 2.388

51 | P a g e
Ravi 90 % Chenab 10%
Ravi 90% Chenab 10%
100
4 16.4 16.4 3.28 96.72
10 4.8 21.2 4.24 95.76
40 44.65 65.85 13.17 86.83
100 358.87 424.72 84.944 15.056
200 41.13 465.85 93.17 6.83

52 | P a g e
Chenab 70 % Ravi 30%
100
4 6.5 6.5 1.3 98.7
10 3.15 9.65 1.93 98.07
40 134.76 144.41 28.882 71.118
100 279 423.41 84.682 15.318
200 14.5 437.91 87.582 12.418
Chenab 70 % Ravi 30%

53 | P a g e
Ravi30 % Lawerencepur 30% Chenab 40%
100
4 5.41 5.41 1.082 98.918
10 22.54 27.95 5.59 94.41
40 200.1 228.05 45.61 54.39
100 242.97 471.02 94.204 5.796
200 20.19 491.21 98.242 1.758

54 | P a g e
Ravi 70% Chenab 30%
Ravi 50% Chenab 30 %
100
4 6.23 6.23 1.246 98.754
10 7.14 13.37 2.674 97.326
40 60.43 73.8 14.76 85.24
100 397.4 471.2 94.24 5.76
200 28.1 499.3 99.86 0.14

55 | P a g e
Chenab 100%
100
4 1.3 1.3 0.26 99.74
10 3.49 4.79 0.958 99.042
40 263.33 268.12 53.624 46.376
100 214.57 482.69 96.538 3.462
200 15 497.69 99.538 0.462
Chenab 100%

56 | P a g e
Lawrencepur 70% Chenab 30%
100
4 10.13 10.13 2.026 97.974
10 36.84 46.97 9.394 90.606
40 248.8 295.77 59.154 40.846
100 180.33 476.1 95.22 4.78
200 17.94 494.04 98.808 1.192

57 | P a g e
100
4 12.68 12.68 2.536 97.464
10 20.34 33.02 6.604 93.396
40 147.61 180.63 36.126 63.874
100 282.78 463.41 92.682 7.318
200 28.93 492.34 98.468 1.532

58 | P a g e
100
4 3.7 3.7 0.74 99.26
10 20.94 24.64 4.928 95.072
40 159.01 183.65 36.73 63.27
100 286.09 469.74 93.948 6.052
200 26.73 496.47 99.294 0.706

59 | P a g e
Lawrencepur 50 % Chenab 50%
Lawrecepur 50% Chenab 50%
100
4 8.24 8.24 1.648 98.352
10 24.2 32.44 6.488 93.512
40 249.89 282.33 56.466 43.534
100 196.1 478.43 95.686 4.314
200 16.05 494.48 98.896 1.104

60 | P a g e
Ravi 10%
100
4 4.22 4.22 0.844 99.156
10 17 21.22 4.244 95.756
40 228.88 250.1 50.02 49.98
100 231.28 481.38 96.276 3.724
200 17.42 498.8 99.76 0.24

61 | P a g e
Laawrencepur 30% Chenab 70%
100
4 4.05 4.05 0.81 99.19
10 23.09 27.14 5.428 94.572
40 242.19 269.33 53.866 46.134
100 209.96 479.29 95.858 4.142
200 14.7 493.99 98.798 1.202

62 | P a g e
100
4 14.5 14.5 2.9 97.1
10 44.69 59.19 11.838 88.162
40 246.29 305.48 61.096 38.904
100 168.2 473.68 94.736 5.264
200 18.53 492.21 98.442 1.558

63 | P a g e
100
4 9.31 9.31 1.862 98.138
10 49.92 59.23 11.846 88.154
40 249.32 308.55 61.71 38.29
100 169.68 478.23 95.646 4.354
200 15.97 494.2 98.84 1.16

64 | P a g e
100
4 4.38 4.38 0.876 99.124
10 21.67 26.05 5.21 94.79
40 180.79 206.84 41.368 58.632
100 259.92 466.76 93.352 6.648
200 23.23 489.99 97.998 2.002

65 | P a g e
Appendix A-2
Proctor tests
Ravi 100%
Standard
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g) density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.21 4023 1519 1.70 16.64 15.67
11 4124 1620 1.81 17.75 15.99
15.7 4213 1709 1.91 18.72 16.18
17.5 4267 1763 1.97 19.32 16.44
22 4261 1757 1.96 19.25 15.78
Modified
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit wt.(kn/m^3)
6.8 4172 1668 1.86 18.28 17.11
11.65 4270 1766 1.97 19.35 17.33
14.89 4338 1834 2.05 20.09 17.49
18.76 4391 1887 2.11 20.67 17.41
21.6 4344 1840 2.06 20.16 16.58
RAVI 100%
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
0 10 20 30
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R 100%
R100%STN
R100% MOD

66 | P a g e
Ravi 90% Chenab 10%
STANDARD
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.8 3980 1470 1.67 16.39 15.49
11.87 4082 1572 1.79 17.53 15.67
16.01 4210 1700 1.93 18.96 16.34
17.8 4310 1800 2.05 20.07 17.04
21.2 4270 1760 2.00 19.63 16.19
MODIFiED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.87 4129 1621 1.84 18.03 16.87
12.45 4358 1850 2.10 20.58 18.30
13.9 4424 1916 2.17 21.31 18.71
17.84 4450 1942 2.20 21.60 18.33
20.65 4410 1902 2.16 21.15 17.53
RAVI 90% CHENAB 10%
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRRYDENSITY
MC
R90%C10%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

67 | P a g e
Ravi 70% Chenab 30%
STANDARD
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.87 4050.5 1546 1.73 16.94 16.00
11.34 4165 1660.5 1.85 18.19 16.34
15.87 4267.5 1763 1.97 19.32 16.67
17.66 4302 1797.5 2.01 19.69 16.74
21.04 4285 1780.5 1.99 19.51 16.12
MODIIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.76 4267 1735 1.95 19.12 18.08
11.54 4356 1824 2.05 20.10 18.02
16.2 4455 1923 2.16 21.20 18.24
18.4 4467 1935 2.17 21.33 18.01
21.34 4413 1881 2.11 20.73 17.09
Ravi 70% Chenab 30%
15.50
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R70%C30%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

68 | P a g e
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R50%C50%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
7.1 4125 1521 1.71 16.77 15.65
13.1 4281 1677 1.88 18.48 16.34
14.76 4382 1778 2.00 19.60 17.08
18.43 4470 1866 2.10 20.57 17.37
21.59 4410 1806 2.03 19.91 16.37
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.32 4179 1671 1.90 18.63 17.52
11.87 4360 1852 2.10 20.65 18.45
14.87 4416 1908 2.17 21.27 18.52
19.1 4478 1970 2.24 21.96 18.44
22.3 4403 1895 2.15 21.12 17.27

69 | P a g e
Ravi 50% Chenab 50%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
ravi 50 % Chenab 50%
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R50%C50%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
7.1 4125 1521 1.71 16.77 15.65
13.1 4281 1677 1.88 18.48 16.34
14.76 4382 1778 2.00 19.60 17.08
18.43 4470 1866 2.10 20.57 17.37
21.59 4410 1806 2.03 19.91 16.37
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.32 4179 1671 1.90 18.63 17.52
11.87 4360 1852 2.10 20.65 18.45
14.87 4416 1908 2.17 21.27 18.52
19.1 4478 1970 2.24 21.96 18.44
22.3 4403 1895 2.15 21.12 17.27

70 | P a g e
Ravi 30% Chenab 70%
Standard
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
4.99 4201 1697 1.93 18.93 18.03
11.98 4360 1856 2.11 20.71 18.49
14.43 4460 1956 2.22 21.82 19.07
17.55 4428 1924 2.19 21.47 18.26
Ravi 30% Chenab 70%
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R30C70
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.49 4105 1601 1.79 17.54 16.47
11.45 4242 1738 1.94 19.04 17.09
14.9 4309 1805 2.02 19.78 17.21
19.1 4349 1845 2.06 20.21 16.97
22.3 4330 1826 2.04 20.01 16.36

71 | P a g e
Chenab 100%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
4.99 4197 1693 1.93 18.89 17.99
12 4378 1874 2.13 20.91 18.67
11.67 4433 1929 2.19 21.52 19.27
19.67 4524 2020 2.30 22.54 18.83
22.3 4509 2005 2.28 22.37 18.29
Chenab 100%
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
C100%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.5 3740 1603 1.82 17.89 16.95
11.76 3865 1728 1.97 19.28 17.25
14.98 3937 1800 2.05 20.08 17.47
19.12 4007 1870 2.13 20.87 17.52
22.3 3845 1708 1.94 19.06 15.58

72 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.21 3853 1716 1.94 19.02 17.91
11.43 3985 1848 2.09 20.48 18.38
16.3 4093 1956 2.21 21.68 18.64
19.2 4138 2001 2.26 22.18 18.61
22.43 4190 2053 2.32 22.76 18.59
25.1 4145 2008 2.27 22.26 17.79
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.43 4432 1827 2.06 20.25 19.03
12.87 4693 2088 2.36 23.14 20.51
14.81 4730 2125 2.40 23.56 20.52
19.1 4711 2106 2.38 23.34 19.60
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
20.00
20.50
21.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DRYDENSITY
M.C
L90%C10%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

73 | P a g e
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.73 4350 1802 2.05 20.11 19.02
8.76 4425 1877 2.13 20.94 19.26
11.56 4503 1955 2.22 21.81 19.55
14.89 4414 1866 2.12 20.82 18.12
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
20.00
0 5 10 15 20
DRYDENSITY
M.C
L70C30%
STANDARD
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.72 4272 1724 1.96 19.23 18.02
12.89 4397 1849 2.10 20.63 18.27
14.84 4463 1915 2.18 21.36 18.60
17.92 4403 1855 2.11 20.69 17.55

74 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.45 3817 1674 1.88 18.45 17.50
13.1 4017 1874 2.11 20.65 18.26
14.87 4015 1872 2.10 20.63 17.96
19.1 4110 1967 2.21 21.68 18.20
21.65 4213 2070 2.33 22.81 18.75
24 4187 2044 2.30 22.53 18.17
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.69 4376 1771 2.00 19.63 18.57
11.54 4564 1959 2.21 21.72 19.47
14.32 4610 2005 2.27 22.22 19.44
17.82 4630 2025 2.29 22.45 19.05
20.76 4592 1987 2.25 22.03 18.24
LAWRENCEPUR 50% CHENAB 50%
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
20.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DRYDENSITY
M.C
L50C50%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

75 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.73 4225 1629 1.83 17.95 16.98
11.87 4383 1787 2.01 19.69 17.60
14.87 4464 1868 2.10 20.59 17.92
19.34 4595 1999 2.25 22.03 18.46
22 4571 1975 2.22 21.77 17.84
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.6 3917 1779 2.01 19.72 18.67
13.2 4145 2007 2.27 22.25 19.65
14.87 4209 2071 2.34 22.96 19.98
18.43 4200 2062 2.33 22.86 19.30
LAWRENCEPUR 30% CHENAB 70%
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
20.00
20.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
L30%C70%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

76 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.43 4125 1521 1.70 16.67 15.66
12.45 4251 1647 1.84 18.05 16.05
16.1 4322 1718 1.92 18.83 16.22
17.43 4382 1778 1.99 19.49 16.60
20.76 4365 1761 1.97 19.30 15.98
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.78 4240 1707 1.91 18.71 17.69
11.76 4381 1848 2.06 20.26 18.12
16.88 4480 1947 2.18 21.34 18.26
19.1 4475 1942 2.17 21.29 17.87
15.00
15.50
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R90%L10%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

77 | P a g e
Ravi 30% Lawreencepur 30% Chenab 40%
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.78 4172 1634 1.81 17.75 16.78
11.78 4334 1796 1.99 19.51 17.45
16 4392 1854 2.05 20.14 17.36
19.4 4484 1946 2.15 21.14 17.70
21 4456 1918 2.12 20.83 17.22
MODIFED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.87 3931 1794 2.02 19.77 18.68
11.6 4163 2026 2.28 22.33 20.01
15 4193 2056 2.31 22.66 19.70
17.54 4151 2014 2.26 22.20 18.88
Ravi 30% Lawrencepir 30% Chenab 40%
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R30L30C40%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

78 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.97 3713 1576 1.78 17.42 16.44
12.56 3828 1691 1.91 18.69 16.61
15 3936 1799 2.03 19.89 17.29
17.89 3956 1819 2.05 20.11 17.06
20.43 3931 1794 2.02 19.83 16.47
MODIFIED
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.99 4159 1655 1.86 18.24 17.05
11.6 4392 1888 2.12 20.81 18.64
14.78 4465 1961 2.20 21.61 18.83
18 4472 1968 2.21 21.69 18.38
20.33 4431 1927 2.16 21.24 17.65
Ravi 80% Lawrecepur 10 Chenab 10%
15.50
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R80L10C10%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

79 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
4.32 4213 1703 1.92 18.88 18.10
11.59 4360 1850 2.09 20.51 18.38
15.66 4430 1920 2.17 21.28 18.40
19.1 4490 1980 2.24 21.95 18.43
20.5 4463 1953 2.21 21.65 17.97
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.71 3991 1853 2.07 20.30 19.21
11.34 4168 2030 2.27 22.24 19.98
16.1 4251 2113 2.36 23.15 19.94
18.94 4132 1994 2.23 21.85 18.37
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
20.00
20.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R10L80C10%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

80 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
4.99 4142 1546 1.74 17.04 16.23
11.9 4168 1572 1.77 17.33 15.48
15 4283 1687 1.90 18.59 16.17
18 4386 1790 2.01 19.73 16.72
21 4492 1896 2.13 20.90 17.27
23.55 4434 1838 2.07 20.26 16.40
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.67 3841 1703 1.92 18.88 17.86
11.78 4004 1866 2.11 20.68 18.50
14.88 4110 1972 2.23 21.86 19.03
18 4143 2005 2.27 22.22 18.83
21.55 4123 1985 2.24 22.00 18.10
Ravi 80% Lawrencpur10% Chenab 80%
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R10L10C80%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

81 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.78 4177 1629 1.85 18.17 17.18
11.23 4357 1809 2.06 20.18 18.14
15.8 4399 1851 2.10 20.65 17.83
19.23 4433 1885 2.14 21.02 17.63
22.1 4379 1831 2.08 20.42 16.73
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.78 4291 1743 1.98 19.45 18.39
11.87 4428 1880 2.14 20.98 18.75
16.23 4504 1956 2.22 21.82 18.78
19 4459 1911 2.17 21.32 17.92
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R30%L40%C30%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

82 | P a g e
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.87 4216 1668 1.90 18.61 17.58
11.99 4362 1814 2.06 20.24 18.07
16.23 4408 1860 2.12 20.75 17.86
19.81 4441 1893 2.15 21.12 17.63
22.81 4305 1757 2.00 19.60 15.96
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6 4207 1703 1.92 18.88 17.81
12 4370 1866 2.11 20.68 18.47
15 4419 1915 2.16 21.23 18.46
18 4469 1965 2.22 21.78 18.46
21 4439 1935 2.19 21.45 17.73
15.50
16.00
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R40%L30%C30%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

83 | P a g e
Ravi 33% Chenab 33% Lawrencepur 33%
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
5.98 4210 1606 1.83 17.92 16.91
11.4 4430 1826 2.08 20.37 18.29
15 4515 1911 2.17 21.32 18.54
18 4457 1853 2.11 20.68 17.52
21 4421 1817 2.07 20.27 16.76
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6.73 3866 1728 1.93 18.94 17.75
13.2 4131 1993 2.23 21.85 19.30
15 4146 2008 2.24 22.01 19.14
19.51 4125 1987 2.22 21.78 18.22
Ravi 33% Chenab 3% Lawrencepur 33%
16.50
17.00
17.50
18.00
18.50
19.00
19.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRYDENSITY
M.C
R33%L33%C33%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

84 | P a g e
L100%
STANDARD
M.C(%)
Total
Wt.
Mass
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6 4012 1502 1.71 16.75 15.80
12 4114 1604 1.82 17.89 15.97
15 4239 1729 1.97 19.28 16.77
18 4454 1944 2.21 21.68 18.37
21 4352 1842 2.09 20.54 16.98
MODIFIED
M.C(%) Total Wt.
Mass
Sample(g)
density(g/cm^3)
bulk unit
w.(kN/m^3)
dry unit
wt.(kn/m^3)
6 4231 1723 1.95 19.16 18.08
12 4432 1924 2.18 21.40 19.11
15 4479 1971 2.23 21.92 19.06
18 4632 2124 2.41 23.62 20.02
21 4410 1902 2.16 21.15 17.48
L100
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
DRRYDENSITY
MC
L100%
STANDARD
MODIFIED

85 | P a g e
Refrences:
1. ASTM 1999, Standard Proctor Designation D-698, D-1557.
2. Hilf, J.W. (1956) An Investigation of Pore Water Pressure in Compacted
Cohesive Soils.
3.Wikipedia
4. Soil Mechanics and foundation DAS Lecture 3.3.
5.Soil compaction handbook.(Multiquip).

Civil Engineering Project (Soil Condition of Lahore)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Civil Engineering Project (Soil Condition of Lahore)

Similar to Civil Engineering Project (Soil Condition of Lahore) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Civil Engineering Project (Soil Condition of Lahore)