Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields – Loizos et al.

(Eds)
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-29595-7

Suitability assessment of soils for pavement subgrade using gyratory

compaction and bearing capacity testing

A. Athanasopoulou & G. Kollaros

Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece

ABSTRACT:  The quality of subgrade soils influences the design of road structures. The maximum dry
unit weight is used to assess the quality of compacted soil materials. The standard or modified Proctor
tests do not exactly simulate the field compaction mechanism. Standard Proctor compaction curves are
presented, along with curves obtained using the gyratory compactor. The compaction curves are gener-
ally similar, regardless the rate of gyration and gyration angle. For moistures higher than the optimum,
gyratory specimens yielded densities higher than those from the Proctor compaction. Based on this obser-
vation, the gyratory compaction could be considered a feasible means of laboratory compaction. The
difference between the two compaction modes was greater at low moistures. California Bearing Ratio
specimens prepared with dynamic or gyratory compaction had lower values with an increase in moisture
contents and greater in the case of dynamic compaction. Most results confirm theoretical indications or
findings of previous researches.

1  INTRODUCTION In 2006, Browne using a procedure based on the

Soil encountered in the construction of trans-
portation infrastructure is densified by different
mechanical compaction processes. In order to rep-
resent more accurately the field compaction con-
ditions, engineers are seeking for new laboratory
methods (Vinay et al. 2015, Mokwa 2008). These
new testing procedures will replace the commonly
used Standard and Modified Proctor tests for the
determination of the Optimal Moisture Content
(OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD), since
they do not necessarily represent field compac-
tion pressures (static, vibratory or kneading) and
motions (Drnevich et al. 2007).
Though the intend for the development of the
device called Superpave Gyratory Compactor
(SGC) in the decade of 1990 was to test hot asphalt
mixes, many researchers suggested that it could be
used for the compaction of soils in the laboratory
(Ping et al. 2003).
The action of moving wheels transferred on
flexible pavement structures is simulated by the
simultaneous application of vertical loads and
kneading action (Li et al. 2015). On the other
hand, specimens prepared with SGC have inter-
nal structure resembling that of soils in highway
projects.
When the Superpave Gyratory Compactor is
being used to compact granular soils, shear work,
due to the gyration angle, is applied to the soil thus
complementing the vertical work exerted on the
soil sample.
AASHTO compaction method for hot mix asphalt
(AASHTO 2015) has found that the number of
gyrations and the confinement pressure were
important parameters for the compaction by the
SGC of soils with different characteristics and
moisture contents (Browne 2006).
Generally, the dry unit weights of fine-grained
soils increase with the increase of the confinement
pressure (Dantas et al. 2016). For non-cohesive,
granular soils an increase in the number of gyra-
tions would bring about an increase in compaction
dry unit weights (Wite et al. 2007).
An increased number of gyrations yielded
high densification of pavement base or subbase
unbound materials (Panko et al. 2011). Similar
findings were obtained for subbase materials of an
airfield runway (Carry et al. 2014).
In an evaluation of the use of gyratory compac-
tor instead of Proctor compaction for three soils
classified as sand SM, silt ML and clay CH accord-
ing to Unified Classification System, the resulting
curves were independent of the speed and angle of
gyration (Perez et al. 2013). However, the gyratory
compactor can control different variables leading
to the standard compaction curve (Kambel 2013,
Kollaros & Athanasopoulou 2016).
The favourable use of gyratory compactors can
be summarized in that they are more precise and
with higher effectiveness than impact hammers,
along with their capability to repeat the testing
conditions (Harman et al. 2002, Cerni & Camilli
2011, Chen et al. 2015).

27
 An artificial neural network has been used for
modelling compaction parameters from index
properties of soil (Jayan & Sankar 2015). For its
verification, a set of more than 180 data has been
employed and OMC and MDD were predicted
with high accuracy.
Compaction curves using the Standard Proctor
compaction test as well as those obtained from the
gyratory compactor in Democritus University of
Thrace, Xanthi, Greece, are presented in the fol-
lowing sections.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) specimens were
prepared both with Standard Proctor and gyra-
tory compaction and the results of their testing
were compared for the two methods. In the gyra-
tory compactor procedure, the vertical pressure,
the gyration angle, and the number of gyrations
were the controlled variables.
cal stress via platens to a soil mass inside a cylindri-
cal mould 150 mm in diameter. The gyratory speed
was set at 30 rounds per minute (rpm). Whilst the
machine kept the platens horizontal and parallel to
each other, the mould was gyrated along its longi-
tudinal axis at a fixed angle of 1.15o (20 milliradi-
ans) relative to the vertical axis.
The CBR tests on the samples determined the
bearing capacity of these materials to be used as
subgrades in highway construction works.
In Figure  1, curves representing the grain size
distribution of the soils tested are given. All soil
samples tested have been characterized as soils in
the group A-2-4 according to the AASHTO soil
classification system.
3  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In Table  1, the results of the different tests per-

2  MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four sampling sites in the Municipality of Xanthi,
Northern Greece, have been chosen in order to
take soil quantities for laboratory testing. The sites
are scattered within an area of a radius of about
5 kilometres from the city centre, so as to be rep-
resentative of different prevailing conditions. Soil
samples were assigned the names S1 to S4.
On the air dried and pulverized soil samples var-
ious tests have been performed including the Atter-
berg limits determination, as well as tests for the
relationship between density and moisture (stand-
ard Proctor). For the obtained optimum moisture
content and for three water contents under and
over this value and for the corresponding maxi-
mum dry densities, cylindrical specimens have been
formed using both the dynamic hammer compac-
tion method and the gyratory compaction process.
With the method of gyratory compaction the
assessment of the compact ability of specimens
was achieved by the application of a 500 kPa verti-
formed in the laboratory are listed for the four
soils under investigation. It must be noted that
all soils were sampled at the same period in the
year. So, their natural moisture value is indicative
of the season of the year (spring). Due to the dis-
tance between the sampling sites moistures ranged
between 2.76% and 15.22% for samples S4 and S2
respectively (the closest and most far located to
Kosynthos River).
In Table 1 the values of OMC and MDD along
with those of CRB tests are also shown. The OMC
values ranged from 10.3% (S1) to 16.0% (S2), while
MDD values were found in the range of 2040 kg/
m3 (S2) to 2280 (S1). The values of CBR have been
obtained using the optimum moisture content
found through the Proctor procedure.
The highest value for the Linear Shrinkage (LS)
measured has been found for the soil sample S4 as
7.14% along with a high Liquid Limit (LL) (17.9)
which is consistent with the nature of the soil.
On the other hand, the lowest LS value was
obtained for the S1 sample (1.41%) and the low-
est LL for the S3 sample (14.0). The S2 sample

Table  1.  Properties of the soil specimens subjected to

laboratory tests.

S1 S2 S3 S4

Natural Moisture 7.94 15.22 11.58 2.76

Liquid Limit 19.5 27.0 14.0 26.0
Plastic Limit 14.8 24.5 12.9 17.9
Plasticity Index 4.7 2.5 2.1 8.1
Linear Shrinkage 1.41 6.43 1.43 7.14
AASHTO Classification A-2-4 A-2-4 A-2-4 A-2-4
Optimum Moisture Content 10.3 16.0 14.3 13.5
Maximum Dry Density 2280 2040 2180 2160
Figure  1.  Grain size distribution of the four soils CBR 21.4 4.54 1.39 6.17
tested.

28
presented the maximum and the S3 sample the
minimum plastic limit (24.5 and 12.9 respectively).
The curves shown in Figure 2 refer to the relation
of moisture content and the dry density values for
the four soils taking part in the laboratory testing
program.
The water content which corresponds to the
maximum dry density is called optimum moisture
content. The part of the soil materials retained on
the 4,75 mm sieve (No. 4) has been compacted in
moulds 101.6 mm in diameter in 3 layers.
Soil samples have been compacted both dynam-
ically and with the gyratory compactor. Dynamic
compaction is a well known technique for the
improvement of soils since it densifies them using
a drop weight.
In order to get comparable results with the CBR
method, a limitation had been posed to the height
of gyratory specimens (117.6 mm); in such a way
the exactly same height and weight was deter-
mined for the specimens of the two methods. The
height of the specimens was reduced initially with
a higher rate after each rotation cycle. For vari-
ous water contents, the values of the dry density
and CBR have been experimentally defined using
both the dynamic and the gyroscopic compaction
efforts. The S1 specimen compacted dynamically
at 7.84% water content has yielded the maximum
dry laboratory density (2035  kg/m3), while when
it was compacted dynamically at 18.12% water
content yielded the lowest dry laboratory density
(1688.2 kg/m3).
In the case of gyroscopically compacted speci-
mens, the maximum and minimum densities were
furnished by the S3 and S2 specimens, when they
were compacted using 13.15% and 7.11% water
contents, respectively. The dry density values
in these cases were 2115  kg/m3 and 1501  kg/m3,
respectively.
Figure 2.  Moisture content vs. dry density of soil speci-
mens using the Proctor procedure.
29
As the moisture at which the specimen has been
compacted increases, the shear is reduced. The
higher shear (127 KN/m2) was observed in the S1
specimen was compacted gyroscopically at 10%
moisture. Finally, the density of the sample speci-
mens increases at the end of the rotation cycles.
More specifically, the higher density (2115 kg/m3)
has been observed in the S3 soil specimen com-
pacted gyroscopically at 13% moisture.
The highest CBR value under the gyratory com-
paction conditions was 8.82 for the S3 specimen,
compacted using 7.41% moisture content. The
lower CBR value (0.54) has been recorded by the
S2 specimen compacted gyroscopically at 17.48%
moisture content.
It is obvious that, when the dynamic compac-
tion was used, the result obtained was sensibly
better compared to those yielded by the gyratory
compactor. More specifically, at the low moistures,
the difference is greater between the two compac-
tion modes. Also, the dynamic method leads to
higher dry density values for all specimens tested
in all three different moistures used.
Figures 3 to 6 depict the relationship developed
between the moisture in the specimens and the
recorded CBR values for soils S1 to S4, respec-
tively. The water content is also correlated to the
dry density of the specimens. In each of these
graphs, two different pairs of curves are shown
referring to the way the specimen has been com-
pacted (dynamically or with the use of gyratory
compactor), and to the quantity under considera-
tion (CBR or dry density).
The highest CBR value has been recorded in the
case of the specimen S3 compacted dynamically
at 7.9% moisture content and is equal to 55.94.
On the other end of the range of values, the S1
Figure 3.  CBR and dry density as a function of mois-
ture content for S1 sample.

Figure 4.  CBR and dry density as a function of mois-
ture content for S2 sample.
Figure  5.  Variation of California Bearing Ratio as a
function of moisture content for S3 sample.
Figure 6.  CBR and dry density vs water content for S4
sample.
30
specimen yielded a CBR value equal to 0.16, when
it was compacted dynamically at water content of
18.12%.
4  CONCLUSIONS
Studies on the behaviour of compacted soils
are of great important since those materials are
part of the structure of many civil engineering
projects. the quality of this behaviour can be con-
trolled by the laboratory density of the soils.
The dry unit weight of soils can be a practical
tool for the analysis and further comparison of
gyratory compaction outcome to traditional com-
paction test results.
For the four soils tested in this study, the dry
densities of the specimens compacted with the
gyratory process yielded almost linear curves
and, for moistures higher than the optimum, have
shown values higher than those derived from the
Proctor compaction. Based on this observation,
the gyratory compaction could be considered a
feasible means of laboratory compaction.
In any case, more evidence based on differ-
ent soil types, and other variables involved in the
procedure such as the number of gyrations, the
confinement pressure the angle of rotation etc is
needed. It is suggested the highest number of gyra-
tions to be used to allow the maximum of soil den-
sification to be achieved.
Bearing in mind the drawbacks of both the
Proctor and gyratory compaction methods, CBR
values have been proved to be a valuable guidance
for the selection of the compaction method to be
used. California Bearing Ratio specimens prepared
with dynamic or gyratory compaction presented
lower values with an increase in moisture contents
and were generally greater in the case of dynamic
compaction. The difference was greater at water
contents lower than the optimum moisture.
The use of artificial neural networks is sug-
gested for the prediction of soil optimum moisture
content and maximum dry density values. Because
such an analysis could be easily executed based on
simple soil index parameters, it is thought to be a
useful tool for engineers.
To develop a standardized protocol for the
compaction of soils with the gyratory machine
in laboratory studies, continued research is neces-
sary. The outcome of such efforts would provide
more thorough understanding of soils used in road
projects. In order for the findings of this work to
acquire a universal character more tests are needed
especially on soils with less satisfactory engineer-
ing properties.
Future studies may lead to a better under-
standing of gyratory compaction mechanism by
comparing dry unit weights or energies of gyratory
compaction to field compaction instead making
this comparison with existing laboratory compac-
tion procedures.
REFERENCES
American Association of State and Highway Transporta-
tion Officials (AASHTO). 2015. AASHTO T 312-15
Standard method of test for preparing and determin-
ing the density of asphalt mixture specimens by means
of the Superpave gyratory compactor.
Browne, M.J. 2006. Feasibility of using a gyratory com-
pactor to determine compaction characteristics of
soil. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University—Boze-
man, MT.
Cary, C.E., Kumpel, C., Bagriacik, A., Cohen, R.,
Clark, J. & Sukumaran, B. 2014. Assessment of field
compaction of subbase material during construction
and trafficking of heavy aircraft using the Superpave
Gyratory Compactor. FAA Worldwide Airport Tech-
nology Transfer Conference, Galloway, New Jersey,
USA.
Cerni, G. & Camilli, S. 2011. Comparative analysis
of gyratory and Proctor compaction processes of
unbound granular materials. Road Materials and
Pavement Design, 12(2): 397–421.
Chen, J., Huang, B., Chen, F. & Shu, X. 2012. Applica-
tion of discrete element method to Superpave gyra-
tory compaction. Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 13(3): 480–500.
Dantas, G.H.S., Furlan, A.P., Fabbri, G.T.P. & Suárez,
D.A.A. 2016. On gyratory compaction of a clayey
soil. EJGE, 21(17): 5725–5733.
Drnevich, V., Evans, A. & Prochaska, A. 2007. A study
of effective soil compaction control of granular soils.
Final Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2007/12.
Harman, T., Bukowski, J.R., Moutier, F., Huber, G. &
McGennis, R. 2002. The history and future challenges
of gyratory compaction 1939 to 2001. Proceedings
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
1789(22).
Jayan, J. & Sankar, N. 2015. Prediction of compaction
parameters of soils using artificial neural networks.
Asian Journal of Engineering and Technology Special
issue for ICETTAS’15, 3(4): 368–375.
31
Kampel, C. 2013. Investigation of compaction char-
acteristics of subbase material using the Superpave
gyratory compactor. MS in Civil Engineering thesis,
Rowan University.
Kollaros, G. & Athanasopoulou, A. 2016. Characteriza-
tion of pavement subgrade soil using gyratory com-
paction. 3rd International Balkans Conference on
Challenges of Civil Engineering, 3-BCCCE, Tirana,
Albania: 254–261
Li, C., White, D.J. & Vennapusa, P. 2015. Moisture-
density-strength-energy relationships for gyratory
compacted geomaterials. ASTM Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 38(4): 461–473.
Mokwa, R, Cuelho, E. & Browne, M. 2008. Laboratory
testing of soil using the Superpave gyratory compac-
tor. Transportation Research Board 87th Annual
Meeting Proceedings, Committee AFS10, Transpor-
tation Earthworks, Advanced Technologies for Accel-
erated Earthwork Construction and Performance
Monitoring. Washington, DC.
Panko, M., Stevenson, J., Hurt, C., Coffey, S., McGarvey,
K., Mehta, Y.A. & Sukumaran, B. 2011. Compaction
of granular soils using Superpave gyratory compactor
at higher confining pressures. Transportation Research
Board 90th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Paper
Number 11–3772.
Perez, N., Garnica, P., Mendoza, I. & Reyes, M.A. 2013.
Behavior of fine-grained soils compacted with high
shear stresses. Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Paris: 407–410.
Ping, W.V., Leonard, M. & Yang, Z. 2003 Evaluation
of laboratory compaction techniques for simulating
field soil compaction (Phase I). Research Report No.:
FL/DOT/RMC/BB-890(F) Project No.: 6120-549-39
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Florida A&M University Tallahassee, FL 32310.
Vinay A. & Hemanth Yadav, M.V. 2015. Study and com-
parison of soil compaction between laboratory and
field to simulate field compaction for rural roads.
International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IRJET), 2(4): 2086–2092.
White, D.J., Vennapusa, P.K.R. & Thompson, M.J. 2007.
Field validation of intelligent compaction monitor-
ing technology for unbound materials. Partnership for
Geotechnical Advancement (PGA), Center for Trans-
portation Research and Education (CTRE) Iowa State
University.