Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 65

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Correlations between the Surface Stiffness Evaluated by Light-Weight

Deflectometer and Degree of Compaction

W. Kongkitkul1, T. Saisawang2, P. Thitithavoranan3, P. Kaewluan4, and T. Posribink5

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King
Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Rd., Bang Mod,
Thung Khru, Bangkok 10140, Thailand; warat.kon@kmutt.ac.th
2,3,4
Formerly Undergraduate Student, ditto
5
Ph.D. Student, ditto

ABSTRACT: For compaction works, it is necessary to spot check the density of

compacted backfill, usually by means of the sand cone test. However, this method is
time-consuming. A light-weight deflectometer (LWD) developed for evaluation of
surface stiffness may be employed to estimate the degree of compaction. In this
study, the following tests were performed on a lateritic soil: i) modified Proctor
compaction test to determine the optimum water content ( wopt ) and the corresponding
maximum dry density ( d ,max ); ii) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests on specimens
prepared at wopt ; iii) sand cone tests to find the field density and therefore the degree
of compaction ( Dc ); and iv) LWD tests to find the surface stiffness ( k LWD ). While
gradually increasing the compaction effort in a test pit, sand cone and LWD tests
were performed on the compacted soil. It was found that there are relevant
correlations between the Dc and %CBR and the k LWD . When these correlations are
known, LWD test can be an alternative for indirectly evaluating of Dc and %CBR for
compaction control.

INTRODUCTION

An important portion of a flexible pavement structures is the subbase layer which

is located below the pavement surface and base layer successively to distribute the
stresses from the traffic load to the subgrade soil. In Thailand, this subbase layer is
usually constructed by lateritic soils which are widely available. Constructions of
subbase layer typically involve with compaction so as to reduce the void, increase the
shear resistance, reduce the transient deformation, and increase impermeability.
Subbase layer construction procedures are typically as follows. First, the lateritic
soil from sources is brought to perform laboratory modified Proctor compaction tests

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 66

(ASTM D1557) for determining the maximum dry density ( d ,max ) and the optimum
water content ( wopt ). In the field, the lateritic soil is mixed well with additional water
to meet this wopt obtained in a range of ±3 % (DH-S 205/2532). Then, field
compaction is performed until the field dry density is greater than 95 % of d ,max
obtained from the laboratory compaction test (DH-S 205/2532). This requirement is
usually investigated by performing the sand-cone test (ASTM D1556).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Comparison of advantages and disadvantages among sand cone

method, nuclear method, and LWD.
Easy to operate and cheap.
Advantage
Reliable.
Sand cone
Time-consuming.
Disadvantage
Destructive.
Fast and reliable.
Advantage
Water content can also be known.
Nuclear
Use of radioactive material and expensive.
Disadvantage
Need of well-trained operator.
Fast and easy to operate.
Advantage
LWD Surface stiffness of compacted soil is also known.
Disadvantage Need of correlation between density and surface stiffness.

One of disadvantages of the sand-cone test is that not only it takes some long time
to follow the test procedures but also it is a destructive test. Occasionally, it is
necessary to rapidly know the field dry densities over a large area of compacted soil
layer, and therefore, the sand-cone test would result in a waste of time. To solve this
problem, the nuclear method (ASTM D6938) has been introduced for rapidly
determining in-place density and water content instead of the sand-cone method.
However, this method is not popular in Thailand due to not only the equipment is
expensive but also the radioactive material is used. Table 1 briefly compares
advantages and disadvantages between the sand cone and the nuclear methods.
On the other hand, Light-Weight Deflectometer (LWD) has been introduced into
construction industry for determining surface stiffness of compacted soil. The
principles of LWD are that a mass is released to impact on the surface of compacted
soil layer and time histories of load and settlement are measured. The surface
stiffness is then determined from the measured load and settlement. LWD test
requires a very short operational time and is easy to operate. Table 1 also compares
advantages and disadvantage of LWD to those of the sand cone test and the nuclear
method. When the soil becomes denser by being compacted, the void ratio decreases
while the solid mass of soil per unit soil volume (i.e., dry density) increases which
generally results in an increase in the soil stiffness that is also related with the soil
surface stiffness. So, if the relation between the degree of compaction and the surface
stiffness is known in advance, field compaction control can alternatively rapidly
performed by using LWD test more frequently while the number of sand cone test or
nuclear method test can be less. In addition, surface stiffness obtained by LWD test is

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 67

an indicator for the bearing capacity. If the relation between California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) and the surface stiffness is also known in advance, field CBR value can then
be determined from LWD test while the number of field CBR test (if required) can be
less. In this study, series of laboratory and field tests were performed on a lateritic
soil typically used in the construction of subbase layer of pavement structures in
Thailand (Fig. 1). This lateritic soil was taken from the same source. Fig. 2 shows the
gradation curve of this lateritic soil which can be classified as SC. Laboratory tests
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

performed were: i) modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D1557) to determine

the maximum dry density ( d ,max ) and the optimum water content ( wopt ); and ii) CBR
test (ASTM D1883) on specimens prepared at wopt to determine %CBR of the
compacted lateritic soil for different values of dry density (  d ). For field test,
lateritic soil was gradually compacted in a test pit. During this compaction, it was
interrupted with sand cone test (ASTM D1556) to determine the field  d and
therefore the degree of compaction ( Dc ) and LWD test to determine the surface
stiffness ( k LWD ). Then, relationship between Dc and k LWD was obtained. In addition,
%CBR can be determined by the field  d . So, relationship between %CBR and
k LWD was also obtained.

Lateritic soil

Field tests Laboratory tests

Laboratory
Field compaction
compaction test

Sand LWD CBR

cone Test Test Test

Dc k LWD %CBR

NO
Dc > 95

YES

Relationships among Dc , k LWD and %CBR

Fig. 1. Procedures for conducting the study.

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 68

100 2.4

Dry density, d (g/cm3)

80 2.2 Zero air void
Percent finer than D

60
2.0

40
1.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20
1.6
Maximum dry density, MDD = 2.091g/cm3
0 Lateritic soil Optimum water content,wopt 6.89 %
1.4
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 4 6 8 10 12 14
Particle size, D (mm) Water content, w (%)

Fig. 2. (left) Gradation curve of lateritic soil.

Fig. 3. (right) Compaction curve of lateritic soil obtained by modified Proctor

compaction test.

4000 2.1
Stress on piston,  (psi.)

Dry density, d (g/cm )

3000 2.0
3

56 blows:
2000 %CBR = 88.1 % 1.9

25 blows:
%CBR= 62.2 %
1000 1.8

10 blows:
%CBR = 25.2 %
0 1.7
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 40 60 80 100
Penetration,  (in.) CBR (%)

Fig. 4. (left) Relationships between stress on piston and penetration obtained

from CBR tests on lateritic soil.
Fig. 5. (right) Relationship between dry density and %CBR .

LABORATORY TESTS

Fig. 3 shows the compaction curve of the tested lateritic soil by the modified
Proctor compaction test. At the optimum state, the maximum dry density ( d ,max ) of
2.09 g/cm3 was obtained at the optimum water content ( wopt ) of 6.9 %. Fig. 4 shows
the relationships between stress on piston and penetration obtained from CBR tests on
specimens prepared by compaction for 10, 25, and 56 blows, resulting in difference in
the dry densities. The %CBR values determined are 25.2 %, 62.2 %, and 88.1 % for
specimens compacted by 10, 25, and 56 blows, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the relation
between dry density and %CBR. It can be clearly observed that %CBR increased
with an increase in the dry density by increasing in the compaction effort.

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 69

FIELD TESTS

A light weight deflectometer (LWD; Fig. 6) (modified from Hirakawa et al. 2008
by Kongkitkul et al. 2011 and Posribink et al. 2012) was used for determination of
surface stiffness of the field compacted lateritic soil in this study. By this LWD, the
impact load was measured by a load cell while the ground acceleration by an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

accelerometer. The ground settlement was then determined by double-integration of

the measured time history of acceleration. Table 2 lists the configurations of the used
LWD.

Table 2. Configurations of light weight deflectometer (LWD).

Details Values
Mass of hammer 10 kg
Maximum falling height 500 mm
Maximum impact load 20 kN
Plate diameter 150 mm
Impact load measurement Load cell
Settlement measurement Accelerometer
Sampling frequency 5 kHz
Total mass 19.23 kg

Fig. 6. Configurations of Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD).

A test pit was used for field compaction of lateritic soil. Preparation procedures
and details of sand cone test and LWD test are as follows.
1) A test pit was prepared by excavation for an area of 2 x 2 m square and a depth
of 0.3 m (Fig. 7).
2) A plastic sheet was laid so that all the boundaries of test pit are covered. The
ends of the plastic sheet were hold well with the ground surface by pining. This
step is to separate the compacted lateritic soil from the surrounding in-situ soil
and possible ground water seepage.

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 70

3) Mix the lateritic soil with water of which the amount is specified by the
optimum water content ( wopt ) by using a large tray (Fig. 8a).
4) Lay the mixed lateritic soil into the test pit. Compaction was performed by
means of a vibratory gasoline compactor (Fig. 8b). Initially, after having been
spread thoroughly the entire area, the lateritic soil was compacted by moving
the compactor thorough the entire area for 50 rounds (Fig. 9a). Then, about
three-fourth of the entire area (Fig. 9a) was further compacted for 100 rounds in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

total. Similarly, a half area was successively compacted for 200 rounds in total
and only about one-fourth of the entire area was compacted for 400 rounds
(Fig. 9a). To achieve a higher field dry density, after sand cone test and LWD
test were performed on the area in which the compactions were performed by
moving the compactor for 200 and 400 rounds, compaction was repeated until
the number of trips reached 500 and 700 rounds in total (Fig. 9b).
5) Perform LWD tests on the locations specified in Fig. 9. At each location, series
of impact load released from the falling heights of 50, 100, and 200 mm were
applied to the compacted soil surface. The distances between two adjacent test
locations were greater than three times of the diameter of LWD plate. This
spacing was considered sufficient so that any possible influences from the tests
previously performed on the adjacent locations were negligible. In addition, the
distances of test location were greater than 0.5 m from the side boundary of the
test pit.
6) Perform sand cone tests on the locations specified in Fig. 9 after having
finished the respective LWD tests.

Fig. 7. Test pit for performing sand cone and LWD tests on field compacted
lateritic soil

a) b)

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 71

Fig. 8. Preparations of lateritic soil: a) mixing with water to the optimum water
content; and b) compaction by vibratory compactor.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N = 50

N = 100
N=
N = 200 500
N=
N = 400 700

a) b)
Fig. 9. Diagrams showing zones of compaction differentiated by numbers of
trips of compaction (N) and locations for sand cone test and LWD test: a) N =
50, 100, 200 and 400; and b) N = 500 and 700.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig. 10 shows the relationships between plate pressure ( p ) and settlement ( s ) by

LWD tests with falling heights of 50, 100, and 200 mm performed at location 1 (Fig.
9a). With an increasing in the falling height, the plate pressure generated by the
impact load and also the settlement increased. For a respective relation, the moment
at which the maximum plate pressure ( pmax ) exhibited is not the same as the one at
which the maximum plate settlement ( smax ) exhibited. This is due to the so-called
“dynamic” effects. This effect would result in a large overestimation of the stiffness
value obtained. AASHTO (1993) proposed to estimate the static-equivalent stiffness
from the dynamically obtained value by reduce by half. Thus, in this study, the
surface stiffness ( k LWD ) is defined as shown in Eq. 1.
1 pmax
k LWD   (1)
2 smax
Fig. 11 shows the relationship between degree of compaction ( Dc ) and %CBR.
The values of Dc were determined as the ratio of the measured dry densities by sand
cone tests to the maximum dry density determined from laboratory modified Proctor
compaction test. On the other hand, %CBR values were obtained by readings the
relationship shown in Fig. 5 for the %CBR values at the  d values measured by sand
cone tests. It is clearly seen that Dc increased with %CBR in a board sense.
Fig. 12 shows the relationship between Dc and k LWD . The value of Dc seems to
be constantly increased with k LWD . A line defined by Eq. 2 was best fitted to all data
points. It seems that the relation specified by Eq. 2 is relevant.

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 72

Dc  %   83.66  0.02k LWD  kPa mm  (2)

Fig. 13 shows the relationship between %CBR and k LWD . Similar to Fig. 12, a line
defined by Eq. 3 was best fitted to all data points. This line which is also shown in
Fig. 13 is capable to represent the behaviour that %CBR increases with k LWD .
CBR  %   0.12k LWD  kPa mm 
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(3)

700
Lateritic soil
600 Location point 1 200
Dc = 85.91 %
Plate pressure, p (kPa)

500 CBR = 23.3 %

400 100 Falling height (mm)

300

50
200

100

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Plate settlement, s (mm)
Fig. 10. Relationships between plate pressure and settlement by LWD tests with
falling heights of 50, 100, and 200 mm on lateritic soil compacted for 50 rounds
at location 1 (Fig. 9a).

100

98
Degree of compaction, Dc (%)

96

94

92

90

88

86

84
0 20 40 60 80 100
CBR (%)
Fig. 11. Relationship between degree of compaction and %CBR by the sand
cone test results performed on compacted lateritic soil.

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 73

120

Degree of compaction, Dc (%)

110

100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

90

Dc = 83.66 + 0.02kLWD
80 R = 0.73

70
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Surface stiffness, kLWD (kPa/mm)

Fig. 12. Relationship between degree of compaction determined from sand cone
test and surface stiffness from LWD test.

120
110
100
90
80
CBR (%)

70
60
50 CBR= 0.12kLWD
40 R = 0.75
30
20
10

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Surface stiffness, kLWD (kPa/mm)
Fig. 13. Relationship between %CBR determined from field dry density and
surface stiffness from LWD test.

It may be seen from Figs. 12 and 13 that Dc and %CBR can be predicted by the
measured k LWD obtained from LWD test. However, Eqs. 2 and 3 may be specific only
for the soil material and test conditions used in this study. If a soil from a source is
going to be used in a large-scale compaction work, series of sand cone tests and LWD
can be performed in a test pit in additional to the laboratory compaction test and CBR
test so as to obtain Dc - k LWD and %CBR - k LWD relations in a similar manner to the
methods presented in this study. Then, for compaction control in the field, number of
sand cone tests can be decreased while being compensated with more number of
LWD tests widespread over the entire area of compaction. It would be expected not

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 74

only to save time but also to reduce possibility of non-uniformity of compacted soil
by increasing the locations of LWD spot check.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions may be derived from the test results of this study.
1) Compaction effort results in not only the increases of the dry density (indicated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

by degree of compaction) and the bearing capacity (indicated by %CBR) but

also the increase of surface stiffness evaluated by light weight deflectometer
(LWD).
2) Despite the fact that it may be only specific for test material and methods used
in this study, the correlations between the degree of compaction and %CBR and
the surface stiffness could be relevantly found.
3) When the above correlations are known, LWD test can be used as an alternative
indirect test method for evaluating the degree of compaction and %CBR for
compaction control in the field.
Further studies for example, by numerical methods with physical tests for
validations, are necessary to verify for general cases.

ACKNOWLEGDEMENT

The authors would like to thank Mr. Siam Suwannarath and Mr. Noppadol
Thongborisut, formerly undergraduate students at the King Mongkut’s University of
Technology Thonburi for their previous research work. Financial supports from the
Thailand Research Fund (TRF), National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) and
National Research University (NRU) Project are greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM D1556. Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by
the Sand-Cone Method.
ASTM D1557. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)).
ASTM D1883. Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of
Laboratory-Compacted Soils.
ASTM D6938. Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil
and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods.
DH-S 205/2532. Standard for Construction of Soil Aggregate Subbase, Department
of Highways, Thailand (in Thai).
Hirakawa, D., Masuda, N., Tatsuoka, F., and Kawasaki, H. (2008). “Investigation of
relationship between sand ground stiffness values from FWD and from plate
loading tests”, Jiban Kogaku Janaru (Japanese Geotechnical Journal), 3 (4), 307-
320 (in Japanese).

Tunneling and Underground Construction

 Tunneling and Underground Construction GSP 242 © ASCE 2014 75

Kongkitkul, W., Punthutaecha, K., Youwai, S., Jongpradist, P., Moryadee, S.,
Posribink, T., Bamrungwong, C. and Hirakawa, D. (2011). “Simple dynamic
hammer for evaluation of physical conditions of pavement structures”,
Transportation Research Record, No.2204, 35-44.
Posribink, T., Kongkitkul, W., Youwai, S., Jongpradist, P. and Punthutaecha, K.
(2012). “Influence of falling height and plate size on surface stiffness evaluated by
LWD”, Proc. of the International Conference on Highway Engineering 2012,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bangkok, 2, 361-368.

Tunneling and Underground Construction