Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stiffness and Strength Based In-Place Evaluation

of Compacted Unbound Materials

Suppakorn Wachiraporn 1, Auckpath Sawangsuriya 2, Ph.D.,

Jutha Sunitsakul 3, Ph.D., and Wilailak Sramoon 4, D.Eng.
1
Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Mahanakorn University of Technology; Thailand,
wachiraporn08@gmail.com
2,3
Researcher, Bureau of Road Research and Development, Department of Highways, Thailand;
sawangsuriya@gmail.com, sjutha@gmail.com
4
Asistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Mahanakorn University of Technology, Thailand;
swilaila@mut.ac.th

ABSTRACT: Several non-nuclear and portable tools for structural properties

assessment of pavement materials have been currently introduced to the market. They
are capable of directly measure in-place stiffness and strength of compacted pavement
materials, which are the fundamental properties for mechanistic design and
performance evaluation of the pavement system. This paper presents stiffness and
strength based methods for rapid in-place monitoring compaction quality control during
highway construction in Thailand. Results indicated that these methods exhibited good
potential for construction quality control as well as the development of
performance-based specifications in Thailand.

INTRODUCTION

Long-term structural performance of the highway pavement depends on the structural

properties of the pavement materials and sub-grade stability. Quality control monitoring
and structural evaluation during highway construction play an important role to assure
that the quality of compaction and the material used. Typical earthwork compaction
acceptance criteria are currently based on the specified target dry density of the placed
earthen materials achieved through appropriate moisture content (i.e., 95% of
maximum dry density and near the optimum moisture content according to the
Department of Highways (DOH), Thailand construction specification).
The DOH has adopted the sand-cone method for a statistical evaluation of compaction
quality for several decades. However, such method is generally time consuming, labor
intensive, less cost-effective, and considered destructive. A simple, rapid, and direct
structural property testing in conjunction with moisture-density testing which can be
conducted independently and safely by the inspector without interference with the
construction process is anticipated to increase test coverage, to improve statistical basis
of evaluation, and to reduce variability.

347

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 348 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203

A number of innovative tools for in-place assessment of structural properties and

quantitative evaluations of construction practices and materials are currently available
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the geotechnical and pavement engineering communities. They include Light Weight
Deflectometer (LWD), Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer (PFWD), Soil Stiffness
Gauge (SSG), Briaud Compaction Device (BCD), Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),
Soil Density Gauge (SDG) and others can provide in-place stiffness, strength, density,
and moisture assessment of pavement materials and are therefore considered as
alternative means for Thailand highway construction quality control in the near future
(Sawangsuriya et al., 2009, Taesiri et al., 2009).
The study presents stiffness and strength based methods for rapid in-place monitoring
compaction quality control during highway construction in Thailand. The Soil Stiffness
Gauge (SSG) and the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) were selected in this study
for direct assessment of stiffness and strength of compacted unbound materials,
respectively. These tools are portable, simple to use, absolutely safe for operator, and
provide rapid measurement without interference with construction process.

SOIL STIFFNESS GAUGE AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

Soil Stiffness Gauge (SSG), which is currently marketed as the Humboldt

GeoGaugeTM (Fig. 1a), is a portable, non-nuclear testing device that provides simple
and non-destructive means of directly and rapidly measuring in-place soil stiffness. The
SSG weighs about 11.4 kg, is 28 cm in diameter, 25.4 cm in height, and rests on the soil
surface via a ring-shaped foot. The SSG measures near-surface stiffness by imparting
small dynamic force to the soil though a ring-shaped foot at 25 steady state frequencies
between 100 and 196 Hz. Based upon the force and displacement-time history, stiffness
is calculated internally as the average force per unit displacement over the measured
frequencies and reported. A measurement takes only about 1.5 minutes. The measured
soil stiffness from the SSG can be used to calculate the elastic modulus of the materials
at near surface (Sawangsuriya and Edil, 2005).

Handle

Upper Stop
Hammer, 8 kg
(17.6 lb) or 4.6 kg
(10.1 lb)
575 mm (22.6 in)

Anvil/Coupler
Assembly
1000 mm (39.4 in)

Graduated Drive
Rod or Vertical
Scale

16 mm (5/8 in)
Vertical Side 3 diameter Drive
mm (1/8 in) in Rod
length

Cone Angle 60
Tip
degree

20 mm (0.79 in)

(a) (b)

FIG. 1. Soil Stiffness Gauge (a) and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (b)

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203 349

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) (Fig. 1b) is simple, rugged, economical, and able
to provide a rapid in-place index of strength of pavement structure. The DCP is used for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

measuring the material resistance to penetration while the cone of the device is being
driven into the pavement structure. The number of blows during operation is recorded
with depth of penetration. The slope of the relationship between number of blows and
depth of penetration (in millimeters per blow) at a given linear depth segment is
recorded as DCP penetration index (DPI), which can be correlated with California
Bearing Ratio or CBR (Sawangsuriya and Edil, 2005).

MATERIAL AND FIELD TESTING PROGRAM

The field test was conducted at a highway construction site, HWY No. 3011: Ban Rai
– Ban Tai section, which is located in Uthaithani, Thailand. This highway was
constructed using the conventional pavement structure, which consisted of 10-cm hot
mixed asphalt, 20-cm crushed rock base, and 20-cm soil-aggregate sub-base over the
compacted sub-grade. Tests were performed on three types of unbound materials
including: (1) sub-grade, (2) soil-aggregate sub-base, and (3) crushed rock base. The
properties of these materials are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Properties of Unbound Materials

Soil-Aggregate Crushed Rock

Properties Sub-grade
Sub-base Base
AASHTO Classification A-7-5 A-2-6 A-2-4
% Passing
50.0 (2”) 100 93.07 100
25.0 (1”) 95.77 71.95 100
19.0 (3/4”) - 65.78 86.20
9.5 (3/8”) 88.25 - 65.46
#4 85.16 27.45 52.41
#10 78.63 20.37 34.50
#40 54.48 - 14.25
#200 41.27 8.99 9.84
D10 (mm) 4.5x10-4 0.1 0.1
D30 (mm) 1.5x10-3 5.1 1.6
D60 (mm) 0.63 10.6 7.0
LL (%) 41 27 19
PI (%) 14 19 9
O.M.C. (%) 13.2 8.5 6.8
γdry, max (t/m3) 1.9 2.1 2.4
Specific Gravity 2.65 2.68 2.77
Soaked CBR (%) 18 42 68
Unsoaked CBR (%) 56 56 74
Swell (%) 6.6 0 0.3

During the compaction, material from the stockpile was first spread out by a motor

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 350 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203

grader. Loose layer thickness of 170-180 mm was compacted to the compacted layer
thickness of 150 mm. Fig. 2 illustrates a typical layout of field test section. The test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

section had a total length of about 30-40 m with less than 2.5 m width. Two compaction
plants of different capacities were used for the study. These included a vibratory roller
and a pneumatic tire roller. The vibratory roller consisted of a single drum vibratory
roller of 11,050 kg (operating weight) and 11,400 kg – 23,000 kg (centrifugal forces)
capacity. The pneumatic tire roller has the capacity of 14,000 kg. The compaction plants
were driven slowly forward to the end of the section and then reversed along the same
track. This forward and backward movement along the same path constituting two
passes was counted for one pass in this study. A water tanker was used to moisten the
material when necessary.
After the compaction procedure, the SSG, DCP, and nuclear gauge (NG) were
conducted instantaneously at five test locations for each material type as shown in Fig.
2. At most five SSG measurements were made first, followed by two NG measurements
and a single DCP measurement, respectively per one test location. Every measurement
was made at the adjacent location. In addition to these tests, three field CBR tests were
performed on each material type.

7.5-10 m 7.5-10 m 7.5-10 m 7.5-10 m

CL 2.5 m
max.

SSG, DCP, NG

(NOT TO SCALE)

FIG. 2. Layout of field test section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results from field testing on three unbound materials are shown in Figs. 3 to 5. The
SSG stiffness (KSSG) of all unbound materials tended to increase with the number of
passes (i.e., compaction effort).The sub-grade exhibited the highest KSSG, while both
soil-aggregate sub-base and crushed rock base had comparable KSSG. KSSG seemed to be
very sensitive to the contact surface of the SSG footing and thus the test materials. On
the other hand, the DCP penetration index (DPI) value of all three unbound materials
decreased with an increase in the number of passes (i.e., soil becomes stronger). The
spatial variation in DPI value also reduced drastically as the number of passes increased.
Note that the penetrations achieved after 2 and 5 blows were selected to obtain the DPI
values in this study. Higher DPI indicated lower shear strength. Unlike KSSG, the DCP
test indicated that the sub-grade had lowest strength (i.e., highest DPI). The DPIs of
soil-aggregate sub-base are comparable to those of crushed rock base. Note also that
less DPI variation was observed for the crushed rock base for a given number of pass.
The dry unit weight and the associated relative compaction of the sub-grade remained

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203 351

almost constant as the number of passes increased. This might be due to the applied
compaction process and the initial moisture condition. The dry unit weight and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

associated relative compaction of the soil-aggregate sub-base and the crushed rock base
gradually increased with the number of passes as shown in Figs. 3c, 4c and 5c,
respectively.
By plotting the cumulative number of blows against penetration depth (Fig. 6), the
DCP can effectively capture the soil structural integrity and the uniformity of layer
thickness during the compaction process. The discontinuity within a layer thickness
can be identified when the slope of the plot (a ratio between the cumulative number of
blows and penetration depth) deviates. For instance, the discontinuity within the layer
thickness of sub-grade was observed at depths ranging between 60 and 90 mm. As the
number of passes increased, the discontinuity within the layer thickness tended to
disappear (i.e., soil became stronger) as clearly depicted in Fig. 6.
The average CBR for each material type was determined from the average DPI
across the compacted layer thickness (~150 mm) after the final pass was achieved as
indicated in Fig. 6 (CBRDCP = 23.5%, 32.1% and 30.3% for sub-grade, soil-aggregate
sub-base, and crushed rock base, respectively). The companion field CBR indicated
higher average CBR values of 28.9% for sub-grade, 53.3% for soil-aggregate
sub-base, and 57% for crushed rock base, respectively, which were however smaller
than the laboratory CBR values.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study presents the implementation of the SSG and the DCP for stiffness and
strength assessment for quality control during highway construction in Thailand. Both
the SSG and the DCP provided simple means for the pavement material and sub-grade
property evaluation during the construction phase. The in-place stiffness and strength
properties of three unbound materials can be rapidly and directly monitored in
companion with the conventional moisture-density control test during highway
construction. Due to their rapid and instantaneous measurements, the inspector can
increase test coverage, improve statistical evaluation, and reduce compaction
variability, thus ensure structural uniformity during the compaction. The DCP is
however highly recommended for routine quality control evaluation in Thailand. In
addition to the structural integrity, the DCP can assess the uniformity of layer thickness
during compaction process.
The quality control criteria for construction specification can be developed by the
DCP and conventional moisture-density measurements. Since the DOH, Thailand,
typically adopt the CBR for the pavement design and the compaction acceptance criteria
based on the 95% of maximum dry density and near the optimum moisture content.
Future comprehensive study is underway to establish such quality control criteria and
specification. Moreover, further study is necessary to evaluate the CBR values obtained
from different test methods and testing conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the director of Tak road

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 352 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203

construction and training center, project manager, inspectors, and engineers of highway
construction site, HWY No. 3011: Ban Rai – Ban Tai section for their cooperation in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

arranging access to the sites and assistances during the field test.

REFERENCES

Sawangsuriya, A. and Edil, T. B. (2005). “Evaluating stiffness and strength of pavement

materials.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 158(4): 217-230.
Sawangsuriya, A., Sramoon, W., and Wachiraporn, S. (2009), “Innovative tools for
highway construction quality control.” Research and Development Journal of the
Engineering Institute of Thailand, Vol. 20 (3): 36 – 42.
Taesiri, Y., Sawangsuriya, A., Wachiraporn, S., and Sramoon, W. (2009), “Assessment
of in-situ tests for stiffness and strength characteristic of pavement materials.” 13th
REAAA Conference Korea, Incheon, South Korea (in CD-ROM).

40 40
2 Blows
DPI (mm/blow)

30 30 5 Blows
K (Mn/m)

20 20

10 10
(a) (b)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Passes No. of Passes

2700 100
Relative Compaction (%)

2500
Dry Unit Weight (kg/m )
3

90
2300

2100 Dry Unit Weight 80

Relative Compaction
1900
70
1700 (c)
1500 60
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Passes

FIG. 3. Stiffness, DPI value, dry unit weight and relative compaction vs. number
of passes for sub-grade.

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203 353

40 40
2 Blows

DPI (mm/blow)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30 30 5 Blows
K (Mn/m)

20 20

10 (a) 10
(b)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Passes No. of Passes

2700 100
Dry Unit Weight (kg/m )

Relative Compaction (%)

3

2500
90
2300
(c)
2100 80

1900
Dry Unit Weight 70
1700
Relative Compaction
1500 60
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Passes

FIG. 4. Stiffness, DPI value, dry unit weight and relative compaction vs. number
of passes for soil-aggregate sub-base
40 40
2 Blows
DPI (mm/blow)

30 30 5 Blows
K (Mn/m)

20 20

10 10
(a) (b)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Passes No. of Passes

2700 100
Relative Compaction (%)
Dry Unit Weight (kg/m )

2500
3

90
2300

2100 80
(c)
1900
Dry Unit Weight 70
1700
Relative Comaction
1500 60
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Passes

FIG. 5. Stiffness, DPI value, Dry unit weight and relative compaction vs. number
of passes for crushed rock base

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis
 354 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 203

Comulative No. of blows

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
1 Pass
Average CBRDCP = 23.5%
2 Pass
50 at penetration depth 150 mm
Penetration (mm.)

4 Pass
5 Pass
100

150

200
(a)
250

Comulative No. of blows

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
Average CBRDCP = 32.1% 1 Pass
at penetration depth 150 mm 3 Pass
50
Penetration (mm.)

5 Pass
8 Pass
100

150

200
(b)
250

Comulative No. of blows

0 5 10 15 20 25
0
Average CBRDCP = 30.3% 1 Pass
at penetration depth 150 mm 3 Pass
50
5 Pass
Penetration (mm.)

6 Pass
100

150

200

(c)
250

FIG. 6. Cumulative number of blows vs. penetration depth for (a) sub-grade, (b)
soil-aggregate sub-base, and (c) crushed rock base under different number of
passes

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis