Earthwork Volumetric Calculations and Characterization of Additional CFED Soils – CFED Phase IV

December 2010

ER10-11

Final Report

Loose

Bank

Bank

Loose

Soil

Water

Air

Soil

Water

Air

Soil

WaterAir

Compacted

Target γd

Target wlimits

γd

w%

Compacted

Swell

Shrinkage

Bank Loose Compacted

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

ER10-11

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Earthwork Volumetric Calculations and Laboratory Characterization of Additional CFED Soils – CFED Phase IV

December 2010

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

David White, Pavana Vennapusa, Jiake Zhang

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Earthworks Engineering Research Center

Institute for Transportation

Iowa State University

2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4600

Ames, IA 50010-8664

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Caterpillar, Inc.

100 NE Adams Street

Peoria, IL 61629

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Visit www.eerc.iastate.edu for color PDF files of this and other research reports.

16. Abstract

Caterpillar has developed proprietary software technology – Compaction Forecasting Expert Database (CFED) – to predict compaction performance for site specific applications. This report (Phase IV) presents laboratory test results of five soil samples collected from field project sites in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa and the corresponding CFED analysis. Recommendations for presentation of in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information in CFED, and a database of volumetric factors for earthwork quantity estimation from literature review are also reported herein.

Shrinkage and swell factors of a total of 154 soils were collected from the literature and grouped into seven material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other soils. The swell factors statistics showed a narrow range for gravel soils (minimum value – maximum value = 0.11) compared to other soils (with minimum value – maximum value = 0.22 to 0.44). The shrinkage factors varied more than the swell factors as the shrinkage factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction achieved in the field. Future research is warranted emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of shrinkage/swell factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification, gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements.

Step-by-step procedures are also described to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil for compaction using bank and compacted soil three phase diagram and weight-volume relationships. These calculations should add value to the contractor’s moisture control and conditioning operations.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Proctor compaction, compaction forecasting, earthwork, specifications No restrictions.

19. Security Classification (of this report)

20. Security Classification (of this page)

21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified. Unclassified. NA

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

EARTHWORK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS

AND CHARACTERIZATION OF ADDITIONAL

CFED SOILS – CFED PHASE IV

Principal Investigator David J. White, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and holder of Wegner Professorship Director, Earthworks Engineering Research Center

Co-Principal Investigators

Pavana KR. Vennapusa, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor

Heath Gieselman, M.S. Assistant Scientist III

Research Assistant Jiake Zhang, M.S.

Authors

David White, Pavana Vennapusa, Jiake Zhang

Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC) Department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering

Iowa State University 2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4600

Ames, IA 50010-8664 Phone: 515-294-7910 www.eerc.iastate.edu

Final Report December 2010

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. V 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... VI 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2 

LABORATORY TESTING METHODS ........................................................................................5 

Particle Size Analysis ................................................................................................................. 5 Atterberg Limits .......................................................................................................................... 5 Soil Classification ....................................................................................................................... 5 Proctor Compaction .................................................................................................................... 5 Gyratory Compaction .................................................................................................................. 6 Vibratory Compaction ................................................................................................................ 8 

OVERVIEW OF FIELD PROJECTS AND IN-SITU TESTING ...................................................9 

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ...............................................................................................12 

Material Description and Soil Index Properties ........................................................................ 12 Laboratory Compaction Tests Results ...................................................................................... 19 

Proctor Compaction Test Results for Soils #2042, 2043, 2044, and 2045 ........................19 Proctor, Gyratory, and Vibratory Compaction Test Results for Soil #2046 ......................31 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN SITU DATA AND MINERALOGY DATA PRESENTATION IN CFED .............................................................................................35 

Roller and In Situ Point Data Presentation in CFED ................................................................ 35 Mineralogy Data Presentation in CFED ................................................................................... 40 

EARTHWORK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS ...................................................................42 

Background ............................................................................................................................... 42 Shrinkage and Swell Factor Database....................................................................................... 43 Estimation of Wetting and Drying ............................................................................................ 50 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK .........................................54 

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................56 

APPENDIX: GRADATION TEST RESULTS FOR CFED SOILS .............................................59 

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Example CFED outputs ....................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Current granular and non-granular soils in CFED database (red circles for granular and

red squares for non-granular) [note that other symbols in granular soils chart are from a database reported in Hilf (1999)] .........................................................................................4 

Figure 3. Automated mechanical rammer for Proctor compaction test ...........................................6 Figure 4. AFGB1A gyratory compactor (left) and pressure distribution analyzer ..........................7 Figure 5. 152 mm (6 inch) diameter compaction mold and vibratory table ....................................8 Figure 6. Caterpillar 825H tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system used

on the UT project for compaction of silty subgrade ..........................................................10 Figure 7. Caterpillar 815F tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system used

on the TX project for compaction of fat clay subgrade .....................................................10 Figure 8. Caterpillar CS56 smooth drum with padfoot shellkit roller equipped with machine drive

power system used on the ND project for compaction of subgrade silt soil......................11 Figure 9. Caterpillar CS563E smooth drum roller equipped with machine drive power system

used on the ND project for compaction of recycled asphalt base material and on the IA project for compaction of recycled PCC base material .....................................................11 

Figure 10. Grain size distribution curve – Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042) ....................14 Figure 11. Grain size distribution curve – Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043) .............14 Figure 12. Grain size distribution curve – North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044) ......15 Figure 13. Grain size distribution curve – North Dakota recycled asphalt base (Soil 2045) ........15 Figure 14. Grain size distribution curve – Iowa recycled PCC base (Soil 2046) ..........................16 Figure 15. Utah silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2042) ...........................16 Figure 16. Texas fat clay subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2043) ....................17 Figure 17. North Dakota silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2044) ...............17 Figure 18. North Dakota recycled asphalt base [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2045) .................18 Figure 19. Iowa recycled PCC base [moisture content ~ 4%] (Soil 2046) ...................................18 Figure 20. Soil groups identified for CFED 2010 database (newly added soils in blue

squares/circles and existing soils in red squares/circles) ...................................................19 Figure 21. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – Utah silty subgrade

material (Soil 2042) ...........................................................................................................20 Figure 22. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – Texas fat clay subgrade

material (Soil 2043) ...........................................................................................................20 Figure 23. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – North Dakota silty

subgrade material (Soil 2044) ............................................................................................21 Figure 24. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – North Dakota recycled

asphalt base material (Soil 2045) .......................................................................................21 Figure 25. CFED output graphs for Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042) ..............................23 Figure 26. CFED output graphs for Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043) .......................25 Figure 27. CFED output graphs for North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044) ................27 Figure 28. CFED output graphs for North Dakota recycled asphalt material (Soil 2045) ............29 Figure 29. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction – recycled

PCC base ............................................................................................................................32 Figure 30. Dry unit weight and shear resistance versus number of gyrations during gyratory

compaction .........................................................................................................................32 

iii

Figure 31. Dry unit weight versus energy during vibratory compaction .......................................33 Figure 32. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction energy –

recycled PCC base .............................................................................................................33 Figure 33. Comparison of particle size breakdown by using different compaction methods ........34 Figure 34. Example of MDP* plots for multiple passes on a calibration test strip .......................36 Figure 35. Example of compaction curves for MDP* and in-situ test measurements with

increasing roller passes ......................................................................................................36 Figure 36. Example of comparison between MDP* and in-situ test measurements after multiple

passes on a calibration test strip .........................................................................................37 Figure 37. Example of simple linear regression analysis results with prediction intervals ...........38 Figure 38. SEM images of soils from Kumming airport in China showing flat, plate like clay

structure..............................................................................................................................40 Figure 39. XRD analysis results of soils from Kumming airport in China ...................................41 Figure 40. Illustration of soil volumetric changes in bank, loose, and compacted states ..............42 Figure 41. Soil three phase diagram in bank and compacted states showing weight volume

relationships .......................................................................................................................51 Figure 42. Estimation of amount of change in moisture content in compacted state relative to

bank moisture content ........................................................................................................51 Figure 43. Estimation of amount of water per 1% change in moisture content (modified from

Bros, Inc., 1964).................................................................................................................53 

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of compaction energies used in the laboratory compaction tests ......................6 Table 2. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing ...........................................................................9 Table 3. CFED 2010 database .......................................................................................................13 Table 4. CFED 2010 database Proctor test results .........................................................................22 Table 5. CFED 2010 database of optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight from

Proctor test results ..............................................................................................................22 Table 6. Particle size properties results from different compaction methods ................................34 Table 7. Recommended English and SI units for laboratory and field measurements ..................39 Table 8. Summary of shrinkage and swell factors for different material groups ..........................44 Table 9. Shrinkage and swell factors from literature review .........................................................45 

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by Caterpillar, Inc. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Liqun Chi of Caterpillar for providing assistance and review comments on the project. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Undergraduate Research Assistants Justin Harland, Rachel Franz, and Michael Eidem with Earthworks Engineering Research Center at Iowa State University for their assistance with laboratory testing.

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents laboratory test results of five soil samples collected from field project sites in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa to incorporate into the existing compaction forecasting expert database (CFED) development, recommendations for presentation of in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information in CFED, a database of volumetric factors for earthwork quantity estimation, and procedures for moisture content estimations in field based on bank and compacted soil densities. The soil samples collected consisted of two granular soils and three non-granular soils as summarized below:

1. Silty subgrade material from Salt Lake City, Utah (Soil 2042) 2. Fat clay subgrade material from Fort Worth, Texas (Soil 2043) 3. Silty subgrade material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2044) 4. Recycled asphalt base material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2045) 5. Recycled PCC base material from I-35, Iowa (Soil 2046)

Laboratory Proctor compaction tests were conducted using five compaction energy levels at different moisture contents for soils # 2042 to #2045, to develop moisture-density-compaction energy relationships. The results indicated that with higher Proctor compaction energy the soils achieve higher maximum dry unit weight and lower optimum moisture content. The curves on the wet side of optimum generally tend to parallel the 100% saturation line. Gyratory and vibratory compaction methodswere used to develop density-compaction energy relationships on recycled PCC base material (#2046) at its natural moisture content in comparison with standard and modified Proctor energies. The dry unit weight values achieved using the standard Proctor, the vibratory, and the gyratory compaction method at 2089 psf contact pressure, were similar for the recycled PCC material. The dry unit weight values achieved using the modified Proctor and the gyratory compaction method with 12,531 psf contact pressure, were similar for the RPCC material. Gradation tests performed before and after compaction testing using each method indicated that the particle break down was more in the sample compacted using the modified Proctor method compared to all other methods. Vibratory compaction resulted in relatively less break-down than all other methods. The amount of particle break down from gyratory compaction increased with increasing applied contact pressures. A literature review was conducted on earthwork volumetric calculation factors to develop a database of shrinkage and swell factors reported in the literature for various soil types. Shrinkage and swell factors of a total of 154 soils were collected from the literature and grouped into seven material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other soils. The swell factors statistics showed narrow range for gravel soils (0.11) compared to other soils (0.22 to 0.44). The shrinkage factors varied more than the swell factors as the shrinkage factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction achieved in the field. Further review revealed that reports are limited for shrinkage factors. Only three out of the nine references reviewed presented shrinkage factors (i.e., for a total of 10 materials out of 154 materials). Of those, only one reference (i.e., Burch 1997) provided shrinkage factors linked to

vii

percent compaction relative to laboratory Proctor test. In addition, none of the references presented shrinkage and swell factors linking the type of equipment used. Step-by-step procedures are described in this report to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil during compaction using bank and compacted soil three phase diagram and weight-volume relationships. These estimations can add significant value to the contractor in during planning stages and also during construction. Future research is warranted in emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of the shrinkage and swell factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification, gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements. Further, information on soil drying with respect to weather conditions (i.e., temperature, wind speed, humidity), time, and number of disking passes should be collected.

1

INTRODUCTION

This report presents laboratory test results of three non-granular soils and two granular soils collected from field project sites in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa to incorporate into the compaction forecasting expert database (CFED) development, recommendations for presentation of in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information into CFED, and a database of volumetric (i.e., shrinkage and swell) factors for earthwork quantity estimation. Based on laboratory test data The CFED database consists of 45 soils collected from 2003 to 2009. The following five soil groups were identified in the project proposal as groups with limited information in the CFED database based on soil Atterberg limits (i.e., liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI)) and gradation properties (i.e., particle size corresponding to 10% passing (D10) and coefficient of uniformity (cu)):

1. Effective particle size, D10 = 0.1 to 5 mm and coefficient of uniformity cu < 200 (Granular)

2. D10 = 0.01 to 0.1 mm and Cu ≥ 200 (Granular) 3. LL = 50 to 80 and PI = 25 to 65 (Cohesive) 4. LL = 50 to 80 and PI ≤ 22 (Intergrade) 5. LL = 20 to 50 and PI ≤ 10 (Intergrade)

The five soil samples collected for this study are listed below. Soils #2042 and #2044 fall under group (5), soil # 2043 falls under group (3), and soils #2045 and #2046 fall under group (2). Soils that fall under groups (1) and (4) could not be identified during the course of this project.

Silty subgrade material from Salt Lake City, Utah (Soil 2042) Fat clay subgrade material from Fort Worth, Texas (Soil 2043) Silty subgrade material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2044) Recycled asphalt base material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2045) Recycled PCC base material from I-35, Iowa (Soil 2046)

Specific research tasks of this project as identified in the project proposal were as follows:

1. Expand the CFED database to include data for five additional soils. Conduct laboratory compaction tests at 5 energy levels over a range of moisture contents and obtain soil index properties including Atterberg limits and particle-size analysis.

2. Integrate data from the laboratory analysis into CFED. 3. Develop relationships between volumetric calculations (shrinkage/swell factors) and

selection of input parameter values. 4. Document all tasks, archive database, and work with CAT to update the CFED code as

needed.

2

BACKGROUND

Caterpillar has developed proprietary software technology – Compaction Forecasting Expert Database (CFED) – to predict compaction performance for site specific applications. Figure 1 shows example CFED outputs (White et al. 2008). The goals of this software are to:

Predict the capability of compaction machines to meet compaction specifications, Estimate productivity for specific machines, Determine sensitivity of compaction and productivity to soil moisture, and Recommend soil lift thickness with number of machine passes to meet compaction

specifications.

The purpose of the technology is for pre-bid and during operation on earthworks construction. The pre-bid application is to assist contractors and project owners to determine cost and probability to meet compaction requirements based on available soils, whether those soils are in-situ or from borrow areas. The operational application is for construction management, particularly for analysis and solutions when compaction requirements are not achieved, or when productivity is unacceptable. This prediction technology is site and soil specific. It requires standard and specialized testing of the actual earthwork construction soils. Results from the soil testing are then input into the software which converts the input data to predict: (a) capability, (b) productivity, (c) sensitivity, and (d) process. This output has been defined as the recipe for successful and cost effective earthworks construction.

Previous CFED research have resulted in populating the CFED database with a total of forty-seven soils collected from several states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas) in the United States and from the Kunming Airport project in China. About half of the soils are considered fine-grained non-granular soils (i.e., clay and silt) and the other half granular soils (i.e., sand and gravel) (Figure 2). Additionally, three non-granular soils and two granular soils are added to the database as part of the current study.

White et al. (2008) documented results from a performance evaluation of CFED using five alternative compaction curve prediction methods identified in the literature with reference to CFED algorithm. Based on the results, modifications were made to the CFED algorithms which improved the prediction capabilities to equal or exceed all other investigated methods. One advantage that CFED has over other methods is that the algorithm includes compaction energy as an input parameter. An analysis of the difference between actual and predicted values for a given soil found that the average difference for CFED was less than 0.3 lb/ft3 (White et al. 2008). CFED is not without its limitations, however. At this point, the CFED database is not sufficient to allow for predictions of performance for some soil types. As with other models identified in the literature, CFED does not predict compaction curves for granular soils, particularly in the bulking moisture content range. This is a limitation of the model that needs further research.

Another element of previous CFED research was to establish relationships between laboratory compaction energy and roller passes. Field compaction data was available for most soils input into CFED. Field data included results from density, dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP), Clegg

3

hammer, light weight deflectometer (LWD), and plate load test (PLT) in conjunction with machine passes for various machine configurations (White et al. 2008). At this time, limited field data is available for the CP-533, CS-533, CS-683, CS-563 and CAT825H machines. Curve fitting methods were applied to field and laboratory data in an attempt to determine empirical relationships. Additional research is needed to improve the prediction relationships between laboratory and field measurements.

Figure 1. Example CFED outputs

4

Effective Size, D10 (mm)

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Coe

ffic

ient

of

Un

iform

ity,

c u =

D60

/D1

0

0

100

200

300

400

500 SPSP-SMSW-SMSMGPGP-GMGW-GMGWGMCFED soils with field compaction dataCFED soils with no field compaction data

CFED Soil's USCS Classification:SP-SM, SW-SM, GM, and SM

Liquid Limit, LL (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity I

ndex

, P

I (%

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70CFED soils with field compaction dataCFED soils with no field compaction data

'U" l

ine PI =

0.9

(LL-8

)

'A" line P

I = 0.73(LL-20)

CL- ML

ML

CL

CH

MH

Figure 2. Current granular and non-granular soils in CFED database (red circles for granular and red squares for non-granular) [note that other symbols in granular soils

chart are from a database reported in Hilf (1999)]

5

LABORATORY TESTING METHODS

Particle Size Analysis

Particle-size analysis on non-granular soil samples was conducted in accordance with ASTM D422-63 “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.” Coarse grained particle-size analysis was performed by washing about 2000 grams of air-dried soil over a No. 10 sieve, oven drying the retained soil, and sieving through the 1 inch, 0.75 inch, 0.375 inch, and No. 4 sieve sizes. Fine-grained particle-size analysis was performed using the hydrometer method with an air dried sample of about 70 grams passing the No. 10 sieve. After completing the hydrometer test, the suspended material was washed through the No. 200 sieve. The material retained on the No. 200 sieve was then oven dried and sieved through the No. 40 and No. 100 sieve sizes.

Particle-size analysis on granular soil samples was conducted in accordance with ASTM C136, “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.” An air-dried sample of about 2000g was used and sieved over through 1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.375 in, Nos. 4, 10, 20, 40, 100, and No. 200 sieve sizes.

Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limits were determined in accordance with ASTM D4318-05 “Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.” Representative samples for the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit tests were prepared using the “wet preparation” method by screening the sample through the No. 40 sieve using a spatula. Liquid limit tests were performed according to Method A (multi-point liquid limit method).

Soil Classification

Using the particle-size analysis test results and Atterberg limits test results, the soils are classified in accordance with ASTM D2487-10 “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System (USCS))” and ASTM D3282-09 “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes (AASHTO classification system)”.

Proctor Compaction

Laboratory Proctor compaction tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM D698–07e1 “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort”, and the ASTM D 1557–09 “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort” standard test procedures (Method A). In addition to standard compaction energy (12,375 lb-ft/ft3) and modified compaction energy (56,250lb-ft/ft3), compaction tests were performed at one energy level below the standard Proctor energy and two energy levels between the standard and modified Proctor energies, as listed in Table 1. The Proctor compaction energy is determined using Eq. 1 (Proctor 1948). The purpose of performing tests at multiple energies is to derive relationships between soil moisture content, dry

6

unit weight, and compaction energy. An automated, calibrated mechanical rammer (see Figure 1) was used to perform these tests.

moldofVolume

hammer drop

ofheight

hammer

ofweight

layers

ofnumber

layerper

blows ofnumber

Energyimpact

(1)

Figure 3. Automated mechanical rammer for Proctor compaction test

Table 1. Summary of compaction energies used in the laboratory compaction tests

Method Layers Blows per

Layer Wt. of

Hammer (lb) Drop Height

(ft) Energy

(lb-ft/ft3)

Sub-Standard (SS) 3 15* (35)** 5.5 1 7425 Standard (S) 3 25* (56)** 5.5 1 12375 Super-Sub-Modified(SSM) 5 25* (56)** 5.5 1 20790 Sub-Modified (SM) 5 25* (56)** 5.5 1 34650 Modified (M) 5 25* (56)** 10 1.5 56250 * Using 4 in. Proctor mold ** Using 6 in. Proctor mold

Gyratory Compaction

AFGB1A Brovold gyratory compactor (manufactured by Pine Instrument Company) and pressure distribution analyzer (PDA) as shown in Figure 4 were used in this study. Gyratory compaction test method is described in ASTM D3387-83 Standard Test Method for Compaction

7

and Shear Properties of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Gyratory Testing Machine (GTM). Materials were compacted using applied vertical stresses (σo) of 100 kPa (2088 psf), 300 kPa (6266 psf), and 600 kPa (12,531 psf) at a constant rate of 30 gyrations per minute with the gyration angle set at 1.25 degrees. The PDA was placed above the sample in the gyratory compaction mold to capture the pressure distribution across the sample during compaction. The PDA provides the resultant force (R) and the eccentricity (e) where the resultant force was acting during the compaction process. With measured R and e, the frictional resistance or shear resistance (G) of the compacted materials can be calculated using Eq. (2) (Guler et al. 1996):

HA

eRG

(2)

where, G = shear resistance (psf), R = resultant force (lbf), e = eccentricity (ft), A = sample cross-sectional area (ft2), and H = sample height at any gyration cycle (ft).

Figure 4. AFGB1A gyratory compactor (left) and pressure distribution analyzer

The total compaction energy applied is a sum of the initial static compaction energy (that is applied due to application of vertical stresses statically before the first gyration) and the gyratory compaction energy. The static compaction energy can be determined using Eq. (3) which is a ratio of area under the load versus deformation curve and the volume of the soil compacted:

)(ft soil of Volume

ft)-(lb curven deformatio versusload of area Energy

3static

(3)

The gyratory compaction energy is determined using Eq. 4 which is a sum of the energies applied during compaction via vertical and shear forces on the sample (McRae 1965):

V

)Hs(4)]H-(HA[P Energy afterbeforesamplevertical

gyratory

(4)

8

where, Pvertial = vertical applied pressure (psf), Asample = area of sample (ft2), Hbefore = height of sample before compaction (ft), Hafter = height of sample after compaction (ft), s = applied shear stress (psf), H = height of sample at a given gyration cycle (ft), = gyration angle (radians), and V = volume of mold (ft3).

Vibratory Compaction

Vibratory compaction tests were performed to determine the maximum density using ASTM D4253 “Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density of Soils Using a Vibratory Table”. and minimum density using ASTM D 4254 “Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density”. The vibratory table and mold assembly used for testing is shown in Figure 5. The vibratory table was set at amplitude = 0.013 inches and frequency = 60 Hz. Vibratory compaction energy is estimated using Eq. 5.

V

tAfW Energyvibratory

(5)

where, W = weight of surcharge (lb), f = frequency of vibration (Hz), A = amplitude (ft), t = time (sec), and V = volume of mold (ft3). According to ASTM D4253, the sample is compacted by vibrating the table to a maximum of 8 minutes to determine the maximum index density. To determine compaction energy versus density relationship, the sample height was measured before and after placing the dead weight, and after 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 480, and 960 seconds of vibratory compaction time.

Figure 5. 152 mm (6 inch) diameter compaction mold and vibratory table

9

OVERVIEW OF FIELD PROJECTS AND IN-SITU TESTING

The laboratory test results presented in this report were obtained on soil samples collected from four different construction project sites. These construction sites involved compaction of the soils on controlled test beds using padfoot and smooth drum compaction machines (CAT 825H, CAT 815F, CS56 with padfoot shell kit, and CS563E) equipped with roller-integrated machine drive power (MDP) compaction monitoring technology. In-situ point test measurements were also obtained after multiple roller passes to compare with the roller data. A brief summary of each project, field testing conditions, in-situ tests performed, and compaction methods followed is provided in Table 2. Photographs of rollers used on each project are presented in Figure 6 to Figure 9.

Table 2. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing

Material Date Project

Location Machine Total Passes

Amp* Speed**

In-situ Point Measurements

Silty Subgrade

(TB2) 06/21

Salt Lake City, Utah

Padfoot, CAT 825H

12

Forward: Static, 5.0 mph

Reverse: Static 5.0 mph

w, d, ELWD-Z3, DCP-CBR after 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 passes at 4 locations (two test points on each wheel

path at every test location)

Fat Clay Subgrade

(TB8) 06/12

Fort Worth, Texas

Padfoot, CAT 815F

16

Forward: Static, 6.0 mph

Reverse: Static 6.0 mph

w, d, ELWD-Z2 after 0, 2, 4, 8, and 16 passes at 5 locations (two test points at location, one in each forward pass

wheel path)

Silty Subgrade

(TB1) 08/09

US12, Marmarth,

North Dakota

Padfoot shell kit,

CS56 16 Static, 2.0 mph

ELWD-Z2, d, w, and CBR after 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 passes at 9 test locations

Recycled Asphalt

Base Layer (TB4)

08/10

US12, Marmarth,

North Dakota

Smooth Drum,

CS563E

6 (forward

and reverse)

Forward: low amplitude, 2.0

mph Reverse: Static,

3.7 mph

ELWD-Z3, d, w EFWD-D3 and EFWD-K3 after 6 passes at 28

test locations

Recycled Portland Cement

Concrete (PCC) Base Layer

08/28

I35 North Bound,

North of Jewell, Iowa

Smooth Drum,

CS563E 9

Forward: Low amplitude, 2.0

mph

w, d, ELWD-Z3, EV1, and EV2 after 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 passes at 3 locations

Notes: TB – test bed (numbers indicate the test bed number in the field project), *amplitude setting, **nominal, w – moisture content determined using Humboldt nuclear gauge, d – dry unit weight determined using Humboldt nuclear gauge, CBR – California bearing ratio determined from dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test, ELWD-Z2 – elastic modulus determined using 200 mm diameter plate Zorn light weight deflectometer (LWD), ELWD-Z3 – elastic modulus determined using 300 mm diameter plate Zorn LWD, EFWD-D3 – elastic modulus determined using 300 mm diameter plate Dynatest falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test, EFWD-K3 – elastic modulus determined using 300 mm diameter plate Kuab FWD.

10

Figure 6. Caterpillar 825H tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system used on the UT project for compaction of silty subgrade

Figure 7. Caterpillar 815F tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system used on the TX project for compaction of fat clay subgrade

11

Figure 8. Caterpillar CS56 smooth drum with padfoot shellkit roller equipped with machine drive power system used on the ND project for compaction of subgrade silt soil

Figure 9. Caterpillar CS563E smooth drum roller equipped with machine drive power system used on the ND project for compaction of recycled asphalt base material and on the

IA project for compaction of recycled PCC base material

12

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Laboratory testing involved determining the index properties such as grain-size distribution parameters, Atterberg limits, and soil classification, and soil compaction characteristics of the samples collected. Soil compaction tests were performed following Proctor test methods as described earlier in the laboratory test methods chapter for four out of the five soils collected. For one granular soil sample (i.e., Recycled PCC base material from Iowa), standard Proctor, modified Proctor, gyratory and vibratory compaction methods were used for comparison. Particle break-down following each compaction method was also evaluated for the RPCC base material.

Material Description and Soil Index Properties

A summary of soil color, USCS and AASHTO classifications, particle-size analysis results, and field information of five soils are presented in Table 3. Particle-size distribution curves for these materials are presented in Figure 10 to Figure 14 and images of each material are provided in Figure 15 to Figure 19. Raw data from particle-size analysis of these soils are included in the Appendix along with data from all soils in the CFED database. Figure 20 presents the relationship between cu and D10 for the two granular soils tests and LL and PI for the three non-granular soils tested.

13

Table 3. CFED 2010 database

Properties Silty

SubgradeFat Clay Subgrade

Silty Subgrade

Recycled Asphalt

Base Recycled PCC Base

CFED Soil ID #2042 #2043 #2044 #2045 #2046

Project Location Salt Lake City, UT

Fort Worth, TX

Marmarth, ND Marmarth,

ND I-35, IA

Soil Color Yellowish

Orange Dark Gray Greenish Gray Olive Gray Light Gray

USCS Description (Symbol) Silt with

sand (ML)

Fat clay trace sand

(CH) Silty sand (SM)

Poorly graded sand with gravel

(SP)

Well-graded gravel with sand (GW)

AASHTO Classification A-4 A-7-6 (49) A-2-4 A-1-a A-1-a

Liquid Limit (LL)1 32 68 31 NP NP

Plastic Limit (PL)2 34 23 22 NP NP

Plasticity Index (PI) 2 45 9 NP NP

Specific Gravity (Gs) (Assumed)

2.60 2.70 2.65 2.70 2.70

Gravel Size (%) (> 4.75 mm) 1.0 0.3 2.4 36.2 80.8

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

15.7 4.0 65.0 62.8 19.2

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

67.5 21.1 21.7 1.0 0

Clay Size (%) (≤ 0.002 mm) 15.8 74.6 10.9 0 0

D10 (mm) ― ― 0.002 0.362 1.580

D30 (mm) 0.01 ― 0.07 1.03 7.95

D60 (mm) 0.04 ― 0.14 4.00 17.57

Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu ― ― 87.3 11.1 11.1

Coefficient of Curvature, Cc ― ― 19.7 0.7 2.3

Lab Proctor compaction energies

5 5 5 5 04

Field compaction curves Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Compaction machine 825H 815F CS56 CS-563E CS-563E

Drum type Padfoot Padfoot Padfoot shell kit Smooth drum Smooth drum 1 – ASTM reported standard deviation 0.98 – 1.07 (2 soils tested by different operators in same lab); 2 – ASTM reported standard deviation 1.07 – 1.21 (2 soils tested by different operators in same lab); 3 – ASTM reported standard deviation + 1.66 (Multilaboratory precision); 4 – Gyratory and vibratory compaction was performed

14

#10

#40 #10

0

#20

0

#43/8"

1.5"

0.00

2

SandGravel Silt Clay

1" 3/4

"

#203" 2"

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Pe

rcen

t P

ass

ing

0

20

40

60

80

100PLLLPIUSAA

Figure 10. Grain size distribution curve – Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)

#10

#40 #1

00

#2

00

#43/8

"

1.5

"

0.0

02

SandGravel Silt Clay

1" 3/4

"

#20

3" 2"

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Per

cent

P

assi

ng

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 11. Grain size distribution curve – Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)

15

#10

#40

#100

#200

#4

3/8

"

1.5

"

0.0

02

SandGravel Silt Clay

1" 3/4

"

#20

3" 2"

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Per

cent

P

assi

ng

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 12. Grain size distribution curve – North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)

#10

#4

0

#100

#200

#43/8

"

1.5

"

0.0

02

SandGravel Silt Clay

1" 3/4

"

#20

3" 2"

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Per

cent

P

assi

ng

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 13. Grain size distribution curve – North Dakota recycled asphalt base (Soil 2045)

16

#10

#40 #1

00

#2

00

#43/8

"

1.5

"

0.0

02

SandGravel Silt Clay

1" 3/4

"

#2

0

3" 2"

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Per

cent

P

assi

ng

0

20

40

60

80

100

#60

Figure 14. Grain size distribution curve – Iowa recycled PCC base (Soil 2046)

Figure 15. Utah silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2042)

17

Figure 16. Texas fat clay subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2043)

Figure 17. North Dakota silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2044)

18

Figure 18. North Dakota recycled asphalt base [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2045)

Figure 19. Iowa recycled PCC base [moisture content ~ 4%] (Soil 2046)

19

Figure 20. Soil groups identified for CFED 2010 database (newly added soils in blue squares/circles and existing soils in red squares/circles)

Laboratory Compaction Tests Results

Proctor Compaction Test Results for Soils #2042, 2043, 2044, and 2045

The Proctor compaction test results for soils #2042 to 2045 are shown in Figure 21 to Figure 24, respectively. Table 4 provides the dry unit weight (d) and moisture content (w) results for all test

20

points. Table 5 summarizes the maximum dry unit weight (dmax) and optimum moisture content (w) for each compaction energy level. CFED output plots from the compaction for soils#2042 to 2045 are shown in Figure 25 to Figure 28, respectively. These results illustrate that with higher Proctor compaction energy the soils achieve higher maximum dry unit weight and lower optimum moisture content. The curves on the wet side of optimum generally tend to parallel the zero air void (ZAV) line (i.e., 100% saturation line). The points of optimum moisture content at each energy level also tend to parallel to the ZAV line. These relationships are common for non-granular soils and some granular soil types from Proctor tests.

w (%)

14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

d (

kN/m

3)

13

14

15

16

17

d (

lb/f

t3)

85

90

95

100

105

ZAV (Gs=2.6)

Lab Data-SSLab Data-SLab Data-SSMLab Data-SMLab Data-M

ZAV lineGs=2.6

Figure 21. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)

w (%)

10 15 20 25 30

d (k

N/m

3 )

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

d (

lb/f

t3)

80

90

100

110

ZAV (Gs=2.7)

Lab Data-SSLab Data-SLab Data-SSMLab Data-SMLab Data-M

ZAV lineGs=2.7

Figure 22. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)

21

w (%)

4 8 12 16 20 24

d (k

N/m

3 )

14

15

16

17

18

19

d (

lb/f

t3 )

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

ZAV (Gs=2.65)

Lab Data-SSLab Data-SLab Data-SSMLab Data-SMLab Data-M

ZAV lineGs=2.65

Figure 23. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)

w (%)

4 6 8 10 12

d (

kN/m

3 )

19.0

19.5

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

22.0

d (

lb/f

t3 )

123

126

129

132

135

138

ZAV (Gs=2.70)

Lab Data-SS

Lab Data-S

Lab Data-SSM

Lab Data-SM

Lab Data-M

ZAV lineGs=2.70

Figure 24. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies – North Dakota recycled asphalt base material (Soil 2045)

22

Table 4. CFED 2010 database Proctor test results

Soil UT silty

subgrade (Soil 2042)

TX fat clay subgrade

(Soil 2043)

ND silty subgrade

(Soil 2044)

ND recycled asphalt base (Soil 2045)

Energy Level

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

SS

21.7 87.6 20.3 82.3 12.0 96.0 7.4 124.8 23.9 91.1 22.1 80.5 14.1 99.3 8.5 128.2 25.3 93.8 24.3 82.6 15.5 102.6 10.0 128.0 27.6 90.9 25.1 83.5 17.6 101.4 11.3 126.1 30.2 89.0 29.4 83.7 20.4 99.9 9.4 128.6

S

19.0 91.5 16.9 85.4 9.9 102.2 6.0 126.0 21.7 94.6 20.7 89.6 13.7 106.4 7.0 128.2 24.3 95.8 23.4 93.3 16.1 107.4 8.5 130.4 26.3 93.2 24.6 92.4 19.1 105.6 8.9 130.7 28.2 90.5 28.2 89.8 20.8 102.1 10.6 128.8

SSM

17.4 94.4 16.6 91.4 9.6 105.0 6.7 130.1 18.8 95.8 18.4 91.7 12.2 108.4 7.4 130.7 21.6 99.0 24.6 96.2 13.9 111.8 8.4 133.1 23.3 98.5 20.6 95.4 15.6 113.4 9.5 131.7 24.7 96.0 22.8 97.0 17.8 109.6 10.9 128.2

SM

15.7 97.0 16.9 96.4 8.7 108.4 5.5 129.4 17.5 96.6 17.9 96.7 10.8 111.1 6.5 131.7 19.4 99.0 20.4 100.3 12.9 114.0 8.1 133.5 21.5 101.3 22.3 100.8 14.3 115.5 9.2 132.2 23.3 99.3 26.9 96.0 16.5 113.3 10.0 130.6

M

15.7 99.6 11.1 104.2 7.4 114.5 5.3 129.9 17.5 102.3 14.8 106.5 9.3 117.8 6.9 135.1 18.9 104.1 16.3 107.7 11.4 119.8 8.0 136.3 21.0 103.2 17.6 108.5 13.0 119.5 8.6 134.4 22.7 99.2 20.5 106.6 15.4 116.2 9.3 132.4

Table 5. CFED 2010 database of optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight

from Proctor test results

Soil UT silty

subgrade (Soil 2042)

TX fat clay subgrade

(Soil 2043)

ND silty subgrade

(Soil 2044)

ND recycled asphalt base (Soil 2045)

Energy Level

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

w (%)

d (lb/ft3)

SS 25.3 93.8 27.0 84.0 15.5 102.6 10.0 128.1

S 24.3 95.8 23.4 93.3 15.8 106.7 8.9 130.7

SSM 21.6 99.0 20.8 96.7 15.6 113.4 9.5 131.8

SM 21.5 101.3 22.3 100.8 14.3 115.5 8.1 133.5

M 18.9 104.1 17.6 108.5 11.4 119.8 8.0 136.3

23

Figure 25. CFED output graphs for Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)

24

Figure 25 (contd.). CFED output graphs for Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)

25

Figure 26. CFED output graphs for Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)

26

Figure 26 (contd.). CFED output graphs for Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)

27

Figure 27. CFED output graphs for North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)

28

Figure 27 (contd.). CFED output graphs for North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)

29

Figure 28. CFED output graphs for North Dakota recycled asphalt material (Soil 2045)

30

Figure 28 (contd.). CFED output graphs for North Dakota recycled asphalt material (Soil 2045)

31

Proctor, Gyratory, and Vibratory Compaction Test Results for Soil #2046

The compaction characteristics of the recycled PCC base material (soil #2046) were studied using Proctor, gyratory and vibratory compaction methods. This study was conducted to assess the influence of these different compaction methods on the dry density of the material in relationship with the applied compaction energy and gradation changes in the material due to particle break-down during compaction. The advantage with gyratory and vibratory methods is that a full compaction curve (i.e., change in density with increasing compaction energy) at a given moisture content can be generated on one sample. While with Proctor compaction method multiple samples have to be compacted with different compaction energy’s to generate a compaction curve. For this study, the RPCC material was compacted at its natural field moisture content (about 3%). Figure 29 shows the w and d relationships obtained from standard and modified Proctor, vibratory, and gyratory compaction tests. The d from vibratory compaction test (88.83 lb/ft3) was determined after 8 minutes of vibration according to ASTM D4253. The d values from the gyratory compaction tests were determined after 100 gyrations with vertical applied pressures (o) of 2089 psf (100 kPa), 6266 psf (300 kPa) and 12531 psf (600 kPa). The d values achieved using the standard Proctor, the vibratory, and the o = 2089 psf (100 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar (88.8 to 91.0 lb/ft3). The d values achieved using the modified Proctor and o = 12531 psf (600 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar (105.1 to 107.2 lb/ft3). Figure 30 provides compaction curves from gyratory compaction tests in terms of change in d and shear resistance (G) determined from PDA versus number of gyrations. A recent study by White et al. (2009) indicated that G determined from PDA correlates well with soil shear strength and resilient modulus properties. Figure 31 shows a compaction curve in terms of change in d with increasing vibratory compaction time. Results presented in Figure 30 and Figure 31 and Proctor tests were used to determine the compaction energy versus d relationships (Figure 32), using the approach explained earlier in the Laboratory Test Methods chapter of this report. Particle-size analysis tests were performed before compaction and after compaction testing using each compaction method and the results are presented in Figure 33. Gradation parameters (i.e., percent gravel, sand, and silt+clay) of materials before and after compaction are summarized in Table 6. The results indicate that the particle break-down was more in the sample compacted using the modified Proctor method (gravel size decreased from 95% to 66% and sand size increased from 3 to 31%) compared to all other methods. Vibratory compaction resulted in relatively less break-down (gravel size decreased from 95% to 94% and sand size increased from 3% to 5%) than all other methods. The amount of particle break down from gyratory compaction increased with increasing o (i.e., sand size increased from 3% to about 15%, 16%, and 24% with o = 2089 psf, 6266 psf, and 12531 psf, respectively).

32

w (%)

0 2 4 6 8

d (

lb/f

t3)

72

78

84

90

96

102

108

114

d (

kN/m

3)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18Standard ProctorModified ProctorVibratory (8 minutes)Gyratory (o=2089 psf)

Gyratory (o=6266 psf)

Gyratory (o=12531 psf)

Figure 29. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction – recycled PCC base

Number of gyrations

0 20 40 60 80 100

d (

lb/f

t3 )72

78

84

90

96

102

108

114

d (

kN/m

3)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

2089 psf6266 psf12531psf

Number of gyrations

0 20 40 60 80 100

G (

psf

)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

G (

kPa

)

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2089 psf6266 psf12531psf

w =2.8%

w =3.2%

w =3.0%

w =2.8%

w =3.2%

w =3.0%

Figure 30. Dry unit weight and shear resistance versus number of gyrations during gyratory compaction

33

Time (min.)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

d (

kN/m

3 )

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

d (

lb/f

t3 )

72

78

84

90

96

102

108

114

Figure 31. Dry unit weight versus energy during vibratory compaction

Energy (lb-ft/ft3)

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

d (

lb/f

t3 )

72

78

84

90

96

102

108

114

Energy (kN-m/m3)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

d (

kN/m

3 )

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Standard ProctorModified ProctorVibratory Gyratory

o= 12531 psf

6266 psf

2089 psf

Sta

nd

ard

Pro

cto

r

Mo

difi

ed

Pro

ctor

Figure 32. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction energy – recycled PCC base

34

#10 #4

0

#10

0

#200

#4

3/8

"

SandGravel

1/2

"

3/4

"

#20

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.010.1110100

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

0

20

40

60

80

100

Before CompactionStandard ProctorModified ProctorVibratory

#10 #4

0

#100

#200

#4

3/8"

SandGravel

1/2

"

3/4

"

#20

Grain Diameter (mm)

0.010.1110100

Per

cent

P

ass

ing

0

20

40

60

80

100

Before CompactionGyratory (2089 psf)Gyratory (6266 psf)Gyratory (12531 psf)

Silt + clay

Silt + clay

Figure 33. Comparison of particle size breakdown by using different compaction methods

Table 6. Particle size properties results from different compaction methods

Compaction methods Gravel Size (%)

Sand Size (%)

Silt + Clay Size (%)

Before compaction 95.2 3.3 1.5

Standard Proctor 84.4 12.7 2.9

Modified Proctor 65.5 31.3 3.2

Vibratory compaction 93.7 5.2 1.1

Gyratory compaction (100 kPa) 83.1 14.7 2.2

Gyratory compaction (300 kPa) 82.2 15.9 1.9

Gyratory compaction (600 kPa) 73.5 23.5 3.0

35

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN SITU DATA AND MINERALOGY DATA PRESENTATION IN CFED

This chapter presents recommendations for presentation of in-situ test data and mineralogy information in CFED. In addition, recommended English and system international (SI) units for in-situ test measurements are also presented.

Roller and In Situ Point Data Presentation in CFED

Examples plots presenting roller compaction data in-situ point measurement data are provided in Figure 34 to Figure 37. Figure 34 presents roller-integrated MDP* plots with distance on the x-axis for multiple roller passes on a calibration strip. This plot will help visually identify variability in MDP* across a calibration test strip and change in MDP* with increasing passes. Figure 35 presents change in MDP* and in-situ test measurements with increasing number of passes (also referred to as compaction curves). The solid black points in Figure 35 represent the average value per pass while the gray points represents the actual data from multiple test locations along the test strip. Figure 36 presents comparison between MDP* and in-situ test measurement along a calibration test strip for multiple roller passes. Figure 37 presents results from simple linear regression analysis between MDP* and in-situ point measurements. The in-situ point measurements are spatially paired with the nearest MDP* data. In this regression plot, the in-situ test measurement is considered as a “true” independent variable (plotted on the x-axis) and the roller measurement is considered as a dependent value (plotted on the y-axis). The plot shows the best fit regression line and 80% and 90% prediction intervals. Formula for plotting the prediction intervals are provided in Eqs. 6 and 7.

)pred(styedictionPr )2n;2/(

(6)

2

i

2

)XX(

)XX(

n

11MSE)pred(s (7)

where,

y = predicted y-value corresponding to an point measurement value X, MSE = mean

squared error, n = number of measurements, X = point measurement value, X = mean of point measurement values, /2 = probability. Plotting prediction intervals can assist in selecting target values from calibration testing. A summary of recommended English and SI units for different laboratory and in-situ test measurements and multiplication factors to convert the English units to SI units are provided in Table 7.

36

Distance (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

MD

P*

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Pass 1Pass 2Pass 4Pass 8Pass 12Pass 16

Figure 34. Example of MDP* plots for multiple passes on a calibration test strip

Pass Number

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

LW

D M

odu

lus,

EL

WD

-Z2

(MP

a)

0

20

40

60

80

Pass Number

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Dry

Un

it W

eigh

t,

d (

pcf

)

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

Pass Number

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Cal

iforn

ia B

earin

g R

atio

, C

BR

(%

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pass Number

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

MD

P*

80

100

120

140

95% Standard Proctor

Figure 35. Example of compaction curves for MDP* and in-situ test measurements with increasing roller passes

37

MD

P*

75

90

105

120

135

150

ELW

D-Z

2 (

MP

a)

0

20

40

60

80

MD

P*

75

90

105

120

135

150

ELW

D-Z

2 (

MP

a)

0

20

40

60

80

MD

P*

75

90

105

120

135

150

ELW

D-Z

2 (

MP

a)

0

20

40

60

80

Distance (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

MD

P*

75

90

105

120

135

150E

LW

D-Z

2 (

MP

a)

0

20

40

60

80

MD

P*

75

90

105

120

135

150

ELW

D-Z

2 (

MP

a)

0

20

40

60

80Pass 1

Pass 2

Pass 4

Pass 8

Pass 16

Figure 36. Example of comparison between MDP* and in-situ test measurements after multiple passes on a calibration test strip

38

ELWD-Z2 (MPa)

20 30 40 50 60 70

MD

P*

60

80

100

120

140

160Data PointsBest Fit Regression Line95% Prediction Intervals80% Prediction Intervals

MDP* = 0.52 ELWD-Z2 + 97.1

R2 = 0.54n = 45

Figure 37. Example of simple linear regression analysis results with prediction intervals

39

Table 7. Recommended English and SI units for laboratory and field measurements

Parameter SymbolEnglish

Unit SI Unit

English to SI (Multiply

by) Reference

Lab

Tes

tin

g Dry Unit Weight

d lb/ft3 or

pcf kN/m3 0.157087 ASTM D698

Moisture Content w % % None ASTM D698

Laboratory Compaction Energy E lb-ft/ft3

kN-

m/m3

0.0484 ASTM D698

Particle sizes N/A inches mm 25.4 N/A

Fie

ld T

esti

ng

Machine Drive Power MDP lb-ft/s kJ/s 0.001356 White et al.

(2004)

Compaction Meter Value CMV Unitless Unitless None White et al.

(2004)

Amplitude a in mm 25.4

N/A Frequency f Hz Hz None

Speed V mph km/h 1.609

Distance D ft m 0.3048

Dry Unit Weight d pcf kN/m

3 0.157087 ASTM D698

Moisture Content w % % None ASTM D698

DCP Index DPI in/blow mm/blo

w 25.4

ASTM D6951

California Bearing Ratio CBR % % None ASTM D6951

Zorn LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-Z2

ksi MPa 0.006895

ASTM D6758

Zorn LWD (300mm plate) Modulus ELWD-Z3

ksi MPa 0.006895

Dynatest LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-D2

ksi MPa 0.006895

Dynatest LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-D3

ksi MPa 0.006895

Keros LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-K2

ksi MPa 0.006895

Keros LWD (300mm plate) Modulus ELWD-K3

ksi MPa 0.006895

KUAB FWD (300 mm plate) Modulus EFWD-K3

ksi MPa 0.006895

Dynatest FWD (300 mm plate) Modulus EFWD-D3

ksi MPa 0.006895

PLT (300 mm plate) Initial Modulus EV1

ksi MPa 0.006895

PLT (300 mm plate) Reload Modulus EV2

ksi MPa 0.006895

PLT Stiffness kPLT

klbf/in N/m 175.1268

SSG Modulus ESSG

ksi MPa 0.006895

SSG Stiffness kSSG

klbf/in N/m 175.1268

Clegg Hammer Index Value CIV Unitless Unitless Unitless ASTM D5874

Notes: DCP – Dynamic cone penetrometer, LWD – light weight deflectometer, FWD – falling weight deflectometer, PLT – plate load test, SSG – soil stiffness gauge, CIV – Clegg impact value

40

Mineralogy Data Presentation in CFED

Some examples of presenting soil mineralogy information include images of scanning electron microscope (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. The SEM images have a x20 to x 150,000 magnification range and a depth of field about 300 times greater than that of a light microscope (Mitchell and Soga 2005). The shape of clay particles (which can be helpful in identifying type of clay minerals) and fracture surfaces through the soil masses can be viewed directly at high magnification and depth ranges. Some examples of SEM images for soils from the Kumming airport project in China are presented in Figure 38. XRD is a commonly used method to identify fine-grained soil minerals and to study crystal structures in soils (Mitchell and Soga 2005). Example XRD spectrum charts for soils from Kumming airport project in China are presented in Figure 39. These charts show reflected intensities on y-axis versus the detector angle 2 on the x-axis. The patterns of these intensities are matched with patterns of known materials to identify the minerals.

Figure 38. SEM images of soils from Kumming airport in China showing flat, plate like clay structure

41

Figure 39. XRD analysis results of soils from Kumming airport in China

42

EARTHWORK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS

Background

One of the research tasks of this project was to develop a database of volumetric factors (i.e., shrinkage and swell factors) for a new CFED module to aid in estimating earthwork quantities. These factors relate to soil volume changes between the bank, the excavated/loose, and the final compacted states as illustrated in Figure 40. Shrinkage factor is a parameter that represents soil volume changes from the bank state to the compacted state. Swell factor is a parameter that represents soil volume changes from the bank state to the loose state. Understanding these relationships for different soil types and the factors influencing these parameters are critical for accurately predicting quantities and cost (Burch 1997). The shrinkage/swell factors are influenced by the material type (i.e., clay, silt, sand, gravel, etc), in-situ moisture content of the material (i.e., dry, damp, or wet), final compacted moisture content and density of the material, and the type of equipment used for excavation and compaction (CAT Handbook 2008 and Helton 1992).

Figure 40. Illustration of soil volumetric changes in bank, loose, and compacted states

Most construction estimators use the shrinkage and swell factors based on local experience, historical information, approximate values provided in earthwork quantity estimation handbooks (e.g., Burch 1997), or recommendations from local governmental agencies (Chopra 1999). Previous research studies conducted by Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) (Chopra

43

1999) and Georgia DOT (Scruggs 1990) indicated that factors adopted without extensive knowledge of local soils cause over- or under-prediction of earthwork quantities and in turn affects the overall project costs. Scruggs (1990) indicated that the actual shrinkage factors can exceed published values resulting in cost over runs in Georgia.

Shrinkage and Swell Factor Database

A detailed review of literature was conducted as part of this project to summarize the shrinkage and swell factors documented for various soil types. A total of nine references (BS-6031 1981, BCFS 1995, FLH 1996, Burch 1997, Chopra 1999, Look 2007, Peurifoy and Schexnayder 2006, Helton 2007, and CAT Handbook 2008) were reviewed to populate the database. Shrinkage factor is calculated as the ratio of the compacted dry unit weight to the back dry unit weight (Eq. 8), while the swell factor is calculated as the ratio of loose dry unit weight to the bank dry unit weight (Eq. 9).

d

d

bank

compacted factor Shrinkage (8)

d

d

bank

loose factor Swell (9)

The procedure to determine shrinkage and swell factors varied between references. Therefore, all the values presented in this report were back-calculated using the equations presented above. Shrinkage and swell factor values of 154 different materials were collected. For brevity, these materials were grouped into seven material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other soils. The range, average, and standard deviation of shrinkage and swell factors for these material groups are summarized in Table 8. Actual reported data for these different materials are provided in Table 9. None of the references presented shrinkage and swell factors linking the type of equipment used. The swell factor statistics presented in Table 8 indicate that the values have a narrow range for gravel soils (minimum value – maximum value = 0.11) compared to other soils (with minimum value – maximum value = 0.22 to 0.44). The reported shrinkage factors have vary more than the swell factors, as the shrinkage factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction achieved in the field. Further literature review revealed that reports are limited for shrinkage factors. Only three of the nine references presented shrinkage factors (for a total of 10 materials out of 154 materials). Of those, only one reference (i.e., Burch 1997) provided shrinkage factors linked to percent compaction relative to laboratory Proctor tests. Future research is warranted emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of these factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification, gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements.

44

Table 8. Summary of shrinkage and swell factors for different material groups

Material Group

Shrinkage Factor Swell Factor

References Range

Average ± Standard Deviation Range

Average ± Standard Deviation

Rocks Not available Not available 0.58 to 0.80 0.69 ± 0.06

Look (2007), BS 6031 (1981), Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006),

CAT Handbook 2008, FLH (1996), Helton

(2007)

Gravels 0.78 to 1.00 0.89 ± 0.16 0.80 to 0.91 0.87 ± 0.03

Burch (1997), Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006),

Look (2007), BS 6031(1981), CAT

Handbook (2008), Helton (2007)

Sands 0.72 to 1.25 (*) 1.02 ± 0.17 (*) 0.60 to 0.95 0.84 ± 0.09

Burch (1997), BCFS (1995), Chopra (1999),

Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006),

Look (2007) BS 6031 (1981), CAT

Handbook (2008), FLH (1996)

Silts 1.10** —** 0.60 to 0.87 0.74 ± 0.09 BCFS (1995), BS 6031

(1981), FLH (1996)

Clays 0.82 to 1.10 0.97 ± 0.10 (*) 0.60 to 1.00 0.77 ± 0.08

Burch (1997), BCFS (1995), Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006),

Look (2007), BS 6031(1981), CAT

Handbook (2008), FLH (1996), Helton (2007)

Minerals Not available Not available 0.56 to 1.00 0.67 ± 0.10 FLH (1996), Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006),

CAT Handbook (2008) Other Not available Not available 0.57 to 0.80 0.67 ± 0.09

*compacted dry unit weight varied between 85% standard Proctor to 100% modified Proctor; **only one reference value

45

Table 9. Shrinkage and swell factors from literature review

Material Type

Material Description Shrinkage

Factor Swell

Factor Reference

Rocks

Igneous rocks

Not Reported

0.62

Look (2007) Metamorphic rocks 0.70

Sedimentary rocks 0.65

Soft rocks 0.74

Soft rocks, rubble 0.71 BS 6031(1981)

Rock, well blasted 0.63 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006) Decomposed rock (75% rock, 25% earth)

0.70

CAT Handbook (2008) Decomposed rock (50% rock, 50% earth)

0.75

Decomposed rock (25% rock, 75% earth)

0.80

Broken taprock 0.67 75% R. 25% E. Decomposed rock

0.76

FLH (1996)***

50% R. 50% E. Decomposed rock

0.72

25% R. 75% E. Decomposed rock

0.70

Masonry, rubble 0.60

Riprap rock 0.58

Solid Rock 0.62 to

0.71 Helton (2007)

Gravels

Wet gravel 0.78*-1.00**

0.80 Burch (1997)

Earth and gravel

Not Reported

0.83 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006) Gravel, dry 0.89

Gravel, wet 0.88

Gravels 0.89 Look (2007) Silty gravel (GM) and Clayey gravel (GC)

0.87 BS 6031(1981)

Dry clay & gravel 0.85

CAT Handbook (2008)

Wet clay & gravel 0.85

Pit-run gravel 0.89 Dry gravel 0.89 Dry 6-50 mm gravel 0.89 Wet 6-50 mm gravel 0.89 Dry sand & gravel 0.89 Wet sand & gravel 0.91

Gravel

0.84 to 0.91

Helton (2007)

*85 to 95% standard Proctor; **100% modified Proctor, ***cross-referenced the data provided by Western Construction in 1958.

46

Material Type

Material Description Shrinkage

Factor Swell

Factor Reference

Sands

Dry sand 0.72*-1.00**

0.79 Burch (1997)

Wet sand 0.88*-1.00**

0.84

Clean sand 1.05 0.89 BCFS (1995)

Common sand 1.11 0.80

Sandy soils (A-3) 1.18-1.25 0.80 Chopra (1999)

Sand, dry

Not Reported

0.87 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)

Sand, wet 0.87

Uniform sand 0.89 Look (2007)

Well graded sand 0.89 Well graded sands (SW), Poorly graded sands (SP), Silty sands (SM), and Clayey sands (SC)

0.91 BS 6031 (1981)

Dry, loose sand 0.89

CAT Handbook (2008)

Damp sand 0.89

Wet sand 0.89

Loose sand & clay 0.79

Dry sand & gravel 0.89

Wet sand & gravel 0.91

Sandstone 0.60

Dry sand 0.90

FLH (1996)*** Wet sand 0.95

Sandstone 0.62

Silts

Clayey silt or clay 1.10 0.77 BCFS (1995) Silty gravel (GM) and Clayey gravel (GC)

Not Reported

0.87

BS 6031 (1981) Low plasticity silt (ML) 0.77 Organic silts/clays of low plasticity (OL)

0.77

Silt 0.74

FLH (1996)*** Dry loess 0.67

Wet loess 0.60

***cross-referenced the data provided by Western Construction in 1958.

47

Material Type

Material Description Shrinkage

Factor Swell

Factor Reference

Clays

Dry clay 0.82*-1.00**

0.75 Burch (1997)

Wet clay 0.89*-1.00**

0.78

Hard pan 1.00 0.80 BCFS (1995)

Clayey silt or clay 1.10 0.77 Clay, dry

Not Reported

0.74 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)

Clay, wet 0.74

Peat/topsoil 0.75

Look (2007) Clays 0.77 Gravelly clays 0.77 Organic clays 0.77 Low plasticity clays (CL) 0.77

BS 6031(1981) Organic silts/clays of low plasticity (OL)

0.77

Loam earth 0.81

CAT Handbook (2008)

Natural bed clay 0.82 Dry clay 0.81 Wet clay 0.80 Dry clay & gravel 0.85

Wet clay & gravel 0.85

Loose sand & clay 0.79

Dry clay 0.67

FLH (1996)***

Damp clay 0.60

(Dry) Earth, loam 0.67

(Damp) Earth, loam 0.70

(Wet, mud) Earth, loam 1.00

Bentonite 0.74

Dry gumbo 0.67

Wet gumbo 0.60

Loam

0.80 to

0.87 Helton (2007)

Dense Clay

0.74 to

0.83 *85 to 95% standard Proctor; **100% modified Proctor, ***cross-referenced the data provided by Western Construction in 1958.

48

Material Type

Material Description Shrinkage

Factor Swell

Factor Reference

Minerals

Andesite

Not Reported

0.60

FLH (1996)***

Basalt 0.61 Breccia 0.75 Calcite-Calcium 0.60 Caliche 0.86

Chalk 0.67

Charcoal 1.00

Feldspar 0.60 Diorite 0.60 Dolomite 0.60 Gabbro 0.60 Gneiss 0.60 Igneous rocks 0.60 Granite 0.58 Dry kaolinite 0.67 Wet kaolinite 0.60 Marble 0.60 Marl 0.60

Mica 0.60

Pumice 0.60

Quartz 0.60

Quartzite 0.60

Rhyolite 0.60

Schist 0.60

Shale 0.56

Slate 0.56

Talc 0.60

Limestone 0.61

Tuff 0.67

***cross-referenced the data provided by Western Construction in 1958.

49

Material Type

Material Description Shrinkage

Factor Swell

Factor Reference

Minerals

Limestone

Not Reported

0.63 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)

Shale 0.71 Basalt 0.67

CAT Handbook (2008)

Bsuxite, Kaolin 0.75 Caliche 0.55

Carnotite, uranium ore 0.74

Clinders 0.66 Anthracite, raw coal 0.74 Washed coal 0.74 Ash, Bituminous Coal 0.93 Bituminous, raw coal 0.74 Washed coal 0.74 Hematite, iron ore, high grade

0.85

Granite - Broken 0.61 Magnetite, iron ore 0.85 Pyrite, iron ore 0.85 Broen limestone 0.59

Shale 0.75

Taconite 0.58

Other soils

Earth, dry

Not Reported

0.80 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)

Earth, wet 0.80

Dry packed earth 0.80

CAT Handbook (2008)

Wet excavated earth 0.79

Broen gypsum 0.57

Crushed gypsum 0.57

Broken slag 0.60

Crushed stone 0.60

Top soil 0.70

Cinders 0.75

FLH (1996)***

Conglomerate 0.75

Diotomaceous earth 0.62

Gypsum 0.58

Asphalt Pavement 0.67

Brick Pavement 0.60

Concrete Pavement 0.60

Macadam Pavement 0.60

Peat 0.75

Top soil 0.64 ***cross-referenced the data provided by Western Construction in 1958.

50

Estimation of Wetting and Drying

Estimation of moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil for compaction depends on the bank moisture content. This can be estimated using simple soil three phase diagram as illustrated in Figure 41 and its weight-volume relationships. From the bank to the compacted state, the weight of the solids remains practically unchanged but the weight of water and the volume of air are changed due to drying and compaction process. A step-by-step procedure on how to estimate the amount of water required for a change in moisture content relative to bank moisture content is provided below and an illustrated in Figure 42 for example given parameters. Step 1: Determine the weight of soil solids in compacted state (Ws(c)) using Eqs. (10) and (11), where d(c) = dry unit weight in compacted state in lb/ft3 and VT(c) = total volume in compacted state.

)c(T

)c(ds(c) V

W

(10)

Assume VT(c) = 1 ft3

)c(ds(c) W lbs = Ws(b) (11)

Step 2: Determine the desired change in moisture content from bank to compacted state w using Eq. (12), where w(c) = moisture content of soil in compacted state and w(b) = moisture content of the soil in bank state.

)()( bc ww w (12)

Step 3: Determine the weight of water present in bank state, Ww(b) using Eq. (13) and the weight of water required for the target compaction moisture content, Ww(c) using Eq. (14).

3)b(s)b()b(w ft/gallons

34.8

WwW

(13)

3)c(s)c()c(w ft/gallons

34.8

WwW

(14)

Step 4: Determine the weight of water required to be added or subtracted (i.e., by drying), Ww using Eq. (15).

)b(w)c(ww WWW gallons/ft3 (15)

A missing piece of information in this estimation process, however, is the number of disking passes and time required to achieve the desired decrease in moisture content during drying.

51

White et al. (1999) reported that for 90o to 95oF temperature with sunny and slight breezy weather conditions in Iowa, a moisture decrease of about 1.7 percent/hour was measured on a fat clay soil (classified as CH) after soil disking. More information is warranted in the future to develop empirical relationships between time, disking passes, temperature, humidity, and wind speed, which can be very useful for the contractor in estimating the drying time and potentially control the equipment logistics in field.

Ww(b)

Ws(b)

Vw(b)

Vs(b)

Va(b)

Ws(c)

Ww(c) Vw(c)

Vs(c)

Va(c)

Figure 41. Soil three phase diagram in bank and compacted states showing weight volume relationships

Change in moisture relative to bank moisture content, w (%)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Am

ount

of

wat

er p

er c

ubic

yar

d (in

gal

lons

)

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

SOIL WETTING

SOIL DRYING

RC =

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

Soil: TX Fat ClayStandard Proctor dmax = 93.3 pcfStandard Proctor wopt = 23.4%

Assumptions:Bank d = 90.0 pcf

Bank w = 28.0%

w (%)

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Am

oun

t of

wat

er p

er c

ubi

c ya

rd (

in g

allo

ns)

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5SOIL DRYING

+/- 3% of wopt

Figure 42. Estimation of amount of change in moisture content in compacted state relative to bank moisture content

52

Figure 43 presents a simple nomogram to estimate the mass of water required to be added in gallons for 1% increase in moisture content for different truck speeds. The nomogram can be used if width and depth of soil that requires moisture-conditioning, and a target relative compaction value are known. Note that the percent relative compaction lines presented in the nomogram are based on an assumed 100% RC = 90 pcf and these lines change if the 100% RC value changes. A step-by-step procedure on how to estimate the amount of water required for a 1% change in moisture content are presented below: Step 1: Determine the target width and depth of soil that requires moisture-conditioning to determine the volume of the compacted soil per linear foot using Eq. (16).

VT(c) = Width (ft) x Depth (ft) x 1 ft (16)

Step 2: Determine the target density based on target RC value using Eq. (17), where dmax is the maximum Proctor density.

maxd)c(d RC (17)

Step 2: Determine the weight of solids in compacted state (Ws(c)) and weight of water per 1% increase in moisture content per linear foot (Ww(c)) using Eq. (18) and Eq. (19), respectively.

Ws(c) = d(c) x VT(c) (18)

Ww(c) per 1% increase in moisture content = Ws(c) x 0.01/8.34 gallons/linear foot (19)

Step 3: Determine the weight of water per 1% increase in moisture content per linear foot at different truck speeds (or application rates) v (in miles per hour) using Eq. (20).

Ww(c) per 1% increase in moisture content at selected application rate = Eq. (19) x v (mph) x 88 (20)

53

Wid

th (

ft)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Gallons of water per minute per 1% moisture content

0 50 100 150 200 250

Dep

th 4

in.

5 in

.6

in.

7 in

.8

in.

9 in

.10

in.

11 in

.

12 in.

Rel

ativ

e co

mpa

ctio

n, R

C =

90% 95

%10

0%10

5%11

0%11

5%12

0%

Gal

lons

of

wa

ter

per

linea

r fo

ot p

er 1

% m

oist

ure

2 m

ph

Wat

er tr

uck

trav

el s

peed

= 0

.2 m

ph

0.5

mph

1 m

ph

1.5

mph

3 m

ph

Assumed 100% RC = 90 pcf

Figure 43. Estimation of amount of water per 1% change in moisture content (modified from Bros, Inc., 1964)

54

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

This report presents laboratory test results of five soil samples collected from field project sites in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa to incorporate into the existing CFED database, recommendations for presentation of in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information in CFED, and a database of volumetric factors for earthwork quantity estimation from literature review. The soil samples collected consisted of two granular soils and three non-granular soils as summarized below:

1. Silty subgrade material from Salt Lake City, Utah (Soil 2042) 2. Fat clay subgrade material from Fort Worth, Texas (Soil 2043) 3. Silty subgrade material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2044) 4. Recycled asphalt base material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2045) 5. Recycled PCC base material from I-35, Iowa (Soil 2046)

Laboratory Proctor compaction tests were conducted using five compaction energy levels at different moisture contents for soils # 2042 to #2045, to develop moisture-density-compaction energy relationships. The results indicated that with higher Proctor compaction energy the soils achieve higher maximum dry unit weight and lower optimum moisture content. The curves on the wet side of optimum generally tend to parallel the 100% saturation line. The points of optimum moisture content at each energy level also tend to parallel to the ZAV line. Gyratory and vibratory compaction energies were used to develop density-compaction energy relationships on soil #2046 at its natural moisture content in comparison with standard and modified Proctor energies. The dry unit weight values achieved using the standard Proctor, the vibratory, and the o = 2089 psf (100 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar for the RPCC material. The dry unit weight values achieved using the modified Proctor and o = 12531 psf (600 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar for the RPCC material. Particle-size analysis tests were performed before and after compaction testing using each method to assess particle break-down due to compaction. The results indicated that the particle break-down was more in the sample compacted using the modified Proctor method compared to all other methods. Vibratory compaction resulted in relatively less break-down than all other methods. The amount of particle break down from gyratory compaction increased with increasing applied vertical pressures. A literature review was conducted on earthwork volumetric calculation factors to develop a database of shrinkage and swell factors reported in the literature for various soil types. Shrinkage and swell factors of a total of 154 soils were collected form the literature and grouped into seven material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other soils. The swell factors statistics showed narrow range for gravel soils (minimum value – maximum value = 0.11) compared to other soils (with minimum value – maximum value = 0.22 to 0.44). The shrinkage factors varied more than the swell factors as the shrinkage factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction achieved in the field. Further review revealed that reports are limited for shrinkage factors. Only three out of the nine references reviewed presented shrinkage factors (i.e., for a total of 10 materials out of 154 materials). Of those, only one reference (i.e., Burch 1997) provided shrinkage factors linked to percent compaction relative

55

to laboratory Proctor test. In addition, none of the references presented shrinkage and swell factors linking the type of equipment used. Step-by-step procedures are described above to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil for compaction using bank and compacted soil three phase diagram and weight-volume relationships. These calculations, if included in CFED, can add value to the contractor in estimation and planning stages and also during construction. Future research is warranted emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of shrinkage/swell factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification, gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements.

56

REFERENCES

ASTM. (1983). “Test method for compaction and shear properties of bituminous mixtures by means of the U.S. Corps of Engineers gyratory testing machine.” ASTM D3387, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (1995). “Standard Test Method for Determination of the Impact Value (IV) of a Soil.” ASTM D5874, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2000). “Test method for laboratory compaction characteristics of soils using standard effort.” ASTM D698, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2000). “Test method for laboratory compaction characteristics of soils using modified effort.” ASTM D1557, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2000) “Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density of Soils Using a Vibratory Table” ASTM D4253, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2000) “Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density.” ASTM D4254, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2001). “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.” ASTM C136, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2003) “Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications.” ASTM D6951, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2005). “Test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils.” ASTM D4318, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2007). “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.” ASTM D422, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2008). “Standard Test Method for Measuring Stiffness and Apparent Modulus of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Electro-Mechanical Method.” ASTM D6958, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2009). “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes (AASHTO classification system)”. ASTM D3282, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. (2010). “Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).” ASTM D2487, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.

57

Bros, Inc. (1964). Handbook of In-Place Soil Stabilization, Road Machinery Division, Bros Incorporated, Minneapolis, MN. Burch, D. (1997). Estimating excavation, 4th Reprint, Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, CA. BCFS. (1995). Field Resource Engineering Handbook, British Columbia Forestry Service, Canada. CAT Handbook .(2008). Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 38, Caterpillar Publications, Peoria, IL. Chopra, M.B., (1999). Investigation of Shrink and Swell Factors for Soils Used in FDOT Construction, Final Report, Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. FLH (1996). Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual, U.S. Dept.of Transportation, Report. No.FHWA-DF-88-003, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, D.C. Guler, M, Bahia, H.U., Bosscher, P.J., and Plesha, M.E. (1996). “Device for measuring shear resistance of hot-mix asphalt in gyratory compaction,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1723, 119-124. Hilf, J. (1999). “Chapter 8: Compacted Fill.” Foundation Engineering Handbook, Ed. Fang, H.Y., 2nd Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts. pp.262. Look, B.G., (2007). Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables, Taylor and Francis Group. Mitchell, J.K., Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. McRae, J. L. (1965). Gyratory testing machine technical manual for bituminous mixtures, soils, and base course materials, Engineering Developments Company, Inc., Vicksburg, MA. Peurifoy, R.L., Schexnayder, C.J., and Shapira, A. (2006). Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY. White , D.J., Bergeson, K.L., Jahren, C., Wermager, M. (1999). Embankment Quality Phase II, Final Report, Iowa DOT Project TR-401 Final Report, Center of Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. White, D.J., Jaselskis, E.J., Schaefer, V.R., Cackler, T.E., Drew, I., and Li, L. (2004). Field Evaluation of Compaction Monitoring Technology: Phase I, Final Report, Center of Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

58

White, D.J., Puls, J., Vennapusa, P., and Thompson, M., (2008). Compaction Forecasting Development, Validation, and Application Research, Final Report, Center of Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. White, D.J., Vennapusa, P., Zhang, J., Gieselman, H., and Morris, M. (2009). Implementation of Intelligent Compaction Performance Based Specifications in Minnesota. Final Report MN/RC-2009-07, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.

59

APPENDIX: GRADATION TEST RESULTS FOR CFED SOILS

Soil ID SOIL0152 SOIL1632 SOIL1633

Sampled by Susan Grandone/

Dr. White Iowa State University

Iowa State University

Date 2003 2005 2005

Description Back up of SOIL0150

Glacial Till, Iowa 2005 compaction

test (Edward)

Weatheres Shale, Iowa 2005

compaction test (Edward)

Liquid Limit ― 24 35 Plastic Limit ― 15 24 Specific Gravity ― 2.66 2.77 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

― 13.9 16.2

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

― 18.0 17.7

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

14.0 1.4 0.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

42.5 46.3 9.1

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

30.2 37.7 51.7

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

13.3 14.6 39.2

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 99.5 100.0 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 93.5 99.3 100.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 86.0 98.6 99.8 #10 (2.00 mm) 78.3 97.2 99.7 #20 (0.85 mm) 73.2 92.3 98.6 #40 (0.425 mm) 67.2 85.3 97.4 #60 (0.250 mm) 57.6 74.6 96.0 #100 (0.15 mm) 49.9 62.9 94.2 #200 (0.075 mm) 43.5 52.3 90.9

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.03122 27.5 0.03062 32.4 0.02064 77.6 0.02017 23.9 0.01992 28.4 0.01389 72.4 0.01193 19.4 0.01154 24.6 0.00849 66.5 0.00850 18.2 0.00826 22.1 0.00636 60.3 0.00615 13.3 0.00593 20.2 0.00472 54.6 0.00123 8.1 0.00293 15.7 0.00245 41.9

0.00123 13.5 0.00109 30.0

60

Soil ID SOIL1634 SOIL0135 SOIL1636

Sampled by Iowa State University

Iowa State University

Iowa State University

Date 2005 2005 2005

Description Loess, Iowa 2005 compaction test

(Edward)

Glacial Till (W. Ill, PPG), Iowa 2005 compaction test

(Edward)

Glacial Till (Edward), Iowa

2005 compaction test (Edward)

Liquid Limit 29 19 29 Plastic Limit 23 11 16 Specific Gravity 2.72 2.72 2.70 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

18.6 8.1 12.1

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

15.9 21.0 19.0

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

0.0 14.0 4.2

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

2.9 42.5 26.9

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

90.6 34.6 43.8

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

6.5 8.9 25.1

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 98.9 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 99.5 98.9 0.375 (9.5 mm) 100.0 93.5 97.3 #4 (4.75 mm) 100.0 86.0 95.8 #10 (2.00 mm) 100.0 78.3 93.4 #20 (0.85 mm) 99.6 73.2 91.1 #40 (0.425 mm) 99.2 67.2 88.4 #60 (0.250 mm) 99.0 57.6 82.3 #100 (0.15 mm) 98.6 49.9 74.6 #200 (0.075 mm) 97.1 43.5 68.9

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0293 40.0 0.03122 27.5 0.02079 51.6 0.0201 24.6 0.02017 23.9 0.01446 46.6 0.0121 15.0 0.01194 19.4 0.00936 38.4 0.0087 12.5 0.00851 18.2 0.00686 34.4 0.0062 10.6 0.00615 13.3 0.00502 31.1 0.0031 7.5 0.00123 8.1 0.00111 23.0 0.0013 4.9

61

Soil ID SOIL1637 SOIL1638 SOIL1640

Sampled by Iowa State University

Iowa State University

N. Carolina DOT

Date 2005 2005 2006

Description

Clay (C. Iowa, 728) Iowa 2005

compaction test (Edward)

Clay (C. Iowa, GS) Iowa 2005

compaction test (Edward)

Red Lean Clay with sand - ISU 06-004

Liquid Limit 42 49 45 Plastic Limit 32 30 24 Specific Gravity 2.70 2.77 ― Standard Proctor wopt (%)

19.6 22.4 22.1

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

16.3 15.5 15.1

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

0.4 0.0 8.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

1.2 2.8 25.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

69.1 63.8 23.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

29.3 33.4 40.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 94 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 92 0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.6 100.0 89 #4 (4.75 mm) 99.6 100.0 88 #10 (2.00 mm) 99.6 99.9 88 #20 (0.85 mm) 99.3 99.6 - #40 (0.425 mm) 99.1 98.9 82 #60 (0.250 mm) 98.9 98.4 - #100 (0.15 mm) 98.7 97.9 69 #200 (0.075 mm) 98.4 97.2 63

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.02561 77.0 0.02514 79.2 0.0292 49.2 0.01750 63.7 0.01726 66.2 0.0186 47.7 0.01090 48.7 0.01069 53.2 0.0108 45.4 0.00788 42.3 0.00778 47.1 0.0077 43.9 0.00566 37.7 0.00560 42.6 0.0055 41.6 0.00119 27.4 0.00117 31.3 0.0027 40.7

0.0011 37.7

62

Soil ID SOIL2001 SOIL2003 SOIL2004

Sampled by Mark Thomson,

Iowa State University

Mark Thomson, Iowa State University

Mark Thomson, Iowa State University

Date 2005 2006 2005

Description Glacial Till (

W.ILL, Edward B) - Sandy lean clay

Kickpoo Topsoil - Silt

Kickpoo Fill Clay - Lean clay with sand

Liquid Limit 29 38 47 Plastic Limit 17 25 25 Specific Gravity 2.75 2.65 2.85 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

13.9 19.3 16.9

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

18.5 16.0 17.8

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

3.1 0.2 1.2

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

28.9 7.9 20.3

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

45.5 73.9 58.6

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

22.5 18.0 20.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.4 100.0 99.7 #4 (4.75 mm) 96.9 99.8 98.9 #10 (2.00 mm) 94.4 99.2 97.5 #20 (0.85 mm) - - - #40 (0.425 mm) 88.5 96.2 91.1 #60 (0.250 mm) - - - #100 (0.15 mm) 74.8 93.0 82.1 #200 (0.075 mm) 68.0 91.9 78.6

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.023 54.7 0.020 68.2 0.023 58.2 0.016 47.8 0.015 55.2 0.016 49.3 0.010 36.4 0.010 42.7 0.010 37.4 0.007 33.9 0.007 35.6 0.008 32.5 0.005 30.4 0.005 30.2 0.006 28.5 0.003 24.5 0.003 21.5 0.003 22.0

63

Soil ID SOIL2005 SOIL2006 SOIL2007

Sampled by Mark Thomson,

Iowa State University

Mark Thomson, Iowa State University

Mark Thomson, Iowa State University

Date 2005 2005 2005

Description Kickapoo Sand - Well graded sand

with silt

RAP - Silty gravel with sand

CA6-C - Silty sand with Gravel

Liquid Limit NP 15 14 Plastic Limit NP NP NP Specific Gravity 2.70 2.52 2.69 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

4.8 9.0 9.8

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

18.3 19.4 19.6

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

8.9 44.0 37.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

84.6 42.0 52.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

3.3 11.0 9.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

3.2 3.0 2.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 99.0 99.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 98.0 96.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.7 84.0 79.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 91.1 56.0 63.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 74.4 40.0 46.0 #20 (0.85 mm) - - - #40 (0.425 mm) 43.0 21.0 24.0 #60 (0.250 mm) - - - #100 (0.15 mm) 10.4 17.0 17.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 6.5 16.0 13.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.033 6.6 0.0337 8.8 0.0316 9.7 0.021 5.8 0.0215 8.3 0.0203 8.4 0.012 5.4 0.0126 6.7 0.012 6.0 0.009 5.0 0.009 5.6 0.006 5.0 0.006 4.6 0.0064 5.3 0.0062 3.9 0.003 3.4 0.0032 4.0 0.0031 2.6

0.0013 3.2 0.0013 2.1

64

Soil ID SOIL2008 SOIL2009 SOIL2010

Sampled by Mark Thomson,

Iowa State University

Mark Thomson, Iowa State University

Mark Thomson, Iowa State University

Date 2005 2005 2006

Description FA6 - Silty Sand CA6-G(Aug05) - Clayey gravel with

sand

MnRoad Glacial Till - Sandy lean Clay

Liquid Limit 17 26 32 Plastic Limit NP 14 13 Specific Gravity 2.68 2.67 2.69 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

7.9 9.5 15.0

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

19.9 19.9 17.3

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

9.0 37.0 3.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

70.0 31.0 37.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

16.0 22.0 38.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

5.0 10.0 22.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 99.0 92.0 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.0 71.0 100.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 91.0 63.0 99.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 77.0 59.0 96.0 #20 (0.85 mm) - - - #40 (0.425 mm) 57.0 49.0 85.0 #60 (0.250 mm) - - - #100 (0.15 mm) 44.0 37.0 68.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 24.0 34.0 57.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0325 13.9 0.028 27.1 0.0281 48.3 0.02 12.0 0.0187 22.5 0.0185 41.0

0.0122 10.0 0.0113 17.8 0.0110 35.2 0.0086 9.1 0.008 15.9 0.0079 32.0 0.0062 7.6 0.0058 14.0 0.0057 29.1 0.0031 5.7 0.0029 12.0 0.0029 22.3 0.0013 5.3 0.0012 9.7 0.0012 17.9

65

Soil ID SOIL2011 SOIL2012 SOIL2013

Sampled by Mark Thomson,

Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Date 2006 2006 2007

Description

MnRoad Class 5 Base Material -

Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel

CA6-G(June06) - Well-graded sand

with silt

TH60 Soil #1 STA (315+00) - Lean Clay with Sand

Liquid Limit NP NP 27 Plastic Limit NP NP 19 Specific Gravity 2.71 2.75 2.69 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

7.1 8.0 11.7

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

21.3 21.4 18.7

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

30.0 29.5 0.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

60.0 61.0 35.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

7.0 4.2 44.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

3.0 5.3 20.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 98.6 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 87.3 95.8 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 75.0 85.0 99.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 69.8 70.5 99.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 62.7 51.6 96.0 #20 (0.85 mm) - 0.0 93.0 #40 (0.425 mm) 37.9 18.3 88.0 #60 (0.250 mm) - 0.0 81.0 #100 (0.15 mm) 14.0 11.1 74.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 10.0 9.5 64.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.034 6.1 0.034 9.0 0.0336 55.2 0.022 5.3 0.021 9.0 0.0217 49.3 0.012 5.3 0.013 7.1 0.0129 40.1 0.009 4.5 0.009 6.5 0.0092 35.2 0.006 4.5 0.006 5.9 0.0066 31.5 0.003 3.4 0.003 5.3 0.0033 24.2 0.001 2.6 0.0014 17.3

66

Soil ID SOIL2014 SOIL2018 SOIL2020

Sampled by Pavana Vennapusa,

Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Date 2007 2007 2007

Description TH60 Soil #2 STA

(263+00) - Lean Clay with Sand

US10-101 - Silty Sand

TH36 Common (May07) - Silty Sand

Liquid Limit 30 NP 13 Plastic Limit 18 NP NP Specific Gravity 2.70 2.57 2.71 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

13.3 9.0 7.4

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

18.6 19.7 20.8

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

0.0 14.0 12.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

37.0 68.0 61.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

39.0 7.0 15.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

22.0 11.0 12.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 95.0 97.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 93.0 94.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.0 89.0 91.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 98.0 86.0 88.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 95.0 82.0 85.0 #20 (0.85 mm) 91.0 - - #40 (0.425 mm) 85.0 64.0 70.0 #60 (0.250 mm) 78.0 - - #100 (0.15 mm) 70.0 26.0 38.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 61.0 18.0 27.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0341 48.9 0.0369 17.3 0.0337 21.6 0.022 43.7 0.0235 16.0 0.0216 18.3

0.0129 39.0 0.0137 13.7 0.0126 17.0 0.0091 34.7 0.0096 13.6 0.0089 15.7 0.0065 32.6 0.0068 13.1 0.0064 14.3 0.0032 25.5 0.0032 11.8 0.0031 13.0 0.0014 19.7 0.0014 10.3 0.0013 11.9

67

Soil ID SOIL2021 SOIL2022 SOIL2023

Sampled by Pavana Vennapusa,

Iowa State University

John Puls, Iowa State University

John Puls, Iowa State University

Date 2007 2008 2008

Description TH60 Strip 2

(Aug07) - Sandy Silt Kunming Airport

Red Clay - Silty clay

Kunming Airport Yellow Clay - Silty

sand with gravel Liquid Limit 43 26 19 Plastic Limit 27 20 NP Specific Gravity 2.71 2.71 2.71 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

18.7 14.9 11.0

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

16.3 17.2 18.8

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

0.0 5.0 25.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

18.0 27.0 29.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

47.0 54.0 40.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

35.0 14.0 6.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 97.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 99.0 95.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 100.0 97.0 84.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 100.0 95.0 75.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 98.0 92.0 68.0 #20 (0.85 mm) 97.0 87.0 62.0 #40 (0.425 mm) 94.0 83.0 58.0 #60 (0.250 mm) 91.0 - - #100 (0.15 mm) 87.0 77.0 54.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 82.0 68.0 46.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0271 77.3 0.0307 42.7 0.032 20.3 0.0178 70.6 0.0196 40.7 0.0205 17.7 0.0107 63.9 0.0116 32.8 0.012 15.1 0.0079 54.2 0.0083 28.9 0.0086 12.5 0.0065 50.9 0.0055 22.9 0.0061 9.9 0.0041 44.5 0.0029 17.0 0.003 7.3 0.0029 39.4 0.0013 11.1 0.0013 4.7 0.0012 29.8

68

Soil ID SOIL2024 SOIL2025 SOIL2026

Sampled by John Puls, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Date 2008 2007 2007

Description Edwards Till (Jun 2008) - Lean clay

CO Subgrade Clay 1 - Sandy lean clay

CO Subgrade Clay 2 - Silty clayey sand

Liquid Limit 32 30 30 Plastic Limit 15 17 23 Specific Gravity 2.75 2.63 2.57 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

13.3 11.8 14.2

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

18.8 18.7 15.8

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

1.0 1.0 11.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

16.0 31.0 47.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

42.0 39.0 28.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

32.0 29.0 14.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 98.0 100.0 95.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 98.0 100.0 94.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 97.0 100.0 92.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 96.0 99.0 89.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 94.0 98.0 87.0 #20 (0.85 mm) 91.0 96.0 80.0 #40 (0.425 mm) 89.0 90.0 70.0 #60 (0.250 mm) 84.0 84.0 61.0 #100 (0.15 mm) 79.0 78.0 53.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 76.0 68.0 42.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0279 64.6 0.0304 50.6 0.0356 26.5 0.0185 56.5 0.02 43.5 0.0228 23.1 0.0112 46.8 0.0118 39.3 0.0132 21.4 0.0081 41.4 0.0084 36.6 0.0093 20.8 0.0059 36.7 0.006 33.8 0.0066 18.4 0.0029 29.1 0.003 29.9 0.0033 15.4 0.0013 22.9 0.0013 27.1 0.0014 14.0

69

Soil ID SOIL2027 SOIL2029 SOIL2034

Sampled by Pavana Vennapusa,

Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Date 2007 2007 2008

Description CO Subgrade Clay 3

- Sandy lean clay

CO Base Layer - Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel

FLA FL23 - Poorly graded sand with silt

Liquid Limit 27 NP NP Plastic Limit 17 NP NP Specific Gravity 2.74 2.65 2.64 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

17.8 8.0 8.3

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

16.5 21.3 15.9

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

1.0 44.0 1.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

40.0 49.0 94.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

37.0 4.0 4.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

22.0 3.0 1.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 100.0 71.0 99.5 #4 (4.75 mm) 99.0 56.0 99.3 #10 (2.00 mm) 98.0 46.0 99.0 #20 (0.85 mm) 97.0 37.0 97.4 #40 (0.425 mm) 89.0 23.0 82.1 #60 (0.250 mm) 79.0 13.0 - #100 (0.15 mm) 71.0 9.0 16.5 #200 (0.075 mm) 59.0 6.5 5.3

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0308 40.4 0.0363 4.8 0.0355 1.4 0.0201 34.4 0.023 4.4 0.0224 1.4 0.0117 31.8 0.0133 4.1 0.0129 1.4 0.0084 28.5 0.0094 3.5 0.0092 1.4 0.006 26.6 0.0066 3.6 0.0065 0.5 0.003 22.9 0.0032 3.7 0.0032 0.5 0.001 20.8 0.0013 1.1 0.0013 0.5

70

Soil ID SOIL2035 SOIL2036 SOIL2037

Sampled by Pavana Vennapusa,

Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Date 2008 2008 2008

Description FLA FL24 - Silty

sand FLA FL25-1 - Silty

sand FLA FL25-2 - Poorly graded sand with silt

Liquid Limit NP NP NP Plastic Limit NP NP NP Specific Gravity 2.74 2.67 2.70 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

18.0 17.3 12.5

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

16.1 16.4 15.6

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

6.0 0.0 1.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

81.0 94.0 85.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

13.0 5.0 14.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

0.0 1.0 0.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 97.6 99.9 99.8 #4 (4.75 mm) 94.5 99.8 98.6 #10 (2.00 mm) 90.4 99.3 96.2 #20 (0.85 mm) 88.3 99.2 95.0 #40 (0.425 mm) 80.7 96.8 92.9 #60 (0.250 mm) - - - #100 (0.15 mm) 20.1 26.4 47.2 #200 (0.075 mm) 13.3 6.0 14.3

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0339 3.8 0.0351 1.3 0.0339 5.6 0.0214 3.8 0.0222 1.3 0.0217 3.9 0.0125 2.1 0.0124 1.3 0.0122 3.1

0.0091 1.3 0.0089 3.1 0.0064 0.5 0.0064 1.4 0.0032 0.5 0.0031 0.5 0.0013 0.5 0.0013 0.1

71

Soil ID SOIL2038 SOIL2039 SOIL2040

Sampled by Pavana Vennapusa,

Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Pavana Vennapusa, Iowa State University

Date 2008 2008 2008

Description NC1 - Silty sand NC2 - Silty sand NC4 - Poorly graded

sand with silt and gravel

Liquid Limit 20 28 NP Plastic Limit NP NP NP Specific Gravity 2.73 2.67 2.74 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

11 12.8 6.2

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

19.1 17.4 21.2

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

5.0 1.0 42.0

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

69.0 61.0 47.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

18.0 34.0 10.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

8.0 4.0 1.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 93.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 86.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.0 100.0 68.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 95.0 99.0 58.0 #10 (2.00 mm) 87.0 95.0 46.0 #20 (0.85 mm) 77.0 80.0 36.0 #40 (0.425 mm) 63.0 65.0 27.0 #60 (0.250 mm) - - - #100 (0.15 mm) 37.0 48.0 15.0 #200 (0.075 mm) 26.0 38.0 11.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.033 15.9 0.0307 20.0 0.0264 4.8 0.021 14.2 0.0199 16.6 0.0189 4.1

0.0122 12.6 0.0119 12.4 0.0121 3.3 0.0087 10.9 0.0086 9.9 0.0086 2.5 0.0062 9.3 0.0061 9.0 0.0061 2.1

0.0031 1.0

72

Soil ID SOIL2041 SOIL2042 SOIL2043

Sampled by John Puls, Iowa State University

Jiake Zhang, Iowa State University

Jiake Zhang, Iowa State University

Date 2008 2010 2010

Description Buckshot Clay -

High plasticity clay UT - Silty Subgrade

TX - Fat clay subgrade

Liquid Limit 74 32 68 Plastic Limit 22 34 23 Specific Gravity 2.79 2.60 2.70 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

- 24.3 23.4

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

- 15.0 14.7

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

1.3 1.3 0.3

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

4.9 15.7 4.0

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

33.6 67.5 21.1

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

60.2 15.8 74.6

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 99.5 100.0 0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.3 99.1 100.0 #4 (4.75 mm) 98.7 98.7 99.7 #10 (2.00 mm) 98.2 98.4 99.1 #20 (0.85 mm) 97.5 97.8 98.3 #40 (0.425 mm) 96.1 97.3 97.7 #60 (0.250 mm) - - 97.5 #100 (0.15 mm) 94.2 95.9 96.9 #200 (0.075 mm) 93.8 83.0 95.7

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0252 88.1 0.0424 61.6 0.0383 94.2 0.0163 84.3 0.0313 52.1 0.0275 91.2 0.0096 80.6 0.0206 41.6 0.0178 87.2 0.0069 75.2 0.0122 34.4 0.0104 83.2 0.005 71.7 0.0088 28.7 0.0075 78.1

0.0025 63.0 0.0062 24.3 0.0053 75.1 0.0011 53.5 0.0030 18.5 0.0027 69.2

0.0013 12.3 0.0011 62.2

73

Soil ID SOIL2044 SOIL2045 SOIL2046

Sampled by Jiake Zhang, Iowa State University

Jiake Zhang, Iowa State University

Jiake Zhang, Iowa State University

Date 2010 2010 2010

Description ND - Silty Subgrade ND - Recycled asphalt Base

IA - Recycled PCC Base

Liquid Limit 31 NP NP Plastic Limit 22 NP NP Specific Gravity 2.65 2.70 2.70 Standard Proctor wopt (%)

15.8 8.9 -

Standard Proctor d (kN/m3)

16.8 20.5 -

Gravel Size (%) ( > 4.75 mm)

2.4 36.2 80.8

Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075 mm)

65.0 62.8 19.2

Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002 mm)

21.7 1.0 0.0

Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm)

10.9 0.0 0.0

Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing 3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 93.1 86.0 0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 82.4 65.3 0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.6 77.4 34.9 #4 (4.75 mm) 97.6 63.8 19.2 #10 (2.00 mm) 96.3 45.8 11.2 #20 (0.85 mm) 95.4 25.7 7.2 #40 (0.425 mm) 94.5 12.5 4.6 #60 (0.250 mm) - 5.3 2.7 #100 (0.15 mm) 62.6 2.0 1..2 #200 (0.075 mm) 32.6 1.0 0.0

Hydrometer Data

Diameter (mm)

Percent Passing

0.0339 23.9 0.0217 20.9 0.0126 19.5 0.0090 16.8 0.0064 15.5 0.0030 12.6 0.0013 9.1