Capturing Nonlinear Vibratory Roller Compactor Behavior

through Lumped Parameter Modeling

Paul J. van Susante, S.M.ASCE1; and Michael A. Mooney, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2

Abstract: Continuous monitoring of soil properties using an instrumented roller compactor requires models that can capture the essential
features observed during drum/soil vibration. This paper presents the results of lumped parameter modeling of the drum/soil system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

together with data from complex nonlinear behavior observed experimentally during operation on sandy soil. Model parameters and
response were developed using experimental data collected over a wide range of operating frequencies. Three and four-degree-of-freedom
共DOF兲 models with linear and nonlinear soil elements were investigated. The results showed that a 3DOF model incorporating the soil,
drum, and frame of the roller was successful in capturing behavior during coupled drum/soil vibration and during decoupling 共i.e., loss of
contact between drum and soil兲. Modeling the drum/soil decoupling accounted for most of the experimentally observed nonlinearity. The
addition of nonlinear soil stiffness due to the curved drum effect and due to strain hardening soil behavior accounted for additional
nonlinearity observed experimentally. Experimentally observed drum rocking during coupled drum/soil vibration was successfully mod-
eled with a 4DOF drum-frame model. The analysis also revealed that commonly observed heterogeneous soil conditions give rise to a
transient response that can have a significant influence on vibration behavior.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9399共2008兲134:8共684兲
CE Database subject headings: Data analysis; Geotechnical models; Dynamic models; Nonlinear systems; Soil compaction; Soil
dynamics; Parameters.

Introduction paction efficiency, prevent overcompaction, and improve

Vibratory roller compactors are commonly used to transform
loosely placed granular and mildly cohesive soils into densely
packed load bearing earth structures. Given the trend towards
assessment of mechanistic soil properties 共e.g., modulus兲 and
the need to improve earthwork quality control/quality assurance
共QC/QA兲, there is increased interest in vibration-based monitor-
ing of roller compactors to provide continuous assessment of
the soil’s stiffness and/or modulus. Continuous vibration moni-
toring is essentially a system identification-type inverse prob-
lem wherein the soil parameters are estimated via measured
inputs 共eccentric excitation forcing function兲 and measured
outputs 共roller drum and frame vibration兲. In this context, a robust
model structure is critical to effective system identification.
An accurate model of the soil-roller system is also required
for so-called “intelligent soil compaction” wherein the roller’s
excitation 共forcing兲 frequency and/or amplitude are automatically
adjusted via feedback control in an attempt to improve com-
1 in practice more than 50% of the time兲 and used a linear spring
Ph.D. Candidate, Division of Engineering, Colorado School of
Mines, 1610 Illinois St., Golden, CO 80401. E-mail: paulvans@
mines.edu
2
Associate Professor, Division of Engineering, Colorado School of
Mines, 1610 Illinois St., Golden, CO 80401 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: mooney@mines.edu
Note. Associate Editor: Anil Misra. Discussion open until January 1,
2009. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on October 17, 2006; approved on
January 31, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering Me-
chanics, Vol. 134, No. 8, August 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399/
2008/8-684–693/$25.00.
homogeneity.
The instrumentation of vibratory rollers has been addressed in
the literature 共Adam 1996; Adam and Kopf 2004; Brandl et al.
2005; Rinehart and Mooney 2008兲 and is increasingly being
adopted in practice. Recent experimental data collected with in-
strumented roller compactors 共Anderegg and Kaufman 2004;
Adam and Kopf 2004; Mooney et al. 2006; Mooney and Rinehart
2007兲 reveal fairly complex nonlinear behavior, including loss of
contact between the drum and soil, drum and frame rocking, and
chaotic behavior. In addition, a traveling roller interacting with
underlying soil heterogeneity and employing a variety of excita-
tion frequencies and amplitudes gives rise to transient behavior.
The development of mass-spring-dashpot lumped parameter
models to characterize roller-soil behavior has evolved per the
findings from experimental studies. Early efforts 共Yoo and Selig
1979, 1980兲 proposed a 2-degree-of-freedom 共DOF兲 model to
represent steady-state vertical drum and frame kinematics. These
investigators restricted their modeling to contact behavior 共ne-
glecting when the drum loses contact with the soil, which occurs
共and viscous damping兲 to model soil stiffness. Limited experi-
mental data at frequencies much greater than resonance were pre-
sented; hence, the model could not be validated over the usable
frequency range and at resonance. Yoo and Selig 共1979兲 model
damping ratio 共⬃15% 兲 and soil stiffness 共⬃5 MN/ m兲 are much
lower than the 20– 30% damping and 20– 80 MN/ m stiffness
that will be shown here and have been observed elsewhere 共e.g.,
Quibel 1980; Adam 1996; Anderegg 1997兲. Drum/soil decoupling
has been modeled by including a DOF to represent the involved
soil 共Quibel 1980; Machet and Sanejouand 1980; Kröber 1988;
Pietsch and Poppy 1993; Adam 1996兲. These modeling efforts
revealed nonlinear drum response due to decoupling from the

684 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693

 Fig. 1. 共a兲 Tandem drum; 共b兲 single drum; and 共c兲 vibratory roller compactors and coordinate axes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ground; however, very little loss of contact experimental data was
presented to develop and/or validate model behavior over the
broad frequency range of interest 共15– 40 Hz兲.
Adam 共1996兲 and Anderegg 共1997兲 used lumped parameter
modeling to explore the various operational modes of roller vi-
bration, including nonlinear and chaotic vibration. In addition to
drum/soil coupled behavior 共i.e., full contact throughout兲, Adam
共1996兲 characterized both partial loss of contact where the drum
decouples from the soil for a portion of each loading cycle and
“jump” mode 共also referred to as double jump兲 wherein the drum
loses contact for more than one cycle of vibration at a time. The
resulting nonlinear signal in jump mode includes a subharmonic
at one half the excitation frequency 共Adam 1996; Adam and Kopf
2004兲. Anderegg 共1997兲 and Anderegg and Kaufmann 共2004兲
described jump mode and rocking mode vibration as chaotic
states. Employing chaos theory, Anderegg 共1997兲 showed that
rocking and jump mode vibration states occur above a certain
centrifugal force and soil stiffness combination 共roller parameter
specific兲. In current practice, vibratory roller compactors employ
feedback control of the centrifugal force to prevent chaotic mo-
tion 共Anderegg and Kaufmann 2004兲 because these motions are
harmful to the machines and dangerous for the operator. To this
end, the modeling effort presented here does not explore these
chaotic processes.
This paper explores the capability of 3 and 4DOF lumped
parameter models with linear and nonlinear elements to reproduce
the vibratory roller behavior observed experimentally. Compre-
hensive drum/soil contact and loss of contact data collected over
a 10– 45 Hz operating range is presented and used to develop and
analyze model performance. In addition to loss of contact induced
nonlinearity, the nonlinear interaction between a curved drum and
soil is incorporated into the model, as is strain hardening nonlin-
ear soil stiffness. The various forms of model nonlinearity are
investigated and compared with the experimental data. This paper
also explores the modeling of drum and frame rocking, and the
comparison with experimental data that reveals rocking vibration.
The paper also addresses the role of transient behavior. All the
model results presented are validated with experimental data.
Model Development
Typical earthwork vibratory roller compactors have total machine
masses ranging from 7 to 20 Mg. Drum diameter and lengths
approach 1.6 and 2.1 m, respectively. Single drum rollers such
as the one depicted in Fig. 1 are commonly used on soils. Dual
or tandem drum rollers 共see Fig. 1兲, typically reserved for asphalt
compaction, are sometimes also used for soil compaction. Vi-
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 685
J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693
bratory excitation is created by an eccentric mass configuration
that rotates about the drum axle 共see Fig. 1兲 and creates a cen-
trifugal force m0e0⍀2, where m0e0⫽eccentric mass moment and
⍀⫽circular frequency. Various eccentric mass configurations
exist, e.g., eccentric mass configurations may rotate unidirection-
ally creating both horizontal and vertical excitation components.
Conversely, counter-rotating eccentric masses can serve to cancel
the horizontal excitation component or provide directional ampli-
tude if the entire assembly is rotated. The resultant eccentric mass
moment 共m0e0兲 and excitation frequency ⍀ are often variable;
some roller compactors have multiple m0e0 settings that must be
adjusted manually while others have electronically controlled
m0e0 variability allowing for an unlimited number of settings
between minimum and maximum. Excitation frequencies typi-
cally range from 20 to 40 Hz during soil compaction and can
often be electronically controlled. With medium and high m0e0
settings, typical operating frequencies, and stiff soils, the vertical
excitation force can exceed the static weight of the roller at the
drum location and cause drum/soil decoupling during a portion of
each cycle. Only contact and partial loss of contact operation
共from here on called “loss of contact”兲 will be considered during
modeling.
When considering roller-soil modeling, a few key issues are
worth noting:
1. A vibratory roller compactor travels in forward or reverse
mode at speeds of 0.5– 1.5 m / s. Given these speeds and the
typical 20– 40 Hz excitation frequency range, the spatial dis-
tance between excitation cycles 共often called impact spacing兲
varies from approximately 20 mm 共0.5 m / s , 40 Hz兲 to
75 mm 共1.5 m / s , 20 Hz兲;
2. The depth of influence or measurement depth of an instru-
mented vibratory is on the order of 1 – 2 m 共Anderegg and
Kaufman 2004兲. Given that the typical thickness of lifts
being compacted is 150– 300 mm, the roller response is also
influenced by material underlying the lift being compacted.
This subsurface can be quite variable and can have a signifi-
cant effect if it is much softer or stiffer than the compaction
lift, e.g., near surface bedrock; and
3. Spatial heterogeneity in soil density, moisture content, and
lift thickness, all as a result of typical construction practice,
lead to heterogeneity in soil stiffness experienced by the
roller compactor. Furthermore, soil stiffness and modulus are
very sensitive to subtle changes in moisture and density
共Nazarian et al. 2002兲, and therefore can vary considerably
on a project site.
With these issues in mind, the general framework for the roller-
soil model is shown in Fig. 2 where both the roller and soil are
modeled with mass-spring-dashpot components. While x and y
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. 共a兲 3DOF lumped mass model of vibratory roller compactor and soil; 共b兲 free-body diagrams used to generate Eqs. 共1兲–共6兲

motion is kinematically possible, only vertical 共z兲 motion is con-
sidered here because it directly contributes to the determination of
soil stiffness. Vertical 共z兲 motion requires 3DOF, including the
vertical motion of the drum, frame, and soil, where the soil is
modeled as a DOF to enable loss of contact. The drum mass
includes the eccentric assembly while the frame mass is deter-
mined by subtracting the drum weight from the total static weight
measured under the drum. Rubber mounts isolate the drum from
the frame. These bearings were modeled with a complex stiffness
relationship 共static stiffness plus viscous dashpot兲 provided by the
manufacturer Lord Corporation.
The soil model employed here—mass, spring, dashpot—is a
simple analog that has been proven effective in modeling surface
vibration of foundations resting on homogeneous and layered
elastic half spaces 共Lysmer and Richart 1966; Gazetas 1983;
Baidya et al. 2006; Wolf 1994兲. During coupled drum/soil vibra-
tion, a portion of the involved soil is in synchronous motion with
the drum. The amount of added or apparent soil mass has been
debated throughout the foundation vibration literature with
no clear consensus 共e.g., Richart et al. 1970; Barkan 1962;
Balakrishna Rao and Nagaraj 1960; Crockett and Hammond
1949兲. This lack of consensus also pervades the roller-soil mod-
eling literature. A number of roller modeling studies neglected the
soil mass 共Yoo and Selig 1979; Anderegg 1997兲. Quibel 共1980兲
used an apparent mass equal to 62% of the drum mass while
Kröber 共1988兲 used 10% of the drum mass. Pietzsch and Poppy
共1993兲 adopted an apparent soil mass equal to 36% of the drum
mass. From our data and numerical simulations, the inclusion of
an apparent soil mass equal to 20% of the drum mass provided a
good amplitude match between the models and the experimental
data. This can be seen in Fig. 3 in which 3DOF drum-frame-soil
model results with 0, 20, 40, and 60% added soil are shown
together with experimental data. Here, the experimental and
model results involve fully coupled drum/soil behavior 共hence,
the 3DOF model reduces to 2DOF兲. Fig. 3 presents the peak
vibration amplitudes 兩Z̈d 兩 / ⍀2 when the drum is at the top and
bottom of its vertical cycle. Fig. 3 modeling results employ a
linear soil stiffness and yield the same top and bottom amplitudes.
The soil spring element is a composite stiffness that represents
both the lift being compacted and the underlying layers within the
depth of influence 共Odemark 1949; Anderegg and Kaufmann
2004兲. The soil stiffness should be considered stress dependent
and thus nonlinear given the significant stresses created by the
roller forces. The numerical modeling efforts and experimental
results presented here largely reflect roller vibration behavior on
compacted soil, where applications such as “proof rolling” are
employed to assess soil properties. To this end, plastic soil defor-
mation is deemed insignificant and is not included in the model.
Additional model nonlinearity is introduced due to drum curva-
ture 共Lundberg 1939兲. For analysis of transient response, the
spring element is also considered time varying to simulate spatial
heterogeneity. The viscous dashpot is used to represent both ra-
diation and material damping, with the former dominating the
energy dissipation of the system 共Lysmer and Richart 1966;
Mooney and Rinehart 2007兲.
The equations of motion for contact and loss of contact behav-
ior were determined via force equilibrium using free body dia-
grams of frame, drum, and soil 共see Fig. 2兲. Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲
represent drum and frame behavior during drum/soil contact
mode vibration. All variables are defined in the “Notation”
section at the end of this paper. Note that the soil moves as one
with the drum 共zd = zs兲 while in contact and as separate DOFs
during loss of contact. Both contact and loss of contact mode
commonly occur within each cycle of vibration. The contact force
Fc between the drum and soil can be determined from both
soil equilibrium and drum equilibrium 关Eq. 共3兲兴. Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲
are valid while the drum and soil are in contact 共Fc ⬎ 0兲. During
loss of contact behavior 共Fc ⬍ 0兲, frame, drum, and soil behavior
are described by Eqs. 共4兲–共6兲. For all equations, displacement,
Fig. 3. Influence of added or apparent soil mass on model drum
response during contact mode vibration

686 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693

 velocity, and acceleration are downward positive as shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. Zero displacement is defined as the location of
the masses before any force 共including gravity兲 is applied. Values
for the system characteristic constants 共provided by the manufac-
turers兲 are as follows: drum mass 共md兲 = 2,638 kg, frame mass
共m f 兲 = 4,565 kg, the stiffness coefficient between the drum and
frame 共kdf 兲 = 3.4 MN/ m, and the damping coefficient between the
drum and frame 共cdf 兲 is determined by multiplying kdf with the
loss factor 共␩ = 0.16兲 and dividing by the eccentric rotational fre-
quency 共⍀兲
z̈s = z̈d
m0e0⍀2 sin共⍀t兲 + mdg + msg − kszd − csżd − kdf 共zd − z f 兲 − cdf 共żd − ż f 兲
= response is governed by Eqs. 共4兲–共6兲. The displacement criterion
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
md + ms
m f g + kdf 共zd − z f 兲 + cdf 共żd − ż f 兲
z̈ f =
mf
Fc = msz̈d − msg + kszd + csżd = m0e0⍀2 sin共⍀t兲 + mdg + m f g
− mdz̈d − m f z̈ f
m0e0⍀2 sin共⍀t兲 − kdf 共zd − z f 兲 − cdf 共żd − ż f 兲
z̈d =
md
m0e0⍀2 sin共⍀t兲 + mdg + msg − kszd-new − csżd-new − kdf 共zd-new − z f 兲 − cdf 共żd-new − ż f 兲
z̈d-new =
Results
Model results are presented together with experimental data to
illustrate the efficacy of 3 and 4DOF lumped parameter modeling.
The experimental results were determined from an instrumented
double smooth drum vibratory roller 共Ingersoll Rand DD138兲.
The roller traveled over lifts of poorly graded sandy soil 共SP per
Unified Soil Classification System; A-1-b per American Associa-
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials兲 at forward
velocities of 0.5– 1.5 m / s. A detailed presentation of the experi-
mental program and roller instrumentation can be found else-
where 共Mooney and Rinehart 2007; Rinehart and Mooney 2008兲.
The presentation of model results begins with steady-state results
from the 3DOF soil, drum, and frame system with linear soil
stiffness 共and damping兲, and progresses to nonlinear soil behavior
and transient effects and to the 4DOF model for rocking mode
vibration.
Drum Response, Contact, and Loss of Contact
The critical time history aspects of modeling roller-soil response
are captured in the four components of the contact force Fc
关Eq. 共3兲兴, namely eccentric force m0e0⍀2 sin共⍀t兲, drum inertia
共−mdz̈d兲, frame inertia 共−m f z̈ f 兲, and static weight 共mdg + m f g兲.
Experimental data and model response of these four components
are shown in Fig. 4 for both contact and loss of contact operation.
A 3DOF roller-soil model 共ms = 0.2md兲 with linear soil stiffness
共ks = 72 MN/ m兲 and viscous soil damping 共cs = 230 kN s / m兲 was
msg − kszs − csżs
z̈s = 共5兲
ms
m f g + kdf 共zd − z f 兲 + cdf 共żd − ż f 兲
z̈ f = 共6兲
mf
A Runga–Kutta finite difference numerical method was employed
to evaluate both transient and steady-state roller vibration, and to
accommodate nonlinear soil stiffness and loss of contact behavior.
This fourth-order numerical scheme is very stable but requires
many evaluations per simulated time step 共0.5 ms in most cases兲.
Within the numerical scheme, when Fc 艋 0 per Eq. 共3兲, the model
zd 艌 zs is used to determine when contact is regained. Upon
共1兲
regaining contact 共zd 艌 zs兲, md and ms combine and require the
calculation of the combined values of the velocity, displacement,
共2兲 and acceleration using conservation of momentum as shown in
Eqs. 共7兲–共9兲, respectively
msżs + mdżd
żd−new = 共7兲
共3兲 ms + md
zs + zd
+g 共4兲 zd−new = 共8兲
2
共9兲
md + ms
used for both the contact and loss of contact behavior. The ks and
cs values were selected based on a best fit analysis with the ex-
perimental data. Figs. 4共a and b兲 illustrate typical vertical drum
inertia, frame inertia, and eccentric excitation behavior observed
experimentally for contact and loss of contact response, respec-
tively. Model components of Fc are shown in Figs. 4共c and d兲
while Figs. 4共e and f兲 present the resultant model and experi-
mental contact forces. Note how Fc ⬇ 0 during loss of contact.
The sign convention considers downward positive displacement,
velocity, and acceleration; positive contact force implies com-
pression between the drum and soil. The contact mode data
关Figs. 4共a and e兲兴 were recorded during 21 Hz vibration with
m0e0 = 0.98 kg m, hence the eccentric force oscillates sinusoidally
with an amplitude of ⫾17 kN. The loss of contact mode data
关Figs. 4共b and f兲兴 was recorded during 27 Hz vibration with
m0e0 = 2.32 kg m; therefore, the eccentric force oscillates sinusoi-
dally with an amplitude of ⫾65 kN. The static weight is equal to
70 kN 关not shown in Fig. 4共a兲 due to scaling兴.
Drum inertia is fairly sinusoidal in both cases. Frame inertia is
smaller in magnitude than the other components and is nonsinu-
soidal, particularly during loss of contact. The drum acceleration,
reflected by the negative of the drum inertia divided by md, pro-
vides insight into the nonlinearity of the system. Figs. 4共a and b兲
show that the peak negative drum acceleration 共peak positive in-
ertia兲 exceeds the peak positive drum acceleration during both
contact and loss of contact response. This peak negative response
occurs when the drum is at the bottom in its trajectory, i.e., during
rebound from the ground. Figs. 4共c–f兲 present the model contact
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 687
J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental and 3DOF model of contact force and its components for typical contact mode 共left兲 and loss of contact mode
共right兲

force components and resultant Fc. For the contact case, Fc and
components 共including phase differences兲 agree well with the ex-
perimental data 关Fig. 4共e兲兴. This 3DOF model response does not
include soil nonlinearity and thus overpredicts the peak positive
drum acceleration and thus the minimum Fc. For the loss of con-
tact mode, the model also effectively matches the resultant Fc and
components with the exception of the nonsinusoidal frame re-
sponse 关Fig. 4共f兲兴. The model also reveals greater distortion in the
drum inertia than the experimental data as the drum loses and
regains contact with the ground 关see circles in Fig. 4共d兲兴.
Broadening to behavior over a greater frequency range, Fig. 5
presents both experimental and 3DOF 共drum-frame-soil兲 model
frequency response for vertical drum vibration while traveling
over the sand test bed. The experimental data in Figs. 5共a and c兲
represent low amplitude eccentric force 共m0e0 = 0.98 kg m兲 behav-
ior and Figs. 5共b and d兲 represent high amplitude eccentric force
共m0e0 = 2.32 kg m兲 behavior. As the roller traversed a 100-m long
testbed, the excitation frequency was stepped up over 2 – 4 Hz
increments; each frequency was held for 3 – 5 s to ensure steady-
state vibration. Hence, both experimental and model results in
Fig. 5 represent steady-state response. Figs. 5共a and b兲 illustrate
the peak acceleration amplitudes 共normalized by ⍀2兲 that occur
when the drum is at the top and bottom of its vibration cycle. The
peak upward drum acceleration 共occurring at the bottom of the

688 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Frequency response of drum experimental and 3DOF model amplitude response and phase lag for low eccentric excitation 共left兲 and high
eccentric excitation 共right兲
drum’s cycle兲 was always greater than the downward drum accel-
eration 共occurring at the top of the drum’s cycle兲. During low
eccentric force excitation the drum and soil remained in contact.
However, the drum decoupled from the soil for most frequencies
during high eccentric force excitation.
The observed phase lag between the eccentric mass and drum
positions is shown in Figs. 5共c and d兲. This phase lag reflects the
difference in time between the eccentric mass and drum when at
their bottom positions. Note that phase lag is not constant within
each cycle of vibration due to system nonlinearity, e.g., compare
␾top with ␾bot in Fig. 4. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that ␾bot
measured experimentally exhibits a gradual increase from a low
of 30° on the left side of resonance to a high of 180° on the right
side of resonance. ␾bot was approximately 100° during low ec-
centric force resonant excitation and approximately 115° during
high eccentric force resonant excitation.
The 3DOF model responses are superimposed on Fig. 5.
Model parameters used for both low and high excitation force
include constant ks = 58 MN/ m and cs = 210 kN s / m, determined
via best fit analysis over the entire frequency spectrum. With a
constant ks, the model is linear during drum/soil contact and thus
does not convey different top and bottom drum acceleration peaks
during contact 关Figs. 5共a and b兲兴. The model does capture the
frequency response behavior during contact mode with the ex-
ception of the dip in amplitude that occurs near 30 Hz 共discussed
in next paragraph兲. The constant ks model does accurately reflect
the frequencies where loss of contact occurs and does match
the top and bottom drum accelerations observed experimentally
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 689
J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693
关Fig. 5共b兲兴. Consistent with the findings of Anderegg 共1997兲,
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate that the majority of nonlinearity observed
is due to drum/soil decoupling.
One area where the drum-frame-soil vertical DOF model
proved insufficient was in capturing what is believed to be
rocking-induced vertical drum vibration observed 共rotation about
the x-axis in Fig. 1兲 around 30 Hz in Figs. 5共a and b兲. The ex-
perimental data presented in Fig. 5 were captured from sensors
mounted to a nonrotating element on one end of the drum. Rock-
ing can magnify the vertical acceleration on one end of the drum
关as shown in Fig. 5共a兲兴 and diminish it on the other end 关as shown
in Fig. 5共b兲兴. Unfortunately, experimental data from both ends of
the drum are unavailable 共only one end has a nonrotating mount
to which an accelerometer can be attached兲; therefore, drum rock-
ing cannot be confirmed. However, frame acceleration data reveal
frame rocking near 30 Hz for both low and high amplitude eccen-
tric force, as evidenced by the left and right side frame accelera-
tion being out of phase 共see Fig. 6兲.
To model drum and frame rocking during drum/soil full
contact mode, rotational DOFs were added to the vertical drum
and frame DOFs. Constant ks = 58 MN/ m and cs = 180 kN s / m
were used in combination with mass moments of inertia around
the x axis for the drum and frame of Ixxd = 400 kg m2 and
Ixxf = 600 kg m2, respectively. Because only contact mode rocking
was explored, the soil and drum DOFs merge into one. The
results from the 4DOF model 共soil and drum DOFs merge into
one for contact mode兲 are presented in Fig. 7. The right and
left end peak amplitudes from the model analysis indicate rocking
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Experimental frame response data from around 30 Hz for low eccentric force 共left兲 and high eccentric force 共right兲 showing left and right
side of frame vibrating out of phase

resonance occurs around 29 Hz, and that an increase or decrease results of Fig. 7, the occurrence of drum rocking cannot be
can occur depending on which end the sensor is located 共due fully confirmed without experimental data from both ends of the
to coupled vertical translation plus rotation兲. Though probable, drum.
based on the experimental results in Figs. 5 and 6 and the model

Fig. 7. Experimental and 4DOF model drum rocking during contact
mode vibration
Nonlinearity
As was illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5, the roller-soil system exhibits
nonlinear response during contact and loss of contact operation.
Simply accounting for drum-soil separation in the model captures
much of the nonlinearity. However, there remains unaccounted
for nonlinearity, e.g., as evidenced in contact mode nonlinearity.
Two additional sources of nonlinearity were modeled: 共1兲 curva-
ture of the drum; and 共2兲 stress dependency of soil stiffness.
The curved surface of the drum leads to a nonlinearly varying
contact force-surface deflection relationship. Lundberg 共1939兲
developed a solution for a force applied through an infinitely
long rigid cylinder resting on an elastic half space using Hertzian
contact theory. Kröber et al. 共2001兲 presented Lundberg’s solution
as a relationship between the resulting soil stiffness ks and the
elastic properties of the half space, i.e., Young’s modulus E
and Poisson’s ratio ␯ 关see Eq. 共10兲兴. As exhibited in Eq. 共10兲
and shown in Fig. 8共a兲, the curvature of the drum has a mild

Fig. 8. Nonlinearity in model soil stiffness due to: 共a兲 curvature of drum; 共b兲 strain hardening or softening behavior of soil

690 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Matching drum vibration by modeling constant ks, hardening ks, and curved drum during: 共a兲 contact behavior; 共b兲 loss of contact behavior

hardening effect on the relationship between contact force and 25%. The addition of curved drum nonlinearity 关Eq. 共10兲 with
soil displacement E = 100 MN/ m2 and ␯ = 0.25兴 improves the model’s ability to
match bottom drum acceleration amplitudes only slightly. The
EL␲ use of curved drum and mild stress hardening soil behavior
ks = 共10兲

冢 冣
L 共k2 = 1.03 for contact, k2 = 1.06 for loss of contact兲 in the model

冑
2共1 − ␯ 兲 1.8864 + ln
2
16 R共1 − ␯2兲 FC
␲ E L tion. Other sources of nonlinearity that are not addressed here
An additional source of nonlinearity stems from the stress depen-
dency of soil stiffness. It is well documented that soil stiffness
increases with increasing confining stress and decreases with in-
creasing shear stress. Within each cycle of vibration, the shear
stress is increasing markedly due to the applied eccentric force,
and the confining stress is increasing due to lateral confinement.
To evaluate both stress hardening and stress softening, a simple
power law stiffness kszkd2 共Andrei et al. 2004兲 was adopted 关see
Fig. 8共b兲兴.
Fig. 9 presents 3DOF model results for contact 共low eccentric
amplitude兲 and loss of contact 共high eccentric amplitude兲 behav-
ior using constant ks and nonlinear ks due to the curved drum and
soil stress dependency. The nonlinearity in the experimental data
in Fig. 9 is characterized by 15–25% greater bottom drum accel-
eration amplitudes. Using constant ks = 62 MN/ m 共k2 = 1.0兲 and
cs = 180 kN s / m, the model underestimates bottom drum accelera-
tion in both cases by approximately 10–20% and overestimates
top drum acceleration during loss of contact by approximately
matches the bottom drum acceleration response observed ex-
perimentally. Each model still overpredicts top drum accelera-
might include the layering of media 共Adam 1996; Anderegg and
Kaufmann 2004兲 and any plastic deformation that may occur at
the drum/soil contact area.
Transient and Steady-State Response
Thus far, the experimental data and model responses presented
here have assumed steady-state behavior. Until recently, vibratory
roller compactors have typically operated at constant ⍀ and m0e0
while traveling at constant velocity. Consequently, all modeling
efforts have assumed spatially homogeneous soil conditions and
thus considered the roller vibration to be steady state. There are
two important deviations from this where transient behavior
may be important. First, roller compactors are increasingly being
designed to vary ⍀ and m0e0 using real-time feedback control.
Second, recent studies with instrumented rollers reveal that sub-
surface heterogeneity 共e.g., near surface bedrock兲 can cause sig-
nificant variability in measured soil stiffness 共Mooney et al.

Fig. 10. Roller measured soil stiffness where local stiffness variation can be as much as 50%

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 691

J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Generation of transient response from steady state by step
change in soil stiffness
2006兲. For example, Fig. 10 illustrates considerable variability in
ks measured along a 40-m testbed with fairly abrupt changes in ks.
To this end, the effects of transient response were investigated
by introducing step increases and decreases in ks into the numeri-
cal simulation. Fig. 11 illustrates the process and the terms used
here to describe the results. Under steady-state vibration, a step
change in soil stiffness ⫾⌬ks was introduced. The resulting tran-
sient amplitude Z̈d共tr兲 was determined as was the settling time 共␶兲
required to restore steady-state vibration and the new steady-state
acceleration amplitude Z̈d共ss兲 共see Fig. 11兲. Because transient be-
havior depends on when ⌬ks was introduced within a cycle, simu-
lations were performed for eight different introduction times
within a cycle. Fig. 12 presents the findings of numerical simula-
tions performed with the 2DOF model 共roller/soil contact兲 using
ks = 30 MN/ m and cs = 210 kN s / m. Values of ⌬ks / ks were varied
⫾50% in correspondence with measurements 共Fig. 10兲. The
analysis showed that the transient amplitude varied from 20 to
150% of the steady-state amplitude while the settling time nor-
malized by the period of excitation T ranged from one to seven
cycles. Considering an average roller velocity of 1.5 m / s and
30 Hz excitation, the length of travel required to settle to within
2% of steady state is 0 – 0.3 m. These results suggest that transient
response changes can be significant in the case of soil heteroge-
neity, and should be considered in modeling and model-based
extraction of soil properties.
Fig. 12. Transient drum vibration amplitude 共a兲 and settling time 共b兲 caused by step change in ks
692 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008
J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693
Conclusions
This paper investigated the ability of nonlinear lumped parameter
models to capture the often complex nonlinear behavior observed
during vibratory roller/soil interaction. Comprehensive experi-
mental results over a wide frequency range 共10– 45 Hz兲 were
presented to compare with model results. A 3DOF model with
constant ks and cs captured the trends in drum vibration ampli-
tude and drum phase lag for low and high eccentric excitation
over a wide frequency range 共10– 45 Hz兲 with the exception of
rocking-induced excitation observed experimentally near 29 Hz.
This 3DOF model also captured the salient roller response
during contact and partial loss of contact behaviors observed
experimentally.
Drum/soil decoupling accounts for a considerable portion of
the nonlinearity observed; however, there remains noticeable
nonlinearity in contact mode and loss of contact mode vibration.
Introducing the curved drum effect into the 3DOF model was
successful in accounting for some of this nonlinearity, and in-
cluding stress dependent soil hardening accounted for the
rest. Therefore, a 3DOF lumped parameter model with non-
linear ks to account for drum curvature and stress dependent
hardening proved effective in modeling the behavior observed
experimentally.
Introducing rotational DOFs into the model was effective in
capturing perceived drum rocking and measured frame rocking;
however, more substantial experimental data are required to in-
vestigate and verify drum rocking.
Transient effects were investigated numerically by introducing
step changes in ks and observing drum vibration amplitude
changes and settling time. For up to 50% changes in ks, 3DOF
model simulations revealed amplitude changes from 20 to 150%
of steady-state amplitude and settling times from one to seven
cycles. Therefore, for drum/soil interaction in heterogeneous sub-
surface conditions 共e.g., variable near surface bedrock兲, it is im-
portant to incorporate transient response to interpret the resulting
soil stiffness values. The results presented herein indicate that
drum-frame-soil lumped parameter models with nonlinear soil
stiffness are capable of capturing complex drum/soil interaction.
These models can therefore be used to extract important soil pa-
rameters 共e.g., ks兲 from roller vibration data. It should be noted
that the experimental results matched here were from roller vibra-
tion on sand. Further research is required to evaluate model effi-
cacy on other soils.
 Acknowledgments
The writers wish to thank the NSF 共Grant No. CMS-0327509兲 for
their financial support and Ingersoll-Rand for the use of their
DD138 roller. They also thank Robert V. Rinehart and Patrick K.
Miller for their assistance with data gathering and for their in-
sights in discussing results.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
cs ⫽ damping of soil 共Ns/m兲;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Central South University on 09/16/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 124–134.
Andrei, D., Wiczak, M. W., Schwartz, C. W., and Uzan, J. 共2004兲.
“Harmonized resilient modulus test method for unbound pavement
materials.” Transportation Research Record. 1874, Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, D.C., 29–37.
Baidya, D. K., Muralikrishna, G., and Pradhan, P. K. 共2006兲. “Investiga-
tion of foundation vibrations resting on a layered soil system.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共1兲, 116–123.
Balakrishna Rao, H. A., and Nagaraj, C. N. 共1960兲. “A new method for
predicting the natural frequency of foundation-soil systems.” Struct.
Eng., 38共10兲, 310–316.
Barkan, D. D. 共1962兲. Dynamics of bases and foundations, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Brandl, H., Kopf, F., and Adam, D. 共2005兲. “Continuous compaction

control with differently excited dynamic rollers.” Strassenforschung-

E ⫽ Young’s modulus of soil 共N / m2兲; sauftrag Nr. 3.176 des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Innovation
Fc ⫽ contact force 共N兲; und Technologie, Heft 553, Vienna, Austria.
g ⫽ acceleration due to gravity 共9.81 m / s2兲; Crockett, J. H. A., and Hammond, R. E. R. 共1949兲. “The dynamic prin-
ks ⫽ soil stiffness 共N/m兲; ciples of machine foundations and ground.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.,
160共4兲, 512–523.
k2 ⫽ nonlinear soil stiffness coefficient 共unitless兲;
Gazetas, G. 共1983兲. “Analysis of machine foundations: State of the art.”
md ⫽ mass of drum 共kg兲; Int. J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 2共1兲, 2–42.
m f ⫽ effective mass of frame 共kg兲; Kröber, W. 共1988兲. “Untersuchung der dynamischen vorgäge bei der vi-
ms ⫽ apparent mass of soil 共kg兲; brationsverdichtung von böden.” Dissertation, Lehrstuhl und Prüfamt
R ⫽ radius of drum 共m兲; fur Grundbau, Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik der Technischen
t ⫽ time 共s兲; Univ. München, München, Germany.
x ⫽ position along test bed 共m兲; Kröber, W., Floss, R., and Wallrath, W. 共2001兲. “Dynamic soil stiffness as
Z̈d ⫽ vertical drum acceleration amplitude 共m / s2兲; quality criterion for soil compaction.” Geotechnics for roads, rail
tracks, and earth structures, Balkema, Lisse, The Netherlands.
Z̈d共ss兲 ⫽ vertical drum amplitude in steady state; Lundberg, G. 共1939兲. “Elastische beruehrung zweier halbraeume.”
Z̈d共tr兲 ⫽
vertical drum amplitude during transient response; Forsch. Geb. Ingenieurwes., 10共5兲, 201–211.
zd ⫽
vertical drum displacement 共m兲; Lysmer, J., and Richart, F. E. 共1966兲. “Dynamic response of footings to
żd ⫽
vertical drum velocity 共m/s兲; vertical loading.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 92共1兲, 65–91.
z̈d ⫽
vertical drum acceleration 共m / s2兲; Machet, J. M., and Sanejouand, R. 共1980兲. “Modeles mathematiques
zd-new ⫽
vertical drum displacement after impact 共m兲; dans le domaine du compactage par vibration.” Proc., Int. Conf. on
żd-new ⫽
vertical drum velocity after impact 共m/s兲; Compaction, Session VII Compaction Equipment, ENPC, LCPC,
Paris, 651–657.
z̈d-new ⫽
vertical drum acceleration after impact 共m / s2兲;
Mooney, M. A., and Rinehart, R. V. 共2007兲. “Field monitoring of roller
zf ⫽
vertical frame displacement 共m兲; vibration during compaction of subgrade soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ż f ⫽
vertical frame velocity 共m/s兲; ron. Eng., 133共3兲, 257–265.
z̈ f ⫽
vertical frame acceleration 共m / s2兲; Mooney, M. A., Rinehart, R. V., and van Susante, P. 共2006兲. “The influ-
zs ⫽
vertical soil displacement 共m兲; ence of heterogeneity on vibratory roller compactor response.” Proc.,
żs ⫽
vertical soil velocity 共m/s兲; GeoCongress 2006 共CD-ROM兲, ASCE, Atlanta.
z̈s ⫽
vertical soil acceleration 共m / s2兲; Nazarian, S., Yuan, D., and Arellano, M. 共2002兲. “Quality management of
␯ ⫽
Poissons’ ratio 共unitless兲; base and subgrade materials with seismic methods.” Transportation
␾bot ⫽
phase lag determined at bottom drum location Research Record. 1786, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
共degrees兲; D.C., 1–15.
␾top ⫽ phase lag determined at top drum location 共degrees兲; Odemark, N. 共1949兲. “Investigations as to the elastic properties of soils
and design of pavements according to the theory of elasticity.” Statens
and
Väginstitut, Mitteilung No. 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
⍀ ⫽ rotational frequency from data 共rad/s兲. Pietzsch, D., and Poppy, W. 共1993兲. “Simulation of soil compaction with
vibratory rollers.” Anal. Proc., 29共6兲, 585–597.
Quibel, A. 共1980兲. “Le comportement vibratoire: Trait d’union entre le
References choix des parameters et l’efficacite des rouleaux vibrants.” Proc., Int.
Conf. on Compaction, Session VII, Compaction Equipment, ENPC,
Adam, D. 共1996兲. “Flächendeckende dynamische verdichtungskontrolle LCPC, Paris, 671–676.
共FDVK兲 mit vibrationswalzen.” Dissertation, Technische Univ. Wien, Richart, F. E., Woods, R. D., and Hall, J. R. 共1970兲. Vibrations of soils
Fakultät für Bauingenieurwesen, Wien, Austria. and foundations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Adam, D., and Kopf, F. 共2004兲. “Operational devices for compaction Rinehart, R. V., and Mooney, M. A. 共2008兲. “Instrumentation of a roller
optimization and quality control.” Proc., Int. Seminar on Geotechnic compactor to monitor vibration behavior during earthwork compac-
Pavement and Railway Design and Construction, Athens, Greece, tion.” Autom. Constr., 17共2兲, 144–150.
Millpress, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 97–106. Wolf, J. P. 共1994兲. Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical
Anderegg, R. 共1997兲. “Nichtlineare schwingungen bei dynamischen models, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
bodenverdichtern.” Dissertation 12419, Eidgenössische Technische Yoo, T.-S., and Selig, E. T. 共1979兲. “Dynamics of vibratory-roller com-
Hochschule Zürich, Schweiz, Switzerland. paction.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 105共10兲, 1211–1231.
Anderegg, R., and Kaufmann, K. 共2004兲. “Intelligent compaction with Yoo, T.-S., and Selig, E. T. 共1980兲. “New concepts for vibratory compac-
vibratory rollers: Feedback control systems in automatic compaction tion of soil.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Compaction, Vol. II, ENPC, LCPC,
and compaction control.” Transportation Research Record. 1868, Paris, 703–707.

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 693

J. Eng. Mech., 2008, 134(8): 684-693