Week 3: Soil and Aggregate Topics

Week 3: Soils and Aggregates Soils

Soil classification systems
Soil related tests

CEE 363 Construction Materials Aggregates

Aggregate Production
Aggregate Characterization

1 2

Laterite Soil--Brazil

Soils

Soil Classification Soil Classification

Two major soil classification systems used in How do classification systems work?
the US Determine gradation
AASHTO Classification (ASTM D3282, AASHTO
Is the dominant percentage of particles larger
M145)
or granular
Unified Soil Classification (USBR, 1973 and ASTM
D2487) Is the dominant percentage of particles fine
graded (or silt-clay sizes).
Why classify a soil? (USBR)
Perform Atterberg Limit tests (more on
Identifies and groups soils of similar engineering
characteristics. these tests shortly).
Provides a common language to describe soils.
In a limited manner, soil classifications can provide
approximate values of engineering characteristics.
5 6

1
Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented Sieves used in ASTM D3282 and
SystemASTM D3282, AASHTO M145 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 No.10 No.40 No.200
35% passing a No.200 sieve. These groups
generally are fair to poor as subgrades.
7

No. 10 SieveClose-up View No. 40 SieveClose-up View

No. 200 SieveClose-up View Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented

SystemASTM D3282, AASHTO M145
Soil Group Granular Silt-Clay
Materials Materials
Well-graded mixture of stone
A-1 fragments, gravel, and/or
sand.
Silty or clayey gravel and
A-2 sand.

Fine sand.
A-3
Silty soils.
A-4
Silty soils. Similar to A-4. Can
A-5 be highly elastic.

A-6 Clayey soils.

Clayey soils. Similar to A-6

A-7 except for high liquid limits.

2
Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented SystemASTM
D3282, AASHTO M145
Soil ClassificationHighway Oriented
Soil % Passing Granular Materials Silt-Clay
Group Sieve Materials SystemASTM D3282, AASHTO M145
No.10 --
A-1 No.40
No.200
50% max
25% max Additional tests required to perform
A-2 No.10 -- classification grouping.
No.40 --
No.200 35% max Liquid Limit (AASHTO T89, ASTM D4318): The water
A-3 No.10 -- content, in percent, of a soil at the arbitrarily defined
No.40 51% max
boundary between the liquid and plastic states. See
No.200 10% max
No.10 --
next image to view the device used to determine LL.
A-4 No.40 -- The higher the LL, the poorer the soil.
No.200 36% min
Plastic Limit (PL) and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90,
A-5 No.10
No.40
--
-- ASTM D4318): The water content, in percent, of a
No.200 36% min soil at the boundary between the plastic and brittle
A-6 No.10 -- states. Plasticity Index (PI) is the range of water
No.40 --
No.200 36% min
content over which a soil behaves plastically.
PI = LL PL. The higher the PI, the poorer the soil.
A-7 No.10
No.40
--
--
No.200 36% min 14

Liquid Limit Device Soil ClassificationUnified Soil

Classification SystemASTM D2487
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 Unified Soil Classification System

Classification SystemASTM D2487
Coarse-grained soils: More than 50%
retained on a No.200 sieve.
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
ASTM D2487Additional Terminology
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.
18

3
 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

Unified Soil Classification System Unified Soil Classification System

ASTM D2487 Typical Properties (Source: USBR)
Soil Maximum Dry Optimum water Permeability
As shown in the prior image, the primary goal Group Density (pcf) content (%) (ft per year)
of this classification system is to determine the
GW >119 <13.3 27,000
group for a specific soil (such as CL, etc.). To
GP >110 <12.4 64,000
fully describe how this is done is too detailed
for this lessonbut the process is fully GM >114 <14.5 >0.3
described in ASTM D2487. Basically, it is a GC >115 <14.7 >0.3
combination of sieve analyses and Atterberg SW 119 13.3 --
Limits (LL, PL, PI). SP 110 12.4 >15.0
The following table shows typical engineering SM 114 14.5 7.5
characteristics associated with the Unified Soil
SM-SC 119 12.8 0.8
Classification System (from USBR, 1973).
SC 115 14.7 0.3
21

Unified Soil Classification System Unified Soil Classification System

Typical Properties (Source: USBR) Typical Properties (Source: FAA)
Soil Maximum Dry Field CBR (%) Subgrade k
Soil Maximum Dry Optimum water Permeability Group Density (pcf) (psi/in)
Group Density (pcf) content (%) (ft per year) GW 125-140 60-80 300 or more
ML 103 19.2 0.59 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

4
Unified Soil Classification System Unified Soil Classification System
Typical Properties (Source: FAA) Typical Properties (Source: FAA)
Soil Group Value as a Foundation Potential Frost Action
Soil Maximum Dry Field CBR (%) Subgrade k When Not Subject to
Group Density (pcf) (psi/in) Frost Action

ML 100-125 5-15 100-200 GW Excellent None to Very Slight

ML-CL -- -- -- GP Good to Excellent None to Very Slight

CL 100-125 5-15 100-200 GM Good to Excellent Slight to Medium

OL 90-105 4-8 100-200 GC Good Slight to Medium

MH 80-100 4-8 100-200 SW Good None to Very Slight

CH 90-110 3-5 50-100 SP Fair to Good None to Very Slight

OH 80-105 3-5 50-100 SM Good Slight to High

SM-SC -- --
SC Fair to Good Slight to High

Unified Soil Classification System

Typical Properties (Source: FAA) Soil Related Tests
Soil Group Value as a Foundation Potential Frost Action
When Not Subject to Soil compaction
Frost Action
Strength or stiffness of soils
ML Fair to Poor Medium to Very High
ML-CL -- --
Laboratory
CL Fair to Poor Medium to High Field
OL Poor Medium to High
MH Poor Medium to Very High
CH Poor to Very Poor Medium
OH Poor to Very Poor Medium

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

5
 Typical Compaction Curves
Soil Compaction: Moisture-Density Tests Typical for
Modified
Compaction
US Army Corps of Engineers developed
Modified Proctor or Modified AASHTO to
accommodate compaction needs associated Typical for
with heavier aircraft used in WW 2. Standard
Dry Density Compaction
ASTM D1557 and AASHTO T180: Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using (lb/ft3)
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 Water Content (%)
and the higher the dry density.
31

Soil CompactionTypical Compaction Soil CompactionTypical Compaction

Specification
Section 2-03.3(14)C, Method C: Compacting
Earth Embankments
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 2-
03.3(14)D..
Go to next image.
Specification
Section 2-03.3(14)D: Compaction and Moisture
Control Tests
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:
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
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.
36

6
California Bearing Ratio California Bearing Ratio
The CBR test can be reviewed in the WSDOT
Pavement Guide, Module 4 (Design
Parameters), Section 2 (Subgrade)-- Test apparatus and specimen.
http://hotmix.ce.washington.edu/wsdot_web/i Photo by ELE International
ndex.htm
The CBR test is only conducted on unstabilized
materials (soils or aggregates). Standard methods:
The test is most always done in the laboratory; ASTM D1883, AASHTO T193.
however, a field test is available but rarely
conducted.

37 38

R-value
This test was developed in California by Hveem
and Carmany in the late 1940s.
In effect, it is a relative measure of stiffness
Correlations between since the test apparatus operates somewhat
CBR, AASHTO and like a triaxial test.
Unified classification
systems, the DCP, and The test is mostly used by western states for
k. 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

7
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer DCP As Developed in the RSA

Positioning System
Engine

Mass
Data Recorder

Rod

Reference

Semi-Automatic DCP
DCP
Examples of DCP use by the Minnesota
DOT
Pavement rehabilitation strategy
determination.
Locate layers in pavement structures.
Supplement foundation testing for design.
Identify weak spots in constructed
embankments.
Photos of Florida DOT Use as an acceptance testing tool.
equipment (June 2004). Location of boundaries of required subcuts.
This type of DCP saves
time and labor. 46

DCP DCP (if CBR > 10) Correlation

Assumption: A correlation exists Correlation developed by the US
between the strength of a material and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
its resistance to penetration.
Typical measure is DCP Penetration 292
Index (DPI) CBR =
Measured in mm/blow or inches/blow
DPI 1.12
Maximum depth for the DCP 800 mm Where
Correlations follow CBR = California Bearing Ratio (if CBR > 10)
DPI = Penetration Index (mm/blow)
47 48

8
DCP (if CBR < 10) Correlation CBR Examples (based on USACE
Correlation)
Correlation developed by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) DPI CBR
1 (mm/blow) (%)
CBR = 5 48
[(0.017019)(DPI)]2
10 22
Where
CBR = California Bearing Ratio (if CBR < 10) 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 CBR Modulus Correlation developed in South
(mm/blow) (%) Africa
5 53 logE eff = 3.04758 1.06166log (DN)
Where
10 22 R2 = 76% and n = 86 data points
Eeff = Effective elastic modulus for a 40 kN
20 9 load.
DN = Weighted average DCP penetration rate
40 4 in mm/blow.
54

9
E-value Examples (based on RSA Typical DCP Plot (from RSA)
Correlation)
DN Eeff
(mm/blow) MPa (psi)
5 202 (29,000 psi)

10 97 (14,000 psi)

20 46 (7,000 psi)

40 22 (3,000 psi)

RSA Design Curves DCP Testing Frequency (based on RSA

recommendations)

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

What is it?
Nomenclature?
What affects values?
Typical values?

59 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

Moduli for Various Materials Pavement

Comparison of Moduli for Various Materials
Materials Material E (MPa)

Material E (MPa) HMA (0C) 21,000

Rubber 7 HMA (20C) 3,500

Wood 7,000-14,000 HMA (50C) 350

Aluminum 70,000 Portland Cement 20-

Concrete 40,000
Steel 200,000
Crushed Stone Base 150-750
Diamond 1,200,000
Subgrade Soils 35-210

11
Summary of National Pavement Summary of National Pavement
Practices Practices

State DOT Flexible Pavement Design

State DOT Rigid Pavement Design Subgrade
Subgrade Inputs
Inputs

Resilient Modulus (MR)

Modulus Correlations
Measure: stress-strain Use with caution
Units: psi, MPa MR = (1500) (CBR)
Typical Values Fine-grained materials with soaked CBR 10
Subgrade: 3,000 to 40,000
psi MR = 1,000 + (555)(R-value)
Crushed rock: 20,000 to Fine-grained soils with R-Value 20
50,000 psi
MR = (2555)CBR0.64
HMA: 200,000 to 500,000
psi at 70F 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 Aggregate Production
Sand and gravel (estimated for 2003)
Aggregate production in the US is 1.13 billion metric tons of sand and gravel produced
largesome annual production in the US in 2003.
Value $5.8 billion
figures include: Produced by 4,000 companies from 6,400 operations
in all 50 states. Leading production states are:
Natural aggregates California, Texas, Michigan, Arizona, Ohio,
Sand and gravel: 1.13 billion metric tons Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, Nevada, and
Colorado.
Crushed stone: 1.49 billion metric tons How were these aggregates used?
53% unspecified
Recycled aggregates: 200 million metric 20% concrete aggregates
tons produced from demolition wastes 11% road bases and road stabilization
7% construction fill
(includes roads and buildings).
6% HMA and other bituminous mixtures
3% other applications
73 74

Aggregate Production Aggregate Production

Crushed stone (estimated for 2003) Crushed stonecont.
1.49 billion metric tons of crushed stone
produced in the US in 2003. Of the crushed stone produced it was
Value $8.6 billion composed of these source rock types:
Produced by 1,260 companies from 3,300
operations in 49 states. Leading production Limestone and dolomite: 71%
states are: Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Granite: 15%
Missouri, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina,
Virginia, and California. Traprock: 7%
How were these aggregates used? 35% was for Sandstone, quartzite, marble, etc: 7%
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.
75 76

Aggregate Production
Perspective
The eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980
View Aggregate Production was estimated to produce 3.7 billion yd3
of debris. This amounts to about 5.6
at Glacier NW 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
Aggregate Production Aggregate Production
Recycled aggregates (1999) Recycled aggregates (1999)cont.
200 million metric tons of recycled 100 million metric tons of recycled
aggregates produced (or generated) in concrete is recovered annually.
the US in 2000.
68% of recycled concrete reused as road
100 million metric tons of recycled base.
asphalt paving materials recovered
9% aggregate for HMA mixes
annually. 80% of this material is
recycled with the other 20% going to 6% aggregate for new PCC mixes
landfills. Of the 80% that is recycled 3% riprap
2/3 used as aggregates for road base 7% general fill
and 1/3 reused as aggregate for new 7% other applications
HMA.
79 80

Aggregate Production Aggregate Characterization

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.
Aggregate Physical Properties
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

81 82

Aggregate Characterization
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

n
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
Soundness Test
Sample submerged in magnesium
or sodium sulfatecauses salt
crystals to form in the aggregate
pores
91
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:
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
Sand Equivalent
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
92
Photo Courtesy of Caltrans
Week 3: References
FAA (1996), Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation, Advisory Circular 150/5320-6D,
Federal Aviation Administration, January 30, 1996.
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