Evaluation of Relative Density Measurements and Applications

Selig, ET; Ladd, Richard S.

doi:10.1520/stp37891s

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Systematic error is a measure of accuracy and the difference between the correct value and the measured average of a set of repeated tests. Random error is the precision of a quantity, and is measured by the scatter in the results of a group of repeated tests (Selig and Ladd, 1973).…”

Section: Errors In Relative Density Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Random errors can be reduced to any desired degree by repeating the test and averaging the results (Selig and Ladd, 1973). For the case when the coefficients of variation are equal, for a defined coefficient of variation, the number of measurements, m, for each dry unit weight was calculated by Yoshimi and Tohno (1973) to be as expressed in Equation 8 m…”

Section: Errors In Relative Density Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was a time when liquefaction analysis was founded on the concept of relative density Idriss, 1967, 1971); however, today, although the same methodology has been retained, relative density has lost credence, and is no longer part of the liquefaction evaluation procedure (Youd et al, 2001). In the process of re-evaluating the concept of relative density, as proposed by Selig and Ladd (1973), ASTM withdrew its D2049-69 standard for measuring relative density as early as 1984 (Hamidi et al, 2011), and has replaced it with the more meaningful standards for measuring maximum and minimum index densities (ASTM, 2006a(ASTM, , 2006b. In its new standards, ASTM (2006a) cautiously states that it is generally recognised that either relative density or percentage compaction is a good indicator of the state of compactness of a given soil mass.…”

Section: Introduction: Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion

Hamidi¹,

Varaksin²,

Nikraz³

2013

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Impr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many years ago, a new concept called relative density was developed with the intention of appropriately defining the looseness and denseness of sand or sand-gravel soils in a meaningful way. Soon after, relative density found its way into ground improvement as an acceptance criterion by engineers who were more familiar with the construction of engineered backfilling rather than thick mass treatment. There are considerable amounts of research and publications that are able to well demonstrate the unreliability of relative density as an acceptance criterion. Relative density has no real influence on the soil's performance, its range of application does not span across all soil types, and it is subject to large inherent errors that make its use a technical risk. Here, the reasons why the concept of relative density is unreliable and should not be used for a ground improvement acceptance criterion are presented and discussed.

show abstract

Section: Errors In Relative Density Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Errors In Relative Density Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction: Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion

Hamidi¹,

Varaksin²,

Nikraz³

2013

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Impr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative test method to determine the maximum dry unit weight of granular soils is needed. However, any proposed alternative must not sacrifice the accuracy and precision that is currently specified in ASTM D 4253 (Selig and Ladd, 1973). …”

Section: Vibrating Table Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, any proposed alternative Final Report SPR 2783 Effective Compaction of Granular Soils, 7/20/07, Pg. 12 of 178 must not sacrifice the accuracy and precision that is currently specified in ASTM D 4253 (Selig and Ladd, 1973). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Effective Soil Compaction Control of Granular Soils

Drnevich¹,

Evans²,

Prochaska³

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. AbstractAlthough it is known that impact compaction tests are not appropriate for granular soils, these tests continue to be widely used. Excessive settlements frequently occur in granular soils where specified field compaction is based on Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698; AASHTO T 99) 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 has great promise for laboratory compaction of these soils.A One-Point Vibrating Hammer test on an oven-dry soil sample is able to provide the maximum dry unit weight and water content range for effective field compaction of most 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) and the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557), and is greater than that from the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698). The method is applicable to a broader range of soils than current vibratory table compaction tests (up to 35 percent non-plastic 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.Large sized granular soils/aggregates create potential problems for compaction control methods due to the presence of oversize particles. Oversize particles defined here are those retained on a 3/4-inch (19-mm) sieve. INDOT Specification 202.34 (b) 2 requiring correction of densities from laboratory compaction tests on soils with oversized particles is not being used in practice. It is not being followed primarily because guidance is not provided. As a result, the values of maximum dry unit weight from standard compaction tests will be significantly lower than those corrected for oversized particles. This finding may be the biggest reason why granular fills with oversized particles are under-performing. The proposed Vibrating Hammer Method of Compaction specifically addresses the influence of oversize particles.Based on the results from this research, a draft ASTM Standard for the Vibrating Hammer Method of Compaction has been written, is well into the balloting process, and should become an ASTM Standard Method of Test in late 2007 or early 2008. It is included in Appendix A. This report also introduces a simple calibration procedure to verify that the vibrating hammer is supplying sufficient energy to the soil.The Vibrating Hammer Method of Compaction is an alternative method for specifying maximum dry unit weights for granular soils. The method also establishes a water content range for field compaction. This research expands the applicable range of granular soils to those containing oversize particles. An experimental program, along with review of previous ...

show abstract

The Effect of Shape on the Linear Relationship of Maximum and Minimum Void Ratios of Various Sand Types

Çellek

2019

Geotech Geol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of Relative Density Measurements and Applications

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion

Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion

A Study of Effective Soil Compaction Control of Granular Soils

The Effect of Shape on the Linear Relationship of Maximum and Minimum Void Ratios of Various Sand Types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About