THE COMPACTION SPECIFICATION FOR HIGHWAYS FILL: PLACEMENT MOISTURE CONTENT RANGE FIXATION By Gerald R.

Maregesi, Federici-Stirling SpA P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

SUMMARY Invariably highways specifications are calling for placement moisture content of highways engineered fills to be in range of 2% below or above the optimum moisture content while some are specifying the placement moisture content in terms of percentage of OMC typically between 75-120%. These specifications do not take into consideration moisture sensitivity of some soils particularly fine grained soils. Small increase or decrease in moulding/placement moisture content of the fill material can result in significant loss of strength. Thus, this paper examines compaction and strength of three different soil types at 2% above and below OMC using CBR to measure the bearing capacity of the soil. Shortcomings of specification based on an arbitrary placement moisture content specification of OMC 2% are illustrated. The range of OMC 2% has been chosen as the baseline for this study since it is widely used by many specifying agencies. INTRODUCTION Compaction of the pavement layers is very important so as to produce an embankment which can safely carry the traffic with very minimum deformation. The specifications and control of placement and compaction of the fill is a key factor in the successfully execution of this operation. The specification which has been used widely for most highway engineered fills is to place the soil at 2% below or above optimum moisture content or as percentage of optimum moisture content normally 75-120% regardless of the soil nature. However, there is important difference between behaviour of soil at this normally specified range. Some soils may yield very satisfactory results at OMC, but showing a very drastic change when the soil is compacted at other moisture range OMC 2% inclusive. This paper presents CBR data from three different soils tested across the normally specified range of moisture content of OMC 2% and compacted to 95% and 100% of maximum dry density (AASHTO T180). THE CBR TEST The essential features of the test apparatus is fully described in BS 1377: Part 4:1990, AASHTO T193, CML 1.10 and 1.11. It consists of loading a sample of soil at a rate of 1 mm/minute with a circular plunger of cross sectional area of 1,935 mm 2. Load versus penetration curves are plotted and the actual load value at 2.5 mm and 5 mm penetration are noted. These load values are compared with standard loads of 13.2 kN

Maregesi, Mr. Gerald Roosevelt P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

and 20 kN. The CBR of the soil is expressed as a percentage of the standard load. For particular soil the CBR value generally increases as the dry density increases and as moisture content decreases. In CML 1.10 and 1.11, it is prescribed that the soil should be tested at optimum moisture content. While in AASHTO T193-93 and BS 1377-Part 4-1990, the effect of moulding moisture content on strength of soil particularly for fine grained soil is noted. Thus, article 3.2 and 3.3 of the AASHTO T193 and BS 1377-Part 4-1990 article 7.2.1.2 gives recommendation are reiterated hereunder: AASHTO T193-93-Article - 3.2: For applications where the effect of compaction water content on CBR is small, such as cohesion-less, coarse-grained material, or where an allowance is made for the effect of differing compaction water contents in the design procedure, the CBR may be determined at optimum moisture content of a specified compaction effort. The dry unit weight specified is normally the minimum percent compaction allowed by the using agencys field compaction specification. AASHTO T193-93-Article -3.3: For applications where the effect of compaction water content on CBR is unknown or where it is desired to account for its effect, the CBR is determined for a range of moisture content, usually the range of water content permitted for field compaction by using agencys field compaction specification. BS 1377 Part 4-1990-Article 7.2.1.2: The moisture content of the soil shall be chosen to represent the design conditions for which the test results are required. Alternatively, where a range of moisture content is to be investigated, water shall be added or removed from the natural soil after disaggregation. Although these clauses are incorporated into AASHTO T193 and in BS 1377 standards to address the effect of moulding moisture content on the strength of the soil, normally these procedures of testing the CBR are not adhered to by many specifying agencies and/or contractors thus it is a customary practice to test the soil CBR at optimum moisture content only. Central Materials Laboratory CML 1.10 and 1.11 as well as Pavement and Materials Design of Ministry of Works recommends only to test the soil CBR at optimum moisture content. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF SOIL COMPACTION Modern procedures for the placement and compaction of fill were introduced by RR Proctor in a series of four articles published in Engineering News-Record in 1933. Essentially Proctor was concerned to develop an improved procedure for the control of earthworks by simple laboratory and field tests. For more specialised soil mechanics knowledge he referred his readers to a paper published in Engineering News Record by Terzhagi (1925). Proctors work was associated with construction of earth-fill dams and concluded that: . it is possible to compact soil so firm and hard as to appear entirely suitable for a dam and for this same soil to become very soft and unstable when percolating water saturates it.

C:\Users\Gerald\Maregesi\papers for publication\Published Papers\Placement moisture content-2% fixation.doc

Maregesi, Mr. Gerald Roosevelt P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

Thus the principle objective of proctor was to find a method for determining the softening effect when the earth-fill was saturated with water. AASHTO T99 describes compaction test procedures 2.5 kg rammer with energy input of 594 kJ/m3 while AASHTO T180 describes test using 4.5 kg rammer with energy input of 2695 kJ/m3. The Optimum moisture content is defined as the moisture content at which the maximum dry density is achieved using a specified energy. When quoting OMC value, the type of compaction must be specified. Laboratory compaction test results are plotted on a graph of dry density versus moisture content. This is a simple and useful way of representing the condition of partially saturated fill. The basic laboratory testing carried by Proctor demonstrated some fundamental features of the compaction of clay soil. The density to which a particular compactive effort will bring a clay fill depends on the moisture content of the fill. For a given compactive effort there is a maximum dry density which is achieved at the optimum moisture content. The expressions maximum dry densities and optimum moisture content refer to a specified compaction procedure and can be misleading if taken out of the context of the procedures. At a moisture content dry of optimum, the specified compaction procedure will results in a fill with large air voids. At moisture content significantly wet of optimum moisture content, the specified compaction procedure will produce a fill with minimum air voids. These fundamental factors demonstrate that the control of moisture content is crucial for field control of compaction. Placement Moisture content Specification The placement moisture content can basically be specified as either percentage of OMC (75-120% of OMC) or most commonly as 2% above or below the OMC. The arbitrary choice of this placement moisture content irrespective of the soil type seems to be practically reasonable due to the fact that it is impossible to bring the fill material to optimum moisture content all the time. However, the specifying agencies seems to be reluctant to specify anything different from customary forgetting that soil types particularly the nature of the fine within the soil matrix may influence these requirements. For instance, article 3606(c) of Standard specification for Road works 2000 of Ministry of Works is calling the fill to be compacted at 75% of OMC. No allowance is made for the compaction on wet side of the optimum moisture content. This is signifying that if the fill material has optimum moisture content of 15%, the fill can be compacted up to 3.75% below optimum moisture content. The specifier always contend that placement moisture content of 2% above or below the optimum moisture content will guarantee at least 95% compaction for most soils. With this notion in mind, the designer/specifier will be satisfied that the soil will perform satisfactorily thus no effort is made to study the effect of moulding/placement moisture on strength of soil.

C:\Users\Gerald\Maregesi\papers for publication\Published Papers\Placement moisture content-2% fixation.doc

Maregesi, Mr. Gerald Roosevelt P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

LABORATORY TESTING Three soil samples taken along Dar-Bagamoyo Road were used during this study. The material tested was taken from Mpiji Borrow-pit, Borrow area at km 21 and the last one was taken from borrow area at Km 33. Specifically, the material ranged from Sandy gravel, Silty Sand and sandy Clay. Results of Laboratory Tests In order to investigate the behaviour of soil at moisture content of 2% below and above optimum content, the soil sample was compacted using modified Proctor compaction test AASHTO T180 so as to establish maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Thereafter the soil was statically compacted at different moisture content to achieve a compaction effort of 95% and 100% and thereafter soaked for four days. The samples were prepared to required density and at the required moisture content, taking care to minimise the presence of density variations within the samples. It was inevitable that that the density and moisture content didnt match the target values from the compaction curves but close agreement achieved. In case of deviation the exact value were interpolated from the curves. CBR were measured at each moisture content and the test results evaluated.
1950

CBR Value, %

Dry Density

1900 1850 1800 1750 1700 0 5 10 Moisture content 15 20

80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Moisture content 95% com 100% Comp 15 20

Figure 1: MDD/OMC curve and CBR variation at OMC2, Soil Sample from Mpiji
Dry Density, kg/m3
2200 2150 2100 2050 2000 1950 0 5 10 15 Moisture content % 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 Moisture Content % 95% Comp 100% Comp

Figure 2: MDD/OMC curve and CBR at 2%, sample from Km 33

C:\Users\Gerald\Maregesi\papers for publication\Published Papers\Placement moisture content-2% fixation.doc

CBR, %

Maregesi, Mr. Gerald Roosevelt P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

Dry Density, kg/m3

2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 0 5 10 15 moisture content % OMC-2,+2

40 30 20 10 0 0 5

CBR%

OMC-2,+2 10 15

Moisture content % 95% com 100% Comp

Figure 3: MDD/OMC curve and CBR at 2% OMC, sample from Km 21

Analysis of Laboratory Test Results Figure 1-3 gives a relationship between moulding moisture content and CBR. The reduction in CBR beyond either side of optimum is marked for all three samples tested. The effect is more pronounced in sample from Mpiji as shown in figure 1. At 100% compaction the CBR dropped drastically from the peak CBR value of 71% to negligible CBR value at 2% wet of optimum. On 2% dry of optimum moisture content resulted in 58% reduction in CBR value. At 95% compaction level the peak CBR was achieved on wet side about 1.8% above optimum moisture content, yet marked reduction in CBR value dry of optimum was realised as shown in figure 1, whereby the peak CBR value dropped from 13% to 6% which is equivalent to 38% reduction. In Figure 2, for 100% compaction degree, the reduction in CBR value is also more marked on 2% wet of optimum whereby the CBR value dropped from peak value of 60% to 20% which is equivalent to 67% reduction. On dry side the peak CBR value was reduced by 20%. At 95% compaction level, the peak CBR was attained at about 2% dry of optimum; on 2% wet side the peak CBR value was reduced by 63%. In figure 3, at 100% compaction the CBR value was substantially reduced at 2% dry of optimum moisture content whereby the CBR value was reduced by 35% with negligible reduction on 2% wet of optimum moisture content. At 95% compaction level the peak CBR value was attained beyond 2% wet of optimum. At 2% dry of optimum the peak CBR value reduced by 64%. The relationship between the CBR below and above optimum moisture content given in figure 1-3 is showing that the reduction in CBR with increasing or decreasing moisture content is marked for all three sample types. Typically a 2% increase or increase in moisture content above or below optimum moisture content can catastrophically reduce the CBR value to negligible. Further, the moisture sensitivity tends to increase as compaction energy increases. This is clearly shown by the test results, whereby the 100% compaction shows higher moisture sensitivity in comparison to 95% compaction level. DISCUSSION The marked reduction in soil strength due to moisture content variation, measured in terms of CBR value needs to be considered in more details. This study has clearly

C:\Users\Gerald\Maregesi\papers for publication\Published Papers\Placement moisture content-2% fixation.doc

Maregesi, Mr. Gerald Roosevelt P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

highlighted how the performance of pavement layers can be adversely affected by moulding/placement moisture content. Some soils are extremely sensitive to moisture content variation as shown by the test results. The study is also indicating that the soil is more sensitive to moisture content variation when the compaction energy is higher. This is signifying that the use if heavy roller to achieve higher degree of compaction sometime can be disastrous in terms of pavement performance due to high pore pressures and swelling potential with subsequent reduction of soil stability. CONCLUSIONS The rapid reduction in CBR value of soil as the moisture content varies from the optimum moisture content has been demonstrated. Placement/moulding moisture content has very devastating effect on some soil. A departure of moisture content from optimum moisture content may result in drastic drop in soaked CBR which may lead to premature pavement failure. It is of considerable advantage to test the soil across the typically recommended or specified moisture and compaction ranges to ascertain the critical behaviour of the soil prior approval of any proposed borrow area. From soaked CBR testing it was found that some soil has egregious sensitivity to moulding/placement moisture content. Testing through typical specified range may allow relaxation or more strict control of moisture content in the field. It is imperative for the specifying agencies to address that the pavement layers must not only be compacted to the proper density, but compaction at proper moisture content. This study is clearly illustrating that soil properties and therefore performance are dependant on the placement moisture content during compaction but not on achieved dry density. It is suggested that the CML 1.10 and 1.11 standards for testing CBR should be revised urgently so as to insert clause explicitly to address the effect of moulding/placement moisture content in the strength of soil. Similarly, article 3606(c) of Standard Specification for Road Works 2000 should be reviewed to allow compaction above optimum moisture since some soils are likely to show considerable instability when compacted at moisture content below optimum. Further, researches are indicating that swelling clays should be compacted wet of optimum in order to minimise swelling potential. (3) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful to all Federici-Stirling Laboratory staffs particularly Mr. Rasul Msangi and Peter Mshamu for carrying out laboratory tests.

C:\Users\Gerald\Maregesi\papers for publication\Published Papers\Placement moisture content-2% fixation.doc

Maregesi, Mr. Gerald Roosevelt P.O Box 19074 Dar Es Salaam Email: Maregesi@yahoo.com

References 1. AASHTO T193-93, The California Bearing Ratio, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official, 1995. 2. BS 1377:1990, Methods of test for soil for Civil Engineering purposes, BSI 1990. 3. Krebs, D.R and Walker D.R, Highway Materials, McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1971 4. MOW, Pavement and Materials Design Manual, Ministry of Works-Tanzania, 1999. 5. MOW, Standard Specification For Road Works, Ministry of works-Tanzania, 2000. 6. Proctor RR, Description of field and laboratory methods, 1933(b), Engineering News-Record, Vol. III, September 7, pp 286-289. 7. Proctor RR, Field and laboratory verification of soil suitability, 1933(c), Engineering News-Record, Vol. III, September 21, pp 348-351. 8. Proctor RR, Fundamental principals of soil compaction, 1933(a), Engineering News-Record, Vol. III, August 31, pp 245-248. 9. Proctor RR, New principles applied to actual dam-building, 1933(d), Engineering News-Record, Vol. III, September 28, pp 372-376 10. Skempton A.W, The Bearing Capacity of clays, Building Research Congress, London, 1951. 11. Terzaghi C, Principle of soil mechanics:-phenomena of cohesion of clay. Engineering News Record, Vol. 95, No. 19, November 5, pp 742-746.

C:\Users\Gerald\Maregesi\papers for publication\Published Papers\Placement moisture content-2% fixation.doc