6 Soils and Aggregates

Week 3: Soil and Aggregate Topics
Week 3: Soils and Aggregates
Soils
Soil classification systems
Soil related tests
Aggregates
CEE 363 Construction Materials
Aggregate Production
Aggregate Characterization
Laterite Soil--Brazil
Soils
Soil Classification
Soil Classification
Two major soil classification systems used in

the US
How do classification systems work?

Determine gradation
AASHTO Classification (ASTM D3282, AASHTO

M145)
Unified Soil Classification (USBR, 1973 and ASTM
D2487)
Is the dominant percentage of particles larger

or granular
Is the dominant percentage of particles fine
graded (or silt-clay sizes).
Why classify a soil? (USBR)
Perform Atterberg Limit tests (more on

these tests shortly).
Identifies and groups soils of similar engineering

characteristics.
Provides a common language to describe soils.
In a limited manner, soil classifications can provide
approximate values of engineering characteristics.
5
Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented

SystemASTM D3282, AASHTO M145
Sieves used in ASTM D3282 and

AASHTO M145
Actual title for ASTM D3282 and

AASHTO M145: Classification of Soils
and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for
Highway Construction Purposes.
Classification Groups split into
Granular Materials: Contains 35% or less
passing the No.200 sieve. These groups
generally make good to excellent subgrades.
Silt-Clay Materials: Contains more than
35% passing a No.200 sieve. These groups
generally are fair to poor as subgrades.
No.10
No.40
No.200
No. 10 SieveClose-up View

Soil Group
Granular
Materials
A-1
Well-graded mixture of stone

fragments, gravel, and/or
sand.
A-2
Silty or clayey gravel and

sand.
A-3
Fine sand.
Silt-Clay
Materials
A-4
Silty soils.
A-5
Silty soils. Similar to A-4. Can

be highly elastic.
A-6
Clayey soils.
A-7
Clayey soils. Similar to A-6

except for high liquid limits.
Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented SystemASTM

D3282, AASHTO M145
Soil
Group
% Passing
Sieve
Granular Materials Silt-Clay

Materials
A-1
No.10
No.40
No.200
-50% max
25% max
A-2
No.10
No.40
No.200
--35% max
A-3
No.10
No.40
No.200
-51% max
10% max
A-4
No.10
No.40
No.200
--36% min
A-5
No.10
No.40
No.200
--36% min
A-6
No.10
No.40
No.200
--36% min
A-7
No.10
No.40
No.200
--36% min

Additional tests required to perform
classification grouping.
Liquid Limit (AASHTO T89, ASTM D4318): The water
content, in percent, of a soil at the arbitrarily defined
boundary between the liquid and plastic states. See
next image to view the device used to determine LL.
The higher the LL, the poorer the soil.
Plastic Limit (PL) and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90,
ASTM D4318): The water content, in percent, of a
soil at the boundary between the plastic and brittle
states. Plasticity Index (PI) is the range of water
content over which a soil behaves plastically.
PI = LL PL. The higher the PI, the poorer the soil.
14
Soil ClassificationUnified Soil

Classification SystemASTM D2487
Liquid Limit Device
Actual title for ASTM D2487:

Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification
System)
Classification Groups split into
Coarse-grained soils: More than 50%
retained on a No.200 sieve.
Fine-grained soils: 50% or more passes
the No.200 sieve.
16
Soil ClassificationUnified Soil

Classification SystemASTM D2487
Unified Soil Classification System

ASTM D2487Additional Terminology
Coarse-grained soils: More than 50%

retained on a No.200 sieve.
Gravel: Particles of rock passing a 3 in. sieve

but retained on a No.4 sieve.
Sand: Particles of rock passing a No.4 but
retained on a No.200.
Clay: Soil passing a No.200 that exhibits
plasticity (putty-like properties) within a range
of water contents. Exhibits considerable
strength when air dry.
Silt: Soil passing a No.200 that is nonplastic or
very slightly plastic and that exhibits little or
no strength when air dry.
Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction

retained on No.4 sieve.
Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction
passes No.4 sieve.
Fine-grained soils: 50% or more

passes the No.200 sieve.
Silts and Clays: LL less than 50%.
Silts and Clays: LL 50% or more.
17
18
Unified Soil Classification SystemASTM D2487

Additional Terminology
No.4 SieveClose-up View
Soil Group Symbol
Group Name
GW
Well-graded gravel
GP
Poorly graded gravel
GM
Silty gravel
GC
Clayey gravel
SW
Well-graded sand
SP
Poorly graded sand
SM
Silty sand
SC
Clayey sand
CL
Lean clay
ML
Silt
OL
Organic silt or clay
CH
Fat clay
MH
Elastic silt
OH
Organic silt or clay
Pt
Peat

Typical Properties (Source: USBR)

ASTM D2487
As shown in the prior image, the primary goal
of this classification system is to determine the
group for a specific soil (such as CL, etc.). To
fully describe how this is done is too detailed
for this lessonbut the process is fully
described in ASTM D2487. Basically, it is a
combination of sieve analyses and Atterberg
Limits (LL, PL, PI).
The following table shows typical engineering
characteristics associated with the Unified Soil
Classification System (from USBR, 1973).
Soil
Group
Maximum Dry Optimum water

Density (pcf) content (%)
Permeability
(ft per year)
GW
>119
<13.3
27,000
GP
>110
<12.4
64,000
GM
>114
<14.5
>0.3
GC
>115
<14.7
>0.3
SW
119
13.3
--
SP
110
12.4
>15.0
SM
114
14.5
7.5
SM-SC
119
12.8
0.8
SC
115
14.7
0.3
21

Typical Properties (Source: USBR)
Soil
Group
Maximum Dry Optimum water

Density (pcf) content (%)
Permeability
(ft per year)
ML
103
0.59
19.2

Typical Properties (Source: FAA)
Soil
Group
Maximum Dry Field CBR (%)

Density (pcf)
Subgrade k
(psi/in)
GW
125-140
60-80
300 or more
GP
120-130
35-60
300 or more
ML-CL
109
16.8
0.13
GM
130-145
40-80
300 or more
CL
108
17.3
0.08
GC
120-140
20-40
200-300
OL
--
--
--
SW
110-130
20-40
200-300
MH
82
36.3
0.16
SP
105-120
15-25
200-300
CH
94
25.5
0.05
SM
120-135
20-40
200-300
OH
--
--
--
SM-SC
--
--
--
SC
105-130
10-20
200-300


Soil
Group
Maximum Dry Field CBR (%)

Density (pcf)
Subgrade k
(psi/in)
ML
100-125
5-15
100-200
ML-CL
--
--
--
CL
100-125
5-15
100-200
OL
90-105
4-8
100-200
MH
80-100
4-8
100-200
CH
90-110
3-5
50-100
OH
80-105
3-5
50-100

Soil Group
Value as a Foundation
When Not Subject to
Frost Action
Potential Frost Action
GW
Excellent
None to Very Slight
GP
Good to Excellent
None to Very Slight
GM
Good to Excellent
Slight to Medium
GC
Good
Slight to Medium
SW
Good
None to Very Slight
SP
Fair to Good
None to Very Slight
SM
Good
Slight to High
SM-SC
--
--
SC
Fair to Good
Slight to High
Soil Related Tests
Soil Group
Value as a Foundation
When Not Subject to
Frost Action
Potential Frost Action
ML
Fair to Poor
Medium to Very High
ML-CL
--
--
CL
Fair to Poor
Medium to High
OL
Poor
Medium to High
MH
Poor
Medium to Very High
CH
Poor to Very Poor
Medium
OH
Poor to Very Poor
Medium
Soil compaction
Strength or stiffness of soils
Laboratory
Field
28
Soil compaction
Soil Compaction: Moisture-Density Tests
Soil compaction is the process of

artificially increasing the density (unit
weight) of a soil by compaction (by
application of rolling, tamping, or
vibration).
Standards are needed so that the
amount of increased density needed and
achieved can be measured.
Two compaction tests are commonly
performed to achieve this information.
Moisture-density testing as practiced today was

started by R.R. Proctor in 1933. His method
became known as the standard Proctor test.
This test (today described by ASTM D698 and
AASHTO T99) applied a fixed amount of
compaction energy to a soil at various water
contents. Specifically, this involves dropping a
5.5 lb weight 12 inches and applying 25
blows per layer in 3 layers in a standard
sized mold. Thus, 12,375 ft-lb per ft3 of
compaction effort is applied.
29
30
Typical Compaction Curves

Soil Compaction: Moisture-Density Tests
US Army Corps of Engineers developed
Modified Proctor or Modified AASHTO to
accommodate compaction needs associated
with heavier aircraft used in WW 2.
ASTM D1557 and AASHTO T180: Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lb/ft3)
Refer to relative location of compaction curves
on the next image. The higher the compaction
energy, the lower the optimum water content
and the higher the dry density.
Typical for
Modified
Compaction
Typical for
Standard
Compaction
Dry Density
(lb/ft3)
Water Content (%)
31
Soil CompactionTypical Compaction

Specification
Soil CompactionTypical Compaction

Specification
Section 2-03.3(14)C, Method C: Compacting

Earth Embankments
Section 2-03.3(14)D: Compaction and Moisture

Control Tests
Each layer of the entire embankment shall be

compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density
as determined by the compaction control tests described
in Section 2-03.3(14)D. In the top 2 feet, horizontal
layers shall not exceed 4 inches in depth before
compaction. No layer below the top 2 feet shall exceed
8 inches in depth before compaction..
Under Method C, the moisture content shall not vary
more than 3 percent above or below optimum
determined by the tests in described in Section 203.3(14)D..
Go to next image.
The maximum density and optimum moisture for

materials with less than 30 percent, by mass, retained
on the US No.4 sieve shall be determined [by]
AASHTO T99.
The are many more requirements that relate to
specifying soil compaction but these two images provide
a quick but focused example.
33
34
Strength or Stiffness of Soils
California Bearing Ratio
Typical tests of soil strength are:
The CBR test is a relative measure of shear

strength for unstabilized materials and the
results are stated as a percentage of a high
quality crushed limestonethus all results are
shown as percentages. A CBR = 100% is near
the maximum possible. CBRs of less than 10%
are generally weak soils.
The test was originally developed by O. J.
Porter of the California Division of Highways in
1928. The widespread use of the CBR test was
created by the US Corps of Engineers during
WW 2.
Shear strength tests

Index types of tests
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Modulus of subgrade reaction (k)
Stabilometer Test (Hveem method)
Cone penetrometers
Resilient modulus test
CBR, R-value, cone penetrometers, and resilient
modulus tests will be briefly covered.
35
36
The CBR test can be reviewed in the WSDOT

Pavement Guide, Module 4 (Design
Parameters), Section 2 (Subgrade)-http://hotmix.ce.washington.edu/wsdot_web/i
ndex.htm
The CBR test is only conducted on unstabilized
materials (soils or aggregates).
The test is most always done in the laboratory;
however, a field test is available but rarely
conducted.
Test apparatus and specimen.

Photo by ELE International
Standard methods:
ASTM D1883, AASHTO T193.
37
38
R-value
Correlations between
CBR, AASHTO and
Unified classification
systems, the DCP, and
k.
This test was developed in California by Hveem

and Carmany in the late 1940s.
In effect, it is a relative measure of stiffness
since the test apparatus operates somewhat
like a triaxial test.
The test is mostly used by western states for
highway base and subgrade characterization.
Use of this test is likely declining a bit.
ASTM D2844 and AASHTO T190: Resistance
R-Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted
Soils
40
Stabilometer Device (R-value)
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Originally developed in the Republic of South
Africa (RSA). South Africans have used and
developed related tools and analyses for over
25 years.
Standard test method
ASTM D6951: Use of the Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications
41
42
DCP As Developed in the RSA
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Positioning System
Engine
Mass
Data Recorder
Rod
Reference
Semi-Automatic DCP
DCP
Examples of DCP use by the Minnesota
DOT
Photos of Florida DOT

equipment (June 2004).
This type of DCP saves
time and labor.
Pavement rehabilitation strategy

determination.
Locate layers in pavement structures.
Supplement foundation testing for design.
Identify weak spots in constructed
embankments.
Use as an acceptance testing tool.
Location of boundaries of required subcuts.
46
DCP
DCP (if CBR > 10) Correlation
Assumption: A correlation exists

between the strength of a material and
its resistance to penetration.
Typical measure is DCP Penetration
Index (DPI)
Measured in mm/blow or inches/blow
Maximum depth for the DCP 800 mm
Correlations follow
Correlation developed by the US

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
CBR =
292
DPI 1.12
Where
CBR = California Bearing Ratio (if CBR > 10)
DPI = Penetration Index (mm/blow)
47
48
CBR Examples (based on USACE

Correlation)
DCP (if CBR < 10) Correlation

Correlation developed by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
CBR =
1
[(0.017019)(DPI)]2
Where
CBR = California Bearing Ratio (if CBR < 10)
DPI
(mm/blow)
5
CBR
(%)
48
10
22
20
10
DPI = Penetration Index (mm/blow)

49
DCP Values and Subgrade

Improvement (Illinois DOT)
DCP Correlation
CBR Correlation developed in South
Africa (for values of DN>2 mm/blow)
CBR = 410(DN) 1.27

Where
DN = Penetration of the DCP through a
specific pavement layer in mm/blow. The DN
is a weighted average. DN is similar to DPI.
52
CBR Examples (based on RSA

Correlation)
DCP Correlation
DN
(mm/blow)
CBR
(%)
53
10
22
20
Eeff = Effective elastic modulus for a 40 kN

load.
40
DN = Weighted average DCP penetration rate

in mm/blow.
Modulus Correlation developed in South

Africa
logE eff = 3.04758 1.06166log (DN)

Where
R2 = 76% and n = 86 data points
54
Typical DCP Plot (from RSA)
E-value Examples (based on RSA

Correlation)
DN
(mm/blow)
5
Eeff
MPa (psi)
202 (29,000 psi)
10
97 (14,000 psi)
20
46 (7,000 psi)
40
22 (3,000 psi)
DCP Testing Frequency (based on RSA

recommendations)
RSA Design Curves
Existing paved road

8 DCP tests randomly spaced over the
length of the project in both the outer
wheelpath and between the wheelpaths.
Gravel road
5 DCP tests per kilometer with the tests
staggered between the outer and between
wheelpaths.
Perform additional test at significant
locations identified via visual distress
survey.
Note: MISA is the same as ESALs.
58
DCPSupplemental Information
Modulus Background
59
What is it?
Nomenclature?
What affects values?
Typical values?
60
10
Elastic Modulus
Pavement Modulus Abbreviations

EAC = Asphalt Concrete
EPCC = Portland Cement Concrete
EBS = Base course
ESB = Subbase course
ESG or MR = Subgrade
62
Stress Stiffening
Stress Softening
Comparison of Moduli for Various

Materials
Moduli for Various Materials Pavement

Materials
Material
E (MPa)
Material
E (MPa)
HMA (0C)
21,000
Rubber
HMA (20C)
3,500
Wood
7,000-14,000
HMA (50C)
350
Aluminum
70,000
Steel
200,000
Portland Cement
Concrete
Crushed Stone Base
2040,000
150-750
Diamond
1,200,000
Subgrade Soils
35-210
11
Summary of National Pavement

Practices
Summary of National Pavement

Practices
State DOT Flexible Pavement Design

Subgrade Inputs
State DOT Rigid Pavement Design Subgrade

Inputs
Resilient Modulus (MR)
Modulus Correlations
Use with caution
Measure: stress-strain
Units: psi, MPa
Typical Values
MR = (1500) (CBR)
Fine-grained materials with soaked CBR 10
Subgrade: 3,000 to 40,000

psi
Crushed rock: 20,000 to
50,000 psi
HMA: 200,000 to 500,000
psi at 70F
MR = 1,000 + (555)(R-value)
Fine-grained soils with R-Value 20
MR = (2555)CBR0.64
New AASHTO Design Guide
70
Picture from University of Tokyo Geotechnical Engineering Lab
ModulusCBR Correlation
Modulus Correlation developed by TRRL
E = (17.6)CBR 0.64
Aggregates
Where
E = Elastic modulus (MPa)
CBR = California Bearing Ratio
71
12
Aggregate production in the US is

largesome annual production
figures include:
Sand and gravel (estimated for 2003)

1.13 billion metric tons of sand and gravel produced
in the US in 2003.
Value $5.8 billion
Produced by 4,000 companies from 6,400 operations
in all 50 states. Leading production states are:
California, Texas, Michigan, Arizona, Ohio,
Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, Nevada, and
Colorado.
How were these aggregates used?
Natural aggregates
Sand and gravel: 1.13 billion metric tons
Crushed stone: 1.49 billion metric tons
Recycled aggregates: 200 million metric

tons produced from demolition wastes
(includes roads and buildings).
53% unspecified
20% concrete aggregates
11% road bases and road stabilization
7% construction fill
6% HMA and other bituminous mixtures
3% other applications
73
74
Crushed stone (estimated for 2003)
Crushed stonecont.
1.49 billion metric tons of crushed stone

produced in the US in 2003.
Value $8.6 billion
Produced by 1,260 companies from 3,300
operations in 49 states. Leading production
states are: Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania,
Missouri, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina,
Virginia, and California.
How were these aggregates used? 35% was for
unspecified uses followed by construction
aggregates mostly for highway and road
construction and maintenance, chemical and
metallurgical uses (including cement and lime
production), agricultural uses, etc.
Of the crushed stone produced it was

composed of these source rock types:
Limestone and dolomite: 71%

Granite: 15%
Traprock: 7%
Sandstone, quartzite, marble, etc: 7%
75
76
Perspective
View Aggregate Production

at Glacier NW
The eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980

was estimated to produce 3.7 billion yd3
of debris. This amounts to about 5.6
billion metric tons of material (assuming
a unit weight of 125 lb/ft3). The total
annual production of sand and gravel,
crushed stone, and recycled aggregates
amounts to about 50% of the St. Helens
debris.
78
13
Recycled aggregates (1999)
Recycled aggregates (1999)cont.
200 million metric tons of recycled

aggregates produced (or generated) in
the US in 2000.
asphalt paving materials recovered
annually. 80% of this material is
recycled with the other 20% going to
landfills. Of the 80% that is recycled
2/3 used as aggregates for road base
and 1/3 reused as aggregate for new
HMA.

concrete is recovered annually.
68% of recycled concrete reused as road
base.
9% aggregate for HMA mixes
6% aggregate for new PCC mixes
3% riprap
7% general fill
7% other applications
79
80
Aggregate Physical Properties
Recycled aggregates (1999)cont.

Only 15% of recycled aggregates reused in HMA
or PCC mixeswhy?Due to quality issues (the
lack thereof).
Economics of recycling according to USGS (1999
data)
Capital investment for an aggregate recycling
facility about $4.40 to $8.80 per metric ton of
annual capacity.
Processing costs: Range from $2.76 to $6.61
per metric ton. Average production of fixed site
processing facilities is 150,000 ton/year.
Prices best for aggregate-poor southern states.
81
Maximum Aggregate Size

Gradation
Other Aggregate Properties
Toughness and Abrasion Resistance

Specific Gravity
Particle Shape and Surface Texture
Durability and Soundness
Cleanliness and Deleterious Materials
82
Aggregate Gradation
Maximum Aggregate Size

Maximum size
The smallest sieve through which 100 percent
of the aggregate particles pass.
Nominal maximum size

The largest sieve that retains some of the
aggregate particles but generally not more
than 10 percent by weight.
83
14
0.45 Power Curves
Calculation of the Max Density Curve
d
P=
D
where P = % finer than the sieve

d = aggregate size being considered
D = maximum aggregate size being used
n = parameter which equals 0.45represents the
maximum particle packing
85
86
Types of Gradations
Gradations and Permeability
Uniformly graded
- Few points of contact
- Poor interlock (shape dependent)
- High permeability
Well graded
- Good interlock
- Low permeability
Gap graded
- Only limited sizes
- Good interlock
- Low permeability
87
Los Angeles Abrasion Test

Other Aggregate Properties
Start with fraction retained on No. 12 sieve
Los Angeles Abrasion

Soundness
Sand Equivalent
89
90
15
Sand Equivalent
Soundness Test
Sample submerged in magnesium
or sodium sulfatecauses salt
crystals to form in the aggregate
pores
This is a test to determine the amount of

clay in fine aggregate.
Aggregate passing a No. 4 sieve is
agitated in a water-filled transparent
cylinder. Liquid is water and flocculating
agent. After settling, the sand separates
from the flocculated clay. Measure each.
SE = (Height of Sand/Height of Clay)100

91
92
Photo Courtesy of Caltrans
Week 3: References
Week 3: References
USGS (2004), Mineral Commodity Summaries,

US Geological Survey, January 2004.
USGS (1999), Natural AggregatesFoundation
of Americas Future, USGS Fact SheetFS
144-97, Reprinted February 1999.
WSDOT (2003),WSDOT Pavement Guide
Interactive, Washington State Department of
Transportation, URL:
FAA (1996), Airport Pavement Design and

Evaluation, Advisory Circular 150/5320-6D,
Federal Aviation Administration, January 30, 1996.
http://hotmix.ce.washington.edu/wsdot_web/index.htm
USBR (1973), Design of Small Dams, Second

Edition, US Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation.
93
http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5320-6dp1.pdf
PCA (1992), PCA Soil Primer, Publication

EB007.05S, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois.
WSDOT (2004), Standard Specifications for Road,
Bridge, and Municipal Construction, M41-10,
Washington State Department of Transportation.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/EngineeringPublications/Manu
als/SS2004.PDF
94
16

6 Soils and Aggregates

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

6 Soils and Aggregates

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Week 3: Soil and Aggregate Topics

Week 3: Soils and Aggregates

CEE 363 Construction Materials

Two major soil classification systems used in

How do classification systems work?

AASHTO Classification (ASTM D3282, AASHTO

Is the dominant percentage of particles larger

Why classify a soil? (USBR)

Perform Atterberg Limit tests (more on

Identifies and groups soils of similar engineering

Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented

Sieves used in ASTM D3282 and

Actual title for ASTM D3282 and

No. 10 SieveClose-up View

No. 200 SieveClose-up View

No. 40 SieveClose-up View

Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented

Well-graded mixture of stone

Silty or clayey gravel and

Silty soils. Similar to A-4. Can

Clayey soils. Similar to A-6

Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented SystemASTM

Granular Materials Silt-Clay

Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented

Soil ClassificationUnified Soil

Liquid Limit Device

Actual title for ASTM D2487:

Soil ClassificationUnified Soil

Unified Soil Classification System

Coarse-grained soils: More than 50%

Gravel: Particles of rock passing a 3 in. sieve

Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction

Fine-grained soils: 50% or more

Unified Soil Classification SystemASTM D2487

No.4 SieveClose-up View

Soil Group Symbol

Poorly graded gravel

Poorly graded sand

Organic silt or clay

Organic silt or clay

Unified Soil Classification System

Unified Soil Classification System

Maximum Dry Optimum water

Unified Soil Classification System

Maximum Dry Optimum water

Unified Soil Classification System

Maximum Dry Field CBR (%)

Unified Soil Classification System

Unified Soil Classification System

Maximum Dry Field CBR (%)

Unified Soil Classification System

Potential Frost Action

None to Very Slight

None to Very Slight

None to Very Slight

None to Very Slight

Soil Related Tests

Potential Frost Action

Medium to Very High

Medium to Very High

Poor to Very Poor

Poor to Very Poor

Soil Compaction: Moisture-Density Tests

Soil compaction is the process of