MODULUS BASED COMPACTION QA FOR

UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIAL

Zahra Niosha Afsharikia, PhD
Senior Consultant
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions
 Contributing projects

TPF-5(285) Transportation Pooled Fund 2013-2017

Study
Standardizing LWD Measurements for
Compaction QA and Modulus Determination
in Unbound Bases and Subgrades

MDOT SHA SPR Research Project 2017-2019

SHA/UM/4-51
Implementation of LWDs for Modulus
Based Compaction Quality Assurance of
Unbound Materials in the State of
Maryland

1 Introduction
 https://www.asce.org/reportcard/

3.1 billion gallons of fuel wasted

Total of $160 billion

Roads in need of repair cost motorists $120.5 billion in extra

vehicle repairs and operating costs in 2015, or $533 per driver

1 Introduction
 Flexible
Pavement
Layers

• Surface layer vs
foundation layers
Surface
• Unique soil
structure Base/Subbase
• Unsaturated Very Strong
condition Durable Subgrade Strong
• Structure backfill, Impermeable Free-Draining
embankments Manufactured Manufactured
Expensive Weak Less Expensive
Moisture Sensitive
In Situ Soil

1 Introduction
 Compaction
Quality
Assurance

• Density based QA
• NDG or Sand cone
• Aggregate gradation

1 Introduction
 LWD Device

• Fixed
• Movable

1 Introduction
 ➢ Does not reflect true engineering
properties of geomaterial
➢ Density and stiffness are NOT
correlated
➢ Does not monitor stiffness gain over
time for stabilized or unconventional
material
➢ High costs and regulations associated
with the radiation safe storage,
transportation, and operation
➢ Target MDD values from Proctor test is
not repeatable and highly subjective
(depending on the soil sample, operator,
fitted curve, judgments, etc.)
✓ Non-nuclear, easy to store and
transport, retrieve and analyze data
✓ 10 times faster
✓ Better understanding of spatial
variability
✓ Directly measures surface modulus
✓ Low maintenance cost
✓ ASTM E2835, ASTM E2583
• Does not measure MC

2 Literature review
 Different LWD brands’
configurations

Effect of MC at compaction vs.

Challenges testing time

Participating DOTs
Maryland Stress effects
Virginia
New York
Michigan
Florida
Missouri Layered system effect
North Carolina
South Carolina
Minnesota
Indiana
Practicality in the field and lab
LWD Testing on Proctor Mold

Smooth transition
from density-based Applicable to a variety
methods to modulus- of geomaterial
based QC/QA

Continuity among the Cost efficient for

design, construction, organizational
and laboratory testing implementation

Based on field
Target modulus and
moisture and modulus
acceptance criteria
measurements
 Zorn ZFG3000 LWD LWD-01 by Olson Engineering Dynatest 3031 LWD

Zorn Instruments Olson Instruments Inc. Dynatest Consulting Inc.

Device configuration LWD

plate
unit Zorn ZFG3000 Dynatest 3031 Olson 01
diameters
Total device 100 mm [kg] 30.1 19.8 27.1
weight (10 kg 150 mm [kg] 30.2 20.1 24.8
weight) 200 mm [kg] 30.4 20.5 26.7
300 mm [kg] 30.2 23.3 26
Drop weight [kg] 10, 5 5, 10, 15, 20 3.6, 5, 10
83.8 60
Maximum drop height [cm] 72.4
adjustable adjustable
Load cell available [-] No Yes Yes
Geophone
Deformation type [-] Accelerometer +2 optional external Geophone
sensor geophones
range [mm] 0.2–30 (±0.02) 0–2.2 (±0.002) N/A
Plate type [-] Solid Annulus Solid
Flat Rubber-
Type of buffer [-] Spring Spring
adjustable

3
Equipment evaluation
Selected MC Measurement Methods

Troxler 3440
• Oven drying method
(ASTM D2216)
• NDG (ASTM D6938)
• Ohaus MB45 Moisture
analyzer

Ohaus MB45
Correction factor= 1.11
(Tefa, 2015)

3
Equipment evaluation
 Methodology

Elab at Etarget vs Measure:

multiple compaction q Efield

MCs in lab curve q MC

Efield
Etarget
Test Sites Locations and Soil Types
AASHTO
Location Soil Type Unified Classification
Classification
1 Virginia Subgrade A-3 SP-SM Poorly graded sand with silt
MD5 Waste contaminated
2
embankment
A-1-a SW Well graded sand with gravel

3 MD5 Subgrade A-2-7 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel

Well graded gravel with silt and
4 MD 337, Deep GAB A-2-7 GW-GM sand
Maryland
MD404 sand overlaying
5
Subgrade
A-2-7 SP Poorly graded sand
6 MD 404 Subgrade A-2-6 SP Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded gravel with silt and
7 MD 404 Base A-2-7 GP-GM sand
8 New York Embankment A-3 SP Poorly graded sand
9 Cement modified Subgrade A-2-4 SW Well graded sand with gravel

Indiana Well graded sand with silt and

10 Virgin Subgrade A-2-4 SW-SM gravel
11 Base A-1-a GW Well graded gravel with sand
12 Subgrade A-3 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel
Missouri
13 Base A-3 GW Well graded gravel with sand
14 Subgrade A-2-7 SP Poorly graded sand
Florida
15 Base A-3 SP Poorly graded gravel with sand

Air temperature: 15-33 C Humidity: 40%-70% Wind speed: 0-10 km/hr

4 Field testing
 Field Modulus Calculation

Assuming the compacted layer to be linear elastic, isotropic, homogeneous, and semi-
infinite continuum, the Boussinesq formula was used to calculate the LWD modulus:

E field =
(
2ks 1- u 2 ) A = stress distribution factor
r0 = LWD plate radius
Ar0 v = Poisson’s ratio
ks = soil stiffness =Fpeak/dpeak in the field

A = p for Zorn and Olson LWD v = 0.35

3p/4 for Dynatest LWD r0 = 150 mm
Soil type Factor (A) Stress distribution Shape
Uniform (mixed soil) p

Granular material (parabolic) 3p/4

Cohesive (inverse-parabolic) 4

4 Field testing
 Lab Modulus Calculation

• For an isotropically elastic material

• Axially symmetric conditions in the Proctor mold under LWD loading
• One-dimensional vertical strain  Zero lateral strain
From the stress-strain relationship:

v = Poisson’s ratio
æ 2u ö 4H2
H = height of the mold
Elab = ç 1- ÷ k D = mold diameter
è 1- u ø p D
2
K = soil stiffness =F/δ on mold

✓ COV of measurements drops <10%

✓ Applied pressure normalized by atmospheric pressure (P/Pa)
➢ LWD deflections on the mold cannot be directly compared to deflections in the field
➢ LWDs automatically use Boussinesq formula

5 Laboratory testing
 Target Modulus Calculation

Target modulus  two-variable linear or quadratic regression

E = a0 + a1 ´ MCmold + a2 ´ MCmold 2 + a3 ´ Pmold + a4 ´ Pmold 2

a0, a 1, a2, a3, a4 = regression coefficients

From field pressure and MC:

Etaregt = a0 + a1 ´ MC field + a2 ´ MC field 2 + a3 ´ Pfield + a4 ´ Pfield 2

5 Laboratory testing
 Adjusting Target Modulus for Layered System (Esurface)
9.4. Avoid placing the hands below the elevated drop weight.

Burmister (1945) 10. APPENDIX

E1 = modulus of the top layer (GAB, base, etc.)

E2 = modulus of the underlying layer (subgrade,
fill, subbase, etc.)
h = thickness of the top layer
rwith =Schematic
Figure 1—
0 modulus radius
E
of the
of the two-layer LWD
system
1
plate
of subgrade with modulus E overlain by base 2

h = base Layer Thickness

10
d = field LWD Plate Radius

(surface)
EtargetEsurface / Esubgrade
/ E2

1
h/d=0.5
h/d=1
h/d=1.5
h/d=2
h/d=2.5
h/d=3
h/d=3.5
0.1
0.1 1 10 100
Etarget E1 / E2
(for base) /E subgrade
Figure 2—Surface Modulus Correction for Testing on Compacted Base Layer of Finite

4 Field testing Thickness (h = base layer thickness, d = LWD plate radius used during field testing)
 2600 Dry Density 0.73 0.89 1.06 1.23 1.45 200
Dry Density [kg/m3]
2560

E_ZM[Mpa]
150
2520
100
2480

2440
50

2400 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MC [%]
E_ZM: Zorn LWD modulus on Proctor mold
Legend shows variable P/Pa (0.73, 0.89, up to 1.45)
corresponding to different drop heights (1, 2, up to 8 in.)

6 Results and discussion

 Efield/Etarget vs. PC –Zorn LWD

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95
PC

0.90
y = 0.9148x0.0838 MD5 Fill
R² = 0.4553 MD337 GAB
0.85
FL Base
NY SG L1
0.80
NY SG L2
MD404 GAB
0.75
95 PC
Power (All)
0.70
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Efield/Etarget, Zorn LWD

6 Results and discussion

 Efield/Etarget vs. PC –Dynatest LWD

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95
PC

0.90
y = 0.9191x0.0834 MD5 Fill
R² = 0.5807 MD337 GAB
0.85
FL Base
NY SG L1
0.80
NY SG L2
MD404 GAB
0.75
95 PC
Power (All)
0.70
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Efield/Etarget, Dynatest LWD

6 Results and discussion

 Efield/Etarget vs. PC –Olson LWD

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95
PC

0.90
MD5 Fill

0.85 y = 0.9411x0.0692 MD337 GAB

R² = 0.8617 NY SG L1
0.80 NY SG L2
MD404 GAB
0.75 95 PC
Power (All)
0.70
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Efield/Etarget, Olson LWD

6 Results and discussion

 Specifications Development

• Acceptance criteria: Efield /Etarget

• Lower Specification Limit (LSL)= 1

AASHTO R 9-05 percentage within specification limit (PWL) methodology:

ഥ − LSL
X
Q=
S PWL from estimation table
ഥ = sample mean for the lot/sublot
X
s = sample standard deviation for the lot/sublot.

Appropriate remedial procedures should be adopted for lots with an estimated PWL
less than the agency minimum.

7 Specification Development
 Specifications Development
Min number of density test = 4 per lane mile per lift
t. s 2
n=
e
s = sample standard deviation
t= value from t-table for each confidence level and degree of freedom
e= acceptable error = NDG error for 4 tests and 95% confidence level

80% 90% 95%

For base material: Parameter
Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Avg.
s [MPa] 5.52 12.51 9.52 5.52 12.51 9.52 5.52 12.51 9.52
Zorn LWD
n 3 13 8 7 30 18 11 50 31
Dynatest s [MPa] 9.73 37.08 23.37 9.73 37.08 23.37 9.73 37.08 23.37
LWD n 9 110 45 19 - 104 30 - -
s [MPa] 5.23 16.29 10.76 5.23 16.29 10.76 5.23 16.29 10.76
Olson LWD
n 3 22 10 6 50 23 10 85 40

✓ stratified random sampling using random

locations within sublots is recommended
Specification Development according to ASTM D 3665-122
7
 Draft Specifications in AASHTO Format

✓ Specimen sampling ✓ Material sampling

✓ Mold preparation ✓ LWD data collection
✓ LWD data collection ✓ Modulus calculation
✓ Target calculation ✓ MC measurement
✓ Reporting ✓ Reporting

7 Specification Development
 Projects Locations in Maryland

8 Implementation
 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
160 160

140 140

Target E for Original gradation

Target E for Original gradation

120 120
MD175 GAB MD175 GAB
MD5 GAB 100 MD5 GAB
100
MD482 SG
MD482 SG
I-81 GAB 80
80 I-81 GAB
Texas GAB y = 0.98x + 15.09
I-695 GAB 60 Savage GAB
60 R² = 0.84
Savage GAB Rockville GAB
y = -0.02x2 + 3.95x - 71.62 Rockville GAB 40
40
MD32 GAB
R² = 0.91 MD32 GAB

20
20

0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Target E after scalping oversize particles Target E after scalping oversize particles

Target E @ P/Pa=0.94

Empirical correction for

Excluding Oversize Particles

8 Implementation
 ➢ Segregation during spreading and grading the aggregate
➢ Delayed construction and aggregate stockpile
Target Modulus ➢ Enforce MC QA criteria
and ➢ NDG in backscatter or direct transmission mode?
Recommendation ➢ Using appropriate roller compactor
➢ Remedial procedure: removal and replacement,
to MDOT SHA corrective action, or reduced pay factor

Tested Target E Target E Target E

Aggregate Source projects
OMC
@OMC @OMC-2% @OMC+2%
#

• Targets at 95.25 kPa [-] [-] [%] [Mpa] [Mpa] [Mpa]

Martin Marietta
• Correct for underlaying 1
Materials, Pinesburg
I-81 4.4 125 115 70
modulus Martin Marietta
2
Materials, Texas
I-695 4.6 75 95 -
Aggregate Industries, MD5
3
Bladensburg ramp
4.3 100 175 75
Aggregate Industries,
4
Rockville
N/A 4.9 60 90 25
5 Savage Stone, Laurel MD175 4.4 110 65 25
Vulcan Materials
6
Company, Fredrick
MD32 4.5 120 100 50

MDSHA criteria: OMC-2% point<MC<OMC+2% point

9 Specification refinement
 Percentage Within Limit methodology (AASHTO R 9-05)

1.10
LSL=1
1.05
PWL= 80%
1.00

0.95
Min sample size= 10 y = 0.9313x0.0619 MD175 GAB
R² = 0.3481
per quarter lane mile per lift
PC

0.90 MD5 ramp GAB

MD355 Fill
MD5 Inte. GAB
0.85 I-695 GAB
MD32 GAB R1
MD32 GAB R2
0.80 I-270 Fill
MD482 Fill
I-81 GAB
0.75
Series12
Power (All)
0.70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Efield/Etarget, Dynatest LWD

9 Specification refinement
 New Dynatest App

Pictures courtesy Dynatest North America

• IOS and Android • GPS

• Configuration and stress distribution input • Store MC, temperature data
• Modulus and deflection QA criteria • Compaction evaluation: Pass/Failed
• Target correction for layered structures • Project summary
 Olson App and Lab LWD

Pictures courtesy Olson Instruments

• Shorter and lighter weight (3.6 kg) lab unit • GPS

• DellTM sunlight viewable tablet • Configuration and stress distribution input
• WinLWD software and app • Stores density and MC of mold
 Zorn Lab LWD

Pictures courtesy Zorn Instruments

• Shorter and lighter weight (5 kg) lab unit

• Hand held data logger with separate printer
• Lighter plate and mold collar
 ASTM Standard

ASTM E17.41 Committee on Vehicle-Pavement Systems

✓work item WK70864
 Future Studies
(1) Re-emphasis of the shortcomings of current density based QA, density data
collection, Proctor testing, and MDD determination
(2) Identification of potential enhancements to the specifications for modulus
based QA using LWDs to reduce the risks of accepting lower quality
compaction
(3) Implementation of variability analysis procedures for assessing compaction
variability and incorporating this into the modulus-based specifications
(4) Emphasis of the need for better remediation strategies for rejection of
lower quality road base and subgrade construction

10 Conclusions and recommendation

 Advisor: Dr. Charles Schwartz

Thank you!
• Afsharikia, Z. (2019). Modulus Based Compaction Quality Assurance for Unbound
Materials Using Lightweight Deflectometer (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park).

• Schwartz, C. W., Afsharikia, Z., & Khosravifar, S. (2017). Standardizing lightweight

deflectometer modulus measurements for compaction quality assurance (No.
MD-17-SHA-UM-3-20). Maryland. State Highway Administration.

Niosha.afshar@woodplc.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/afsharikia/
Acknowledgement
Undergraduate Assistants FHWA Equipment Providers
Nicolas Alvarez Michael Arasteh Regis Carvalho
Christopher Platt Azmat Hussain Sadaf Khosravifar
Ben Geerstma Garry Aicken
Yunpeng Zhao TFHRC Virginia Aicken
Gregory Koepping Nelson Gibson Larry Olson
Ramiz Vatan Pat Miller
Mateus Coelho Stan Smith
Marcus Watson Participating Agencies
Florida David Horhota
Maryland SHA Michigan David Gauthier
Dan Sajedi Missouri John Donahue
Rodney Wayne New York Brett Dening
Sharon Hawkins North Carolina K.J. Kim
Intikhab Haider South Carolina Jesse Thompson
Benjamin Knipe Virginia Shabbir Hossain
Darren Swift Minnesota John Siekmeier
George Hall Indiana Nayyar Zia Siddiki