IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Simulation study on a novel snapback-free
Establishing Relationships between Parameters of and low turn-off loss reverse-conducting
SOI-LIGBT with P-type double trench
the Controlled Compaction Soil by Using Various gates on the anode region
Bingke Zhang, Moufu Kong, Bo Yi et al.

In-Situ Tests - GOLDRUSH. IV. Luminosity Functions

and Clustering Revealed with 4,000,000
Galaxies at z 2–7: Galaxy–AGN
To cite this article: Mariusz Wyroslak 2017 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 245 022041 Transition, Star Formation Efficiency, and
Implication for Evolution at z > 10
Yuichi Harikane, Yoshiaki Ono, Masami
Ouchi et al.

- Atomic force microscopy based

View the article online for updates and enhancements. manipulation of graphene using dynamic
plowing lithography
Borislav Vasi, Markus Kratzer, Aleksandar
Matkovi et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 154.74.132.234 on 15/04/2022 at 06:02

WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

Establishing Relationships between Parameters of the

Controlled Compaction Soil by Using Various In-Situ Tests

Mariusz Wyroslak 1
1
Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
ul. Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland

[email protected]

Abstract. The aim of research was evaluating reliable correlations between chosen soil
parameters describing state of surface layers of soil. The paper presents site comparative tests
based on the light falling weight deflectometer (LFWD), the static plate load tester (VSS), the
dynamic probing light tester (DPL) and the bearing ratio tester (CBR in-situ) with relationships
between soil state parameters. All featured in-situ tests were conducted based on Polish
experiences and Standards used in engineering practice.

1. Introduction
In both of site engineering practice and design practice, correlations between geotechnical parameters
are very important to describe proper view of technical circumstances. It is observed in engineering
state of affairs for example that lack of correlations between soil parameters constraints the foundation
design. Either contractors in geotechnics are often forced to obligatory present chosen soil parameters
compared with others. It is common practice in investment jobs in Poland. But earthworks belong to
engineering works undergoing to covering and sometimes is not possible to directly estimate expected
parameters after finishing ground preparations for the construction setting.
With no doubt appropriate correlations between parameters can be useful to receive an acceptance
of executed earthworks, or to certify quality of the work done, or to avoid spreading out filled layers of
soil.
The correlations described below are obtained from the field testing made during a real building
investment. The earthwork description demanded the large artificial bank of soil on 150 meters long
and 100 meters wide site. The embankment consisted of layered soil to its final height of 1,8 meters.
Every layer was gradually compacted and simultaneous field investigations were carried on.
For every step of compaction, series of tests in the field were conducted: the dynamic probing
(DPL test), the dynamic plate test (LFWD test), the static plate test (VSS test), the soil bearing test
(CBR test). Based on this investigation results, relationships between dynamic modulus, static moduli,
density index, relative bearing ratio were established for medium/fine grained soil like sand with
coarse silt [1].

2. Description of experiment
Before the embankment works started, subsoil was improved by a dynamic compaction. Improved
subsoil was stable and stiff to place the embankment and no disadvantage effects was observed on the
surface like an irregular subsidence.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

The embankment was constructed in layers and every layer of soil was compacted with a smooth
wheeled roller in four number of passes. Before compaction, soil was brought to the near optimum
moisture content as in-situ conditions allowed. The soil compaction process was fully controlled; the
surface of the soil layer was not loosened during tests. Conditions within the depth range of the tested
soil were assumed reliable and homogeneous. After every passing of a roller, soil tests were
conducted.
Sieve analysis [2] on four samples of soil do not showed fundamental differences in granular
composition. Representative granulometry analysis is shown on figure 1.

Figure 1. Representative sieve analysis

According to the Standard [3] values of sieve parameters were established: uniformity coefficient
CU = 5 and curvature coefficient CC = 1.

2.1. Dynamic probing light (DPL test)

In particular, the DPL tester is an extensively used subsoil hand-held investigation device to obtain
quantitative state parameters of a cohesionless soil. It is achieved by measuring the resistance to the
cone penetration in the tested soil. The main aim of the DPL test is determining the compactness
presented as the density index (ID). Test procedure has been referenced in the Standard specification
[4]. Four different dynamic probing types are recommended for use. They differ in a cone size, a
hammer weight and a drop height to fit specific soil conditions.
The DPL tester used in the experiment consists of drive rods set with mass equal to 3 kg and 1 m
long each one. Apex angle of a cone tip have a measure 90°.
Managing the DPL test involves rising and dropping 10 kg hammer. On this way specific energy is
transferred through the anvil and rods set to the cone driven into underlaying soil layers. After each 10
cm driven rod, number of blows are recorded (N10). Based on N10 number of blows, test results are
expressed in terms of the density index (ID) defined after Polish experience [5] for sand characterized
by CU > 3:

0.429 ∙ 0.071 (1)

2.2. Static plate load (VSS test)

The VSS site investigation field test is one of the most popular methods of measuring bearing capacity
and compaction for the soil surface during the embankment formation process in successive horizontal

2
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

layers. Test procedures and evaluation of the static deformation modulus EV are taken from Polish
Standard for roads construction [6]:
∙∆
∙ (2)
∙∆

The main part of the VSS equipment is rigid steel plate with a diameter of D = 0.3 m. According to
the standard procedure, quasi-static load on the plate is applied in fixed constant steps of 0.05 MPa.
Each level of load is sustained for an equal time increment. Final load is 0.25 MPa for soil used as a
fill. For another type of soil, the final load differs from mentioned above [1].
Two stages of load are fulfilled. In the first stage, load is applied and the primary static deformation
modulus (EV1) is determined. After complete load removal, the plate is reloaded in second stage and
the secondary static deformation modulus (EV2) is determined. Moduli evaluation are calculated for
range of the load increment p = (0.15 – 0.05) MPa. The settlement increment for each stage and
range of the load increment is evaluated as value s = (s0,15 –s0,05).
Plate loading during the VSS test must be ballasted properly. For this purpose, heavy constriction
machines are usually used as a truck or a road roller. It is important to ensure a kentledge at least
150% of the maximum plate load.
The device is equipped with a pressure manometer to keep proper force and a displacement gauge
to determine the deflection. All data are acquired by the direct observation mode, so the test should be
performed carefully to minimize errors.

2.3. Dynamic plate load (LFWD test)

The LFWD tester provides immediate repeatable results given as the dynamic modulus of deformation
EVd. The ZFG 2000 equipment was used [7]. According to the operating manual the loading plate with
diameter D = 0.3 m is subjected to a settlement due to the maximum impact force 7.07 kN. The plate
displacement is recorded by means of the electronic meter.
The test starts with three seating drops to produce full contact between the plate and the soil
surface. Then three further drops are made in the same manner, and the mean value of three peaks of
vertical plate displacements forms a value of strain z = zmax for which the dynamic deformation
modulus EVd is determined. It appears that the dynamic deformation modulus is evaluated in the
secondary loading of the plate. As a simplification is assumed the maximum mean load acting on the
soil during the test is generally constant  = 0.1 MPa. The dynamic deformation modulus is
evaluated using the formula of the static load of the soil surface:

∆ .
1.5 ∙ ∙ (3)
∆

The ZFG 2000 equipment measures EVd in the range from 5 up to 70 MPa with assured tolerance.

2.4. Bearing capacity of soil (CBR in-situ test)

Standard California Bearing Ratio test is a laboratory investigation of a sample of soil conducted in the
cylindrical mould under strictly controlled density and moisture. For the purpose of the research
project the CBR in-situ was evaluated. Tests were conducted on the surface of roller compacted
ground in the field conditions of soil.
The test procedure and evaluation of the relative bearing ratio (CBRinsitu) are taken from Polish
Standard for roads construction [6]:

∙ 100 (4)

3
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

The CBR in-situ value is expressed as a percentage of an actual load (p) causing the penetrations of
2,5 mm or 5 mm into the soil surface to the standard load (pp) which is equal to 7 MPa for 2,5 mm
penetration and 10 MPa for 5 mm penetration. Load onto the soil surface was applied on the
cylindrical plunger of 5 cm diameter, keeping the constant rate of penetration 1,25 mm/minute.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Dynamic modulus vs. secondary static modulus

Figure 2. Correlation between dynamic modulus and secondary static modulus.

The power function describes the relationship between the dynamic modulus and the secondary static
modulus:
.
5.1 ∙ (5)
Coefficient of determination 0.9 indicates that 90% of changes in the amount of the dynamic
modulus value is explained by the value of secondary static modulus. And 10% of change in EVd value
is caused by other factors like a little irregular compactness, local differences in the soil moisture or
even a weak precision of measurement [8].
The range of validity for the relationship refers to EV2 = 60 up to 300 MPa.

3.2. Dynamic modulus vs. primary static modulus

Figure 3. Correlation between dynamic modulus and primary static modulus

4
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

The power function describes the relationship between the dynamic modulus and the primary static
modulus:
.
8.7 ∙ (6)
In this measurement coefficient of determination 0.62. It can be described like previously
that 62% of changes in the amount of dynamic modulus value is explained by the value of primary
static modulus. And 38% of changes in EVd value is caused by other factors.
The range of validity for the relationship refers to EV1 = 40 up to 200 MPa.

3.3. Dynamic modulus vs. relative density index

Figure 4. Correlation between dynamic modulus and density index

The polynomial function describes the relationship between the dynamic modulus and the density
index:
425.69 ∙ 369.83 ∙ 109.2 (7)
Coefficient of determination 0,84 means that 84% of change in the amount of dynamic
modulus value is explained by the value of density index. And 16% of change in EVd value is caused
by other factors [9]. The range of validity for the relationship refers to ID = 0,5 up to 0,8.

3.4. CBR in-situ vs. dynamic modulus

Figure 5. Correlation between in-situ bearing ratio and dynamic modulus.

5
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

The logarithmic function describes the relationship between in-situ bearing ratio and the dynamic
modulus:
40.79 ∙ ln 132.42 (8)
Coefficient of determination for the relationship is 0.80. The coefficient can be explained
like previously.

3.5. CBR in-situ vs. secondary static modulus

Figure 6. Correlation between in-situ bearing ratio and secondary static modulus

The logarithmic function describes the relationship between in-situ bearing ratio and the secondary
static modulus:
21.23 ∙ ln 74.99 (9)

Coefficient of determination for the relationship is 0.87. The coefficient can be explained
like previously.

3.6. CBR in-situ vs. primary static modulus

Figure 7. Correlation between in-situ bearing ratio and primary static modulus

6
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

The logarithmic function describes the relationship between in-situ bearing ratio and the primary static
modulus:
22.91 ∙ ln 70.95 (10)
Coefficient of determination for the relationship is 0.88. The coefficient can be explained
like previously.

3.7. CBR in-situ vs. relative density index

Figure 8. Correlation between in-situ bearing ratio and density index

The power function describes the relationship between in-situ bearing ratio and the density index:
.
103.37 ∙ (11)
Coefficient of determination for the relationship is 0.86. The coefficient can be explained
like previously.

4. Conclusions
In statistical regression analysis, the coefficient of determination R2 is interpreted as the proportion of
the variance in one variable that is predictable from the other variable, i.e. what part of data taken to
the analysis is explained by the established formula. If the coefficient of determination is higher than
the regression curve is better fit to set of data. For additional information about the state of
relationships, the coefficient of correlation R may also be done. This coefficient indicates the strength
of the relationship between variables. In general, R > 0 indicates positive relationship, i.e. as the value
of one variable increases, the value of the other variable also increases.

Table 1. Coefficients of correlation and coefficients of determination

Relationships R R2
EVd (EV2) 0.95 0.90
EVd (EV1) 0.80 0.64
EVd (ID) 0.92 0.84
CBRinsitu(EVd) 0.91 0.82
CBRinsitu(EV2) 0.93 0.87
CBRinsitu(EV1) 0.94 0.88
CBRinsitu(ID) 0.92 0.85

7
WMCAUS IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245 (2017) 022041 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022041
1234567890

Coefficients of correlation and coefficients of determination for presented soil parameters

correlation are shown in table 1.
Almost all coefficients of determination have higher level than 0.8. It is evidence that established
models can be used as good correlations between presented soil parameters.
The aim of presented works was evaluating reliable correlations between chosen soil parameters
describing state of surface layers of soil. Disposal of such engineering data is very supportive if during
conducted earthworks quick evaluation of the soil state is needed and quality of earthworks must be
confirmed. Results can be used to convertible evaluation of soil parameters in the case of possibility
managing only one type of the soil test mentioned above.
The correlations can be conclusive for some class of soil, i.e. for sands with coarse silt near the
optimum moisture content and middle compacted and compacted one. For other types of soil
correlations may differ [10].

References
[1] PN-EN ISO 14688-2:2006. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and
classification of soil. Part 2. Principles for a classification.
[2] PKN-CEN ISO/TS 17892-4:2009. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Laboratory testing of
soil. Part 4. Determination of particle size.
[3] PN-EN ISO 14688-1:2006. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and
classification of soil. Part 1: Identification and description.
[4] EN ISO 22476-2:2005 Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Part 2: Dynamic
probing.
[5] PN-B-04452:2002. Geotechnics. Field Investigations.
[6] PN-S-02205:1998. Roadways. Earthworks. Requirements and testing.
[7] Zorn Instruments GmbH & Co. KG. 2005. Operating Manual for Light Drop Weight Tester
ZFG 2000. Maschinenbauingenieur Bernd Zorn, Stendal, Germany.
[8] M. Wyroslak, R. Ossowski, “Evaluation of deformation moduli in controlled soil embankment
based on VSS plate and LFWD plate”. Acta Sci. Pol. Architectura, 15 (3), pp. 111–118.
[9] M. Wyroslak, “Correlation of state parameters for controlled compaction soil based on light
weight deflectometer test and dynamic probing test”. Inzynieria i Budownictwo, 7/2016, pp.
382–384.
[10] M. Wyroslak, “Relationship between subgrade parameters obtained from field test of controlled
compaction soil”. Inzynieria Morska i Geotechnika, 1/2017, pp. 21–26.