Lab Report # 3

Optimum Dry Unit Weight and Moisture Content of Soils

Abstract
The strength of soil, among other mechanical properties, are important in determining the
qualification of soils for different uses. These properties may be approximated, if not exactly
determined in the field, by quantitating the physical properties of soil through compression
with standard effort and determining the relationship between them, if it exists. The behavior
of soil may be observed; thus, its relative strength may be determined and the soil mass, be
subjected to qualification for various uses. The maximum dry density of the soil under
consideration is found to be 107.3 lbf/ft3. Any addition of water beyond the optimum 14.0%
would render the soil useless in shear.

Submitted by: Soren Gabrielle S. Gacillos

Group Mates
Allan James C. Berdos
Marc Jill M. Dimapilis
Kevin Ryan C. Imperial
Jebus Edrei C. Taguiam
Date Performed: April 11, 2016
Date Submitted: April 29, 2016
1

I.

Objectives
This experiment aims to familiarize students with the concept of optimum dry unit
weight and moisture content of soils for the purpose of soil qualification. Its goals are:
- To teach students the methods with which compaction, i.e., Compaction using
Standard Effort, may be done in the laboratory
- To hone the students ability to predict the behavior of soils under various
conditions simulated in the laboratory
- To approximate the strength and suitability of soil for various uses given its
maximum unit weight
- To identify the behavior of soil upon the constant addition of moisture and identify
the optimum moisture content for the type of soil being analyzed

II.

Materials
The following materials are used for compaction using Standard Effort.
- 4 in. Mold (standard dimensions, in accordance with ASTM D698)
- 5.50 lbf. Manual Rammer
- Pans (for mixing water with soil)
- Straight-edge or Spatula
- Ruler
- Small pans or containers (for drying samples)
- Oven
- Digital Scale (accurate up to 0.5 g, for unit weight computation)
- Digital Scale (accurate up to 0.01 g, for moisture content computation)

III.

Methodology
The soil collected from the field was first sieved through Sieve No. 4 to ensure that
the use of Method A in ASTM D698 is appropriate. Only the portion passing Sieve No.
4 was used. Furthermore, the moist preparation method was utilized for this experiment.
This means that the soil was not initially oven-dried. This was done since the soil from
the field was already dry enough due to weather and field conditions prior to fetching
the samples.
A 2.5-kg portion was mixed with water for an initial trial. This was then compacted
in the mold using the rammer, then the weight measurement was recorded. A portion
from the compacted sample was isolated in another container to dry in the oven, for the
determination of the compacted samples moisture content. Six trials of increasing
moisture contents were acquired to allow the construction of a smooth graph of unit
weight versus moisture content. This was done to facilitate easier determination of the
optimum moisture content and the corresponding dry unit weight. The following
flowchart may be consulted for a more comprehensive procedure for compaction:

To get the water content for each trial, the following formula is used:

100,

(1)

where w is the water content (%), Mcms is the mass of moist sample plus
container, Mcds is the mass of the dry sample plus container, and Mc is the
mass of the container.
The dry unit weight is computed by first calculating the moist unit weight for each sample
and then using the formula for dry unit weight prescribed by ASTM. These may be found as
follows:
=

1 + 100

where is the moisture content of the soil, is the dry density of soil
for the specified trial, and is calculated by:
3

(2)

(3)

where is the moist density of soil, K is a conversion constant taken

to be 1 for units in grams and centimeters, is the mass of moist soil
in mold, is the mass of compaction mold, and is the volume of
the compaction mold.
The values of dry unit weight are plotted against the calculated moisture contents on a
numeric scale. Dry unit weights are taken as y-values and moisture contents are assigned as xvalues. The desired values of optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight are
acquired from the resulting graph.

IV.

Data and Results

For convenience, all mass units are converted to grams and physical dimensions
are converted to centimeters and powers thereof. The following table shows the data
acquired from the compaction experiment:

Trial

Mold
(g)

Mold +
Compacted,
Wet (g)

Sample +
Container,
Wet (g)

Sample +
Container,
Dry (g)

Container
(g)

1
2

3633
3484

5121.5
5271

133.97
150.46

127.42
136.15

23.61
10.5

3
0
5
4

3633
5526
116.98
102.46
4026
5740
123.55
101.2
3633
5422
49.75
41.12
3484
52265
93.99
77.35
Table 1. Raw data (weights) from experiment.

11.58
11.58
9.35
22.12

Diameter
10.16
(cm)
Height
MOLD
11.64336
(cm)
Volume
943.9644
(cm^3)
Table. 2. Standard mold dimensions from ASTM.

From these data values, the following relevant information may be acquired:
Trial
1

Moisture
Content
(%)
6.3096

Wet
Density
(g/cm^3)
1.5730

Dry
Density
(g/cm^3)
1.4797

Dry Unit
Weight
(lbf/ft^3)
92.3717

2
11.3888
1.8894
1.6962
105.8911
3
15.9771
2.0015
1.7258
107.7377
0
24.9386
1.8115
1.4499
90.5142
5
27.1640
1.8913
1.4873
92.8511
4
30.1286
1.8422
1.4157
88.3802
Table 3. Relevant parameters computed from data.

Equations (1), (2), and (3) are used to compute values in columns 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. Values for the 5th column are computed using the following equation:
= 1
(4)
where is the dry unit weight, K1 is a conversion factor equal
to 62.428, and is the computed dry density for each trial.
Because trial 0 was performed on a different day (as a trial test) and due to not being
able to immediately measure the mass of mold for the said trial, it will not be included
in the required plots.
As an additional requirement, the water content for 100% saturation is calculated
for each dry unit weight value to plot the 100% saturation or zero air voids curve. Each
value was computed using the following equation:
( )( )
(5)
=
100
( )( )
The following table shows values used for the computation of points comprising
the zero air voids curve and the computed values of moisture content and unit weight
for saturated condition given each unit weight value:
zero air
Moisture
voids
Trial
Content
unit
weight
1
6.3096
0.3008
142.6323
2
11.3888
0.2147
127.7783
3
15.9771
0.2046
116.7910
5
27.1640
0.2974
96.5495
4
30.1286
0.3313
92.3099
Table 4. Values for zero air voids curve.
saturated
H2O
content

Analysis and Discussions

Dry Unit Weight vs. Moisture Content

140.0

Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft^3)

V.

130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 1. Plot of dry unit weight versus moisture content.

The plot above shows an obvious parabolic trend for dry unit weight over
increasing moisture content values. This means that there exists a value of maximum
5

density for the given soil sample which corresponds to an optimum moisture content
which the soil should attain to achieve the optimum condition for compaction. This may
be determined (a) by visual inspection, or (b) by statistical analysis using the trend lines.
By Visual Inspection

Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft^3)

Dry Unit Weight vs. Moisture Content

105.0

95.0

85.0
0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 2. Compaction Curve and lines corresponding to , and .

By inspecting the graph of the compaction curve, it is evident that the inflection
point which corresponds to the maximum y-value of the plot corresponds to an x-value
equal to 14.0. From this, we know that the optimum moisture content, , is found at
14.0 % for this soil type. By interpolation using the following equation,
14.5 11.3887784 15.9771127 14.5
=
105.891078
107.737733
we determine that the maximum dry unit weight, , , equals 107.1432433
lbf/ft3.
By Statistical Analysis Using Excels Trendline Function

Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft^3)

Dry Unit Weight vs. Moisture Content

105.0
95.0

y = -0.1266x2 + 4.3242x + 71.175

R = 0.9552

85.0
0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 3. 2nd degree polynomial trend line for compaction curve.

The compaction curve may be modeled well by a 2 nd degree polynomial trend line.
It gives an R2 value of 95.52% which means it is already a good enough approximation.
When the x-value of 14.0 is substituted into the equation acquired, we get
= 0.1266(14)2 + 4.3242(14) + 71.175 = . /.

The polynomial trend line may be increased from 2nd to 3rd degree to improve its
fit on the compaction curve. This line produces an R2 value of 99.99% as shown in the
following plot.

Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft^3)

Dry Unit Weight vs. Moisture Content

105.0
95.0

y = 0.0055x3 - 0.4133x2 + 8.6254x + 53.042

R = 0.9999

85.0
0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 4. 3rd degree polynomial trend line for compaction curve.

When the value of 14.0 is substituted into the equation of the trend line, we
get
VI.

y = 0.0055(14)3 - 0.4133(14)2 + 8.6254(14) + 53.042 = 107.8828 lbf/ft3.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The optimum moisture content, , obtained by visual inspection from the graph
generated, equals 14.0%. When the soil is measured to be wet beyond this value, the
soil only becomes less dense upon addition of moisture and will have less strength to
accommodate compaction or other forces which may be applied to the soil mass. The
optimum moisture content corresponds to a point where the soil is its strongest and is
ideal for foundational purposes, depending on its other properties (e.g., gradation). By
averaging the , values acquired by inspection or substitution into equations of
statistical models for the compaction curve, we get a value of 107.3087478 or
approximately 107.3 lbf/ft3.
From previous experiments, we have identified that the soil is low-plasticity silt,
with USCS group name ML. We cannot assume, however that the entire sample is of
the same classification since the sample used for this experiment was increased by
mixing with soils from other sources. The resulting values for moisture content and dry
unit weight may still be compared to those of other types of soil from triplicate
laboratory tests conducted by the ASTM. The following tabulation shows the values of
and , for tested soil types, including this sample.
Soil
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Max Dry
Unit
Weight
Allowable
Error
wopt

Sample

CH

CL

ML

14.0

22.8

16.6

17.1

107.3

97.2

109.2

106.3

0.2

0.3

0.3

%error
wopt
Allowable
Error
ydmax
%error
ydmax
Table 5. Values of

VII.

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.1

0.02

0.01

and , for different soil types, for comparison.

It can be readily observed that the values of optimum moisture and max dry unit
weight for this sample are closest to those of ML. This suggests that a large part of the
sample remains to be comprised of this type of soil.
The soils low plasticity causes it to achieve a relatively low value of optimum
moisture. This suggests that the soil type being studied may not be suitable for
foundational use especially in areas where the ground is readily wet or in areas near
groundwater or which are exposed to constantly wet weather. At the very least,
engineers who build on this type of soil must take extra care in foundation design and
must consider the areas exposure to the elements, particularly to water. Given a longer
period of preparation, engineers might also consider soil improvement in areas with this
type of soil, providing reinforcements such as fills or covers to lessen or prevent water
seepage. More time for compaction might also improve the strength of this soil type.
In this experiment, a better incremental system for moisture content could have
been used to check whether the experimental and actual moisture contents would have
matched up. The specific gravity of the soil could have been acquired or given
beforehand instead of assumed to yield more realistic results for the zero air voids curve.
For further experiments, other methods of compaction may be explored. Learning
the effects of adding moisture using other types of liquids might also be interesting for
this field of study. More soil types may also be considered.
References
1. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)), ASTM D698-07.
2. Mukhtar, H., Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geotechnical Parameter
Documentation. PDF accessed at
<http://dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/docs/geotechparameter.pdf>