White Et Al. 2010 - CAT CFED Phase IV

ER10-11
Earthwork Volumetric Calculations

and Characterization of Additional
CFED Soils CFED Phase IV
December 2010
Final Report
d Loose
Bank
Air
Air Compacted
Water Air
Water
Water
Soil Soil Soil
Compacted
Target d Bank
Loose
Target w Swell
limits
w%
Shrinkage
Bank Loose Compacted

Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.

ER10-11
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

December 2010
Earthwork Volumetric Calculations and Laboratory Characterization of Additional 6. Performing Organization Code
CFED Soils CFED Phase IV
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

David White, Pavana Vennapusa, Jiake Zhang
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Earthworks Engineering Research Center
Institute for Transportation 11. Contract or Grant No.
Iowa State University
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4600
Ames, IA 50010-8664
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Caterpillar, Inc.
100 NE Adams Street 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Peoria, IL 61629
15. Supplementary Notes
Visit www.eerc.iastate.edu for color PDF files of this and other research reports.
16. Abstract
Caterpillar has developed proprietary software technology Compaction Forecasting Expert Database (CFED) to predict compaction
performance for site specific applications. This report (Phase IV) presents laboratory test results of five soil samples collected from
field project sites in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa and the corresponding CFED analysis. Recommendations for presentation of
in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information in CFED, and a database of volumetric factors for earthwork quantity estimation
from literature review are also reported herein.
Shrinkage and swell factors of a total of 154 soils were collected from the literature and grouped into seven material groups: (1) rocks,
(2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other soils. The swell factors statistics showed a narrow range for gravel
soils (minimum value maximum value = 0.11) compared to other soils (with minimum value maximum value = 0.22 to 0.44). The
shrinkage factors varied more than the swell factors as the shrinkage factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction
achieved in the field. Future research is warranted emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of shrinkage/swell
factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification,
gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements.
Step-by-step procedures are also described to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil for compaction using bank
and compacted soil three phase diagram and weight-volume relationships. These calculations should add value to the contractors
moisture control and conditioning operations.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Proctor compaction, compaction forecasting, earthwork, specifications No restrictions.
19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
report) page)
Unclassified. Unclassified. NA
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

EARTHWORK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS
AND CHARACTERIZATION OF ADDITIONAL
CFED SOILS CFED PHASE IV
Principal Investigator
David J. White, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and holder of Wegner Professorship
Director, Earthworks Engineering Research Center
Co-Principal Investigators
Pavana KR. Vennapusa, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
Heath Gieselman, M.S.

Assistant Scientist III
Research Assistant
Jiake Zhang, M.S.
Authors
David White, Pavana Vennapusa, Jiake Zhang
Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC)

Department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4600
Ames, IA 50010-8664
Phone: 515-294-7910
www.eerc.iastate.edu
Final Report December 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... VI
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
LABORATORY TESTING METHODS ........................................................................................5

Particle Size Analysis ................................................................................................................. 5
Atterberg Limits .......................................................................................................................... 5
Soil Classification ....................................................................................................................... 5
Proctor Compaction .................................................................................................................... 5
Gyratory Compaction.................................................................................................................. 6
Vibratory Compaction ................................................................................................................ 8
OVERVIEW OF FIELD PROJECTS AND IN-SITU TESTING ...................................................9
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ...............................................................................................12

Material Description and Soil Index Properties ........................................................................ 12
Laboratory Compaction Tests Results ...................................................................................... 19
Proctor Compaction Test Results for Soils #2042, 2043, 2044, and 2045 ........................19
Proctor, Gyratory, and Vibratory Compaction Test Results for Soil #2046 ......................31
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN SITU DATA AND MINERALOGY DATA

PRESENTATION IN CFED .............................................................................................35
Roller and In Situ Point Data Presentation in CFED ................................................................ 35
Mineralogy Data Presentation in CFED ................................................................................... 40
EARTHWORK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS ...................................................................42

Background ............................................................................................................................... 42
Shrinkage and Swell Factor Database....................................................................................... 43
Estimation of Wetting and Drying ............................................................................................ 50
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK .........................................54
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX: GRADATION TEST RESULTS FOR CFED SOILS .............................................59
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Example CFED outputs ....................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Current granular and non-granular soils in CFED database (red circles for granular and
red squares for non-granular) [note that other symbols in granular soils chart are from a
database reported in Hilf (1999)] .........................................................................................4
Figure 3. Automated mechanical rammer for Proctor compaction test ...........................................6
Figure 4. AFGB1A gyratory compactor (left) and pressure distribution analyzer ..........................7
Figure 5. 152 mm (6 inch) diameter compaction mold and vibratory table ....................................8
Figure 6. Caterpillar 825H tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system used
on the UT project for compaction of silty subgrade ..........................................................10
Figure 7. Caterpillar 815F tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system used
on the TX project for compaction of fat clay subgrade .....................................................10
Figure 8. Caterpillar CS56 smooth drum with padfoot shellkit roller equipped with machine drive
power system used on the ND project for compaction of subgrade silt soil......................11
Figure 9. Caterpillar CS563E smooth drum roller equipped with machine drive power system
used on the ND project for compaction of recycled asphalt base material and on the IA
project for compaction of recycled PCC base material .....................................................11
Figure 10. Grain size distribution curve Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042) ....................14
Figure 11. Grain size distribution curve Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043) .............14
Figure 12. Grain size distribution curve North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044) ......15
Figure 13. Grain size distribution curve North Dakota recycled asphalt base (Soil 2045) ........15
Figure 14. Grain size distribution curve Iowa recycled PCC base (Soil 2046) ..........................16
Figure 15. Utah silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2042) ...........................16
Figure 16. Texas fat clay subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2043) ....................17
Figure 17. North Dakota silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2044) ...............17
Figure 18. North Dakota recycled asphalt base [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2045) .................18
Figure 19. Iowa recycled PCC base [moisture content ~ 4%] (Soil 2046) ...................................18
Figure 20. Soil groups identified for CFED 2010 database (newly added soils in blue
squares/circles and existing soils in red squares/circles) ...................................................19
Figure 21. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies Utah silty subgrade
material (Soil 2042) ...........................................................................................................20
Figure 22. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies Texas fat clay subgrade
material (Soil 2043) ...........................................................................................................20
Figure 23. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies North Dakota silty
subgrade material (Soil 2044) ............................................................................................21
Figure 24. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies North Dakota recycled
asphalt base material (Soil 2045) .......................................................................................21
Figure 25. CFED output graphs for Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042) ..............................23
Figure 26. CFED output graphs for Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043) .......................25
Figure 27. CFED output graphs for North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044) ................27
Figure 28. CFED output graphs for North Dakota recycled asphalt material (Soil 2045) ............29
Figure 29. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction recycled
PCC base ............................................................................................................................32
Figure 30. Dry unit weight and shear resistance versus number of gyrations during gyratory
compaction .........................................................................................................................32
ii
Figure 31. Dry unit weight versus energy during vibratory compaction .......................................33
Figure 32. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction energy
recycled PCC base .............................................................................................................33
Figure 33. Comparison of particle size breakdown by using different compaction methods........34
Figure 34. Example of MDP* plots for multiple passes on a calibration test strip .......................36
Figure 35. Example of compaction curves for MDP* and in-situ test measurements with
increasing roller passes ......................................................................................................36
Figure 36. Example of comparison between MDP* and in-situ test measurements after multiple
passes on a calibration test strip .........................................................................................37
Figure 37. Example of simple linear regression analysis results with prediction intervals ...........38
Figure 38. SEM images of soils from Kumming airport in China showing flat, plate like clay
structure..............................................................................................................................40
Figure 39. XRD analysis results of soils from Kumming airport in China ...................................41
Figure 40. Illustration of soil volumetric changes in bank, loose, and compacted states ..............42
Figure 41. Soil three phase diagram in bank and compacted states showing weight volume
relationships .......................................................................................................................51
Figure 42. Estimation of amount of change in moisture content in compacted state relative to
bank moisture content ........................................................................................................51
Figure 43. Estimation of amount of water per 1% change in moisture content (modified from
Bros, Inc., 1964).................................................................................................................53
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of compaction energies used in the laboratory compaction tests ......................6
Table 2. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing ...........................................................................9
Table 3. CFED 2010 database .......................................................................................................13
Table 4. CFED 2010 database Proctor test results .........................................................................22
Table 5. CFED 2010 database of optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight from
Proctor test results ..............................................................................................................22
Table 6. Particle size properties results from different compaction methods ................................34
Table 7. Recommended English and SI units for laboratory and field measurements ..................39
Table 8. Summary of shrinkage and swell factors for different material groups ..........................44
Table 9. Shrinkage and swell factors from literature review .........................................................45
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by Caterpillar, Inc. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
Dr. Liqun Chi of Caterpillar for providing assistance and review comments on the project. The
authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Undergraduate Research Assistants
Justin Harland, Rachel Franz, and Michael Eidem with Earthworks Engineering Research Center
at Iowa State University for their assistance with laboratory testing.
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents laboratory test results of five soil samples collected from field project sites
in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa to incorporate into the existing compaction forecasting
expert database (CFED) development, recommendations for presentation of in-situ test results
and soil mineralogy information in CFED, a database of volumetric factors for earthwork
quantity estimation, and procedures for moisture content estimations in field based on bank and
compacted soil densities.
The soil samples collected consisted of two granular soils and three non-granular soils as
summarized below:
1. Silty subgrade material from Salt Lake City, Utah (Soil 2042)
2. Fat clay subgrade material from Fort Worth, Texas (Soil 2043)
3. Silty subgrade material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2044)
4. Recycled asphalt base material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2045)
5. Recycled PCC base material from I-35, Iowa (Soil 2046)
Laboratory Proctor compaction tests were conducted using five compaction energy levels at
different moisture contents for soils # 2042 to #2045, to develop moisture-density-compaction
energy relationships. The results indicated that with higher Proctor compaction energy the soils
achieve higher maximum dry unit weight and lower optimum moisture content. The curves on
the wet side of optimum generally tend to parallel the 100% saturation line. Gyratory and
vibratory compaction methodswere used to develop density-compaction energy relationships on
recycled PCC base material (#2046) at its natural moisture content in comparison with standard
and modified Proctor energies. The dry unit weight values achieved using the standard Proctor,
the vibratory, and the gyratory compaction method at 2089 psf contact pressure, were similar for
the recycled PCC material. The dry unit weight values achieved using the modified Proctor and
the gyratory compaction method with 12,531 psf contact pressure, were similar for the RPCC
material. Gradation tests performed before and after compaction testing using each method
indicated that the particle break down was more in the sample compacted using the modified
Proctor method compared to all other methods. Vibratory compaction resulted in relatively less
break-down than all other methods. The amount of particle break down from gyratory
compaction increased with increasing applied contact pressures.
A literature review was conducted on earthwork volumetric calculation factors to develop a

database of shrinkage and swell factors reported in the literature for various soil types. Shrinkage
and swell factors of a total of 154 soils were collected from the literature and grouped into seven
material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other
soils. The swell factors statistics showed narrow range for gravel soils (0.11) compared to other
soils (0.22 to 0.44). The shrinkage factors varied more than the swell factors as the shrinkage
factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction achieved in the field. Further
review revealed that reports are limited for shrinkage factors. Only three out of the nine
references reviewed presented shrinkage factors (i.e., for a total of 10 materials out of 154
materials). Of those, only one reference (i.e., Burch 1997) provided shrinkage factors linked to
vi
percent compaction relative to laboratory Proctor test. In addition, none of the references
presented shrinkage and swell factors linking the type of equipment used.
Step-by-step procedures are described in this report to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e.,

wetting or drying) of soil during compaction using bank and compacted soil three phase diagram
and weight-volume relationships. These estimations can add significant value to the contractor in
during planning stages and also during construction.
Future research is warranted in emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of
the shrinkage and swell factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database
should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification, gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-
granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements. Further,
information on soil drying with respect to weather conditions (i.e., temperature, wind speed,
humidity), time, and number of disking passes should be collected.
vii
INTRODUCTION
This report presents laboratory test results of three non-granular soils and two granular soils
collected from field project sites in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa to incorporate into the
compaction forecasting expert database (CFED) development, recommendations for presentation
of in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information into CFED, and a database of volumetric
(i.e., shrinkage and swell) factors for earthwork quantity estimation. Based on laboratory test
data The CFED database consists of 45 soils collected from 2003 to 2009. The following five
soil groups were identified in the project proposal as groups with limited information in the
CFED database based on soil Atterberg limits (i.e., liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI))
and gradation properties (i.e., particle size corresponding to 10% passing (D10) and coefficient of
uniformity (cu)):
1. Effective particle size, D10 = 0.1 to 5 mm and coefficient of uniformity cu < 200
(Granular)
2. D10 = 0.01 to 0.1 mm and Cu 200 (Granular)
3. LL = 50 to 80 and PI = 25 to 65 (Cohesive)
4. LL = 50 to 80 and PI 22 (Intergrade)
5. LL = 20 to 50 and PI 10 (Intergrade)
The five soil samples collected for this study are listed below. Soils #2042 and #2044 fall under
group (5), soil # 2043 falls under group (3), and soils #2045 and #2046 fall under group (2).
Soils that fall under groups (1) and (4) could not be identified during the course of this project.
Silty subgrade material from Salt Lake City, Utah (Soil 2042)
Fat clay subgrade material from Fort Worth, Texas (Soil 2043)
Silty subgrade material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2044)
Recycled asphalt base material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2045)
Recycled PCC base material from I-35, Iowa (Soil 2046)
Specific research tasks of this project as identified in the project proposal were as follows:
1. Expand the CFED database to include data for five additional soils. Conduct laboratory
compaction tests at 5 energy levels over a range of moisture contents and obtain soil
index properties including Atterberg limits and particle-size analysis.
2. Integrate data from the laboratory analysis into CFED.
3. Develop relationships between volumetric calculations (shrinkage/swell factors) and
selection of input parameter values.
4. Document all tasks, archive database, and work with CAT to update the CFED code as
needed.
1
BACKGROUND
Caterpillar has developed proprietary software technology Compaction Forecasting Expert

Database (CFED) to predict compaction performance for site specific applications. Figure 1
shows example CFED outputs (White et al. 2008). The goals of this software are to:
Predict the capability of compaction machines to meet compaction specifications,

Estimate productivity for specific machines,
Determine sensitivity of compaction and productivity to soil moisture, and
Recommend soil lift thickness with number of machine passes to meet compaction
specifications.
The purpose of the technology is for pre-bid and during operation on earthworks construction.
The pre-bid application is to assist contractors and project owners to determine cost and
probability to meet compaction requirements based on available soils, whether those soils are in-
situ or from borrow areas. The operational application is for construction management,
particularly for analysis and solutions when compaction requirements are not achieved, or when
productivity is unacceptable. This prediction technology is site and soil specific. It requires
standard and specialized testing of the actual earthwork construction soils. Results from the soil
testing are then input into the software which converts the input data to predict: (a) capability, (b)
productivity, (c) sensitivity, and (d) process. This output has been defined as the recipe for
successful and cost effective earthworks construction.
Previous CFED research have resulted in populating the CFED database with a total of forty-
seven soils collected from several states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas) in the United States and from the Kunming Airport
project in China. About half of the soils are considered fine-grained non-granular soils (i.e., clay
and silt) and the other half granular soils (i.e., sand and gravel) (Figure 2). Additionally, three
non-granular soils and two granular soils are added to the database as part of the current study.
White et al. (2008) documented results from a performance evaluation of CFED using five
alternative compaction curve prediction methods identified in the literature with reference to
CFED algorithm. Based on the results, modifications were made to the CFED algorithms which
improved the prediction capabilities to equal or exceed all other investigated methods. One
advantage that CFED has over other methods is that the algorithm includes compaction energy as
an input parameter. An analysis of the difference between actual and predicted values for a
given soil found that the average difference for CFED was less than 0.3 lb/ft3 (White et al. 2008).
CFED is not without its limitations, however. At this point, the CFED database is not sufficient
to allow for predictions of performance for some soil types. As with other models identified in
the literature, CFED does not predict compaction curves for granular soils, particularly in the
bulking moisture content range. This is a limitation of the model that needs further research.
Another element of previous CFED research was to establish relationships between laboratory
compaction energy and roller passes. Field compaction data was available for most soils input
into CFED. Field data included results from density, dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP), Clegg
2
hammer, light weight deflectometer (LWD), and plate load test (PLT) in conjunction with
machine passes for various machine configurations (White et al. 2008). At this time, limited
field data is available for the CP-533, CS-533, CS-683, CS-563 and CAT825H machines. Curve
fitting methods were applied to field and laboratory data in an attempt to determine empirical
relationships. Additional research is needed to improve the prediction relationships between
laboratory and field measurements.
Figure 1. Example CFED outputs
3
Coefficient of Uniformity, cu = D60/D10
500 SP
CFED Soil's USCS Classification: SP-SM
SP-SM, SW-SM, GM, and SM SW-SM
400 SM
GP
GP-GM
GW-GM
300
GW
GM
CFED soils with
200 field compaction data
CFED soils with no
field compaction data
100
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Effective Size, D10 (mm)
70
CFED soils with )
-8
60 field compaction data LL
.9(
CFED soils with no 0 CH
Plasticity Index, PI (%)
=
field compaction data PI 0)
50 e L -2
in (L
"l 73
'U 0.
=
40 PI
i ne
"l
CL 'A
30
20
CL- ML MH
10
ML
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit, LL (%)
Figure 2. Current granular and non-granular soils in CFED database (red circles for
granular and red squares for non-granular) [note that other symbols in granular soils
chart are from a database reported in Hilf (1999)]
4
LABORATORY TESTING METHODS
Particle Size Analysis
Particle-size analysis on non-granular soil samples was conducted in accordance with ASTM
D422-63 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. Coarse grained particle-size
analysis was performed by washing about 2000 grams of air-dried soil over a No. 10 sieve, oven
drying the retained soil, and sieving through the 1 inch, 0.75 inch, 0.375 inch, and No. 4 sieve
sizes. Fine-grained particle-size analysis was performed using the hydrometer method with an air
dried sample of about 70 grams passing the No. 10 sieve. After completing the hydrometer test,
the suspended material was washed through the No. 200 sieve. The material retained on the No.
200 sieve was then oven dried and sieved through the No. 40 and No. 100 sieve sizes.
Particle-size analysis on granular soil samples was conducted in accordance with ASTM C136,
Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. An air-dried sample
of about 2000g was used and sieved over through 1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.375 in, Nos. 4, 10, 20, 40, 100,
and No. 200 sieve sizes.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were determined in accordance with ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. Representative samples for the Liquid Limit and Plastic
Limit tests were prepared using the wet preparation method by screening the sample through
the No. 40 sieve using a spatula. Liquid limit tests were performed according to Method A
(multi-point liquid limit method).
Soil Classification
Using the particle-size analysis test results and Atterberg limits test results, the soils are
classified in accordance with ASTM D2487-10 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)) and ASTM D3282-09
Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway
Construction Purposes (AASHTO classification system).
Proctor Compaction
Laboratory Proctor compaction tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM D69807e1
Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard
Effort, and the ASTM D 155709 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort standard test procedures (Method A). In addition
to standard compaction energy (12,375 lb-ft/ft3) and modified compaction energy (56,250lb-
ft/ft3), compaction tests were performed at one energy level below the standard Proctor energy
and two energy levels between the standard and modified Proctor energies, as listed in Table 1.
The Proctor compaction energy is determined using Eq. 1 (Proctor 1948). The purpose of
performing tests at multiple energies is to derive relationships between soil moisture content, dry
5
unit weight, and compaction energy. An automated, calibrated mechanical rammer (see Figure 1)
was used to perform these tests.
number of blows number of weight of height of

per layer layers hammer drop hammer (1)
Energyimpact
Volume of mold
Figure 3. Automated mechanical rammer for Proctor compaction test
Table 1. Summary of compaction energies used in the laboratory compaction tests

Blows per Wt. of Drop Height Energy
Method Layers
Layer Hammer (lb) (ft) (lb-ft/ft3)
Sub-Standard (SS) 3 15* (35)** 5.5 1 7425
Standard (S) 3 25* (56)** 5.5 1 12375
Super-Sub-Modified(SSM) 5 25* (56)** 5.5 1 20790
Sub-Modified (SM) 5 25* (56)** 5.5 1 34650
Modified (M) 5 25* (56)** 10 1.5 56250
* Using 4 in. Proctor mold
** Using 6 in. Proctor mold
Gyratory Compaction
AFGB1A Brovold gyratory compactor (manufactured by Pine Instrument Company) and

pressure distribution analyzer (PDA) as shown in Figure 4 were used in this study. Gyratory
compaction test method is described in ASTM D3387-83 Standard Test Method for Compaction
6
and Shear Properties of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Gyratory
Testing Machine (GTM). Materials were compacted using applied vertical stresses (o) of 100
kPa (2088 psf), 300 kPa (6266 psf), and 600 kPa (12,531 psf) at a constant rate of 30 gyrations
per minute with the gyration angle set at 1.25 degrees. The PDA was placed above the sample in
the gyratory compaction mold to capture the pressure distribution across the sample during
compaction. The PDA provides the resultant force (R) and the eccentricity (e) where the resultant
force was acting during the compaction process. With measured R and e, the frictional resistance
or shear resistance (G) of the compacted materials can be calculated using Eq. (2) (Guler et al.
1996):
Re
G (2)
A H
where, G = shear resistance (psf), R = resultant force (lbf), e = eccentricity (ft), A = sample
cross-sectional area (ft2), and H = sample height at any gyration cycle (ft).
Figure 4. AFGB1A gyratory compactor (left) and pressure distribution analyzer
The total compaction energy applied is a sum of the initial static compaction energy (that is
applied due to application of vertical stresses statically before the first gyration) and the gyratory
compaction energy. The static compaction energy can be determined using Eq. (3) which is a
ratio of area under the load versus deformation curve and the volume of the soil compacted:
area of load versus deformation curve (lb - ft)

Energy static (3)
Volume of soil (ft 3 )
The gyratory compaction energy is determined using Eq. 4 which is a sum of the energies
applied during compaction via vertical and shear forces on the sample (McRae 1965):
[Pvertical A sample (H before - H after )] (4 s H )

Energy gyratory (4)
V
7
where, Pvertial = vertical applied pressure (psf), Asample = area of sample (ft2), Hbefore = height of
sample before compaction (ft), Hafter = height of sample after compaction (ft), s = applied shear
stress (psf), H = height of sample at a given gyration cycle (ft), = gyration angle (radians), and
V = volume of mold (ft3).
Vibratory Compaction
Vibratory compaction tests were performed to determine the maximum density using ASTM
D4253 Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density of Soils Using a Vibratory Table.
and minimum density using ASTM D 4254 Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density
of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density. The vibratory table and mold assembly used for
testing is shown in Figure 5. The vibratory table was set at amplitude = 0.013 inches and
frequency = 60 Hz. Vibratory compaction energy is estimated using Eq. 5.
Wf At
Energy vibratory (5)
V
where, W = weight of surcharge (lb), f = frequency of vibration (Hz), A = amplitude (ft), t = time
(sec), and V = volume of mold (ft3).
According to ASTM D4253, the sample is compacted by vibrating the table to a maximum of 8
minutes to determine the maximum index density. To determine compaction energy versus
density relationship, the sample height was measured before and after placing the dead weight,
and after 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 480, and 960 seconds of vibratory compaction time.
Figure 5. 152 mm (6 inch) diameter compaction mold and vibratory table
8
OVERVIEW OF FIELD PROJECTS AND IN-SITU TESTING
The laboratory test results presented in this report were obtained on soil samples collected from
four different construction project sites. These construction sites involved compaction of the
soils on controlled test beds using padfoot and smooth drum compaction machines (CAT 825H,
CAT 815F, CS56 with padfoot shell kit, and CS563E) equipped with roller-integrated machine
drive power (MDP) compaction monitoring technology. In-situ point test measurements were
also obtained after multiple roller passes to compare with the roller data. A brief summary of
each project, field testing conditions, in-situ tests performed, and compaction methods followed
is provided in Table 2. Photographs of rollers used on each project are presented in Figure 6 to
Figure 9.
Table 2. Summary of test beds and in-situ testing

Project Total Amp* In-situ Point
Material Date Location Machine Passes Speed** Measurements
w, d, ELWD-Z3, DCP-CBR
Forward: Static,
Silty after 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12
Salt Lake Padfoot, 5.0 mph
Subgrade 06/21 12 passes at 4 locations (two
City, Utah CAT 825H Reverse: Static
(TB2) test points on each wheel
5.0 mph
path at every test location)
w, d, ELWD-Z2 after 0, 2, 4, 8,
Forward: Static,
Fat Clay and 16 passes at 5 locations
Fort Worth, Padfoot, 6.0 mph
Subgrade 06/12 16 (two test points at location,
Texas CAT 815F Reverse: Static
(TB8) one in each forward pass
6.0 mph
wheel path)
US12,
Silty Padfoot ELWD-Z2, d, w, and CBR
Marmarth,
Subgrade 08/09 shell kit, 16 Static, 2.0 mph after 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16
North
(TB1) CS56 passes at 9 test locations
Dakota
Recycled Forward: low
US12, 6
Asphalt Smooth amplitude, 2.0 ELWD-Z3, d, w EFWD-D3 and
Marmarth, (forward
Base 08/10 Drum, mph EFWD-K3 after 6 passes at 28
North and
Layer CS563E Reverse: Static, test locations
Dakota reverse)
(TB4) 3.7 mph
Recycled
Portland I35 North
Cement Bound, Smooth Forward: Low w, d, ELWD-Z3, EV1, and EV2
Concrete 08/28 North of Drum, 9 amplitude, 2.0 after 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
(PCC) Jewell, CS563E mph and 9 passes at 3 locations
Base Iowa
Layer
Notes: TB test bed (numbers indicate the test bed number in the field project), *amplitude setting, **nominal, w moisture
content determined using Humboldt nuclear gauge, d dry unit weight determined using Humboldt nuclear gauge, CBR
California bearing ratio determined from dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test, ELWD-Z2 elastic modulus determined using 200
mm diameter plate Zorn light weight deflectometer (LWD), ELWD-Z3 elastic modulus determined using 300 mm diameter plate
Zorn LWD, EFWD-D3 elastic modulus determined using 300 mm diameter plate Dynatest falling weight deflectometer (FWD)
test, EFWD-K3 elastic modulus determined using 300 mm diameter plate Kuab FWD.
9
Figure 6. Caterpillar 825H tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system
used on the UT project for compaction of silty subgrade
Figure 7. Caterpillar 815F tamping foot roller equipped with machine drive power system
used on the TX project for compaction of fat clay subgrade
10
Figure 8. Caterpillar CS56 smooth drum with padfoot shellkit roller equipped with
machine drive power system used on the ND project for compaction of subgrade silt soil
Figure 9. Caterpillar CS563E smooth drum roller equipped with machine drive power
system used on the ND project for compaction of recycled asphalt base material and on the
IA project for compaction of recycled PCC base material
11
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Laboratory testing involved determining the index properties such as grain-size distribution
parameters, Atterberg limits, and soil classification, and soil compaction characteristics of the
samples collected. Soil compaction tests were performed following Proctor test methods as
described earlier in the laboratory test methods chapter for four out of the five soils collected.
For one granular soil sample (i.e., Recycled PCC base material from Iowa), standard Proctor,
modified Proctor, gyratory and vibratory compaction methods were used for comparison.
Particle break-down following each compaction method was also evaluated for the RPCC base
material.
Material Description and Soil Index Properties
A summary of soil color, USCS and AASHTO classifications, particle-size analysis results, and
field information of five soils are presented in Table 3. Particle-size distribution curves for these
materials are presented in Figure 10 to Figure 14 and images of each material are provided in
Figure 15 to Figure 19. Raw data from particle-size analysis of these soils are included in the
Appendix along with data from all soils in the CFED database. Figure 20 presents the
relationship between cu and D10 for the two granular soils tests and LL and PI for the three non-
granular soils tested.
12
Table 3. CFED 2010 database
Recycled
Silty Fat Clay Silty Asphalt Recycled
Properties Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade Base PCC Base
CFED Soil ID #2042 #2043 #2044 #2045 #2046
Salt Lake Fort Worth, Marmarth,

Project Location Marmarth, ND I-35, IA
City, UT TX ND
Yellowish
Soil Color Dark Gray Greenish Gray Olive Gray Light Gray
Orange
Poorly
Silt with Fat clay Well-graded
graded sand
USCS Description (Symbol) sand trace sand Silty sand (SM) gravel with
with gravel
(ML) (CH) sand (GW)
(SP)
AASHTO Classification A-4 A-7-6 (49) A-2-4 A-1-a A-1-a
1
Liquid Limit (LL) 32 68 31 NP NP
2
Plastic Limit (PL) 34 23 22 NP NP
Plasticity Index (PI) 2 45 9 NP NP
Specific Gravity (Gs)
2.60 2.70 2.65 2.70 2.70
(Assumed)
Gravel Size (%) (> 4.75 mm) 1.0 0.3 2.4 36.2 80.8
Sand Size (%) (4.75 to 0.075
15.7 4.0 65.0 62.8 19.2
mm)
Silt Size (%) (0.075 to 0.002
67.5 21.1 21.7 1.0 0
mm)
Clay Size (%) ( 0.002 mm) 15.8 74.6 10.9 0 0
D10 (mm) 0.002 0.362 1.580
D30 (mm) 0.01 0.07 1.03 7.95
D60 (mm) 0.04 0.14 4.00 17.57
Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 87.3 11.1 11.1
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 19.7 0.7 2.3
Lab Proctor compaction
5 5 5 5 04
energies
Field compaction curves Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compaction machine 825H 815F CS56 CS-563E CS-563E
Drum type Padfoot Padfoot Padfoot shell kit Smooth drum Smooth drum
1 ASTM reported standard deviation 0.98 1.07 (2 soils tested by different operators in same lab); 2 ASTM reported
standard deviation 1.07 1.21 (2 soils tested by different operators in same lab); 3 ASTM reported standard deviation + 1.66
(Multilaboratory precision); 4 Gyratory and vibratory compaction was performed
13
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
#100
0.002
#200
1.5"
3/8"
3/4"
#10
#20
#40
#4
2"
3"
1"
100
PL
LL
80 PI
US
Percent Passing
AA
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Diameter (mm)
Figure 10. Grain size distribution curve Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)

#100
0.002
#200
1.5"
3/8"
3/4"
#10
#20
#40
#4
2"
3"
1"
100
80
Percent Passing
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Diameter (mm)
Figure 11. Grain size distribution curve Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)
14
#100
0.002
#200
1.5"
3/8"
3/4"
#10
#20
#40
#4
2"
3"
1"
100
80
Percent Passing
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Diameter (mm)
Figure 12. Grain size distribution curve North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)

#100
0.002
#200
1.5"
3/8"
3/4"
#10
#20
#40
#4
2"
3"
1"
100
80
Percent Passing
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Diameter (mm)
Figure 13. Grain size distribution curve North Dakota recycled asphalt base (Soil 2045)
15
#100
0.002
#200
1.5"
3/8"
3/4"
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
2"
3"
1"
100
80
Percent Passing
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Diameter (mm)
Figure 14. Grain size distribution curve Iowa recycled PCC base (Soil 2046)
Figure 15. Utah silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2042)
16
Figure 16. Texas fat clay subgrade material [moisture content ~ 20%] (Soil 2043)
Figure 17. North Dakota silty subgrade material [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2044)
17
Figure 18. North Dakota recycled asphalt base [moisture content ~ 5%] (Soil 2045)
Figure 19. Iowa recycled PCC base [moisture content ~ 4%] (Soil 2046)
18
Figure 20. Soil groups identified for CFED 2010 database (newly added soils in blue
squares/circles and existing soils in red squares/circles)
Laboratory Compaction Tests Results
Proctor Compaction Test Results for Soils #2042, 2043, 2044, and 2045
The Proctor compaction test results for soils #2042 to 2045 are shown in Figure 21 to Figure 24,
respectively. Table 4 provides the dry unit weight (d) and moisture content (w) results for all test
19
points. Table 5 summarizes the maximum dry unit weight (dmax) and optimum moisture content
(w) for each compaction energy level. CFED output plots from the compaction for soils#2042 to
2045 are shown in Figure 25 to Figure 28, respectively.
These results illustrate that with higher Proctor compaction energy the soils achieve higher
maximum dry unit weight and lower optimum moisture content. The curves on the wet side of
optimum generally tend to parallel the zero air void (ZAV) line (i.e., 100% saturation line). The
points of optimum moisture content at each energy level also tend to parallel to the ZAV line.
These relationships are common for non-granular soils and some granular soil types from Proctor
tests.
17 ZAV (Gs=2.6)
Lab Data-SS
Lab Data-S
105 Lab Data-SSM
Lab Data-SM
16 Lab Data-M
100
d (kN/m3)
d (lb/ft )
3
ZAV line
95 15 Gs=2.6
90
14
85
13
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
w (%)
Figure 21. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies Utah silty
subgrade material (Soil 2042)
ZAV (Gs=2.7)
18 Lab Data-SS
Lab Data-S
110 Lab Data-SSM
17 Lab Data-SM
Lab Data-M
16 ZAV line
d (kN/m3)
100
d (lb/ft )
Gs=2.7
3
15
90 14
13
80
12
10 15 20 25 30
w (%)
Figure 22. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies Texas fat clay
subgrade material (Soil 2043)
20
ZAV (Gs=2.65)
Lab Data-SS
120 19 Lab Data-S
Lab Data-SSM
Lab Data-SM
115 18 Lab Data-M
110 ZAV line
d (kN/m3)
17 Gs=2.65
d (lb/ft )
3
105
16
100
95 15
90 14
4 8 12 16 20 24
w (%)
Figure 23. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies North Dakota
silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)
ZAV (Gs=2.70)
Lab Data-SS
22.0 Lab Data-S
Lab Data-SSM
138
Lab Data-SM
21.5
Lab Data-M
135
21.0 ZAV line
d (kN/m3)
Gs=2.70
d (lb/ft )
132
3
20.5
129
20.0
126
19.5
123
19.0
4 6 8 10 12
w (%)
Figure 24. Laboratory Proctor curves at different compaction energies North Dakota
recycled asphalt base material (Soil 2045)
21
Table 4. CFED 2010 database Proctor test results
UT silty TX fat clay ND silty ND recycled
Soil subgrade subgrade subgrade asphalt base
(Soil 2042) (Soil 2043) (Soil 2044) (Soil 2045)
Energy w d w d w d w d
Level (%) (lb/ft3) (%) (lb/ft3) (%) (lb/ft3) (%) (lb/ft3)
21.7 87.6 20.3 82.3 12.0 96.0 7.4 124.8
23.9 91.1 22.1 80.5 14.1 99.3 8.5 128.2
SS 25.3 93.8 24.3 82.6 15.5 102.6 10.0 128.0
27.6 90.9 25.1 83.5 17.6 101.4 11.3 126.1
30.2 89.0 29.4 83.7 20.4 99.9 9.4 128.6
19.0 91.5 16.9 85.4 9.9 102.2 6.0 126.0
21.7 94.6 20.7 89.6 13.7 106.4 7.0 128.2
S 24.3 95.8 23.4 93.3 16.1 107.4 8.5 130.4
26.3 93.2 24.6 92.4 19.1 105.6 8.9 130.7
28.2 90.5 28.2 89.8 20.8 102.1 10.6 128.8
17.4 94.4 16.6 91.4 9.6 105.0 6.7 130.1
18.8 95.8 18.4 91.7 12.2 108.4 7.4 130.7
SSM 21.6 99.0 24.6 96.2 13.9 111.8 8.4 133.1
23.3 98.5 20.6 95.4 15.6 113.4 9.5 131.7
24.7 96.0 22.8 97.0 17.8 109.6 10.9 128.2
15.7 97.0 16.9 96.4 8.7 108.4 5.5 129.4
17.5 96.6 17.9 96.7 10.8 111.1 6.5 131.7
SM 19.4 99.0 20.4 100.3 12.9 114.0 8.1 133.5
21.5 101.3 22.3 100.8 14.3 115.5 9.2 132.2
23.3 99.3 26.9 96.0 16.5 113.3 10.0 130.6
15.7 99.6 11.1 104.2 7.4 114.5 5.3 129.9
17.5 102.3 14.8 106.5 9.3 117.8 6.9 135.1
M 18.9 104.1 16.3 107.7 11.4 119.8 8.0 136.3
21.0 103.2 17.6 108.5 13.0 119.5 8.6 134.4
22.7 99.2 20.5 106.6 15.4 116.2 9.3 132.4
Table 5. CFED 2010 database of optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight
from Proctor test results
UT silty TX fat clay ND silty ND recycled
Soil subgrade subgrade subgrade asphalt base
(Soil 2042) (Soil 2043) (Soil 2044) (Soil 2045)
Energy w d w d w d w d
Level (%) (lb/ft3) (%) (lb/ft3) (%) (lb/ft3) (%) (lb/ft3)
SS 25.3 93.8 27.0 84.0 15.5 102.6 10.0 128.1
S 24.3 95.8 23.4 93.3 15.8 106.7 8.9 130.7
SSM 21.6 99.0 20.8 96.7 15.6 113.4 9.5 131.8
SM 21.5 101.3 22.3 100.8 14.3 115.5 8.1 133.5

M 18.9 104.1 17.6 108.5 11.4 119.8 8.0 136.3
22
Figure 25. CFED output graphs for Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)
23
Figure 25 (contd.). CFED output graphs for Utah silty subgrade material (Soil 2042)
24
Figure 26. CFED output graphs for Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)
25
Figure 26 (contd.). CFED output graphs for Texas fat clay subgrade material (Soil 2043)
26
Figure 27. CFED output graphs for North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil 2044)
27
Figure 27 (contd.). CFED output graphs for North Dakota silty subgrade material (Soil
2044)
28
Figure 28. CFED output graphs for North Dakota recycled asphalt material (Soil 2045)
29
Figure 28 (contd.). CFED output graphs for North Dakota recycled asphalt material (Soil
2045)
30
Proctor, Gyratory, and Vibratory Compaction Test Results for Soil #2046
The compaction characteristics of the recycled PCC base material (soil #2046) were studied
using Proctor, gyratory and vibratory compaction methods. This study was conducted to assess
the influence of these different compaction methods on the dry density of the material in
relationship with the applied compaction energy and gradation changes in the material due to
particle break-down during compaction. The advantage with gyratory and vibratory methods is
that a full compaction curve (i.e., change in density with increasing compaction energy) at a
given moisture content can be generated on one sample. While with Proctor compaction method
multiple samples have to be compacted with different compaction energys to generate a
compaction curve. For this study, the RPCC material was compacted at its natural field moisture
content (about 3%).
Figure 29 shows the w and d relationships obtained from standard and modified Proctor,
vibratory, and gyratory compaction tests. The d from vibratory compaction test (88.83 lb/ft3)
was determined after 8 minutes of vibration according to ASTM D4253. The d values from the
gyratory compaction tests were determined after 100 gyrations with vertical applied pressures
(o) of 2089 psf (100 kPa), 6266 psf (300 kPa) and 12531 psf (600 kPa). The d values achieved
using the standard Proctor, the vibratory, and the o = 2089 psf (100 kPa) gyratory compaction
methods were similar (88.8 to 91.0 lb/ft3). The d values achieved using the modified Proctor and
o = 12531 psf (600 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar (105.1 to 107.2 lb/ft3).
Figure 30 provides compaction curves from gyratory compaction tests in terms of change in d
and shear resistance (G) determined from PDA versus number of gyrations. A recent study by
White et al. (2009) indicated that G determined from PDA correlates well with soil shear
strength and resilient modulus properties. Figure 31 shows a compaction curve in terms of
change in d with increasing vibratory compaction time. Results presented in Figure 30 and
Figure 31 and Proctor tests were used to determine the compaction energy versus d relationships
(Figure 32), using the approach explained earlier in the Laboratory Test Methods chapter of this
report.
Particle-size analysis tests were performed before compaction and after compaction testing using
each compaction method and the results are presented in Figure 33. Gradation parameters (i.e.,
percent gravel, sand, and silt+clay) of materials before and after compaction are summarized in
Table 6. The results indicate that the particle break-down was more in the sample compacted
using the modified Proctor method (gravel size decreased from 95% to 66% and sand size
increased from 3 to 31%) compared to all other methods. Vibratory compaction resulted in
relatively less break-down (gravel size decreased from 95% to 94% and sand size increased from
3% to 5%) than all other methods. The amount of particle break down from gyratory compaction
increased with increasing o (i.e., sand size increased from 3% to about 15%, 16%, and 24%
with o = 2089 psf, 6266 psf, and 12531 psf, respectively).
31
114 18
Standard Proctor
17 Modified Proctor
108
Vibratory (8 minutes)
Gyratory (o=2089 psf)
102 16
Gyratory (o=6266 psf)
d (kN/m )
3
d (lb/ft ) 96 Gyratory (o=12531 psf)
3
15
90 14
84 13
78
12
72
11
0 2 4 6 8
w (%)
Figure 29. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction

recycled PCC base
18 114
w =3.0%
17 108
16 102
w =3.2%
d (kN/m )
3
d (lb/ft )
15 96
3
14 90
w =2.8%
13 84
2089 psf
6266 psf 78
12 12531psf
72
11
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of gyrations
200
4000
180
w =3.0%
160
3000
140 2089 psf
G (kPa)
G (psf)
6266 psf
120 12531psf 2000
100
w =3.2%
80 1000
w =2.8%
60
40 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of gyrations
Figure 30. Dry unit weight and shear resistance versus number of gyrations during
gyratory compaction
32
18 114
17 108
16 102
d (kN/m )
3
d (lb/ft )
15 96
3
14 90
13 84
78
12
72
11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (min.)
Figure 31. Dry unit weight versus energy during vibratory compaction
Energy (lb-ft/ft3)
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

18 114
o= 12531 psf
17 108
6266
16 psf 102
2089
d (kN/m )
3
d (lb/ft )
psf 96
3
15
14 90
Modified Proctor
84
Standard Proctor
13 Standard Proctor
Modified Proctor
Vibratory 78
12 Gyratory
72
11
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
3
Energy (kN-m/m )
Figure 32. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction energy
recycled PCC base
33
Gravel Sand Silt + clay
#100
#200
3/4"
#40
#10
3/8"
#20
1/2"
#4
100
Before Compaction
80 Standard Proctor
Percent Passing
Modified Proctor
Vibratory
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Diameter (mm)
Gravel Sand Silt + clay
#100
#200
3/4"
#40
#10
3/8"
#20
1/2"
#4
100
Before Compaction
80 Gyratory (2089 psf)
Percent Passing
Gyratory (6266 psf)

Gyratory (12531 psf)
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Diameter (mm)
Figure 33. Comparison of particle size breakdown by using different compaction methods
Table 6. Particle size properties results from different compaction methods

Gravel Size Sand Size Silt + Clay
Compaction methods
(%) (%) Size (%)
Before compaction 95.2 3.3 1.5
Standard Proctor 84.4 12.7 2.9
Modified Proctor 65.5 31.3 3.2
Vibratory compaction 93.7 5.2 1.1
Gyratory compaction (100 kPa) 83.1 14.7 2.2
34
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN SITU DATA AND MINERALOGY DATA
PRESENTATION IN CFED
This chapter presents recommendations for presentation of in-situ test data and mineralogy
information in CFED. In addition, recommended English and system international (SI) units for
in-situ test measurements are also presented.
Roller and In Situ Point Data Presentation in CFED
Examples plots presenting roller compaction data in-situ point measurement data are provided in
Figure 34 to Figure 37. Figure 34 presents roller-integrated MDP* plots with distance on the x-
axis for multiple roller passes on a calibration strip. This plot will help visually identify
variability in MDP* across a calibration test strip and change in MDP* with increasing passes.
Figure 35 presents change in MDP* and in-situ test measurements with increasing number of
passes (also referred to as compaction curves). The solid black points in Figure 35 represent the
average value per pass while the gray points represents the actual data from multiple test
locations along the test strip. Figure 36 presents comparison between MDP* and in-situ test
measurement along a calibration test strip for multiple roller passes.
Figure 37 presents results from simple linear regression analysis between MDP* and in-situ
point measurements. The in-situ point measurements are spatially paired with the nearest MDP*
data. In this regression plot, the in-situ test measurement is considered as a true independent
variable (plotted on the x-axis) and the roller measurement is considered as a dependent value
(plotted on the y-axis). The plot shows the best fit regression line and 80% and 90% prediction
intervals. Formula for plotting the prediction intervals are provided in Eqs. 6 and 7.

Pr ediction y t ( / 2;n 2 ) s(pred) (6)
1 (X X) 2
s(pred) MSE 1 (7)
n (X i X)
2

where, y = predicted y-value corresponding to an point measurement value X, MSE = mean
squared error, n = number of measurements, X = point measurement value, X = mean of point
measurement values, /2 = probability. Plotting prediction intervals can assist in selecting target
values from calibration testing.
A summary of recommended English and SI units for different laboratory and in-situ test
measurements and multiplication factors to convert the English units to SI units are provided in
Table 7.
35
Pass 1
Pass 2
150 Pass 4
Pass 8
140
Pass 12
130 Pass 16
120
MDP*
110
100
90
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (m)
Figure 34. Example of MDP* plots for multiple passes on a calibration test strip
LWD Modulus, ELWD-Z2 (MPa)

80
140
60
MDP*
120
40
100 20
80 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pass Number Pass Number
California Bearing Ratio, CBR (%)
110 30
Dry Unit Weight, d (pcf)
105 95% Standard Proctor 25

100
20
95
15
90
85 10
80 5
75 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pass Number Pass Number
Figure 35. Example of compaction curves for MDP* and in-situ test measurements with
increasing roller passes
36
150 Pass 1 80
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
MDP* 135 60
120 40
105 20
90 0
75
150 Pass 2 80
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
135 60
MDP*
120 40
105 20
90 0
75
150 Pass 4 80
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
135 60
MDP*
120 40
105 20
90 0
75
150 Pass 8 80
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
135 60
MDP*
120 40
105 20
90 0
75
150 Pass 16 80
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
135 60
MDP*
120 40
105 20
90 0
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (m)
Figure 36. Example of comparison between MDP* and in-situ test measurements after
multiple passes on a calibration test strip
37
Data Points
160 Best Fit Regression Line
95% Prediction Intervals
80% Prediction Intervals
140
120
MDP*
100
MDP* = 0.52 ELWD-Z2 + 97.1
2
80 R = 0.54
n = 45
60
20 30 40 50 60 70
ELWD-Z2 (MPa)
Figure 37. Example of simple linear regression analysis results with prediction intervals
38
Table 7. Recommended English and SI units for laboratory and field measurements
English to SI
English (Multiply
Parameter Symbol Unit SI Unit by) Reference
d lb/ft3 or 3
Dry Unit Weight kN/m 0.157087 ASTM D698
pcf
Lab Testing
Moisture Content w % % None ASTM D698

3 kN-
Laboratory Compaction Energy E lb-ft/ft 3 0.0484 ASTM D698
m/m
Particle sizes N/A inches mm 25.4 N/A
White et al.
Machine Drive Power MDP lb-ft/s kJ/s 0.001356
(2004)
White et al.
Compaction Meter Value CMV Unitless Unitless None
(2004)
Amplitude a in mm 25.4
Frequency f Hz Hz None
N/A
Speed V mph km/h 1.609
Distance D ft m 0.3048
3
Dry Unit Weight d pcf kN/m 0.157087 ASTM D698
Moisture Content w % % None ASTM D698
mm/blo ASTM
DCP Index DPI in/blow 25.4
w D6951
ASTM
California Bearing Ratio CBR % % None
D6951
Field Testing
Zorn LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-Z2 ksi MPa 0.006895

Zorn LWD (300mm plate) Modulus ELWD-Z3 ksi MPa 0.006895
Dynatest LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-D2 ksi MPa 0.006895
Dynatest LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-D3 ksi MPa 0.006895
Keros LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-K2 ksi MPa 0.006895
Keros LWD (300mm plate) Modulus ELWD-K3 ksi MPa 0.006895
EFWD-K3 ASTM
KUAB FWD (300 mm plate) Modulus ksi MPa 0.006895
D6758
Dynatest FWD (300 mm plate) Modulus EFWD-D3 ksi MPa 0.006895
PLT (300 mm plate) Initial Modulus EV1 ksi MPa 0.006895
PLT (300 mm plate) Reload Modulus EV2 ksi MPa 0.006895
PLT Stiffness kPLT klbf/in N/m 175.1268
SSG Modulus ESSG ksi MPa 0.006895
SSG Stiffness kSSG klbf/in N/m 175.1268
ASTM
Clegg Hammer Index Value CIV Unitless Unitless Unitless
D5874
Notes: DCP Dynamic cone penetrometer, LWD light weight deflectometer, FWD falling weight deflectometer, PLT plate
load test, SSG soil stiffness gauge, CIV Clegg impact value
39
Mineralogy Data Presentation in CFED
Some examples of presenting soil mineralogy information include images of scanning electron
microscope (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. The SEM images have a x20 to x
150,000 magnification range and a depth of field about 300 times greater than that of a light
microscope (Mitchell and Soga 2005). The shape of clay particles (which can be helpful in
identifying type of clay minerals) and fracture surfaces through the soil masses can be viewed
directly at high magnification and depth ranges. Some examples of SEM images for soils from
the Kumming airport project in China are presented in Figure 38. XRD is a commonly used
method to identify fine-grained soil minerals and to study crystal structures in soils (Mitchell and
Soga 2005). Example XRD spectrum charts for soils from Kumming airport project in China are
presented in Figure 39. These charts show reflected intensities on y-axis versus the detector
angle 2 on the x-axis. The patterns of these intensities are matched with patterns of known
materials to identify the minerals.
Figure 38. SEM images of soils from Kumming airport in China showing flat, plate like
clay structure
40
Figure 39. XRD analysis results of soils from Kumming airport in China
41
EARTHWORK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS
Background
One of the research tasks of this project was to develop a database of volumetric factors (i.e.,
shrinkage and swell factors) for a new CFED module to aid in estimating earthwork quantities.
These factors relate to soil volume changes between the bank, the excavated/loose, and the final
compacted states as illustrated in Figure 40. Shrinkage factor is a parameter that represents soil
volume changes from the bank state to the compacted state. Swell factor is a parameter that
represents soil volume changes from the bank state to the loose state. Understanding these
relationships for different soil types and the factors influencing these parameters are critical for
accurately predicting quantities and cost (Burch 1997). The shrinkage/swell factors are
influenced by the material type (i.e., clay, silt, sand, gravel, etc), in-situ moisture content of the
material (i.e., dry, damp, or wet), final compacted moisture content and density of the material,
and the type of equipment used for excavation and compaction (CAT Handbook 2008 and
Helton 1992).
Figure 40. Illustration of soil volumetric changes in bank, loose, and compacted states
Most construction estimators use the shrinkage and swell factors based on local experience,
historical information, approximate values provided in earthwork quantity estimation handbooks
(e.g., Burch 1997), or recommendations from local governmental agencies (Chopra 1999).
Previous research studies conducted by Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) (Chopra
42
1999) and Georgia DOT (Scruggs 1990) indicated that factors adopted without extensive
knowledge of local soils cause over- or under-prediction of earthwork quantities and in turn
affects the overall project costs. Scruggs (1990) indicated that the actual shrinkage factors can
exceed published values resulting in cost over runs in Georgia.
Shrinkage and Swell Factor Database
A detailed review of literature was conducted as part of this project to summarize the shrinkage
and swell factors documented for various soil types. A total of nine references (BS-6031 1981,
BCFS 1995, FLH 1996, Burch 1997, Chopra 1999, Look 2007, Peurifoy and Schexnayder 2006,
Helton 2007, and CAT Handbook 2008) were reviewed to populate the database. Shrinkage
factor is calculated as the ratio of the compacted dry unit weight to the back dry unit weight (Eq.
8), while the swell factor is calculated as the ratio of loose dry unit weight to the bank dry unit
weight (Eq. 9).
compacted d
Shrinkage factor (8)
bank d
loose d
Swell factor (9)
bank d
The procedure to determine shrinkage and swell factors varied between references. Therefore, all
the values presented in this report were back-calculated using the equations presented above.
Shrinkage and swell factor values of 154 different materials were collected. For brevity, these
materials were grouped into seven material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5)
clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other soils. The range, average, and standard deviation of shrinkage
and swell factors for these material groups are summarized in Table 8. Actual reported data for
these different materials are provided in Table 9. None of the references presented shrinkage and
swell factors linking the type of equipment used.
The swell factor statistics presented in Table 8 indicate that the values have a narrow range for
gravel soils (minimum value maximum value = 0.11) compared to other soils (with minimum
value maximum value = 0.22 to 0.44). The reported shrinkage factors have vary more than the
swell factors, as the shrinkage factor values are likely influenced by the percent compaction
achieved in the field.
Further literature review revealed that reports are limited for shrinkage factors. Only three of the
nine references presented shrinkage factors (for a total of 10 materials out of 154 materials). Of
those, only one reference (i.e., Burch 1997) provided shrinkage factors linked to percent
compaction relative to laboratory Proctor tests. Future research is warranted emphasizing field
studies that focus on developing a database of these factors for various material types and
relative compaction. The database should link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification,
gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory
compaction measurements.
43
Table 8. Summary of shrinkage and swell factors for different material groups
Shrinkage Factor Swell Factor

Average Average
Material Standard Standard
Group Range Deviation Range Deviation References
Look (2007), BS 6031
(1981), Peurifoy and
Schexnayder (2006),
Rocks Not available Not available 0.58 to 0.80 0.69 0.06
CAT Handbook 2008,
FLH (1996), Helton
(2007)
Burch (1997), Peurifoy
and Schexnayder (2006),
Look (2007),
Gravels 0.78 to 1.00 0.89 0.16 0.80 to 0.91 0.87 0.03
BS 6031(1981), CAT
Handbook (2008), Helton
(2007)
Burch (1997), BCFS
(1995), Chopra (1999),
Peurifoy and
Schexnayder (2006),
Sands 0.72 to 1.25 (*) 1.02 0.17 (*) 0.60 to 0.95 0.84 0.09
Look (2007)
BS 6031 (1981), CAT
Handbook (2008), FLH
(1996)
BCFS (1995), BS 6031
Silts 1.10** ** 0.60 to 0.87 0.74 0.09
(1981), FLH (1996)
Burch (1997), BCFS
(1995), Peurifoy and
Schexnayder (2006),
Clays 0.82 to 1.10 0.97 0.10 (*) 0.60 to 1.00 0.77 0.08 Look (2007), BS
6031(1981), CAT
Handbook (2008), FLH
(1996), Helton (2007)
Minerals Not available Not available 0.56 to 1.00 0.67 0.10 FLH (1996), Peurifoy and
Schexnayder (2006),
Other Not available Not available 0.57 to 0.80 0.67 0.09 CAT Handbook (2008)
*compacted dry unit weight varied between 85% standard Proctor to 100% modified Proctor; **only one
reference value
44
Table 9. Shrinkage and swell factors from literature review
Material Shrinkage Swell

Material Description Reference
Type Factor Factor
Igneous rocks 0.62
Metamorphic rocks 0.70
Look (2007)
Sedimentary rocks 0.65
Soft rocks 0.74
Soft rocks, rubble 0.71 BS 6031(1981)
Rock, well blasted 0.63 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)
Decomposed rock (75%
0.70
rock, 25% earth)
Decomposed rock (50%
0.75
rock, 50% earth) CAT Handbook (2008)
Decomposed rock (25% Not
Rocks 0.80
rock, 75% earth) Reported
Broken taprock 0.67
75% R. 25% E. Decomposed
0.76
rock
50% R. 50% E. Decomposed
0.72
rock
25% R. 75% E. Decomposed FLH (1996)***
0.70
rock
Masonry, rubble 0.60
Riprap rock 0.58
0.62 to
Solid Rock Helton (2007)
0.71
0.78*-
Wet gravel 0.80 Burch (1997)
1.00**
Earth and gravel 0.83
Gravel, dry 0.89 Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)
Gravel, wet 0.88
Gravels 0.89 Look (2007)
Silty gravel (GM) and
0.87 BS 6031(1981)
Clayey gravel (GC)
Gravels Dry clay & gravel 0.85
Wet clay & gravel Not 0.85
Pit-run gravel Reported 0.89
Dry gravel 0.89
CAT Handbook (2008)
Dry 6-50 mm gravel 0.89
Wet 6-50 mm gravel 0.89
Dry sand & gravel 0.89
Wet sand & gravel 0.91
0.84 to
Gravel Helton (2007)
0.91
*85 to 95% standard Proctor; **100% modified Proctor, ***cross-referenced the data provided by Western
Construction in 1958.
45
Type Factor Factor
0.72*-
Dry sand 0.79
1.00**
Burch (1997)
0.88*-
Wet sand 0.84
1.00**
Clean sand 1.05 0.89
BCFS (1995)
Common sand 1.11 0.80
Sandy soils (A-3) 1.18-1.25 0.80 Chopra (1999)
Sand, dry 0.87
Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2006)
Sand, wet 0.87
Uniform sand 0.89
Look (2007)
Well graded sand 0.89
Well graded sands (SW),
Sands Poorly graded sands (SP),
0.91 BS 6031 (1981)
Silty sands (SM), and Clayey
sands (SC)
Dry, loose sand 0.89
Not
Damp sand Reported 0.89
Wet sand 0.89
Loose sand & clay 0.79 CAT Handbook (2008)
Dry sand & gravel 0.89
Wet sand & gravel 0.91
Sandstone 0.60
Dry sand 0.90
Wet sand 0.95 FLH (1996)***
Sandstone 0.62
Clayey silt or clay 1.10 0.77 BCFS (1995)
Silty gravel (GM) and Clayey
0.87
gravel (GC)
Low plasticity silt (ML) 0.77 BS 6031 (1981)
Silts Organic silts/clays of low
Not 0.77
plasticity (OL)
Reported
Silt 0.74
Dry loess 0.67 FLH (1996)***
Wet loess 0.60
***cross-referenced the data provided by Western Construction in 1958.
46
Type Factor Factor
0.82*-
Dry clay 0.75
1.00**
Burch (1997)
0.89*-
Wet clay 0.78
1.00**
Hard pan 1.00 0.80
BCFS (1995)
Clayey silt or clay 1.10 0.77
Clay, dry 0.74
Clay, wet 0.74
Peat/topsoil 0.75
Clays 0.77 Look (2007)
Gravelly clays 0.77
Organic clays 0.77
Low plasticity clays (CL) 0.77
Organic silts/clays of low BS 6031(1981)
0.77
plasticity (OL)
Loam earth 0.81
Clays Natural bed clay 0.82
Dry clay 0.81
Wet clay 0.80 CAT Handbook (2008)
Dry clay & gravel Not 0.85
Reported
Wet clay & gravel 0.85
Loose sand & clay 0.79
Dry clay 0.67
Damp clay 0.60
(Dry) Earth, loam 0.67
(Damp) Earth, loam 0.70
FLH (1996)***
(Wet, mud) Earth, loam 1.00
Bentonite 0.74
Dry gumbo 0.67
Wet gumbo 0.60
0.80 to
Loam
0.87
Helton (2007)
0.74 to
Dense Clay
0.83
*85 to 95% standard Proctor; **100% modified Proctor, ***cross-referenced the data provided by Western
Construction in 1958.
47
Type Factor Factor
Andesite 0.60
Basalt 0.61
Breccia 0.75
Calcite-Calcium 0.60
Caliche 0.86
Chalk 0.67
Charcoal 1.00
Feldspar 0.60
Diorite 0.60
Dolomite 0.60
Gabbro 0.60
Gneiss 0.60
Igneous rocks 0.60
Granite 0.58
Dry kaolinite 0.67
Wet kaolinite Not 0.60
Minerals Marble 0.60 FLH (1996)***
Reported
Marl 0.60
Mica 0.60
Pumice 0.60
Quartz 0.60
Quartzite 0.60
Rhyolite 0.60
Schist 0.60
Shale 0.56
Slate 0.56
Talc 0.60
Limestone 0.61
Tuff 0.67
48
Type Factor Factor
Limestone 0.63
Shale 0.71
Basalt 0.67
Bsuxite, Kaolin 0.75
Caliche 0.55
Carnotite, uranium ore 0.74
Clinders 0.66
Anthracite, raw coal 0.74
Washed coal 0.74
Ash, Bituminous Coal Not 0.93
Minerals
Bituminous, raw coal Reported 0.74
CAT Handbook (2008)
Washed coal 0.74
Hematite, iron ore, high
0.85
grade
Granite - Broken 0.61
Magnetite, iron ore 0.85
Pyrite, iron ore 0.85
Broen limestone 0.59
Shale 0.75
Taconite 0.58
Earth, dry 0.80
Earth, wet 0.80
Dry packed earth 0.80
Wet excavated earth 0.79
Broen gypsum 0.57
Crushed gypsum 0.57 CAT Handbook (2008)
Broken slag 0.60
Crushed stone 0.60
Top soil 0.70
Not
Other soils Cinders 0.75
Reported
Conglomerate 0.75
Diotomaceous earth 0.62
Gypsum 0.58
Asphalt Pavement 0.67
FLH (1996)***
Brick Pavement 0.60
Concrete Pavement 0.60
Macadam Pavement 0.60
Peat 0.75
Top soil 0.64
49
Estimation of Wetting and Drying
Estimation of moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil for compaction depends on

the bank moisture content. This can be estimated using simple soil three phase diagram as
illustrated in Figure 41 and its weight-volume relationships. From the bank to the compacted
state, the weight of the solids remains practically unchanged but the weight of water and the
volume of air are changed due to drying and compaction process.
A step-by-step procedure on how to estimate the amount of water required for a change in
moisture content relative to bank moisture content is provided below and an illustrated in Figure
42 for example given parameters.
Step 1: Determine the weight of soil solids in compacted state (Ws(c)) using Eqs. (10) and (11),
where d(c) = dry unit weight in compacted state in lb/ft3 and VT(c) = total volume in compacted
state.
d (c)
Ws(c) (10)
VT ( c )
Assume VT(c) = 1 ft3
Ws(c) d ( c ) lbs = Ws(b) (11)
Step 2: Determine the desired change in moisture content from bank to compacted state w using
Eq. (12), where w(c) = moisture content of soil in compacted state and w(b) = moisture content of
the soil in bank state.
w w( c ) w( b ) (12)
Step 3: Determine the weight of water present in bank state, Ww(b) using Eq. (13) and the weight
of water required for the target compaction moisture content, Ww(c) using Eq. (14).
w ( b ) Ws ( b )
Ww ( b ) gallons / ft 3 (13)
8.34
w ( c ) Ws ( c )
Ww ( c ) gallons / ft 3 (14)
8.34
Step 4: Determine the weight of water required to be added or subtracted (i.e., by drying), Ww
using Eq. (15).
Ww Ww ( c ) Ww ( b ) gallons/ft3 (15)
A missing piece of information in this estimation process, however, is the number of disking
passes and time required to achieve the desired decrease in moisture content during drying.
50
White et al. (1999) reported that for 90o to 95oF temperature with sunny and slight breezy
weather conditions in Iowa, a moisture decrease of about 1.7 percent/hour was measured on a fat
clay soil (classified as CH) after soil disking. More information is warranted in the future to
develop empirical relationships between time, disking passes, temperature, humidity, and wind
speed, which can be very useful for the contractor in estimating the drying time and potentially
control the equipment logistics in field.
Va(b)
Va(c)
Ww(b) Vw(b)
Ww(c) Vw(c)
Ws(b) Vs(b) Ws(c)

Vs(c)
Figure 41. Soil three phase diagram in bank and compacted states showing weight volume
relationships
40
SOIL WETTING
Soil: TX Fat Clay
Standard Proctor dmax = 93.3 pcf
Standard Proctor wopt = 23.4%
20 Assumptions:
Bank d = 90.0 pcf
Amount of water per cubic yard (in gallons)
Bank w = 28.0%
0
Amount of water per cubic yard (in gallons)
-5
-20 SOIL DRYING
-10
-15
-40
RC = -20
85%
90%
95% -25
100% +/- 3% of wopt
105%
-60 110% -30
115% -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
120%
w (%)
SOIL DRYING
-80
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Change in moisture relative to bank moisture content, w (%)
Figure 42. Estimation of amount of change in moisture content in compacted state relative
to bank moisture content
51
Figure 43 presents a simple nomogram to estimate the mass of water required to be added in
gallons for 1% increase in moisture content for different truck speeds. The nomogram can be
used if width and depth of soil that requires moisture-conditioning, and a target relative
compaction value are known. Note that the percent relative compaction lines presented in the
nomogram are based on an assumed 100% RC = 90 pcf and these lines change if the 100% RC
value changes. A step-by-step procedure on how to estimate the amount of water required for a
1% change in moisture content are presented below:
Step 1: Determine the target width and depth of soil that requires moisture-conditioning to
determine the volume of the compacted soil per linear foot using Eq. (16).
VT(c) = Width (ft) x Depth (ft) x 1 ft (16)
Step 2: Determine the target density based on target RC value using Eq. (17), where dmax is the
maximum Proctor density.
d ( c ) RC d max (17)
Step 2: Determine the weight of solids in compacted state (Ws(c)) and weight of water per 1%
increase in moisture content per linear foot (Ww(c)) using Eq. (18) and Eq. (19), respectively.
Ws(c) = d(c) x VT(c) (18)
Ww(c) per 1% increase in moisture content = Ws(c) x 0.01/8.34 gallons/linear foot (19)
Step 3: Determine the weight of water per 1% increase in moisture content per linear foot at
different truck speeds (or application rates) v (in miles per hour) using Eq. (20).
Ww(c) per 1% increase in moisture content at selected application rate =

Eq. (19) x v (mph) x 88 (20)
52
12
1.6
h
in.
l speed = 0.2 mp
10
in.
th 4
.
.
.
in
6 in
5 in
n.
in.
n.
12
in.
11
7i
8i
Gallons of water per linear foot per 1% moisture

Dep
10
9
1.4
8
10 5%
%
10 0%
1 2 1 1 110 %
90
9
5
0% 5 % %
=
C
W ater truck trave

1.2
,R
6
h
0.5 mp
on
ph
c ti
ph
ph
pa
2m
1m
m
om
4
1.5
c
Width (ft)
ive
1.0
lat
Re
ph
2
m
3
0.8
0
Assumed 100%
RC = 90 pcf
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 50 100 150 200 250

Gallons of water per minute per 1% moisture content
Figure 43. Estimation of amount of water per 1% change in moisture content (modified
from Bros, Inc., 1964)
53
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
This report presents laboratory test results of five soil samples collected from field project sites
in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Iowa to incorporate into the existing CFED database,
recommendations for presentation of in-situ test results and soil mineralogy information in
CFED, and a database of volumetric factors for earthwork quantity estimation from literature
review. The soil samples collected consisted of two granular soils and three non-granular soils
as summarized below:
1. Silty subgrade material from Salt Lake City, Utah (Soil 2042)
2. Fat clay subgrade material from Fort Worth, Texas (Soil 2043)
3. Silty subgrade material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2044)
4. Recycled asphalt base material from Marmarth, North Dakota (Soil 2045)
5. Recycled PCC base material from I-35, Iowa (Soil 2046)
Laboratory Proctor compaction tests were conducted using five compaction energy levels at
different moisture contents for soils # 2042 to #2045, to develop moisture-density-compaction
energy relationships. The results indicated that with higher Proctor compaction energy the soils
achieve higher maximum dry unit weight and lower optimum moisture content. The curves on
the wet side of optimum generally tend to parallel the 100% saturation line. The points of
optimum moisture content at each energy level also tend to parallel to the ZAV line.
Gyratory and vibratory compaction energies were used to develop density-compaction energy
relationships on soil #2046 at its natural moisture content in comparison with standard and
modified Proctor energies. The dry unit weight values achieved using the standard Proctor, the
vibratory, and the o = 2089 psf (100 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar for the
RPCC material. The dry unit weight values achieved using the modified Proctor and o = 12531
psf (600 kPa) gyratory compaction methods were similar for the RPCC material. Particle-size
analysis tests were performed before and after compaction testing using each method to assess
particle break-down due to compaction. The results indicated that the particle break-down was
more in the sample compacted using the modified Proctor method compared to all other
methods. Vibratory compaction resulted in relatively less break-down than all other methods.
The amount of particle break down from gyratory compaction increased with increasing applied
vertical pressures.
A literature review was conducted on earthwork volumetric calculation factors to develop a

database of shrinkage and swell factors reported in the literature for various soil types. Shrinkage
and swell factors of a total of 154 soils were collected form the literature and grouped into seven
material groups: (1) rocks, (2) gravels, (2) sands, (4) silts, (5) clays, (6) minerals, and (7) other
soils. The swell factors statistics showed narrow range for gravel soils (minimum value
maximum value = 0.11) compared to other soils (with minimum value maximum value = 0.22
to 0.44). The shrinkage factors varied more than the swell factors as the shrinkage factor values
are likely influenced by the percent compaction achieved in the field. Further review revealed
that reports are limited for shrinkage factors. Only three out of the nine references reviewed
presented shrinkage factors (i.e., for a total of 10 materials out of 154 materials). Of those, only
one reference (i.e., Burch 1997) provided shrinkage factors linked to percent compaction relative
54
to laboratory Proctor test. In addition, none of the references presented shrinkage and swell
factors linking the type of equipment used.
Step-by-step procedures are described above to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or

drying) of soil for compaction using bank and compacted soil three phase diagram and weight-
volume relationships. These calculations, if included in CFED, can add value to the contractor in
estimation and planning stages and also during construction.
Future research is warranted emphasizing field studies that focus on developing a database of
shrinkage/swell factors for various material types and relative compaction. The database should
link shrinkage and swell factors to soil classification, gradation, Atterberg limits (for non-
granular soils) parameters, equipment, and laboratory compaction measurements.
55
REFERENCES
ASTM. (1983). Test method for compaction and shear properties of bituminous mixtures by
means of the U.S. Corps of Engineers gyratory testing machine. ASTM D3387, Annual book of
ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (1995). Standard Test Method for Determination of the Impact Value (IV) of a Soil.
ASTM D5874, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2000). Test method for laboratory compaction characteristics of soils using standard
effort. ASTM D698, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2000). Test method for laboratory compaction characteristics of soils using modified
effort. ASTM D1557, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2000) Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density of Soils Using a Vibratory
Table ASTM D4253, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2000) Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density of Soils and Calculation of
Relative Density. ASTM D4254, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2001). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
ASTM C136, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2003) Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow
Pavement Applications. ASTM D6951, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2005). Test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM
D4318, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007). Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM D422,
Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008). Standard Test Method for Measuring Stiffness and Apparent Modulus of Soil
and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Electro-Mechanical Method. ASTM D6958, Annual book of
ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for
Highway Construction Purposes (AASHTO classification system). ASTM D3282, Annual book
of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System). ASTM D2487, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West
Conshohocken, PA.
56
Bros, Inc. (1964). Handbook of In-Place Soil Stabilization, Road Machinery Division, Bros
Incorporated, Minneapolis, MN.
Burch, D. (1997). Estimating excavation, 4th Reprint, Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, CA.
BCFS. (1995). Field Resource Engineering Handbook, British Columbia Forestry Service,
Canada.
CAT Handbook .(2008). Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 38, Caterpillar

Publications, Peoria, IL.
Chopra, M.B., (1999). Investigation of Shrink and Swell Factors for Soils Used in FDOT
Construction, Final Report, Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, University of
Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
FLH (1996). Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual, U.S. Dept.of
Transportation, Report. No.FHWA-DF-88-003, Federal Highway Administration,Washington,
D.C.
Guler, M, Bahia, H.U., Bosscher, P.J., and Plesha, M.E. (1996). Device for measuring shear
resistance of hot-mix asphalt in gyratory compaction, Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1723, 119-124.
Hilf, J. (1999). Chapter 8: Compacted Fill. Foundation Engineering Handbook, Ed. Fang,
H.Y., 2nd Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts. pp.262.
Look, B.G., (2007). Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Mitchell, J.K., Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
McRae, J. L. (1965). Gyratory testing machine technical manual for bituminous mixtures, soils,
and base course materials, Engineering Developments Company, Inc., Vicksburg, MA.
Peurifoy, R.L., Schexnayder, C.J., and Shapira, A. (2006). Construction Planning, Equipment,
and Methods, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY.
White , D.J., Bergeson, K.L., Jahren, C., Wermager, M. (1999). Embankment Quality Phase II,
Final Report, Iowa DOT Project TR-401 Final Report, Center of Transportation Research and
Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
White, D.J., Jaselskis, E.J., Schaefer, V.R., Cackler, T.E., Drew, I., and Li, L. (2004). Field
Evaluation of Compaction Monitoring Technology: Phase I, Final Report, Center of
Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
57
White, D.J., Puls, J., Vennapusa, P., and Thompson, M., (2008). Compaction Forecasting
Development, Validation, and Application Research, Final Report, Center of Transportation
Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
White, D.J., Vennapusa, P., Zhang, J., Gieselman, H., and Morris, M. (2009). Implementation of
Intelligent Compaction Performance Based Specifications in Minnesota. Final Report MN/RC-
2009-07, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
58
APPENDIX: GRADATION TEST RESULTS FOR CFED SOILS
Soil ID SOIL0152 SOIL1632 SOIL1633

Susan Grandone/ Iowa State Iowa State
Sampled by
Dr. White University University
Date 2003 2005 2005
Weatheres Shale,
Glacial Till, Iowa
Back up of Iowa 2005
Description 2005 compaction
SOIL0150 compaction test
test (Edward)
(Edward)
Liquid Limit 24 35
Plastic Limit 15 24
Specific Gravity 2.66 2.77
Standard Proctor
13.9 16.2
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
18.0 17.7
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
14.0 1.4 0.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
42.5 46.3 9.1
to 0.075 mm)
Silt Size (%) (0.075
30.2 37.7 51.7
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
13.3 14.6 39.2
0.002 mm)
Sieve size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 99.5 100.0 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 93.5 99.3 100.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 86.0 98.6 99.8
#10 (2.00 mm) 78.3 97.2 99.7
#20 (0.85 mm) 73.2 92.3 98.6
#40 (0.425 mm) 67.2 85.3 97.4
#60 (0.250 mm) 57.6 74.6 96.0
#100 (0.15 mm) 49.9 62.9 94.2
#200 (0.075 mm) 43.5 52.3 90.9
Diameter Percent Diameter Percent Diameter Percent
(mm) Passing (mm) Passing (mm) Passing
0.03122 27.5 0.03062 32.4 0.02064 77.6
0.02017 23.9 0.01992 28.4 0.01389 72.4
Hydrometer Data 0.01193 19.4 0.01154 24.6 0.00849 66.5
0.00850 18.2 0.00826 22.1 0.00636 60.3
0.00615 13.3 0.00593 20.2 0.00472 54.6
0.00123 8.1 0.00293 15.7 0.00245 41.9
0.00123 13.5 0.00109 30.0
59
Iowa State Iowa State Iowa State
Sampled by
University University University
Date 2005 2005 2005
Glacial Till (W. Ill, Glacial Till
Loess, Iowa 2005
PPG), Iowa 2005 (Edward), Iowa
Description compaction test
compaction test 2005 compaction
(Edward)
(Edward) test (Edward)
Liquid Limit 29 19 29
Plastic Limit 23 11 16
Specific Gravity 2.72 2.72 2.70
Standard Proctor
18.6 8.1 12.1
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
15.9 21.0 19.0
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
0.0 14.0 4.2
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
2.9 42.5 26.9
to 0.075 mm)
90.6 34.6 43.8
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
6.5 8.9 25.1
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 98.9
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 99.5 98.9
0.375 (9.5 mm) 100.0 93.5 97.3
#4 (4.75 mm) 100.0 86.0 95.8
#10 (2.00 mm) 100.0 78.3 93.4
#20 (0.85 mm) 99.6 73.2 91.1
#40 (0.425 mm) 99.2 67.2 88.4
#60 (0.250 mm) 99.0 57.6 82.3
#100 (0.15 mm) 98.6 49.9 74.6
#200 (0.075 mm) 97.1 43.5 68.9
0.0293 40.0 0.03122 27.5 0.02079 51.6
0.0201 24.6 0.02017 23.9 0.01446 46.6
Hydrometer Data 0.0121 15.0 0.01194 19.4 0.00936 38.4
0.0087 12.5 0.00851 18.2 0.00686 34.4
0.0062 10.6 0.00615 13.3 0.00502 31.1
0.0031 7.5 0.00123 8.1 0.00111 23.0
0.0013 4.9
60
Iowa State Iowa State
Sampled by N. Carolina DOT
University University
Date 2005 2005 2006
Clay (C. Iowa, 728) Clay (C. Iowa, GS)
Iowa 2005 Iowa 2005 Red Lean Clay with
Description
compaction test compaction test sand - ISU 06-004
(Edward) (Edward)
Specific Gravity 2.70 2.77
Standard Proctor
19.6 22.4 22.1
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
16.3 15.5 15.1
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
0.4 0.0 8.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
1.2 2.8 25.0
to 0.075 mm)
69.1 63.8 23.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
29.3 33.4 40.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 94
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 92
0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.6 100.0 89
#4 (4.75 mm) 99.6 100.0 88
#10 (2.00 mm) 99.6 99.9 88
#20 (0.85 mm) 99.3 99.6 -
#40 (0.425 mm) 99.1 98.9 82
#60 (0.250 mm) 98.9 98.4 -
#100 (0.15 mm) 98.7 97.9 69
#200 (0.075 mm) 98.4 97.2 63
0.02561 77.0 0.02514 79.2 0.0292 49.2
0.01750 63.7 0.01726 66.2 0.0186 47.7
Hydrometer Data 0.01090 48.7 0.01069 53.2 0.0108 45.4
0.00788 42.3 0.00778 47.1 0.0077 43.9
0.00566 37.7 0.00560 42.6 0.0055 41.6
0.00119 27.4 0.00117 31.3 0.0027 40.7
0.0011 37.7
61
Mark Thomson, Mark Thomson,
Mark Thomson, Iowa
Sampled by Iowa State Iowa State
State University
Date 2005 2006 2005
Glacial Till (
Kickpoo Topsoil - Kickpoo Fill Clay -
Description W.ILL, Edward B) -
Silt Lean clay with sand
Sandy lean clay
Standard Proctor
13.9 19.3 16.9
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
18.5 16.0 17.8
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
3.1 0.2 1.2
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
28.9 7.9 20.3
to 0.075 mm)
45.5 73.9 58.6
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
22.5 18.0 20.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.4 100.0 99.7
#4 (4.75 mm) 96.9 99.8 98.9
#10 (2.00 mm) 94.4 99.2 97.5
#20 (0.85 mm) - - -
#40 (0.425 mm) 88.5 96.2 91.1
#60 (0.250 mm) - - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 74.8 93.0 82.1
#200 (0.075 mm) 68.0 91.9 78.6
0.023 54.7 0.020 68.2 0.023 58.2
0.016 47.8 0.015 55.2 0.016 49.3
Hydrometer Data
0.010 36.4 0.010 42.7 0.010 37.4
0.007 33.9 0.007 35.6 0.008 32.5
0.005 30.4 0.005 30.2 0.006 28.5
0.003 24.5 0.003 21.5 0.003 22.0
62
Mark Thomson, Mark Thomson, Mark Thomson,
Sampled by Iowa State Iowa State Iowa State
Date 2005 2005 2005
Kickapoo Sand -
RAP - Silty gravel CA6-C - Silty sand
Description Well graded sand
with sand with Gravel
with silt
Liquid Limit NP 15 14
Plastic Limit NP NP NP
Standard Proctor
4.8 9.0 9.8
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
18.3 19.4 19.6
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
8.9 44.0 37.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
84.6 42.0 52.0
to 0.075 mm)
3.3 11.0 9.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
3.2 3.0 2.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 99.0 99.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 98.0 96.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.7 84.0 79.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 91.1 56.0 63.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 74.4 40.0 46.0
#20 (0.85 mm) - - -
#40 (0.425 mm) 43.0 21.0 24.0
#60 (0.250 mm) - - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 10.4 17.0 17.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 6.5 16.0 13.0
0.033 6.6 0.0337 8.8 0.0316 9.7
0.021 5.8 0.0215 8.3 0.0203 8.4
Hydrometer Data 0.012 5.4 0.0126 6.7 0.012 6.0
0.009 5.0 0.009 5.6 0.006 5.0
0.006 4.6 0.0064 5.3 0.0062 3.9
0.003 3.4 0.0032 4.0 0.0031 2.6
0.0013 3.2 0.0013 2.1
63
Mark Thomson, Mark Thomson, Mark Thomson,
Date 2005 2005 2006
CA6-G(Aug05) -
MnRoad Glacial Till
Description FA6 - Silty Sand Clayey gravel with
- Sandy lean Clay
sand
Plastic Limit NP 14 13
Standard Proctor
7.9 9.5 15.0
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
19.9 19.9 17.3
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
9.0 37.0 3.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
70.0 31.0 37.0
to 0.075 mm)
16.0 22.0 38.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
5.0 10.0 22.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 99.0 92.0 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.0 71.0 100.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 91.0 63.0 99.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 77.0 59.0 96.0
#20 (0.85 mm) - - -
#40 (0.425 mm) 57.0 49.0 85.0
#60 (0.250 mm) - - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 44.0 37.0 68.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 24.0 34.0 57.0
0.0325 13.9 0.028 27.1 0.0281 48.3
0.02 12.0 0.0187 22.5 0.0185 41.0
Hydrometer Data 0.0122 10.0 0.0113 17.8 0.0110 35.2
0.0086 9.1 0.008 15.9 0.0079 32.0
0.0062 7.6 0.0058 14.0 0.0057 29.1
0.0031 5.7 0.0029 12.0 0.0029 22.3
0.0013 5.3 0.0012 9.7 0.0012 17.9
64
Mark Thomson, Pavana Vennapusa, Pavana Vennapusa,
Date 2006 2006 2007
MnRoad Class 5
CA6-G(June06) - TH60 Soil #1 STA
Base Material -
Description Well-graded sand (315+00) - Lean
Poorly graded sand
with silt Clay with Sand
with silt and gravel
Liquid Limit NP NP 27
Plastic Limit NP NP 19
Standard Proctor
7.1 8.0 11.7
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
21.3 21.4 18.7
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
30.0 29.5 0.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
60.0 61.0 35.0
to 0.075 mm)
7.0 4.2 44.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
3.0 5.3 20.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 98.6 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 87.3 95.8 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 75.0 85.0 99.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 69.8 70.5 99.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 62.7 51.6 96.0
#20 (0.85 mm) - 0.0 93.0
#40 (0.425 mm) 37.9 18.3 88.0
#60 (0.250 mm) - 0.0 81.0
#100 (0.15 mm) 14.0 11.1 74.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 10.0 9.5 64.0
0.034 6.1 0.034 9.0 0.0336 55.2
0.022 5.3 0.021 9.0 0.0217 49.3
Hydrometer Data 0.012 5.3 0.013 7.1 0.0129 40.1
0.009 4.5 0.009 6.5 0.0092 35.2
0.006 4.5 0.006 5.9 0.0066 31.5
0.003 3.4 0.003 5.3 0.0033 24.2
0.001 2.6 0.0014 17.3
65
Pavana Vennapusa, Pavana Vennapusa,
Pavana Vennapusa,
Date 2007 2007 2007
TH60 Soil #2 STA
US10-101 - Silty TH36 Common
Description (263+00) - Lean
Sand (May07) - Silty Sand
Clay with Sand
Liquid Limit 30 NP 13
Plastic Limit 18 NP NP
Standard Proctor
13.3 9.0 7.4
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
18.6 19.7 20.8
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
0.0 14.0 12.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
37.0 68.0 61.0
to 0.075 mm)
39.0 7.0 15.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
22.0 11.0 12.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 95.0 97.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 93.0 94.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.0 89.0 91.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 98.0 86.0 88.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 95.0 82.0 85.0
#20 (0.85 mm) 91.0 - -
#40 (0.425 mm) 85.0 64.0 70.0
#60 (0.250 mm) 78.0 - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 70.0 26.0 38.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 61.0 18.0 27.0
0.0341 48.9 0.0369 17.3 0.0337 21.6
0.022 43.7 0.0235 16.0 0.0216 18.3
Hydrometer Data 0.0129 39.0 0.0137 13.7 0.0126 17.0
0.0091 34.7 0.0096 13.6 0.0089 15.7
0.0065 32.6 0.0068 13.1 0.0064 14.3
0.0032 25.5 0.0032 11.8 0.0031 13.0
0.0014 19.7 0.0014 10.3 0.0013 11.9
66
Pavana Vennapusa,
John Puls, Iowa John Puls, Iowa
Sampled by Iowa State
State University State University
University
Date 2007 2008 2008
Kunming Airport
TH60 Strip 2 Kunming Airport
Description Yellow Clay - Silty
(Aug07) - Sandy Silt Red Clay - Silty clay
sand with gravel
Plastic Limit 27 20 NP
Standard Proctor
18.7 14.9 11.0
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
16.3 17.2 18.8
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
0.0 5.0 25.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
18.0 27.0 29.0
to 0.075 mm)
47.0 54.0 40.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
35.0 14.0 6.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 97.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 99.0 95.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 100.0 97.0 84.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 100.0 95.0 75.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 98.0 92.0 68.0
#20 (0.85 mm) 97.0 87.0 62.0
#40 (0.425 mm) 94.0 83.0 58.0
#60 (0.250 mm) 91.0 - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 87.0 77.0 54.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 82.0 68.0 46.0
0.0271 77.3 0.0307 42.7 0.032 20.3
0.0178 70.6 0.0196 40.7 0.0205 17.7
0.0107 63.9 0.0116 32.8 0.012 15.1
Hydrometer Data
0.0079 54.2 0.0083 28.9 0.0086 12.5
0.0065 50.9 0.0055 22.9 0.0061 9.9
0.0041 44.5 0.0029 17.0 0.003 7.3
0.0029 39.4 0.0013 11.1 0.0013 4.7
0.0012 29.8
67
John Puls, Iowa
State University
Date 2008 2007 2007
Edwards Till (Jun CO Subgrade Clay 1 CO Subgrade Clay 2
Description
2008) - Lean clay - Sandy lean clay - Silty clayey sand
Standard Proctor
13.3 11.8 14.2
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
18.8 18.7 15.8
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
1.0 1.0 11.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
16.0 31.0 47.0
to 0.075 mm)
42.0 39.0 28.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
32.0 29.0 14.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 98.0 100.0 95.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 98.0 100.0 94.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 97.0 100.0 92.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 96.0 99.0 89.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 94.0 98.0 87.0
#20 (0.85 mm) 91.0 96.0 80.0
#40 (0.425 mm) 89.0 90.0 70.0
#60 (0.250 mm) 84.0 84.0 61.0
#100 (0.15 mm) 79.0 78.0 53.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 76.0 68.0 42.0
0.0279 64.6 0.0304 50.6 0.0356 26.5
0.0185 56.5 0.02 43.5 0.0228 23.1
Hydrometer Data 0.0112 46.8 0.0118 39.3 0.0132 21.4
0.0081 41.4 0.0084 36.6 0.0093 20.8
0.0059 36.7 0.006 33.8 0.0066 18.4
0.0029 29.1 0.003 29.9 0.0033 15.4
0.0013 22.9 0.0013 27.1 0.0014 14.0
68
Pavana Vennapusa, Pavana Vennapusa, Pavana Vennapusa,
Date 2007 2007 2008
CO Base Layer -
CO Subgrade Clay 3 FLA FL23 - Poorly
Description Poorly graded sand
- Sandy lean clay graded sand with silt
with silt and gravel
Liquid Limit 27 NP NP
Standard Proctor
17.8 8.0 8.3
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
16.5 21.3 15.9
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
1.0 44.0 1.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
40.0 49.0 94.0
to 0.075 mm)
37.0 4.0 4.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
22.0 3.0 1.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 100.0 71.0 99.5
#4 (4.75 mm) 99.0 56.0 99.3
#10 (2.00 mm) 98.0 46.0 99.0
#20 (0.85 mm) 97.0 37.0 97.4
#40 (0.425 mm) 89.0 23.0 82.1
#60 (0.250 mm) 79.0 13.0 -
#100 (0.15 mm) 71.0 9.0 16.5
#200 (0.075 mm) 59.0 6.5 5.3
0.0308 40.4 0.0363 4.8 0.0355 1.4
0.0201 34.4 0.023 4.4 0.0224 1.4
Hydrometer Data 0.0117 31.8 0.0133 4.1 0.0129 1.4
0.0084 28.5 0.0094 3.5 0.0092 1.4
0.006 26.6 0.0066 3.6 0.0065 0.5
0.003 22.9 0.0032 3.7 0.0032 0.5
0.001 20.8 0.0013 1.1 0.0013 0.5
69
Pavana Vennapusa,
Date 2008 2008 2008
FLA FL24 - Silty FLA FL25-1 - Silty FLA FL25-2 - Poorly
Description
sand sand graded sand with silt
Liquid Limit NP NP NP
Standard Proctor
18.0 17.3 12.5
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
16.1 16.4 15.6
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
6.0 0.0 1.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
81.0 94.0 85.0
to 0.075 mm)
13.0 5.0 14.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
0.0 1.0 0.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 97.6 99.9 99.8
#4 (4.75 mm) 94.5 99.8 98.6
#10 (2.00 mm) 90.4 99.3 96.2
#20 (0.85 mm) 88.3 99.2 95.0
#40 (0.425 mm) 80.7 96.8 92.9
#60 (0.250 mm) - - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 20.1 26.4 47.2
#200 (0.075 mm) 13.3 6.0 14.3
0.0339 3.8 0.0351 1.3 0.0339 5.6
0.0214 3.8 0.0222 1.3 0.0217 3.9
Hydrometer Data 0.0125 2.1 0.0124 1.3 0.0122 3.1
0.0091 1.3 0.0089 3.1
0.0064 0.5 0.0064 1.4
0.0032 0.5 0.0031 0.5
0.0013 0.5 0.0013 0.1
70
Pavana Vennapusa, Pavana Vennapusa, Pavana Vennapusa,
Date 2008 2008 2008
NC4 - Poorly graded
Description NC1 - Silty sand NC2 - Silty sand sand with silt and
gravel
Liquid Limit 20 28 NP
Standard Proctor
11 12.8 6.2
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
19.1 17.4 21.2
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
5.0 1.0 42.0
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
69.0 61.0 47.0
to 0.075 mm)
18.0 34.0 10.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
8.0 4.0 1.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 93.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 86.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.0 100.0 68.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 95.0 99.0 58.0
#10 (2.00 mm) 87.0 95.0 46.0
#20 (0.85 mm) 77.0 80.0 36.0
#40 (0.425 mm) 63.0 65.0 27.0
#60 (0.250 mm) - - -
#100 (0.15 mm) 37.0 48.0 15.0
#200 (0.075 mm) 26.0 38.0 11.0
0.033 15.9 0.0307 20.0 0.0264 4.8
0.021 14.2 0.0199 16.6 0.0189 4.1
Hydrometer Data
0.0122 12.6 0.0119 12.4 0.0121 3.3
0.0087 10.9 0.0086 9.9 0.0086 2.5
0.0062 9.3 0.0061 9.0 0.0061 2.1
0.0031 1.0
71
John Puls, Iowa Jiake Zhang, Iowa Jiake Zhang, Iowa
Sampled by
State University State University State University
Date 2008 2010 2010
Buckshot Clay - TX - Fat clay
Description UT - Silty Subgrade
High plasticity clay subgrade
Standard Proctor
- 24.3 23.4
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
- 15.0 14.7
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
1.3 1.3 0.3
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
4.9 15.7 4.0
to 0.075 mm)
33.6 67.5 21.1
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
60.2 15.8 74.6
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 99.5 100.0
0.375 (9.5 mm) 99.3 99.1 100.0
#4 (4.75 mm) 98.7 98.7 99.7
#10 (2.00 mm) 98.2 98.4 99.1
#20 (0.85 mm) 97.5 97.8 98.3
#40 (0.425 mm) 96.1 97.3 97.7
#60 (0.250 mm) - - 97.5
#100 (0.15 mm) 94.2 95.9 96.9
#200 (0.075 mm) 93.8 83.0 95.7
0.0252 88.1 0.0424 61.6 0.0383 94.2
0.0163 84.3 0.0313 52.1 0.0275 91.2
0.0096 80.6 0.0206 41.6 0.0178 87.2
Hydrometer Data
0.0069 75.2 0.0122 34.4 0.0104 83.2
0.005 71.7 0.0088 28.7 0.0075 78.1
0.0025 63.0 0.0062 24.3 0.0053 75.1
0.0011 53.5 0.0030 18.5 0.0027 69.2
0.0013 12.3 0.0011 62.2
72
Jiake Zhang, Iowa Jiake Zhang, Iowa Jiake Zhang, Iowa
Sampled by
State University State University State University
Date 2010 2010 2010
ND - Recycled IA - Recycled PCC
Description ND - Silty Subgrade
asphalt Base Base
Liquid Limit 31 NP NP
Standard Proctor
15.8 8.9 -
wopt (%)
Standard Proctor
16.8 20.5 -
d (kN/m3)
Gravel Size (%) ( >
2.4 36.2 80.8
4.75 mm)
Sand Size (%) (4.75
65.0 62.8 19.2
to 0.075 mm)
21.7 1.0 0.0
to 0.002 mm)
Clay Size (%) (
10.9 0.0 0.0
0.002 mm)
3 (75 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 (50 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.5 (37.5 mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 (25.0 mm) 100.0 93.1 86.0
0.75 (19.0 mm) 100.0 82.4 65.3
0.375 (9.5 mm) 98.6 77.4 34.9
#4 (4.75 mm) 97.6 63.8 19.2
#10 (2.00 mm) 96.3 45.8 11.2
#20 (0.85 mm) 95.4 25.7 7.2
#40 (0.425 mm) 94.5 12.5 4.6
#60 (0.250 mm) - 5.3 2.7
#100 (0.15 mm) 62.6 2.0 1..2
#200 (0.075 mm) 32.6 1.0 0.0
Diameter Percent
(mm) Passing
0.0339 23.9
0.0217 20.9
Hydrometer Data 0.0126 19.5
0.0090 16.8
0.0064 15.5
0.0030 12.6
0.0013 9.1
73

White Et Al. 2010 - CAT CFED Phase IV

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

White Et Al. 2010 - CAT CFED Phase IV

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ER10-11

Earthwork Volumetric Calculations

Soil Soil Soil

Bank Loose Compacted

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

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

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

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

Heath Gieselman, M.S.

Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC)

Final Report December 2010

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN SITU DATA AND MINERALOGY DATA

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

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

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

Figure 1. Example CFED outputs ....................................................................................................3

A literature review was conducted on earthwork volumetric calculation factors to develop a

Step-by-step procedures are described in this report to estimate moisture-conditioning (i.e.,

Caterpillar has developed proprietary software technology Compaction Forecasting Expert

Predict the capability of compaction machines to meet compaction specifications,

Figure 1. Example CFED outputs

Particle Size Analysis

number of blows number of weight of height of

Figure 3. Automated mechanical rammer for Proctor compaction test

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

AFGB1A Brovold gyratory compactor (manufactured by Pine Instrument Company) and

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

area of load versus deformation curve (lb - ft)

[Pvertical A sample (H before - H after )] (4 s H )

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

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

Material Description and Soil Index Properties

Salt Lake Fort Worth, Marmarth,

Gravel Sand Silt Clay

Gravel Sand Silt Clay

Laboratory Compaction Tests Results

110 ZAV line

SSM 21.6 99.0 20.8 96.7 15.6 113.4 9.5 131.8

SM 21.5 101.3 22.3 100.8 14.3 115.5 8.1 133.5

Figure 29. Comparison of Proctor, vibratory compaction and gyratory compaction

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Gravel Sand Silt + clay

Gyratory (6266 psf)

Table 6. Particle size properties results from different compaction methods

Roller and In Situ Point Data Presentation in CFED

LWD Modulus, ELWD-Z2 (MPa)

105 95% Standard Proctor 25

Moisture Content w % % None ASTM D698

Zorn LWD (200mm plate) Modulus ELWD-Z2 ksi MPa 0.006895

Shrinkage and Swell Factor Database

Shrinkage Factor Swell Factor

Material Shrinkage Swell

Estimation of moisture-conditioning (i.e., wetting or drying) of soil for compaction depends on

Ws(c) d ( c ) lbs = Ws(b) (11)

Ws(b) Vs(b) Ws(c)

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

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