The project aims at comparing the various compaction characteristics of granular soils in selecting the appropriate method of soil stabilization. The difference in the behavior of granular soils to standard and modified proctor test was studied.

1. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 © IAEME
1
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM
MOISTURE CONTENT AND STRENGTH OF GRANULAR
SOILS USING DIFFERENT METHODS OF COMPACTION
Shahid Bashir Bhat1
, Danish Kunroo2
, Zahid Ahmad3
1
M.Tech (Structural Engineering) NIT-Srinagar
2
B.Tech Civil Engineering NIT-Srinagar
3
M.Tech (Structural Engineering) NIT-Srinagar
ABSTRACT
The project aims at comparing the various compaction characteristics of granular soils in
selecting the appropriate method of soil stabilization. The difference in the behavior of granular soils
to standard and modified proctor test was studied.
Keywords: California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Maximum dry density (MDD), Optimum moisture
content (OMC), Soil compaction.
I. INTRODUCTION
Soil compaction is one of the most critical components in the construction of roads,
airfields, embankments, and foundations. The durability and stability of a structure are related
to the achievement of proper soil compaction. Structural failure of roads and airfields and the
damage caused by foundation settlement can often be traced back to the failure to achieve
proper soil compaction.
In this project, the various compaction characteristics of granular soils were studied.
The parameters of interest were the maximum obtained dry density, the optimum moisture
content required and finally the strength of the soil using the California Bearing Ratio test.
2. METHODOLOGY
The samples for testing were taken from the site Isham to Nowarunda for a 15 km
stretch. The site Isham to Nowarunda falls in the Uri district of Jammu and Kashmir and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
©IAEME

2. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 © IAEME
2
gravelly soil is characteristic of the area and because the interest of the project happened to be
the granular soils, the site was chosen.
The samples were taken at a kilometer interval and the soil was excavated at appropriate
depths to ensure the organic components and the roots were excluded.
Firstly, the particle size distribution analysis was done using dry sieve analysis, wet sieve
analysis and hydrometer test when required. Of these 15 samples the most granular 5 samples
were chosen for compaction behavior study.
This was followed by compaction of the samples using the standard and modified
proctor tests. The maximum dry density(MDD) and corresponding optimum moisture
content(OMC) was obtained.
Figure 1. Compaction of soil using Proctor tests.
The California Bearing Ratio(CBR) tests using static compaction method corresponding
to the Maximum dry density and the optimum water content were done on three different
samples.
3. RESULTS
The results obtained from compaction of granular soils using different compactive effort, ie,
the standard and modified proctor tests are summed up below:
3.1 Soil Sample no.1 (km-3)
Gravel and sand content-66.99%
Clay and silt content-33.01%

3. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 © IAEME
3
Table 1. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 1.
Method of Compaction
MDD
(g/cc)
OMC
CBR
Light Compaction 1.89 0.139 1.376
Heavy Compaction 2.06 0.093
4.022
3.2 Soil Sample no.2 (km-5)
Gravel and sand content-51.12%
Clay and silt content-48.88%
Table 2. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 2.
Method of Compaction
MDD
(g/cc)
OMC CBR
Light Compaction 1.88 0.167 0.564
Heavy Compaction 1.994 0.103 1.270
3.3 Soil Sample no.3 (km-6)
Gravel and sand content-51.60%
Clay and silt content-49.40
Table 3. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 3.
Method of Compaction
MDD
(g/cc)
OMC CBR
Light Compaction 1.90 0.141 3.405
Heavy Compaction 2.09 0.107 8.89
3.4 Soil Sample no.4 (km-7)
Gravel and sand content-52.05%
Clay and silt content-47.95%
Table 4. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 4.
Method of Compaction
MDD
(g/cc)
OMC CBR
Light Compaction 1.875 0.135 2.105
Heavy Compaction 2.02 0.10 6.168
3.5 Soil Sample no.5 (km-9)
Gravel and sand content-53.05%
Clay and silt content-46.95%%

4. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 © IAEME
4
Table 5. Comparison of heavy and light compaction for soil sample no. 5.
Method of Compaction
MDD
(g/cc)
OMC CBR
Light Compaction 1.82 0.14 2.4
Heavy Compaction 1.96 0.116 5.454
4. DISCUSSION
The Maximum Dry Density, Optimum Moisture Content and California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of granular soils compacted by standard and modified proctor test are compared.
Table 6. Comparison of heavy and light compaction characteristics for all soil samples.
S no. Soil Sample
MDD ratio
Light/heavy
OMC ratio
heavy/light
CBR Ratio
Light/Heavy
1 KM3 0.917 0.669 0.342
2 KM5 0.943 0.617 0.444
3 KM6 0.909 0.759 0.383
4 KM7 0.928 0.741 0.341
5 KM8 0.929 0.829 0.440
Average 0.925 0.723 0.390
The inferences made therefrom follow.
1. By standard proctor test, the MDD obtained was about 92% of the MDD obtained by
modified proctor compaction test.
2. The OMC for modified proctor compaction test was about 72% of the OMC obtained in
case of standard proctor compaction test.
3. From the average of various samples it was noticed that the strength obtained in light
compaction was only about 39 % of the strength obtained using heavy compaction
method.
5. CONCLUSION
From the average of various samples it was noticed that the strength obtained in light
compaction was only about 39 % of the strength obtained using heavy compaction method.
Since the thickness of base material used in roads depends on the CBR of the subgrade
material, so adopting light compaction methods, although tend to decrease the road
construction cost in terms of light equipment and less labour. But owing to the reduced
subgrade strength due to light compaction, at the same time increases the material costs by
substantial amounts.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
a) As compared to light compaction, heavy compaction is suitable when subgrade material is
costly.
b) In areas of limited availability of water, heavy compaction is suitable as the OMC is 27% less
for heavy compaction as compared to light compaction.

5. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 01-05 © IAEME
5
REFERENCES
1. Quality Assurance Handbook for Rural Roads developed by: Indian Roads Congress
2. Craig’s Soil Mechanics R.F. Craig Formerly Department of Civil Engineering University of
Dundee UK
3. Soil Mechanics T. William Lambe and Robert. V. Whitman
4. IRC: SP-20-2002
5. Soil mechanis William Powrie
6. http://www.iitk.ac.in
7. http://www.aboutcivil.com/california-bearing-ratio-test.html
8. Muthuraj.M.P, Subramanian. K, “Experimental Investigation On Glass Fibre Reinforced
Plastic bridge Decks Subjected To Static And Fatigue Loading” International Journal of Civil
Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 321 - 331, ISSN Print:
0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
9. Harini Hn and Sureka Naagesh, “Predicting CBR of Fine Grained Soils by Artificial Neural
Network and Multiple Linear Regression” International Journal of Civil Engineering &
Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 119 - 126, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
10. Dr. Ch. Sudha rani, “Prediction of Swelling Pressure of Expansive Soils Using
Compositional and Environmental Factors” International Journal of Civil Engineering &
Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 134 - 142, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.