G. L. Hoffman, ~ Gaylord Cumberledge,' and W. C.

Koehler,'

Laboratory Compaction Test Methods and Results Compared with Attainable Field Densities on Subbase Materials

REFERENCE: Hoffman, G. L., Cumberledge, Gaylord, and Koehler, W. C., "Laboratory Compaction Test Methods and Results Compared, with Attainable Field Densities~ou Sobbase Materials," Journal o f Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 4, No. 3, May 1976, pp. 167-175. ABSTRACT: With the extensive use of aggregate material in highway construction (primarily subbase) in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) initiated an indepth analysis of results of laboratory and field compaction tests on aggregates. This study determined what field and laboratory tests are best correlated to produce the optimum compaction control technique for subbase materials. Results of approximately 500 sand cone and nuclear field densities in crushed limestone, gravel, and slag material at 17 construction sites throughout the state are summarized and compared. Laboratory density tests on material from each of these field test sites include vibratory, standard moisture-density, modified moisture density, the Marshall test, and the vibratory hammer test. Regression correlation analyses are performed between maximum attainable field and laboratory densities. Estimating linear equations for predicting relationships between field and laboratory maximum densities are developed and their significance is discussed. KEY WORDS: pavement bases, field strength, density (mass/volume), impact strength, compacting, vibration

and widely used in Pennsylvania. There were 17 sources of the subbase material. Figure 1 indicates field test site locations along with the respective type of subbase material. All gradations were within the limits for Pa. No. 2A subbase material (see Table 2) according to PennDOT specifications

1416

1-8 Limestone 9 Slag 10 Granulated Slag

11-13 Slag 14-17 Gravel

FIG. 1 Field test site locations and respective subbase types. With the extensive use of aggregate material in highway construction (primarily subbase) in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) initiated an in-depth statistical analysis of laboratory compaction test methods and results as compared with attainable field densities of subbase materials. This study determined which field and laboratory tests are best correlated to produce the optimum compaction control technique for subbase and similar dense, graded materials. Several test site locations with various subbase material types were chosen throughout Pennsylvania for this study. The location of these sites along with other relevant data is given in Table 1. Subbase Material Types and Gradation The subbase materials selected for this study were three types: gravel, limestone, and slag. These materials are readily available Presented at the Symposium on Graded Aggregate Bases and Base Materials, Annual Meeting of the American Society of Testing and Materials, 10 Dec. 1974, Atlanta, Ga. 'Soils research engineer, assistant engineer of tests, and engineer of tests, respectively, Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Harrisburg, Pa. 17120. Mr. Koehler is a member of ASTM.
167

(Form 408). Material samples were obtained from individual field density test locations at a particular site. All samples from this site were then mixed in the laboratory, and the particle size distribution of this mix was checked for conformance with the above specification. No visual difference of material type or gradation was noted within a specific test area. Field Test Methods Within an hour after each roller pass, two field density measurements were taken by three different methods along with deflection measurements with the Road Rater ~. The density test locations are schematically indicated in Fig. 2. The average of the two density measurements by each method within a roller pass area was used in the statistical analyses. The thickness of lifts, number of lifts and roller passes, and the type of compaction equipment were also noted. One roller pass was designated as one pass forward and one pass back over the same area. Initially, a density was determined with a backscatter nuclear gage in accordance with ASTM Tests for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods (D 292271), and then two types of sand cone tests, in accordance with ASTM Test for Density of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method (D 1556-68), were performed adjacent to one another at the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

168
TABLE l--Site location and relevant data. Site Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Type of Material limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone open hearth slag granulated slag open hearth slag open hearth slag open hearth slag gravel gravel gravel gravel

JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

Test Site Location York Co. L.R. 250-12a Lancaster Co. L.R. 1072-5 Somerset Co. L.R. 1022-13 Berks Co. T.R. 157 York Co. L.R. 1069-1B Dauphin Co. L.R. 22006 Cumberland Co. L.R. 1081-See. 3 FaUs Creek L.R. 650 Allegheny Co. L.R. 1066-1 Greene Co. L.R. 1030 Allegheny Co. L.R. 1016 Dauphin Co. L.R. 1081-See. 1 Dauphin Co L.R. 1081-See. 2 Galeton L.R. 102-14 Wilcox L.R. 97-10 and 11 Knoxville L.R. 103 So. Franklin L.R. t 107-4

Type Compaction Equipment 10-ton steel wheel-static Raygo Rascal 40& Rex Vibrator~ Raygo Rascal 400 and 10-ton-static 10-ton steel wheel-static 22-ton rubber tire-static Raygo Rascal 400 20-ton-vibratory 10-ton steel wheel-static Raygo Rascal 400 Raygo Rascal 400 Raygo Rascal 400 10-ton steel wheel-static 10-ton steel wheel-static 10-ton-vibratory 20-ton-vibratory 5-ton-vibratory

"Legislative route (L.R.) and traffic route (T.R.) designations. b 10-ton (9070-kg) static; 27 000-1b (12 247-kg) dynamic load. 9.5-ton (8616.5-kg) static; 30 000-1b (13 608-kg) dynamic load.

same location as the nuclear test (Table 3). All field density and deflection measurements within one roller pass section were

RR
"" ,,,.,~,,,,, "1"

RR
All ,,~,,

"3"

"4"
RR A

1751'

"6"
d
7"

60' approx.
Road Rater ~ deflection measurements Nuclear 6-in. Sand cone 12-in. Sand Cone

FIG. 2--Schematic o f individual field density test layout. Number in quotes indicates the number o f roller passes; one pass down and back is defined as one pass.

performed in a maximum 4-ft (l.2-m) diameter area per replication. The replicated area was within a 4-ft distance of the initial test area. The two types of sand cone test were performed with different size sand cone apparatus. The small sand cone apparatus had a cone size o f 6.44-in. (16.36-cm) diameter with a l-gal (3.8-1itre) size sand container. The large sand cone apparatus had a cone size o f 8.44-in. (21.44-cm) diameter with a sand container of 17.38-in. (44.13-cm) height and 8.81-in. (22.4-cm) diameter. Nondestructive deflection measurements were also obtained immediately adjacent to locations where nuclear measurements were taken with the Road Rater ~ by methods outlined in the PennDOT publication entitled "Flexible Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design Through Deflection Measurements with the Road Rater."

Laboratory Test Methods

Nine methods of laboratory tests were used to establish a degree of correlation with field densities of subbase material. Six of the methods were various standard moisture-density (M/D) tests (Methods C and D) as described in the ASTM Tests for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils, Using 5.5-1b (2.5-kg) Rammer and 12-in. (304.8-mm) Drop (D 698-70). Variations in the use of Methods C and D were that the tests were performed on - -in. ( - 19.05-mm) material, - 3A-in. compensated for + 3A-in. material, and the original field grading of the subbase material. Densities were also determined with a vibrating table. The tests were conducted essentially according to ASTM Test for Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils (D 2049-71), except that a 1-psi (6.89-kPa) surcharge pressure was used and the material was all - in. in particle size. The eighth laboratory method used in the analyses was a vibratory compactive effort with a 6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter steel plate attached to a Torna 765 Hilti electropneumatic

TABLE 2--Size and grading requirements f o r subbase

materials in Pennsylvania.

Sieve Designation 1~ in. (38.1 mm) 1 in. (25.4 mm) in. (19. 1 mm) Y 8in. (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 10 (1.65 mm) No. 20 (830 In) No. 40 (420 m) No. 60 (250 m) No. 100 (149 m)

Retained, 70 0 12 15 22 14 13 7 5 5 3

Passing, 07o 100 88 73 51 37 24 17 12 7 4

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

-r

o
-1'1

rll -I >
r-

0 z o 0
"0

-I
z ---t m f~

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :~: : : : : : : : :. :.: . : :. :.: . : :. :.: . : :. :.: . : :. :.: . : :. :.: : :::::::::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .

170
T A B L E 3--Continued

JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

Field Densities and Moisture Contents Road Rater ~ Deflection, mils 0.63 1.38 1.32 1.00 0.81 1.28
1.58 1.70 0.38 0.II ...

Large Sand Cone

Ydry,

Small Sand Cone Ydry", lb/fP

..

Nuclear

Site Number 11~ 11" 11" 11" 11" 11j

I I/ l I:

Roller Passes, no. 4 5 6 7 8 2

4 6 l 2 3

Ydty%
co, % ...
. . . . . .

lb/fP 164.7 162.4 162.9 164.9 b 163.4 159.2 ~

156.8 158.8 119.3 116.3 ll5.0

co, %
3.3

lb/fP 138.5 141.1 137.6 149.5 ~ 135.1 142.2 b

136.5

co, % 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7

3.7

12 12 12

12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17

4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

... ... 1.08 0.35 0.36 0.53 0.38 0.10 3.72 2.26 3.35 2.12 2.41 1.11 1.09 0.93 1.23 0.90 085 0.78 3.87 3.08 3.30 1.16 1.34 i.17 3.87 8.55 4.60 4.58 3.24 3.05

124.1 b 119.9 146.2 134.5 130.3 136.1 144.2 154.0b 128.3 139.8 141.1 b 134.0 134.4 132.0 121.3 129.3 131.4 132.5 135.9 b 133.7 128.3 132.6 136.5 137.3 141.1 b 140.3 126.9 127.6 126.7 130.3 133.5 b 132.4

3.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 11.3 12.2 12.8 12.0 13.1 3.8 4.7 4.6 6.6 7.7 6.2 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.0 5.9 4.4 4.5 4.2 5.0 5.1 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.0 5.1 4.7 5.0 7.3 6.0 5.7 6.8 6.9 6.5

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. ...
. .

... .. ..

126.4 127.0
121.9 121.8 127.P 124.8

4.6 8.8
9.5 12.9 8.5 8.6

.. .

..

...

...

... .. .. .. ..

1ii3
130.4 131.3 130.2 130.1 133.0 b 123.8 123.3 123.0 121.7 127.4 130.0 ~ 128.6 129.2 130.2 133.7 137.8 138.2 b 122.2 125.1 129.7 124.5 131.0 b 127.3

;16
5.6 5.9 5.8 6.5 5.3 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.7 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.1 7.0 6.1 5.8 6.3 6.8 6.7

102.2 98.9 125.1 120.9 130.9 135.8 b

5.4 5.9 4.8 7.1 7.5 7.2

117.6
120.6 122.3 124.1 126.8 ~ 125.6 110.5 112.0 110.8 109.3 120.1Y' 119.5 120.3 125.5 126.8 138.5 b 128.3 126.3 103.5 108.5 108.3 113.3 114.5 117.2 b

8.0
7.4 7.2 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.1 7.9 7.1 8.3 6.7 7.7 7.6 6.9 6.5 7.2 7.1 8.7 7.1 7.6 8.6 8.4 8.7

Ydrr = Dry unit weight o f subbase material. co = Moisture content o f subbase material. "Average o f two tests b M a x i m u m field densities indicated by respective test procedures. Raygo Rascal 400 vibratory roller on first lift d 10-ton (9070-kg) steel wheel static roller on second lift "Densities obtained during first 8-in. (203.2-mm) lift :Densities obtained during second 8-in. (203.2-mm) lift.

h a m m e r drill. T h i s e l e c t r o p n e u m a t i c drill is s o d e s i g n e d t h a t it may be used with only tamping action or both tamping and rotating action. For this experiment, onty the tamping action w a s u s e d . T h e e l e c t r o p n e u m a t i c drill o p e r a t e s a t a p e r c u s s i o n rate of 2500 blows per minute under a normal tamping force of 30 lbs (13.6 kg). T h e s u b b a s e m a t e r i a l w a s c o m p a c t e d in a cylind r i c a l m o l d in t h r e e e q u a l layers w i t h e a c h l a y e r t a m p e d f o r 30 s. T h e size o f t h e m o l d w a s 6-in. ( 1 5 . 2 - c m ) in d i a m e t e r a n d

0 . 1 0 ft 3 (2832 c m 3) in v o l u m e . T h e t e s t s w e r e c o n d u c t e d o n l y o n t h e - 3A-in. ( - 1 9 . 0 5 - m m ) m a t e r i a l d u e t o t h e l a c k o f available subbase material. With the above exceptions, the testing procedures followed were essentially according to ASTM Test D 698-70 ( M e t h o d D). The final laboratory test investigated was a modification [ll o f t h e M a r s h a l l test f o r a s p h a l t m a t e r i a l s . T h e M a r s h a l l c o m p a c t o r a n d t h e c o m p a c t i v e e f f o r t a s d e s c r i b e d in A S T M T e s t

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

I'fOFFMAN El" AL ON COMPACTION TESTS

171

for Resistance to Plastic Flow o f Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus (D 1559-73) were used while the procedure for developing an M / D curve was according to A S T M Test D 698-70 (Method C). Modified M / D tests as described in A S T M Tests for MoistureDensity Relations o f Soils, Using 10-1b (4.5-kg) R a m m e r and 18-in. (457-mm) D r o p (D 1557-70), (Methods C and D) were also performed. All tests with Method C were performed on - 3A-in. ( - 19.05-mm) material while the original or field graded material was used with the 6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter mold. However, this laboratory test was not included in the statistical laboratory/field analyses because the number of sample points was too small. The results of all the laboratory tests are summarized in Tables 4-6 while the respective compactive efforts are listed in Table 7. A comparison o f moisture contents at maximum field den-

Statistical Analyses
A simple linear regression analysis was used to compare both the maximum large sand cone and maximum nuclear field density results with the results of each o f nine laboratory test methods. Pertinent data obtained from the analyses are summarized in Table 8. By using the method of least squares to best fit a straight line through the data points, predicting equations which gave the optimum statistical relationship between maximum attainable field densities (x values) and laboratory densities (y values) were determined. A correlation coefficient (r) was calculated for each comparison as a measure of the reliability o f the estimate or correlation. This coefficient may take on values between - 1 and + 1. The positive and negative values indicate direct and inverse relationship, respectively. The higher the absolute value of the coefficient, the better the correlation.

TABLE 4--Standard M/D laboratory test data. Standard M/D (4-in. Mold) - 3A-in. Material Site Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8* 9 10 11 12 13 14 14" 15 15" 16 16a 17 17~
=

Standard M/D(6-in. Mold) Original Grading

Ydry oJ

+ 3A-in. Compensated
o~

- 3A-in. Material
Ydry 60

+ 3A-in. Compensated
Ydry tJo Ydry

Original Grading
co

Ydry

Ydry

OJ

138.0 142.3 137.5 138.1 141.6 136.3 130.9 134.7 135.9 108.1 102.7 148.0 124.7 130.9 134.0 134.7 134.0 134.0 134.9 134.2 131.8 131.7

7.2 6.8 7.2 6.7 5.6 9.9 8.0 9.2 17.0 22.6 8.1 . . . . "8.() 7.6 6.6 7.3 7.8 7.8 8.2 8.1

119.6 138.8 133.3 135.2 137.4 136.4

12.2 8.1 8.3 8.6 8.4 10.4

103.7 128.8 122.0 122.7 133.0 124.4

8.0 6.8 7.5 8.9 8.7 8.0

139.4 142.8 138.4 146.2 142.7 134.6

6.3 5.9 6.8 5.3 5.4 6.3

131.5 140.6 139.4 141.2 141.4 140.2

9.1 7.1 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.4

125.1 135.6 135.2 135.4 142.2 117.8

6.5 9.1 6.0 7.5 7.2 4.9

136.6 '8.8 139.2 8.0 118.0 16.2 105.0 20.0 138.1 11.0 . . . . . 136.3 134.6 135.0 135.5 137.7 137.5 134.2 135.5 "7.i 8.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 8.4 6.9 7.0

13818
1il)19 104.8 144.0

"i.4
6.7 14.0 19.7 5.2 "i.; 6.5 6.8 6.6 7.8 6.7 7.4 7.6

14i:0
141.8 119.5 106.0 146.2 137:2 136.3 137.1 137.0 138.0 137.9 136.0 136.5

"7.4
7.0 17.5 19.4 7.2 "8.0 7.0 6.6 6.6 7.0 7.5 8.2 6.6

138:5
139.0 119.5 105.1 148.7

"8.4
7.0 13.8 21.7 10.5

iLb
21.1 9.4

137.8 115.0 103.4 143.3 1;8:1 139.0 136.9 137.5 138.4 138.8 136.5 136.0

iii iii . . . . . . . . . . . . 13915 138.0 135.9 135.5 7.0 6.6 7.4 8.2

li;15
134.5

"8.4 7.6

Ydry Dry unit weight of subbase material. w = Moisturecontentofsubbasematerial. a Replication of test results. sities to those at the maximum laboratory densities indicates apparent disparities. These disparities can be explained in part by the fact that the relatively free draining aggregate subbase materials may exhibit no normal optimum moisture content and may show no consistent relationship between moisture content and dry unit weight [2]. Moisture variations above a minimal moisture content necessary for lubrication produce insignificant effects on the achieved field densities of free draining aggregates. Moreover, laboratory moisture contents were obtained from materials compacted in a " c l o s e d " mold, whereas field moisture contents were performed on in-place material from which excess water drained freely. Therefore, laboratory moisture contents were anticipated to be significantly higher. The standard error of the estimate (Sy x) is the expected possible error in the estimated y value for all y values given all x values. The precision of the estimated y value is indicated by the standard error and increases with a decrease in Sy.x. A confidence interval, which has upper and lower bounds approximately paralleling the regression line when the sample size (n) approaches 30, is established with this standard error [3]. The estimating linear equations for the four most reliable and precise correlations (based on the highest r and lowest Sr x values) between field and laboratory densities are shown in Fig. 3. These four estimating equations may be compared with the 45-deg line (short dashes) which represents a directly proportional perfect correlation o f + 1.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

172

JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 5--Modified M / D and Marshall laboratory compaction results. Modified M / D ~ (4-in. Mold) Site
Number

Modified M / D b (6-in. Mold)

Ydry, l b / f t 3

Marshall Test = (4-in. Mold)

Ydry, l b / f t 3

]tdry, lb/ft ~ .
.

w, 070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. .

w, u]0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.

co, 070 5.2 6.3 5.2 5.4 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.5 4.2 3.7 5.5 4.9 11.0 10.4 19.8 18.0 7.4 8.0 7.8 6.3 6.4 7.4 6.5 4.3 7.5 5.7 6.3 7.0

1
1~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

2 2c 3 3c 4 4c 5 5c 6 6c 9 9c 10
10 ~

. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . ..
.
.

147.3 145.2 151.4 150.4 146.8 147.4 146.6 148.2 149.0 148.8 150.6 150.6 127.7 128.4 109.3
110.0

11 11 c 14 14~ 15 15~ 8 8c 16 16c 17 17c

. . . . . . . . . . . . 139.9 6.4 137.8 7.1 140.7 6.6 139.4 6.0 145.2 6.2 143.1 6.4 139.2 6.4 138.8 6.8 137.2 6.6 138.4 7.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.0 144.1 139.0 140.2 138.5 138.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 5.2 6.8 6.2 5.8 7.4

170.0 168.8 138.4 139.4 139.6 137.2 140.9 145.5 140.0 144.0 140.8 138.6

Ydry = Dry unit weight of subbase material. co = Moisture content of subbase material. =Performed on - 3A-in. ( - 19.07-mm) material. b Performed on original material. Replication of test results.

Discussion

of Results

A s indicated in T a b l e 3, the n u m b e r o f roller passes o n a 6-in. (152.4-mm) lift, types o f compactors, a n d R o a d Rater deflection m e a s u r e m e n t s were o b t a i n e d as field d a t a a l o n g with t h e sand cone a n d nuclear densities at each site. T h e subbase material was " o v e r c o m p a c t e d " in most cases; t h a t is, a m a x i m u m density occurred a n d the material b e c a m e disturbed o r less compact with additional roller passes. The m a x i m u m density was achieved by the fourth or fifth roller pass at m o s t o f the sites; however, anticipated v a r i a t i o n in t h e n u m b e r o f passes with material a n d c o m p a c t o r types was exhibited. The a u t h o r s h a d n o control over the types o f c o m p a c t o r s used at the investigated c o n s t r u c t i o n sites a n d realize .that differences in compactive efforts existed a m o n g the c o m p a c t i o n e q u i p m e n t listed in Table 1. However, these various types o f c o m p a c t i o n e q u i p m e n t are a typical cross section o f the c o m m o n l y used c o m p a c t i o n devices t h r o u g h o u t P e n n s y l v a n i a a n d in m a n y o t h e r states; and, therefore, the statistical d a t a are realistic. T h e self-propelled vibratory c o m p a c t o r s exerted a n approximately 30 000-1b (13 600-kg) d y n a m i c load, while m o s t o f the steel wheel rollers exerted a 20 000-1b (9070-kg) static load. T h e use o f t h e m a x i m u m o b t a i n able density, irrespective o f the n u m b e r o f passes, reduced the overall statistical effect o f e q u i p m e n t variation by a t t e m p t i n g to equate compactive efforts. For instance, a compactor exerting

a 20 000-1b load per pass theoretically would apply nearly the same compactive effort in o n e pass as a 10 000-1b (4535-kg) load per pass c o m p a c t o r would exert in two passes. Significant disparities occurred between m a x i m u m attainable field densities as indicated by t h e large s a n d c o n e a n d those indicated by backscatter nuclear test results. T h e sand cone test m e t h o d showed 2 to 20 l b / f t 3 (32 to 320 k g / m 3) higher values t h a n the nuclear test m e t h o d with a n average difference o f m o r e t h a n 6 l b / f t 3 (96 kg/m3). Generally, the greater differences coincided with the higher sand cone densities. A n u m b e r o f observations can b e m a d e f r o m c o m p a r i s o n s o f the twelve l a b o r a t o r y density test variations listed in Tables 4-6. T h e M a r s h a l l a n d v i b r a t o r y h a m m e r tests, as expected, p r o d u c e d generally higher densities t h a n did the s t a n d a r d M / D tests (4-in. or 101.6-ram a n d 6-in. or 152.4-mm molds). T h e M a r s h a l l test p r o d u c e d the highest densities o f all lab tests, while the v i b r a t o r y h a m m e r tests resulted in slightly higher densities t h a n the s t a n d a r d M / D . Higher densities were achieved with the use o f 6-in. (152.4-mm) d i a m e t e r m o l d in the s t a n d a r d M / D test ( - 3A-in. or - 19.05-mm, + 3A-in. c o m p e n s a t e d , a n d original grading) t h a n with the use o f a 4-in. (101.6-mm) diam e t e r mold. These density relationships a m o n g test types are, for the most part, consistent with respective compactive efforts listed in T a b l e 7. T h e t a b u l a t i o n o f p e r t i n e n t statistical d a t a in T a b l e 8 accom-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

HOFFMAN ET AL ON COMPACTION TESTS TABLE 6--Vibration tables and vibratory hammer laboratory test results. Vibratory Tables (6-in. Mold) Vibratory Table 1 Vibratory Table 2
)'dry a , ~'dryb ,

173

Vibratory Hammer (6-in. Mold)

Ydry ,

Site Number
1 Id 2 2a 3 3d 4 4d 5 5a 6 6a 7 7a
8

],'dry a ,

Ydry b ,

lb/ft 3 108.9 106.9 127.3 130.3 137.1 124.7 122.9 123.9 110.9 120.3 109.9 115.0 ... 113.0 123.9 112.2 107.9 98.0 104.3 151.8 144.6 ... ... ... ... 125.5 134.6 129.1 127.7 131.1 137.2 136.1 135.2

lb/ft 3 125.6 127.8 137.3 138.5 126.4 132.4 133.4 134.8 140.4 141.0 128.8 128.8 1t9.1 117.7 133.1 129.9 114,1 115.8 96.9 98.3 162.1 163.5 119.0 108.2 143.1 145.7 127.1 130.5 110.7 117.2 120.9 122.9 124.7 122.4

lb/fP 99.6 98.9 112.4 110.6 96.7 99.8 120.4 115.1 108.7 110.3 99.6 98.4 ... ... . . . 90.5 92.3 84.3 73.0 132.1 141.2 .. ... . ..
...

lb/ft 3 118.9 121.9 121.3 118.5 122.1 123.1 110.9 129.9 131.8 133.7 123.5 124.1 117.6 116.1 . . . 112.6 112.6 93.8 93.5 157.1 100.9 117.0 106.3 147.2 149.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lb/ft 3 125.2 141.2 142.4 144.1 143.7 143.9 139.4 147.7 139.0 150.4 138.4 144.1 . . . 13711 128.9 113.2 112.1 109.4 108.8 155.0 166.2 . . . . . . . . . 133.3 138.5 146.9 121.9 136.5 132.9 134.6 141.2

co, 070 0 0 0 0 6.0 6.0 0 0 6.0 6.0 0 0 . . . '6.0 6.0 0 0 18.0 18.0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0

8a 9 9a 10 10d 11 11d 12 12d 13 138 14 14a 15 15d 16 16d 17 17~

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

)'dry = Dry unit weight ofsubbase material. co = Moisture content of subbase material. "Saturated - M-in. ( - 19.07-mm) material. bOven dry - M-in. ( - 19.07-mm) material. c _ M-in. (19.07-mm) material. d Replication of test results.

plishes the primary objective o f this investigation. A l t h o u g h all 18 field t e s t / l a b o r a t o r y test c o m p a r i s o n s s h o w significant correlation by t distribution testing, some comparisons are obviously better correlated and, therefore, are m o r e reliable. The large sand cone versus the 6-in. (152.4-mm) diameter s t a n d a r d M / D ( + aA-in, or 19.05-mm compensated), the Marshall, the vibratory h a m m e r , and the 4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter standard M / D tests resulted in the four best comparisons, which are listed in order o f decreasing compatability and depicted in Fig. 3. Both the correlation coefficient (measure o f reliability) and the standard error o f the estimate (measure o f precision) were considered when determining the four best comparisons, since there is concern not only that a valid relationship between tests exists m o s t o f the time but also that prediction by this relationship is reasonably accurate. Since the standard error was also considered when choosing the four best comparisons, the ordering o f these c o m p a r i s o n s does not necessarily agree with the prox-

imity o f the regression lines to the 45-deg line as s h o w n in Fig. 3. One particular field/laboratory procedure cannot be decisively chosen as a s t a n d a r d at this time; however, analyses o f the above f o u r best c o m p a r i s o n s with respect t o economics, practicality, and reproducibility would further refine the choice o f a density control test procedure. The large sand cone test showed a higher correlation coefficient and a lower standard error o f the estimate than the nuclear test when respectively c o m p a r e d with each o f nine laboratory tests. Based only on the investigated sample, this indicates that the large sand cone test gives statistically m o r e reliable densities with less variability t h a n does the nuclear test in reproducing laboratory s t a n d a r d densities in the field. The vibratory h a m m e r laboratory test p r o d u c e d a high correlation with the large sand cone test. This relatively new laboratory test is also fast and practical, and it uses easily fabricated equipment. The vibratory h a m m e r test appears promising and should

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

174

JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

T A B L E 7--Compactive efforts of investigated laboratory tests. Repetitions, no. Energy/Unit Volume" l b / f t 3 ( k g / m 3)

A S T M Designation and Nomenclature D 698-70 Standard M / D Method C D 698-70 Standard M / D Method D D 1557-70 Modified M / D Method C D 1557-70 Modified M / D Method D D 1559-73 ~ Marshall Method C Vibratory h a m m e r Vibratory table

Weight o f H a m m e r , lbs (kg)

Drop, in. (cm)

Layers, no.

5.5

(2.5)

12

(30.0)

25

12 375 (198 000)

5.5

(2.5)

12

(30.0)

56

12 317 (197 072)

10

(4.5)

18

(45.0)

25

56 250 (900 (300)

10

(4.5)

18

(45.0)

56

56 986 (911 776)

10

(4.5)

18

(45.0)

40 1 250 28 800

5 3 1

90 000 (14 x l0 s) 31 242 (499 872) 16 962 (271 392)

30 (13.6) 28.3 (12.8)

0.25 (0.625) 0.025 (0.0625)

=A "Raygo-Rascal 400" compactor applies approximately 10 000 ft-lb/ft 3 (160 000 k g / m ~) per roller pass. See Ref 1.

be further researched on a larger and broader sample group for possible i n c o r p o r a t i o n into A S T M specifications. A s anticipated, t h e s t a n d a r d M / D test o n + 3-in. ( 1 9 . 0 5 - m m ) c o m p e n s a t e d

m a t e r i a l r e s u l t e d in a b e t t e r c o r r e l a t i o n t h a n d i d t h e s t a n d a r d M/D on -3A-in. and original graded material. The standard M / D test u t i l i z i n g t h e 6-in. ( 1 5 2 . 4 - m m ) d i a m e t e r m o l d g a v e

T A B L E 8--Linear regression data obtained by comparing variousfield and

laboratory density test results.

Standard Error of the Estimate, Sy x

Laboratory Test, y values Standard M / D 6-in. diameter mold ( + 3A-in. compensated) Marshall Vibratory h a m m e r Standard M / D 4-in. diameter mold ( + 3A-in. compensated) Standard M / D 6-in. diameter mold (original grading) Vibratory table 1 Standard M / D 6-in. diameter mold ( + -in. material) Standard M / D 4-in diameter mold ( + -in. material) Standard M / D 4-in. diameter mold (original grading)

Pearson's Coefficient, r

Data Points, no.

Linear Estimating Equation

0.939" 0.895 ~ 0.934 = 0.912 b 0.913 = 0.868 b 0.897 = 0.826 b 0.875 = 0.782 b 0.875 = 0.735 b 0.860" 0.827 b 0.866" 0.779 ~ 0.858 = 0.740*

32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 28 28 38 38 32 32 38 38 24 24

y = 0.56x + 59.5 y = 0.62x + 57.5 y = 0,77x + 39.6 y = 0.85x + 36.8 y = 0.70x + 42.6 y = 0.81x + 35.1 y = 0.50x + 64.1 y = 0.55x + 62.7 y = 0.58x + 53.7 y = 0.62x + 54.1 y = 0.85x + 13.7 y = 0.85x + 20.6 y = 0.57x + 58.0 y = 0.63x + 56.1 y = 0.60x + 50.7 y = 0.65x + 50.1 y = 0.58x + 45.5 y = 0 . 6 I x + 48.0

3.3 4.2 4.9 5.9 5.0 6.5 4.0 5.2 5.7 7.3 7.5 10.5 5.6 6.0 5.5 7.0 6.6 8.7

=C o m p a r i s o n with the large sand cone field density. b C o m p a r i s o n with the nuclear field density.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

HOFFMAN ET AL ON COMPACTION TESTS

175

// / /

i50

/
i%0
b~
4~

J
B

130
O ~m

45-DEG LINE

O /]

120 / /

IiO

r /

/ / / /

6-1N, STANDARD M/D MARSHALL VIBRATORY HAMMER 4-1N, STANDARD M/D

/ / /
./

i00 90

iOO

ii0

120

130

i~O

150

Maximum Large Sand Cone Density

FIG. 3--Linear regression relationships between the four most reliable laboratory density tests and the large sand cone field test. Density was measured in l b / f t t The 6-in. standard M / D and the 4-in. standard M / D were compensated for + -in. material.

slightly better regression results than did the same test procedures using a 4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter mold.
Conclusions

Acknowledgments

From the comparisons of the maximum attainable field density results of subbase material with different laboratory tests, the following conclusions may be drawn. 1. Statistically, the four best correlations between field and laboratory density tests on subbase material are these: (1) large sand cone (ASTM D 1556-68) with 6-in. (152.4-mm) standard M / D compensated for + -in. (19.05-mm) material (ASTM D 698-70, Method D); (2) large sand cone with Marshall test (ASTM D 1559-73); (3) large sand cone with vibratory hammer; and (4) large sand cone with 4-in. (101.6-mm) standard M / D (ASTM D 698-70, Method C). 2. To establish the best method for compaction control, further study and analysis are required on the economics, practicality, and reproducibility of the tests. 3. The vibratory hammer method shows very good potential and warrants more investigation in this application and several others.

The authors express their appreciation to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for the sponsorship and financial assistance which made this investigation possible; to Mr. Leo D. Sandvig, Director of the Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research for allotting the time and personnel to conduct this study; and Messrs. Ronald J. Cominsky, Amar C. Bhajandas, and Allen Forshey for their help in the preparation of this paper.
References

[1] gostron, J. P., "Density Standards for Field Compaction of Granular Bases and Subbases," National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 4-8(2), Clemson University, Clemson, S.C., 1973. [2] Johnson, A. W. and Sallberg, J. R., "Factors Influencing Compaction Test Results," Highway Research Board Bulletin 319, Washington, D.C., 1962. [3] Ponti, F. M., "Statistical Design of Experiments," Technical Seminar, Drexel University, Philadelphia, May 1969. [4] Cumberledge, G. and Cominsky, R. J., "Maximum Density Determination of Subbase Material" Evaluation o f Relative Density and
Its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils, STP 523, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,

1973, pp. 141-155.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Mar 28 22:27:47 EDT 2012 Downloaded/printed by UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.