Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Standard compression rate test method and its application for

rockfill materials
Junlin Liang a, b, *, Zhiming Yan a, Hongliu Rong a, Xiaolong Yang a, Tao Fu a,
Hongjie Liang a, Jicheng Wu a, Liunan Wang a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
b
Guangxi Special Geological Highway Safety Engineering Technology Research Center, Nanning 530004, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To explore the standard compression rate test method’s suitability for rockfill and to solve the
Rockfill subgrade problem that rockfill is too large for the laboratory standard test, the similar grading method was
Maximum compression ratio used to scale down the rockfill. This was used to simulate five kinds of rockfill with different solid
Compaction control
phase volume ratios of skeleton and gap-filling particles (7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, 3:7, respectively). The
Density
density property, maximum compression rate and the strength property tests were carried out on
Strength
the five fill materials using a self-designed test device. The test results showed that the loose
packing density, initial compression density, compact density and California bearing ratio of
rockfill increase and then decrease with a decrease of the solid phase volume ratio between
skeleton and gap-filling particles. The compressibility and crushing rate of the filler stone
decreased with the decrease of the solid phase volume ratio of the skeleton to the gap-filling
particles. The maximum compression rate of the filler is determined by the laboratory
compression test, and the compaction can be measured according to the compression rate, for a
known paving area.

1. Introduction

The use of rockfill in the construction of mountain roadbeds is common [1]. The rockfill is mainly sourced from tunnel excavation,
rocky graben excavation and offline excavation for rock extraction [2–6]. However, the rockfill particle size is commonly greater than
60 mm and can exceed 300 mm, which is far greater than the maximum particle size specified in the current highway system standard
test. Therefore, the rockfill is not subject to laboratory compaction control standards [7–12]. The research methods for the compaction
control criteria of rockfill are mainly divided into two categories: field tests and numerical simulations [13–15], where field tests
include the settlement difference method, the foundation coefficient method and the penetrometer method. The control criteria for the
settlement difference method are determined during rolling process tests [16–18], and by using the settlement difference method, the
construction process of the soil and stone roadbed can be determined by combining the loose thickness of the soil and stone materials,
the rolling method and the number of passes. However, it is not possible to determine whether the void ratio after compaction, met the
standard requirements. The measurement of foundation reaction coefficients by plate load tests [19–23] is a more established method
for soil road foundations. However, rockfill generally requires excavation of large diameter exploratory wells, which are limited by site

* Corresponding author at: College of Civil Engineering, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China.
E-mail address: ljl_1217@126.com (J. Liang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01364
Received 21 May 2022; Received in revised form 16 July 2022; Accepted 30 July 2022
Available online 2 August 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

conditions and are in many cases difficult to implement. Furthermore, even if measurements are able to taken the oversized gravel will
likely impact the accuracy. Therefore, the accuracy of current foundation reaction coefficients measured for rockfill is open to
question. Instead, the water content and permeability of the soil, measured by a permeameter, can predict the compaction quality of
the soil roadbed on site [24–27], however, the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the current use of power permeameters, to
measure the compaction quality of filler material, needs further research.
Numerous studies have investigated the compaction criteria of rockfill using numerical simulation. Liu et al. [28], used the discrete
element method to study the meso-mechanism of compaction of rockfill materials. The results showed that the contribution of small
particles was more obvious than that of large particles. Yang et al. [29], proposed a new method to determine the compaction of
rock-filled embankments by measuring the settlement, pressure variation and response waveforms of rockfill using dynamic earth
pressure gauges and accelerometers. Wu et al. [30], investigated the effect of particle gradation on the compaction characteristics of
rock piles, by establishing a model and proposed an optimal gradation of rock piles. An et al. [31], simulated the compaction of rockfill
materials by modeling the vibratory compaction process and proposed a formula for viscoelastic-plastic strong ramming deformation
of rock-fill materials.
In summary, field compaction evaluation methods are traditionally used for soil roadbeds, however, when applied to rockfill the
tests are difficult to conduct and have low accuracy. Inappropriate testing methods will lead to inappropriate compaction standards.
This will result in an insufficient number of rolling passes being conducted and insufficient compaction, resulting in large post-work
settlement that will crack and damage the pavement structure. Although numerical simulations are used to study the compaction
process of rockfill, the simulation process often simplifies the boundary conditions and material properties which results in erroneous
predictions. Therefore, there is a need for a laboratory test method that can be applied to the field compaction control of rockfill
materials.
This study proposes a laboratory method based on the maximum particle size of the skeleton particles and the largest particle size of
the gap-filling particles at the construction site. Using the similar grading method, the particles are down-scaled in proportion,
replacing the rockfill with coarse and fine particles. The different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton and gap-filling particles are
measured using an independently designed rockfill laboratory test method, which measures the loose bulk density, initial compaction
density, tight density, maximum compression rate, maximum compression rate, California bearing ratio (CBR) and breakage rate
under standard compaction power. The formula for determining the compaction by compression rate is proposed to provide a
reference basis for compaction control at construction sites.

2. Materials and test methods

2.1. Materials

Limestone based fine and coarse aggregate from a quarry in Xishan Township, Bama, Guangxi was used in the analysis. The
aggregate had a compressive strength of 101 MPa and was graded between 0 and 4.75 and 16–31.5 mm for the fine and coarse
aggregate respectively. The basic technical indicators for each are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Test methods

The rockfill aggregate is tested by initially loading the rockfill to 50% of the final load, equivalent to the field static pressure. The
forming pressure increases until it reaches the bearing capacity of the rockfill, at which point the rockfill is crushed and plastic
deformation occurs. The final forming pressure is determined according to the assumption that the effective compaction work is
equivalent. The standard forming pressure for laboratory compaction control of different rockfill materials, as shown in Table 2, was

Table 1
Test results of basic test indicators for coarse and fine aggregates.
Type Test index Unit Test results

Fine Aggregate Apparent density kg/m3 2701

Bulk density kg/m3 1634
Tight-fitting density kg/m3 1676
Crush value % 21
Mud content % 0.1
Methylene blue value g/kg 1.0
Stone powder content % 7.6
Fineness modulus / 2.90
Coarse Aggregate Apparent density kg/m3 2720
Loose packing density kg/m3 1600
Tapped bulk density kg/m3 1700
Crush value % 11
Water absorption % 0.20
Needle-like content % 4.2
Mud content % 0.6
Sludge content % 0.1

2
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

obtained by first calculating the linear static pressure and linear pressure during vibration of the standard vibratory roller in the field,
then determining the parameters of the corresponding material, and finally using the Hertzian contact mechanics formula.
Using the forming pressure standards in Table 2, the compaction work done for different types of rockfill were between 0.30 and
0.45 J/cm3, equivalent to the compaction work of a heavy roller on site. The total compaction work done by the standard heavy
compaction test is 2.68 J/cm3, and the effective compaction work is about 0.30 J/cm3, thus the effective compaction work of rockfill is
about 1.0–1.5 times that of the standard compaction work of the laboratory heavy compaction test.
When the forming pressure reached the final forming pressure, unloading began and the compression rate was measured. However,
if the forming pressure could not reach the final forming pressure, the maximum compression rate was recorded instead, and the
maximum compression rate did not exceed the maximum compression rates recommended in Table 2 for this type of rockfill.
To determine the test particle gradation, use a soft ruler or steel ruler in the field to determine the maximum particle size of the filler
material and the maximum particle size of the filling particles, the maximum particle size of the gap-filling particles is less than or
equal to the maximum particle size of the skeleton particles 1/8 [32].
The maximum compression rate of the limestone filler was measured by the laboratory similar grading method, where similar
grading refers to grading with an identical solid phase volume ratio between the skeleton and gap-filling particles. The maximum
particle size for similar grading was 31.5 mm (square hole sieve), any particles above 4.75 mm (square hole sieve) were skeleton
particles and the particles below 4.75 mm were gap-filling particles. The ratio of skeleton to gap-filling particles should be identical to
the ratio of the field filler.
The maximum compression rate test was carried out using a, 152 and 120 mm diameter, high compaction test cylinder with a
maximum test force of 1000 kN. The specimen height at the initial pressure of 100 kN was used as the paving height when formed by
the static compression method, and the specimen height at the forming pressure of 200 kN was used as the compaction height in the
calculation of the ratio of compression height to paving height, or the maximum compression ratio. A penetration head with a diameter
of 50 mm and a height of 70 mm was used for the CBR test; the crushing rate was calculated by the particle gradation before and after
the compaction of the filler stone. The test procedure and steps are as follows. (Figs 1 and 2).

2.3. Results processing and calculation

The loose packing density is:

4M
ρ0 = (1)
π D2 h 0
The initial pressure density is:
4M
ρ1 = (2)
πD2 (h0 + h1 − 50)
Maximum compaction density is:
4M
ρmax = (3)
πD2 (h0 + h2 − 50)
The maximum compression ratio is:
δ − δ0
εmax = × 100% (4)
h0 + h1 − 50
CBR is:
4F
CBR = (5)
π d2 P
Crushing rate is:
∑m ′ ∑m
p − i=1 pi
Bm = i=1∑i m (6)
i=1 pi

where ρ0 is the loose packing density of the specimen (kg/m3); ρ1 is the initial pressure density at a pressure of 100 kN (kg/m3); ρmax is

Table 2
Laboratory compaction control standard forming pressure.
Type of rockfill Hard Rock Soft rock

Solid rock Medium hard rock Soft Rock Softer rocks Very Soft Rock

Compression rate range /% 3–8 8–12 12–15 15–18 18–23

Initial molding pressure /kN 100 60 50 40 30
Final molding pressure /kN 200 120 100 80 60

3
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Fig. 1. Test procedure and steps.

Fig. 2. Laboratory compaction evaluation test process for rockfill.

4
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

the maximum density at a pressure of 200 kN (kg/m3); εmax is the maximum compression ratio (%); M is the mass of the specimen in the
test cylinder (g); D is the diameter of the test cylinder (mm); h0 is the net height of the test cylinder (mm); h1 is the exposed height of the
upper cushion when the forming pressure is 100 kN (mm); h2 is the exposed height of the upper cushion when the forming pressure is
200 kN (mm); δ0 is the compression deformation when the molding pressure is 100 kN (mm); δis the compression deformation when
the molding pressure is 200 kN (mm); F is the force on the penetration head when the penetration depth is 2.5 or 5 mm (kN); d is the
diameter of the penetration head (mm); P is 7 MPa when penetration depth is 5 mm and 10.5 MPa when penetration depth is 5 mm; Bm
is the crushing rate of graded granules (%); pi is the passing rate of sieve number i before crushing (%); pi is the passing rate of sieve i
′

after crushing (%); m is the sieve hole number, with the largest sieve hole number being 0.
The load-displacement curve of the compaction molding test and CBR test when the solid phase volume ratio of skeleton and gap-
filling particles was 6:4 is shown in Fig. 3. The test indexes of filler specimens can be calculated by Fig. 3 and formula (1− 6). The
absolute error of the maximum compression rate was greater than 1%, thus an additional specimen should be added and the average
value of four specimens taken as the measurement value.

3. Test results and analysis

3.1. Density property test of rockfill

The loose stacking density at different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles is shown in Fig. 4, which shows
that the loose stacking density is 1812, 1834, 2019, 1928, and 1905 kg/m3 for ratios of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 respectively. The
loose stacking density increased and then decreased with the decrease of the solid phase volume ratio between skeleton and gap-filling
particles and the loose stacking density reached its maximum when the ratio was 5:5. According to the test results, the natural loose
stacking density formula of rock-gap-filling materials can be expressed as:
ρ0 = n1 ρa + n2 (1 − A)ρb (A ≥ 50%) (7)

ρ0 = Aρa + n2 (1 − A)ρb (A < 50%) (8)

3 3
where ρ0 is the loose packing density of the rockfill material (kg/m ); ρa is the apparent density of the skeleton particles (kg/m ); ρb
is the apparent density of the gap-filling particles (kg/m3); A is the volumetric rate content of the skeleton particles (%); n1 is the
natural accumulation density of skeleton particles; n2 is the natural accumulation density of gap-filling particles.
The natural accumulation density of the skeleton and gap-filling particles, the shape of the particles, particle gradation and
accumulation state are shown in Table 3, where the natural accumulation density of gap-filling particles is 0.48–0.52.
The calculated and experimental values of the loose packing density at different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling
particles are shown in Fig. 5, from which it can be seen that the relative errors between the calculated and experimental values are
− 1.65%, 4.62%, 2.05%, 0.58%, and − 5.04% for ratios of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7, respectively. It can be seen that the calculated and
experimental values are in general agreement.
The initial pressure densities for different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton and gap-filling particles are shown in Fig. 6, from
which it can be seen that the initial pressure densities for the solid phase volume ratios of skeleton and gap-filling particles of 7:3, 6:4,
5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 are 2078, 2142, 2201, 2169, and 2120 kg/m3 , respectively. The initial pressure density increased from 7:3 to 5:5, and
decreased from 5:5 to 3:7 for the solid phase volume ratio of skeleton to gap-filled particles. The maximum compaction density under
different solid phase volume ratio of skeleton and gap-filling particles is shown in Fig. 7, which showed that the maximum compaction
density increased and then decreased with the decrease of solid phase volume ratio of skeleton and gap-filling particles, and reaching a
maximum density of 2268 kg/m3 , when the solid phase volume ratio of skeleton and gap-filling particles was 5:5.

Fig. 3. Load-displacement curves for the solid phase volume ratio of 6:4 between skeleton particles and gap-filling particles.

5
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Fig. 4. Loose packing density.

Table 3
Natural accumulation densities of particles.
Grade type Single grain grade Two gradation More gradation

Particle shape Square Round Square Round Square Round

n1 0.50 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.63

Fig. 5. Calculated and tested values of loose packing density.

Fig. 6. Initial pressure density.

6
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Fig. 7. Maximum compaction density.

In Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, the standard deviations of the initial compressive density, ranged from 12.4 to 32.0 kg/m3 and 23.2–36.7 kg/
m3 for the compact density range for different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles, both of which had a
tendency to increase with the decrease of the solid phase volume ratio of skeleton to gap-filling particles. This indicated that when the
content of filler particles is small, the test values of initial pressure density and compact density are more stable and accurate.
The loose packing density, initial pressure density and maximum compaction density measured by the test all increased and then
decreased with the decrease of the solid phase volume ratio between the skeleton and the gap-filling particles, and all reached a
maximum value when the solid phase volume ratio between the skeleton and gap-filling particles was 5:5. This was due to the test
being conducted in a 15.2 mm diameter steel cylinder, equivalent to a certain volume of the specimen, and thus the forming pressure of
each group of the test was the same. Therefore, the density was mainly affected by the void ratio between the skeleton and the gap-
filling particles, as shown in Fig. 8. When the solid phase volume ratio of skeleton to gap-filling particles is 5:5, the voids between the
rock blocks are relatively minimal, thus their loose packing density, initial pressure density and maximum density are reached. It
should be noted that the void ratio measured in Fig. 8. refers to the void ratio at the end of the test compaction, as the particle gradation
of the rock mass was continuously changing due to particle fragmentation.
In Fig. 8, the standard deviations of the void fraction for the solid phase volume ratios of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 between the
skeleton and gap-filling particles were 0.88%, 0.98%, 0.85%, 1.1%, and 1.35%, respectively. The standard deviation values of the void
fraction at different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles were small and relatively constant, which indicates
that the tests are more stable and accurate when conducted in laboratories.

3.2. Maximum compression rate test of rockfill

The maximum compression rate test results, for different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles, are shown in
Fig. 9 to Fig. 12, and the total compression amount can be calculated from Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. It can be seen from Fig. 11, that the total
compression for the solid phase volume ratios of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 between skeleton and gap-filling particles was 4.84, 3.96,
3.04, 2.79, and 2.71 mm, respectively, and that the total compression amount decreases with the decrease of the solid phase volume
ratio between skeleton and gap-filling particles. From Fig. 12, it can be seen that the maximum compression ratio of rockfill materials

Fig. 8. Porosity.

7
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Fig. 9. Compression deformation at 100 kN.

Fig. 10. Compression deformation at 200 kN.

Fig. 11. Compression volume.

with the solid phase volume ratios of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 between skeleton and gap-filling particles were measured as 5%, 4%,
3%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. The total compression decreased with the decrease of the solid phase volume ratio between skeleton and
gap-filling particles as the compression mainly influenced the initial void ratio of the rock aggregate, under the same surrounding
pressure conditions, and the smaller the solid phase volume ratio between skeleton and gap-filling particles was, the smaller the initial
void ratio and compression were.

8
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Fig. 12. Maximum compression ratio.

In Fig. 9 to Fig. 11, the standard deviation of the compression deformation, at 100 kN, with different solid phase volume ratios of
skeleton and gap-filling particles ranged from 0.57 to 1.73 mm. The standard deviation of the compression deformation, at 200 kN,
ranged from 1.03 to 1.85 mm, and from 0.09 to 0.49 mm for the total compression range. This was likely caused by a combination of
instrument, operation and accidental errors. Nevertheless, the standard deviation value of these three compression quantities was
small and their test values were stable and accurate.
An important indicator for evaluating the degree of compaction of rockfill roadbeds on site is the degree of compaction. In either a
laboratory or on site, after determining the compression deformation rate, the compaction density at any compression deformation
rate can be calculated according to Eq. (9):
ρq
ρ= (9)
1− ε

where ρq is the loose lay density of the rock fill before compaction (kg/m3); ρ is the bulk density of the rockfill when the compression
rate is ε (kg/m3); ε is the compression rate of the rockfill (expressed as a decimal).
If the bulk density under standard compaction is specified as the maximum density, Eq. (9) can be rewritten as:
ρq
ρmax = (10)
1 − εmax

where ρmax is the maximum compacted packing density of rockfill (kg/m3); εmax is the maximum compression rate of the rockfill
(expressed as a decimal).
According to the definition of compaction, the degree of compaction is expressed by the compression rate as:
ρ 1 − εmax
K= = × 100% (11)
ρmax 1− ε

where K is the degree of compaction (%).

Eq. (11) is an accurate formula for determining the degree of compaction by the compression rate, which can be used as the basis for
laboratory and field compaction control as long as the maximum compression rate of the rockfill material has been determined. Using a
static mass of 23 tons, an excitation force of 400 kN and a self-propelled vibratory sheep foot mill. For a skeleton and gap-filling
particles solid phase volume ratio of 7:3 and a width of 26 m the rockfill was compacted twice with the static load and 6 times
with vibration. Measurements were taken with a level meter on five sections (pile numbers 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55) at three points,
namely the initial height, initial pressure height, and compaction height, as shown in Table 4. Table 5 was generated by calculating the
compression rate of the test section for a skeleton and gap-filling particles solid phase volume ratio of 7:3 and maximum compression
rate of 5%. The compression rate measured in the field and the maximum compression rate measured in the laboratory can be used to
calculate the compaction of the roadbed with regards to Fig. 13, which shows that the compaction of the roadbed at three points, on

Table 4
Height measured by the level during loose-laying.
Status Station Initial height /m Initial pressure height /m Loose laying thickness /m

Loose laying 15 2.378 2.345 2.293 1.882 1.843 1.801 0.496 0.502 0.492
25 2.391 2.362 2.317 1.897 1.861 1.822 0.494 0.501 0.495
35 2.422 2.375 2.342 1.918 1.881 1.843 0.504 0.494 0.499
45 2.433 2.408 2.362 1.935 1.905 1.866 0.498 0.503 0.496
55 2.458 2.415 2.378 1.955 1.914 1.881 0.503 0.501 0.497

9
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Table 5
Height measured by the level after compaction.
Status Station Compaction height /m Compression rate

Compaction 15 1.906 1.867 1.825 0.038 0.036 0.035

25 1.921 1.885 1.846 0.028 0.024 0.026
35 1.942 1.905 1.867 0.008 0.010 0.006
45 1.959 1.929 1.89 0.010 0.012 0.008
55 1.979 1.938 1.905 0.014 0.012 0.010

Fig. 13. Compaction of 5 piles on the test section.

different pile cross-sections, were greater than 95%, showed good compaction uniformity, and met the specification requirements.

3.3. Strength property test of rockfill

The CBR for different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles is shown in Tables 6 and 7. The final value of CBR
is the larger of the average values of CBR in 2.5 and 5 mm, when the solid phase volume ratio of skeleton to gap-filling particles was the
same. The CBR of different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles can be obtained by combining Table 6 and
Table 7, as shown in Fig. 14, which shows that the CBRs of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling
particles were 320.5%, 335.4%, 306.6%, 300.4%, and 236.4%, respectively. The overall trend of the CBR increased and then
decreased, and reached its maximum value at the solid phase volume ratio of 6:4 between skeleton and gap-filling particles.
The particle gradation curves for different skeleton and gap-filling particles solid phase volume ratios, before and after compaction
are shown in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 respectively. The difference between the area enclosed by the compaction and pre-compaction
throughput sieving curves divided by the area included in the pre-compaction throughput curve is the crushing rate. The crushing
rates of different solid phase volume ratios of skeleton to gap-filling particles are shown in Fig. 17, from which, it can be seen that the
crushing rates of skeleton to gap-filling particles ratios of 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, and 3:7 were 32.07%, 22.85%, 12.77%, 10.14%, and
5.82%, respectively. That is, the crushing rate decreases with the decrease of solid phase volume ratio of skeleton to gap-filling
particles, because under the same surrounding pressure, the crushing rate is mainly affected by the initial void ratio of the rockfill
and during the compaction process, it is mainly the relatively small contact areas of the rockfill particles that experience a large stress.
However, the larger the ratio of rock filler; the larger the initial void ratio resulting in a poorer gap-filling effect of the fine particles.
This is more likely to occur at the corners of the rockfill particles as the stress concentration produces particle crushing, and thus the
crushing rate will be greater.

Table 6
CBR at penetration depth of 2.5 mm.
Solid phase volume ratio of skeleton particles to gap-filling particles CBR1/% CBR2/% CBR3/% Average value of CBR/%

7:3 281.0 249.1 287.1 272.4

6:4 336.4 299.7 302.9 313.0
5:5 296.7 296.2 232.0 275.0
4:6 301.1 283.4 254.1 279.5
3:7 264.8 217.1 227.3 236.4

10
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Table 7
CBR at penetration depth of 5 mm.
Solid phase volume ratio of skeleton particles to gap-filling particles CBR1/% CBR2/% CBR3/% Average value of CBR/%

7:3 310.0 332.4 319.2 320.5

6:4 336.6 328.9 340.8 335.4
5:5 317.8 283.6 305.9 302.4
4:6 323.1 312.0 266.0 300.4
3:7 208.2 176.1 169.0 184.4

Fig. 14. CBR value.

Fig. 15. Gradation curve of rock fill before compaction.

4. Conclusion

To explore the laboratory compaction evaluation test method for rockfill, a density property, maximum compression rate, and
strength property tests were conducted in laboratories using the similar grading method and a self-designed test apparatus for rockfill.
In addition, the feasibility of the compaction formula from the compression rate was verified by combining the field compression rate
measurement and the laboratory results. The main findings of the study are as follows.

(1) The loose packing density of rockfill measured by the laboratory compaction test was between 1812 and 2019 kg/m3 , the
initial compression density was between 2078 and 2201 kg/m3 , and the compact density was between 2179 and 2268 kg/m3 .
The test results were stable and met the error requirements, thus the similar grading method can be used to test the density of
rockfill in laboratories.
(2) The maximum compression rate of the rockfill was measured through the laboratory compaction test for rockfill, and combined
with the compression rate measured on site. The compaction degree at the site can be evaluated using this, and the maximum
compression rate standard is recommended for the compaction control of rockfill.

11
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

Fig. 16. Gradation curve of rock fill after compaction.

Fig. 17. Crushing rate.

(3) The void rate of the stone fill material measured by the laboratory compression test was between 16.61% and 19.88%, which
meets the requirement for void rate of hard stone materials under an embankment, and can be used to measure the void rate of
stone fill materials in laboratories.
(4) The CBR value measured in the laboratory CBR test for rockfill was between 236.4% and 335.4%, which meets the minimum
strength requirement of each layer on the roadbed filler, and this method can be used for laboratory CBR test for rockfill.
(5) The solid phase volume ratio between skeleton and gap-filling particles has a significant effect on the crushing rate of rockfill,
and the smaller the ratio, the smaller the crushing rate of the rockfill.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Acknowledgments

This research is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51768016, 52068005).

References

[1] Z. Eugeniusz, G. Andrzej, A geotechnical assessment of usability of a rocksoil mixture for earth structures, Agrofor 2 (2018) 3.

12
J. Liang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01364

[2] G. Zhao, D. Song, Z. Peng, et al., Analysis on control indicators for settlement and deformation of the rock-filled subgrade in mountainous area, Int. J. Pavement
Res. Technol. 15 (1) (2021) 213–220.
[3] J. Wu, M. Feng, X. Mao, et al., Particle size distribution of aggregate effects on mechanical and structural properties of cemented rockfill: experiments and
modeling, Constr. Build. Mater. 193 (2018) 295–311.
[4] H. Jiang, M. Fall, Y. Li, et al., An experimental study on compressive behaviour of cemented rockfill, Constr. Build. Mater. 213 (2019) 10–19.
[5] S. Liu, S. Xu, P. Wu, et al., Compaction density evaluation of Soil-Rock mixtures by the additive mass method, Constr. Build. Mater. 306 (2021), 124882.
[6] R. Pang, B. Xu, Y. Zhou, et al., Seismic time-history response and system reliability analysis of slopes considering uncertainty of multi-parameters and
earthquake excitations, Comput. Geotech. 136 (2021), 104245.
[7] M.F.D. Silva, M.M.P. Ribeiro, A.P. Furlan, et al., Effect of compaction water content and stress ratio on permanent deformation of a subgrade lateritic soil,
Transp. Geotech. 26 (2021), 100443.
[8] E. TeijóN-López-Zuazo, Á. Vega-Zamanillo, M.Á. Calzada-Pérez, et al., Modification tests to optimize compaction quality control of granite rockfill in highway
embankments, Materials 13 (1) (2020) 233.
[9] K. Xu, L. Jing, X. Cheng, et al., Laboratory tests for subgrade reaction coefficient in seismic design of underground engineering domain, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020
(2020) 1–14.
[10] Y. Wang, M. Han, B. Li, et al., Stability evaluation of earth-rock dam reinforcement with new permeable polymer based on reliability method, Constr. Build.
Mater. 320 (2022), 126294.
[11] Z. An, T. Liu, Z. Zhang, et al., Dynamic optimization of compaction process for rockfill materials, Autom. Constr. 110 (2020), 103038.
[12] X. Luo, Z. Lu, H. Yao, et al., Experimental study on soft rock subgrade reinforced with geocell, Road. Mater. Pavement Des. (2021) 1–15.
[13] B. Li, Y. Liang, L. Zhang, et al., Breakage law and fractal characteristics of broken coal and rock masses with different mixing ratios during compaction, Energy
Sci. Eng. 7 (3) (2019) 1000–1015.
[14] M. Li, J. Zhang, W. Song, et al., Recycling of crushed waste rock as backgap-filling material in coal mine: effects of particle size on compaction behaviours,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (9) (2019) 8789–8797.
[15] R. Pang, B. Xu, Y. Zhou, et al., Fragility analysis of high CFRDs subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences based on plastic failure, Eng. Struct. 206 (2020),
110152.
[16] Z. Lu, Z. Hu, H. Yao, et al., Field evaluation and analysis of road subgrade dynamic responses under heavy duty vehicle, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 19 (2018) 12.
[17] C. Wersäll, I. Nordfelt, S. Larsson, Roller compaction of rock-fill with automatic frequency control, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Geotech. Eng. 173 (4) (2020) 339–347.
[18] I.R. Sheikh, M.Y. Shah, Experimental study on geocell reinforced base over dredged soil using static plate load tes, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 13 (3) (2020)
286–295.
[19] J. Fei, J. Xiao, Y. Jie, et al., In-situ test study on compaction control parameters for particular subdivisional railway earthworks, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 22 (10)
(2019) 1295–1304.
[20] M. Zhang, T. Qiu, Research on test method of foundation bed coefficient in nanjing soft soil area, Geofluids 2021 (2021) 1–8.
[21] Dinçer, Models to predict the deformation modulus and the coefficient of subgrade reaction for earth gap-filling structures, Adv. Eng. Softw. 42 (4) (2011)
160–171.
[22] Y. Xu, H. Han, N. Ning, et al., Ballast loading plate design and mechanical behavior of under ballast mats, Constr. Build. Mater. 325 (2022), 126486.
[23] V. Taheri, M. Fakhri, P. Hayati, Evaluation of airfield concrete block pavements based on 3-D modelling and plate loading test, Constr. Build. Mater. 280 (2021),
122441.
[24] B. Yang, R. Zhang, X. Zha, et al., Improved testing method of dynamic cone penetrometer in laboratory for evaluating compaction properties of soil subgrade,
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 17 (2) (2016) 487–498.
[25] J. Zhang, Y. Yao, J. Zheng, et al., Measurement of degree of compaction of fine-grained soil subgrade using light dynamic penetrometer, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018
(2018) 1–8.
[26] E. Ganju, H. Kim, M. Prezzi, et al., Quality assurance and quality control of subgrade compaction using the dynamic cone penetrometer, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 19
(11) (2018) 966–975.
[27] C. Han, Y. Zhang, J. Liu, et al., Interpreting strength parameters in soft clays from a new free-fall penetrometer, Comput. Geotech. 135 (2021), 104157.
[28] L. Donghai, S. Longfei, M. Hongyan, et al., Process simulation and mesoscopic analysis of rockfill dam compaction using discrete element method, Int. J.
Geomech. 26 (2020) 6.
[29] M. Yang, Vibration compaction characteristics of rock gap-filling embankment, J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. (2009).
[30] E. Wu, J. Zhu, G. Chen, et al., Experimental study of effect of gradation on compaction properties of rockfill materials, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 79 (6) (2020)
2863–2869.
[31] Z. An, T. Liu, Q. Zhang, et al., Vibration compaction process model for rockfill materials considering viscoelastic-plastic deformation, Autom. Constr. 131
(2021), 103889.
[32] J. Wu, H. Jing, Y. Gao, et al., Effects of carbon nanotube dosage and aggregate size distribution on mechanical property and microstructure of cemented rockfill,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 127 (2022), 104408.

13