Vol. 20 No. 3 (2017) Cover Image
Vol. 20 No. 3 (2017)

Published: June 30, 2017

Pages: 641-646

Articles

Significance of using a Superpave Gyratory Compactor to Simulate Field Compaction of Fine Grained Soil

Zeyad S.M. Khaled 1 Alaa H. Abed 1 Tabarek S. Nsayif 1
1 Dept. of Civil Eng. College of Engineering Al-Nahrain University
History
  • Received: February 28, 2017
  • Available Online: June 14, 2017

Abstract

Field compaction equipment used for fine grained soil usually applies a kneading action or vibration that produces shear forces which also reshape soil particles arrangement. A state that might not be completely simulated by laboratory Proctor tests. This study aims at investigating the significance of using the newer modified Texas superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) to simulate field compaction of fine grained soil due to itsability to apply loads in different anglesgenerating shear forces on the compacted soilspecimens. Two types of soil (A-4) and (A-7-6)were compacted using standard Proctor,modified Proctor and (SGC). The results werecompared to dry field densities of the same soilin order to evaluate the most representative test.It was found that maximum dry densities of soiltype (A-4) obtained using (SGC) under (200kPa) and (600 kPa) were lower by (2.07%) andhigher by (1.35%) than the maximum drydensities obtained using standard and modifiedProctor tests respectively. It was also found thatmaximum dry densities of soil type (A-7-6)obtained using (SGC) under (300 kPa) and (600kPa) were lower by (1.02%) and higher by(1.23%) than the maximum dry densitiesobtained using standard and modified Proctortests respectively. The aforementionedconfinement pressure values were applied inorder to achieve dry densities similar to thatobtained by Proctor tests. When comparinglaboratory results to dry filed densities, it wasfound that (SGC) test results were slightly closerto them than Proctor tests results. Nevertheless,the difference between (SGC) and Proctor testsresults seems to be insignificant for these typesof soil compared to the higher effort needed toperform (SGC) tests.

Keywords

References

  1. Cheng Liu, and Jack B. Evett, (2008), “Soils and Foundations”, 7th edition, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
  2. AASHTO, (2011), “Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing”, 22nd edition, Parts 2A and 2B Tests, Washington, D.C.
  3. Department of Soil Investigation in the National Center for Construction Laboratories and Research (NCCLR), (2012), “Report of Soil Investigation no. 1/1/143/2012”, Baghdad, Iraq.
  4. Ping, W. V., Xing, G., Leonard, M., and Yang, Z., (2003) “Evaluation of Laboratory Compaction Techniques for Simulating Field Compaction (Phase II),” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida A&M University - Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
  5. Sebesta S., Guthrie W. S., and Harris J. P., (2004), “Gyratory Compaction of Soils for Laboratory Swell Tests”, Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
  6. Browne M., (2006), “Feasibility of using a Gyratory Compactor to Determine Compaction Characteristics of Soil”, MSc Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
  7. Panko, M., McGarvey, K., Stevenson, G., Coffey, S. and Sukumaran, B., (2011), “Compaction of Granular Soils Using Superpave Gyratory Compactor at Higher Confining Pressures”, Proceedings of the TRB annual conference, 2011.
  8. Perez, N., Garnica, P., Mendoza, I. and Reyes, M. A., (2013), “Behavior of fine-grained soils compacted with high shear stresses”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris.
  9. Cooper Company a British company for the design and manufacture of high performance testing equipment for asphaltic and unbound materials used in highway construction.