Compaction Lecture

8/6/2010
1
COMPACTION INNOVATIONS
AND CONTROL BASED ON
SOIL MODULUS
By
J ean-Louis BRIAUD
President of ISSMGE
Professor, Texas A&M University, USA
J-L Briaud, Texas A&M University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Hans Kloubert, BOMAG
Roland Anderegg, AMMANN
Carl Petterson, GEODYNAMIK
Dermot Kelly, LANDPAC
Derek Avalle, BROONS
Kukjo Kim, Texas A&M Univ.
J eongbok Seo, Texas A&M Univ.
8/6/2010
2
Current compaction practice
Future practice
Modulus and dry density
Intelligent compaction
Non cylindrical roller compaction
8/6/2010
3
CURRENT PRACTICE
Based on Density
LAB: Proctor test to get dry density vs.
water content curve
SPEC: x% of
d max
within range of
w
opt
FIELD: Compact and check that
d
and
w meet the specs
LAB : Proctor Test
CURRENT PRACTICE
Based on Density
Water Content (%)
3 9 15 21
14
16
18
20
D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
d max
w
opt
S =1 S =0.9
Water Content (%)
3 9 15 21
14
16
18
20
D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
d max
w
opt
S =1 S =0.9
8/6/2010
4
SPECIFICATIONS.
X % of
d max
within range of w
opt
FIELD
Nuclear Density Meter
For
d
and w
CURRENT PRACTICE
Based on Density
Dry Density:
Advantages and Disadvantages
1. Advantages
Accumulated knowledge
Well defined parameter
Indication of solids per unit volume
2. Disadvantages
Not related to design
Not very sensitive
Not easy to measure quickly in field
8/6/2010
5
FUTURE PRACTICE
Based on Modulus
LAB: Modulus test to get modulus
vs. water content curve
SPEC: x% of E
max
within range of w
opt
FIELD: Intelligent compaction and check
that E
max
and w meet the specs
FUTURE PRACTICE
Based on Modulus
LAB : Modulus Test
Water Content (%)
6 10 14 18
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
0
20
40
Sand
Clay
E
max
w
opt
8/6/2010
6
SPECIFICATIONS
X % of E
max
within range of w
opt
FIELD
Modulus Meter
For E and w
Intelligent
Compaction
E
IC
FUTURE PRACTICE
Based on Modulus
Modulus:
Advantages and Disadvantages
1. Advantages
Directly related to design
Very sensitive to water content
Easy to measure quickly in field
2. Disadvantages
Many influencing factors
No lab test to get E vs. w
No target values
New concept
8/6/2010
7
Texas A&M University
Stiffness or Modulus?
K = F/x in MN/m
E ~ / in MN/m
2
or MPa
E = F/Bx
K = F/x = EB/
8/6/2010
8
Stiffness or Modulus?
Stiffness depends on the size of the
roller.
Modulus does not; it is a property of
the soil only.
Use the modulus, not the stiffness
CALCULATION OF MODULUS
8/6/2010
9
Which Modulus?
DEFINITION
Initial
Secant
Tangent
Unload-Resilient
Cyclic
Reload
WHICH MODULUS?
8/6/2010
10
Which Modulus?
STATE FACTORS
Density
Structure
Water content
Stress history
Cementation
Which Modulus?
LOADING FACTORS
Stress level
Strain level
Strain rate
Number of cycles
Drainage
8/6/2010
11
WHICH MODULUS?
Which Modulus?
PLATE MODULUS in FIELD
BPT: Briaud Plate Test
8/6/2010
12
Which Modulus?
PLATE MODULUS in LAB
BPT: Briaud Plate Test
Range of Modulus
Steel: 200,000 MPa
Concrete: 20,000 MPa
Wood, Plastic: 13,000 MPa
Rock: 2,000 to 30,000 MPa
Asphalt: 150 to 25000 MPa
Soil: 5 MPa to 1000 MPa
Mayonnaise: 0.5 MPa
8/6/2010
13
Asphalt Modulus
150 to 300 MPa at 140
o
C
3000 to 4500 MPa at 20
o
C
25000 MPa at -10
o
C
NGES Sand
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Content (%)
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
Compaction Curve Mold #5
8/6/2010
14
Example of same modulus test
in lab and in field
BCD Test: Briaud Compaction Device
BCD on Proctor Mold
BCD in the Field
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)

.
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)

.
Plate Reload Modulus (MPa)
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m^3)
28
8/6/2010
15
NGES Silty Sand (Mold #5)
0
10
20
30
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
Modulus measured with BPT: Briaud Plate Test
NGES Silty Sand (Mold #6)
0
10
20
30
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
Pl ate Rel oad Modul us (MPa)
Dry Uni t Wei ght (kN/m^ 3)
8/6/2010
16
NGES Silty Sand
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
p
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
0 4 8 12 16
Water Content (%)
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)

NGES Sand + Porcelain Clay
8/6/2010
17
NGES Sand + Porcelain Clay (Mold #5)
0
10
20
30
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
Dry Uni t Wei ght (kN/m^ 3))
NGES Sand + Porcelain Clay (Mold #6)
0
10
20
30
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
Dry Uni t Wei ght (kN/m^ 3)
8/6/2010
18
NGES Sand + Porcelain Clay
0
20
40
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
p
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
0
20
40
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Water Content (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
p
a
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
N
/
m
3
)
Only one of those three
is not enough
Two of those three are
sufficient
All three would be nice
1. Density?
2. Modulus?
3. Water Content?
8/6/2010
19
Compaction
Control Methods
Conventional Compaction
Intelligent Compaction
Non cylindrical Compaction
Conventional Compaction
(static or vibratory smooth drum
or sheep-foot)

8/6/2010
20
Intelligent
Compaction
40
Non Cylindrical Compaction
8/6/2010
21
Intelligent Vibratory Compaction
Instrumentedvibratingrollers
Measureroller accel. asafunctionof time
Calculateasoil modulus
That modulusis/not independent of theroller
Intelligent roller modifies automatically &
instantaneously itsownsettings(force, ampl.,
freq.) tomeet thetarget modulus
History
FirstIntelligent Compaction Compactor: 1992
BOMAG(Germany)
AMMANNCompactionExpert (ACE, Switzerland)
Geodynamik(Sweden)
8/6/2010
22
Slide 43
Recompaction of soft formation area with VARIOCONTROL
automatic mode, presetting ( target value ) EVIB = 80 MN/m
Tests in the U.S.A.
8/6/2010
23
From Acceleration to Stiffness
2
cos( ) ( )
B d d u u f d
F m x m r t m m g ~ + O O + +
d u u d
x m r
d u d u
B B d B d
F k x d x ~ +
d
x
d
F
B
: soil-drum-interaction-force m
d
: mass of the drum (kg)
x
d
: vert. disp. of drum (m) : acceleration of drum
m
f
: mass of the frame (kg) m
u
: unbalanced mass (kg)
r
u
: radial distance for m
u
=
g: acc. due to gravity (m/sec
2
) f: frequency of rotating shaft (Hz)
: velocity of drum k
B
: stiffness of soil
d
B
: damping coefficient (d
B
~0.2)
d
x
d
x
d
x
d
d
x
2 f t f
d
x :
d
x
d (k )
4 2 -2
200
Soil Reaction Force (kN)
Fx max
-4
Fstat
x
Fx
1st Pass
2nd Pass
3rd Pass
Drum Oscillation (mm)
Force-Displacement Curves
From BOMAG
8/6/2010
24
From Stiffness to Modulus
d
x
d
x
o
b
B
F
o
b
B
F
) , ( E F f
B
= o
l
F
E
R
b
B
) 1 ( 16
2
v
t

=
H. Hertz, 1895 :
) ln 8864 , 1 (
2 1
2
b
l
l
F
E
B
+
=
t
v
o
G. Lundberg, 1939 :
(theoretical)
d
x
d
x
( )
( ) ( )
| |
3
2
2
MN m
1
2 1 2.14 ln
2 1 16
B
f d
E L
k
L E
m m R g
t
t
v
v

=
| |
(

|
+ (
|
+
(

\ .
8/6/2010
25
(experimental)
From AMMANN
Soil Modulus
for Intelligent Compaction
Soil: 5 MPa unacceptable
200 MPa excellent
8/6/2010
26
Soil layers Density Bearing capacity Eveness
(Standard Proctor) (loadbearingtest, EV2) (4 m straight edge)
Laying and compaction specification for
road construction in Germany
Subbase 100 - 103 % * 100 - 150 MN/m * 20 mm
Capping layer 100 - 103 % * 100 - 120 MN/m * 40 mm
Formation 97 - 100 % * 45 - 80 MN/m * 60 mm
* depending on road classification and road design
Specifications based on Modulus
From BOMAG
Why Intelligent Compaction?
TYPE OF CONTRACTS (EUROPE)
Best-valueawardsrather thanlowbid
Design-buildrather thanprescriptivespecifications
Performancecontracting
Continuous Compaction Control (CCC) in national
standards: Austria (RVS 8S.02.6), Germany (ZTVE
StB94), Sweden(VG94), andFinland
8/6/2010
27
Why Intelligent Compaction?
WARRANTY
Spain
UK
6)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Spain
UK
1)
Germany
2)
Denmark
Sweden
UK
3)
Denmark
Sweden
4)
Germany
5)
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y

(
y
e
a
r
s
)
1~2
4
5
11~16
20
25~30
Spain
UK
6)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Spain
UK
1)
Germany
2)
Denmark
Sweden
UK
3)
Denmark
Sweden
4)
Germany
5)
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y

(
y
e
a
r
s
)
1~2
4
5
11~16
20
25~30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Spain
UK
1)
Germany
2)
Denmark
Sweden
UK
3)
Denmark
Sweden
4)
Germany
5)
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y

(
y
e
a
r
s
)
1~2
4
5
11~16
20
25~30
1) Material and Workmanship
2) Material and Workmanship
3) Performance
4) Pavement Performance
Contracts
5) Pavement Performance
Contracts Functional
6) Design-Build Finance Operate
ECONOMICS
Morethan30%reductioninlabor timeandfuel costs
Reducethenumber of conventional spot tests
Increasetherollers useful life
1. Reference modulus = plate test?
2. Develop simple lab modulus test
3. Study modulus vs water/asph. Content
4. Demonstrate that IC is better than CC
5. Calibrate rollers against plate modulus
6. Use same modulus test (lab and field)
ISSUES
8/6/2010
28
in lab and in field
BCD on Proctor Mold
BCD in the Field
in lab and in field
BCD on Proctor Mold
BCD in the Field
8/6/2010
29
7. Develop specs based on modulus for
diff. pavement cond.
8. Can the asphalt modulus be isolated
from the soil modulus
9. Use modulus control equipment
10. Demonstrate the IC equipment
11. First International Conference on
Compaction?
ISSUES
Non cylindrical compaction
Triangular andpolygonal rollers
Impact generated
Landpac
Broons
Bomag
8/6/2010
30
60
8/6/2010
31
LANDPAC
8/6/2010
32
8/6/2010
33
65
Modeling and methodology Simulation results
Cylindrical
Visualized Compaction Mechanism
E
s
= 10MPa
E
s
= 30MPa E
s
= 50MPa 66
8/6/2010
34
Triangular drum
Simulation results
67
Triangular
Soil =10MPa
Visualized Compaction Mechanism(continued)
68
8/6/2010
35
Landpac drum
Simulation results
69
Landpac
Soil =10MPa
70
8/6/2010
36
Pentagonal drum
Simulation results
71
Pentagonal
Soil =10MPa
72
8/6/2010
37
Octagonal drum
Simulation results
73
Octagonal
Soil =10MPa
74
8/6/2010
38
Soil Modulus = 10MPa
75
The depth of influence
Soil Modulus = 50MPa Soil Modulus = 30MPa
76
8/6/2010
39
77
E
s
= 10 MPa
78
8/6/2010
40
E
s
= 50 MPa
79
Surface settlement (continued)
E
s
= 10MPa E
s
= 30MPa E
s
= 50MPa
Triangular drum: 32.89mm, 22.82mm, and 10.92mm, respectively
E
s
= 10MPa E
s
= 30MPa E
s
= 50MPa
Landpac drum: 26.02mm, 17.28mm, and 8.42mm, respectively
80
8/6/2010
41
Surface settlement (continued)
E
s
= 10MPa E
s
= 30MPa E
s
= 50MPa
Pentagonal drum: 22.25mm, 14.42mm, and 5.49mm, respectively
E
s
= 10MPa E
s
= 30MPa E
s
= 50MPa
Octagonal drum: 20.13mm, 5.21mm, and 2.26mm, respectively
81
Bomag field test results
82
8/6/2010
42
83
84
8/6/2010
43
85
Broons field test results
86
8/6/2010
44
Texas A&M University simulations
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Strain (%)
Strain after 1 pass
(Soil modulus = 10MPa)
Cylindrical (10MPa)
Triangular (10MPa)
Pentagonal (10MPa)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Strain (%)
Strain after 1 pass
Cylindrical (30MPa)
Triangular (30MPa)
Pentagonal (30MPa)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Strain (%)
Strain after 1 pass
Cylindrical (50MPa)
Triangular (50MPa)
Pentagonal (50MPa)
87
FORSSBLAD (1980)
88
8/6/2010
45
BROONS FIELD DATA
89
Predicted surface settlement
90
8/6/2010
46
CONCLUSIONS
The width of the contact area between the drum and the soil
controls the depth of compaction. The softer the soil is, the
deeper the roller sinks in the soil, the wider the contact area
is, and the deeper the compaction is. Therefore the depth of
compaction depends on the stiffness of the soil. As such the
depth of compaction decreases with the number of passes.
The surface pressure controls the degree of compaction. This
pressure is higher for the impact rollers than for the
cylindrical rollers due to the dynamic effect. Yet the
distribution of the pressure is much more uneven for impact
rollers than for cylindrical rollers.
91
CONCLUSIONS
The depth of compaction is larger for impact rollers
because they impart higher stresses which increase the
penetration of the roller drum into the soil thereby
increasing the width and therefore depth of influence.
It is also possible that the increase depth of influence is
due to wave propagation during the impact. These waves
can propagate much deeper than the typical depth of
influence for static loading.
The loosening effect of the surface is more prominent for
the impact rollers than for the cylindrical rollers.
92
8/6/2010
47
RECOMENDATIONS
Compact first with an impact roller and use several passes
to minimize the extent of the areas between impacts.
Finish by using a cylindrical roller to optimize the
compaction of the shallow layers.
This process combines the benefits of both types of rollers:
compaction of the deep layers (0.5 to 1.5 m) with the
impact roller but loosening of the shallow layers (0 to 0.5
m) followed by compaction of the shallow layers (0 to 0.5
m) with the cylindrical roller without disturbing the deep
layers.
93
THANK YOU
briaud@tamu.edu

Compaction Lecture

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Compaction Lecture

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8/6/2010

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen