Indian Geotech J
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-018-0345-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Linking Soil Design and Quality Control of Compacted Soils
Through an Improvement of the Acceptance Zone
of the RAMCODES Methodology
Romer D. Oyola-Guzmán1 • Rómulo Oyola-Morales2
Received: 9 August 2018 / Accepted: 7 December 2018
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2019
Abstract We propose an enhancement in the generation of
the acceptance zone of the RAMCODES methodology; in
this research, the new zone is called ‘‘optimum perfor-
mance zone’’. The ‘‘optimum performance zone’’ for a
compacted soil was obtained by applying concepts of linear
programming to soil mechanics. This novel approach links
the mean variables of soil design (resistance and hydration
conditions) with the traditional quality control (minimum
compaction percentage). The optimum performance zone is
a geometric site in the water content–dry unit weight plane,
within which any compaction state (defined by specific
values of dry unit weight and water content) has a high
probability of fulfilling a pre-established value of
mechanical response and a minimum compaction per-
centage, while also satisfying pre-established hydration
conditions (minimum and maximum saturation degrees). In
order to ascertain the concordance of the mechanical per-
formance of compacted soils in situ with the mechanical
performance of compacted soils in the laboratory, a soil
that later would be compacted in situ was submitted to
mechanical characterization, and a factorial experimental
design was developed and performed. A surface response
was plotted from experimental data; the resistance map of
& Romer D. Oyola-Guzmán
romer_oyol@hotmail.com; royolag1500@alumno.ipn.mx
Rómulo Oyola-Morales
romulooyola@uagrm.edu.bo; ronerfe@cotas.com.bo
1
Centro de Investigación en Ciencia Aplicada y Tecnologı́a
Avanzada del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Legaria 694,
Col. Irrigación, 11500 Ciudad de México, México
2 compacted soil) will be suitable for use as structural fill
Facultad Politécnica. Av. Ejército Nacional s/n, Universidad
Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno, Santa Cruz de la Sierra,
Bolivia
the soil was obtained using the RAMCODES approach,
and the optimum performance zone proposed in this
research was also plotted. The response of a compacted
soil, predicted by the optimum performance zone, was
verified using soil samples from earthwork built with the
soil that was previously analyzed, indicating that the
optimum performance zone links the mean variables con-
sidered in design with the minimum compaction percent-
age established by past experiences or by soil
specifications. These results imply that the optimum per-
formance zone has field applications for quality control and
for reception of compacted soils, guaranteeing an optimum
mechanical performance that fulfills the minimum com-
paction percentage and thus improves quality, security,
reliability, and efficiency of compacted soils.
Keywords Compacted soils  RAMCODES 
Resistance maps  Quality control
Introduction
Civil engineering work uses manufactured materials, such
as compacted soils, concrete, or asphalt mixes, that should
be properly manufactured [1–4]. A soil is considered
suitable for use as structural fill [5] if it fulfills the speci-
fications required by particular standards during the quality
control process of compacted soils (ASTM D1241 [6, 7]).
However, satisfying specific particle grain-size values,
plasticity conditions, and a minimum compaction per-
centage (e.g., as required by ASTM D1241) does not
guarantee that the final manufactured product (i.e., the
designed by performance [8]; in other words, there is no
123

guarantee that it will satisfy the resistance and the hydra-
tion conditions.
Testing the mechanical response of a material is desir-
able, before a batch of compacted soil is delivered to the
client [9]; however, it is not a common practice in some
Latin American countries [10]. The quality control speci-
fications for a compacted soil are usually verified once a
certain value of compaction percentage is reached [11]; at
this value of compaction percentage, it is frequently
assumed by soil designers engineers that the mechanical
property (i.e., frequently the resistance) has reached its
maximum.
The minimum compaction percentage proposed by
designers of compacted soils is sometimes based on rec-
ommendations given by past classic investigations [12],
and it is evident that this criterion has a historical focus
[13]. This focus is ingrained in the process of quality
control of compacted soils [14], especially for some Latin
American engineers [10]. The minimum compaction per-
centage that commonly appears in quality control specifi-
cations is a value obtained from a ‘‘black box’’; this means
that the minimum compaction percentage is often a value
that is proposed from tradition and from previous experi-
ences and used to infer a mechanical performance (in terms
of bearing capacity, waterproofing, counterweight, etc.).
The minimum compaction percentage shows favorable
results for quality control in some cases [8], but not in
others [15], because a ratio of dry unit weights alone is a
poor criterion to be used as a link between the design and
the quality control of a compacted soil.
Using the minimum compaction percentage for quality
control of a compacted soil is not necessarily erroneous
[16]. However, with the technical advances in geotechnical
research in the XXI century (e.g., advances related to the
methodology and the technology for measuring the
mechanical response in the field) [17–19], this practice
should be avoided, although it is still used [8]. According
to Kodikara et al. [20, 21], establishing the quality of a
compacted soil using the minimum compaction percentage
and optimum water content is a common practice that will
not be abandoned easily, because it is a criterion that
accepts or rejects a batch of soil through a simple pass/fail
decision [22].
Daniel and Benson [23] proposed the use of ‘‘maps and
acceptance zone’’ for quality control. In their work, they
described compaction states (i.e., dry unit weight and water
content) with high probabilities of fulfilling pre-established
specifications of hydraulic performance. The resistance
maps and the acceptance zone proposed by Daniel and
Benson [23, 24] do not link mechanic variables of saturated
soils (i.e., water content and dry unit weight) with the
mechanic variables of unsaturated soils (i.e., suction and
packaging) [25], as other investigations do [26, 27]. The
123
Indian Geotech J
methodology proposed by Daniel and Benson for the
generation of resistance maps is deficient, in terms of the
minimum quantity of tests required to establish a reliable
resistance map [15].
An important approach that aims to close the gap
between the work of design engineers and the work of
construction engineers and construction supervisors was
proposed by Sánchez-Leal et al. [28]; it is called RAM-
CODES methodology (acronym of Rational Methodology
for Compacted Geomaterial’s Density and Strength Anal-
ysis) and links variables of unsaturated soil mechanics
(e.g., suction and packaging) with variables frequently used
by work engineers (e.g., water content and dry unit
weight), through experimental design techniques [29].
The RAMCODES methodology is based on factorial
experiments and in mechanical concepts of unsaturated
soils, offering an experimental and rational approach for
quality control of compacted soils [16]. The RAMCODES
methodology proposes three levels for the design of com-
pacted soils. In level 1 (called ‘‘code-driven level’’), the
minimum compaction percentage is verified, representing
the classical historical approach. Level 2 (called ‘‘field
response’’) and level 3 (called ‘‘design by performance’’
because it uses design curves) represent the rational
approach [28].
The Venezuelan norm COVENIN [30] provided a
completely rational and detailed methodology to obtain
reliable resistance maps; it is important to note that the
COVENIN norm is based on the RAMCODES methodol-
ogy [28]. The RAMCODES methodology is applied to
compacted soils, which are unsaturated by definition
[16, 28].
Siemens [31] states that there is a gap between saturated
soil mechanics and unsaturated soil mechanics; he also
states that this gap should be overcome by increasing the
number of publications dealing with soil mechanics in such
way that research engineers and field engineers can link
suction with saturation degree, saturation degree with water
content, and packaging with dry unit weight [32].
Resistance maps [16] and design curves are tools of the
RAMCODES methodology associated with the resistance
of unsaturated soils [28]. The resistance of fine unsaturated
soil is influenced by suction and packaging, which are
linked to the classic water content and the dry unit weight.
Thus, RAMCODES methodology also provides design
curves that are tools for the determination of the minimum
compaction percentage in a rational way.
Even if design curves are useful during the design of a
compacted soil, their use during quality control of com-
pacted soils is not intuitive. This deficiency of design
curves for quality control may be overcome using resis-
tance maps of the RAMCODES methodology enhance-
ment, by taking into account the hydration conditions and
Indian Geotech J
the minimum compaction percentage; this means using the
optimum performance zone proposed in this research for
quality control of compacted soils.
It is worth noting that the Venezuelan norm for quality
control of compacted soils took into account the RAM-
CODES methodology [30]. Venezuela is one of the few
Latin American countries that propose using resistance
maps as an alternative to the traditional minimum com-
paction percentage for quality control of compacted soils.
It must be noted that, even if resistance maps are used as an
alternative to quality control, their acceptance zones do not
link the mechanical performance of the compacted soil
with the hydration range conditions.
The RAMCODES methodology has considerable
advantages for design and quality control of compacted
soils [1, 3, 4, 28]. This methodology could be used for
measuring any mechanical property, and it is possible to
obtain a large amount of data. The main focus of RAM-
CODES design of compacted soil is the design by perfor-
mance [3, 16, 28, 33], which implies that the soil designer
engineer will consider some parameters that are associated
with the mechanical resistance of the soil (e.g., CBR,
California bearing ratio), elasticity modulus, parameters of
the classic model Mohr–Coulomb (internal friction angle
and cohesion) [34, 35] in addition to the corresponding
saturation degree (i.e., water content conditions) [36].
The information obtained from the design curves of the
RAMCODES methodology is especially useful for risk
analysis of compacted soils (e.g., for the analysis of the
potential sliding surface of the slope of a compacted soil)
[37]. Another advantage of the RAMCODES methodology
applied to compacted soils is that design curves can be
obtained from uncontrolled suction assays using resistance
maps.
Despite the advantages of resistance maps of the
RAMCODES methodology, their acceptance region has a
few drawbacks for quality control of compacted soils; for
example, resistance maps often generate a large acceptance
region (called zone 1) [16], and also in the generation of
the acceptance zone, the saturation degree in which the soil
is expected to perform is not taken into account.
In this study, we propose the use of linear programming
techniques as an enhancement for the generation of the
acceptance zone of the RAMCODES methodology; in this
paper, the new zone is called ‘‘optimum performance
zone.’’ In addition to taking into account the mechanical
performance, we propose that the hydration conditions and
the minimum compaction percentage are taken into
account for the generation of the acceptance zone of the
RAMCODES methodology. The enhancement that we
propose links the design and quality control of compacted
soils and provides an additional level of safety for
designers, constructors, and supervisors in charge of the
quality control of compacted soils.
Methods
The material used in this investigation was provided by a
production plant of soil mix material located in Colinas del
Urubó in Santa Cruz City, Bolivia. Conditions for the
compacted soil were minimum compaction percentage of
97% with respect to the maximum dry unit weight of
modified Proctor and the minimum required unconfined
compressive strength of  251.4 kPa; the minimum and
maximum saturation degrees were 65% and 83%,
respectively.
The investigation was divided into two phases: The first
phase was the characterization of the material and obtain-
ing the optimum performance zone, and the second phase
was dedicated to proving the results obtained in the first
phase using soil samples of compacted material acquired
from earthwork construction.
First Phase
Mechanical Characterization of Soil
The following tests were performed: particle size [38],
consistency limits [39], classification according to materi-
als for highway construction purposes [40], specific gravity
of solids [41], and compaction test in the laboratory [42].
Experimental Design
Our experimental design consisted of two factors with five
treatment levels [43]. The independent variables were
water content and compactive effort. The response variable
was unconfined compressive strength. We obtained 15
compaction states; in each state, the unconfined compres-
sive strength of soil was evaluated.
The range of variation of water content was established
at the optimum value of water content from the compaction
test in the laboratory [42]. As shown in Table 1, w0 was the
optimum water content obtained from the compaction test
in the laboratory, E1 was the compactive effort of 2700 kJ/
m3, E2 was the compactive effort of 1200 kJ/m3, and E3
was the compactive effort of 580 kJ/m3. It is evident that
changes in compactive effort cause variations in dry unit
weight, because, until now, there is not any experimental
methodology standardized to achieve a pre-established
value of dry unit weight.
In addition to the pre-established range of water content
presented in Table 1, an additional tolerance for the water
content of  3% was provided.
123

Table 1 Experimental configuration of independent variables (water content and compactive effort) used to obtain a resistance map for
unconfined compressive strength
Water content range
w0 - 2
Compactive effort E1 (56 blows per layer) x x
E2 (25 blows per layer)
E3 (12 blows per layer)
Analysis of Soil Performance
Soil specimens were prepared by triplicate according to the
conditions presented in Table 1, and the unconfined com-
pressive strength [44] was then measured.
Plotting of Results
The response surface linking the variables water content
(X), dry unit weight (Y), and unconfined compressive
strength (Z) was obtained using commercial software for
data plotting. The Kriging correlation was used for grid-
ding, with 20 columns and rows, a search radius of 2, and a
smoothing of 0.9.
Drawing the Acceptance Zone of Mechanical Performance
(Zone 1)
According to the RAMCODES methodology, the contour
lines on the plane of water content–dry unit weight are
named resistance maps. The contour line that satisfies the
minimum requirement of unconfined compressive strength
was visually identified, constituting the whole region that
contains contour lines with values equal or higher than the
specified value (unconfined compressive strength). This
plane region is named ‘‘acceptance zone of mechanical
performance’’ (zone 1). Figure 1a shows the hypothetical
contour line that fulfills the required unconfined compres-
sive strength. In addition to the typical compaction and
saturation curves, Fig. 1a shows the optimum performance
zone above the contour line.
Obtaining the Optimum Performance Zone (Zone II)
We defined ‘‘optimum performance zone’’ (zone II) as the
region of the water content–dry unit weight plane, where
any state of compacted material simultaneously satisfies
performance conditions (unconfined compressive strength
within a range of saturation degree) and minimum com-
paction percentage.
We describe a hypothetical example in order to show the
steps for obtaining the optimum performance zone (zone
123
Indian Geotech J
w0 - 1 w0 w0 ? 1 w0 ? 3 w0 ? 5 w0 ? 7
x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
II), because each soil has its own resistance map. The
process for obtaining the optimum performance zone (zone
II) is shown in Fig. 1. The hypothetical contour line ful-
filling the performance requirements, and the whole region
containing contour lines with major or equal minimum
required value, was drawn (Fig. 1a). A straight line of
hypothetical minimum compaction percentage required
(see Fig. 1b) was drawn. Equal saturation degree curves for
the required minimum and maximum values were drawn
(Fig. 1b), according to equation:
c
cd sr ¼ 1 w w ð1Þ
G þ Sr
In Eq. 1, cdsr represents the dry unit weight obtained for a
given saturation degree, cw represents the dry unit weight
of water, G represents specific gravity, w represents water
content, and Sr represents saturation degree.
In the hypothetical example, the point of intersection
between the minimum saturation curve and the straight line
of the required minimum compaction percentage constitute
the lower vertex for optimum performance zone (zone II).
Figure 1b, c shows a hypothetical minimum compaction
percentage (straight line), hypothetical curves of minimum
and maximum saturation degree, a typical compaction
curve, a saturation curve (Sr = 100%), and the hypothetical
contour line which fulfills the performance requirements.
In Fig. 1b, the vertexes of the optimum performance
zone (zone II) are given by the points V1, V2, V3, and V4.
One side of the polygon is given by a segment of the
minimum saturation degree curve; another side is given by
the segment of the straight line delimited by points V1 and
V2; another side of the polygon is given by the segment of
the hypothetical contour line that satisfies the performance
requirements between points V2 and V3; the remaining
side of the polygon is given by the segment of the maxi-
mum saturation degree curve. It can be seen that the the-
oretical superior limit of the polygon is given by the point
V4 (Fig. 1b). It is remarkable that in this hypothetical
example, the polygon has four sides; however, the shape of
the polygon and its number of sides are function of the
shape of the contour line.
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 1 Hypothetical example of how zone I and zone II are generated in a resistance map. a Zone I or ‘‘acceptance zone of mechanical
performance’’. b Vertexes of the optimum performance zone (zone II). c Zoom of the optimum performance zone (zone II)
In Fig. 1b, the optimum performance zone (zone II) is
confined within four points (V1, V2, V3, and V4). V1
corresponds to the intersection of the straight line of min-
imum compaction percentage with the minimum saturation
curve. V2 corresponds to the intersection of the straight
line of minimum compaction percentage with the hypo-
thetical contour line that satisfies the performance
requirement (Fig. 1c). V3 corresponds to the intersection of
the maximum saturation degree curve with the contour line
that satisfies the performance requirement and point 4 (V4)
which was obtained according to Eq. 1 when the water
content is equal to zero.
Second Phase
Verification of the Optimum Performance Zone (Zone II)
The unconfined compressive strength was measured for
soil specimens obtained from the earthwork that was built
with the same soil used in the first phase. The specimens
were taken randomly from the embankment after com-
paction process. The specimens were submitted to uncon-
fined compression tests. The results of unconfined
compressive strength were plotted as dispersed points, and
we verified if the points were within the optimum perfor-
mance zone (zone II).
Results and Discussion
The percentage of material passing the sieve N°200 was
37.3%, the liquid limit of material was 19.1%, and the
plasticity index of material was 7.3%. The soil matched the
designation A-2-4(0), according to ASTM D3282 [40]. The
specific gravity of solids was 2.7. The optimum water
content was 10.3%, and the maximum dry unit weight was
19.87 kN/m3.
Figure 2a shows the response surface that links the
variables water content, dry unit weight, and unconfined
compressive strength. It can be observed that the response
123

(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 a Surface response. b Contour curves of the surface response
surface by itself provides a limited link between the com-
paction and saturation curves; however, using the contour
curves, the desired link is established (Fig. 2b). The con-
tour curves for unconfined compressive strength are shown
in Fig. 2b. Figure 2b shows that, for water content from 7.4
to 19% and dry unit weight from 16.70 to 19.88 kN/m3, the
unconfined compressive strength tends to increase.
Figure 3 shows the compaction curves in the laboratory
with compactive efforts of 2700, 1200, and 580 kJ/m3.
Figure 3 also shows the zero air void curve (saturation
curve), the contour curves for unconfined compressive
strength, and zone I (the region on the plane in which a
certain combination of water content and dry unit weight is
expected to fulfill the required conditions of mechanical
performance).
Figure 3 shows that the contour lines for unconfined
compressive strength exhibit a slope. It can be noticed that
zone I contains part of the dry side of the compaction curve
123
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 3 Acceptance zone (zone I). Compaction curves (CC) for
compactive efforts of 2700, 1200, and 580 kJ/m3. Saturation curve
(Sr = 100%) and contour lines of unconfined compressive strength
with compactive effort of 2700 kJ/m3, the optimum value
of the compaction curve (2700 kJ/m3), plus a small part of
the wet side of the compaction curve (2700 kJ/m3).
In Fig. 3, the unconfined compressive strength was close
to 276.3 kPa at the maximum of the compaction curve with
compactive effort of 2700 kJ/m3. The unconfined com-
pressive strength was close to 301.2 kPa at the maximum
of the compaction curve with compactive effort of 1200 kJ/
m3. The unconfined compressive strength was 101.9 kPa at
the maximum of the compaction curve with compactive
effort of 580 kJ/m3.
Figure 3 shows that the maximum value of the com-
paction curve shifts to the left when compactive effort
increases. At a compactive effort of 580 kJ/m3, as com-
pactive effort increases, optimum water content decreases
and dry unit weight tends to increase (Fig. 3).
Figure 4a, b shows the optimum performance zone
(zone II) and the experimental results of the unconfined
compressive strength measured from soil samples obtained
from field (dispersed points in Fig. 4a). It can be seen that
the experimental values of unconfined compressive
strength of the material satisfy the required condition of
unconfined compressive strength (  251.4 kPa) and
showed different conditions of water content and dry unit
weight. Additionally, Fig. 4a shows that the experimental
values of unconfined compressive strength are contained in
zone II, which means that, for the compaction states in
which unconfined compressive strength was measured, the
compacted soil satisfies the conditions of required perfor-
mance and of required minimum compaction percentage.
In this publication, an improved use of the resistance
maps of the RAMCODES methodology for quality control
was proposed. We propose that, when a resistance map is
Indian Geotech J
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4 a Optimum performance zone. The graph shows a straight line
for 97% of maximum dry unit weight with respect to the maximum
dry unit weight of modified Proctor (MDUW), the resistance map, the
compaction curve (CC) with compactive effort of 2700 kJ/m3, and the
experimental results for unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
(dispersed points). b Zoom of the optimum performance zone
used to generate an acceptance zone for quality control of
compacted soils, the mechanical resistance, the design
range of saturation degree, and the traditional minimum
compaction percentage or the minimum compaction per-
centage (obtained through the design curves of the RAM-
CODES methodology) should be considered.
This novel approach has the advantage of linking the
design of a compacted soil with quality control, while
taking into account the mean variables of the design.
We proposed and verified the use of a graphic zone as a
tool for quality control of compacted soils; this graphic
zone simultaneously satisfies the hydration conditions, the
minimum compaction percentage, and the minimum
unconfined compressive strength for this particular case.
The optimum performance zone has the advantage of being
plotted on the water content–dry unit weight plane; this
represents an advantage because on this plane the com-
paction curve, the saturation curve (zero air void curve),
the minimum saturation curve, the maximum saturation
curve, the minimum compaction percentage required, and
the minimum unconfined compressive strength required are
also plotted. In Fig. 3, it can be observed that the saturation
curve (also called zero air voids curve) is asymptotic to the
wet side of the compaction curves. According to Eq. 1, the
saturation curves are hyperbolic; however, in Fig. 4, due to
the size and scale of the figure, these look like straight
lines. The curve for zero air voids physically delimits the
possible compaction states for the compacted soil.
In the present study, the maximum resistance was not
associated with the maximum dry unit weight (Fig. 3),
because at the maximum dry unit weight measured in the
laboratory (2700 kJ/m3), the material showed an uncon-
fined compressive strength of 276.3 kPa for a water content
of 10.3%, and the maximum unconfined compressive
strength (326.1 kPa) was obtained at 7.3–9.0% water
content. This discrepancy is explained by the effect of the
negative pore water pressure generated in the compacted
soil, which implies an effect of apparent cohesion in the
soil that contributes to the mechanical response of the
material, as long as a certain value of water content is not
exceeded.
The observed decrease in unconfined compressive
strength, as the compactive effort decreases, is due to fill-
ing of the void volume with air, because the void volume
was not reduced to the minimum possible value.
The use of one or several performance criteria for
compacted soils represents economic savings, because
when calculations are performed, based on laboratory
experimental results, the minimum dry unit weight and
water content can be established and will simultaneously
fulfill the requirements of the design.
When calculations of mechanical properties are per-
formed using experimental results, the minimum dry unit
weight and water content that simultaneously fulfill the soil
requirements can be established. At civil construction sites,
this implies a lower number of passes on the compaction
equipment and reduced use of water, which may represent
considerable economic savings.
The use of the optimum performance zone can solve
quality control problems frequently experimented by
engineers in the field (especially between constructors and
supervisors), because the quality of a compacted soil does
not depend only on a simple ratio of dry unit weights
(compaction percentage).
We suggest that the minimum required compaction
percentage must be established using the section of design
curves of the RAMCODES methodology, because it pro-
vides a rational analysis. This minimum compaction
123

percentage together with the development of an optimum
performance zone can help to establish the range of com-
paction percentage and the range of water content of a
compacted soil, based on experimental tests.
The optimum performance zone links the potential
mechanical response of a soil at a civil construction site
with the mechanical response measured in the laboratory,
which constitutes a significant link between design and
quality control. At civil construction sites, where the con-
trol of the mechanical response is not commonly per-
formed, the optimum performance zone can be used as a
tool for quality control in the field.
Concluding Remarks
The ‘‘optimum performance zone’’ of a compacted soil
proposed in this investigation takes into account the
mechanical resistance, the range of saturation degree, and
the minimum compaction percentage. The optimum per-
formance zone has the advantage of linking design with
quality control because it takes into consideration the mean
variables of the design (i.e., hydration and mechanical
response) and the traditional minimum compaction per-
centage used in the field for quality control.
The construction of the optimum performance zone
depends on requirements of the project and also needs
proper judgment for an adequate plotting.
This optimum performance zone was tested, and the
results clearly show a correspondence between the theo-
retical values and the values of the measurements obtained
in the field.
The results of this investigation reveal that the contour
lines for unconfined compressive strength have slopes,
which means that water content and dry unit weight are
factors that together influence the unconfined compressive
strength of the studied soil.
For this particular case, 9.7% of water content and 19.27
kN/m3 of dry unit weight are the minimum values that
fulfilled the performance requirements (range of saturation
degree, unconfined compressive strength, and minimum
compaction percentage of the studied soil).
At the predicted conditions of water content and dry unit
weight, experimental tests of unconfined compressive
strength, assisted by the optimum performance zone,
simultaneously satisfied the required resistance, saturation
degree, and minimum compaction percentage.
The material whose quality was verified using resistance
maps will fulfill the requirements of a certain saturation
degree and a minimum compaction percentage. Within the
optimum performance zone, this material will have a high
probability of simultaneously satisfying the conditions of
resistance and saturation degree that the soil is expected to
123
Indian Geotech J
show during its lifespan. The decision of whether a com-
pacted soil satisfies the required mechanical response can
be taken faster using the optimum performance zone
(simply providing a pass/fail result), if the water content
and the dry unit weight of a compacted soil are known.
The optimum performance zone can be used to perform
quality control of compacted soils, because this graphic
tool links the traditional minimum compaction percentage
with the mechanical performance of the soil, meaning it
that links design with the traditional quality control.
The use of the optimum performance is not in conflict
with the minimum percentage of compaction, but also
provides an additional level of safety for designers, engi-
neers, constructors, and supervisor engineers, because it
takes into consideration the mean variables of the design
(i.e., hydration and mechanical response) and the tradi-
tional minimum compaction percentage used in the field
for quality control.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Sánchez-Leal FJ, Anguas PG, Larreal M, López Valdés DB
(2011) Polyvoids: an analytical tool for superpave HMA design.
J Mater Civ Eng 23:1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000275
2. Joshaghani A, Ramezanianpour AA, Ataei O, Golroo A (2015)
Optimizing pervious concrete pavement mixture design by using
the Taguchi method. Constr Buil Mater 101:317–325.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.094
3. Sánchez-Leal FJ (2007) Gradation chart for asphalt mixes:
development. J Mater Civ Eng 9:185–197. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:2(185)
4. Dı́az RO, Farfán MR, Cardenas J, Forero J (2017) Use of steel
slag as a new material for roads. J Phys: Conf Ser 935:012006
5. Mirzababaei M, Arulrajah A, Ouston M (2017) Polymers for
stabilization of soft clay soils. Proc Eng 189:25–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.005
6. ASTM D1241 (2017) Standard specification for materials for
soil-aggregate subbase, base, and surface courses. ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken PA
7. Herle V (2012) Czech standards and specification for earthworks.
Eng Geol Special Publ 26:61–65
8. Oyola-Guzmán RD, Oyola-Morales R (2018) Implementing a
fast, practical, and rational quality control technique at a soil
mixture production plant, based on a continuous and quantitative
classification of materials: a case study. Case Stud Constr Mater.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00199
9. Berney IVE, Kyzar J (2012) Evaluation of nonnuclear soil
moisture and density devices for field quality control. J Transport
Res Board 2310:18–26
10. Montejo Fonseca A (2002) Ingenierı́a de pavimentos para
carreteras. Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá
11. Ministerio de Transporte República de Colombia (2012) Manual
de diseño de cimentaciones superficiales y profundas para
carreteras: Instituto Nacional de Vı́as, Colombia
Indian Geotech J
12. Talbot J (2011) Quality control of soil compaction using ASTM
standards. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
13. Davis T (2008) Geotechnical testing, observation, and docu-
mentation. American Society of Civil Engineers, West
Conshohocken
14. Fang H-Y (2013) Foundation engineering handbook. Springer,
New York
15. Rückert H (2006) Beitrag zur Qualitätssicherung im Erdbau.
Bautechnik 83:422–427
16. Sánchez-Leal FJ (2002) Interpretation of CBR-test results under
the shear-strength concept of unsaturated soil mechanics. Pro-
ceedings of the third international conference on unsaturated
soils. Jucá, de Campos and Marinho, Recife, Brazil
17. Chennarapu H, Garala TK, Chennareddy R, Balunaini U, Ven-
kata Narasimha Reddy G (2018) Compaction quality control of
earth fills using dynamic cone penetrometer. J Constr Eng Manag.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001530
18. Kumar R, Adigopula VK Jr, Guzzarlapudi SD (2017) Stiffness-
based quality control evaluation of modified subgrade soil using
lightweight deflectometer. J Mater Civ Eng. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001958
19. Zgutova K, Decky M, Srámek J, Dreveny I (2015) Using of
alternative methods at earthworks quality control. Proc Earth
Planet Sci 15:263–270
20. Kodikara J, Islam T, Rajeev P (2015) Interpretation of the
loading-wetting behaviour of compacted soils within the ‘‘MPK’’
framework. Part II: dynamic compaction. Can Geotech J
53:806–827
21. Islam T, Kodikara J (2015) Interpretation of the loading-wetting
behaviour of compacted soils within the ‘‘MPK’’ framework. Part
I: Static compaction. Can Geotech J 53:783–805
22. Wells JE, Bryson LS (2014) Performance of nonnuclear devices for
in situ moisture and density determination. Geo Congr Geo Charact
Model Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413272.237
23. Daniel DE, Benson CH (1990) Water content-density criteria for
compacted soil liners. J Geotech Eng 116:1811–1830
24. Benson CH, Daniel DE, Boutwell GP (1999) Field performance
of compacted clay liners. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
125:390–403
25. Amadi AA, Eberemu AO (2012) Delineation of compaction
criteria for acceptable hydraulic conductivity of lateritic soil-
bentonite mixtures designed as landfill liners. Environ Earth Sci
67:999–1006
26. Li ZS, Derfouf FEM, Benchouk A, Abou-Bekr N, Taibi S,
Fleureau JM (2018) Volume change behavior of two compacted
clayey soils under hydraulic and mechanical loadings. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0001851
27. Kieu TM, Mahler A (2018) A study on the relationship between
matric suction and the void ratio and moisture content of a
compacted unsaturated soil. Period Polytech Civ Eng
62:709–716. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.11974
28. Sánchez-Leal FJ, Garnica Anguas P, Gómez López J, Pérez
Garcı́a N (2002) RAMCODES: metodologı́a racional para el
análisis de densificación y resistencia de geomateriales com-
pactados. Instituto Mexicano del Transporte, Querétaro
29. Gallage C, Uchimura T (2015) Direct shear testing on unsaturated
silty soils to investigate the effects of drying and wetting on shear
strength parameters at low suction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001416
30. COVENIN 2000-1:2009 (2009) Norma Técnica Fondonorma.
Carreteras, Autopistas y Vı́as Urbanas. Especificaciones y
Mediciones. FONDONORMA, Caracas, Venezuela
31. Siemens GA (2017) Thirty-ninth Canadian geotechnical collo-
quium: unsaturated soil mechanics—bridging the gap between
research and practice. Can Geotech J 55:909–927. https://doi.
org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0709
32. Brasileira de mecânica dos solos e engenharia geotécnica (2015)
Solos não saturados no contexto geotécnico. Comitê de Solos
Não Saturados Comissão Técnica para a Educação, São Paulo
33. Sánchez-Leal FJ (2002) Correlation of maximum density and
optimum water content with index properties. Unsaturated Soils.
Proceedings of the third international conference on unsaturated
soils Jucá, de Campos and Marinho, Recife, Brazil
34. Labuz JF, Zang A (2012) Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 45:975–979
35. Gu J, Chen P (2018) A failure criterion for isotropic materials
based on Mohr’s failure plane theory. Mech Res Commun
87:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2017.11.008
36. Xia K (2014) Numerical prediction of soil compaction in
geotechnical engineering. Comptes Rendus Mecanique
342:208–219
37. Wu JY, Huang K, Sungkar M (2017) Remediation of slope failure
by compacted soil-cement fill. J Perform Constr Facil.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000998
38. ASTM D6913 (2017) Standard test methods for particle-size
distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken
39. ASTM D4318 (2015) Standard test methods for liquid limit,
plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken
40. ASTM D3282 (2015) Standard practice for classification of soils
and soil-aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken
41. ASTM D854 (2014) Standard test methods for specific gravity of
soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken
42. ASTM D1557 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory
compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort (56, 000
ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken
43. Jiju A (2014) Design of experiments for engineers and scientists,
2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
44. ASTM D2166 (2016) Standard test method for unconfined
compressive strength of cohesive soil. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken
123