Example Paper

One-Point Vibrating Hammer Compaction Test for Granular Soils

Adam B. Prochaska1 and Vincent P. Drnevich2

1 Graduate Research Assistant, Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium

Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051; PH (765) 494-5025; email: aprochas@purdue.edu 2 Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051; PH (765) 494-5029; FAX (765) 496-1364; email: drnevich@purdue.edu Abstract Excessive settlements occur in granular soils where specified field compaction is based on Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698[1], AASHTO T 99[2]) maximum dry unit weights. A laboratory test program evaluated alternative test methods for granular soil compaction control and showed that a Vibrating Hammer method (similar to British Standard BS 1377:1975, Test 14[3]) has great promise for laboratory compaction of these soils. A One-Point Vibrating Hammer test on an oven-dried soil sample provides the maximum dry unit weight and water content range for effective field compaction of granular soils. The maximum dry unit weight obtained is comparable to that from other current methods such as the Vibrating Table test (ASTM D 4253[4]) and the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557[5]), and is greater than that from the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698[1]). This test method is applicable to a broader range of soils than current vibratory table compaction tests (up to 35 percent nonplastic fines and up to 15 percent plastic fines). The equipment is relatively inexpensive and is portable enough to be taken into the field. The test is easier and quicker to perform than the other methods mentioned above and provides reproducible and consistent results. The paper also introduces a simple calibration procedure to check that the vibrating hammer is supplying sufficient energy to the soil. Key Words granular soils, compaction, water content, density, unit weight Introduction Although many agree that impact compaction tests are not appropriate for compaction control of granular soils, these tests continue to be used for these soils. A list of embankment compaction control specifications for all state departments of transportation (DOTs) shows that 60 percent of them specify only 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight ((γd)max) for embankment compaction control (Bergeson et al., 1998[6]). When granular fills are placed with reference to the Standard Proctor (γd)max, settlement occurs upon subsequent wetting and/or

Example Paper 2

vibration of the soil (Day, 1995[7]; McCook, 1996[8]; Ping et al., 2003[9]; Rizkallah and Hellweg, 1980[10]).

A current method to determine (γd)max of a granular soil is the vibrating table test (ASTM D 4253[4]), but this test is limited to free-draining soils with less than 15 percent fines. Vibrating tables were not originally designed for the rigors of soil testing, and are thus plagued by frequent problems (Benavidez & Young, n.d. c[11]). An alternative test method to determine (γd)max of granular soils is warranted. The State of Iowa (Bergeson et al., 1998[6] White et al. 1999[12]) proposed using a combination of impact compaction and vibrating table tests for granular soils that have more than 15 percent fines. In contrast to the frailty of vibrating tables, vibrating hammers were designed for performing heavy demolition work, and vibrating hammer tests for soil compaction control have been developed (Pike, 1972[13]; Forssblad, 1981[14]; Parsons, 1992[15]). There currently is not in the United States a vibrating hammer test standard for soils, but the British Standards Institution has developed two vibrating hammer tests: BS 1377:1975 Test 14[3] (Head, 1980[16]), which is identical to BS 1924:1975 Test 5[17], and BS 5835 Part 1[18]. The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has shown great interest recently in the development of a vibrating hammer test for granular soils. Much research has been performed by the USBR (Benavidez & Young, n.d. a[19] – n.d. d[20]) and a test standard has been proposed (USBR 5535[21]), but little action has come from this work. The primary objective of this experimental research program was to investigate the feasibility of a vibrating hammer test for compaction control of granular soils. The second objective was to better define the term “granular soil” based upon compaction behavior so that the appropriate compaction method (vibratory or impact) could be chosen for a given soil. Experimental Program All soils used were classified by both the AASHTO (M 145[22]) and Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487[23]) and various compaction tests were performed on each soil. In addition to vibrating hammer tests, other tests included Standard Proctor tests (ASTM D 698[1]), Modified Proctor tests (ASTM D 1557[5]), vibrating table compaction tests (ASTM D 4253[4]), and minimum unit weight determinations (ASTM D 4254[24]). The vibrating table test standards limit these test methods to soils with less than 15 percent fines. However, tests in this experimental program were performed on granular soils regardless of the fines content in order to obtain reference vibratory table compaction results for comparing with the vibrating hammer compaction results. The vibrating hammer used was a Bosch model 11248EVS. Technical specifications for the hammer, as provided by the manufacturer, are shown in Table 1 (Bosch, 2002/2003[25]). Figure 1 shows the vibrating hammer clamped to a sliding frame that is guided by two vertical rods, and the tamper foot. For soils with a maximum particle size less than 19.0 mm (0.75 inch), vibrating hammer tests were conducted in a 152-mm (6-inch) diameter compaction mold. A tamper foot was designed

Example Paper 3

Table 1. Technical Specifications for the Bosch model 11248EVS Hammer

Voltage 120 V AC

Amperage 11

Hammer Weight, kN (lbf) 2.26 (14.4)

Loaded beats per minute 1700 to 3300

Impact Energy per stroke, J (ft.* lbf) 10.0 (7.4)

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Vibrating Hammer and Frame (a) and Tamper Foot (b) to have a diameter 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) less than the inside diameter of the compaction mold. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in this paper, all vibrating hammer tests were conducted in accordance with the information provided in Table 2. The static surcharge was determined from the weights of the hammer, sliding frame, and tamper foot divided by the tamper foot area. The frequency of 56 Hertz is very similar to the frequency of 60 Hertz at which the vibrating table test (ASTM D 4253[4]) operates. The test parameters shown in Table 2 were chosen because they produced the best results. The effects of these parameters on the obtainable dry unit weight are presented in a separate publication (Prochaska et al., 2005[26]).

Table 2. Vibrating Hammer Test Specifics

Mold Diameter, mm (in.) 152 (6)

Frequency, Hertz 56

Lifts 3

Time of compaction per lift, seconds 60

Static Surcharge, kPa (psi) 19.5 (2.8)

Example Paper 4

The soils tested consisted of sands and mixtures of sand and fines. To create granular soils with higher percentages of both nonplastic and plastic fines, a concrete sand was mixed with either Crosby Till (a local glacial till) or Grundite Bonding Clay (an illitic clay powder). Particle size distributions of the soils tested are shown in Figure 2. Table 3 summarizes the index properties and soil classifications for all of the materials tested. Compaction results for selected soils are presented in Figures 3 through 5. Figure 3 shows the compaction test results for a uniformly graded Dune Sand. Dry unit weights from vibratory compaction are consistently higher than those obtained from both Standard and Modified Proctor compaction. The maximum dry unit weight, (γd)max, from Standard Proctor compaction for this Dune Sand corresponds to 70 percent relative density. For a construction control specification of 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (γd)max, which is very typical, this sand would be only at 40 percent relative density. Relative density (Dr) is a measure of the compactness of granular soil that uses the densest and loosest possible conditions of the soil as limiting values. It is calculated by:

( )( ) %100*

)()()()(

minmax

minmax⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛−

−=

dd

dd

d

drD

γγγγ

γγ

(1)

where:

(γd)max = dry unit weight in the densest condition (ASTM D 4253[4])

(γd)min = dry unit weight in the loosest condition (ASTM D 4254[24]), and

γd = dry unit weight in place.

No obvious optimum moisture content can be observed for Dune Sand. This indicates that the maximum obtainable dry unit weight (γd) is independent of the water content and dependent on the compaction method and energy. The solid triangle data point corresponds to the minimum unit weight by ASTM D 4254[24], the solid circle and the solid square data points correspond to the maximum dry unit weights from the vibrating table tests on dry and saturated specimens, respectively. As soil samples become increasingly well-graded, bulking effects at low water contents become more pronounced. Figure 4 shows the compaction test results for Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 9 percent fines. There is a weakly defined peak in the Standard Proctor compaction curve around a water content of 12 percent. The vibrating hammer could not be run at water contents above 10 percent on this soil due to water bleeding out from the bottom of the mold. When greater percentages of plastic fines are present, compaction curves begin to take on more characteristic shapes at higher water contents. Figure 5 shows the compaction test results for Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 26 percent fines. Although the maximum dry unit weights are obtained through vibration at the oven-dry condition, the plasticity of the fines probably restricts particle reorientation at higher water contents. Within the range of normal soil moisture conditions, the (γd)max and optimum moisture content determined by both Standard Proctor compaction and vibrating hammer compaction are nearly equal. For higher percentages

Example Paper 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110Particle Size (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

by

Mas

s

#4 Sieve #200 SieveSand Silt Clay

132

4

7

610

98

5

Fig. 2. Particle Size Distributions of Soils Tested (See Table 3 for descriptions.)

Table 3. Index Properties and Classifications of Soils Tested

No. Soil P200 (%) LL3 PI5 Cu Cc

USCS

(ASTM D 2487[23])

AASHTO M 145[22]

1 Dune Sand 0.4 NP4 NP 1.3 1.1 SP, Poorly graded sand

A-3

2 Masonry Sand 0.8 NP NP 2.1 0.79 SP, Poorly graded sand

A-1-b

3 Play Sand 1.7 NP NP 2.0 0.95 SP, Poorly graded sand

A-3

4 Concrete Sand 0.8 NP NP 4.3 0.88 SP, Poorly graded sand

A-1-b

5 CCS1+CT2 16 NP NP 35 6.4 SM, Silty sand A-1-b

6 CCS+CT 38 NP NP 95 0.59 SM, Silty sand A-4(0)

7 CCS+Grundite 8.6 NP NP 6.9 1.2 SW-SM, Well-graded sand w/ silt

A-1-b

8 CCS+Grundite 18 23 9 62 8.7 SC, Clayey sand A-2-4

9 CCS+Grundite 26 30 11 180 10 SC, Clayey sand A-2-6

10 CCS+Grundite 32 31 13 250 2.7 SC, Clayey sand A-2-6 1Concrete Sand, 2Crosby Till, 3Liquid Limit, 4Nonplastic, 5Plasticity Index

Example Paper 6

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Water Content (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght, γ d

(kN

/m3 )

Standard ProctorVibrating HammerModified ProctorOven Dry Vibrating TableSaturated Vibrating TableMinimum Unit Weight

ZAV for Gs = 2.65

Fig. 3. Compaction Results for Dune Sand

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Water Content (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght, γ d

(kN

/m3 )

14

Standard ProctorVibrating HammerOven Dry Vibrating TableSaturated Vibrating TableMinimum Unit Weight

ZAV for Gs = 2.70

Fig. 4. Compaction Results for Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 9% Fines

of plastic fines, impact compaction is expected to produce higher dry unit weights than vibratory compaction at typical water contents. Figure 6 shows the (γd)max values obtained from the vibrating hammer test compared to those obtained from the vibrating table test for all the soils tested. It can be seen that the (γd)max values obtained from the two tests were within 3 percent of each other. Figure 7 shows the (γd)max values obtained from the vibrating hammer test compared to those obtained from the Standard Proctor test. It should be noted that the Standard Proctor (γd)max values reported in Figure 7 are not the absolute maximum from the entire curve, but rather the

Example Paper 7

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2Water Content (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght, γ d

(kN

/m3 )

0

Standard Proctor

Vibrating Hammer

Oven Dry Vibrating Table

Saturated Vibrating Table

Minimum Unit Weight

ZAV for Gs = 2.70

Fig. 5. Compaction Results for Concrete Sand mixed with Grundite to 26% Fines

16

17

18

19

20

21

16 17 18 19 20 21(γd)max from Vib. Table (kN/m3)

(γd)

max

from

Vib

. Ham

mer

(kN

/m3 )

1 to 1

+/- 3 %

Fig. 6. Vibrating Hammer vs. Vibrating Table Maximum Dry Unit Weight Results

maximum from the water content range at which this test would usually be performed. The (γd)max values shown are representative of maximum dry unit weight results that would be obtained by performing the test following current practices. It can be seen that for all soils, the (γd)max values obtained by the vibrating hammer test were at least 3 percent greater than those determined from the Standard Proctor test.

Example Paper 8

16

17

18

19

20

21

16 17 18 19 20 21(γd)max from Standard Proctor (kN/m3)

( γd)

max

from

Vib

. Ham

mer

(kN

/m3 )

1 to 1

+/- 3 %

Fig. 7. Vibrating Hammer vs. Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Unit Weight Results

One-Point Vibrating Hammer Test Using the compaction curves obtained from the vibrating hammer tests, a normalized family of curves was developed (see Figure 8). Both axes of the original vibrating hammer compaction curves were normalized. All (γd) values were divided by the dry unit weight obtained from the vibrating hammer test at the oven-dry condition ((γd)oven-dry).

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.90

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

w/wZAV

γ d/( γ

d)ov

en d

ry

Concrete Sand w/ 26% Grundite Fines

Concrete Sand w/ 32% Grundite Fines

95% Compaction

Fig. 8. Normalized Family of Curves

Example Paper 9

All water contents were divided by a term that is being called wZAV, which is the water content that corresponds to saturation for (γd)oven-dry. The term wZAV is calculated from:

%100*1)( ⎟

⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛−=

− sdryovend

wZAV G

wγ

γ (2)

where γw is the unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m3 or 62.4 pcf) and Gs is the specific gravity of the soil solids. Equation 2 is a rearrangement of the relationship between specific gravity, water content, and saturated unit weight (γSAT), with (γd)oven-dry being substituted in for γSAT. From Figure 8 we see that for all of the soils tested, the normalized maximum dry unit weight always occurs at the oven-dry condition, and for most soils a dramatic decrease in the obtainable normalized dry unit weight occurred when a small amount of moisture was present. The shapes of the curves in Figure 8 are quite similar to those reported for granular soils by Pike (1972)[13]. As the water content increases, peaks in normalized dry unit weight are not obtainable until the ratio of w/wZAV is between 0.8 and 1.0. Within the water content range of 80 to 100 percent of wZAV, 95 percent of (γd)oven-dry is obtainable for all but two of the soils. Thus, for all but the two soils which will be discussed later, performing one vibrating hammer compaction test on an oven-dry soil will provide (γd)max, and this unit weight can be used to calculate the water content range that should be used for effective compaction in the field. The steps for the One-Point Vibrating Hammer Test are:

1. Perform a vibrating hammer test on an oven-dry soil sample; the dry unit weight obtained is (γd)max for the soil.

2. Using an appropriate apparent specific gravity of the soil solids, Gs, determine the wZAV

that corresponds to (γd)max. The water content range for effective field compaction should be between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV.

This procedure is similar to the vibrating table test (ASTM D 4253[4]), in which (γd)max is found at either the oven-dry or saturated condition, except that (γd)max was always found to occur at the oven-dry condition for the vibrating hammer tests. Also, since the vibrating table test is only applicable to free-draining soils, it does not provide a water content range for effective field compaction, which is desirable information. Using the results from vibrating table tests and minimum unit weight determinations, the results from Figure 8 could also be plotted as relative density versus w/wZAV. For all but two soils, a relative density of 80 percent is obtainable from the vibrating hammer test when the water content is between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV. The two soils are those with higher percentages of plastic fines, and are the same two soils for which a relative compaction of at least 95 percent could not be obtained, as shown in Figure 8. To determine the range of soils for which the One-Point Vibrating Hammer test would be applicable, the γd/(γd)oven-dry that is obtainable between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV was plotted versus percent fines, as is shown in Figure 9. Nonplastic fines are defined as soils where the liquid limit, plastic limit, or plasticity index can not be

Example Paper 10

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fines Content (%)

Obt

aina

ble γ d

/( γd)

oven

-dry

Nonplastic FinesPlastic Fines

Proposed Limit for Nonplastic Fines

Proposed Limit for Plastic Fines

Nonplastic Fines Trend

Plastic Fines Trend

Fig. 9. γd/(γd)oven-dry obtainable between 80 and 100 percent of wZAV versus Percent Fines

determined; plastic fines are defined as soils where the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index can all be determined, following ASTM D 4318[27]. Using the results from Figure 9, for soils with nonplastic fines a limit of 35 percent fines is suggested, since this is the boundary for granular soils following the classification procedure found in AASHTO M 145[22]. For soils with plastic fines, a limit of 15 percent fines is suggested. This is a conservative limit based on the results thus far, and is also consistent with the current limiting fines percentage for vibrating table tests. Additional testing on a wider variety of soils is needed to validate these recommendations. Vibrating Hammer Calibration Procedure Current vibrating hammer calibration procedures (Head, 1980[16]; Benavidez & Young, n.d. b[28]) involve the compaction of “standard sand” at a specified water content, with a specification that a prescribed dry unit weight must be achieved. The calibration sand chosen for this study was ASTM C 778[29] 20-30 Sand. This sand is commonly available and has a standardized, consistent gradation between the #20 and #30 sieves. In order to minimize the possibility for errors, the calibration procedure for this research used oven-dry sand instead of moist sand as proposed by the British Standard and the USBR. The (γd) specified in the calibration procedure was determined by comparing (γd)oven-dry results from a variety of different compaction tests and for the lowest and highest available frequencies for the vibrating hammer. Compaction results are shown in Figure 10 as a plot of (γd)oven-dry versus relative density. It can be seen from Figure 10 that the maximum dry unit weight obtained by the highest frequency vibrating hammer test is not an unrealistic goal, as it is only slightly higher than that

Example Paper 11

15.00

15.25

15.50

15.75

16.00

16.25

16.50

16.75

17.00

17.25

17.50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Relative Density (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght (

kN/m

3 )

Maximum and Minimum Dry UnitWeightsHighest Frequency VibratingHammerLowest Frequency VibratingHammerModified Proctor

Standard Proctor

Dr = 97 %

17.30 kN/m3 = Min. Value for Vib. Hammer Calibration

Fig. 10. γd versus Dr for Oven-Dry ASTM C 778[29] 20-30 Sand

obtained from the vibrating table test. The proposed allowable minimum dry unit weight obtained by this calibration procedure is 17.30 kN/m3 (110.0 pcf), which corresponds to a relative density of 97 percent on this sand. The minimum acceptable dry unit weight for a calibration test performed on this sand is high enough to exclude a vibrating hammer that has a compaction performance similar to that of the lowest frequency vibrating hammer result for the hammer used in this research. Particle Degradation Tests To determine the particle degradation that occurs during vibrating hammer compaction, sieve analyses (ASTM C 136[30]) were performed on selected materials before and after performance of the vibrating hammer test. Negligible degradation was found to occur for most soils tested; crushed concrete aggregate was the only soil to exhibit significant degradation. The particle degradation that occurred for a crushed stone dense graded aggregate during the vibrating hammer test is shown in Figure 11. Conclusions Many of the soils tested did not exhibit compaction characteristics that would be conducive to impact compaction tests. A vibrating hammer test shows great promise as a quick method for laboratory compaction of these granular soils. Even though the compactive energy supplied in the vibrating hammer test is several orders of magnitude greater than that from impact compaction tests, the particle degradation that occurs is negligible. For sandy soils tested in the 152-mm (6-inch) diameter mold, vibrating hammer compaction tests resulted in (γd)max values that were comparable to those obtained from vibrating table tests; these

Example Paper 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.1110100Particle Size (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

by

Mas

s

Before VibratingHammer TestAfter VibratingHammer Test

Fig. 11. Particle Degradation of a Crushed Stone Dense Graded Aggregate

vibratory (γd) results were significantly greater than (γd)max values obtained from Standard Proctor compaction tests. One vibrating hammer test performed on an oven-dry granular soil specimen will provide (γd)max and the water content range that would be required in the field in order to achieve effective compaction. For the majority of the soils tested, at least 95 percent relative compaction and 80 percent relative density is obtainable within the water content range for effective field compaction. It appears as if the One-Point Vibrating Hammer Test is applicable to soils with up to 35 percent nonplastic fines or up to 15 percent plastic fines; research is continuing to further define the coarsest and finest soils for which the test is applicable.

Acknowledgments The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the Indiana Department of Transportation, nor do the contents constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The authors are grateful to the Federal Highway Administration/ Indiana Department of Transportation/Joint Transportation Research Program (Project: SPR 2783) for supporting this research. They are especially indebted to Study Advisory Committee members: Daehyeon Kim, Nayyar Siddiqui, Greg Pankow, and Scott Sipes (INDOT); Lee Gallivan (FHWA); Junior Geiger (Geiger Developing); Mark Behrens (Schneider Corporation); Jeff Farrar (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation); Kurt Sommer (INDOT Crawfordsville District Materials Engineer); Janet Lovell (Purdue Geotechnical Engineering Lab Manager); and Ryan Krueckeberg (high school research intern).

Example Paper 13

References [1] ASTM D 698-00a (2000). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction

Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[2] AASHTO M T 99-01. Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils

Using a 2.5 kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

[3] BS 1377:1975 Test 14. Determination of the dry density/moisture content relationship of

granular soil (vibrating hammer method), British Standards Institution. [4] ASTM D 4253-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit

Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[5] ASTM D 1557-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction

Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[6] Bergeson, K., Jahren, C., Wermager, M., & White, D. (1998). Embankment Quality Phase I

Report (CTRE Management Project 97-8). Ames: Iowa State University. [7] Day, R.W. (1995). “Case Study of Settlement of Gravelly Sand Backfill,” Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 184-193. [8] McCook, D.K. (1996). “Correlations Between Simple Field Test and Relative Density-Test

Values,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 10, pp. 860-862. [9] Ping, W.V, Leonard, M., and Yang, Z. (2003). “Laboratory Simulation of Field Compaction

Characteristics (Phase I): Final Report for the Florida Department of Transportation”. FSU Project No. 6120-549-39. Tallahassee: Florida State University.

[10] Rizkallah, V., and Hellweg, V. (1980). “Compaction of non cohesive soils by watering”.

Proceedings from International Conference on Compaction, Volume 1, Paris, April 1980, pp. 357-361.

[11] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. c). Development of a USBR Vibratory Compaction

Method to Determine Maximum Index Dry Unit Weight of Cohesionless Soil Containing 3-inch Maximum Size Particles. Unpublished manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Example Paper 14

[12] White, D., Bergeson, K. L., Jahren, C., and Wermager, M., (1999) “Embankment Quality Phase II Report,” Project Development Division of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Highway Research Board, Iowa DOT Project TR-401, CTRE Management Project 97-8.

[13] Pike, D.C., (1972). Compaction of graded aggregates. 1. Standard laboratory tests.

Department of the Environment, TRRL Laboratory Report LR447. Transport Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

[14] Forssblad, L. (1981). Vibratory Soil and Rock Fill Compaction, Dynapac Maskin AB,

Solna, Sweden. [15] Parsons, A.W. (1992). Compaction of Soils and Granular Materials: A Review of Research

Performed at the Transport Research Laboratory, HMSO, London. [16] Head, K.H. (1980). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing Volume 1: Soil Classification and

Compaction Tests. London: Pentech Press. [17] BS 1924:1975 Test 2. Determination of the dry density/moisture content relationship of

stabilized granular soil (vibrating hammer method), British Standards Institution. [18] BS 5835: Part 1: 1980. Recommendations for Testing of Aggregates, Part 1. Compactibility

test for graded aggregates, British Standards Institute. [19] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. a). Comparison of Vibratory Compaction Methods

Used to Determine Maximum Index Dry Unit Weight of Cohesionless Soil Containing ¾-inch Maximum Size Particles. Unpublished manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

[20] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. d). USBR Study to Evaluate Effect of Vibration

Method on Maximum Index Dry Unit Weight of Cohesionless Soil. Unpublished manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

[21] USBR 5535-94, DRAFT. Procedure for Determining the Maximum Index Unit Weight of

Cohesionless Soils using a Vibratory Hammer. Unpublished manuscript. [22] AASHTO M 145-91 (2000). Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-

Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.

[23] ASTM D 2487-00 (2000). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering

Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Example Paper 15

[24] ASTM D 4254-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[25] Bosch (2002/2003). Power Tools and Accessories Catalog. [26] Prochaska, A.B., Drnevich, V.P., Kim, D., and Sommer, K.E. (2005). “A Vibrating

Hammer Compaction Test for Granular Soils and Dense Graded Aggregates”. Submitted to the 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.

[27] ASTM D 4318-00 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and

Plasticity Index of Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[28] Benavidez, A.A., & Young, R.A. (n.d. b). Development of a Method to Verify Suitable

Performance of Vibratory Hammers Used in USBR 5535. Unpublished manuscript. Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

[29] ASTM C 778-02 (2002). Standard Specification for Standard Sand. Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, Vol. 04.01. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. [30] ASTM C 136-01 (2001). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse

Aggregates. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Biographical Information Adam Prochaska is a native of Wisconsin and completed his B.S. degree in civil engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Platteville. In 2004, he completed the M.S. degree in civil engineering at Purdue University. He currently is working towards the Ph.D. degree in Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. Vincent Drnevich obtained his B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engineering at the University of Notre Dame and his Ph.D. degree from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He was on the civil engineering faculty at the University of Kentucky for 24 years before moving to Purdue University as Professor and Head of Civil Engineering. In 2000, he stepped down from the Head position to devote more time to teaching and research at Purdue University.