Example Paper

One-Point Vibrating Hammer Compaction Test for Granular Soils

Adam B. Prochaska1 and Vincent P. Drnevich2

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium
Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051; PH (765) 494-5025; email: aprochas@purdue.edu
2
Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium
Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051; PH (765) 494-5029; FAX (765) 496-1364; email:
drnevich@purdue.edu

Abstract

Excessive settlements occur in granular soils where specified field compaction is based on
Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698[1], AASHTO T 99[2]) maximum dry unit weights. A laboratory
test program evaluated alternative test methods for granular soil compaction control and showed
that a Vibrating Hammer method (similar to British Standard BS 1377:1975, Test 14[3]) has great
promise for laboratory compaction of these soils.

A One-Point Vibrating Hammer test on an oven-dried soil sample provides the maximum dry
unit weight and water content range for effective field compaction of granular soils. The
maximum dry unit weight obtained is comparable to that from other current methods such as the
Vibrating Table test (ASTM D 4253[4]) and the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557[5]), and is
greater than that from the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698[1]). This test method is applicable
to a broader range of soils than current vibratory table compaction tests (up to 35 percent
nonplastic fines and up to 15 percent plastic fines). The equipment is relatively inexpensive and
is portable enough to be taken into the field. The test is easier and quicker to perform than the
other methods mentioned above and provides reproducible and consistent results. The paper also
introduces a simple calibration procedure to check that the vibrating hammer is supplying
sufficient energy to the soil.

Key Words granular soils, compaction, water content, density, unit weight

Introduction

Although many agree that impact compaction tests are not appropriate for compaction control of
granular soils, these tests continue to be used for these soils. A list of embankment compaction
control specifications for all state departments of transportation (DOTs) shows that 60 percent of
them specify only 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight ((γd)max) for
embankment compaction control (Bergeson et al., 1998[6]). When granular fills are placed with
reference to the Standard Proctor (γd)max, settlement occurs upon subsequent wetting and/or
 Example Paper 2

vibration of the soil (Day, 1995[7]; McCook, 1996[8]; Ping et al., 2003[9]; Rizkallah and Hellweg,
1980[10]).
A current method to determine (γd)max of a granular soil is the vibrating table test (ASTM D
4253[4]), but this test is limited to free-draining soils with less than 15 percent fines. Vibrating
tables were not originally designed for the rigors of soil testing, and are thus plagued by frequent
problems (Benavidez & Young, n.d. c[11]). An alternative test method to determine (γd)max of
granular soils is warranted. The State of Iowa (Bergeson et al., 1998[6] White et al. 1999[12])
proposed using a combination of impact compaction and vibrating table tests for granular soils
that have more than 15 percent fines.

In contrast to the frailty of vibrating tables, vibrating hammers were designed for performing
heavy demolition work, and vibrating hammer tests for soil compaction control have been
developed (Pike, 1972[13]; Forssblad, 1981[14]; Parsons, 1992[15]). There currently is not in the
United States a vibrating hammer test standard for soils, but the British Standards Institution has
developed two vibrating hammer tests: BS 1377:1975 Test 14[3] (Head, 1980[16]), which is
identical to BS 1924:1975 Test 5[17], and BS 5835 Part 1[18]. The United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) has shown great interest recently in the development of a vibrating
hammer test for granular soils. Much research has been performed by the USBR (Benavidez &
Young, n.d. a[19] – n.d. d[20]) and a test standard has been proposed (USBR 5535[21]), but little
action has come from this work.

The primary objective of this experimental research program was to investigate the feasibility of
a vibrating hammer test for compaction control of granular soils. The second objective was to
better define the term “granular soil” based upon compaction behavior so that the appropriate
compaction method (vibratory or impact) could be chosen for a given soil.

Experimental Program

All soils used were classified by both the AASHTO (M 145[22]) and Unified Soil Classification
System (ASTM D 2487[23]) and various compaction tests were performed on each soil. In
addition to vibrating hammer tests, other tests included Standard Proctor tests (ASTM D 698[1]),
Modified Proctor tests (ASTM D 1557[5]), vibrating table compaction tests (ASTM D 4253[4]),
and minimum unit weight determinations (ASTM D 4254[24]). The vibrating table test standards
limit these test methods to soils with less than 15 percent fines. However, tests in this
experimental program were performed on granular soils regardless of the fines content in order
to obtain reference vibratory table compaction results for comparing with the vibrating hammer
compaction results.

The vibrating hammer used was a Bosch model 11248EVS. Technical specifications for the
hammer, as provided by the manufacturer, are shown in Table 1 (Bosch, 2002/2003[25]). Figure
1 shows the vibrating hammer clamped to a sliding frame that is guided by two vertical rods, and
the tamper foot.

For soils with a maximum particle size less than 19.0 mm (0.75 inch), vibrating hammer tests
were conducted in a 152-mm (6-inch) diameter compaction mold. A tamper foot was designed
 Example Paper 3

Table 1. Technical Specifications for the Bosch model 11248EVS Hammer

Voltage 120 V AC
Amperage 11
Hammer Weight, kN (lbf) 2.26 (14.4)
Loaded beats per minute 1700 to 3300
Impact Energy per stroke, J (ft.* lbf) 10.0 (7.4)

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Vibrating Hammer and Frame (a) and Tamper Foot (b)

to have a diameter 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) less than the inside diameter of the compaction mold.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise in this paper, all vibrating hammer tests were conducted in
accordance with the information provided in Table 2. The static surcharge was determined from
the weights of the hammer, sliding frame, and tamper foot divided by the tamper foot area. The
frequency of 56 Hertz is very similar to the frequency of 60 Hertz at which the vibrating table
test (ASTM D 4253[4]) operates. The test parameters shown in Table 2 were chosen because
they produced the best results. The effects of these parameters on the obtainable dry unit weight
are presented in a separate publication (Prochaska et al., 2005[26]).

Table 2. Vibrating Hammer Test Specifics

Mold Diameter, mm (in.) 152 (6)
Frequency, Hertz 56
Lifts 3
Time of compaction per lift, seconds 60
Static Surcharge, kPa (psi) 19.5 (2.8)
 Example Paper 4

The soils tested consisted of sands and mixtures of sand and fines. To create granular soils with
higher percentages of both nonplastic and plastic fines, a concrete sand was mixed with either
Crosby Till (a local glacial till) or Grundite Bonding Clay (an illitic clay powder). Particle size
distributions of the soils tested are shown in Figure 2. Table 3 summarizes the index properties
and soil classifications for all of the materials tested.

Compaction results for selected soils are presented in Figures 3 through 5. Figure 3 shows the
compaction test results for a uniformly graded Dune Sand. Dry unit weights from vibratory
compaction are consistently higher than those obtained from both Standard and Modified Proctor
compaction. The maximum dry unit weight, (γd)max, from Standard Proctor compaction for this
Dune Sand corresponds to 70 percent relative density. For a construction control specification of
95 percent of the Standard Proctor (γd)max, which is very typical, this sand would be only at 40
percent relative density. Relative density (Dr) is a measure of the compactness of granular soil
that uses the densest and loosest possible conditions of the soil as limiting values. It is calculated
by:
(γ d ) max ⎛ (γ d − (γ d ) min ) ⎞
Dr = ⎜ ⎟ * 100% (1)
γ d ⎜⎝ ((γ d ) max − (γ d ) min ) ⎟⎠
where:
[4]
(γd)max = dry unit weight in the densest condition (ASTM D 4253 )
(γd)min = dry unit weight in the loosest condition (ASTM D 4254[24]), and
γd = dry unit weight in place.

No obvious optimum moisture content can be observed for Dune Sand. This indicates that the
maximum obtainable dry unit weight (γd) is independent of the water content and dependent on
the compaction method and energy. The solid triangle data point corresponds to the minimum
unit weight by ASTM D 4254[24], the solid circle and the solid square data points correspond to
the maximum dry unit weights from the vibrating table tests on dry and saturated specimens,
respectively.

As soil samples become increasingly well-graded, bulking effects at low water contents become
more pronounced. Figure 4 shows the compaction test results for Concrete Sand mixed with
Grundite to 9 percent fines. There is a weakly defined peak in the Standard Proctor compaction
curve around a water content of 12 percent. The vibrating hammer could not be run at water
contents above 10 percent on this soil due to water bleeding out from the bottom of the mold.

When greater percentages of plastic fines are present, compaction curves begin to take on more
characteristic shapes at higher water contents. Figure 5 shows the compaction test results for
Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 26 percent fines. Although the maximum dry unit
weights are obtained through vibration at the oven-dry condition, the plasticity of the fines
probably restricts particle reorientation at higher water contents. Within the range of normal soil
moisture conditions, the (γd)max and optimum moisture content determined by both Standard
Proctor compaction and vibrating hammer compaction are nearly equal. For higher percentages
 Example Paper 5

Sand Silt Clay

#4 Sieve #200 Sieve
100
90
2 3 1
Percent Finer by Mass 80
70
60
50
10
40 6 9
30 8
4
20 5
10
7
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Fig. 2. Particle Size Distributions of Soils Tested (See Table 3 for descriptions.)

Table 3. Index Properties and Classifications of Soils Tested

P200 USCS AASHTO
No. Soil (%) LL3 PI5 Cu Cc [22]
(ASTM D 2487 ) M 145
[23]

SP, Poorly graded A-3

1 Dune Sand 0.4 NP4 NP 1.3 1.1
sand
SP, Poorly graded A-1-b
2 Masonry Sand 0.8 NP NP 2.1 0.79
sand
SP, Poorly graded A-3
3 Play Sand 1.7 NP NP 2.0 0.95
sand
SP, Poorly graded A-1-b
4 Concrete Sand 0.8 NP NP 4.3 0.88
sand
5 CCS1+CT2 16 NP NP 35 6.4 SM, Silty sand A-1-b
6 CCS+CT 38 NP NP 95 0.59 SM, Silty sand A-4(0)
SW-SM, Well- A-1-b
7 CCS+Grundite 8.6 NP NP 6.9 1.2
graded sand w/ silt
8 CCS+Grundite 18 23 9 62 8.7 SC, Clayey sand A-2-4
9 CCS+Grundite 26 30 11 180 10 SC, Clayey sand A-2-6
10 CCS+Grundite 32 31 13 250 2.7 SC, Clayey sand A-2-6
1 2 3 4 5
Concrete Sand, Crosby Till, Liquid Limit, Nonplastic, Plasticity Index
 Example Paper 6

24
Standard Proctor
ZAV for Gs = 2.65
23 Vibrating Hammer

22 Modified Proctor

Dry Unit Weight, γd (kN/m )

3
Oven Dry Vibrating Table
21 Saturated Vibrating Table
20 Minimum Unit Weight

19
18
17
16
15
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Water Content (%)

Fig. 3. Compaction Results for Dune Sand

24 Standard Proctor
23 ZAV for Gs = 2.70 Vibrating Hammer
Oven Dry Vibrating Table
22
Dry Unit Weight, γd (kN/m3)

Saturated Vibrating Table

21 Minimum Unit Weight

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Content (%)

Fig. 4. Compaction Results for Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 9% Fines

of plastic fines, impact compaction is expected to produce higher dry unit weights than vibratory
compaction at typical water contents.

Figure 6 shows the (γd)max values obtained from the vibrating hammer test compared to those
obtained from the vibrating table test for all the soils tested. It can be seen that the (γd)max values
obtained from the two tests were within 3 percent of each other.

Figure 7 shows the (γd)max values obtained from the vibrating hammer test compared to those
obtained from the Standard Proctor test. It should be noted that the Standard Proctor (γd)max
values reported in Figure 7 are not the absolute maximum from the entire curve, but rather the
 Example Paper 7

24
Standard Proctor
ZAV for Gs = 2.70
23 Vibrating Hammer
22

Dry Unit Weight, γd (kN/m3)

Oven Dry Vibrating Table

21 Saturated Vibrating Table

20 Minimum Unit Weight

19
18
17
16
15
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Water Content (%)

Fig. 5. Compaction Results for Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 26% Fines

21
1 to 1
(γd)max from Vib. Hammer (kN/m3)

+/- 3 %
20

19

18

17

16
16 17 18 19 20 21
(γd)max from Vib. Table (kN/m3)

Fig. 6. Vibrating Hammer vs. Vibrating Table Maximum Dry Unit Weight Results

maximum from the water content range at which this test would usually be performed. The
(γd)max values shown are representative of maximum dry unit weight results that would be
obtained by performing the test following current practices. It can be seen that for all soils, the
(γd)max values obtained by the vibrating hammer test were at least 3 percent greater than those
determined from the Standard Proctor test.
 Example Paper 8

21
1 to 1

(γd)max from Vib. Hammer (kN/m3)

+/- 3 %
20

19

18

17

16
16 17 18 19 20 21
(γd)max from Standard Proctor (kN/m3)

Fig. 7. Vibrating Hammer vs. Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Unit Weight Results

One-Point Vibrating Hammer Test

Using the compaction curves obtained from the vibrating hammer tests, a normalized family of
curves was developed (see Figure 8). Both axes of the original vibrating hammer compaction
curves were normalized. All (γd) values were divided by the dry unit weight obtained from the
vibrating hammer test at the oven-dry condition ((γd)oven-dry).

1.00
0.98 95% Compaction
0.96
0.94
γd/(γd)oven dry

0.92
0.90 Concrete Sand
w/ 26% Grundite Fines
0.88
0.86 Concrete Sand
w/ 32% Grundite Fines
0.84
0.82
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
w/wZAV

Fig. 8. Normalized Family of Curves

 Example Paper 9

All water contents were divided by a term that is being called wZAV, which is the water content
that corresponds to saturation for (γd)oven-dry. The term wZAV is calculated from:

⎛ γw 1 ⎞⎟
wZAV = ⎜ − * 100% (2)
⎜ (γ ) ⎟
⎝ d oven− dry G s ⎠
where γw is the unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m3 or 62.4 pcf) and Gs is the specific gravity of the
soil solids. Equation 2 is a rearrangement of the relationship between specific gravity, water
content, and saturated unit weight (γSAT), with (γd)oven-dry being substituted in for γSAT.

From Figure 8 we see that for all of the soils tested, the normalized maximum dry unit weight
always occurs at the oven-dry condition, and for most soils a dramatic decrease in the obtainable
normalized dry unit weight occurred when a small amount of moisture was present. The shapes
of the curves in Figure 8 are quite similar to those reported for granular soils by Pike (1972)[13].
As the water content increases, peaks in normalized dry unit weight are not obtainable until the
ratio of w/wZAV is between 0.8 and 1.0. Within the water content range of 80 to 100 percent of
wZAV, 95 percent of (γd)oven-dry is obtainable for all but two of the soils. Thus, for all but the two
soils which will be discussed later, performing one vibrating hammer compaction test on an
oven-dry soil will provide (γd)max, and this unit weight can be used to calculate the water content
range that should be used for effective compaction in the field.

The steps for the One-Point Vibrating Hammer Test are:

1. Perform a vibrating hammer test on an oven-dry soil sample; the dry unit weight
obtained is (γd)max for the soil.

2. Using an appropriate apparent specific gravity of the soil solids, Gs, determine the wZAV
that corresponds to (γd)max. The water content range for effective field compaction
should be between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV.

This procedure is similar to the vibrating table test (ASTM D 4253[4]), in which (γd)max is found
at either the oven-dry or saturated condition, except that (γd)max was always found to occur at the
oven-dry condition for the vibrating hammer tests. Also, since the vibrating table test is only
applicable to free-draining soils, it does not provide a water content range for effective field
compaction, which is desirable information.

Using the results from vibrating table tests and minimum unit weight determinations, the results
from Figure 8 could also be plotted as relative density versus w/wZAV. For all but two soils, a
relative density of 80 percent is obtainable from the vibrating hammer test when the water
content is between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV. The two soils are those with higher percentages
of plastic fines, and are the same two soils for which a relative compaction of at least 95 percent
could not be obtained, as shown in Figure 8. To determine the range of soils for which the One-
Point Vibrating Hammer test would be applicable, the γd/(γd)oven-dry that is obtainable between 80
and 100 percent of wZAV was plotted versus percent fines, as is shown in Figure 9. Nonplastic
fines are defined as soils where the liquid limit, plastic limit, or plasticity index can not be
 Example Paper 10

1.00
Nonplastic Fines Trend

0.95

Obtainable γd/(γd)oven-dry
Nonplastic Fines
Plastic Fines
0.90 Plastic Fines
Trend

0.85
Proposed Limit for Proposed Limit for
Plastic Fines Nonplastic Fines
0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fines Content (%)

Fig. 9. γd/(γd)oven-dry obtainable between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV versus Percent Fines

determined; plastic fines are defined as soils where the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity
index can all be determined, following ASTM D 4318[27].

Using the results from Figure 9, for soils with nonplastic fines a limit of 35 percent fines is
suggested, since this is the boundary for granular soils following the classification procedure
found in AASHTO M 145[22]. For soils with plastic fines, a limit of 15 percent fines is suggested.
This is a conservative limit based on the results thus far, and is also consistent with the current
limiting fines percentage for vibrating table tests. Additional testing on a wider variety of soils is
needed to validate these recommendations.

Vibrating Hammer Calibration Procedure

Current vibrating hammer calibration procedures (Head, 1980[16]; Benavidez & Young, n.d. b[28])
involve the compaction of “standard sand” at a specified water content, with a specification that
a prescribed dry unit weight must be achieved. The calibration sand chosen for this study was
ASTM C 778[29] 20-30 Sand. This sand is commonly available and has a standardized,
consistent gradation between the #20 and #30 sieves.

In order to minimize the possibility for errors, the calibration procedure for this research used
oven-dry sand instead of moist sand as proposed by the British Standard and the USBR. The (γd)
specified in the calibration procedure was determined by comparing (γd)oven-dry results from a
variety of different compaction tests and for the lowest and highest available frequencies for the
vibrating hammer. Compaction results are shown in Figure 10 as a plot of (γd)oven-dry versus
relative density.

It can be seen from Figure 10 that the maximum dry unit weight obtained by the highest
frequency vibrating hammer test is not an unrealistic goal, as it is only slightly higher than that
 Example Paper 11

17.50
17.30 kN/m3 = Min. Value for Vib. Hammer Calibration
17.25
Maximum and Minimum Dry Unit
17.00 Weights

Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Highest Frequency Vibrating
16.75 Hammer
Lowest Frequency Vibrating
16.50 Hammer
Modified Proctor
16.25
Standard Proctor
16.00
15.75
Dr = 97 %
15.50
15.25
15.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Relative Density (%)

Fig. 10. γd versus Dr for Oven-Dry ASTM C 778[29] 20-30 Sand

obtained from the vibrating table test. The proposed allowable minimum dry unit weight
obtained by this calibration procedure is 17.30 kN/m3 (110.0 pcf), which corresponds to a
relative density of 97 percent on this sand. The minimum acceptable dry unit weight for a
calibration test performed on this sand is high enough to exclude a vibrating hammer that has a
compaction performance similar to that of the lowest frequency vibrating hammer result for the
hammer used in this research.

Particle Degradation Tests

To determine the particle degradation that occurs during vibrating hammer compaction, sieve
analyses (ASTM C 136[30]) were performed on selected materials before and after performance
of the vibrating hammer test. Negligible degradation was found to occur for most soils tested;
crushed concrete aggregate was the only soil to exhibit significant degradation. The particle
degradation that occurred for a crushed stone dense graded aggregate during the vibrating
hammer test is shown in Figure 11.

Conclusions

Many of the soils tested did not exhibit compaction characteristics that would be conducive to
impact compaction tests. A vibrating hammer test shows great promise as a quick method for
laboratory compaction of these granular soils. Even though the compactive energy supplied in
the vibrating hammer test is several orders of magnitude greater than that from impact
compaction tests, the particle degradation that occurs is negligible.

For sandy soils tested in the 152-mm (6-inch) diameter mold, vibrating hammer compaction tests
resulted in (γd)max values that were comparable to those obtained from vibrating table tests; these
 Example Paper 12

100
Before Vibrating
90 Hammer Test
80 After Vibrating
Hammer Test

Percent Finer by Mass

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size (mm)

Fig. 11. Particle Degradation of a Crushed Stone Dense Graded Aggregate

vibratory (γd) results were significantly greater than (γd)max values obtained from Standard
Proctor compaction tests. One vibrating hammer test performed on an oven-dry granular soil
specimen will provide (γd)max and the water content range that would be required in the field in
order to achieve effective compaction. For the majority of the soils tested, at least 95 percent
relative compaction and 80 percent relative density is obtainable within the water content range
for effective field compaction. It appears as if the One-Point Vibrating Hammer Test is
applicable to soils with up to 35 percent nonplastic fines or up to 15 percent plastic fines;
research is continuing to further define the coarsest and finest soils for which the test is
applicable.

Acknowledgments

The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the Indiana Department of Transportation, nor
do the contents constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The authors are grateful to the
Federal Highway Administration/ Indiana Department of Transportation/Joint Transportation
Research Program (Project: SPR 2783) for supporting this research. They are especially
indebted to Study Advisory Committee members: Daehyeon Kim, Nayyar Siddiqui, Greg
Pankow, and Scott Sipes (INDOT); Lee Gallivan (FHWA); Junior Geiger (Geiger Developing);
Mark Behrens (Schneider Corporation); Jeff Farrar (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation); Kurt Sommer
(INDOT Crawfordsville District Materials Engineer); Janet Lovell (Purdue Geotechnical
Engineering Lab Manager); and Ryan Krueckeberg (high school research intern).
 Example Paper 13

References

[1] ASTM D 698-00a (2000). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[2] AASHTO M T 99-01. Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils
Using a 2.5 kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop. Standard Specifications
for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

[3] BS 1377:1975 Test 14. Determination of the dry density/moisture content relationship of
granular soil (vibrating hammer method), British Standards Institution.

[4] ASTM D 4253-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit
Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[5] ASTM D 1557-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)).
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.

[6] Bergeson, K., Jahren, C., Wermager, M., & White, D. (1998). Embankment Quality Phase I
Report (CTRE Management Project 97-8). Ames: Iowa State University.

[7] Day, R.W. (1995). “Case Study of Settlement of Gravelly Sand Backfill,” Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 184-193.

[8] McCook, D.K. (1996). “Correlations Between Simple Field Test and Relative Density-Test
Values,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 10, pp. 860-862.

[9] Ping, W.V, Leonard, M., and Yang, Z. (2003). “Laboratory Simulation of Field Compaction
Characteristics (Phase I): Final Report for the Florida Department of Transportation”.
FSU Project No. 6120-549-39. Tallahassee: Florida State University.

[10] Rizkallah, V., and Hellweg, V. (1980). “Compaction of non cohesive soils by watering”.
Proceedings from International Conference on Compaction, Volume 1, Paris, April 1980,
pp. 357-361.

[11] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. c). Development of a USBR Vibratory Compaction
Method to Determine Maximum Index Dry Unit Weight of Cohesionless Soil Containing
3-inch Maximum Size Particles. Unpublished manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research
Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
 Example Paper 14

[12] White, D., Bergeson, K. L., Jahren, C., and Wermager, M., (1999) “Embankment Quality
Phase II Report,” Project Development Division of the Iowa Department of
Transportation and the Iowa Highway Research Board, Iowa DOT Project TR-401,
CTRE Management Project 97-8.

[13] Pike, D.C., (1972). Compaction of graded aggregates. 1. Standard laboratory tests.
Department of the Environment, TRRL Laboratory Report LR447. Transport Road
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

[14] Forssblad, L. (1981). Vibratory Soil and Rock Fill Compaction, Dynapac Maskin AB,
Solna, Sweden.

[15] Parsons, A.W. (1992). Compaction of Soils and Granular Materials: A Review of Research
Performed at the Transport Research Laboratory, HMSO, London.

[16] Head, K.H. (1980). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing Volume 1: Soil Classification and
Compaction Tests. London: Pentech Press.

[17] BS 1924:1975 Test 2. Determination of the dry density/moisture content relationship of

stabilized granular soil (vibrating hammer method), British Standards Institution.

[18] BS 5835: Part 1: 1980. Recommendations for Testing of Aggregates, Part 1. Compactibility
test for graded aggregates, British Standards Institute.

[19] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. a). Comparison of Vibratory Compaction Methods
Used to Determine Maximum Index Dry Unit Weight of Cohesionless Soil Containing ¾-
inch Maximum Size Particles. Unpublished manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research
Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

[20] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. d). USBR Study to Evaluate Effect of Vibration
Method on Maximum Index Dry Unit Weight of Cohesionless Soil. Unpublished
manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

[21] USBR 5535-94, DRAFT. Procedure for Determining the Maximum Index Unit Weight of
Cohesionless Soils using a Vibratory Hammer. Unpublished manuscript.

[22] AASHTO M 145-91 (2000). Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-
Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. Standard Specifications for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.

[23] ASTM D 2487-00 (2000). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
 Example Paper 15

[24] ASTM D 4254-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit
Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density. Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[25] Bosch (2002/2003). Power Tools and Accessories Catalog.

[26] Prochaska, A.B., Drnevich, V.P., Kim, D., and Sommer, K.E. (2005). “A Vibrating
Hammer Compaction Test for Granular Soils and Dense Graded Aggregates”. Submitted
to the 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
2005.

[27] ASTM D 4318-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[28] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. b). Development of a Method to Verify Suitable
Performance of Vibratory Hammers Used in USBR 5535. Unpublished manuscript.
Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, CO.

[29] ASTM C 778-02 (2002). Standard Specification for Standard Sand. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 04.01. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[30] ASTM C 136-01 (2001). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.

Biographical Information

Adam Prochaska is a native of Wisconsin and completed his B.S. degree in civil engineering at the University of
Wisconsin at Platteville. In 2004, he completed the M.S. degree in civil engineering at Purdue University. He
currently is working towards the Ph.D. degree in Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines in
Golden, Colorado.

Vincent Drnevich obtained his B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engineering at the University of Notre Dame and his
Ph.D. degree from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He was on the civil engineering faculty at the
University of Kentucky for 24 years before moving to Purdue University as Professor and Head of Civil
Engineering. In 2000, he stepped down from the Head position to devote more time to teaching and research at
Purdue University.