Harvard Miniature Compaction Test
Uploaded by
ScribdTranslationsHarvard Miniature Compaction Test
Uploaded by
ScribdTranslationsCENTER FOR DESIGN SCIENCES AND THE
CONSTRUCTION
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICS AND
HYDRAULICS
Soil mechanics
Practice: Miniature Harvard Test
CIVIL ENGINEERING
7th SEMESTER
STUDENT:Francisco Javier Sandoval Ramírez
Ing. Humberto Castañeda Marín
February 29, 2012
Harvard Miniature Compaction Test
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of the practice was to determine based on the compaction curve the
maximum dry specific weight and the optimal moisture content that must be
to have the ground compact efficiently.
INTRODUCTION
When using goat foot rollers or tires, the load comes into contact.
with the ground practically without impact, the rotation of the roller or tire produces
a kneading action, as the roller adapts to the surface of the
soil. Taking this consideration into account, laboratory methods emerged
that were able to better replicate the terrain conditions, being the
the most popular laboratory equipment, the Harvard miniature device (Wilson, 1950)
which acts through kneading unlike the Proctor test that produces the
compaction through impact
MATERIAL
Metal cylindrical compaction mold, with extension and base, with
3.3 cm inner diameter
of height.
A metal ram, with a plunger at its lower end, that can apply
pressure from the action of a spring, which can apply pressures
of different magnitudes with springs of different elastic constants.
A plastic pestle
A scale with an accuracy of 0.1 gram
A metal ruler
Mesh number 2 (number 10)
Diverse equipment for moisture content
PROCEDURE
The sample is air-dried to later facilitate its disaggregation.
The material was sieved through mesh number 2 (number 10) until obtaining a
sample of approximately 3kg.
3. For the quartering, 7 portions of similar weight were prepared, and to each one of
they were added a different water content. The water content
the result of the portions should be such that 2 of them are by
below the optimal moisture content, one close to optimal and the others
2 above her.
4.This was not made with the metal piston, but here it is described how it
calibrates.
Adjust the clamp to the desired pressure of 10kg/cm.2, placing the tip of the
weight on the scale, previously zeroed to 12.6 kilograms and upon activating the
Push down on the scale, it should balance at the same time as the
the spring starts to deform. If this does not happen, you can adjust the
nut of the piston to achieve it.
5. With the mold adjusted to its base, one of the portions was taken, then it
I place the first layer in the mold and level it with the plastic tamper,
afterwards the ram's plunger was inserted into the ground and was pressed until
that the spring began to compress, apply pressure 10 times on the layer
in such a way that the pressures of the piston are evenly distributed in
the surface of the layer. All of this was repeated the compaction process at
the remaining layers, ensuring that the last compacted layer protrudes
from the mold 1 cm inside the extension.
With care, she removed the mold extension and leveled it with the ruler.
metallic.
7. Then the mold was weighed together with the compacted soil approximately.
of 0.1g and the weight of the mold was subtracted to obtain the weight of the soil
compressed wet Wm.
8. Then the soil was removed from the mold and cut in half according to a
vertical plan, and a portion of the cut was taken to obtain its content of
humidity W.
9. Knowing the volume of the mold Vm, the specific weight of the
moist soil mass Ȣm=Wm/Vm, and the dry specific weight of the soil
Ȣd= Ȣm/1+W
All of this was repeated for the other 6 samples, gradually increasing it.
the water content.
11. With all this data, the compaction curve was obtained.
corresponding to graphing the values of the specific dry weights and the
corresponding moisture contents. This way, the obtained
maximum dry specific weight and optimal moisture content.
PHOTOGRAPHIC REPORT
To carry out this compaction method, we take a portion of the soil that we had
screening at the beginning to carry out all 3 compaction tests.
Then we sieve the soil through mesh number 2 (number 10) until we obtain a sample.
of approximately 1.5 kg.
Then we divided the sample into 7 equal parts and placed them in some jars, with a
weight of 300g.
We added water to each of the portions that were in the vessels in different amounts.
proportion to have different values of moisture content (2 below, one
close and the other 2 above the optimal). Afterwards we knead the portions.
so that the water would homogenize.
There was no need to calibrate the piston because it was already calibrated.
We took one of the vases with soil, took a part of this, and introduced it.
inside the mold, we level this layer with the plastic tamper, later with the
we press this layer 5 times evenly, then
we place another second and third layer and perform the same operation, until the
compacted soil by the ram of the compactor protruded between 1 and 2 cm from where it was placed
the mold extension.
Then we remove the mold extension and level it with the ruler.
We dismantled the mold, removed the compacted ground in the shape of a cylinder, broke it apart and
we took a soil sample that was in the heart and placed it in a capsule
previously weighed. This is to later finish its moisture content W.
RESULTS
Harvard Miniature
DATA:
Volume
Mold dimensions mold 85.2836 cm3
Height(cm)
3.57 8.52
CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS.
Rehearse Weight Cap Weight cap + Weight cap + Ww Ws W
(gr) humus soil (gr) dry land
(gr)
1 34.82 61.21 59.3 1.91 24.48 0.078023
2 25.36 61.85 58.17 3.68 32.81 0.112161
3 81.26 133.03 126.52 6.51 45.26 0.143836
4 25.52 54.4 50.13 4.27 24.61 0.173507
5 70.08 108.18 101.72 6.46 31.64 0.204172
6 66.44 111 102.43 8.57 35.99 0.238122
7 26.81 99.38 83.8 15.58 56.99 0.273381
Mold weight without collar
Weight of the mold Soil weight
compacted soil g/cm³ W g/cm³
without collar compressed (g)
Try (gr)
1.430521 0.078023 1.326986
1 825 947 122
1.547777 0.112161 1.391684
2 825 957 132
1.735386 0.143836 1.517164
3 825 973 148
1.922996 0.173507 1.638674
4 825 989 164
1.887819 0.204172 1.567732
5 825 986 161
1.80574 0.238122 1.458451
6 825 979 154
1.758838 0.273381 1.381234
7 825 975 150
Graphing the values of dry specific weight of the soil and the water content, we obtain by a
graphic method the optimal moisture content and the maximum specific weight:
GRAPH OF DRY SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF SOIL AND OPTIMAL MOISTURE
Compaction Curve
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Curve of
0.8 Compaction
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
according to the graphic
W (%) 17.35
Density (g/cm3) 1.6386
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I have to say that the Harvard mini test is used in materials.
fines, plastics, and with particles smaller than 2 mm,
This practice was very similar to the Standard Proctor test, as it obtains the
same, since it was determined based on the compaction curve the weight
maximum dry specific and the optimal moisture content that should be present
so that the soil is compacted efficiently.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Unable to access the content of the provided URL.
Soil Mechanics Practice Manual
