Measurement depth of vibratory roller-measured soil stiffness

Mooney, R.V.Rinehart and M.A.

doi:10.1680/geot.8.101

Cited by 28 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…along with the geographic information system (GIS), compaction roller-based measurement of the soil response provides real-time data over the entire compacted area (Rinehart and Mooney 2009). The recorded data reflect the dynamic ground stiffness or strength, which indicates the compaction level achieved in the field.…”

Section: Continuous Compaction Control Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of Dynamic Cone Penetration and Clegg Hammer Tests for Quality Control of Roadway Compaction and Construction

Kim¹,

Prezzi²,

Salgado³

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil compaction quality control presently relies on the determination of the in-place compacted dry unit weight, which is then compared with the maximum dry unit weight obtained from a laboratory compaction test. INDOT requires that the in-place dry unit weight for compacted soil be over 95% of the laboratory maximum dry unit weight. In order to determine the in-place dry unit weight, INDOT engineers generally use nuclear gauges, which are hazardous and also costly because of the required safety precautions. Thus, several alternative tests such as the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) and the Clegg Hammer Test (CHT) were introduced as testing tools for soil compaction quality control. However, no reliable correlations are available in the literature to employ these tests for soil compaction quality control. The main objectives of this research were to evaluate the use of the DCPT and the CHT results to develop criteria for soil compaction quality control. A number of DCPTs and CHTs was performed on Indiana road sites, in a test pit, and in the soil test chamber at Purdue University. Since soil compaction varies from place to place, a statistical approach was applied to account for the compaction variability in the development of the criteria for soil compaction quality control. Based on the DCP tests performed on several INDOT road sites, as well as in the test pit at Purdue University, and the requirement that the in-place dry unit weight of the fill material be over 95% of the laboratory maximum dry unit weight, minimum required DCP blow counts (NDCP)req were proposed for soils belonging to three groups of the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) soil classification system. For the DCPT, the minimum required blow count for 0-to-12 inch penetration, (NDCP)|0~12" associated with an RC of 95% for A-3 soil varied from 7 to 10; it is a function of the coefficient of uniformity. For A-1 soil and A-2 soils except those containing gravel, the (NDCP)|0~12" was a function of the optimum moisture content. For silty clays, the minimum required blow counts, (NDCP)|0~6" and (NDCP)|6~12" were a function of the plasticity index and the soil percentage passing the #40 sieve. Since the relationship of Clegg Impact Value (CIV) with relative compaction exhibited considerable variability, no criterion for CHT was proposed. Dynamic analyses hold promise in forming the basis for interpretation of the DCPT and CHT results since predictions of the penetration process (DCPT) and accelerations (CHT) for sand under controlled conditions were very reasonable.

show abstract

Section: Continuous Compaction Control Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The QC checks are displayed on a computer screen in the cab of the compactor (seeFigure 3.7). With recent advances in Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information System (GIS), many researchers have been actively involved in developing CCC(White et al 2004;Rahman et al 2008;White and Thompson 2008;Rinehart and Mooney 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Dynamic Cone Penetration and Clegg Hammer Tests for Quality Control of Roadway Compaction and Construction

Kim¹,

Prezzi²,

Salgado³

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By monitoring a vibratory roller's vertical drum acceleration and the position of the rotating eccentric mass, the underlying soil stiffness can be estimated in real time over a spatially continuous soil system (Anderegg and Kaufmann 2004;Sandström and Pettersson 2004;Brandl et al 2005; Mooney and Adam 2007;Mooney and Rinehart 2007). Previous experimental studies have examined IC roller behavior on layered soil systems (e.g., Adam 2007;Mooney and Rinehart 2009;Rinehart and Mooney 2009;Vennapusa et al 2009;Rich 2010;White et al 2011) and have shown that the roller-measured soil stiffness increases when adding stiffer subbase and base lifts on top of softer subgrade lifts, indicating an appropriate sensitivity to changes in variable underlying lift materials and thicknesses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of center of gravity roller drum soil stiffness on compacted layered earthwork

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the interpretation of intelligent compaction (IC) data from two layered soil test beds using center of gravity (CG) roller-measured soil stiffness. Conventional edge-mounted (EM) roller-measured soil stiffness values are interpreted from vertical accelerations measured by discrete, single-position accelerometers. However, these EM accelerometers are located at variable distances from the drum CG; the resulting vertical accelerations are thus affected by the rotation of the roller drum about the drum CG in the direction of roller travel. This leads to undesirable measurement artifacts, specifically multiple possible soil stiffness values for one soil location and an artificial dependence of the soil stiffness values on the direction of roller travel. In this study, left and right EM acceleration data from a vibratory roller are used to compute vertical accelerations at the CG of the roller drum. These vertical accelerations are used to compute CG stiffness values, which are not subject to the measurement artifacts associated with EM stiffness values. The resulting CG stiffness values are used to interpret IC data from two test beds with multiple 15-30 cm thick base-subbase-subgrade lifts. CG soil stiffness increases with the addition of subbase and base lifts, showing a desired sensitivity to changes in soil materials. CG stiffness also increases with the addition of multiple base lifts, showing a desired sensitivity to an increase in the overall thickness of the base material. This study demonstrates the efficacy of this unambiguous measure of soil stiffness for practical usage in IC of layered earthwork systems.Résumé : Le présent article décrit l'interprétation des données relatives au compactage intelligent (CI) collectées sur deux bancs d'essai de sols stratifiés et basées sur la rigidité du sol mesurée au centre de gravité (CG) d'un rouleau. Les valeurs de rigidité du sol mesurées avec des rouleaux conventionnels fixés sur les côtés sont interprétées à partir des données d'accélération verticale mesurées au moyen d'accéléromètres discrets à axe unique. Cependant, ces accéléromètres fixés sur les côtés sont situés à des distances variables du CG. Les accélérations générées sont dont influencées par la rotation du tambour du rouleau autour de son CG dans la direction du déplacement du rouleau. Cela donne lieu à des éléments de mesure indésirables, en particulier à de multiples valeurs de rigidité du sol possibles pour un emplacement de sol unique et au fait que les valeurs de rigidité du sol dépendent artificiellement de la direction du déplacement du rouleau. Dans la présente étude, les données d'accélération à droite et à gauche, au niveau des rouleaux fixés sur les côtés, collectées sur un rouleau vibreur sont utilisées pour calcules les accélérations verticales au CG du tambour du rouleau. Ces accélérations verticales sont elles-mêmes utilisées pour déterminer les valeurs de rigidité du sol au CG, lesquelles ne donnent pas lieu à des éléments de mesure indésirables, contrairement aux v...

show abstract