Influence of Laboratory Compaction Method on Compaction and Strength Characteristics of Unbound and Cement-Bound Mixtures

Abstract

During road construction, granular materials for the unbound base course (UBC) and cement-bound base course (CBC) are mostly compacted by vibratory rollers. A widespread laboratory test for determining the optimal moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of the mixture for installation in UBC and CBC is the Proctor test. Considering that the Proctor test does not produce any vibrations during compaction, this paper compares the Proctor test and the vibrating hammer test. The examination was conducted on UBC and CBC with varying cement content and aggregate types. All mixtures were compacted by both methods with the aim of determining the compaction and strength characteristics. The results indicated the high comparability of the two test methods for mixtures with natural aggregate in terms of MDD, OMC, density and strength characteristics (California bearing ratio (CBR) for UBC and 28-day compressive strength for CBC). For mixtures with higher cement content, the OMC difference depending on the laboratory compaction method used can be significant, so the laboratory compaction method should be chosen carefully, particularly for moisture-susceptible materials. This paper also reveals that by increasing the proportion of rubber in the mixture, the compaction and strength characteristics differ significantly due to the compaction method. Therefore, when using alternative and insufficiently researched materials, the compaction method should also be chosen carefully.

Keywords

• cement bound base course
• unbound base course
• compaction technology
• Proctor test
• vibrating hammer test
• recycled rubber