Inteligent Compaction Technology

ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF
INTELLIGENT COMPACTION TECHNOLOGY

FOR EMBANKMENT SUBGRADE SOILS,
AGGREGATE BASE, AND ASPHALT PAVEMENT
MATERIALS
Draft Final Report
Texas DOT FM156 Field Project
July 20 to 25, 2008
Prepared By
David J. White, Ph.D.
Pavana Vennapusa
Heath Gieselman
Luke Johansen
Rachel Goldsmith
Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC)

Department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering
Iowa State University
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4700
Ames, IA 50010-8664
Phone: 515-294-1463
www.ctre.iastate.edu
November 25, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................7
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................7
Roller-Integrated Stiffness (ks) Measurement Value .................................................................. 7
Roller-Integrated Compaction Meter Value (CMV)................................................................... 9
EXPERIMENTAL TESTING .......................................................................................................10
Description of Test Beds........................................................................................................... 10
In-situ Testing Methods ............................................................................................................ 12
IN-SITU TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................................14
TBs 1 and 3 Clay Subgrade Material ..................................................................................... 14
Construction of TBs ...........................................................................................................14
Roller-integrated and in-situ point measurements .............................................................15
Summary ............................................................................................................................16
TB 2 lime-stabilized subgrade and flex base material .............................................................. 25
Construction and testing on TB2 .......................................................................................25
Summary ............................................................................................................................25
TB 5 lime-stabilized subgrade material .................................................................................... 30
Construction of TB ............................................................................................................30
Summary ............................................................................................................................34
TBs 6 and 7 flex base material .................................................................................................. 41
Construction and material conditions ................................................................................41
Spatial analysis of roller-integrated and in-situ compaction measurements ......................52
Summary ............................................................................................................................54
Comparison between padfoot and smooth drum measurements TBs 1, 3, 4, and 5 .............. 54
FIELD DEMONSTRATION .........................................................................................................57
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................57
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................60
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................61
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. SV212 padfoot and smooth drum rollers used on the project ..........................................8
Figure 2. Lumped parameter two-degree-of-freedom spring dashpot model representing vibratory
compactor and soil behavior (reproduced from Yoo and Selig 1980) .................................8
Figure 3. Figure showing the effect of contact footprint on padfoot and smooth drum ks
measurements (Anderegg 2008) ..........................................................................................9
Figure 4. CA-362 smooth drum roller used on the project ............................................................10
Figure 5. In-situ testing methods used on the project: (a) 200-mm diameter plate Zorn LWD, (b)
dynamic cone penetrometer, (c) calibrated nuclear moisture-density gauge, (d) 300-mm
diameter Dynatest FWD, (e) 300-mm diameter static PLT, (f) D-SPA, and (g) Iowa State
University geotechnical mobile lab ...................................................................................13
Figure 6. EV1 and EV2 determination procedure from static PLT for subgrade and flex base
material ..............................................................................................................................14
Figure 7. Experimental testing setup TB 1 ....................................................................................15
Figure 8. Picture showing different lanes on TB 1 ........................................................................15
Figure 9. kSPD measurement from different passes on TB1 lanes 1 and 5 (nominal a = 0.8 mm, f
= 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ................................................................................................17
Figure 10. Screen shots of kSPD maps for different passes on TB 1 ..............................................17
Figure 11. Compaction growth curves for kSPD and in-situ point measurements (TB 1 lane 1
calibration test strip, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ..........................18
Figure 12. Comparison of laboratory Proctor curves and in-situ w-d measurements after pass 8
TB 1 subgrade material ......................................................................................................18
Figure 13. Comparison between kSPD and in-situ point measurements at passes 1, 2, 4, and 8 (TB
1 lane 1, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) .............................................19
Figure 14. Comparison between kSPD, kSSD, and in-situ point measurements from TB3 (kSSD:
mapping pass, a = 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h; kSPD: pass 8, a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz,
v = 3.5 km/h) ......................................................................................................................20
Figure 15. Simple linear regression relationships between kSPD and in-situ point measurements
(TB 1 subgrade clay material, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h) ........21
Figure 16. Simple linear regression relationships between kSSD and in-situ point measurements
(TB 1 subgrade clay material, nominal a = 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ........22
Figure 17. Comparison between roller MV and CBR profiles from TB 1 lane 1 between 60 to
180 m (pass 8, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ...................................23
Figure 18. Comparison between roller MV and CBR profiles from TB 1 lane 1 between 0 and
60 m, and lane 2 between 60 and 120 m (pass 8, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, v = and
3.5 km/h) ............................................................................................................................24
Figure 19. Picture of TB2 with flex base (on both ends of the test bed) and lime stabilized
subgrade .............................................................................................................................26
Figure 20. Comparison between kSSD CMV maps TB2 flex base and lime-stabilized subgrade 26
Figure 21. Comparison between kSSD and in-situ point measurements TB2 (lane 2) flex base
and lime stabilized subgrade (nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h)............27
Figure 22. Comparison between CMV and in-situ point measurements TB2 (lane 2) flex base
and lime-stabilized subgrade (nominal f = 30 Hz and v = 3.2 km/h) .................................28
Figure 23. Simple linear regression relationships between (a) kSPD, (b) CMV and in-situ point
measurements TB 2.........................................................................................................29
iii
Figure 24. Photos showing placement (left) and reclamation (right) process of lime slurry with
existing subgrade material (pictures taken 07/21/08) ........................................................31
Figure 25. Picture showing ponding of lime slurry on the scarified subgrade (picture taken
07/21/2008) ........................................................................................................................31
Figure 26. Picture showing soil reclaiming (left) and moisture conditioning process on TB 5
(picture taken 07/23/2008) .................................................................................................32
Figure 27. Experimental testing setup on TB5 (lane 3 for padfoot roller calibration strip and lane
4 for smooth drum roller calibration strip) ........................................................................32
Figure 28. Picture of TB5 with different lanes ..............................................................................32
Figure 29. Comparison of laboratory Proctor curves and in-situ w-d measurements TB 5 limestabilized subgrade material ...............................................................................................33
Figure 30. kSPD measurements from different passes on TB5 lane 3 calibration test strip (nominal
a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ..........................................................................35
Figure 31. Compaction growth curves for kSPD and in-situ point measurements (TB 5 lane 3
calibration test strip, nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ..........................35
Figure 32. Compaction growth curves for in-situ point measurements (TB 5 lane 4 calibration
test strip) (*roller data file corrupt) ....................................................................................35
Figure 33. Comparison results between kSPD (passes 1 to 12), kSSD (pass 13), and in-situ point
measurements TB5 lime stabilized subgrade calibration lane (nominal a = 1.0 mm, f =
35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h) ...................................................................................................36
Figure 34. Comparison between kSPD, kSSD, and in-situ point measurements on TB 5 lane 1
lime stabilized subgrade material (kSPD: nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5
km/h; kSSD: nominal a = 1.5 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h) ........................................37
Figure 35. kSSD maps (map 1: nominal a = 1.5 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h) and DCP
profiles at select locations on TB5 lime stabilized material (isolated area underlain by a
concrete box culvert)..........................................................................................................38
Figure 36. Simple linear regression relationships between kSPD and in-situ point measurements
(TB 5 lime stabilized subgrade clay material, nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v =
3.2 km/h) ............................................................................................................................39
Figure 37. Simple linear regression relationships between kSSD and in-situ point measurements
(TB 5 lime stabilized subgrade clay material, nominal a = 1.5 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v =
3.2 km/h) ............................................................................................................................40
Figure 38. Experimental setup on TB 6 .........................................................................................42
Figure 39. Moisture on flex base material during compaction (TB 6 left) and a day after
compaction (TB 7 right).....................................................................................................42
Figure 40. Moisture segregation on flex base material during testing (TB 7) ...............................42
Figure 41. CMV and BV values for compaction passes on lane 1 of TB6 flex base material ......44
Figure 44. CMV, BV, and a values for compaction passes on lane 4 of TB6 flex base material .46
Figure 46. CMV compaction growth curves for TB 6 lanes 1 to 5 ...............................................47
Figure 47. CMV maps on TB 7 with different operation settings .................................................47
Figure 48. Comparison between CMV and in-situ point measurements (EFWD, d, and w) on TB 7
flex base material flex base material (nominal f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h)...........................48
Figure 49. Comparison between CMV and point measurements (ED-SPA and EV1) on TB 7 flex
base material flex base material (f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h) ................................................49
iv
Figure 50. Comparison between CMV and DCP measurements on lanes 1 and 3 of TB 7 flex
base material (nominal f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h) ...............................................................50
Figure 51. Comparison between CMV measurements in manual and automatic settings (nominal
f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h) .....................................................................................................51
Figure 52. Kriged contour maps and semi-variograms of CMV and EFWD on TB 7 flex base
material ..............................................................................................................................53
Figure 53. Comparison between kSPD and kSSD measurements (TB 1 subgrade clay material) .55
Figure 54. Comparison between kSPD and kSSD measurements (TB 4 flex base material and TB
5 lime stabilized subgrade material) ...............................................................................56
Figure 55. Spatial comparison of kSPD and kSSD maps (TB 1 subgrade clay material) ..............56
Figure 56. Relationship between kSPD and kSSD measurements ....................................................57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing .........................................................................11
Table 2. Summary of soil index properties ....................................................................................11
Table 3. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TBs 1 and 3 .........................................20
Table 4. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TB 2 ....................................................30
Table 5. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TB 5 ....................................................41
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by US FHWA research project DTFH61-07-C-R0032 Accelerated
Implementation of Intelligent Compaction Technology for Embankment Subgrade Soils,
Aggregate Base, and Asphalt Pavement Materials. Zhiming Si, Robert L. Graham, and Richard
Williammee with TXDOT provide project coordination and assistance with field testing. Stan
Allen served as the contractor liaison for Ed Bell Construction Co. Kirby Carpenter from Texana
Machinery/Case, Rolland Anderegg with Ammann Compaction Ltd. (Switzerland), and Gert
Hanson with Dynapac USA, Inc. provided intelligent compaction rollers and field support during
the project. D-SPA tests were conducted by Prof. Soheil Nazarian and Mr. Deren Yuan from the
University of Texas at El Paso. George Chang from the Transtec Group, Inc. is the Principal
Investigator for this research project. Robert D. Horan is the project facilitator and assisted with
scheduling rollers for the project. Many other assisted with the coordination and participated in
the field demonstrations and their assistance and interest is greatly appreciated.
INTRODUCTION
The Iowa State University research team conducted field investigations on the FM156
project located in Roanoke, Texas from June 20 25, 2008 on Case/Ammann and Dynapac
intelligent compaction (IC) rollers. The project involved preparing and testing seven test beds
with Type II, III, and V materials (Type II fine-grained cohesive subgrade clay, Type V lime
stabilized subgrade, and Type III flex base aggregate material) as identified in the project
proposal. Case/Ammann smooth drum and padfoot rollers equipped with roller-integrated
stiffness (ks) and Dynapac smooth drum roller equipped with roller-integrated CMV
measurement systems were used on the project. The rollers were equipped with GPS and onboard documentation systems. Goals of this field investigation were to:
Evaluate the effectiveness of the roller-integrated measurement values (MVs) from

padfoot and smooth drum rollers in assessing the compaction quality of three material
types (Type II, III and V) encountered on the project,
Develop correlations between MVs from padfoot and smooth drum rollers and various
conventionally used in-situ point measurements in QC/QA practice, and
Assess comparisons between smooth drum and padfoot roller MVs.
This report presents background information for the two measurement systems evaluated in this
study (ks and CMV), and documents the results and analysis from test bed field studies and the
field demonstration activities. Results presented in this report for the padfoot roller are of high
priority among many state DOTs and contractor personnel (based on a recent survey conducted
by White 2008). To the authors knowledge, this is the first documented field study to report
accelerometer based padfoot roller MVs applications for fine grained cohesive subgrade and lime
stabilized subgrade materials, and comparison of padfoot to smooth drum roller MVs. These
results should be of significant interest to the pavement, geotechnical, and construction
engineering community and are anticipated to promote implementation of compaction
monitoring technologies into earthwork construction practice in the United States. Further the
results of smooth drum measurements for the Type III flex base aggregate material provided new
correlation results.
BACKGROUND
Roller-Integrated Stiffness (ks) Measurement Value
SV-212 12-ton padfoot and smooth drum Case rollers equipped with Ammanns rollerintegrated stiffness ks measurement value were used on this project (Figure 1). The ks
measurement system was introduced by Ammann during late 1990s considering a lumped
parameter two-degree-of-freedom spring dashpot system illustrated in Figure 2 (Anderegg 1998).
The spring dashpot model has been found effective in representing the drum-ground interaction
behavior (Yoo and Selig 1980). The drum inertia force and eccentric force time histories are
determined from drum acceleration and eccentric position (neglecting frame inertia). The drum
displacement zd is determined by double integrating the measured peak drum accelerations. The
soil stiffness ks is determined using Equation 1 when there is no loss of contact between drum
7
and soil. The ks value represents a quasi-static stiffness value and is independent of the excitation
frequency between 25 to 40 Hz (Anderegg and Kaufmann 2004).
m r cos( )
k s 4 2 f 2 md e e
(1)
where f is the excitation frequency, md is the drum mass, mere is the eccentric moment of the
unbalanced mass, is the phase angle, a is vibration amplitude. The machines used on this
project reported a measurement value approximately every 0.5 m at the drum center along the
direction of travel. The ks measurement system has the capability to perform compaction in a
manual mode (i.e., using constant amplitude setting) and in an automatic feedback control (AFC)
mode. AFC mode operations, however, were not evaluated at this site.
Figure 1. SV212 padfoot and smooth drum rollers used on the project
Equivalent frame
weight
mf
zf
csusp
ksusp
Drum weight
and dynamic
force generated
md
zd
Suspension stiffness
and damping
fe(t)
ks
cs
Soil stiffness
and damping
Fs
Figure 2. Lumped parameter two-degree-of-freedom spring dashpot model representing

vibratory compactor and soil behavior (reproduced from Yoo and Selig 1980)
Prior to initiating the research study, representatives from Case/Ammann conducted a comparison
study between the smooth drum and padfoot rollers on different soil types, as use of padfoot rollers
was relatively new to this system (Anderegg 2008). The results of the comparison study produced
the following conclusions:
1. The ACE system is able to measure the ks on different types of soils with a smooth drum
roller as well using a padfoot roller.
2. Due to higher stresses of a padfoot contact compared to the smooth drum contact over the
whole drum, the padfoot roller produce higher ks values on hard subgrade, i.e., (ksPD >
ksSD) (see Figure 3).
3. The ks values on soft material, where the padfoot sink into the ground and show a deep
footprint, the ks values are similar for padfoot and smooth drum rollers, i.e., (ksPD = ksSD)
(see Figure 3).
4. The accuracy of the measurement is high for both applications; the significance of the data
is equal or higher than similar data measured with a smooth drum.
5. Due to the increased vibrating weight of the padfoot drum, the resonance frequency of the
soil-drum-system is decreased. The resulting resonance frequency decreased by about15%
due to the added weight of the pad shell.
Figure 3. Figure showing the effect of contact footprint on padfoot and smooth drum ks
measurements (Anderegg 2008)
Roller-Integrated Compaction Meter Value (CMV)
A CA-362 15-ton smooth drum roller equipped with the DCA (Dynapac Compaction
Analyzer) system was also used on this project (Figure 4). The DCA system measures
compaction meter value (CMV) as an indicator of compaction quality. The CMV technology uses
accelerometers to measure drum accelerations in response to soil behavior during compaction
operations. The ratio between the amplitude of the first harmonic and the amplitude of the
fundamental frequency provides an indication of the soil compaction level (Thurner and
Sandstrm, 1980). An increase in CMV indicates increasing compaction. CMV is calculated
using Equation 2.
9
CMV C
A1
A0
(2)
where C = constant, A1 = acceleration of the first harmonic component of the vibration, and A0 =
acceleration of the fundamental component of the vibration (Sandstrm & Pettersson, 2004). CMV
is a dimensionless parameter that depends on roller dimensions (i.e., drum diameter, weight) and
roller operation parameters (i.e., frequency, amplitude, speed). The machine used on this project
reported a measurement value approximately every 0.5 m at the drum center along the direction of
travel.
The machine also reported a bouncing value (BV) which provides an indication of the drum
behavior (e.g., continuous contact, partial uplift, double jump, rocking motion, and chaotic
motion) and is calculated using Equation 3, where A0.5 = subharmonic acceleration amplitude
cause by drum jumping. When the machine is operated in AFC mode, reportedly the amplitude is
reduced when BV approaches 14 to prevent drum jumping (personal communication with Gert
Hanson, Dynapac). Comparison between AFC mode and manual mode of compaction to assess
the effectiveness of AFC on flex base material is presented in this study.
BV C
A 0.5
A0
(3)
Figure 4. CA-362 smooth drum roller used on the project

EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
Description of Test Beds
A total of seven test beds with three different materials were tested during this field
study. A summary of each test bed with material conditions and tests performed is provided in
Table 1. A summary of soil index properties for each material is provided in Table 2. Details
regarding construction and testing of each test bed are provided in the Appendix.
10
Table 1. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing

Test
Bed
1
Date
7/21/2008
Machine(s)
C/A
Drum
S, P
7/22/2008
C/A, D
7/22/2008
C/A
Subgrade
II
7/23/2008
C/A
III
7/23/2008
C/A
S, P
Flex base
Lime stabilized
subgrade
6/7*
7/23/2008
Flex base
III
Material
Subgrade
Flex base and
lime stabilized
subgrade
Material
Type
II
In-situ Test
Measurement
w, d, CBR, ELWD
III, V
w, d, CBR, ELWD, EV1,

EV2, EFWD
w, d, ELWD, EFWD,
CBR
(see TB2)
w, d, CBR, ELWD,
EV1/EV2, EFWD
w, d, CBR, ELWD, EV1,

EV2, EFWD, D-SPA
Note: C/A Case/Ammann, D Dynapac, S Smooth, P Pad foot, w moisture content, d dry unit weight, CBR
California bearing ratio determined from dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test, ELWD elastic modulus determined using light
weight deflectometer (LWD), EV1 and EV2 initial and reload moduli determined from static plate load test (PLT), EFWD elastic
modulus determined using falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test, D-SPA dynamic seismic pavement analyzer, *TB 6
involved compaction of flex base material and TB 7 involved performing in-situ point measurements on the compacted layer.
Table 2. Summary of soil index properties

Parameter
Subgrade
Lime Stabilized
Subgrade
Material Description (USCS)
Lean clay
Silty sand with

gravel
Gravel Content (%) (> 4.75mm)

Sand Content (%) (4.75mm 75m)
Silt Content (%) (75m 2m)
Clay Content (%) (< 2m)
Coefficient of Uniformity (cu)
Coefficient of Curvature (cc)
Liquid Limit, LL (%)
3
10
50
37
41
17
60
19
4
71.9
3.0
47
Poorly graded
gravel to silty
gravel with sand
69
21
7
3
172.9
14.8
Plasticity Index, PI
29
12
A-7-6(24)
CL
2.65
A-2-7
SM
2.65
A-1-a
GP-GM
2.65
AASHTO
USCS
Specific Gravity, Gs (assumed)
11
Flex Base
In-situ Testing Methods
Six different in-situ testing methods were employed in this study to evaluate the in-situ
soil physical and mechanical properties (Figure 5): (a) 200-mm diameter Zorn LWD setup with
50 mm drop height to determine elastic modulus (ELWD-Z2), (b) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) to determine California bearing Ratio (CBR), (c) calibrated nuclear moisture-density
gauge (NG), (d) 300-mm diameter Dynatest FWD to determine elastic modulus (EFWD), (e) 300mm diameter static PLT to determine initial (EV1) and re-load modulus (EV2), and (f) D-SPA to
determine low-strain elastic modulus (ED-SPA). LWD, DCP, NG, and PLT tests were conducted
by the ISU research team with aid of the geotechnical mobile lab (Figure 5g), FWD tests were
conducted by TXDOT personnel (Mr. Robert L. Graham), and D-SPA tests were conducted by
University of Texas at El Paso personnel (Prof. Soheil Nazarian and Mr. Deren Yuan).
LWD tests were performed following manufacturer recommendations (Zorn 2003) and the ELWDZ2 value was determined using Equation 4, where E = elastic modulus (MPa), d0 = measured
settlement (mm), v = Poissons ratio, 0 = applied stress (MPa), r = radius of the plate (mm), f =
shape factor depending on stress distribution (assumed as 8/3 for flex base and/2 for subgrade
and lime stabilized subgrade materials). When padfoot roller was used for compaction, the
material was carefully excavated down to the bottom of the pad to create a level surface for
LWD testing.
(1 v 2 ) 0 r
f
d0
(4)
DCP test was performed in accordance with ASTM D6951-03 to determine dynamic cone
penetration index (DPI) and calculate CBR using Equation 5. The DCP test results are presented
in this report as CBR point values or CBR profiles. When the data is presented as point values,
the data represents an average CBR of the compaction layer or the depth specified (e.g., CBR0-250
represents 0-250 mm depth).
CBR
292
DPI 1.12
(5)
EFWD-D3 values were determined from the stiffness values using Equation 4 (f values were
assumed as stated above). Static PLTs were conducted by applying a static load on 300 mm
diameter plate against a 6.2kN capacity reaction force. The applied load was measured using a
90-kN load cell and deformations were measured using three 50-mm linear voltage displacement
transducers (LVDTs). The load and deformation readings were continuously recorded during the
test using a data logger. The EV1 and EV2 values were determined from Equation 4, using
appropriate stress and deflection values as illustrated in Figure 5 depending on the material/layer
type. The D-SPA test developed by Nazarian et al. (1993) was used on the project. The resulting
modulus values were provided from Transtec.
12
(a)
(d)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Figure 5. In-situ testing methods used on the project: (a) 200-mm diameter plate Zorn
LWD, (b) dynamic cone penetrometer, (c) calibrated nuclear moisture-density gauge, (d)
300-mm diameter Dynatest FWD, (e) 300-mm diameter static PLT, (f) D-SPA, and (g) Iowa
State University geotechnical mobile lab
13
0 (MN/m2)
0.4
EV1
EV2
(MN/m2)
0.2
0.2
EV1
EV2
0.1
Subgrade and
lime stabilized
subgrade
subgrade
Flex Base
base and subbase
0.0
0.0
Deflection
Deflection
Figure 6. EV1 and EV2 determination procedure from static PLT for subgrade and flex base
material
IN-SITU TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results and analysis from this field investigation are presented in the following sections. First,
brief description of the construction process, and results showing comparison between roller
MVs and in-situ point measurements, spatial maps, regression analysis, and conclusions are
presented separately for each testbed. Later, comparison measurements obtained between smooth
drum and padfoot roller measurements from TBs 1, 3, 4, and 5 are presented. In the end, a
general summary and conclusions from this field investigation and recommendations for future
work are provided.
TBs 1 and 3 Clay Subgrade Material
Construction of TBs
TB 1 was constructed by scarifying the existing subgrade material to a depth of about 250
mm. The TB was compacted in five lanes where two lanes were used as calibration test strips
and the rest was used for production compaction (see Figure 7 and Figure 8). Lane 1 was
prepared with three target moisture sections with moisture contents varying from dry to wet of
the materials optimum moisture content as shown on Figure 7. Lane 2 was prepared with a
target moisture content close to the optimum moisture content (Figure 7). The Case/Ammann
pad foot roller was used for compacting the test bed. In-situ point measurements (w, d, CBR,
and ELWD-Z2) were obtained after 1, 2, 4, and 8 roller passes in the calibration lanes. Following
calibration testing, the test bed was mapped using the padfoot roller. The same area was mapped
using the Case/Ammann smooth drum roller (results are identified as TB 3). A few select point
locations along Lanes 1 and 5 of TB 3 were also tested to determine EFWD-D3, EV1, w, d, and
CBR values, following mapping passes.
14
~180m
Lane5
~14m
Lane4
Calibrationlanes
Lane3
Lane2
Lane1
closetow opt
wetofw opt
Dryofw opt
Figure 7. Experimental testing setup TB 1
Lane 5
Figure 8. Picture showing different lanes on TB 1
Roller-integrated and in-situ point measurements

Roller-integrated ksPD results for various passes from calibration lane 1 are provided in
Figure 9 which indicates that the results are repeatable. Multiple pass ksPD maps of TB 1 are
presented in Figure 10. The maps indicate increasing compaction based on ksPD measurement
values increasing with increasing passes. Figure 11 shows the average ksPD and in-situ
measurement compaction growth curves for each moisture section. A reduction in ksPD was
noticed after pass 1 and then a consistent increase in compaction was noticed from pass 2 to 8.
This behavior is likely due to the first pass knocking down the rough ground condition. The dry
of optimum moisture content and optimum moisture sections showed comparatively better
growth in ksPD and in-situ point measurement values compared to the wet section. No significant
increase was noticed in the average d values from pass 4 to 8 for the wet of optimum and
optimum moisture sections. Figure 12 presents in-situ w-d results after pass 8 in comparison
with laboratory w-d relationships determined from standard and modified Proctor tests. After
15
pass 8, on average the dry of optimum, close to optimum, and wet of optimum sections of the
subgrade were at about 96%, 89%, and 88% of the standard Proctor dmax.
Comparison between ksPD and different in-situ point measurements for calibration lanes 1 and 2
are presented in
Figure 13. The ELWD-Z2 point measurements captured the variability observed in the ksPD
measurements better than the CBR and d measurements. Using the mapping pass measurements
from the padfoot (TB 1) and smooth drum rollers (TB3), comparison between ksPD, ksSD and insitu point measurements are presented in Figure 14 for lanes 1 and 5. Results show that EFWD-D3
and EV1 measurements tracked well with ks measurement values and the other point measurements
showed significant scatter.
Simple linear regression relationships between ks and different in-situ point measurements from
TBs 1 and 3 are presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16. The relationships were developed by pairing
spatially nearest point measurements with the ks data. Spatial locations of point measurements were
adjusted up to 0.5 m between roller passes to pair with appropriate roller measurement values
and involved some judgment. A summary of regression relationships from TBs 1 and 3 are
presented in Table 3. The relationships show R2 values ranging from 0 to 0.7. Relationships with
EFWD and EV1 measurements produced comparatively higher correlations with R2 > 0.6.
To further assess scatter observed in the regressions, full depth CBR profiles from TB 1 were
analyzed as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. CBR values for the underlying subgrade layer were
determined (average CBR from 250 to 500 mm depth) and compared with the ks values. This
comparison indicates that in the dry of optimum portion of calibration lane 1 (i.e., position 120 m
to 180 m) where the compaction layer CBR > 13, the ks values are better correlated with the
underlying layer CBR values. In the wet of optimum portion (i.e., position 0 to 60 m) where the
compaction layer CBR < 8 the ks values are better correlated with the compaction layer CBR
values. This finding suggests that the roller-integrated ks values are influenced by soft zones in
the compaction layer as well as below the compaction layer. The d, CBR, and ELWD-Z2
measurements represent only the compaction layer (i.e., within 250 mm depth) properties and
therefore did not match well with ks measurements which were influenced by the underlying soft
layers. The EV1 and EFWD-D3 measurements are believed to have greater influence depths due to
larger plate diameter (300 mm) and higher applied contact stresses. Therefore, the EV1 and EFWD-D3
produced better correlations with the ks values. Relating full depth (up to 1m) DCP-CBR profile
information to correlate with ks values is a topic of ongoing research for the research team.
Summary
Both padfoot and smooth drum roller-integrated ks values (ksPD and ksSD) reliably indicate the
compaction quality of the subgrade clay material with good repeatability. Regression relationships
between ks and different in-situ point measurements show positive correlations with varying degree
of uncertainty in the correlations (as assessed by the R2 values), however. Correlations with EFWD
and EV1 values (with R2 > 0.6) produced better R2 values compared to ELWD-Z2, d, and CBR (of the
compaction layer) measurements. Poorer correlations with ELWD-Z2, d, and CBR compaction layer
values is attributed to the limitation of shallow measurement influence depth of these
measurements ( 250 mm). CBR profiles up to 1 m generated from DCP tests identified soft
16
zones below the compaction layer which affected the ks values. The EV1 and EFWD-D3 are believed
to have influence depths that extend below the compaction layer due to higher applied contact
stresses at the surface.
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
25
Lane 1
Localized Wet Area
20
15
10
Pass 1
Pass 2
Pass 3
Pass 4
140Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7
Pass 8
5
0
20
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
25
40
60
80
100
120
40
60
80
100
120
Lane 5
160
180
160
180
20
15
10
5
0
20
140
Distance (m)
Figure 9. kSPD measurement from different passes on TB1 lanes 1 and 5 (nominal a = 0.8
mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
0
Pass1
20
Lane
1
2
3
4
5
40
Distance (m)
60
80
Localized
Wet Area
100
120
140
160
180
Figure 10. Screen shots of kSPD maps for different passes on TB 1
17
35
16
14
12
10
30
25
20
Std. Proctor wopt = 17.8%
15
10
5
0
10
18
Std. Proctor dmax = 16.8 kN/m3
17
16
15
14
13
10
18
15
12
9
6
0
10
Pass
18
Average CBR (%)
Average ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
19
Average d (kN/m3)
Initial pass over

rough grade
18
Average w (%)
Average kSIPD (MN/m)
20
15
Section 1 - Dry
Section 2 - Optimum
Section 3 - Wet
12
9
6
3
0
10
10
Pass
Pass
Figure 11. Compaction growth curves for kSPD and in-situ point measurements (TB 1 lane
1 calibration test strip, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
Standard Prctor
Modified Proctor
In-situ w-d, Pass 8
Gs = 2.70
ZAV line
Dry Unit Weight, d (kN/m )
20
18
16
14
10
15
20
25
Moisture Content, w (%)
Figure 12. Comparison of laboratory Proctor curves and in-situ w-d measurements after
pass 8 TB 1 subgrade material
18
10
10
0
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 8
30
20
20
10
10
20
30
30
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 2
20
10
30
30
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 4
20
10
30
30
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 8
20
10
30
40
0
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 8
kSIPD(MN/m)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
20
15
10
5
0
Pass 1
20
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Lane 2
Lane 1
18
15
10
12
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 2
18
20
15
10
12
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 4
18
20
15
10
12
0
10
20
0
40
10
30
40
0
10
20
15
20
30
40
20
0
10
20
80 120 160
10
30
40
40
Pass 4
40
10
80 120 160
10
0
40
10
80 120 160
Lane 2
Lane 1
20
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
20
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
Pass 1
40
10
10
w (%)
30
80 120 160
15
20
kSIPD(MN/m)
40
20
CBR (%)
20
40
kSIPD(MN/m)
30
Pass 2
CBR (%)
Pass 4
80 120 160
80 120 160
w (%)
kSIPD(MN/m)
kSIPD(MN/m)
40
20
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
80 120 160
40
d (kN/m )
0
40
30
80 120 160
10
0
40
d (kN/m )
10
20
10
10
d (kN/m )
20
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
30
15
30
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Pass 8
18
20
15
10
12
Pass 2
20
20
Lane 2
Lane 1
d (kN/m )
80 120 160
kSIPD(MN/m)
40
kSIPD(MN/m)
80 120 160
Pass 1
kSIPD(MN/m)
40
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
ELWD-Z2(MPa)
ELWD-Z2(MPa)
10
ELWD-Z2(MPa)
10
kSIPD(MN/m)
20
ELWD-Z2(MPa)
30
Lane 2
Lane 1
w (%)
20
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
Pass 1
w (%)
kSIPD(MN/m)
30
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
Figure 13. Comparison between kSPD and in-situ point measurements at passes 1, 2, 4, and
8 (TB 1 lane 1, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
19
20
ks (MN/m)
60
20
40
10
20
0
0
80 120 160
40
10
0
80 120 160
40
40
80 120 160
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
80 120 160
40
80 120 160
30
20
10
Dist 1-lane 1 vs ks Pass 1
80 120 160
d (kN/m )
80 120 160
30
40
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
12
80 120 160
30
40
15
40
80
40
18
10
80 120 160
30
21
20
CBR (%)
40
ks (MN/m)
80 120 160
ks (MN/m)
40
Lane 5
40
80 120 160
40
50
40
30
20
10
0
EV1(MPa)
15
kSISD
ks (MN/m)
10
10
Lane 1
30
w (%)
20
ks (MN/m)
ELWD-Z2(MPa)
ks (MN/m)
Lane 5
EFWD-D3(MPa)
Lane 1
kSIPD
30
80 120 160
Figure 14. Comparison between kSPD, kSSD, and in-situ point measurements from TB3
(kSSD: mapping pass, a = 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h; kSPD: pass 8, a = 0.8 mm, f = 35
Hz, v = 3.5 km/h)
Table 3. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TBs 1 and 3
TB
Settings
Drum
1/3
a = 0.8 mm
f = 35 Hz
Padfoot
1/3
a = 1.1 mm
f = 30 Hz
Smooth
Model*
kSIPD = b0 + b1 ELWD-Z2
kSIPD = b0 + b1 d
kSIPD = b0 + b1 CBR
kSIPD = b0 + b1 EV1
kSIPD = b0 + b1 EV2
kSIPD = b0 + b1 EFWD-D3
kSIPD = b0 + b1 ED-SPA
kSISD = b0 + b1 ELWD-Z2
kSISD = b0 + b1 d
kSISD = b0 + b1 CBR
kSISD = b0 + b1 EV1
kSISD = b0 + b1 EV2
kSISD = b0 + b1 EFWD-D3
kSISD = b0 + b1 ED-SPA
n
120
75
81
18
18
53
48
56
12
17
18
18
53
48
*Units: ks (MN/m), d (kN/m3), CBR (%), ELWD-Z2/EV1/EV2/EFWD-D3/ED-SPA (MPa).
NS not statistically significant according to p < 0.10 and t < -2 or > +2.
20
b0
11.60
-14.50
10.69
8.51
11.20
6.38
7.20
7.86
5.44
-4.16
-0.32
-2.78
1.78
b1
0.17
1.92
0.43
0.49
0.16
0.25
0.03
0.10
NS
0.39
0.79
0.27
0.33
0.03
R2
0.29
0.33
0.40
0.72
0.50
0.63
0.47
0.10
0.37
0.67
0.45
0.75
0.29
kSIPD(MN/m)
30
30
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
R2 = 0.30
n = 120
0
0
20
40
60
kSIPD(MN/m)
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
15
0
12
20
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
R2 = 0.12
n = 75
5
10
15
20
25
R = 0.72
n = 18
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
EV1 (MPa)
d (kN/m )
30
15
16
17
18
10
2
5
30
14
d (kN/m )
CBR (%)
30
13
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
10
R2 = 0.33
n = 75
R = 0.40
n = 81
R2 = 0.50
n = 18
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
EV2 (MPa)
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
2
R = 0.63
n = 53
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
60
70
R2 = 0.48
n = 48
5
0
100
200
300
400
500
ED-SPA (MPa)
Figure 15. Simple linear regression relationships between kSPD and in-situ point
measurements (TB 1 subgrade clay material, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.2
km/h)
21
30
30
R2 = 0.10
n = 56
kSISD(MN/m)
25
25
30
R2 = 0.37
n = 17
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
0
0
20
40
0
0
60
10
30
30
kSISD(MN/m)
R2 = 0.16
n = 12
20
12
25
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
d (kN/m )
R2 = 0.45
n = 18
15
20
25
30
35
40
EV1 (MPa)
20
40
60
80
100
EV2 (MPa)
30
R2 = 0.75
n = 53
25
15
0
10
17
w
30
14
30
20
10
13
R2 = 0.67
n = 18
25
kSISD(MN/m)
15
CBR (%)
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
25
n = 12
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
R2 = 0.29
n = 48
0
10
20
30
40
50
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
60
70
100
200
300
400
500
ED-SPA (MPa)
Figure 16. Simple linear regression relationships between kSSD and in-situ point
measurements (TB 1 subgrade clay material, nominal a = 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v = 3.5
km/h)
22
15
(2)
(1)
10
Pass 8
Lane 1 (Average w = 12.1%)
0
120
125
130
135
10
5
ks
140
145
150
155
160
CBR0-250
165CBR250-500
170
175
10
5
0
CBR250-500 (%)
(4)
20
15
20
(3)
CBR0-250 (%)
kSIPD(MN/m)
30
0
180
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
600
600
600
(3)
800
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
ks
30
kSIPD(MN/m)
(1)
(2)
800
(8)
20
CBR0-250
20
CBR250-500
15
(7)
10
10
0
(6)
Pass 8
60
65
70
75
(5)
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
5
115
15
10
5
0
CBR250-500 (%)
(4)
800
Pass
400 1
Pass 2
Pass 4
Pass
600 8
CBR0-250 (%)
Depth (mm)
Distance (m)
0
120
Depth (mm)
Distance (m)
0
200
200
200
200
400
400
600
600
400
600
800
(8)
Pass 1
Pass
4002
Pass 4
Pass 8
600
(6)
(7)
800
(5)
800
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
Figure 17. Comparison between roller MV and CBR profiles from TB 1 lane 1 between
60 to 180 m (pass 8, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
23
20
CBR250-500
20
15
15
10
10
10
(10)
(11)
(12)
(9)
5
0
CBR250-500(%)
kSIPD(MN/m)
CBR0-250
Pass 8
CBR0-250(%)
ks
30
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Depth (mm)
Distance (m)
0
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
600
600
600
600
(12)
800
(11)
800
(10)
800
(9)
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR250-500
20
15
15
10
10
10
(16)
(14)
(15)
(13)
0
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
CBR0-250(%)
kSIPD(MN/m)
20
CBR0-250
Pass 8
5
0
CBR250-500(%)
ks
30
0
120
Depth (mm)
Distance (m)
0
200
200
200
200
400
400
600
600
400
Pass 1
Pass
400 2
Pass 4
Pass 8
600
600
800
(16)
(15)
800
(14)
800
(13)
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
Figure 18. Comparison between roller MV and CBR profiles from TB 1 lane 1 between 0
and 60 m, and lane 2 between 60 and 120 m (pass 8, nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz, v = and
3.5 km/h)
24
TB 2 lime-stabilized subgrade and flex base material
Construction and testing on TB2

TB 2 consisted of a compacted layer of lime stabilized subgrade material transitioning to
flex base at each end of the TB (Figure 19). The flex base layer was significantly stiffer than the
stabilized subgrade material and provided a field condition to evaluate the ability of the roller to
distinguish between different ground conditions. Case/Ammann and Dynapac smooth drum
rollers were used for mapping the TB with different amplitude settings (Figure 20). Following
mapping passes, in-situ point measurements (w, d, CBR, ELWD-Z2, EFWD-D3, and ED-SPA) were
obtained from lane 2 of the test bed (see Figure 20).
Spatial maps of roller-integrated kSSD and CMV (from two different amplitude settings)
are presented in Figure 20. Comparison results from lane 2 between CMV, kSSD and in-situ point
measurements are presented in Figure 21 and Figure 22. Results indicate that the wide variation
in stiffness of the two materials in the test bed were well-captured by the in-situ point
measurements and the two roller MVs. A box culvert located at a location within the lime
stabilized subgrade portion of the test bed was well captured by the roller MVs (see Figure 21
and Figure 22). CMV measurements at the two amplitude settings were similar and reproducible
(see Figure 22).
Regression relationships based on spatially paired nearest point data are presented in Figure 23,
and the relationships are summarized in Table 4. Results generally show separate linear trends
for the lime stabilized and flex base materials. Linear regression analysis indicates comparatively
better correlations with EFWD measurements than with other point measurements. Hyperbolic
regression relationships are provided for EFWD and ED-SPA measurements combining
measurements on flex base and lime stabilized subgrade materials. These relationships are
presented only to demonstrate the trends, however, additional data is needed especially for CMV
between 50 and 100, and ks between 30 and 50 to validate the relationships.
Summary
Both roller MVs and in-situ point measurements captured the wide variation in stiffness
of the compacted lime stabilized and flex base materials. A box-culvert located beneath the lime
stabilized subgrade was identified with high roller MVs in that location. Linear regression
relationships generally indicate separate linear trends for the lime stabilized and flex base
materials. EFWD measurements produced better correlations than other point measurements.
Hyperbolic regression relationships were developed for EFWD and ED-SPA measurements which
showed strong correlations with ks and CMV measurements but additional data is needed to
validate the relationships. The CMV measurements at this location were highly repeatable.
25
Flex Base
Lime Stabilized
Subgrade
Flex Base
Figure 19. Picture of TB2 with flex base (on both ends of the test bed) and lime stabilized
subgrade
Flex Base
Lime stabilized subgrade
Flex Base
kSSDMapa=0.8mm,f=30Hz,andv=3.2km/h
Lane2
CMVMapa=1.2mm,f=30Hz,v=3.5km/h
Lane2
CMVMapa=1.9mm,f=30Hz,v=3.5km/h
Lane2
Figure 20. Comparison between kSSD CMV maps TB2 flex base and lime-stabilized
subgrade
26
Lime Stabilized Subgrade

ks (MN/m)
Point Measurement
60
200
100
20
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
400
Box culvert
at 200 mm depth
60
0
240
300
EV1 (MPa)
40
80
200
40
100
20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0
240
24
80
kSISD(MN/m)
400
300
40
20
kSISD(MN/m)
Flex Base
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
Flex Base
22
60
20
40
18
16
20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
3
d (kN/m )
kSISD(MN/m)
80
14
240
800
40
400
20
kSISD(MN/m)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
80
4000
60
3000
2000
40
1000
20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
1200
60
ED-SPA (MPa)
kSISD(MN/m)
80
0
240
Distance (m)
Figure 21. Comparison between kSSD and in-situ point measurements TB2 (lane 2) flex
base and lime stabilized subgrade (nominal a = 0.8 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h)
27
CMV (Setting 2)
Point Measurement
CMV (Setting 3)
150
100
300
200
50
100
0
20
40
60
200
CMV
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0
240
400
a = 0.9 to 1.6 mm (setting 2)

a = 1.4 to 2.2 mm (setting 3)
150
300
100
200
50
100
0
20
CMV
400
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0
240
200
24
150
22
20
100
18
50
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
EV1 (MPa)
CMV
Flex Base
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
Flex Base
3
d (kN/m )
200
14
240
1200
100
800
50
400
0
200
0
240
4000
150
3000
100
2000
50
1000
CMV
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
150
ED-SPA (MPa)
CMV
200
0
240
Distance (m)
Figure 22. Comparison between CMV and in-situ point measurements TB2 (lane 2) flex
base and lime-stabilized subgrade (nominal f = 30 Hz and v = 3.2 km/h)
28
80
80
R = 0.25
n = 10
60
kSISD(MN/m)
kSISD(MN/m)
40
20
R2 = 0.37
n = 0.37
0
0
R2 = 0.37
n = 11
60
R = 0.91
n = 26
40
20
R2 = 0.73
n = 15
0
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
Flex Base
80
80
R = 0.48
n=8
60
kSISD(MN/m)
kSISD(MN/m)
40
20
0
60
R2 = 0.71
n = 20
40
20
0
100
200
300
400
1000
EV1 (MPa)
2000
3000
4000
ED-SPA (MPa)
200
150
150
CMV
CMV
(a)
200
100
50
50
R2 = 0.60
n = 15
0
0
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

EFWD-D3 (MPa)
Lime Stablized Subgarde

Flex Base
200
200
150
CMV
150
CMV
R2 = 0.62
n = 15
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
R = 0.15
n = 11
R2 = 0.94
n = 26
100
R2 = 0.16
n=8
100
100
R = 0.94
n = 20
50
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
1000
2000
3000
4000
ED-SPA (MPa)
EV1 (MPa)
(b)
Figure 23. Simple linear regression relationships between (a) kSPD, (b) CMV and in-situ
point measurements TB 2
29
Table 4. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TB 2

MV
Material*
LS
kSISD
FB
LS and FB
LS
CMV
FB
LS and FB
Model**
kSISD = b0 + b1 EV1
kSISD = b0 + b1 EV1
kSISD = b0 EFWD-D3/(b1 EFWD-D3)
kSISD = b0 EFWD-D3/(b1 ED-SPA)
CMV = b0 + b1 ELWD-Z2
CMV = b0 + b1 EV1
CMV = b0 + b1 EFWD-D3
CMV = b0 + b1 ED-SPA
CMV = b0 + b1 ELWD-Z2
CMV = b0 + b1 EV1
CMV = b0 + b1 EFWD-D3
CMV = b0 + b1 ED-SPA
CMV = b0 EFWD-D3/(b1 EFWD-D3)
CMV = b0 EFWD-D3/(b1 ED-SPA)
n
15
10
15
15
10
8
11
5
26
20
15
10
15
15
10
8
11
5
26
20
b0
0.05
0.14
0.04
0.03
0.03
60.3
63.3
0.09
0.16
0.06
0.02
259.6
336.0
b1
19.18
NS
11.83
NS
43.2
47.5
38.55
NS
124.3
790.7
7.46
NS
1.79
NS
NS
114.05
103.19
NS
921.9
3930.3
R2
0.37
0.73
0.25
0.48
0.37
0.91
0.71
0.60
0.62
0.16
0.15
0.94
0.94
*LS lime stabilized subgrade, FB flex base

TB 5 lime-stabilized subgrade material
Construction of TB
TB 5 consisted of lime-treated subgrade material and was located in the same area as TB
2. Prior to mapping operations on TB 2, on 07/21/2008 the existing subgrade material was
scarified to a depth of about 250 mm, reclaimed with lime slurry, and compacted using padfoot
and smooth drum rollers (Figure 24). The application of lime slurry was observed to be nonuniform across the test bed (Figure 25) because of ponding in the center of the test bed. The
compacted layer was reclaimed using a soil pulverizer and moisture conditioned on 07/23/2008
to prepare TB5 (Figure 24). Compaction operations on TB 5 were performed by dividing the area
into six roller lanes (see Figure 27 and Figure 28). Three lanes were compacted using
Case/Ammann padfoot roller and the other three lanes were compacted using Case/Ammann
smooth drum roller. Lanes 3 and 4 were used as calibration test strips for padfoot and smooth
drum rollers, respectively, and the remaining area was used for production compaction. In-situ
point measurements (w, d, CBR, and ELWD-Z2) were obtained on the calibration lanes after 1, 2,
4, 8 and 12 compaction passes. The test bed was mapped using the smooth drum roller
30
following production compaction. EFWD, ED-SPA, EV1, EV2, and ELWD tests were conducted on lane
1 after mapping.
To assess the influence of time delay on the compaction characteristics of the lime stabilized
material, laboratory Proctor density tests were carried out at three different times (see Figure 29).
As a result of increasing flocculation and agglomeration, the laboratory w-d relationships
indicate that the optimum moisture content increases and the maximum dry unit weight
decreases with time.
Figure 24. Photos showing placement (left) and reclamation (right) process of lime slurry
with existing subgrade material (pictures taken 07/21/08)
Figure 25. Picture showing ponding of lime slurry on the scarified subgrade (picture taken
07/21/2008)
31
Figure 26. Picture showing soil reclaiming (left) and moisture conditioning process on TB 5
(picture taken 07/23/2008)
~200m
Lane1
Calibrationlanes
~14m
Lane2
Lane3
Lane4
Lane5
Lane6
BoxCulvert
Figure 27. Experimental testing setup on TB5 (lane 3 for padfoot roller calibration strip
and lane 4 for smooth drum roller calibration strip)
6
Lane
1
Figure 28. Picture of TB5 with different lanes
32
Dry Unit Weight, d (kN/m )
Gs = 2.70
ZAV line
18
Standard Proctor (07/25/08)

Modified Proctor (07/25/08)
In-situ w-d (Pass 12-Lane 3)
17
In-situ w-d (Pass 8-Lane 4)
16
15
14
13
5
10
15
20
25
Moisture Content, w (%)
Figure 29. Comparison of laboratory Proctor curves and in-situ w-d measurements TB 5
lime-stabilized subgrade material

Roller-integrated ksPD results for various passes from calibration lane 3 are provided in
Figure 30 which indicates that the results are repeatable and that the values increase with
increasing passes. Figure 31 shows the average ksPD and in-situ measurement compaction growth
curves for the lane 3 calibration strip. The in-situ test measurements (d, CBR, and ELWD)
reached an asymptotic maximum at 8 passes. ELWD showed a reduction in the average value after
12 passes, likely because of surficial decompaction. The average ksPD value reached an
asymptotic value by 8 passes and showed a slight increase from pass 11 to 12. Figure 32 shows the
average in-situ measurement compaction growth curves for the lane 4 calibration strip compacted
using smooth drum roller. ksSD results were not available for the lane 4 calibration strip due to a
corrupt data file problem.
The in-situ measurement values on average showed slightly greater compaction on lane 4
compared to lane 3 after pass 8 (d = 15.0 kN/m3 on lane 3 and 15.3 kN/m3 on lane 4; ELWD = 35
MPa on lane 3 and 39 MPa on lane 4). In-situ w-d results after 12 and 8 passes on lanes 3 and 4,
respectively, are presented in comparison with laboratory w-d relationships in Figure 29. Results
show that the material was close to or wet of optimum moisture content as determined by
standard Proctor test on a sample tested on 07/25/08 (note that the soil was compacted in the
field on 07/23/2008, for future testing involving stabilized subgrade it would be worthwhile to
perform the lab compaction test at the same time the material is being compacted to eliminate
differences in maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content from time dependent
chemical reactions).
Comparisons between ksPD and different in-situ point measurements for calibration lane 3 and
production lane 1 are presented in Figure 33 and Figure 34, respectively. The ELWD-Z2, EV1, EV2,
EFWD-D3, ED-SPA, and CBR point measurements captured the variability observed in ksPD
measurements better than the d measurements. The w measurements tracked well along the ksPD
33
measurements indicating that an increase in w causes a decrease in ksPD. Using the mapping pass
measurements from the smooth drum roller, ksSD measurements are also presented in comparison
with the in-situ point measurements in Figure 33 and Figure 34. Discussion on comparison
between ksSD and ksPD measurements is presented later in the report.
Figure 35 shows the ksSD map with CBR profiles at four select locations highlighting the area
underlain by box culvert. The ksSD values at the location underlain by the box culvert (about 200
mm below grade) were higher and the ksSD values were lower along the edge of the culvert,
which is a common condition whereby it is difficult to compact material directly adjacent to box
culvert walls. CBR profiles shown in Figure 35 confirm the poor backfill compaction condition.
Simple linear regression relationships between ks values and different in-situ point measurements
from are presented in Figure 36 and Figure 37. The relationships were developed by pairing
spatially nearest point measurements with the ks data. Spatial locations of point measurements were
slightly (< 0.5 m) adjusted to pair with appropriate roller measurement value using judgment. A
summary of the regression relationships are presented in Table 5. The relationships show low R2
values for relationships with d (R2 = 0.21 to 0.37). Relationships with ED-SPA for this dataset also
show poor correlations, however with encouraging trends and warrants application in future
studies. Other in-situ point measurements showed good correlations with R2 > 0.5. The ks values
were sensitive to moisture content as evidenced by R2 > 0.5 in the regression relationships.
Summary
Both padfoot and smooth drum roller-integrated ks values (ksPD and ksSD) reliably
indicated the compaction quality of the lime stabilized subgrade clay material with good
repeatability. The ks measurements effectively identified poor backfill compaction conditions
along the edge of a box culvert located in this test bed and the results were confirmed from CBR
profiles. Regression relationships between ks and different in-situ point measurements show
positive correlations with varying degree of uncertainty in the correlations (as assessed by the R2
values), however. Better correlations were observed with EFWD, EV1, EV2, and ELWD values (with
R2 > 0.5) compared to ED-SPA and d. Relationships with ED-SPA show encouraging trends in the
data, however. The ks values were sensitive to moisture content of the compaction layer material.
40
Box Culvert
35
ks (MN/m)
Pass 1
Pass 4
Pass 6
Pass 8
30
Pass 12
25
20
15
10
30
40
50
60
70
80
Distance (m)
34
90
100
110
120
130
45
40
35
30
25
0
20
28
18
26
16
14
12
10
15
10
5
0
20
10 12 14
Average w (%)
Average d (kN/m )
20
50
Average CBR (%)
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
Average kSIPD(MN/m)
Figure 30. kSPD measurements from different passes on TB5 lane 3 calibration test strip
(nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
10 12 14
10 12 14
Pass
24
22
20
18
8
0
10 12 14
10 12 14
Pass
Pass
NO DATA*
45
40
35
30
25
0
20
28
18
26
16
14
12
15
10
5
0
20
10 12 14
w (%)
Avareage d (kN/m )
20
50
Average CBR (%)
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
Average kSIPD (MN/m)
Figure 31. Compaction growth curves for kSPD and in-situ point measurements (TB 5 lane
3 calibration test strip, nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
10 12 14
10 12 14
Pass
24
22
20
10
18
8
0
Pass
10 12 14
10 12 14
Pass
Figure 32. Compaction growth curves for in-situ point measurements (TB 5 lane 4
calibration test strip) (*roller data file corrupt)
35
90
60
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 2
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 4
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 8
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
120
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 13 kSISD
Pass 12
kSIPD
30
20
10
0
Pass 1
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 2
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 4
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 8
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 13 kSISD
Pass 12
kSIPD
0
10
20
w (%)
ks (MN/m)
ks (MN/m)
Pass 13 kSISD
Pass 12
kSIPD
30
Pass 1
20 40 60 80 100 120
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 2
40 60 80 100 120
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 4
40 60 80 100 120
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 8
40 60 80 100 120
40 60 80 100 120
Pass 13 kSISD
Pass 12
kSIPD
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
ks (MN/m)
Pass 1
20 40 60 80 100 120
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Pass 8
20 40 60 80 100 120
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Pass 4
30
20 40 60 80 100 120
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Pass 2
CBR (%)
Box Pass 1
Culvert
d (kN/m )
ks (MN/m)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
40 60 80 100 120
Distance (m)
Figure 33. Comparison results between kSPD (passes 1 to 12), kSSD (pass 13), and in-situ point measurements TB5 lime
stabilized subgrade calibration lane (nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h)
36
Pass 8 kSIPD
20
0
40
50
60
70
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
80
90
100
110
120
130
150
90
60
30
EV1(MPa)
120
EV1
0
40
50
60
70
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
80
90
100
110
120
130
400
300
EV2
200
100
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
EV2(MPa)
500
130
250
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
200
EFWD-D3
150
100
50
EFWD-D3(MPa)
ks (MN/m)
ks (MN/m)
60
40
30
ks (MN/m)
80
ELWD-Z2
30
0
30
ks (MN/m)
100
Pass 10 kSISD
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
40
50
60
70
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
80
90
100
110
120
130
100
80
ED-SPA
60
40
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
ED-SPAMPa)
ks (MN/m)
Box Culvert at
200 mm depth
0
130
Distance (m)
Figure 34. Comparison between kSPD, kSSD, and in-situ point measurements on TB 5 lane
1 lime stabilized subgrade material (kSPD: nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.5 km/h;
kSSD: nominal a = 1.5 mm, f = 35 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h)
37
0
Point 12
200
Point 13
400
600
ELWDZ2 =47.5MPa
EV1 =42.1MPa
EV2 =121.1MPa
EFWDD3 =57MPa
EDSPA =44MPa
Depth (mm)
Depth (mm)
200
Point13
800
400
600
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
DCP refusal
(Box Culvert)
ELWDZ2 =58.4MPa
EV1 =96.9MPa
EV2 =381.1MPa
EFWDD3 =145MPa
EDSPA =88MPa
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Point12
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
0
Point 5
Point5
Depth (mm)
200
400
600
w =29.5%
d =13.8kN/m3
ELWDZ2 =11.6MPa
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
Point 1
CBR (%)
Depth (mm)
200
400
600
This area
comparatively
wetter
w =20.8%
d =16.0kN/m3
ELWDZ2 =61.1MPa
Point1
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CBR (%)
Figure 35. kSSD maps (map 1: nominal a = 1.5 mm, f = 30 Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h) and DCP
profiles at select locations on TB5 lime stabilized material (isolated area underlain by a
concrete box culvert)
38
40
40
R2 = 0.55
n = 63
kSIPD (MN/m)
35
40
35
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
0
20
40
10
0
60
10
40
40
2
kSIPD (MN/m)
R = 0.54
n = 45
35
20
12
R2 = 0.53
n = 16
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
16
17
18
d (kN/m )
R = 0.53
n = 16
10
50
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
15
35
30
100
150
200
250
EV1 (MPa)
w
35
14
40
30
40
13
30
10
kSIPD (MN/m)
15
CBR (%)
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
35
R = 0.21
n = 45
R = 0.59
n = 27
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

EV2 (MPa)
40
R = 0.64
n = 18
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
R = 0.38
n = 18
10
10
40
80
120
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
160
200
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ED-SPA (MPa)
Figure 36. Simple linear regression relationships between kSPD and in-situ point
measurements (TB 5 lime stabilized subgrade clay material, nominal a = 1.0 mm, f = 35
Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h)
39
40
40
R2 = 0.45
n = 26
kSISD (MN/m)
35
40
R2 = 0.72
n=9
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
0
20
40
10
0
60
10
40
40
kSISD (MN/m)
R2 = 0.56
n=9
35
20
12
R2 = 0.51
n = 16
35
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
15
16
17
18
d (kN/m )
R2 = 0.53
n = 16
10
50
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
100
150
200
250
EV1 (MPa)
w
35
14
40
30
40
13
30
10
kSISD (MN/m)
15
CBR (%)
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
35
R2 = 0.37
n=9
35
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

EV2 (MPa)
40
R2 = 0.64
n = 18
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
R2 = 0.29
n = 18
10
10
40
80
120
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
160
200
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ED-SPA (MPa)
Figure 37. Simple linear regression relationships between kSSD and in-situ point
measurements (TB 5 lime stabilized subgrade clay material, nominal a = 1.5 mm, f = 30
Hz, and v = 3.2 km/h)
40
Table 5. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TB 5

TB
Settings
Drum
a = 0.9 mm
f = 35 Hz
Padfoot
a = 1.5 mm
f = 30 Hz
Smooth
Model*
kSIPD = b0 + b1 ELWD-Z2
kSIPD = b0 + b1 d
kSIPD = b0 + b1 CBR
kSIPD = b0 + b1 EV1
kSIPD = b0 + b1 EV2
kSIPD = b0 + b1 EFWD-D3
kSIPD = b0 + b1 ED-SPA
kSISD = b0 + b1 d
kSISD = b0 + b1 CBR
kSISD = b0 + b1 EV1
kSISD = b0 + b1 EV2
n
63
45
27
16
16
18
18
26
9
9
16
16
18
18
b0
16.10
7.58
16.96
22.66
23.23
21.06
18.60
16.35
-31.96
9.48
22.43
23.11
20.51
18.60
b1
0.15
0.85
0.27
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.15
0.18
3.45
0.87
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.17
R2
0.55
0.21
0.59
0.53
0.53
0.64
0.38
0.45
0.37
0.72
0.51
0.53
0.64
0.29
TBs 6 and 7 flex base material
Construction and material conditions

TB6 consisted of approximately 150 mm to 200 mm thick flex base material placed and
leveled to the project grade. Water was added on the layer using water trucks and compacted
using Dynapac smooth drum roller in five roller lanes using different operation settings (see
Figure 38). Lanes 1, 2, and 5 were compacted in manual mode, and lanes 3 and 4 were
compacted using AFC mode. Field observations during compaction indicated water ponding at
the surface due to relatively low permeability of the material (Figure 39). In contrast to the flex
base layer on TB2 (which was compacted several days prior), the material was relatively soft and
spongy during compaction passes. Compaction passes were performed on TB 6 on 07/23/2008.
On 07/24/2008, the test bed was mapped using different amplitude settings (identified as TB 7).
In-situ point measurements (w, d, CBR, ELWD-Z2, EFWD-D3, EV1, EV2, and ED-SPA) were obtained
over the compacted flex base layer TB 7, following mapping operations. The EFWD
measurements were obtained from 180 test locations for spatial analysis. Figure 39 and Figure
40 shows pictures of TB7 after mapping. Significant moisture segregation was noticed on the
compacted surface particularly across the roller drum width in a compaction lane (see Figure 40).
41
~120m
Lane1:Manualsettinga=0.9mm
~13m
Lane3:Auto settingamax =1.9mm
Lane4: Auto settingamax =2.4mm
Figure 38. Experimental setup on TB 6
Figure 39. Moisture on flex base material during compaction (TB 6 left) and a day after
compaction (TB 7 right)
Figure 40. Moisture segregation on flex base material during testing (TB 7)

Roller-integrated measurement values CMV and BV for various passes on lanes 1 through
5 are provided in Figure 41 through Figure 45, respectively. No bouncing was noticed (as assed
by BV measurements) for lanes 1, 2, and 4 manual mode and lane 3 AFC mode compaction.
42
Lane 4 which was compacted in AFC mode with amax = 2.4 mm showed roller jumping within a
10 m zone as indicated on Figure 44. For this case the AFC mode did not necessarily prevent
roller jumping or reduce the vibration amplitude. The CMV and BV measurement values on all
lanes were repeatable.
The average CMV compaction growth curves for all lanes are presented in Figure 46. Results
show no significant change in compaction with each pass on any of the lanes. On average, the
CMV measurements were greater for lanes compacted with higher amplitudes. The CMV
measurements obtained from this TB were in the range of 20 and 70. The CMV measurements
on TB2 flex base material were greater than about 100. This indicates that the material gains
significant strength over time as the material dries and is further compacted under construction
traffic.
Figure 47 presents CMV maps for TB 7 from three different settings (two in manual mode and
one in AFC mode). Comparison between CMV from two manual mode settings and different insitu point measurements are presented in Figure 48, Figure 49, and Figure 50. Comparison
between CMV measurements from manual setting and amplitude measurements from AFC
setting are presented in Figure 51. Results indicate that the CMV measurements are influenced
by amplitude, i.e., increasing amplitude increases the CMV measurement value. AFC setting
with amax = 2.4 mm did not produce bouncing and the amplitude value remained relatively
constant at about 2.4 mm in all roller lanes. A comparison between CMV and EFWD
measurements showed that the point measurements tracked well with the variability in CMV for
lanes 2, 4, and 5, but did not track well on lanes 1 and 3. The CMV measurements correlated
well with variations with moisture content within 4% to 6% by showing a decrease in CMV with
an increase in moisture content. ED-SPA, EV1, and CBR tracked well with the variations in CMV
measurements on lanes 1 and 3. The reason for poor correlation with EFWD measurements on
lanes 1 and 3 is attributed to possible effects of heterogeneity observed in the material across the
drum width due to moisture segregation. Only one point measurement was obtained at the center
of the drum while the roller value is an integrated response over the full drum width. Due to this
uncertainty, regression relationships are not developed for this test bed. Future testing should
consider multiple measurements over the drum width for conditions where this type of
heterogeneity exists.
43
80
Lane 1
CMV
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
60
70
80
25
BV
20
Setting: Manual a = 0.9 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h
15
10
Pass 1
90 Pass100
2
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7
Pass 8
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
90
100
Distance (m)
Figure 41. CMV and BV values for compaction passes on lane 1 of TB6 flex base material
80
Lane 2
CMV
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
60
70
80
90
25
BV
20
15
10
Pass 1
1002
Pass
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7
Pass 8
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
100
Distance (m)
44
CMV
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Lane 3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pass 1
1002
Pass
Pass 3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
60
70
80
90
100
25
BV
20
15
10
5
0
3.5
a (mm)
3.0
Setting: Auto amax = 1.9 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
Distance (m)
45
80
Lane 4
CMV
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
25
50
60
70
80
60
70
80
90
100
60
70
80
90
100
Drum bouncing
20
BV
Pass 1
Pass 2
90 Pass100
3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
15
10
5
0
10
3.5
a (mm)
3.0
20
30
40
50
Setting: Auto amax = 2.4 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
Distance (m)
Figure 44. CMV, BV, and a values for compaction passes on lane 4 of TB6 flex base
material
80
Lane 5
CMV
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
60
70
80
90
25
BV
20
15
10
Pass 1
Pass 2
100
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7
Pass 8
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
100
Distance (m)
46
50
40
40
Average CMV
Average CMV
50
30
20
10
Lane 1
0
2
10
50
40
40
30
20
10
Lane 2
50
Lane 3
30
20
10
Lane 4
0
0
Pass
50
Average CMV
20
Average CMV
Average CMV
30
40
30
20
10
Lane 5
0
0
Pass
Figure 46. CMV compaction growth curves for TB 6 lanes 1 to 5

Map1ManualSetting:a=0.9mm
Map2ManualSetting:a=1.1mm
Map2AutoSetting:amax =2.4mm
Figure 47. CMV maps on TB 7 with different operation settings
47
100
10
50
10
50
10
50
21
10
50
24
23
30
22
20
21
10
0
2
4
6
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
60
150
20
100
10
50
50
CMV
24
40
23
30
22
20
21
10
0
25
Lane 5
200
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
250
2
4
w (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
30
25
Lane 4
40
40
w (%)
100
50
d (kN/m )
20
Lane 5
20
60
CMV
150
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
200
30
24
22
20
10
250
40
25
23
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
CMV
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CMV
Lane 3
40
Lane 4
w (%)
100
50
CMV
20
60
20
d (kN/m )
60
250
150
30
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

d
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
200
40
21
10
0
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
CMV
Lane 3
22
20
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

FWD-D3
23
30
0 10 20 30 40 50E60 70 80 90 100
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
24
40
w (%)
100
60
25
Lane 2
d (kN/m )
20
50
CMV
150
20
60
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
CMV
200
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
250
Lane 2
40
50
21
10
0
60
50
22
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
50
23
30
50
24
40
w (%)
20
25
Lane 1
d (kN/m )
150
30
50
CMV
200
40
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
CMV
50
60
250
Lane 1
d (kN/m )
60
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
Figure 48. Comparison between CMV and in-situ point measurements (EFWD, d, and w) on
TB 7 flex base material flex base material (nominal f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h)
48
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
400
30
300
20
200
10
100
0
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)
0 10 20 30 40 50 E60 70 80 90 100
D-SPA
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
60
50
500
50
50
40
400
40
40
30
300
30
30
20
20
10
10
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
20
200
10
100
CMV
600
60
60
EV1 (MPa)
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 E60 70 80 90 100
D-SPA
EV1 (MPa)
500
CMV
60
50
40
CMV
60
ED-SPA (MPa)
CMV
50
600
ED-SPA (MPa)
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
Figure 49. Comparison between CMV and point measurements (ED-SPA and EV1) on TB 7
flex base material flex base material (f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h)
49
50
CMV
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

CBR
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
Lane 1
100
80
40
Point 4
30
60
Point 8
40
20
10
20
Point 2
0
0
10
CBR (%)
60
Point 6
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance (m)
0
Point 2
Point 6
Point 4
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
600
600
600
600
800
800
800
800
50 100 150 200
CBR (%)
50 100 150 200
50 100 150 200
Point 8
50 100 150 200
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
60
100
Lane 3
CMV
50
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

CBR
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
Point 17
40
30
Point 18
20
80
60
40
Point 19
10
20
Point 20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
CBR (%)
Depth (mm)
70
0
80
90
100
Distance (m)
Depth (mm)
Point 17
Point 18
Point 19
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
600
600
600
600
800
800
800
800
50 100 150 200

CBR (%)
50 100 150 200
CBR (%)
50 100 150 200

CBR (%)
Point 20
50 100 150 200

CBR (%)
Figure 50. Comparison between CMV and DCP measurements on lanes 1 and 3 of TB 7
flex base material (nominal f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h)
50
Lane 1
CMV
60
3.5
Drum Bouncing
CMV = 150
40
3.0
a (mm)
80
20
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
(a =60
0.9 70
mm)80 90 100
10 20 30 CMV
40 50
3.5
BV (Auto amax = 2.4 mm)
Lane 2
3.0
a (mm)
CMV
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CMV (Auto amax = 2.4 mm)
80
60
40
20
2.0
1.5
0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3.5
Lane 3
3.0
a (mm)
CMV
60
40
20
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
80
3.5
Lane 4
3.0
a (mm)
60
CMV
Lane 3
1.0
40
20
Lane 4
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
80
3.5
Lane 5
3.0
a (mm)
CMV
a = 0.9 mm
Auto amax = 2.4 mm
2.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
60
Lane 2
1.0
0
80
Lane 1
40
20
Lane 5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
Figure 51. Comparison between CMV measurements in manual and automatic settings
(nominal f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h)
51
Spatial analysis of roller-integrated and in-situ compaction measurements

Roller-integrated compaction measurements provide an opportunity to spatially visualize
and quantify non-uniformity of compaction measurement values. This topic is slowly gaining
popularity among the pavement engineering community. Vennapusa and White (2008)
demonstrated the use of semivariogram analysis in combination with conventional statistical
analysis to effectively address the issue of non-uniformity in quality assurance during earthwork
construction. A variogram is a plot of the average squared differences between data values as a
function of separation distance, and is a common tool used in geostatistical studies to describe
spatial variation. Three important features of a semivariogram include: sill, range, and nugget.
Sill is defined as the plateau that the semivariogram reaches, range is defined as the distance at
which the semivariogram reaches the sill, and nugget is defined as the vertical height of the
discontinuity at the origin which mostly represents sampling error or short scale variations
(Srivastava, 1996). From a semivariogram model, a low sill and longer range of influence
can represent best conditions for uniformity, while the opposite represents an increasingly nonuniform condition. Using these semivariogram parameters, theoretical models can be fit to the
experimental semivariogram data. In the authors experience, exponential model generally fits
well with the roller-integrated and in-situ compaction measurements (see White et al. 2007a,
White et al. 2007b, Vennapusa and White 2008). Detailed descriptions of theoretical models can
be found elsewhere in the literature (e.g., Clark and Harper 2002).
To evaluate the application of spatial analysis, spatially referenced CMV and EFWD
measurements obtained from TB 7 were analyzed. The comparisons are shown using theoretical
and experimental semivariogram models, and Kriged surface maps generated for CMV and EFWD
measurements using the theoretical (exponential) semivariogram model. The theoretical
semivariograms were fit to the experimental semivariograms by checking for its goodness
using the modified Cressie goodness of fit approach suggested by Clark and Harper (2002) as
well as the cross-validation process. A lower Cressie goodness factor and high R2 value in
cross-validation process indicates a better fit (see White et al. 2007a for additional details on
model fitting process).
The semivariograms of CMV for two different amplitude settings showed similar effective
ranges (6 m) but with higher sill for a = 1.1 mm than for a = 0.9 mm. This means that CMV data
obtained with a = 1.1 mm setting was relatively more non-uniform than obtained with a = 0.9
mm. Univariate statistics (mean , standard deviation , and coefficient of variation COV)
presented on Figure 52 show that the CMV from a = 1.1 mm setting was slightly higher on
average than the CMV from a = 0.9 mm but with similar COV, however. This demonstrates the
advantage of using spatial statistics for a better characterization of non-uniform conditions than
using univariate statistics. The reasons for a difference in sill values of CMV for different
amplitude settings are attributed to the materials response to different stress conditions and
possibly different influence depths. Increasing amplitude increases the contact stresses under the
roller drum and also believed to increase the depth of influence under the drum. The EFWD
measurements showed slightly lower spatial continuity compared to CMV measurements with an
effective range of about 4.5 m. The CMV and EFWD Kriged contour maps are spatially
comparable and showed similar spatial structure in their respective semivariograms.
52
100
= 75.2 MPa
= 27.4 MPa
COV = 37%
100
100
EFWD-D3 (MPa)
CMV
90
90
90
0
10
80
20
30
70
40
50
40
60
8080
100
120
70
140
60
60
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
80
Longitudinal Distance (m)
EFWD-D3(MPa)
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)

= 21
= 10
COV = 47%
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

= 16
=7
COV = 46%
70
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Lateral
Distance (m)
Lateral
Distance (m)
Lateral
Distance (m)
CMV (a = 0.9 mm) Experimental

CMV (a = 0.9 mm) Exponential
CMV (a = 1.1 mm) Experimental
CMV (a = 1.1 mm) Exponential
EFWD-D3 Experimental
Semi-Variogram of CMV
150
CMV (a = 1.1 mm)
Sill: 49 (MN/m)2
Effective Range: 6 m
120
90
60
CMV (a = 0.9 mm)

Sill: 90 (MN/m)2
Effective Range: 6 m
30
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Semi-Variogram of EFWD-D3 (MPa)2
EFWD-D3 Exponential
1000
800
600
400
Sill: 750 (MPa)2

Effective Range: 4.5 m
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Separation Distance (m)
Separation Distance (m)
Figure 52. Kriged contour maps and semi-variograms of CMV and EFWD on TB 7 flex base
material
53
Summary
The roller-integrated CMV measurements showed good repeatability on the flex base
material. Results from compaction passes did not show considerable increase in compaction with
increasing passes. In some areas, the material was wet and spongy during compaction passes.
The CMV measurements obtained from this test bed were in the range of 20 and 70. The CMV
measurements on TB2 flex base material which was very dry were greater than about 100. This
indicates that the material gains significant strength over time as the material is subjected to
several days of compaction under construction equipment and as it becomes drier.
The CMV measurements are influenced by the vibration amplitude and show that increasing
amplitude generally causes an increase in CMV on this material. Comparison between CMV and
EFWD measurements showed that the point measurements tracked well with the variability in
CMV in some cases and in some cases it did not. The CMV measurements however were well
correlated with variations in moisture content (within 4% to 6%) as evidenced by a decrease in
CMV with increasing moisture content. ED-SPA, EV1, and CBR tracked well with the variations in
CMV measurements. The reason for poorer correlation with EFWD measurements in some
locations is attributed to the possible influence of heterogeneity observed in the material across
the drum width due to moisture segregation. Only one point measurement was obtained at the
center of the drum while the roller value is an integrated response over the full drum width.
Spatial analysis was performed on CMV and EFWD measurements to produce semivariograms and
Kriged contour maps of the measurements. The CMV and EFWD measurements are spatially
comparable and showed similar spatial structure in their respective semivariograms. Spatial
statistics (sill value) revealed high variability for CMV measurements obtained at a = 1.1 mm
than CMV measurements obtained at a = 0.9 mm, which was not identified with univariate
statistics (COV). This demonstrates that two data sets with identical distributions (i.e., same
COV) can have significantly different spatial characteristics. Spatial statistics can provide a
better characterization of non-uniformity than using univariate statistics.
Comparison between padfoot and smooth drum measurements TBs 1, 3, 4, and 5
Comparison between kSSD and kSPD measurements obtained from TBs 1, 3, 4, and 5 are
presented in Figure 553 to Figure 54. Although the results are slightly different in magnitude
they show similar trends in variability. A regression relationship between kSSD and kSPD cannot
be developed using the actual reported data since the values are not reported to exactly the same
spatial location for each pass. To overcome this problem, the output data is processed in such a
way that averaged data is assigned to a preset grid point along the roller path. Each grid point
was spaced at approximately 0.5 m along the roller path which represents an average of
measurements that fall within a window of size 0.25 m in forward and backward directions.
Figure 56 shows linear regression relationship between kSSD and kSPD values using these
averaged values and indicate that the two values are strongly correlated. Results show that kSPD
values are generally greater than kSSD. Note that the values were obtained at different amplitude
settings. Future studies may focus on obtaining correlations from the two measurements at
similar amplitude settings. Anderegg (2008) indicated that the variation between kSPD and kSSD is
a function of how deep the padfoot is penetrated into the ground. Comparison padfoot
54
penetration depth measurements in conjunction with kSSD and kSPD measurements in future
studies may help provide additional insights into the correlations between kSPD and kSSD values.
Nevertheless, the trends observed between kSPD and kSSD are encouraging and the padfoot roller
measurements demonstrate similar advantages as the smooth drum roller measurements.
ks (MN/m)
80
TB 1, Lane 1
kSIPD (a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz)
60
kSISD (a= 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz)
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
80
ks (MN/m)
TB 2, Lane 2
60
40
20
0
20
ks (MN/m)
80
TB 1, Lane 3
60
40
20
0
20
ks (MN/m)
60
TB 1, Lane 4
40
20
0
20
ks (MN/m)
60
TB 1, Lane 5
40
20
0
20
Distance (m)
Figure 53. Comparison between kSPD and kSSD measurements (TB 1 subgrade clay
material)
55
kSIPD (a = 1.3 mm, f = 35 Hz)

kSISD (a = 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz)
80
ks (MN/m)
TB 4
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
Distance (m)
ks (MN/m)
80
kSIPD (a = 1.0 mm, f = 35 Hz)
TB 5 Lane 1
kSISD (a = 1.5 mm, f = 35 Hz)
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110
80
ks (MN/m)
TB 5 Lane 3
60
40
20
0
10
20
Distance (m)
Figure 54. Comparison between kSPD and kSSD measurements (TB 4 flex base material
and TB 5 lime stabilized subgrade material)
kSPDmap;nominala=0.80 mm,f =35 Hz,andv=3.2 km/h
kSSDmap;nominala=1.10mm,f =30Hz,andv=3.5km/h
Figure 55. Spatial comparison of kSPD and kSSD maps (TB 1 subgrade clay material)
56
80
Padfoot a = 0.8 mm, f = 35 Hz
Smoothdrum a = 1.1 mm, f = 30 Hz
70
kSISD (MN/m)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
kSIPD (MN/m)
Figure 56. Relationship between kSPD and kSSD measurements
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
An open house was conducted on 07/25/2008 as part of this field investigation and included
dissemination of results from previous IC field studies and results from the current field study as
part of a presentation. The Iowa State University geotechnical mobile lab and demonstration of
the three IC rollers was conducted at the project location. About 15 people attended the open
house including Texas DOT, contractor, and roller manufacturer personnel. The attendees
operated the IC rollers and received hands-on-experience.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The key findings from this study are as follows (as stated in TB discussions):
Both padfoot and smooth drum roller-integrated ks values (ksPD and ksSD) reliably indicate
the compaction quality of the subgrade clay material with good repeatability. Correlations
with EFWD and EV1 values (with R2 > 0.6) produced better R2 values compared to ELWD-Z2,
d, and CBR (of the compaction layer) measurements. poorer correlations with ELWD-Z2, d,
and CBR compaction layer values is attributed to the limitation of shallow measurement
influence depth of these measurements ( 250 mm). CBR profiles up to 1 m generated
from DCP tests identified soft zones below the compaction layer which affected the ks
values. The EV1 and EFWD-D3 are believed to have influence depths that extend below the
compaction layer due to higher applied contact stresses at the surface.
Both roller MVs and in-situ point measurements captured the wide variation in stiffness
of the compacted lime stabilized and flex base materials. A box-culvert located beneath
the lime stabilized subgrade was identified with high roller MVs in that location. Linear
regression relationships generally indicate separate linear trends for the lime stabilized
and flex base materials. EFWD measurements produced better correlations than other point
57
measurements. Hyperbolic regression relationships were developed for EFWD and ED-SPA
measurements which showed strong correlations with ks and CMV measurements but
additional data is needed to validate the relationships. The CMV measurements at this
location were highly repeatable.
Both padfoot and smooth drum roller-integrated ks values (ksPD and ksSD) reliably
indicated the compaction quality of the lime stabilized subgrade clay material with good
repeatability. The ks measurements effectively identified poor backfill compaction
conditions along the edge of a box culvert located in this test bed and the results were
confirmed from CBR profiles. Regression relationships between ks and different in-situ
point measurements show positive correlations with varying degree of uncertainty in the
correlations (as assessed by the R2 values), however. Better correlations were observed
with EFWD, EV1, EV2, and ELWD values (with R2 > 0.5) compared to ED-SPA and d.
Relationships with ED-SPA show encouraging trends in the data, however. The ks values
were sensitive to moisture content of the compaction layer material.
The roller-integrated CMV measurements showed good repeatability on the flex base
material. Results from compaction passes did not show considerable increase in
compaction with increasing passes. In some areas, the material was wet and spongy
during compaction passes. The CMV measurements obtained from this test bed were in
the range of 20 and 70. The CMV measurements on TB2 flex base material which was
very dry were greater than about 100. This indicates that the material gains significant
strength over time as the material is subjected to several days of compaction under
construction equipment and as it becomes drier.
The CMV measurements are influenced by the vibration amplitude and show that
increasing amplitude generally causes an increase in CMV on this material. Comparison
between CMV and EFWD measurements showed that the point measurements tracked well
with the variability in CMV in some cases and in some cases it did not. The CMV
measurements however were well correlated with variations in moisture content (within
4% to 6%) as evidenced by a decrease in CMV with increasing moisture content. ED-SPA,
EV1, and CBR tracked well with the variations in CMV measurements. The reason for
poorer correlation with EFWD measurements in some locations is attributed to the possible
influence of heterogeneity observed in the material across the drum width due to moisture
segregation. Only one point measurement was obtained at the center of the drum while
the roller value is an integrated response over the full drum width.
Spatial analysis was performed on CMV and EFWD measurements to produce
semivariograms and Kriged contour maps of the measurements. The CMV and EFWD
measurements are spatially comparable and showed similar spatial structure in their
respective semivariograms. Spatial statistics (sill value) revealed high variability for
CMV measurements obtained at a = 1.1 mm than CMV measurements obtained at a = 0.9
mm, which was not identified with univariate statistics (COV). This demonstrates that
two data sets with identical distributions (i.e., same COV) can have significantly different
spatial characteristics. Spatial statistics can provide a better characterization of nonuniformity than using univariate statistics.
Comparison between kSSD and kSPD show that kSPD values are generally greater than
kSSD. Note that the values were obtained at different amplitude settings. Future studies
may focus on obtaining correlations from the two measurements at similar amplitude
settings. Comparison padfoot penetration depth measurements in conjunction with kSSD
58
and kSPD measurements in future studies may help provide additional insights into the
correlations between kSPD and kSSD values. Nevertheless, the trends observed between
kSPD and kSSD are encouraging and the padfoot roller measurements demonstrate similar
advantages as the smooth drum roller measurements.
59
REFERENCES
Anderegg, R. (1998). Nichtlineare Schwingungen bei dynamischen Bodenverdichtern. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (in German).
Anderegg, R., and Kaufmann, K. (2004). "Intelligent compaction with vibratory rollers." Transp.
Res. Rec., 1868, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 124134.
Anderegg, R. (2008). Testing the PD-Shell Single Drum Roller SV 212ACE. July 31
(unpublished report).
Clark, I., and Harper, W. (2002). Practical geostatistics 2000. 3rd reprint, Ecosse North America
Llc, Columbus, Oh.
Nazarian, S., Baker, M.R., and Crain, K. (1993). Fabrication and Testing of a Seismic Pavement
Analyzer. SHRP Report H-375. National Highway Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Srivastava, R. M. (1996). Describing spatial variability using geostatistical analysis.
Geostatistics for Environmental and Geotechnical Applications, ASTM STP 1283, R. M.
Srivastava, S. Rouhani, M. V. Cromer, A. J. Desbarats, A. I. Johnson, eds., ASTM, West
Conshohocken, Pa, 1319.
Vennapusa, P., White, D.J. (2008b). Geostatistical analysis for spatially referenced rollerintegrated compaction measurements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE (in review, submitted July 2008).
White, D.J, Thompson, M., Vennapusa, P. (2007a). Field Validation of Intelligent Compaction
Monitoring Technology for Unbound Materials, Mn/DOT Report No. MN/RC 2007-10,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
White, D. J., Thompson, M., Vennapusa, P. (2007b). Field study of compaction monitoring
systems Tamping foot 825 and vibratory smooth drum CS-533E rollers. Final Report,
Center of Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, Ia.
White, D. J. (2008). Report of the Workshop on Intelligent Compaction for Soils and HMA.
Earthworks Engineering Research Center Iowa State University and Iowa Department of
Transportation, Ames, Iowa, April 2-4.
Yoo, T., Selig. E. (1980). New concepts of vibratory compaction of soil, Proc. of Intl. Conf. on
Compaction, Vol. II, Paris, pp. 703707.
Zorn, G. (2003). Operating manual: Light drop-weight tester ZFG2000, Zorn Stendal, Germany.
60
APPENDIX
61
Accelerated Implementation of IC Technology for Embankment Subgrade Soils,

Aggregate Base, and Asphalt Pavement Materials
Iowa State University Research Team Field Testing, FM 156 Fort Worth, Texas
Test Beds # 1/3 (07/21/2008 to 07/22/2008)
Construction/Testing Photos
Description: The test bed was constructed by

scarif ying the existing subgrade material to a
depth of about 250 mm (10 inches) and
compacted in f ive lanes where two lanes (Lanes
4 and 5) were used as calibration test strips and
the rest was used f or production compaction.
Lane 5 was prepared with three target moisture
sections with moisture contents varying f rom dry
to wet of the materials optimum moisture content.
The Case/Ammann pad f oot roller was used f or
compaction f or passes 1 to 10 and smooth drum
roller was used f or mapping (passes 11 to 14). Insitu point measurements (w, d, CBR, and ELWD )
were obtained af ter 1, 2, 4, and 8 roller passes.
Some point locations along lanes 1 and 5 were
selected f or EFWD , EV1, and EV2 testing (denoted
as TB3). The objectives of this test bed were to
obtain correlations between padf oot roller MVs
and in-situ soil properties, and compare padf oot
and smooth drum roller MVs.
Subgrade scarification using grader
Machine settings: Passes 1 to 8 f = 35 Hz, Ecc. =

33%, a ~ 0.8 mm; Pass 9 f = 35 Hz, Ecc. = 41%, a ~
0.95 mm; Pass 10 f = 30 Hz, Ecc. = 67%, a ~ 1.3
mm; Mapping Pass 11 f = 30 Hz, Ecc. = 66%, a ~ 2.0
mm; Pass 12 f = 30 Hz, Ecc. = 33%, a ~ 1.1 mm;
Passes 13 to 14 f = 30 Hz, Ecc. = 90%, a ~ 2.0+ mm.
~14m
CalibrationTest
Strips
Compaction using Case/Ammann padfoot roller
~180m
Calibration
PointMeasurements
Case/Ammann ks
Zorn LWD
Lanes12345
62
DCP

Test Beds # 2/4 (07/22/2008)
Construction/Testing Photos
Description:
Test bed 2 consisted of a compacted layer of lime
stabilized subgrade material transitioning to f lex
base at each end (see picture of the test
bed). The f lex base layer was signif icantly stif fer
than the stabilized subgrade material.
Case/Ammann and Dynapac smooth drum rollers
were used f or mapping the test bed. Following
mapping passes, in-situ point measurements (w,
d, CBR, ELWD , EFWD , and ED-SPA) were obtained
f rom one lane of the test bed. The objectives of
this test bed were to obtain measurements over a
wide range of stif f ness values f or correlations with
the two roller MVs.
CompactedLime
StabilizedSubgrade
CompactedFlexbase
Picture of the testbed
Test bed 4 consisted of very stif f compacted f lex

base layer (see f igure below). The TB was
compacted using Case/Ammann padf oot roller to
compare with smooth drum roller measurements.
Machine settings:
Case/Ammann smooth drum Map 1
f = 30 Hz, Ecc. = 20%, a ~ 0.8 mm.
Dynapac smooth drum Map 2: a ~ 1.2 mm.
Dynapac smooth drum Map 3: a ~ 1.9 mm.
FWD
~240m
LimeStabilizedSubgrade
FlexBase
~14m
FlexBase
~14m
Point
f=30 Hz,Ecc.=20%,a~0.8mm Case/Ammannks Map
Measurements
TestBed#4
(comparisonbetween
Case/Ammannpadfootroller
andsmoothdrumroller)
~14m
Setting2DynapacCMVMap
Setting3Dynapac CMVMap
63
D-SPA

Test Bed # 5 (07/23/2008)
Testing Photos
Description: The test bed consisted of limetreated subgrade material. The material was
reclaimed and moisture conditioned to a depth of
about 250 mm. A concrete box culvert was
located under a section of the TB with a transition
between stif f material over the culvert and a small
area of poorly compacted backf ill along the edge
of the culvert (see Figure below). The TB was
compacted in six roller lanes with three lanes
each using padf oot and smooth drum
Case/Ammann rollers. One lane each was
selected as calibration test strip f or each roller
and the remaining area was used f or production
compaction. In-situ point measurements (w, d,
CBR, and ELWD-Z2) were obtained af ter 1, 2, 4, 8
and 12 roller passes on the calibration test strips.
EFWD and ED-SPA tests were conducted on one
lane af ter production compaction. The objectives
of this test bed were to obtain correlations
between roller MVs and in-situ point
measurements, evaluate the ef f iciency of the
roller in identif ying poorly compacted backf ill
areas around the culvert, compare padf oot and
smooth drum compaction process on lime
stabilized subgrade material.
Machine settings:
Lane 1 Passes 1 to 8 f = 35 Hz,
Ecc. = 50%.
Ecc. = 70%.
Lane 3 Passes 1 to 12 f = 35
Hz, Ecc. = 35%.
Ecc. = 50%.
Ecc. = 33%.
Ecc. = 67%.
Map 1: f = 35 Hz, Ecc. = 50%
Map 2: f = 35 Hz, Ecc. = 33%
Map 3: f = 35 Hz, Ecc. = 20%
Point measurements on calibration strips
PLT
~200m
LWD
Lane 3 padfoot
calibration strip
Lane 4 smooth
drum calibration
strip
Box Culvert
Lanes1to3(fromleft) padfoot
Lanes4to6(fromleft) smoothdrum
~14m
64

Test Bed # 5 (07/23/2008) Construction Photos
65

Test Beds # 6 (07/23/2008)
Construction Photos
Description: TB6 consisted of f lex base material

placed and graded to the project grade. The layer
was moisture conditioned and then compacted
using Dynapac smooth drum roller in f ive roller
lanes. Compaction was perf ormed in dif f erent
machine settings (see below) f or each lane.
Following compaction, the area was mapped
using manual and automatic f eedback control
settings. The objectives of this test bed were to
investigate dif f erences f or different machine
settings.
Machine settings (compaction):
Lane 1: Manual setting, a = 0.9 mm
Lane 3: Auto setting, Maximum a = 1.9 mm
Lane 4: Auto setting, Maximum a = 2.4 mm
Machine settings (mapping):
Map 1: Manual setting, a = 1.2 mm
Map 2: Manual setting, a = 1.9 mm
Map 3: Auto setting, Maximum a = 2.4 mm
Map1Manual
Setting2
a=0.9mm
Map2Manual Map3Auto
Setting3
Setting5
a=1.1mm a(max)=2.4mm
66

Test Beds # 7 (07/23/2008)
Testing Photos
Description: TB7 involved perf orming in-situ point

measurements on compacted TB6 f lex base
material. Point measurements included w, d,
CBR, ELWD-Z2, EFWD-D3, EV1, EV2, and ED-SPA. The
objectives of this TB were to obtain comparison
soil property measurements to roller MVs and
develop contour maps of soil properties to
spatially compare with roller MVs.
Point measurements:
Plate load tests : 9 locations
Nuclear gauge tests: 37 locations
DCP tests: 11 locations
FWD tests: 175 locations
D-SPA tests: 33 locations
Picture of test bed
67

Inteligent Compaction Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inteligent Compaction Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF

INTELLIGENT COMPACTION TECHNOLOGY

Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC)

Evaluate the effectiveness of the roller-integrated measurement values (MVs) from

Figure 2. Lumped parameter two-degree-of-freedom spring dashpot model representing

Figure 4. CA-362 smooth drum roller used on the project

Table 1. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing

w, d, CBR, ELWD, EV1,

w, d, CBR, ELWD, EV1,

Table 2. Summary of soil index properties

Material Description (USCS)

Silty sand with

Gravel Content (%) (> 4.75mm)

In-situ Testing Methods

Figure 7. Experimental testing setup TB 1

Figure 8. Picture showing different lanes on TB 1

Roller-integrated and in-situ point measurements

Localized Wet Area

Figure 10. Screen shots of kSPD maps for different passes on TB 1

Std. Proctor dmax = 16.8 kN/m3

Average ELWD-Z2 (MPa)

Initial pass over

Average kSIPD (MN/m)

Dry Unit Weight, d (kN/m )

Moisture Content, w (%)

Dist 1-lane 1 vs ks Pass 1

*Units: ks (MN/m), d (kN/m3), CBR (%), ELWD-Z2/EV1/EV2/EFWD-D3/ED-SPA (MPa).

TB 2 lime-stabilized subgrade and flex base material

Construction and testing on TB2

Lime stabilized subgrade

Lime Stabilized Subgrade

a = 0.9 to 1.6 mm (setting 2)

Lime Stabilized Subgrade

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Lime Stabilized Subgrade

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Lime Stablized Subgarde

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Table 4. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TB 2

*LS lime stabilized subgrade, FB flex base

TB 5 lime-stabilized subgrade material

Figure 28. Picture of TB5 with different lanes

Dry Unit Weight, d (kN/m )

Standard Proctor (07/25/08)

In-situ w-d (Pass 8-Lane 4)

Moisture Content, w (%)

Roller-integrated and in-situ point measurements

Average ELWD-Z2 (MPa)

Average ELWD-Z2 (MPa)

Average kSIPD (MN/m)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Table 5. Summary of simple linear regression analysis TB 5

*Units: ks (MN/m), d (kN/m3), CBR (%), ELWD-Z2/EV1/EV2/EFWD-D3/ED-SPA (MPa).

TBs 6 and 7 flex base material

Construction and material conditions

Figure 38. Experimental setup on TB 6

Roller-integrated and in-situ point measurements

Setting: Manual a = 0.9 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h

Setting: Manual a = 1.2 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h

Setting: Auto amax = 1.9 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h

Setting: Auto amax = 2.4 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h

Setting: Manual a = 1.9 mm, f = 30 Hz, v = 3.5 km/h