677/70-4,1<e-0-/S C4,0

3517Q

REPORT NO. MS 39-I

LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE

RELATION OF A SOIL

LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS

R.C. ANDREWS
SENIOR SCIENTIST

JULY 1986
1111111111111111
35170

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report has been to highlight those factors which affect
the determination of maximum dry density. In addition, the tests limitations,
accuracy and application to soft materials have been discussed in the light of
dry density ratio determinations in terms of AS 1289 Section E.

The experimental data on oversize has shown that the use of factors beyond 20%
oversize in a material is not a uniform relationship for all materials.
Indeed the factor accounting for bridging particles during compaction is
strongly influenced by rock hardness and therefore two different materials
containing identical oversize portions will not produce the same factor. On
the other hand up to 20% oversize the "density displacement theory" has been
shown to be correct but should be applied to the laboratory density rather
than the field density in order to maintain the correct definition of relative
compaction.

The basis of the report led to a Departmental Seminar for all Regional
Engineers and testing staff being held and covering both field density,
laboratory density and relative compaction acceptance schemes.

Coming out of the report are test methods covering:

(i) Dry Density Ratio and Sampling for MDD

(ii) Pretreatment of materials by compaction

and a Technical note on aspects of graphical interpretation of test data to

define the dry density-moisture content relationship of a soil.
3517Q

LIST OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

2. AUSTRALIAN STANDARD AS1289

3. FACTORS AFFECTING LABORATORY COMPACTION

(a) Mould Size

(b) Compactive Effort
(c) Mass and Drop of Rammer
(d) Number of Blows/Layer and Number of Layers
(e) Ratio of Mould Diameter to Rammer Diameter

4. TEST ACCURACY AND PRECISION

(a) Accuracy and Technique

(b) Magnitude of Error

5. BREAKDOWN OF SOFT MATERIALS

6. OVERSIZE/LARGE NOMINAL SIZE MATERIALS

(a) Standard Specification Pavement Materials

(b) Oversize Corrections
(c) Further Development

7. OVERALL LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPACTION TEST

8. REVIEW OF OTHER STATE AUTHORITIES

9. REFERENCES
3517Q

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. GRAPHICAL SOLUTION FOR PEAK POINT OF PARABOLA

2. HOSA COMPACTION CURVES

3. COMPACTION CURVES EXTRACT FROM AS1289 A 1.1

4. AASHTO T224 "OVERSIZE CORRECTION"

'D
5. INFLUENCE OF U/DO' AND 'R' ON DENSITY

6. ANGASTON MARBLE 20% INITIAL OVERSIZE

7. ANGASTON MARBLE 40% INITIAL OVERSIZE

8. ANGASTON MARBLE 60% INITIAL OVERSIZE

9. RIVERVIEW DOLOMITE 20% INITIAL OVERSIZE

10. RIVERVIEW DOLOMITE 40% INITIAL OVERSIZE

11. EAGLE QUARTZITE 20% INITIAL OVERSIZE

12. EAGLE QUARTZITE 40% INITIAL OVERSIZE

13. 'R' FOUND EMPIRICALLY VERSUS OVERSIZE

3517Q
LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE
RELATION OF A SOIL
LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS

1. INTRODUCTION

The demand for controls in checking field compaction achievements originated

in the early thirties pioneered by Proctor and further developed by AASHO from
1938. Nearly all methods have followed the lines of compacting material in
layers in a mould using a specified Mass rammer and fall height (impact type
compaction) and many variations of equipment for various sized materials
developed. Other types of compaction methods have included kneading, and
static compression although these have little exposure in the area of relative
compaction quality control. However, vibrating compaction is used for
compaction control of cohesionless soils (SANDS) quite extensively and is

defined in AS 1289 E.6.1.

The impact type compaction test was originally developed with the concept that
it could serve as a flexible design tool to determine the compactive effort
necessary to produce a dry density that would reduce settlement, increase
strength and otherwise control soil properties within a range achievable with
construction equipment. This early concept in terms of defining a field
procedure to obtain the desired product has changed in that it now has a far
more discrete application asa quality control tool. Almost exclusively
compactive effort has been fixed constant in an attempt to "loosely" relate to
field compactive efforts. Almost universally only two laboratory compactive
efforts are used viz.

3
Standard Compaction - compactive effort 596 + 14 kJ/m
3
and Modified Compaction compactive effort 2703 + 50 kJ/m
3517Q
2

In addition, most early standards confined testing material to small nominal

size, firstly material finer than 4.75 mm (ASTM et al), progressively
increasing to material finer than 19 mm as shown below.

Further developments in pavement construction however proved the worth of

utilising material of larger nominal size whilst maintaining the same

compaction test procedures and equipment sizes. In recognition of this,
various efforts have been made to incorporate oversize corrections, all of

which have been and still are controversial. A different approach has been to
"move up" to larger apparatus but in practical terms no Road Authority in

Australia pis P r#§114tic procedure for compaction quality control via

Relative Compaction incorporating labor0t9rY maximum dry density determination
for materials exceeding a nominal size of 40 mm (i.e. without questionable
oversize corrections
MN all MI MI 1111 IN MI =I NMI

3517Q
- 3 -

ESSENTIALS OF IMPACT-TYPE COMPACTION TEST METHODS USED IN THE UNITED STATES

Test AASHO Designation: T 99-57 AASHO Designation: T 180-57 Cali- Corps of Bureau
Identification ASTM Designation: D 698-58T ASTM Designation: D 1557-58T fornia Engin- of Recla-
Impact eers mation
Meth. A Meth. B Meth. C Meth. D Meth. A Meth. B Meth. C Meth. D Method Method Method

Mould:

Diameter (mm) 100 150 100 150 100 150 100 150 75 150 150
Height (mm) 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 250 114 150

Rammer:
Weight (I b) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.5
Free drop (in.) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 18.0 18 18 18 18 18 18
Face diameter 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(in.)

Total No. Layers 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

Compaction
Effort:
Blows per layer 25 56 25 56 25 56 25 56 20 55 25
Energy (ft-It,/ 12375 12317 12375 12317 56250 55986 56250 55986 33000 56022 12375
cu ft)
Maximum size,
% passing (mm) 4.75 4.75 19 19 4.75 4.75 19 19 19 19 4.75
Correction for
oversize No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
/7% /30% /7% /30%
 35170
-3

2. AUSTRALIAN STANDARD AS 1289

The use of dry density ratio as a quality control tool for acceptance of field
compaction is widely accepted. In essence, the degree of compaction to be

achieved in the field is specified as a proportion of that obtained under

controlled conditions in the laboratory.

The Laboratory Compaction Test is specified in AS 1289 for two compactive

efforts, viz standard and modified, and more specifically pertains to material
finer than 19 mm described as tests E1.1 and E2.1. In these two tests, all

apparatus and methods are standardised and no variation is permitted. The set
dimensions of apparatus and method are summarised in Table 1 below:

TABLE I AS 1289 STANDARD MODIFIED

COMPACTION COMPACTION
E1.1 E2.1

Apparatus Value Working Value Working

Tolerance Tolerance

MOULD
Individual internal diameter, mm 105.0 + 1.0 105.0 + 1.0
Average internal diameter, mm 105.0 + 0.5 105.0 + 0.5
Height, mm 115.5 + 0.5 115.2 ± 0.5

Calculated volume cm3 1 000.12 + 13.9 1 000.12 + 13.9

Height, mm 1 000 - 1 000

RAMMER
Diameter, mm 50 + 0.4 50 + 0.4
Drop, mm 300 ± 2.0 450 + 2.0
Mass, kg 2.7 +' 0.01 4.9 + 0.02

Energy delivered per blow, J 7.9 + 0.08 21.62 + 0.18

Number of layers 3 - 5 -
Height, mm 25 - 25 -

Energy input, kJ/m3 -

(g = 9.80665 m/S2) 595.75 + 14.0 2 102.96 + 60.0

1
3517Q
- 4

Where material with nominal size larger than 19 mm is encountered, two options
within the Australian Standard are available, viz:

(i) use of tests E1.1 and E2.1 where the sample is initially separated on the
19 mm sieve, oversize discarded, and compaction tests conducted on the
minus 19 mm. Alternatively a mass of material (finer than 19 mm but
coarser than 4.75 mm) equivalent to the mass of oversize can be added.

(ii) Use of tests E1.2 and E2.2 which allow variations in apparatus and method

provided that the same compactive effort is maintained. Commonly CBR

moulds are used which allow separation on the 37.5 mm sieve, thereby
reducing the amount of oversize in the sample. The Standard suggests
that the mould diameter be four times (standard compaction) or five times
(modified compaction) the maximum nominal size of material. As examples,
Barron reports on compaction tests conducted in Victoria using large
sized material in oversize moulds shown in Table 2. These tests were an
"all in/no oversize" approach and represent laboratory attempts to obtain
density moisture content relationships for the whole material actually
being compacted in the pavement layer.

TABLE II DETAILS OF SUBSIDIARY LABORATORY COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

AS 1289 E1.2, E2.2.

Standard Maximum Mould Dimension Rammer No of Layer Compaction

Compaction Particle Face Layers
Size (mm) Vol Vol Height dia Blows Hammer Hammer Energy
(an3) (mm) (m) (mm) (No) Mass Drop Input
(kg) (mm) (kJ/m3)

Standard 19 1 000 105 115.5 50 3 25 2.1 300 596

596 + 14
kJ/m3 37.5 2 127 152.4 116.6 50 3 53 2.7 300 594
E1.2 63. 15 580 225 305 90 3 83 12.47 306 594

Modified 19 1 000 105 115.5 50 3 25 4.9 450 2 703

2703 + 60
kJ/m3 37.5 4 241 190 220 50 5 106 4.9 450 2 702
E2.2 53 11 799 215 325 90 5 163 10 400 2 710
75 31 809 300 450 100 5 438 10 400 2 701
3517Q
5

In addition to E1.2 and E2.2 being used for larger size materials it also
serves as a "covering" method for tests E1.1 and E2.1 when the apparatus
used for these tests exceeds the tolerances provided. Therefore instead of
having to "write off" moulds they can continue to be used with an adjustment
e.g. say the number of blows per layer.

Although tests E1.2 and E2.2 have general use for large moulds any of the
following variables are permitted:

internal diameter of mould

height of mould
volume of mould
number of layers in which the soil is compacted
number of rammer blows per layer of soil
drop mass of rammer
free full height of rammer
diameter of rammer striking face

However, the combination of all variables must provide the same compactive
effort (standard or modified) as in E1.1 or E2.1 respectively.

3. FACTORS AFFECTING LABORATORY COMPACTION

The paper by Spies discusses in detail the variations that can be made and
their effects on density and from which some of the following data has been
extracted.

(a) Mould Size

The purpose of specifying minimum mould diameters for particular

particle sizes is necessary to effectively prevent bridging of large
particles in a small mould such that transmission of compactive effort
from the large particles to the "binder" fractions occurs. The height
3517Q

of mould also should be 3 times or 5 times (standard/modification

respectively) the maximum particle size to prevent over-pulverization
of larger stones by the hammer.

Whilst it is not uncommon for CBR size moulds (diam 152 mm) to be used
with standard or modified effort (see Table 2) thereby reducing the

oversize portion to that retained on 37.5 mm they are strictly speaking

not large enough for modified effort and the decision to use it must be

assessed in terms of the complete sample grading e.g. If. a

"significant" portion of +26.5 -37.5 mm material were present, then

separation on the 26.5 mm size should be taken if a CBR mould is to be
used.

All researchers tend to show that, within the experimental error of the
test, the diameter of the mould does not significantly influence dry
density provided that a constant hammer diameter to mould diameter
ratio is kept. For the situation of 100 and 150 mm diameter moulds
3
using the same hammer a reduction in density of 0.02 t/m (maximum
3
0.05 t/m ) has been reported (Spies). From experience the manpower
requirements in the production of test results is not severely
increased, however the amount of material required is up to three times
that required for 100 mm moulds.

Whilst the use of even larger moulds has received some investigation,
(as detailed by Barron) the physical manpower requirements are such
that it ceases to be an efficient method for quality control assessment.
3517Q
- 7 -

(b) Compactive Effort

The compactive effort is described as an energy per unit volume

parameter determined from:

Ec = ENERGY
VOLUME

Ec = 4 000 xWxHxNxn
2
3.17 ird x h

3
where E compactive effort. - KJ/m
c
hammer mass - kgms
fall height of hammer - metres
number of - layers
mould diameter cms
mould height - cms

N = number of hammer blows/layer

4 000 = dimensional unit conversion.

In consideration of maximum dry density it is important to realise that

it is not the absolute maximum dry density that can be achieved for the
material. Rather, it is the maximum dry density related to the
discrete compactive effort used.

It is obvious that higher compactive efforts can produce higher maximum

dry densities particularly with materials that breakdown under impact.
Consequently it can be expected (and frequently happens) that the use
of increasingly heavier and more efficient field rollers with large
compactive efforts, can produce insitu dry densities in excess of 100%
of the laboratory value.

Such observations have given rise to the so-called "Compaction to

Refusal" test in which the absolute maximum density under impact is

obtained in the Laboratory for comparison with field achievements.

3517Q
8

(c) Mass (W) and Drop of Rammer (H)

Variance of these two factors by 50% from the modified rammer have
3
shown that changes in density are less than 0.015 t/m under
conditions of constant energy (i.e. same compactive effort). It is not

usual for these two parameters to be varied as it implies that specific

rammers need to be manufactured.

(d) Number of Blows/Layer (N) and Number of Layers (n)

The number of blows N/layer is often used as a variable where larger

moulds are adopted and to produce compacted specimens other than 100%
compactive effort. However, the number of layers "n" is not generally
altered in order to provide uniform compaction throughout the specimen.

(e) Ratio of Mould Diameter to Rammer Diameter

Where larger size moulds are used it has been suggested that larger
diameter rammers be adopted (RCA Vic) whilst keeping the ratio
constant. The ratio suggested is 1.3-2.0. In changing from a standard
mould to a CBR (152 mm diameter) mould whilst using the same 50 mm
3
diameter rammer the average reduction in density is around 0.02 t/m
3
(maximum 0.05 t/m ). The reduction in density is most likely to be
associated with excessive lateral movement of the material under the
hammer action.
 COMPACTION TEST PARABOLA VERTEX

1. Graphical Solution for Vertex of a Parabola with Vertical Axis Given 3 Points (See Fig. 1).

(a) Of the points available choose the 3 points closest to optimum moisture content.

(b) Draw a horizontal base line through the left point, A, and draw vertical lines through points B and C.

(c) Draw a line DE parallel to AB, point E lies on a vertical line through point C, and project E

horizontally to establish point F on a vertical line through Point B.

(d) Draw a line DG parallel to AC Point G lies on a vertical line through C.

(e) Draw line FG to intersect the base line at H. Bisect base line AH to form the axis of the parabola.

(f) Draw line AB to intersect axis of parabola at J. Project J horizontally to K, which lies on the vertical
line through B. .

(g) Line KH intersects the axis at 0, the vertex.

2. Graphical Solution for Vertex of a Parabola with Vertical Axis when the 3 Points are Equally Spaced
Horizontally.

(a) If points A, B and C are equally spaced horizontally clauses 1 (c) and 1 (d) above are eliminated.
Point F coincides with Point B and Point G is halfway between the baseline and Point C.

(b) Obtain Point H by drawing line BG.

(c) Obtain Point 0 by clauses 1 (e) to 1 (g) above.

Fig. 1 GRAPHICAL SOLUTION FOR PEAK POINT OF PARABOLA

F E

v J

A
,
-c

IirmG\
A D H

A= ---
3517Q
9

4. TEST ACCURACY AND PRECISION

(a) Accuracy and Technique

Whilst the test is subject to the normal random variations found in

repetitive testing, the determination of MDD is obtained by graphical
interpolation of discrete points which introduces greater errors. In
recognition of this fact, a geometrical (graphical) technique (Fig. 1)
to define a unique MDD given three discrete points spanning OMC is used
by the Queensland and N.S.W. Departments of Main Roads. Although a

little time consuming the method does provide uniform interpolation for
inexperienced operators and could allow 3 point rather than 5 point
tests to be conducted in certain circumstances. However, it is more
general to interpret the data in conjunction with a 2% air voids curve
to define the MDD and OMC. Although more expedient, the method
requires a more subjective judgment (and hence experienced operators)
along the following guidelines.

The most important points to be considered in the graphical

construction of Moisture-Density Relationships are:-

(i) All available data and information should be used for

interpretation and interpolation.

(ii) All interpretations should be uniformly conducted using the same

procedures/techniques.

(iii) Operator observations should influence the status of individual

compaction points.

As opposed to many other tests, the laboratory compaction test suffers

in quality and consideration of data because of the sense of urgency
surrounding it in the construction environment. Consequently it is
considered that too much emphasis is placed on the one point (viz. MDD)
rather than viewing the whole relationship first and then deriving the
MDD/OMC.
 3517Q
- 10 -

It is therefore necessary that the procedure for correct interpretation

be an expedient method and as much "other" information presented on the
graphical Worksheet as possible i.e. air voids lines particularly and
possibly wet density scales. In this way the technician is encouraged
to think and assess the data quality with the minimum of "extra work".

Figure 2 attached indicates the present lack of data interpretation and

disregard for Note 10 of the Australian Standard.

By way of illustration, the following example suggests that although

test points lie on a parabola of good fit it may not necessarily
describe the moisture-density relationship accurately.

EXAMPLE 1.

The parabola shown below, without any other detail except the test data
would seem acceptable.

4 1400 \ 2f, Air voids

MDCL // 1

1
1

,
\ a ep ropr ;a+ct S.
1;,,e, ct.f

C;.

, I I

/ -4,-1,-
4 omc.
Wai sd z porglIzi
415 void
VerliCat MOM

7{1 dot. 4o 3e4 cif;n5

CAct ^LIU b AO ten
/ .
0 Mc peii..4 6.
/
deter
dom. 4-c. b. I ef2r11,-;,3

1 *
moisiore, crem en+S
Ckany. 1%- .Moo -omc. 4-0 1;VterpreiCri tl;
 ...
Ar . - , 0
S3111 1,1Nki.) itl1115lov.' ,

, , mi ,-.. w
>
Nib. .e
Ell I
A e IN 0 Ci

orgillir roams'
I'
L A .
.4 il r
link ,
IIIII :
I

kJ
-
. 11 11 low
-...- L1 ,,
1

Lio
I

7 di)
I

\ , 1 .,
1ST 0 i.L..

II&
i

I
. .
111111111
,

-.-

\ ---..
'ss
\-1-,.--
l
-.-- t .. ...-
i \
SL.
A

'1 IN r ilk
Mit IV
.
MU'
"- III
Mill .
4Q.

MN&
1{0
,

ls. c,
Igi .
,
,..
.d. (..)
ti
i
%
ilh
MI )1 v
2,`
u,
..) cr
' ,
MOM C

'
_.}...._,_._,.. ,.
1
1 }
_ ......,,,..._ ; 11112 =MN t . Q

MEM c'')_,' T. _, 1 I\__. '-' .,, '' .. i' t elks.. i.

A

-4c---1- 4 ' 4i' CO 111111111.

111111101,
C
t-, 0
cs

terilla
',
-' ,, \--'
144111111111 ,- , -t `7 r. 1
1

;_ =
,,,.__ .___._...,0i."
'
oc.
. \ t
____ i
\\)
. ...... ,.' _
--1 ._
.21 A i ,

i' 9
,
;0
,

Wirmill 4
,-
...-A---s-----`..,P et. ; --- :
1,
,-4------
, -,
ill. .

Allk 1-7Nrib .
0- , PAs 11 ,,
.-,
111111Eril E>. 1;-

1110111.
,
4.111
Itiil
..,.., I M I

°
..
0
MEIN. c).9'-2
, _,.._
\--.
..,..
s
.-
,
----t---.- 1
!
I.
AN
,
1 k
. -.. ,-- .4.
t
T.--- -..
I

lusinc.
A
,
.

i. ,

Ill
-. ... i !
, 1-, ,_ >j

pit VIONINNk (1)

L7'
Lt.,
62
11
.1.'111011m41111. II. Milk AIN
Ai
I AMMO
., t-.
e _,
h....A

lb,
!

e C.

--\
e A IMIN 1 1
111M .
-1
,
f

, L..)

. .

0 i '--
---. ---, -1- '(!s,
a -.---
c-
.
---- , s , . -, f -N. t
.. 1.
,
,.,>
o
u.,
N
.

.
Mitral .
, ,.
,
d-

1111069._ 1111
V 111116. , .....
,
-t
,

i'- -
t t i 1
- ;

1N.\ ._
III
IIMI
--
1 *i
$
\ % t $ i . ,;INI1 IN LIMY) Jim ISIOLAI

\
t 1

---;
1 - I ,
--t "t
i

"t 4
i

-- 1 _.,,.. t. --- 1
\
,
MONO
I ,
i \I i
' I
1 ____I 1 I
'4 L 1 1 A

. . . .. .,.
A

`
.. .. ., . .. ;. .
., L'
r. l' g ;
_
O
.
C" : : : Z '33 r f . .

11i 1 10.1 -Mill.) H 111 S INN() 1 110S 50 A 11SN.1() 1.1M

MN NM I= ION I11 MN Ell I= NM NM 1.111 1.11 MI NM OM I= EM

11111O MIN 1=1 111111 OM OM MI =I MN MN MI I= NM

Optimum moisture content

alcn

,< 3
If;+,

o it p t im u mmoisture_ 15
Led content
Standard optimum moisture
content
3517Q

Firstly, if an air voids line is superimposed then it immediately

becomes obvious that points 4 and 5 are misrepresented in terms of

moisture content. In all curves, the wet side must be parallel to the
voids line because mathematically and correctly it cannot be any other

way. What points 4 and 5 do indicate is that they are drier than
should be, most likely because of bleeding during compaction. In

addition the moisture contents are similar whereas they would have been
cured at a larger difference.

It is suggested that 2% air voids lines be drawn as they represent the

lowest void condition generally achieved in a compacted specimen.
However, for coarse materials (say 40 mm) a 4% voids line may be more
appropriate.

Secondly, on the "dry side", the "ideal" curve as shown on figure A1.1
of AS 1289 (illustrated Fig. 3) suggests that a concave rather than
convex curve typifies its shape. If in the above example this change
is made, a different interpretation is obtained. As a result, the
combined interpretation of both "wet" and "dry" sides leads to the
higher MOD as illustrated.

It can therefore be seen that there is a need for consistent

interpretation to be made beyond just the data points obtained.

Further, particularly with coarse materials individual points on the

dry side can be erratic in that densities achieved are often too high
or low to fit an "ideal" shape. It is considered that a major reason
for this is due to the variation in gradings between individual points
such that in the same concept of oversize corrections, densities
achieved for each point need correcting back to identical gradings.
However, these errors can be reduced if careful attention is paid to
splitting out material for individual points and ensuring that the
excess material left after compaction is still representative and not
selectively segregated each time a scoop of material is taken for each
layer. This latter occurrence can be further eliminated by splitting
out just enough material to overfill the mould by 5 mm.
3517Q
- 12

Thirdly, points 2 and 3 straddle the OMC and between these two points,
both curves shown are valid. Therefore it is necessary in these
instances (say when moisture content between points 2 and 3 is more
than 1.5%) that an additional point at OMC be obtained.

Furthermore, with prior knowledge of approximate OMC (either from

experience or other data) points 1 to 4 could have been produced first
i.e. two points on either side of OMC followed by a latter fifth point
at OMC.

This method can be expediently carried out if wet density is plotted

against moisture content whilst the test is being performed. An
example of a suitable work sheet is attached as Figure 2.

EXAMPLE 2.

"' -

- 2t Air Voids
S.G.: 2.86
2.25
4 2% AIR VOIDS
/2
1
S.G. 2.90
1
(suspeck)
a)
0
2.20
1
\\
0
2.15

le.4421
Paret)ola Axis
2.10

Inika OMC tvIDO 2 28 4.141 Rel.cowv.

Amended OMC MDO 2.30
2.05

r," C.R. (Rojnella.).

2 4 6 8 10 12
Moisture Content )(,
3517Q
- 13

Again in this example all points lie on a curve however the curve is

not vertical but has been rotated (6) to an axis approximately

parallel to the voids line. Consequently the wet side is not parallel
to the voids line. A more correct interpretation is shown dotted. A

repeat of point 4 should have been done to more clearly define MDD.

In summary, I consider the following points should be followed by which

a uniform and correct moisture-density relationship can be developed:

(a) graphs of adequate scale

3
Viz. Dry Density 0.025 t/m per 10 mm
Moisture Content 0.5% per 10 mm

(b) inclusion of appropriate air voids lines, the graphs as presented

in figure 2 may be suitable but several ranges need to be printed
in order to give an adequate scale;

(c) dry side of curve should be a straight line or convex; 7

(d) wet side must be parallel to the voids line;

(e) MDD must be close to 2% air voids line and perhaps consideration
be given to a 4% voids line for coarse. products;

(f) 4 points should be cured up such that 2 points lie each side of

optimum. A fifth point should be subsequently cured to a

moisture content defined as the interpolated OMC of the other

four;

(g) working graphs of wet density/moisture content should be

constructed during performance of the test using a format similar

to figure 3 and constructed from engraved white. board (using
texta-colOur pens) and kept close to the operator area.
3517Q
- 14

(b) Magnitude of Error

In relation to test errors and precision ASTM 0698 (standard

compaction) and ASTM D1557 (modified compaction) provide the following:

Std Range of 2 results as a percentage of the

Deviation mean value

Single Operator Precision

MDD 1.90
OMC 9.5

Multi Laboratory Precision

MDD + 1.66 4.0
OMC + 0.86 15.0

By comparison, a small study conducted at Northfield indicated a range

of 1% in MDD for three operators (ranging from TO-1 to Laboratory
Technician II).

As an example using the ASTM evaluation of accuracy consider a dolomite

3
crushed rock MDD = 2.4 t/m , OMC = 5% then the expected range of
results by a single operator would be:

3
MDD 2.4 + .05 t/m

OMC 5% + 0.8%

3
Furthermore, if the field density were 2.35 t/m (i.e. 98%) the range
of relative compaction values due to laboratory compaction test
variation would be:

for a single operator 95.9% - 100% (+2%)

between laboratories 94% - 102.2% (+4%)
3517Q
- 15 -

However, such variation is not commonly found by local experience and

it is considered that the inclusion of many "unregistered" laboratories
in these figures produces bias. But the results do highlight the
sometimes futile inter-laboratory testing programs set up to prove
incorrect testing or differences between sand replacement and gauge
testing solely in terms of Relative Compaction.

Further errors in moisture content, in particular discrete test points

around OMC and above can give erroneous dry densities where excessive
bleeding of water occurs whilst the sample is being compacted. As a

result it has therefore been suggested that the "wet leg" be

interpolated between points but always parallel to a 2% air voids
line. Ideally in these situations the mould should be made waterproof
but its design in accordance with AS 1289 makes it difficult. Where
bleeding occurs or is too severe the "added water" (moulding) moisture
content may be used to determine dry density and interpolation of
points in conjunction with the 2% Air voids line ensuring that the "wet
leg" is ALWAYS parallel to it. Errors of these kinds are more acute in
larger sized and "boney" materials and accentuated by' subsampling
errors accumulated during production of material for individual points
which contain variable oversize proportions.

Whilst the above are general values, precision estimates on two Local
quarry product materials gave the following variations.

Mean MDD t/m3 Range t/m3 Population

Riverview 2.394 + .02, - .034 12 results

Dolomite (+0.8% - 1.4%)

Stoneyfell 2.201 +.009, - .011 9 results

Quartzite (+.4% .5%)
3517Q
16

These results have been produced on a random selection of data from

Riverview and Stoneyfell Quarries over a twelve month period. Not only
do the results perhaps reflect "between operator" test error but also
includes variability of geology in the quarry over the same period.

For various soils and aggregates the Highway Research board have found
that a high degree of reproducibility (+1%) can be achieved when tested
carefully and with experienced operators. However, soils containing a

high proportion of large aggregates, aggregates that degrade under

compaction, soils with pronounced thixotropic properties and highly
expansive clays present the greatest difficulty in obtaining a high
degree of reproducibility even on repetition testing using a single
operator. In these instances it is not unusual to obtain a variance of
3
+ 2 Pcf (0.032 t/m ) or greater.

The following tables illustrate the variance in test results on an

inter-laboratory exercise for both standard and modified compaction.

RESULTS OF CO-OPERATIVE STUDY OF THE STANDARD

COMPACTION TEST (12) (METHOD ASTM D 698-57T, AASHO T 99-57)

No. Optimum Moisture Content Maximum Dry Unit Weight

Soil of (S of Dry Weight) (pcf)
Cooper-
ators Median Variance Median Variance

Fine sand 5 11.5 + 5.5 104.0 + 3.0

Medium sand 6 11.0 + 3.0 118.5 + 7.5
Coarse sand 5 10.0 + 3.0 115.0 + 4.0
Dense-grades sand-
gravel 4 6.5 +0.5 137.0 + 4.0
Dense-graded crushed
rock 4 8.0 +2.0 137.5 + 5.5
Open-graded crushed
rock 4 9.0 + 2.0 136.5 + 9.5
3517Q
- 17 -

RESULTS OF COOPERATIVE STUDY OF THE MODIFIED AASHO COMPACTION TEST (120)

No. Optimum Moisture Content Maximum Dry Unit Weight

Soil of (I. of Dry Weight) (pcf)
Cooper-
ators I Median Variance Median Variance

Fine sand 2 11.0 + 4.0 108.5 + 1.5

Medium sand 3 10.0 + 3.0 120.5 + 2.5
Coarse sand 2 11.0 + 2.0 122.5 + 1.5
Dense-grades sand-
gravel 2 5.0 + 0.0 140.5 + 1.5
Dense-graded crushed
rock 6.0 + 1.0 144.0 + 4.0
Open-graded crushed
rock 2 6.5 + 1.5 144.0 + 4.0

In relation to current acceptance criteria in which a "GO-NO GO" single

value of relative compaction is specified without tolerance, the
probability of accepting a supposedly "good result" when in fact test
error could make it a "bad result" is high. Therefore this basic
realisation has promoted much work and research on statistical acceptance
criteria in which risks are definable and quantifiable.

5. BREAKDOWN OF SOFT MATERIALS

It is basic in the understanding of Relative Compaction that the material

represented by the numerator (field density) and that of the denominator (Lab
density) are ideally identical.

The determination of MDD for use in quality control via Dry Density Ratio
(AS 1289 E4.1 and from which HDSA 201.01 is based) requires that material for
the compaction test be obtained from "within or adjacent to the field density
test hole" (Note 2). In doing this, the sample is considered representative
of the material compacted at the test location and assumes that any material
properties subsequently derived (i.e. grading and MDD), will also be
representative of the material compacted at the test location.
3517Q
18 -

Although provision is made for less frequent sampling, (Note 2) the method can
require significant quantities of material to be removed from the pavement at
each test site. To avoid this, it is accepted practice to obtain samples from
stockpiles or "as placed" loose on the road for MDD testing, in the knowledge
that material properties are usually not changed by field compaction, nor is
there sufficient material variability that would produce MDD values outside
the test error.

It is obvious that the above will not be true in the case where material is
subject to breakdown under site compaction. Such Materials if removed from
the compacted pavement and a subsequent MDD test performed to obtain Relative
Compaction, will break down further and produce an artificially high MOD and
consequently low Relative Compaction. In addition, the resultant laboratory
compacted material will not be comparable to that compacted on the road and
therefore the basic condition of Relative Compaction is not met.

For materials that do breakdown, there therefore arises, a dilemma in

determining an MDD appropriate to the field compaction test, viz.

Material ex compacted pavement will further breakdown under laboratory

compaction and not be representative of the field test
1

whereas

material sampled prior to compaction and subsequently compacted in the

laboratory must produce a material that closely resembles that which will
be produced by field compaction.

This latter situation is very difficult to achieve in the context of

established criteria for compactive effort even though pre-sampling is
very desirable and less destructive to the pavement.

In an attempt to accept the advantages of pre-sampling for MDD and yet produce
an MDD appropriate to the material in the compacted pavement the DMR NSW have
produced a series of laboratory pretreatment methods and of particular
reference are tests T102a "Pretreatment by Compaction" and T1-2a
"Pre-treatment by Repeated Compaction".
3517Q
- 19 -

The scope of these tests reads as follows:

"This test method sets out the procedure for pretreating samples of soils, gravels

or crushed rock materials, prior to the application of specified tests, by

subjecting the material to compaction to simulate the extent and/or effects of

possible degradation which may occur during construction operations."

In this test, material is moist cured at a nominal moisture content of between

5% and 10% in a covered container and placed in a 50° oven for at least
18 hours. The sample is then scalped on a 37.5 mm sieve (or 19 mm sieve) and
the material retained broken down to pass this sieve. After restoring the
moisture condition the material is then compacted in a mould approximately
150 mm diameter and 200 mm high using 3 layers and 56 blowS/layer of a

standard proctor hammer (2.7 kgs falling 300 mm). The compacted block is then
carefully broken to provide the test sample.

For repeated compaction, 5 cycles of compaction are completed.

Using these methods, Minty (et al) has demonstrated on Breccia and Calcretes
that the material subsequently produced after laboratory MDD determination
closely resembles that in the pavement after field compaction.

6. OVERSIZE/LARGE NOMINAL SIZE MATERIALS

(a) Standard Specification Pavement Materials

Large nominal size pavement materials are generally accepted as being

materials containing fractions greater than 19 mm and for which the test
methods outlined in AS 1289 become unreliable.
3517()

-20-

Within the HDSA, the following standard P.M. specifications fall into
this category.

PM 12 40 mm Quarry Waste

PM 35, 36 40 mm Crushed Rock

PM 22 55 mm Quarry Rubble
PM 23 75 mm Quarry Rubble

PM 24 225 mm Quarry Rubble

In terms of laboratory compaction tests the grading specification limits

on these materials would imply that the following "oversize" material
would be encountered.

PM MATERIAL % 0/SIZE E2.1 (+19 rim) % 0/SIZE E2.2 1500 MOULD (+37.5 mm)

12 40 mm Q.W. 20-40 0-10

35 40 mm C.R. 17-35 0-5
36 40 mmCR. 20-38 0-5
22 55 mm Q.R. 28-45 10-25
23 75 mm Q.R. 35-41 20-37
24 225 mm Q.R. 30-53. 30-50

Currently HDSA practice indicates that an oversize correction should be

applied when the oversize is between 5% and 40% with portions exceeding
20% oversize having an empirical interference factor introduced into the
correction. It seems logical philosophy that the oversize be kept as low
as possible to maintain accuracy and certainly below 20% if possible.
Therefore the extended use of E2.2 seems appropriate in the above
materials with the exception of PM23 and 24. In these two materials the
nominal size is such that no suitable field technique of density testing
is available.
35170
- 21 -

(b) Oversize Corrections

The following introductory text (D. Hall) outlines the history of the
treatment of oversize in Relative Compaction testing:

"Possibly the introduction of the rubber-tyred wheel on vehicles also

introduced the engineering of modern road building. The conditidhs,pfi
light loads, slow speeds, and low traffic volumes permitted the use of
natural soils, but as these factors increased, the trend was to use
crushed rocks.

Probably one of the original procedures for testing under such conditions
would have been along the lines of the A.A.S.H.O. procedure T99, "The
Moisture Density Relations of Soils" using a better compaction was
required, the A.A.S.H.O. procedure T180 was developed. "The Moisture
Density Relations of Soils using a 10 Ib. Rammer and an 18 inch Drop." A.

4 inch diameter compaction mould was used for testing soils passing 3/16
inch was screened off and rejected before compaction in the laboratory.
The relationship determining the relative compaction between the field
and the laboratory were compatible.

To improve the quality and life of pavements crushed rock materials were
used. The permissible ratio of the coarsest size particle to the
diameter of the compaction mould to attain satisfactory laboratory
compaction was found to be 5 to 1. (AS A 89 Test 12B Note 12). A 4 inch
diameter mould is suitable for material whose maximum size particle is
3/4 inch, but which was possibly originally designed for 3/16 inch
material.

Modifications to the procedure became necessary to cope with the coarser

material.

(a) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T99 Method C permits a preliminary screening

on a 3/4 inch' screen. The oversize % inch material is to be
rejected and the - 3/4 inch material is to be compacted. The MDD
of the compacted - 3/2 inch material and the method used is to be
reported. (Previously the +3/16 inch material was rejected and the

MDD of the - 3/16 inch material was reported).

3517Q
- 22 -

(b) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T224 permits a method to adjust the FWD of the
-3/16 inch material "to compensate for differing percentages of
coarse particles retained on the 3/16 inch sieve". One would
presume, although unstated, that the above modification would apply
when the coarsest particle size was 3/4 inch. (The presumption is
based on the following. If the coarsest size was 1% inch then (a)
above, compaction of the -3/4 inch material, would have been
adopted). The calculation adjusting the MDD of the -3/16 inch
material to that representing the whole sample is should being
based on:

Density of whole sample = combined weight of the 2 fractions

combined volume of the 2 fractions

The rejected. +3/16 inch fraction is itself in a compacted

condition. The coarse fraction could probably have been impacted
into the fines without creating voids, but the possibility
apparently exists, that if in an excessive amount (20%), the
individual coarse particles may bridge and create voids. A factor,
"r" is introduced into the calculation, apparently for this reason,
to compensate for the voids by lowering the ADD of the compacted
fines. A table of "r" values is provided in the method for a range
of 3/16 inch oversize up to 70%.

The derivation of the values for "r" is not known to the author.
However, Br Clisby has taken a hypothetical sample, correcting or
adjusting an MDD for a range -of oversize and the corrected ADD
plots can be joined by 3 straight lines of differing slopes. If
the 3 lines be "averaged" into a single straight line, then 0.9
would be the average "r" value, and this is possibly the derivation
of the 0.9 factor used in the formula given in A.A.S.H.O. T224
3.1. In the table of "r" factors 0.9 corresponds to approximately
55% +3/16 inch, but of course, the amount of oversize would be
variable, hence the range of values. For the type of material
under consideration, the 55% average and 70% maximum oversize is
probably not unreasonable.
3517Q
23-

(c) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T99 Method C Note 6 offers an alternative

method for compensating for +3/4 inch material rejected from a
sample compacted in a 4 inch mould. It is not emphatic, in that it
uses the expression "if it is advisable", it then proceeds, "to
maintain the same percentage of coarse material (passing 2 inch and
retained on 3/16 inch) as in the original field sample the material
retained on 3/4 inch shall be replaced with an equal weight of
material passing 3/4 inch and retained on 3/16 inch.- It is again
based on 3/16 inch material but material up to 3/4 inch size is
compacted, and the ADD represents material up to 2 inch. The
+2 inch is ignored. By using this method the grading of the
compacted material will be changed. The realism of this method is
doubted.

At this stage the history has shown some development.

(a) Compact the -3/16" and reject the +3/16" (T99)

(b) Compact the -3/16" and adjust for the +3/16" (T224)
(c) Compact the -3/4" and reject the +3/4" (T99-C)
(d) Compact the -3/4" and replace the +3/4" (T99-C-NOTE 6)
A.A.S.H.O. procedure T224 2.2 does NOT permit correction for
the reject +3/4 inch material. The method is still based on
compaction of -3/16". The +3/4 inch material is weighed and
rejected. The -3/4 inch is compacted but the MOD is
corrected back to the -3/16 inch by allowing for the + 3/16
inch present in the compacted sample (or is it for the +3/16
inch in the whole sample?). The MUO for any percentage -3/4
+3/16 inch oversize up to 50% can then be interpolated from
Figure 2 (T224), which is a nomogram of the correction
formula.
 2.8

150 2.7
_ . . .._ .. - ......._ ..
.. ..
2.6 -
.-_..._
.

2.5
1140
- - - --1-1,-1 ----,

2.4

. ,-- .
.. . _
-
.
- - -..--
-- _
:.., -
METHOD A OR H - EXAMPLE

. . ... _ .-- Maximum dry density of passing 3 7, mm material r-

. --....... r7.7Tr.: _--- :-_---:-. --_- ' .::: -.: .-__-. ...
DI = 114.0 p.c.f. Plot at A.
Specific gravity of coarse particles = 2.50. Plot

' - .- ..._ .
- -

-----
- . at B.
Percent of coarse particles In in-place test 29.0
_- .---
_...- - -- - P,. Plot at C.
110
_ ......
.._...._. _ Draw line AB.
. ....... Locate intersection of line extended from C to AB
. _ . -- --- - (Point E).
- Draw line EF.
--- --- Point F = 121.6 p.c.f., the adjusted maximum dry
100 density of total material. "D".
. .. .
- ..... ..

9^
10 20 C 30 140 50
PERCENT COARSE PARTICLES

Fig. 1 - Density Correction ('hart for Coarse Particles

150

140
1-
I ''.
-;. -.-;.4.-.
;--
..
-;
.
:3-1-- . -
--4,----.....-!.,_,...;___.__,_
- .
..-- 4-
....t.i..4 .4-
- - - 4. ,-I 4 7 --z - t;- --7-.
-a...L..71-Z.; ........._

' .' "r1 .-- ', 7-:-;',.....:- -." +-1-!- .

1 ---. ' ".- t-r-r :-r
.. _ ,...;
.__:.-..-.-.-:-.-- .1.....,:,
1-1.--.- ..i_.,. -..... J. ..-L -...,-.,....--;.....,_ ..._.,..._i
i :. 4-. ...; -..-;--, -97.-- ,---i_` 7. 7. -7
a .

, ... a
, , ..;_ty. '...t... .- - -, - METHOD C OR D - EXAMPLE
. . -..t--t --1- .:.--..r.;,--.-,..... .7..4 ..! - -...

.- 1 -7 --.., 7 7 -.7: 7-7 .- 7 Maximum dry density of passing 141, Mal fti.iti11
. .. _ .... --, .:.-.- __... -... 7 ---- 7 -;-:-.--,7:- -7-7 7-77- 777 p.c.f. Plot at A.
130
Percent of plus .flt '44 14,1 k

. -
..-- .-..--.- ---.-....--.... 7-
- -,'
Plot point B and locate point C.
1
T -*.-.- 7 .
......
- -.-. ... Specific gravity of plus 4 -5 nun m4trIJI `
Plot at E.

-- ....--
---- -
.....--.
- ... - - ..-..- -.._ __..-..- -- .... - -7! -
Draw line CE and extend toward 0-abscissa line.
Percent of plus 4 -5 root mmrn,l sn trsi hl
110
. . - . --
Plot at F and draw line from F to intersection with CE
.. extended (point C).
Draw line GH.
Then point H 122 p.c.f. = adjusted maxtmum.dry
_.____,___ _. ........._ .,_,...4_,.___:. __,.. __. _.___ density of total material, "D".
100 . . ,
. .

.,_._._.
:

........;_4_,...4...r. ...._4_,.._,.._,..,_ ,....."_.,..___ --..-._4_,_ ...;__,.._

__ _ _ __ . _r_.. ___..._._ _____.........._ 4_,_.........._,.4

PERMIT COARSE PARTICLES

Fig. 2 - Density Correction Chart for Coarse Particles

A.A.S.H.T.O. T224 bvErzsizE CORRECTION
FIG4
3517Q
24

(e) AS A89 Test 11A Note 2 states that there is no generally

accepted method of testing or of calculation for dealing with
this difficulty (rejecting +3/4 inch material) in comparing
laboratory compaction test results with densities obtained in
the field. However AS A89 Test 13A Note 5 handles the
situation logically. In the field it determines the density
of the -3/4 inch and the relative density is expressed on
this basis. The author approves this method in principle.
The Australian Standard does not correct for the 3/16 inch
oversize in the compacted material, but is based on 3/4 inch.

(f) BS 1377 allows adjustment of calculations of the MDD for up

to 25% -3 +3/4 inch oversize. For soils containing little
fine or medium gravel the proportion of coarse gravel
permissible may be extended to 40 to 50%. Alternately the
3/4 inch oversize can be replaced by -3/4 +3/8 inch (-3/4
3/16, A.A.S.H.O.).

(g) The Californian Test Method 216-C advised that an "occasional

large rock in predominantly finer material" should be
returned to the test hole "prior to the volume measurement".
For laboratory compaction the 3/4 inch oversize is screened
off, weighed and rejected. The MDD of the compacted -3/4
inch is corrected by formula for the oversize 3/4" excluded.
The formula is that of the A.A.S.H.O. test including the same
values for "r" (Californian 216 -H).

(h) At some point in time (through the introduction of the CBR

test) a 6 inch mould became available for compaction. As the
maximum particle size in construction has increased to beyond
3/4 inch, the CBR mould was made use of for material up to
1% inches. None of the A.A.S.H.O. procedures permit
compaction of material coarser than 3/4 inch. AS A89 Tests
11B and 12B permits compaction of 1% inch maximum size
material in a 6 inch mould, but states (Test 11A and 12A
35170
25

Note 2) that there is no generally accepted method of

testing or calculating the MDD of material coarser than 3/4
inch in a 4 inch mould. AS A89 permits compaction of any
size material so long as the ratio of diameters is 5 to 1.
BS 1377 (Test 10 Note 16) permits compaction of 1% inch
material in a 6 inch mould.

(j) A.A.S.H.O.:procedure, T134 method B, referring to Soil Cement

mixtures, permits screening and rejection of +3 inch
material. It replaces the -3 inch +3/4 inch aggregate with
-3/4 +3/16 inch.

(k) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T181, "In place density of compacted

base course containing large size aggregates" provides a

method for field work using the "IPCADD" equipment.

Aggregate up to approximately 2% to 3 inches can be handled
with the 12 inch equipment to give the field density but no
corresponding procedure is given to determine the laboratory
MDD to determine the relative compaction.

A.A.S.H.O. pr,,,..:edure T191 is available to determine the field

density material not larger than 2 inch, but to determine the
laboratory compaction refers to T99 which allows compaction
of -3/4 inch material only.

(1) The Californian method, with which the Highways Department

procedure is similar or approximately identical, is unlike
the other methods as yet encountered.

All methods compact -3/4 inch material. Those methods which

permit, advise, suggest or accept a correction by
calculation, correct for the -3/4 +3/16 inch oversize present
in the compacted specimen to reduce the HDD to -3/16" size.
3517Q
-26-

(It is not absolutely clear in that the correction may be

for the +3/16" present in the whole sample which would be
incorrect) while California corrects for the +3/4 inch which
is excluded from the -3/4" compaction sample to relate to the
whole sample.

In allowing for voids ("r" factor") most methods see it as

correcting for the voids created by the presence of the -3/4
+3/16 inch, while California must see it as correcting for
the voids in the +3/4 inch had it been included. Yet one
would logically believe that the "r" factors for the two
conditions would not be identical, especially at 70% -3/4
inch. The penny still has not dropped. The terms generally
used are too loose.

This is what is going on. Under the A.A.S.H.O. method you

can:-

(a) Compact -3/4 and correct down for the included -3/4
+3/16 inch to give ADD of -3/16 inch.

OE (b) Compact -3/16 inch and correct up for the -3/4 +3/16
inch to give ADD of -3/4 inch.

(c) Compact -3/16 inch and correct up for the +3/16 to give
ADD of whole sample.

(d) Compact -3/4 to give ADD of -3/4".

California uses the same principle i.e. the sum of the parts
equals the whole, but the line is drawn at the 3/4 inch size,
not the 3/16 inch. This permits one to compact -3/4 inch
material to give N.D. of -3/4 inch as (d) above and then to
correct up for the excluded +3/4 inch to give ADD of whole
3517Q
- 27 -

sample. But a restriction somewhere advises in one place to

exclude +2" and in another +3". But only California permits
this method. If this is acceptable, then for larger size
material e.g. 3 inch, it should be acceptable to compact
-1% inch in a 6 inch mould and correct for oversize say 1% to
2 or 3 inches. Only 2 doubts now remain:-

(a) What is maximum amount of oversize (+3/4 or +1%') one

can correct for?

(b) What are "r" factors for -3 + 1% inch and -1% + 3/4
material?
(End of Reference)

The need for moulds to be five times larger in diameter than the maximum
nominal aggregate size and the physical effort required to achieve the
compactive effort precludes MDD determination of the "whole of the
material" in large sized materials. Therefore, oversize corrections
based upon mathematical principles have been developed to adjust either
the MDD or the FDD i.e. correction can be applied in two ways viz:

(a) Correction of FDD: correction is for removal of oversize such

that Relative Compaction FDD undersize
MDD undersize

(b) Correction of MOD: correction is for the addition of oversize

such that Relative Compaction = FDD the whole

MDD the whole

Method (a) is the current method described in AS 1289 E3.1 for sand
replacement field density and also the method adopted for
correction of field density when obtained by moisture/density
gauges. Additionally, the HDSA test method (201.07) includes
an empirically derived correction factor "r" which is

applicable to oversize portions in excess of 20%. This

factor takes into account the decrease in density of the
undersize fractions caused by compactive effort not being
3517Q
- 28-

fully transmitted through the material because of interlock

and bridging of large particles. The origin of the "r"

factor is taken from AASHO work done on oversize fractions +

3/16" rather than 19 mm as currently applied and its effect

is to raise the FDD of the undersize.

The overall effect of the oversize correction is to lower the

FDD and hence lower the Relative Compaction.

Method (b) previously used by HDSA until the Australian Standard was
adopted, needs to obtain the "true" MOD of the whole material
by correcting "up" for the addition of oversize. Generally
MDD is determined on either -19 mm or -37.5 mm materials and
then corrected up for the proportion of oversize found in the
FOO.

It is the view of the Materials Section that this method is

more correct in that a "true" relative compaction value
indicative of the complete compactability of the whole
material is obtained i.e. whereas AS 1289 always provides dry
density ratios of the -19 mm fractions by correcting FDD
"downwards", the correction of MOD "upwards" provides the
actual dry density ratio of the material used. Subsequently,
all performance tests and material evaluations conducted in
the laboratory to define the advantages or improvements to be
gained in the field by using larger sized material can best
be associated with relative compaction in relation to the
complete particle size gradation e.g. it is not possible to
assess CBR performance etc. on undersize material and correct
up for oversize addition to obtain CBR performance of a

larger sized material.

3517Q
29

It should be noted here that the Relative Compaction obtained by the two
methods will NOT be the same i.e.

FDD undersize FDD whole and therefore relative compaction

MDD undersize MDD whole values determined using AS 1289 E2.1
will not be the same as using E2.2 and
yet they should be.

The formulae for the two methods are mathematically interchangeable and
compactable expressed as follows:

HDSA 201.07

FDD = Mass whole - Mass oversize = Mass undersize

CORR Vol whole Vol oversize Vol undersize

for sand replacement

(M M )

FDD = ( w s) x 1 = Mass undersize

CORR (M V ) r Vol undersize
( h - s) (1 + w )

(Psand ) ( 100)

where Mw = Wet mass of material removed from hole

Ms = Wet mass of +19 mm oversize
Mh = Mass of sand in hole i.e. Mh is total hole volume
of Sand
Vs = Volume of oversize
W = Moisture content of undersize
Psand = Density of poured sand from cone.

and (1 + w ) is a correction since WET masses are used.

100

For moisture/density gauges

FDD p (m - m )

CORR d( s) x 1 = Mass undersize

M - V D r, Vol undersize
s d
3517Q
-30-

where Dd = dry density obtained from gauge

M = dry mass of whole material (presampled or extracted
from test site)

Note that all masses are dry masses.

Where MDD is corrected, i.e. the laboratory value conducted on the

undersize needs correcting "upwards" for the inclusion of oversize, the
formula becomes:

MOD = Mass undersize + Mass oversize

CORR Vol undersize + Vol oversize

= 1 Where Po = PerCent oversize by mass

P 1 - P Do = Apparent SG of the oversize

o + o
D r x D Du = Laboratory MOD obtained
o u on the undersize

It should be noted that with all these formulae that the magnitude of
the correction is not only governed by the amount of oversize but also
the difference in density between the compacted undersize and the
- apparent S.G. of the oversize. e.g. if Do = Du then no correction
applies as shown below (Fig. 5).

(c) Further Development

Because of the continued use by HDSA of materials with oversize

(+19 mm) fractions in excess of 20 %, the Materials Section have found
it necessary to fully investigate the use of "r" factor's in compaction.
216 Del (M- Ms) 014 ,a l'05
Core D.D. -
1

M- Vs Dd r
Where Cm to
214
overeAge, 143
° Do

Vs= Vol. oversise

/45 r. Do
Vs

reraelif.e

De.= 2.1

DX 091

r= 1.0 r Varies
1 1 I I 1

to 26 So 36.
eic °versa& By Mass

r) ./
INFLUENCE, ar 70, anel r on DENSITY.

(Example is foe DAA Get a3e. on oversee,

down 4-e3 -15"1,4) . r
F'9.
3517Q
- 31 -

Controlled experimentation has been undertaken to investigate oversize

corrections in terms of the following variables.

(i) quantity of oversize particles

(ii) gradation of oversize particles.
(iii) shape of oversize particles.
(iv) hardness of oversize particles.

To date the investigation has shown that a single value of "r" for all
materials is not realistic, and a consequent change to HDSA 201.07 is
justified.

The testing program was conducted on three materials of varying LA

hardness and SG difference (i.e. oversize and undersize)

viz. Riverview Dolomite LA = 35% SG = 2.85

Angaston Marble LA . 75% SG = 2.71

Eagle Quartzite LA = 47% SG = 2.58

Initially oversize was.limited to material retained on 19 mm sieve but

passing 26.5 mm.

Compaction points with predetermined quantities of oversize were

compacted using modified effort in a CBR mould 152 mm diameter. The
quantity of material mixed was carefully calculated such that all was

compacted and the finished height no more than 5 mm higher than the
mould height. Following compaction, the "block" was broken up and
submitted for particle size analysis in order to determine the actual
proportion of oversize for each point.
3517Q
- 32 -

The subsequent curve obtained was superimposed on the curve obtained

for the minus 19 mm material and each point firstly corrected for the
difference in density between undersize and oversize via the formula

DD (Corrected) = Dd (M-Ms)

M - Ms Dd

Ds

where D dry density of the point including oversize

d
total dry mass of material
M dry mass of oversize
s
D density (apparent SG) of oversize
s

Then the "r" multiplication factor required to shift this new point (i.e.
the new minus 19 mm point) onto the minus 19 mm curve obtained from
experiment was determined. These graphical constructions are shown
below. Figs. 6-12.

Figure 13 shows the overall relationship of "r" against percent oversize

(noting increasing oversize increases particle interference) for the
three materials.

The figure also indicates that a single relationship is not possible and
that the method currently adopted in HDSA 201.07 over-corrects the
density. In conjunction with the philosophy that Relative Compaction
should represent the whole of the material and as a result of this
experimentation, it is considered that the only option to ensure
technical correctness of relative compaction is to limit the percent
oversize by adopting larger moulds and correct MDD rather than FDD. In
order to maintain productivity in the construction environment the need
for automatic compactors needs further investigation.
NM INN MI MI 11111 MN OM MI IIMO MI MO MI MI

% A V. S.G. 270.

/ING AST° r1/4i 1ARRLE

23 Iri1 gal Oversty 707

1' Nok112 °Verily,

zioversly, +15n.+A.

C-1.005

tir
r 1-19ftio
-15040. pot

/-15nuri pciorf C: 1.007

101m-ha edam,
3.20 --v No Oversi30
r: 1. OZ9 reiciirzc{ 40 al (..5.9. -15mm pain+
on eAcper,wterria( ctArve. 061-4;
"eol.
tnoiskire corJ

1
1

3
$ mta OISTuRE CoNItNTY
alm um I= am NM MI MI MN NM 111. IIIII 1.11 1.111

13.5%
$4.2-70.
. ANGASTON MANIZZ.L.E.
N avers; /12
23 Initial vex's!, 40Z
153%

. 4:/)e) VarS15e 4. 1159A" .

/ &in{ correthd for

+19nw. viettru} ' r r= -012
--to- le, -19,t, point

-0
Yr:.
I.0
r 83

r:i.0.2G...--rrezioi.-ed 4o aolitn 19rnot Pont

on experiloutnica curvz 06+.2.;neA

Ntey6, Pralet l moss ora corri-can-i (.3 sad .

246 1

3 4 7
MOISTURE. CokiTENT
I= ME OM MN .111 MI IIII 1111 BM 11111 .1. 111111 Mil 1.11 111111 II. MI. Min
am me Rs am Imo me N. EN NE NN EN NEN NE NE am no

VW
tvE,RVIEW DoLom 1TE.

244 n ia 1 0 versi3 20Z

lo %/ars resi + rn rn .

/0 `--curva- wi5 over e.

7.
Oj r=° 552

614

'55ft//
e'r' required 4-0 ckbk
--maw exet4-,..,011.1
c.441v4. °trim ;fsecl.
No oversize..
expaiqme,itti
rz.10
wi
%e" - 1 5.ava1 fie

MOISTURA. Coi.iTenIT 6/ rr
,a
um me ow I= NM I= I= .111 MINI MI NM OM OM 111. 1111.

./,/ZoverSlat, +15
0 27A.v. sG=7.e6 RIVERVIEW DOLotirre.
\...-cov size
Infial 0 veri5e 40/
22.6Z,

MF
4)

(.4"
r=0.516
a)
0

a
235
r= 0°_)63
No oversize,

o
15.12 4 Mots-ruas couTE>47

correant ivr415*.ft wit

pc)6,-1'

C) = o
re6,red aid^ -15~" poski
exPeei.ft\ertha C.A.le V tz c,i4a,42d.
Elm I= nom EN

E AGUE QUARTZ re
C Ov¢..rv2a- 20 u

2Av. S.G. 2.6S

-15sot Glut. 10.2

.:
0

N:
215 Overvsz-

2
A r.o.57o

0
... ... : .

2 to 78
r=0.`b7.2
 2/ A S.G. 2.65

22o

2.6

2o6

EAGLE
x
ovv-s15e. 4or,

4
MO t ST09-E, C-Or4Ter--Ir po/

Ft3. 12
3517Q
-33-

7. OVERALL LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPACTION TEST

As a quality control tool the Laboratory Compaction Test suffers from the
following limitations:

(i) Final results are dependent upon moisture content determinations to

obtain dry density.

It is possible with material finer than 19 mm to take small

representative moisture content samples and moisture determined via
calibrated microwave techniques.

In larger sized materials the error introduced in subsampling for each

"point" is significant as variable oversize is produced. It is also
necessary to dry the whole of the compacted specimen noting that
AS 1289 refers to moisture content as always pertaining to - 19 mm
material. Whilst this is possible with 100 mm diameter compaction
specimens it is more difficult with 150 mm diameter specimens. In

addition the oven moisture content can be in error where samples are
such that excessive bleeding occurs.

(ii) Curing times on fine grained materials (including their initial

preparation) can take several days. There is no easy solution to this
problem although the Rapid Method As 1289 E7.1 is generally used in

these materials.

(iii) Mould sizes greater than 150 mm diameter require large physical effort
and are very time consuming. Therefore material with a nominal size
greater than 40 mm cannot be easily treated on a satisfactory
production basis.

(iv) Where variable materials are encountered materials cannot be

reasonably combined to limit the number of compaction tests that can
confidently be associated with,a number of field tests.
3517Q
34 -

8. REVIEW OF OTHER STATE AUTHORITIES METHODS

DMR - NSW:

T 122-1982 Maximum Dry Density of Road Materials (Modified Compaction)

Combines AS 1289 E2.1 and E2.2 specifically for -19 mm and -37.5 mm
materials respectively. If a sample has more than 5% retained on 19 mm a
37.5 mm size is stipulated using a mould diameter 148 mm (i.e. CBR).

The method is not applicable to materials with +37.5 mm. The method
suggests a range of moulding moisture contents between 3-15% in increments
of 3% (totally unsuitable for HDSA) and considers moisture content of total
material grading (quartered) rather than -19 mm as in AS 1289.

The test offers no advantages over tests AS 1289 E2.1 and 2.2.

T 162-1982 Compaction Control Test (Rapid Method)

A modification of AS 1289 E.71. (Hilf) in that it determines maximum WET

Density and utilises an "added moisture" moisture content. Two methods are
presented to allow for A hard and B soft materials.

The method allows "some of the material" to be retained on a 19 mm sieve but

a larger 148 mm mould is required.

The test requires samples ex compacted pavement (therefore unsuitable for

soft materials) and is more accurate when increments are very close to
optimum.

The method essentially expands 1289 E4.1 for larger mould size and does not
include moisture correction (obtained for standard compaction) as moisture
departs from OMC i.e. an attempt to improve test accuracy for points away
from OMC.
3517Q
-35-

MRD OLD:

Q 110A and 110B-1978 Standard/Modified Compaction

The two test methods allow for 105 mm and 152 mm diameter moulds with all
material passing the 19 and 37.5 mm sieves respectively.

An oversize correction to the field density applies in addition to a

correction to MDD if oversize (in this case +4.75) from field test and lab
test not the same., A nomograph is used to determine the corrected MOD and
subsequently used in calculation of relative compaction.

RCA VIC:

Tests 315 Groups

315.01, 02 Modified Compaction and Standard Compaction

Larger mould required if >10% retained on 19 mm sieve for material >37.5

both larger hammer faces and moulds are required (ratio of hammer 0 to
3
maximum particle size 1.3-2.0) and compactive effort 2703 KJ/m maintained
i.e. number of blows/layer calculated from Compactive Effort Formula.

315.03 Vibratory Compaction

For material passing 37.5 and not more than 10% retained on this sieve and
more than 10% retained on the 19 mm sieve compacted using a vibratory hammer
in a 152 mm diameter mould in three layers.

After a 2 minute period, depth to each layer is measured and must fall
within a given tolerance.

315.04 Hilf Rapid Compaction

Identical to AS 1289 E7.1 and allowing larger moulds and rammer diameters.
3517Q
- 36 -

315.05 One Point Rapid Compaction

Is a "family of curves" method for any method of compaction as above. The

method requires consistent S.G. values to generate the curves (a minimum of
five required).

315.07 Assignment of OMC and MDD Values

The method is applicable to uniform quarry products and defines a mean value
from a minimum five results obtained by different staff, equipment etc. A
3
limit of +0.06 t/m is placed on "the mean" before it is "updated" i.e.
approximately a tolerance on Relative Compaction of +3%.

Samples for MDD taken at rate of 1 per 10 000 tonnes or one per fortnight
whichever gives fewer results.

9. REFERENCES

BARRON, R. "Methods of Establishing Compaction

Standards Laboratory Based Procedures for
Soils, Aggregates and Asphalts".

NAASRA Workshop 1982 - Relative Compaction

SPIES, R. "Limitations of Laboratory Compaction

Methods and Special Considerations".

NAASRA Workshop 1982 Relative Compaction

YOUDALE, G. "Pretreatment of Pavement Materials Prior

to Laboratory Testing".

NAASRA Workshop 1982 Relative Compaction

 3517Q
- 37

JOHNSON, A, SALLBERG, J. "Factors Influencing Compaction Test

Results".

HRB Bulletin 319 - 1962

VARIOUS "Soil Compaction 5 reports"

HRB No. 22 - 1963

TRANSPORT RESEARCH BOARD "Density Standards for Field Compaction of

Granular Bases and Sub-bases".

NCHRP Report 172 - 1976

MORRIS, P. "Compaction - A Review"

ARR No. 35, ARRB 1975

HALL, D. "The Presumed History of Oversize"

H.D.S.A. Internal Materials Report
Compaction Committee 1973

1
3517Q
4 -

Where material with nominal size larger than 19 mm is encountered, two options
within the Australian Standard are available, viz:

(1) use of tests E1.1 and E2.1 where the sample is initially separated on the
19 mm sieve, oversize discarded, and compaction tests conducted on the
minus 19 mm. Alternatively a mass of material (finer than 19 mm but
coarser than 4.75 mm) equivalent to the mass of oversize can be added.

(ii) Use of tests E1.2 and E2.2 which allow variations in apparatus and method
provided that the same compactive effort is maintained. Commonly CBR
moulds are used which allow separation on the 37.5 mm sieve, thereby
reducing the amount of oversize in the sample. The Standard suggests
that the mould diameter be four times (standard compaction) or five times
(modified compaction) the maximum nominal size of material. As examples,
Barron reports on compaction tests conducted in Victoria using large
sized material in oversize moulds shown in Table 2. These tests were an
"all in/no oversize" approach and represent laboratory attempts to obtain
density moisture content relationships for the whole material actually
being compacted in the pavement layer.

TABLE II DETAILS OF SUBSIDIARY LABORATORY COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

AS 1289 E1.2, E2.2.

Standard Maximum Mould Dimension Rammer No of Layer Compaction

Compaction Particle Face Layers
Size (mm) Vol Di am Height dia Blows Hammer Hammer Energy
(cm3) (m1) (mm) (mm) (No) Mass Drop Input
(kg) (mm) (kJ /m3)

Standard 19 1 000 105 115.5 50 3 25 2.7 300 596

596 ± 14
kJ/m3 37.5 2 127 152.4 116.6 50 3 53 2.7 300 594
E1.2 63 15 580 255 305 90 3 83 12.47 306 594

Modified 19 1 000 105 115.5 50 3 25 4.9 450 2 703

2703 + 60
kJ/m3 37.5 4 241 150 240 50 5 106 4.9 450 2 702
E2.2 53 11 199 215 325 90 5 163 10 400 2 710
75 31 809 300 450 100 5 438 10 400 2 701
3517Q
7

(h) Comjactive Effort

The compactive effort is described as an energy per unit volume

parameter determined from:

Ec = ENERGY
VOLUME

E
c
4 000xWxgxHxNxn
2
ird x h

3
where E compactive effort - KJ/m
c
W = hammer mass kgms

fall height of hammer - metres

number of layers
mould diameter cms
mould height cms
number of hammer blows/layer
4 000 = dimensional unit conversion
9.8 m/s

In consideration of maximum dry density it is important to realise that

it is not the absolute maximum dry density that can be achieved for the
material. Rather, it is the maximum dry density related to the
discrete compactive effort used.

It is obvious that higher compactive efforts can produce higher maximum

dry densities particularly with materials that breakdown under impact.
Consequently it can be expected (and frequently happens) that the use
of increasingly heavier and more efficient field rollers with large
compactive efforts, can produce insitu dry densities in excess of 100%
of the laboratory value.

Such observations have given rise to the so-called "Compaction to

Refusal" test in which the absolute maximum density under impact is
obtained in the Laboratory for comparison with field achievements.
3517Q
- 21

(b) Oversize Corrections

The following introductory text (D. Hall) outlines the history of the
treatment of oversize in Relative Compaction testing:

"Possibly the introduction of the rubber-tyred wheel on vehicles also

introduced the engineering of modern road building. The conditions of
light loads, slow speeds, and low traffic volumes permitted the use of
natural soils, but as these factors increased, the trend was to use
crushed rocks.

Probably one of the original procedures for testing under such conditions
would have been along the lines, of the A.A.S.H.O. procedure T99, "The
Moisture Density Relations of Soils using a 5.5 lb Rammer and a 12 inch
Drop". As the traffic loads increased better compaction was required,
the A.A.S.H.O. procedure T180 was developed viz. "The Moisture Density
Relations of Soils using a 10 lb. Rammer and an 18 inch Drop." A 4 inch
diameter compaction mould was used for testing soils passing 3/16 inch.
The small amount of material a little coarser than 3/16 inch was screened
off and rejected before compaction in the laboratory. The relationship
determining the relative compaction between the field and the laboratory
were compatible.

To improve the quality and life of pavements crushed rock materials were
used. The permissible ratio of the coarsest size particle to the
diameter of the compaction mould to attain satisfactory laboratory
compaction was found to be 5 to 1. (AS A 89 Test 12B Note 12). A 4 inch
diameter mould is suitable for material whose maximmm size particle is
3/4 inch, but which was. possibly originally designed for - 3/16 inch
material.

Modifications to the procedure became necessary to cope with the coarser

material.

(a) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T99 Method C permits a preliminary screening

on a 3/4 inch screen. The oversize 3/4 inch material is to be
rejected and the - 3/4 inch material is to be compacted. The MDD
3517Q
- 22

of the compacted 3/4 inch material and the method used is to be

reported. (Previously the +3/16 inch material was rejected and the
MDD of the - 3/16 inch material was reported).

(b) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T224 permits a method to adjust the MDD of the
-3/16 inch material "to compensate for differing percentages of
coarse particles retained on the 3/16 inch sieve". One would
presume, although unstated, that the above modification would apply
when the coarsest particle size was 3/4 inch. (The presumption is
based on the following. If the coarsest size was 1% inch then (a)
above, compaction of the -3/4 inch material, would have been
adopted). The calculation adjusting the MDD of the -3/16 inch
material to that representing the whole sample is sound being based
on:

Density of whole sample = combined weight of the 2 fractions .

combined volume of the 2 fractions

The rejected +3/16 inch fraction is itself in a compacted

condition. The coarse fraction could probably have been impacted
into the fines without creating voids, but the possibility
apparently exists, that if in an excessive amount (20%), the
individual coarse particles may bridge and create voids. A factor,
"r" is introduced into the calculation, apparently for this reason,
to compensate for the voids by lowering the MDD of the compacted
fines. A table of "r" values is provided in the method for a range
of 3/16 inch oversize up, to 70%.

The derivation of the values for "r" is not known to the author.
However, Az Clisby has taken a hypothetical sample, correcting or
adjusting an MDD for a range of oversize and the corrected ADD
plots can be joined by 3 straight lines of differing slopes. If
the 3 lines.be "averaged" into a single straight line, then 0.9
would be the average "r" value, and this is possibly the derivation
of the 0.9 factor used in the formula given in A.A.S.H.O. T224
3.1. In the table of "r" factors 0.9 corresponds to approximately
55% +3/16 inch, but of course, the amount of oversize would be
 23

variable, hence the range of values. For the type of material

under consideration, the 55% average and 70% maximum oversize is
probably not unreasonable.

(c) A.A.S.H.O. procedure T99 Method C Note 6 offers an alternative

method for compensating for +3/4 inch material rejected from a
sample compacted in a 4 inch mould. It is not emphatic, in that it
uses the expression "if it is advisable", it then proceeds, "to
maintain the same percentage of coarse material (passing 2 inch and
retained on 3/16 inch) as in the original field sample the material
retained on 3/4 inch shall be replaced with an equal weight of
material passing 3/4 inch and retained on 3/16 inch. It is again
based on 3/16 inch material but material up to 3/4 inch size is
compacted, and the MDD represents material up to 2 inch. The
+2 inch is ignored. By using this method the grading of the
compacted material will be changed. The realism of this method is
doubted.

At this stage the history has shown some development.

(a) Compact the -3/16" and reject the +3/16" (T99)

(b) Compact the -3/16" and adjust for the +3/16" (T224)
(c) Compact the -3/4" and reject the +3/4" (T99-C)
(d) Compact the -3/4" and replace the +3/4" (T99-C-NOTE 6)
A.A.S.H.O. procedure T224 2.2 does NOT permit correction for
the reject +3/4 inch material. The method is still based on
compaction of -3/16". .The +3/4 inch material is weighed and
rejected. The -3/4 inch is compacted but the MDD is
corrected back to the -3/16 inch by allowing for the -3/4 +

3/16 inch present in the compacted sample (or is it for the

+3/16 inch in the whole sample?). The MDD for any percentage
-3/4 +3/16 inch oversize up to 50% can then be interpolated
from Figure 2 (T224), which is a nomogram of the correction
formula.
3517Q
26 -

(It is not absolutely clear in that the correction may be

for the +3/16" present in the whole sample which would be
incorrect) while California corrects for the +3/4 inch which
is excluded from the -3/4" compaction sample to relate to the
whole sample.

In allowing for voids ("r" factor") most methods see it as

correcting for the voids created by the presence of the -3/4
+3/16 inch, while California must see it as correcting for
the voids in the +3/4 inch had it been included. Yet one
would logically believe that the "r" factors for the two
conditions would not be identical, especially at 70% + 3/4
inch. The penny still has not dropped. The terms_ generally
used are too loose.

This is what is going on. Under the A.A.S.H.O. method you

can:-

(a) Compact -3/4 and correct down for the included -3/4
+3/16 inch to give MDD of -3/16 inch.

OE (b) Compact -3/16 inch and correct up for the -3/4 +3/16
inch to give MDD of -3/4 inch.

(c) Compact -3/16 inch and correct up for the +3/16 to give
MDD of whole sample.

(d) Compact -3/4 to give ADD of -3/4".

California uses the same principle i.e. the sum of the parts
equals the whole, but the line is drawn at the 3/4 inch size,
not the 3/16 inch. This permits one to compact -3/4 inch
material to give M.D.D. of -3/4 inch as (d) above and then to
correct up for the excluded +3/4 inch to give MDD of whole
3517Q
29 -

It should be noted here that the Relative Compaction, obtained by the two
methods will NOT be the same i.e.

FDD undersize FDD whole and therefore relative compaction

MOD undersize MDD whole values determined using AS 1289 E2.1
will not be the same as using E2.2 and
yet they should be.

The formulae for the two methods are mathematically interchangeable and can
be expressed as follows:

HDSA 201.07

FDD = Mass whole Mass overslce-_:_lass undersize

CORR Vol whole Vol oversize Vol undersize

for sand replacement

(M M )

FDD = ( w s) x 1 = Mass undersize

CORR (M V ) r Vol undersize
( h - s) (1 + w )

(Psand ) ( 100)

where Mw Wet mass of material removed from hole

Ms Wet mass of +19 mm oversize
Mh Mass of sand in hole i.e. Mh is total hole volume
of Sand
Vs = Volume of oversize
Moisture content of undersize
Psand = Density of poured sand from cone.

and (1 + w ) is a correction since WET masses are used.

100

For moisture/density gauges

FDD = D (M M )

CORR d( s) x 1 = Mass undersize

M - V D r Vol undersize
s d