This document summarizes research on optimizing soil lift thickness for compaction based on applied compactive energy. The research aims to relate degree of compaction at various depths to the energy applied by different compactors. Field testing was conducted using various compactors and lift thicknesses for finer and coarser granular soils, measuring properties like density, stiffness, pressure, and strength. Preliminary results showed compaction effectiveness generally decreased with lift thickness and was influenced by compactor type, soil properties, and moisture content.
This document summarizes research on optimizing soil lift thickness for compaction based on applied compactive energy. The research aims to relate degree of compaction at various depths to the energy applied by different compactors. Field testing was conducted using various compactors and lift thicknesses for finer and coarser granular soils, measuring properties like density, stiffness, pressure, and strength. Preliminary results showed compaction effectiveness generally decreased with lift thickness and was influenced by compactor type, soil properties, and moisture content.
This document summarizes research on optimizing soil lift thickness for compaction based on applied compactive energy. The research aims to relate degree of compaction at various depths to the energy applied by different compactors. Field testing was conducted using various compactors and lift thicknesses for finer and coarser granular soils, measuring properties like density, stiffness, pressure, and strength. Preliminary results showed compaction effectiveness generally decreased with lift thickness and was influenced by compactor type, soil properties, and moisture content.
This document summarizes research on optimizing soil lift thickness for compaction based on applied compactive energy. The research aims to relate degree of compaction at various depths to the energy applied by different compactors. Field testing was conducted using various compactors and lift thicknesses for finer and coarser granular soils, measuring properties like density, stiffness, pressure, and strength. Preliminary results showed compaction effectiveness generally decreased with lift thickness and was influenced by compactor type, soil properties, and moisture content.
Effective Eff ti Depth D th of f Soil S il Compaction C ti in i Relation to Applied Compactive Energy
Kyu-Sun Kim, Dante Fratta, and Haifang Wen
WHRP Project P j t 0092-08-11 0092 08 11 December 4, 2009
Project Objectives To relate degree of soil compaction at various depths as a function of energy applied to the surface surface, compactor weight, and footprint. Development of a monitoring system to evaluate received energy and degree of compaction at various depths Determination of the influence of soil parameters (e (e.g., g soil texture, plasticity, and moisture content) on compaction achieved. Draft recommendations to optimize lift thickness as function of Wisconsin construction experience and typical compaction equipment and delivered energy.
Compaction of Soils Several factors influence the compaction (i.e., maximum density y or unit weight g and optimum p water content) of soils: compaction method (i.e., pounding, kneading, pressure vibration) pressure, molding moisture content (soil water content when compacted) compactive effort (applied energy and compactor size) soil type (determines optimum moisture content and max unit weight) max, relative layer stiffness (stiff layer over soft layer)
Lift-thickness Specifications Specification Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift before compaction Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift after compaction Max. 0.2 m (8 in) lift before compaction Max. 0.3 m (12 in) lift before compaction State DOTs Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma Connecticut, Kentucky y Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, Wyoming
Note: New York DOT specifies lift thickness as function of soil and compaction equipment (State of New York 2008).
(after Hoppe 1999; Lenke 2006)
Research Question Compaction equipment (Vibration roller)
GeoGauge
Lift 4 Lift 3 Lift 2 Lift 1
Volume of influence
Given typical compaction equipment, what is the maximum lift thickness that can provide uniform compaction and proper engineering performance f in i road d embankments?
Schematic stiffness and density profile versus depth after each lift compaction
Field Compaction Vibration
Compaction roller
Displacement direction
Strains greater than the threshold threshold strain strain - Compaction volume
Failure surface
Field Compaction Energy propagation
This is our problem
(Anderegg and Kaufmann 2004 )
Field Compaction Energy propagation
(Yoo and Selig 1979 )
Field Site Testing site: Junction City (15 mi NW of Stevens Points) Contractor: Hoffman Construction (Black River Falls, WI) Testing Site To Junction City
Stevens Point
Source: Google Maps
Soil Properties Basic properties Soil type Silty soil (finer granular soil) Brown sand (coarser granular soil) Specific Gravity (Gs) 2.83 2.66 Coefficient of Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) curvature (Cc) 2.37 31.95 1.00 1.72 USCS SM SP
Finer granular soil Coarse granular soil
Soil Properties Compaction properties Soil type Silty soil (finer granular soil) Brown sand (coarser granular soil) maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 18.2 17.1 optimum water content (%) 16.7 9.5
Finer granular soil Coarse granular soil
Field Measurements Soil property and response measurements: Internal soil deformation: MEMS inclinometers Internal p pressure: p pressure g gauges g Density profile: nuclear density gauge and sand cone Surface stiffness: GeoGauge Internal stiffness: P-wave velocity MEMS accelerometers Volumetric water content: time domain reflectometry (TDR)
Field Measurements Originally proposed field testing matrix 1 - 6 passes Fine-grained Soil Sheepsfoot Roller Dry: 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts Wet (4-5%>wop): 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts
Coarse-grained Soil Smooth-drum Vibratory Roller
Dry (4-5%<wop): 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts
Rubber-tired Roller Dry (4-5%<wop): 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts
Rubber-tired Roller Dry (4-5%<wop): 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts Wet (4-5%>wop): 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts
Wet (4-5%>wop): 8, Wet (4-5%>wop): 12, 16, and 20 8, 12, 16, and 20 lifts lifts
Specifications of Compactors Operating weight of compactor is related to the transferred compactive energy 50000 Op perating W Weight (kg) 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Vibratory y Tire dozer Padfoot roller Sheep p foot
Dynamic y cone p penetrometer ( (DCP): ) p provides indication of the shear strength uniformity of soil layers. DCP index: is a measure of soil shear strength as function of dry density and effective stress stress. That is, the DCP index profiles give indication of the quality of compaction both in depth and across the compaction path.
DCP Observations DCP index and compaction effectiveness DCP index Disturbed state at surface DCP index
No improvement? Not compaction effect but overburden effect Finer granular soil Coarser granular soil
Soil Stiffness Gauge
SSG SSG measures the impedance at the surface of soil Soil stiffness can be calculated by the i impedance d
Velocity sensor Velocity sensor
1.77 R E K= 1 2 P Where, R: the outer radius of ring foot E: Youngs modulus
http://www.impact-test.com
Soil Stiffness Gauge
The use of different compactors is reflected on modulus. Passes also affects stiffness measurements Sheep foot compactor does not show improvements (depth limitation of SSG and surface disturbances) 90 80 70 SSG Modulus (MP S Pa) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Before Vib. Roller-3 Vib. Roller-6 compaction passes passes Tire-6 passes
Finer granular soil
Pad-3 Sheep-3 passes
Sheep-6 Pad-6 passes
Scraper-3 passes
Soil Stiffness Gauge
Tire roller and scraper on sand created lots of soil displacement. displacement 90
Wet sand stiffness is higher than that of natural moisture sand 90 80 70 SSG Modulu us (MPa) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 B f Before compaction ti Vib R Vib. Roller-6 ll 6 passes Ti 6 passes Tire-6
Wet coarser granular soil
Soil Stiffness Gauge & P-wave velocity
Soil Stiffness Gauge & P-wave velocity
Soil Stiffness Gauge & P-wave velocity
Under-compaction in the finer granular soil
Pressure Cell Plate
Maximum pressure response was captured for each compactors passing Soil Type Fine g grained Soil Compactor type Vibratory y Tire-dozer Scraper Padfoot Natural moisture sand Vibratory Tire-dozer Scraper Wet sand Vibratory Tire-dozer Tire dozer Maximum Pressure Response (kPa) 12 101.9 11 52.2 8 17.2 8 161.1 8 122.2 17 53.0 16 202.9 16 202 9 13 75.7 13 316.5 13 417.1 13 61.9 13 69.5 13 24 64.8 20 56.9 24 304.3 24 126.7 24 126 7 24 52.0 20 302.4 23 330.9 24 42.3 23 124.1 23
Pressure Cell Plate
Weight of compaction equipment and lift thickness affect the transferred p pressure. Finer granular soil 500 Vibratory m ea as ured pres s ure (k Pa) m ea as ured pres s ure (k Pa) 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 lift thickness (in) Tire-dozer Scraper Sheep foot Padfoot 400 300 200 100 0 300 m ea as ured pres s ure (k Pa) 400 300 200 100 0 300 500
Nat. moisture coarser granular soil
500
Wet coarser granular soil
10
20
10
20
30
lift thickness (in)
lift thickness (in)
MEMS Measurements Direct measurements: Internal soil deformation: MEMS inclinometers Analog Devices ADLX203 iMEMS accelerometers Low-power consumption; Low-cost High sensitivity (750 mV/g) Dual axis Static Static Acceleration Gravity: Rotation measurements
smooth-drum th d vibratory roller rubber tire roller
Padfoot roller
scraper.
MEMS Measurements Coarser granular soils
smooth-drum th d vibratory roller
rubber tire roller
Padfoot roller
scraper.
MEMS Measurements
Peak particle acceleration and velocity by axis in finer granular soils.
Peak particle acceleration and velocity by axis in coarser granular soils.
Relative compaction Dry unit weight [kN/m3] 16.4 18.2 20.0 23.7 25.5 Dry unit weight [kN/m3] 16.4 18.2 20.0 23.7 25.5
Relative compaction results for finer granular soils using nuclear density gauge: (a) smooth-drum vibratory roller; (b) scraper and padfoot rollers
Numerical Simulation FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) is a 2D continuum ti code d f for modeling d li geomaterials t i l and d structural behavior. The explicit finite difference formulation of the code makes FLAC suited for modeling geomechanical problems including static and dynamic
Stress Rotation Stress rotation is simulated i l t db by FLAC FLAC. The combination of vertical stress and horizontal stress may affect the i d induced d shear h stress -> related to shear distortion which directly affect the compaction.
Contact Areas
Contact areas and contact pressure distributions: (a) strip footing drum-type roller and (b) circular footing - tire-based compactor
Contact Areas
Contact Areas 120 max x. displacem ment (mm 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 contact width (m) 0.8 1 fine-grained coarse-grained
Maximum displacement of drum-based compactor.
Contact Areas 600 ma ax. displacem ment (mm 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 contact width (m) 0.8 1 fine-grained coarse-grained
Maximum displacement of tire-based compactor.
Effect of Soil Stiffness
Zone of influence with reduced contact area
Volumetric Strain
Failure Zone Distribution
Conclusions and Recommendations
Tire-based roller and earthmoving g equipment q p ( (e.g., g, scraper) provided higher contact pressures. These high pressures propagate deep into the soil mass and allow the compaction of thick layers layers. However However, this type of roller may produce uneven compaction regions (i.e., zones that were under-compacted). The interpretation of the SSG modulus at the near surface and P-wave-based modulus at the bottom of thick lift layers provided evidence of under-compaction under compaction regions at the bottom of lifts. This data justify setting maximum limits on lift thickness.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Dynamic y cone p penetration index ( (DPI) )p profiles in finegrained soils detected the areas of low shear strength at the bottom of thick lifts (i.e., greater than 0.30 m - 12 in). Shear-induced Sh i d d rotation t ti measurements t provide id a good d indication of soil particle movements. Rotation movements in coarse-grained soils are much larger than those of fined-grained soils. These observations imply that the current conservative lift thickness specification in coarse-grained coarse grained soils may be increased by well controlled water contents of soils.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The compaction p p process is a function of compactors p weight, soil type, and contact width of the wheel loading. Using various contact widths, the research team simulated the effect of the wheel load moving during compaction processes. A hardening soil model was implemented to simulate the compaction process using volumetric hardening (cap hardening) and deviatoric hardening (shear hardening). Volumetric strain and failure zones in numerical simulations can be indicators of depths of the compaction effectiveness.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The evaluation of the relative compaction p using g volumetric strain analyses indicate that the compaction effectiveness (RC>95%) is observed at least 0.30-m (12in) lift thickness of the tested soils and soil compactor types used in these studies. However, the tire-based roller may leave areas that are under-compacted regions due to highly localized and high pressure footprints. f Numerical models seem to support field observations.
