# Modification Tests to Optimize Highway Construction in Crown of Slate Random Embankments with Compaction Quality Control

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

_{6}group includes metamorphic rocks, such as slates and schists. The working method should be defined for the available machinery, earth moving methods, layer thickness, compaction procedures, number of roller passes, adjustment to optimum moisture and similar tests.

_{2}is not associated with compaction, using Ev

_{1}as a reference. Moreover, cycling vibration loading can cause particle breakage and abrasion. The second/first modulus ratio at load bearing test (k) below 2.2. is established for the calibration of fine soils, which are very different from random fill, where the use of other parameters, such as wheel-tracking and plate bearing tests, prove more useful. The second modulus provides no information on the degree of compaction, so that other criteria based on the first modulus are considered more appropriate. This underdevelopment suggests the need for a new compaction control procedure, which entails the need for different functional parameters, such as automatic online complete process monitoring or specific loading plate diameters. The strongly anisotropic properties of slate make it suitable for its use in random fill or sub-base layers for any traffic volume.

## 2. Materials and Methods

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Relationship between Topographic Settlement Test and First Modulus PLT (ɸ 600mm)

_{1}= 202.278 – 32.661 s

^{2}= 0.772

_{1}is the first module of the PLT (ɸ 600mm) in megapascals and the topographic settlement test in millimeters. The domain of the function uses the intervals of (20 ≤ Ev

_{1}≤ 140) and (3.0 ≤ s ≤ 6.0). The error bars, with standard deviations for 66 measurements (11 per control section), are shown in Figure 2.

#### 3.2. Relationship between Wheel-Tracking Test and First Modulus PLT (ɸ 600mm) at Crown

^{2}= 0.795 yields a variance of 79.5%. The standard error is only 8.7947 MPa.

_{1}= 113.937 – 15.932 h

^{2}= 0.795

_{1}≤ 110) and (0.0 ≤ h ≤ 5.0). The error bars, with standard deviations for 154 measurements (11 per control section) are shown in Figure 4.

#### 3.3. Relationship between Topographic Settlement Test and Second Modulus PLT (ɸ 600mm)

^{2}= 0.986. In other words, there is a high correlation associated with low dispersion.

_{2}= 224.455 – 19.725 s

^{2}= 0.986

_{2}is the second modulus of the plate bearing test in megapascals. The domain of the function has values between (110 ≤ Ev

_{2}≤ 180) and (2.5 ≤ s ≤ 5.5). The error bars, with standard deviations for 66 measurements (11 per control section), are shown in Figure 6.

#### 3.4. Relationship between Wheel-Tracking Test and Second Modulus PLT (ɸ 600mm)

^{2}= 0.729 yields a variance of 72.9%. The standard error is only 15.6612 MPa.

_{2}= 209.559 – 22.077 h

^{2}= 0.729

_{2}is the second modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) in megapascals and h is the wheel-tracking test in millimeters. The domain of the function lies between the intervals of (100 ≤ Ev

_{2}≤ 210) and (0.0 ≤ h ≤ 5.0). The error bars, with standard deviations for 132 measurements (11 per control section), are shown in Figure 8.

#### 3.5. Slate Random Fill in Crown Significance Matrix

_{1}and Ev

_{2}) proved to have a strong relationship with both the wheel-tracking and the topographic settlement tests. A revised control method has been designed for the in situ density test and the PLT (ɸ 600mm).

## 4. Discussion

_{opt}). A decrease in the water content from w

_{opt}according to modified Proctor means an increase in stiffness according to PBT, whereas dry density decreases. The PBT is a test where the highest pressure of the load is on the surface, providing surface measurements and strongly associated with surface moisture. Therefore, surface moisture is the main parameter in the result of the test. Due to this, all the PBT were carried out immediately after nuclear tests. In other words, density and PBT were defined at the same moisture content. Hence, the results from the in situ density test and the PLT (ɸ 600mm) provide an evaluation of the quality of compacted soil in terms of the degree of compaction requirements. Additionally, analyzed tests have yielded excellent results, supporting the possibility of using sizes larger than fine grain soils in random fill at the crown level.

## 5. Conclusions

- A revised procedure of the wheel-tracking test and topographic settlement control method were adapted correctly in the new compaction quality control in core slate random embankments;
- The in situ density did not correlate with any other variable, limited by particle dimensions and layer thicknesses;
- The plate bearing test (for ɸ 300mm) has limitations on random embankment quality control. It requires the diameter of the element to be five times the maximum size of the aggregate (400mm).
- The wheel-tracking test correlates strongly (Pearson correlation coefficients, ρ = 0.795 and 0.729) with the modulus of the plate bearing test (ɸ 600mm) and can therefore be replaced to avoid redundant results, when the wheel-tracking test has values between 0 ≤ h ≤ 5 mm and when the plate test has values between 30 ≤ Ev
_{1}≤ 110 in the first modulus and 100 ≤ Ev_{2}≤ 210 in the second modulus; - For crown slate random fill, there is a high correlation (Pearson correlation coefficients, ρ = 0.782 and 0.986) between the topographic settlement and the modulus of the plate bearing test (ɸ 600mm) and can therefore be replaced to avoid redundant results, when the topographic settlement has values between 2.5 ≤ s ≤ 5.5 mm and when the plate test has values between 20 ≤ Ev
_{1}≤ 140 in the first modulus and 110 ≤ Ev_{2}≤ 180 in the second modulus; - The new methods with improved tests proposed for the quality control of crown random fill quality control are the in situ density test and the plate bearing test (ɸ 600mm);
- The proposed methods compared with the conventional methods produce the reduction of leveling errors by means of a fixed point, avoiding ground distortion. In addition, the dynamic effects of track are minimized in the wheel-tracking test and in the topographic settlement;
- This method reduces test times by the substitution of the compaction control procedure, which is associated with improved construction performance.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## List of Symbols

h | Wheel-tracking test. Average wheel impression after test carriage (mm) |

s | Topographic settlement. Average settlement between last and first roller pass (mm). |

Ev_{1} | First vertical modulus of the plate (ɸ 600mm) bearing test (MPa). |

Ev_{2} | Second vertical modulus of the plate (ɸ 600mm) bearing test (MPa). |

k | Relation between second and first modulus of the plate bearing test (Ev_{2}/Ev_{1}). |

d | Average lot density [g/cm^{3}]. |

w_{opt} | Modified Proctor optimum water content. |

LL | Liquid limit of a soil. |

IP | Plasticity index of a soil. |

H | Measurement structure for the wheel-tracking test. |

R (ρ) | Pearson correlation coefficient value. |

R^{2} | Determination coefficient. |

ANOVA | Analysis of variance. |

PBT | Plate bearing test. |

SWCC | Soil Water Characteristic Curve. |

USCS | Unified Soil Classification System. |

GC | Clayey gravel. |

GM | Silty gravel. |

MH | High plasticity silts. |

## References

- Teijón, E.; Vega, Á.; Calzada, M.Á. Quality control compaction revision on rock crushed. Carreteras
**2019**, 4, 54–61. [Google Scholar] - Sopeña, L.M. Compaction control and in-situ tests. In II Journal on Marginal Materials in Road Works; ATC-AIPCR World Road Association: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, D.; Liu, D.; Cui, B. Real-time compaction quality monitoring of high core rockfill dam. Sci. China-Technol. Sci.
**2011**, 54, 1906–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mazari, M.; Nazarian, S. Mechanistic approach for construction quality management of compacted geomaterials. Transp. Geotech.
**2017**, 13, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fernández, F.F.; González, J.J.; De la Rosa, J.A. Rock and Random Fill Test Fills. In INTEMAC Quarterly nº75–3
^{rd}Quarter; Instituto Técnico de Materiales y Construcciones: Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar] - Horpibulsuk, S.; Suddeepongb, A.; Chamket, P.; Chinkulkijniwat, A. Compaction behavior of fine-grained soils, lateritic soils and crushed rocks. Soils Found.
**2013**, 53, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Oteo, C. Stabilization and Reinforcement of Marginal Materials. II Workshop on Marginal Materials in Road Works; ATC-AIPCR World Road Association: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Pouranian, M.R.; Haddock, J.E. A new framework for understanding aggregate structure in asphalt mixtures. Int. J. Pavement Eng.
**2019**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Onana, V.L.; Ze, A.N.; Eko, R.M.; Ntouala, R.F.D.; Bineli, M.T.N.; Owoudou, B.N.; Ekodeck, G.E. Geological identification, geotechnical and mechanical characterization of charnockite-derived lateritic gravels from Southern Cameroon for road construction purposes. Transp. Geotech.
**2017**, 10, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sagaseta, C. Geotechnical aspects of embankment-viaduct transitions. J. Embankment-Viaduct Transit.
**2007**, 1, 47. [Google Scholar] - Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées [LCPC]. Service d´Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes [SETRA], Centre de Sécurité et des Techniques Routières, Technical Guide Embankments and upgrades [GTR]. Fascicle 1. General principles; Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Wan-Huan, Z.; Ka-Veng, Y.; Fang, T. Estimation of soil–water characteristic curve and relative permeability for granular soils with different initial dry densities. Eng. Geol.
**2014**, 179, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, B.; Yang, L.; Bai, W.; Liu, Q.; Xu, X. Experimental investigation on porosity reduction of a coarsely crushed rock layer subject to vertically cyclic loading. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.
**2014**, 104–105, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - García, J.L.; Santiago, E. Comparison of different compaction control methods in sub-ballast. J. Rutas
**2011**, 142, 66–70. [Google Scholar] - UNE 103101. Particle Size Analysis by Screening; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- UNE 103103. Determination of the Liquid Limit of a Soil; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UNE 103104. Determination of the Plastic Limit of a Soil; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UNE 103501. Geotechnics. Compaction Test. Modified Proctor; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- UNE 103502. Test Method for Determining in a Soil the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Index; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Teijón-López-Zuazo, E.; Vega-Zamanillo, Á.; Calzada-Pérez, M.A.; Juli-Gándara, L. Modification Tests to Optimize Compaction Quality Control of Granite Rockfill in Highway Embankments. Materials
**2020**, 13, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - UNE 103900. In Situ Determination of Density and Moisture Content of Soil and Granular Materials by Nuclear Methods: Low Depths; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- UNE 103407. Wheel Impression Test; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Public Works. General Specifications for Roads and Bridges Works PG-3” 3th Part Explanations; Ministry of Public Works: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 50–312. [Google Scholar]
- UNE 103808. Load Test of Plate Soils; AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Scatterplot topographic settlement test and first modulus of plate bearing test (PLT) (ɸ 600mm).

Test | Research Gaps Based on the Literature Review |
---|---|

topographic control | without reference values |

automatic monitoring | strong influence of worker |

pit grading | little practical |

wheel impression test | usually works |

PLT | diameter of the plate five times the maximum size |

nuclear density gauging | limited thickness layer |

modified Proctor | replacement over 70% original material |

sand method | limited size minor than 50mm |

Ref. | # 100.0 (mm) | # 20.0 (mm) | # 2.0 (mm) | #0.40 (mm) | #0.075 (mm) | LL | PI | d (g/cm^{3}) | H (%) | CBR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

CC-016 | 100.0 | 51.0 | 13.0 | 7.0 | 4.9 | 33.1 | 13.1 | 2.2 | 7.0 | 12.0 |

CC-013 | 100.0 | 68.0 | 28.0 | 21.0 | 17.7 | 39.0 | 14.8 | 2.1 | 6.1 | 5.0 |

CC-010 | 100.0 | 52.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 7.9 | 34.0 |

I-ELB-1022/04 | 100.0 | 75.0 | 47.0 | 35.0 | 23.6 | 28.0 | 7.0 | 2.1 | 7.7 | 41.1 |

1246/04 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.0 | 95.0 | 94.2 | 33.5 | 11.4 | 1.9 | 10.5 | 8.1 |

1244/04 | 100.0 | 67.0 | 29.0 | 14.0 | 8.7 | 41.9 | 9.2 | 2.1 | 7.3 | 25.3 |

Averages | 100.0 | 68.8 | 40.0 | 32.0 | 27.2 | 29.3 | 9.3 | 2.1 | 7.8 | 20.9 |

Zone | Tests | Procedure |
---|---|---|

Laboratory | 4500 in situ density and moisture | UNE 103900 [21] |

850 modified Proctor | UNE 103501 [18] | |

field | 960 wheel-tracking tests | UNE 103407 [22] |

580 topographic settlements | PG-3 [23] | |

130 plate bearing tests | UNE 103808 [24] |

Area | Degree of Compaction (%) | Settlement | Modulus | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

h (mm) | s (mm) | Ev_{1} (MPa) | Ev_{2} (MPa) | k (Ev_{2}/Ev_{1}) | ||

crown | 98.0 | ≤ 3.0 | ≤ 4.0 | --- | ≥ 120.0 | < 3.6 |

**Table 5.**Determination coefficients for topographic settlement test and first modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Summary Model | |||
---|---|---|---|

R | R^{2} | R^{2} adjusted | Standard Error |

0.878 ^{a} | 0.772 | 0.714 | 18.1544 |

^{a}Predictors: constant, s (mm).

**Table 6.**Variance analysis for topographic settlement test and first modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

ANOVA ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Quadratic Average | F | sig. |

regression | 4353.665 | 1 | 4453.665 | 13.513 | 0.021 ^{b} |

sampling error | 1318.329 | 4 | 329.582 | - | - |

total | 5571.993 | 5 | - | - | - |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{1}(mm)

^{b}predictors: (constant), s (mm.)

**Table 7.**Linear regression coefficients for topographic settlement test and first modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm).

Coefficients ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Nonstandard Coefficients | Standard Coefficients | t | sig. | |

B | standard error | beta | |||

(constant) | 208.278 | 35.001 | 5.951 | 0.004 | |

s (mm) | −32.661 | 8.885 | −0.878 | −3.676 | 0.021 |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{1}(MPa).

**Table 8.**Determination coefficients for wheel-tracking test and first modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Summary model | |||
---|---|---|---|

R | R^{2} | R^{2} Adjusted | Standard Error |

0.891 ^{a} | 0.795 | 0.777 | 8.7947 |

^{a}Predictors: constant, h (mm).

ANOVA ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Quadratic Average | F | sig. |

regression | 3589.185 | 1 | 3589.185 | 46.404 | 0.000 ^{b} |

sampling error | 928.155 | 12 | 77.346 | - | - |

total | 4517.340 | 13 | - | - | - |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{1}(mm)

^{b}predictors: (constant), h (mm).

**Table 10.**Linear regression coefficients for wheel-track test and first modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Coefficients ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

model | Nonstandard Coefficients | Standard Coefficients | t | sig, | |

B | Standard Error | beta | |||

(constant) | 113.937 | 6.085 | - | 18.723 | 0.000 |

h (mm) | −15.932 | 2.339 | −0.891 | −6.812 | 0.000 |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{1}(MPa).

**Table 11.**Determination coefficients for topographic settlement and second modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Summary Model | |||
---|---|---|---|

R | R^{2} | R^{2} Adjusted | Standard Error |

0.993 ^{a} | 0.986 | 0.982 | 2.5483 |

^{a}Predictors: constant, s (mm).

**Table 12.**Variance analysis for topographic settlement test and second modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

ANOVA ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Quadratic Average | F | sig. |

regression | 1818.352 | 1 | 1818.352 | 280.006 | 0.000 ^{b} |

sampling error | 25.976 | 4 | 6.494 | - | - |

total | 1844.328 | 5 | - | - | - |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{2}(mm)

^{b}predictors: (constant), s (mm).

**Table 13.**Linear regression coefficients for wheel-tracking test and first modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Coefficients ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Nonstandard Coefficients | Standard Coefficients | t | Sig. | |

B | Standard Error | beta | |||

(constant) | 224.455 | 4.675 | - | 48.009 | 0.000 |

s (mm) | −19.725 | 1.179 | −0.993 | −16.733 | 0.000 |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{2}(MPa).

**Table 14.**Determination coefficients for wheel-tracking test and second modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Summary Model | |||
---|---|---|---|

R | R^{2} | R^{2} Adjusted | Standard Error |

0.854 ^{a} | 0.729 | 0.702 | 15.6612 |

^{a}Predictors: constant, h (mm).

ANOVA ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Quadratic Average | F | sig. |

regression | 6597.881 | 1 | 6597.881 | 26.900 | 0.000 ^{b} |

sampling error | 2452.746 | 10 | 245.275 | ||

total | 9050.627 | 11 |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{2}(mm),

^{b}predictors: (constant), h (mm).

**Table 16.**Linear regression coefficients for wheel-tracking test and second modulus of PLT (ɸ 600mm) at crown.

Coefficients ^{a} | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model | Non Standard Coefficients | Standard Coefficients | t | Sig. | |

B | Standard Error | beta | |||

(constant) | 209.559 | 11.497 | 18.227 | 0.000 | |

h (mm) | −22.077 | 4.257 | −0.854 | −5.187 | 0.000 |

^{a}dependent variable: Ev

_{2}(MPa).

Determination Coefficients (R^{2}) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Var | d (g/cm^{3}) | h (mm) | s (mm) | Ev_{1} (MPa) | Ev_{2} (MPa) | k (Ev_{2}/Ev_{1}) |

s (mm) | ns | ns | - | - | - | - |

Ev_{1} (MPa) | ns | 0.795 | 0.782 | - | - | - |

Ev_{2} (MPa) | (*) | 0.729 | 0.986 | ns | - | - |

k (Ev_{2}/Ev_{1}) | ns | ns | (*) | - | - | - |

Student t test (t) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Var | d (g/cm^{3}) | h (mm) | s (mm) | Ev_{1} (MPa) | Ev_{2} (MPa) | k (Ev_{2}/Ev_{1}) |

s (mm) | ns | ns | - | - | - | - |

Ev_{1} (MPa) | ns | −6.812 | −3.676 | - | - | - |

Ev_{2} (MPa) | (*) | −5.187 | −16.733 | ns | - | - |

k (Ev_{2}/Ev_{1}) | ns | ns | (*) | - | - | - |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Teijón-López-Zuazo, E.; Vega-Zamanillo, Á.; Calzada-Pérez, M.Á.; Ramos-Pereira, L.D. Modification Tests to Optimize Highway Construction in Crown of Slate Random Embankments with Compaction Quality Control. *Materials* **2020**, *13*, 1139.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13051139

**AMA Style**

Teijón-López-Zuazo E, Vega-Zamanillo Á, Calzada-Pérez MÁ, Ramos-Pereira LD. Modification Tests to Optimize Highway Construction in Crown of Slate Random Embankments with Compaction Quality Control. *Materials*. 2020; 13(5):1139.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13051139

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Teijón-López-Zuazo, Evelio, Ángel Vega-Zamanillo, Miguel Ángel Calzada-Pérez, and Luis Damián Ramos-Pereira. 2020. "Modification Tests to Optimize Highway Construction in Crown of Slate Random Embankments with Compaction Quality Control" *Materials* 13, no. 5: 1139.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13051139