See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239409466

Mini Compaction Test Apparatus for Fine Grained Soils

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · May 2005

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ12542

CITATIONS READS

83 3,044

4 authors, including:

A. Sridharan Sivapullaiah Puvvadi

Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science
267 PUBLICATIONS   4,957 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   1,763 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enhancing the Potential of Fly Ashes for Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Applications View project

Municipal Solid Waste View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. Sridharan on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical TeSlil7f1Journal, Vol. 28, No.3
Paper ID GTJl2542
Available online at: www.astrn.org

Asuri Sridharan and Puvvadi Venkata Sivapullaiah1

Mini Compaction Test Apparatus for Fine

Grained Soils

ABSTRACT: The standard and modified Proctor compaction tests are devised to establish dry unit weight-water content relationships for a soil
under cuntrolled conditions, such as cumpactive effort, water content, etc. This paper presents a mini compaction apparatus primarily for use in fine
grained soils, which requires unly about 1/IOth volume of suil needed for the standard and modified Proctor test. Additionally, the time and effort
involved in carrying out the compaction test is much less, Also, the compacted soil sample, after trimming, can be used for strcngth tests.

KEYWORDS: compaction, laboratory tests, maximum dry unit weight, optimum waler content, standard Proctor test, modified Proctor test

Introduction
Every day thousands of cubic meters of soil arc compacted
throughout the world, since compaction can improve the engineer-
ing properties of soils. Tnlaborat0ries, the standard ASTM D 698-91
(1995) and modified ASTM 0 1557-91 (1995) Proctor compaction
tests are most commonly used to determine the compaction char-
actcristics for proper control over the field compaction and to carry
out research works (Goldsmith 1960). This paper presents a mini
compaction appar<Jtus for use in fine grained soils with particle
size less than 2 mm. This mini compaction apparatus involves only
about 1/1Oth volume of the soi I required for the standard Proctor
test. Further, the effort and time required to perform the compaction
test using this apparatus are considerably less. One can obtain, by
performing a compaction test using this mini apparatus, data for
one compaction curve in an hour. An experienced operator can
obtain data for three compaction curves in two hours. The com-
pacted samples, after trimming to rcquired height, can be used for
various strength tests. This compaction apparatus is very useful
for carrying out research studies on large-scale compaction tests
and compaction tests on fine grained soils, in particular when the
quantity of the soil available is less ami when it is required to study
the compaction behavior of the soil with various admixtures. But
the use of the proposed apparatus is restricted to fine grained soils
containing particles of size less lhan 2 mm only.
Proposed Compaction Apparatus
Figure 1 shows thc ncwly designed apparatus. It consists of a
brass mold and a steel drop hammer with guide frame. The sample
mold is of 3.8l-cm internal diameter and 4.61-cm external diameter
and 10 cm in height. The sample mold assembly has a detachable
base plate and a removable collar 3.50-cm height. The hammer
assembly consists of a guiding frame and drop weight. The guid-
ing frame consists of three detachable portions: top, middle, and
bottom--as shown in Fig. l. The parts of apparatus are also shown
Received February 3, 2004; accepted for publication September 27, 2004;
Published May 2U05.
I Emeritus Professor and Associate Professor, respectively, Department of
Civil Engineering, Indian InstilUteof Science, Bangalore 560 0] 2, India.
in Photo 1. The guiding framc is such that the dropping weight is
a noaling weight between the bottom of the top portion and top of
the bottom portion. The bOllom portion of the guiding rod 8 cm
long and 3.65 crn in diameter acts as an energy transferring foot.
The top portion of the guiding rod is 3.0 cm long and 3.65 cm in
diameter. The top portion of the guiding frame is used to hold in
position before dropping the hammer. The central portion of the
guiding frame is 19.5 cm long and 1.8 em in diameter. The verti-
cal rod in the middle portion acts as a bore guide for the hammer.
The middle portion of the guiding rod, which is screwed to the top
and bottom portion of the guiding assembly, can be detached for
changing dropping weight for Proctor and modified Proctor tests.
The dropping weight is 1 kg for Proctor test and 2.5 kg for modified
Proctor test. The hammers are 3.5 cm in height and 7 -cm and II-em
diameter for Proctor and modified Proctor, respectively, with a ccn-
tral bore of 2.0 cm, and fall freely through a height of 16 cm over
the energy transferring foot.
Test Procedure
For each compaction test about 200 g of soil is used. Re<..Juired
amount of water is added to lhe soil and mixed thoroughly and
stored in a polythene bag for moisture equilibrium. After allowing
sufficient time for moisture equilibrium, the sample is remixed
thorou~hly before compaction.
The mold is cleaned, dried, and greascd lightly to' reduce the
sidewall friction and for easy extrusion of compacted sample after
the test. The mold is then fixed to the base plate. The mold with the
base plate is placed on a rigid platform. The soil is compacted in
the mold in three layers. Approximate quantity of the soil required
for lhe firs I layer is put in tbe mold, then the re<..Juirednumber of
blows is applied to the soil by dropping the selected hammer on the
encrgy transferring foot of the frame. Care should be taken when
the hammer strikes tbe energy transferring'foot tbat the frame (top
rod) is not in contact with tbe hand. After the required number of
blows is applied, the soil surface is scarified before second layer
is placed. The mold is filled with the soil for the second layer and
again compacted. After the compaction of second layer, top collar is
positioned to the mold and the third layer is placed and compacted.
The compacted third layer should project above the top of the mold

240 Copyright © 2005 by ASTM International, 100 Ban' Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
 SRIDHARAN AND SIVAPULLAIAH ON MINI COMPACTION TEST 241

PHOTO l~Parts of mini compaction apparatlls.

the compaction of the soil. The kinetic energy losses are the energy
t~HI dia. ~ • Tar rod 3'65 dia
dissipated into heat, and dissipated into sound and high frequency
elastic vibrations (Nara 1962; Reer and Johnston 1990). Local de-
formations at the plane of contact of energy transferring foot and
'1·0 .g hammor
7.0 external dia. hammer during the time of impact also contribute to energy losses
(Goldsmith 1960).
Guiding rod l'8dia Similarly, different types of energy losses occur on Proctor and
in modified Proctor compaction tests. In view of the dilliculties
involved in calculating different losses that occur in carrying out
Enl?rgy transferring
the compaction tests, both in the conventional and in the newly
foot 3·65 dia proposed apparatus, attempts to calculate the equivalent energy
required in the new apparatus did not yield satisfactory results.
Hence, efforts were made 10 obtain equivalent number of blows
in the newly designed apparatus to obtain conventional Proctor's
I
I and modified Proctor's maximum dry unit weight and optimum
" I 1
l' moisture content through experimental methods.
~/////////////~
In order to determine the actual number of blows required for the

] proposed apparatus to achieve Proctor unit weight, di fferent number

of blows were tried in the mini apparatus along with the standard
2·5 kg hammer
Note: Proctor test for different soils. Table 1 gives the index properties
All dimensions are in em and physical properties of the soils used, along with their unified
FIG. I~Pmposed compaction apparatlls. soil classificatiori. Figure 2 shows the grain size distribution of the
soils.,Jt may be mentioned that the soils tested varied quite widely
in their physical and index properties.
into the collar by not more than 5 mm. After the compaction, the Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the compaction curves' for different
collar is removed and excess soil is trimmed off to make even with energies, obtained by the mini apparatus for red earth- I , kaolinite,
the top of the mold. The weigbt oftbe compacted soil together with
the mold is measured and the weight of the compacted soil is deter-
mined. The bulk unit weight of the soil is computed from the weight 53.0
78.0
450
2.77
40.0
21.2ML
MH
18.891 131.0
20.8
2.60
37.0
2.707.0
CH
20.5
2.56
33.7
19.0
16.7
46.2
390
2.68
20.3
Vi5
2.70
14.0
2.70
15.0
13.7
14.9
20.2CL
59.8
9.2
Limit,
Plastic 47.0
65.0
41.7
54.5
37.0
:B.O
80.0
% Limit,]~ll1dex
% Index,
Plasticity
TABLE % Limit,
Shrinkage of %theUnified
Specific
properties Gravity Classification
Soil
soils lIsed.
Kaolinite
of the compacted
BCsoil
Red Soil
soil and the volume of the mold. Knowing
soil
earth-2
Belgaum
Bangalore the Illite
White soil
Red earth-I Liquid
water content and bulk unit weight, the dry unit weight is calculated.

Energy Tram/erred to the Soil

In the standard and modified Proctor compaction tests, the ham-
mer directly falls on the soil to compact the soil. In the proposed
apparatus, the hammer falls on the top of the energy transfening
foot of the frame, and thus, the kinetic energy of the hammer
is transferred to the frame and the frame compacts the soil. Due
to impact between hammer and frame there will be energy loss.
Hence, the entire kinetic energy of the hammer is not available for
 242 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

14.t
"~
.;:;
Z
~• C
'- E13.9 - •• 28
.c:
0 ,..-,
I::- to.•
;;;J
--....
38 .
Standard
14.3
13.7 Proctor
blows/layer
1413.3
blows/layer
13.5
13.1
.
_33 blows/layer
Kaolinite
100
,.....
12.9 ~
12.7

80

• Red earth-I
• Kaolinite
(:j BesoH
o Red earth-2
A Bangnlorc soil
• White soil
20
a Belgaum soil
o Illite

12.5
10' 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

Particle size (nun) Water content (0/0)

FIG. 2-Grain size distribu.tion of soils used. FIG. 4--Unit weight-water content relationsh.ipfur kaolinite.

20 14.4
• 16 blowsllaycr • 14 blows/I ayei'
o 28 blowsnayer o 28 blows/layer
.• 33 blow,nay.r .• 33 blows/layer

C Z::E9
.;:;
1619 to 38 blow,nayer
,-.
::
C- ,..-, soil
14.0 ./Be r:, 38 blows/layer
;;;J
e•
--.... 17 o 80 blow,nayer ';jE 12.8 • Standard Proctor
"
,..-,
-"'i
15 o 120 blow,nayer Z
:5••
13.2
12.4
• 162 blow,nayer
• Standard Proctor
14
13
18 T Modified Proctor
12.0 c-
13.6

Red earth- 1

tl.6
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Water content (0/0) Water content (0/0)

FIG. 3-Unit weight-water content relationship for red earth- J. FIG. S-Ullit weight-water content relationship fur BC' soil.

and black cotton soil, respcctively, with 1.0 kg hammer. It is clear
from Figs. 3, 4, and 5 that to get the Proctor compaction curves
from the proposed apparatus, the number of blows requircd is more
than 33 blows/layer and less than 38 blows/layer. However, it can
be seen that on the wet side of optimum, compaction curves for
28 blows/layer itself have shown slightly higher densities than the
Proctor densities. This is because in Proctor mold, on the wet-side
of optimum, when blow is applied at one portion of the soil, soil
from the remaining portion bulges out. Hence, the energy applied
is not completely utilized for the compaction (Reddy and Jagadish
1993). However, in the proposed apparatus, energy from each blow
is transferred to the entire cross section of the soil, since the intemal
diamcter of the mold and the collar are nearly the same as that of the
diameter of the cncrgy transferring foot. Hence, there is no room
for the bulging up of the soil. It is also found from Wilson (1950)
that Harvard and standard Proctor compaction tests on soils give
lower dry unit weight values on the wet side of optimum and higher
dry densities on the dry side of optim~m by laboratory studies
than field compaction. In the field compaction, due to size of the
equipment itself, there will be some amount of confinement, which
results in a lesser amount of bulging on the wct side of optimum
than the bulging in standard Proctor test. Due to this inefficiency in
compaction, thc standard Proctor test gives lower unit weight curve
on the wet side of optimum compared to the unit weight curve from
 SRIDHARAN AND SIVAPULLAIAH ON MINI COMPACTION TEST 243

16
18 14.0
the proposed apparatus. As seen from Figs. 3, 4, and 5, the number ~ 15
of blows required to get nearly the standard Proctor compaction ~E
.~
.~
;5~
curve for any soil is in between 33 blows/layer and 38 blows/layer.
17 13.5
It is interesting to see that the compaction curves obtained from
the proposed apparatus for different blows have almost the same
degree of saturation at the peak point for a given soil. Degree of
saturation at peak points was found to be about 85, 96, and 95 % for
red earth-I, kaolinite, and black cotton soil, respectively. Careful
examination of the results obtained from Figs. 3, 4, and 5 revealed
that 36 blows/layer in thc mini apparatus would be reasonable to .•. Mini apparatus
• Sl,mdard Proctor
match with conventional Proctor's compaction curve. Thirty-six
12.0
blows per layer would match the conventional compaction curve 13 15 17 19 20 25 30 35 40
on the dry side of optimum. On the wet side, the curves will be Water content ('Yo) Water COnlent (%)
slightly different due to the effect of bulging in the standard Proctor Bangalore soil Coarse kaolinite
test.
The difference hetween Proctor maximum dry unit weight and
optimum water content and the values obtained by the proposed 15.3 9.3
mini apparatus for 36 blows/layer is within ±0.02 kN/m3 and
0.25 %, respectively, for all the soils studied. These differences
15.0
can be neglected for all. practical purposes, and the compaction
36
curve derived from 36 blows/layer can be taken as the Proctor .~ 80
75
70
65
60
55
9.0 50
~E 35 'S p
~ 8.7
~E
:z 14.7 Water content (%)
compaction curve. c. ~ .c
llIite

Figure 6 shows the Proctor compaction curve and compaction .c

.~ 14.4 8.4
curve obtained from mini apparatus by applying 36 blows/layer ~
in three layers for red earth-2. Red earth-2 contains about 14 % 'j;
p
of particles ranging from 1.00-4.00 mm (Fig. 2). It is clear from 14.1
• Mini apparatus
Fig. 6 that curves are almost identical, indicating that the mini mold • Standard Proctor
can even be suitable for the soils containing particles up to 4 mm 13.8
:or size. The proposed mold is small in size, and it cannot be used for 15 20 25 30
Water content (%)
soils containing larger particles, unlike Proctor mold (which can
be used for soils containing particles up to 20-mm size). However, Belgaum soil

the proposed apparatus can be considered suitable for fine grained FIG. 7-Unit weight-water content rel(i/;ol/ship.
soils containing coarser fraction up to 2-mm size.
The compaction test from mini apparatus using 36 blows/layer Water content (%)
in three layers and standard Proctor test were conducted on four 15.0 15.2 15.4 15.6 15.8. 16,0
more soils. As seen in Fig. 7, both the tests have given almost the 10
same compaction curves. • "'Bulk unit weight
••• • Dry unit weight
III layer -Water content
8
<'l
~
''0;
= 16.0
17.0 ..-.
~ 18.0 •
0.0
zC-€.
iI>

16.5 A. Mini
• Standard
apparatus
Proctor
42 f: 6 •
17.5
II layer
•

• •
2

•
layer
Red earth-l . .•.

o
17 18 19 20 21 22

Unit weight (kN/m3)

FIG. 8-Bulk unit weight, dry unit weight and water content versus
height of the sample.
15.5
Red earth-2 In order to see the variation in unit weight, water content with
the height of compacted sample, a compacted sample was ejected
15.0 from the mini mold and was cut perpendicular to its longitudinal
12 16 13 20 22 24 26
axis into six discs of nearly the same size. Bulk and dry unit weights
and water content were determined. The variation in unit weights
Water content (%)
and water content with height is shown in Fig. 8. The variation is
FIG. 6-Unil weight-water content relationship for red earth-2. marginal for all practical purposes.
 244 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

~"
18.2 40
18.8 20
100
80
60
180
160
120
140
17.6
17.8
0 18 trends were observed in roller compaction wherein as the number
~i:' 18.6 17.4
of passes increases, increase in dry unit weight decreases and be-
~ 18.4
17.2
.;
17

comes constant. However, when weight of the roller is increased,

higher unit weights could be achieved at lesser number of passes
(Johnson and Sallberg 1960). Hence, for the modified Proctor's test
it is proposed to increase the weight of the hammer keeping the
height of drop same as 16 em and number of layers as 3, and the .'
number of blows required per layer is determined.

Test with Hammer of' 2.S-Kg Hammer

Compaction tests were carried out with the 2.S-kg hammer after
preliminary trials on red earth-I and the number of blows adopted
were 6(=18/3), 9(=27/3), 20(=60/3), 40(120/3), and 60(=180/3)
blows per layer in three layers. Figure 10 shows the compaction
curves obtained. Proctor compaction curve lies in between com-
paction curves of 6 blows/layer and 9 blows/layer, and modi-
19
fied Proctor compaction curve lies in between 30 blows/layer and
40 blows/layer compaction curves. As in the case of I.O-kg ham-
mer, compaction curves of red earth-l for different energies from
18 2.S-kg hammer also have. almost the same degree of saturation at
optimum point (about 89 %).
Figure II shows dry unit weight versus number of blows and
water content versus number of blows plot at the optimum points.
The number of blows per layer required to have Proctor and
modified Proctor maximum dry unit weights was, respectively,
o blows/layer and 32 blows/layer. The number of blows per layer
required for optimum water content works out to be higher and
...• -Rcd earth 1 are 6.5 blows/layer and 38.5 blows/layer for Proctor and modified
15
Proctor optimum water contents, respectively.
As seen from Fig. 11, the maximum dry unit weight and opti-
14
mum water content obtained tor 36 blows/layer differ from those
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 obtained by modified Proctor tcst by small values and the difference
Number or hlow~ can be neglected for all practical purposes. 'rhus, 36 blows/layers
PIG. 9-0ry unit weight and water content versus number of blows fur can be taken as number of blows per layer reyuirecl by the proposed
red earth·}. apparatus for modified Proctor curve. Table 2 compares some fea-
tures of proposed test with the standard tests.

Standardization of Number of Blows Requiredfor Modified

• 6 blows!layer
Proctor Unit Weight o 9 blows/layer
• 20 blow~/laycr
In order to see whether the apparatus can be used to get modi fied 6. 30 hlow!iflaycr
Proctor compaction curve, tests were conducted on red earth-I. As o 40 blows/laycr

I
• 60 blows/layer
modi lied Proctor energy is 4.5 times the standard Proctor energy, Standard Proctor
the blows required per layer for the proposed apparatus using 1.0 kg Modified Proctor

hammer to get modified Proctor compaction curve can be taken as

162 (i.e., 4.5 times the blows required for the proposed appara-
tus for Proctor compaction curve (36 blows/layer)). However, the
i
tests were conducted in the proposed apparatus for 80, 120, and
162 blows/layer. For comparison, modified Proctor test was also
conducted. The compaction curves obtained by the proposed ap-
paratus and modified Proctor test are shown in Fig. 3. Compaction
curve obtained from the proposed apparatus for 162 blows/layer
is considerably lower than the modified Proctor compaction curve.
This can be explained as follows. Application of energy increases
the dry unit weight of the soil. However, dry unit weight cannot
increase continuously with increase in number of blows. The rate
of increase of dry unit weight with number of blows decreases and
finally becomes negligible. Figure 9 shows dry unit weight and
water content versus number of blows at optimum point for red
earth-l from the proposed apparatus with I-kg hammer. The rate of Water content (%)
increase in dry unit weight and rate of decrease in optimum water FIG. 1O-0ry unit weigh/~wa{er content relationship for red earth-}
content have become almost constant after 120 blows/layer. Similar (2.5-kg hammer).
 SRIDHARAN AND SIVAPULLAIAH ON MINI COMPACTION TEST 245

ILlmber TABLE 2-Comparison of some fearures o/proposed compaction test apparatus \vilh the standard tests,
md be-
reased, Standard Proposed Compaction Test
Modified
passes Feature Proctor Test Proctor Test For std, Proctor Unit Weight For modified, Proctor Unit Weight
'r's test
Sizeof the mold Internal diameter 10.15 crn 3.81 em
ng the
Height 11.7 cm !Ocm
tnd the Volume 945 crn3 114 cm3
Hammcr Mass 2,5 kg 4.54 kg 1.0 kg 2,5 kg
Height of fall 30,5 crn 45,7 crn 16 cm
Mode of energy transfer Energy directly transferred Energy of the hammer is transferred through
to the soil from hammer the foot of the frame to the soil and hence
rafter some Joss of energy due to impact
Number of layers 3 5 3
lopted Number of blows per layer 25 36 36
180/3) Soil Finer than 20 mm Finer than 2.0 mm
action
com-
modi- c 19.8
18.8 20
40
60
30
50
70
10
tor curve, the hammer weight is 2,5 kg and number of blows per
~'"i:'c
,!.l ~
QC
18.4
18,6
19
18,2
~r and i19,6
19.2
19.4
17.8
17,6
18
0
layer is 36, in three layers.
ham- 2. The energies per unit volume applied in the apparatus for stan-
from dard and modified Proclor densities are, respectively, larger than
ion at the energies per unit volume of the standard and modified Proc-
tor tests. This is due to loss of energy during the impact between
sand the hammer and the energy transferring fOOL,higher sidewall
oints. friction and lesser effect of impact on the soil ill making it
. and denser, in the proposed apparatus. Due to nonaccountability of
ively, exact value of coefficient of restitution, effect of impact and side-
layer wall friction and other losses, the number of blows required with
- and the proposed apparatus was actually obtained by comparing the
lified compaction curves obtained from the proposed apparatus anel
the standard and modified Proctor compaction curves instead of
opti- theoretical calculation.
hose
3. In standard and modified Proctor tests, there will be bulging of
encc
soil when the test is conducted on the wet side of optimum.
lyers Tn the proposed apparatus, there is no chance of bulging as
osed
~B
1; ~c ~14h15
14.5 20
40
60
10
3012,5
50
70 17 the internal diameter of the mold and the energy transferring
- I. fea-
~c 0 13,5 12
foot are almost equal. Due to this inefficiency in compaction,
f; 13
15,5
16,516
standard and modified ProGtor tests give relatively lower dry unit
t

'f
I weights on the wet side of optimum when compared with the
results obtained with the new apparatus, The difference belween
the dry unit weight and optimum water content obtained from
standard and proposed apparatus is negligible for all practical
purposes.
4. The proposed apparatus is simpler and quicker, and the amount
tOf

:tor
of effort involved is comparatively much less, and also saves a
con~h1erable amount of soil.
5. Samples for strength tests can be obtained with ,( minimum
disturbance and lesser time.

Number of blows References

FlG, II-Dry unit weight and waler content versus numher of Mows ASTM D 69R-91, 1995: Test Method for Laboratory Compaction
with 2,S-kg hammerfor red earth-],
Characteristics of Soil using Standard Effort r 12, 400 ft-Ib/ft°
(600 kN-m/m3)], Annual Book oj'ASTM Standards, ASTM Inter-
national, Wesl Conshohocken, PA, Sec. 4, Vol. 04.08, pp, 69-76.
Conclusions ASTM D 1557-91, 1995: Test Method for Laboratory Com-
paction Characteristics of Soil using Modified Effort [50,400
1. A mini compaction apparatus has been designed to generate ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)], Annual Book of ASTM Slandurds,
22
Proctor and modified Proctor compaction curves for fine grained ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Sec. 4, Vol. 04.08,
soils containing particles finer than 2 mm. The developed appa- pp.118-I25.
ra!lIS consists of mold of 3,81-cm internal diameter and height of Beer, F. P. and Johnston, Jr., E. R., 1990, Vector Mechan-
1-] 10 cm with falling hammer of weight 1.0 kg wilh 36 blows/layer ics for Engineers-Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
in three layers for Proctor com paction curve. For modified Proc- Singapore.
 246 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

Bowles, 1. E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.
Goldsmith, w., 1960, Impact-The Theory and Physical Behavior
ofColtiding Solids, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., London.
Johnson, A. W. and Sallberg, J. R., 1960, "Factors that Influence
Field Compaction of Soils," Highway Research Bulletin 272,
Washington, D.C.
Nara, H. R., 1962, Vector Mechanics for Engineers, John Wiley
and Sons, New York.. l
Reddy, B. V. and Jagadish, K. S., 1993, "The Static Compaction of
Soils," Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No.2, pp. 337-341.
Wilson, S. D., 1950, "Small Soil Compaction Apparatus Dupli-
cates Field Results Closely," Engineering News Record, Nov. 2, I
pp. 34-36. I

I
t

View publication stats