subcommittee on materials...2015/08/04 · ballot results are included in appendix b, attachment 1...

Tech Section 1b

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 101st Annual Meeting – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:15 am – 12:00 pm CST

TECHNICAL SECTION 1b Subsurface Investigation, Soil Instrumentation, Soil Stabilization, and Field Testing of Soils

Meeting Minutes

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks James welcomed everyone to the meeting at 10:20amEST. During his opening remarks the chairman reminded industry about the opportunity to become Friends of Tech Section. It was noted that we the Tech Section has excellent participation on Tech Section ballots. All were encouraged to keep up the good work. Registration on the I‐pad.

II. Roll Call Introductions were made around the room. Darin Tedford is our research liaison.

Name Affiliation Designation Type Present

Williams, III, James A. Mississippi Department of Transportation Chair Voting X

Blackburn, Lyndi D Alabama Department of Transportation Vice Chair Voting X

Johnson, Brian AMRL Liaison Non-Voting X

Lacinak, Henry AASHTO Liaison Non-Voting

Rothblatt, Evan AASHTO Liaison Non-Voting X

Knake, Maria AMRL Member Non-Voting X

Breth, Christopher AMRL Member Non-Voting

Uherek, Greg AMRL Member Non-Voting X

Lenker, Steven E. AMRL Member Non-Voting X

Davis, Kaye C Alabama Department of Transportation Member Non-Voting

Stolarski, Phil J California Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Fontaine, Leo Louis Connecticut Department of Transportation Member Voting

Aschenbrener, Tim Federal Highway Administration Member Non-Voting

Lopez, Aramis Federal Highway Administration Member Non-Voting

Rivers, Benjamin Federal Highway Administration Member Voting

Voth, Michael D Federal Highway Administration Member Non-Voting

Springer, Jack Federal Highway Administration Member Non-Voting X

Horhota, David J Florida Department of Transportation Member Voting

Hasty, Charles Allen Georgia Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Newman, Garth H Idaho Transportation Department Member Voting X

Frempong, Eric M Maryland Department of Transportation Member Non-Voting

Smith, Timothy E. Maryland Department of Transportation Member Voting

Tedford, Darin P Nevada Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Dusseault, Charles R. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Member Voting

Boisvert, Denis M. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Member Voting

Burnett, Robert A. New York State Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Seiter, Scott Oklahoma Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Franco, Colin A Rhode Island Department of Transportation Member Voting

Zwanka, Merrrill E South Carolina Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Smith, Travis Wallace Tennessee Department of Transportation Member Voting

Heinen, Caroline Texas Department of Transportation Member Voting

of 42

Tech Section 1b

III. Approval of Technical Section Mid‐Year Webinar Minutes The Technical Section 1b Mid‐Year Webinar was held on Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 2:30 PM. The Mid‐Year Webinar Minutes are attached as Appendix B. There was a motion to approve the minutes as written by New York (Burnett) and a second was made by Oklahoma (Seiter). Motion passed.

IV. Old Business A. SOM Ballot Items

2014 SOM Ballot Items – Negative Votes and Comments were addressed at the Mid‐Year Webinar (See Appendix A). There are no remaining items to be addressed by the TS.

B. TS ballots

TS Ballot TS1b‐15‐02 to: Discontinue M 92, Revise T 272, and Adopt a new Standard Practice. Ballot Results are included in Appendix B, Attachment 1 (Pages 152 – 158). Item 1 – M 92, Wire Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes, is identical to ASTM E 11‐09. In the interest of cleaning up the historical Category “C” standards, this ballot is to discontinue publishing M 92. Ballot Results: Yes – 13, No Vote – 6, Negative – 0, No Comments NY (Burnett) made a motion to move this ballot item to SOM ballot. A second was made by Rhode Island. Motion passed. Item 2 – Revise T 272, Family of Curves – One‐Point Method, based on WAQTC recommendations. Ballot Results: Yes – 13, No Vote – 6, Negative – 0, 1 Comment Comment from NY: There are multiple inconsistencies and errors to be addressed. While deleting the information contained elsewhere, the new document becomes difficult to follow as the reader is constantly referencing other sources. Recommend that it be thoroughly edited and basic necessary information be reinserted, followed by the reference. Resolution of Comment: The Chairman recommends that NY provide detailed information regarding the inconsistencies and errors for review prior to the SOM Ballot. Correction of errors and clarifications deemed to be editorial in nature can be made to the standard prior to the SOM Ballot. The TS Ballot for T 272 passes and will be forwarded for the SOM Ballot. Motion to take comments from NY (Burnett) incorporate into the standard and move to full SOM ballot. – NY Second – RI Motion passed. Item 3 – Adopt a new Standard Practice, R-XX, Developing a Family of Curves. The intent is to replace the Appendix XI of T 272. Ballot Results: Yes – 13, No Vote – 6, Negative – 0, 1 Comment

Babish, Charles A. Virginia Department of Transportation Member Voting X

Lane, Becca Ontario Ministry Of Transportation Associate Member Voting

Jones, Cecil L American Concrete Institute Friend Non-Voting X

Savage, David A Construction Materials Engineering Council Friend Non-Voting X

Pyle, Roger Pine Test Equipment, LLC Friend Non-Voting

Reaves, Dick Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. Friend Non-Voting X

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Comment from NY: NYSDOT felt that it was unclear on just what was the correct process. Section 4.1 states "All curves must be developed from a single method." This is counter to section 5 which directs the curves to be sorted by method. Garth Newman explained the need for development of this new standard of practice. That the family of curves s currently in the Annex and should be moved to the procedure. Resolution of Comment: The Chairman and Garth Newman will review Section 4.1 and Section 5 to ensure clarity of the process. This will be done prior to the SOM Ballot. The TS Ballot for adopting a new Standard Practice, R-XX passed Tech Section. Motion: To Forward for the SOM Ballot. – NY Second – RI Motion passed.

TS Ballot TS1b‐15‐03 to: Revise T 225, Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation, to include the definition and use of Triple‐Tube Core Barrels. The revisions also provide new language cautioning the use of Single‐Tube Core Barrels. These Changes are proposed by Task Force 15‐01. Ballot Results are included in Appendix B, Attachment 2 (Pages 159 – 160).

Ballot Results: Yes – 14, No Vote – 5, Negative – 0, No Comments The revision stemmed from a reconfirmation ballot. Ben Rivers (FHWA) made this suggestion and headed the task force to incorporate these changes. Motion: The TS Ballot for T 225 passes and will be forwarded for the SOM Ballot. – FL. Second – VA Motion passed.

C. Task Force Reports TASK FORCE 10‐04: Development of a new provisional standard for the In‐Place Determination of Density and Water Content of Soil and Aggregate by Subsurface Electrical Method. TP 112 ‐ Dennis Anderson, Cecil Jones, Darin Tedford (NV), Bob Burnett (NY)

The Chairman expressed the need for new members for this task force.

Dennis Anderson and Cecil Jones presented the work that has gone on this past year and the data collected. They are currently working with eight states, AK, ND, NE, VT, Virginia, NV, MD ID (get list from Cecil). Some data sets from this work were presented. A couple of states commented on this method/equipment as difficult to use of states. A couple of states had good comparisons however, one state reported poor comparisons. Nevada is continuing to do research.

Calibration of the gage was questioned and discussed concerning the appropriate method. Dennis discussed the optimized algorithm that has been added and is under beta testing to help with the calibration.

Maryland recently used the gage and reported the compaction part did very well with correlation but the moisture did not. Maryland offered to supply their data to Dennis.

Scott (OK) commented that the task force should continue based on the 8 states that are working with this new technology.

TASK FORCE 12‐01: Address comments on Technical Section Ballot 12‐01 to revise M 147. ‐ Andy Babish (VA), Jamie Blanton (LA), Scott Seiter (OK), Sejal Barot (MD), and James Williams,

(MS)

Terminology used was vague and not specific.

Survey was done to see how many states are using this standard. A fair amount of states are using this standard. . At this point it is believed that a minor changes are needed.

The task force will work on presenting revised language at a future meeting.

TASK FORCE 12‐02:

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Address negative votes and comments related to Technical Section Ballot 12‐04 to revise T 99 and T 180. ‐ Garth Newman (WAQTC), Scott Seiter (OK), Jamie Blanton (LA), David Horhota (FL), James

Williams (MS)

Changes suggested by the task force were balloted and passed, and are currently published.

The comment from FL is still outstanding. Florida’s comment were with concerns about the mandatory requirement to have two points passed optimum this can be an issue when dealing with a granular material with a relatively flat moisture‐density curve. Tim (FL) suggested that this requirement be made into a note so it would not necessarily be mandatory. Maine and OK were in agreement with the comment from FL.

Garth mentioned that T 99 was originally developed for a cohesive soil. The two data points are really needed past optimum to define the zero air voids curve.

Tim indicated that Dave Horhota (FL) would lead the effort to look at some language. The task force will schedule a conference call within the next month or so to look into this issue. (AASHTO staff volunteered offered assist in facilitating this call.)

V. New Business

A. Research Proposals (See Appendix C, Pages 161‐175) RPS – Research Problem Statements

‐ Development of Mechanistic‐Empirical Pavement Design Criteria for Pavement Rehabilitation using

Full‐Depth Reclamation TRB committees AFD70 and AFH60 ‐ The chairman asked if there was interest in supporting and endorsement by the TS. ‐ Members in attendance felt that this project was a little premature at this point in time. The

consensus is that the topic is high reaching at this time and basic research on FDR is still needed before this research would be valuable. Nelson Gibson mentioned a current ongoing NCHRP study that is looking a material properties.

‐ No motion was made to endorse this research needs statement.

‐ Evaluation and Consideration of Site Variability in the Geotechnical LRFD Design TRB committees AFP30, AFS30, and AFP20 Mohammed Mulla, NCDOT David Horhota, FDOT Ching Tsai, LADOTD Khamis Haramy FHWA‐Central Federal Land ‐ Members in attendance felt that this project has value. ‐ Motion: Chris (LA) recommended this topic be endorsed by the TS. Second – FL. Motion

passed.

‐ Development of a Permanent Deformation Test Procedure for Evaluating Rutting Potentials of Pavement Granular Base/Subbase Layers TRB committee AFP70 ‐ Scott (OK) indicated that this proposal does have a deliverable of a test method. This idea is

needed but this issue is complex. ‐ This research needs statement was presented to the Tech Section last year and was not

supported. ‐ Motion to co‐endorse with 1C: OK Second – Delaware (Sejal Barot) Motion passed.

‐ Including the Effects of Shrink/Swell and Frost Heave in Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design

TRB committee AFS60 ‐ The chair mentioned that there is a gap in the ME design in this regard. ‐ Bob (NY) stated that this topic is needed and moved to endorse. 2nd – VA. Motion passed.

‐ Jack mentioned that these ME topics should probably go to Joint Technical Committee for

their comments.

of 42

Tech Section 1b

B. AASHTO Issues

‐ The Chair expressed the Technical Sections’ thanks for AASHTOs and AMRLs help and work. ‐ Brian Johnson reminded members to let AMRL know if there are issues you are having in your

states that can be resolved by AMRL involvement / accreditation (such as adding tests to the scope of the program).

C. NCHRP Issues ‐ None D. Correspondence, calls, meetings/ Presentation by Industry

i. Date for Mid‐Year Web Meeting (Currently scheduled for February 3, 2016) ii. Presentation by Robyn Myers, Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc.

Introduction of Troxler’s Non‐Licensed Soil Nuclear Wet Density Gauge ‐ This gage uses a low activity nuclear source that is not regulated. This gage has small

differences in the operation but very similar to existing gages. The moisture measurement is external. Other gages have to be more the 30 feet away. The lower source only allows 8 inch reliable depth measurement. Uses a gamma source but moisture system is different. Electromagnetic technology is used for measuring the moisture. Data was presented showing the correlation with existing 3440 model nuclear gage. US Army Core of Engineers have done a research project looking at low nuclear and non‐nuclear methods. No soil modeling was necessary. Troxler has done a preliminary repeatability and reproducibility study for wet density.

‐ Methodology for moisture – use the same hole ‐ Available for purchase this summer. Cost approximately $15,000 ‐ Working with ASTM for a standard – the debate by ASTM is still ongoing about whether to

make this a new standard or to incorporate into the existing standard. E. Proposed New Standards

None known at this time. F. Proposed New Task Forces G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation

These will go out at the same time as the SOM but will be a separate ballot. H. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes)

VI. Open Discussion ‐ Jeff commented on design build projects where a large amount of data is incorporated there

needs to be more specified in calibration of nuclear gages. Jeff Seiters would like to work with Pennsylvania to further explain calibration requirements in the nuclear density gauge standards.

‐ Jeff will send in their concerns through Darin Hazlett and will report back to the Tech Section at a future meeting.

VII. Adjourn The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:47am EST.

of 42

Tech Section 1b

APPENDICES A – Meeting Attendance (Sign‐in by I‐Pad) B – Approved Meeting Minutes, 2015 Mid‐Year Webinar C – Technical Section 1b, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 Meeting Summary D – Subcommittee on Materials Ballot Items and Ballot Attachments

Attachment 1, Revised T 272

Attachment 2, New Standard Practice, R‐XX, Developing a Family of Curves

Attachment 3, Revise T 225

of 42

First Name Last Name Organization Email Phone

Trudy Keefer AASHTO [email protected] 240‐436‐4824

Georgene Geary GGfGA Engineering, LLC [email protected] 770‐337‐5817

Angela Wong ICF International [email protected] 202‐572‐9450

Bill Schiebel CO DOT [email protected] 303‐398‐6501

Jennifer Albert FHWA [email protected] 717‐221‐3410

Steve Lenker Director AMRL CCRL [email protected]

Sejal Barot MD SHWA [email protected] 443‐572‐5269

Ross Metcalfe MT DOT [email protected] 406‐444‐9201

John Melander John M Melander, Consultant [email protected] 847‐942‐2332

Garth Newman WAQTC [email protected] 208‐334‐8039

Cecil Jones Diversified Engineering Services Inc. [email protected] 919‐616‐5139

David Newcomb Texas A&M Transportation Institute d‐[email protected] 979‐676‐0471

Jeff Seiders Raba Kistner Infrastructure, Inc. [email protected] 512‐904‐9177

Michael Doran TNDOT [email protected] 615‐350‐4105

Brian Johnson AMRL [email protected] 240‐436‐4820

Chris Peoples NC DOT [email protected] 919‐329‐4000

Nelson Gibson FHWA [email protected] 202‐493‐3073

Merrill Zwanka SC DOT [email protected] 803‐737‐6682

Matthew Bluman AASHTO (AMRL) [email protected] 240‐436‐4849

Robyn Myers Troxler Electronic Labs , Product Manager [email protected] 919.549.8661 ext 2217

Deborah Kim AASHTO [email protected] 202‐624‐5883

Robert Burnett NYSDOT [email protected] 518‐457‐4711

Ron Holsinger Consultant [email protected] 301‐916‐2507

Josiah Beakley American Concrete Pipe Association jbeakley@concrete‐pipe.org 972‐894‐2906

Scott Andrus UTDOT [email protected] 801‐965‐4859

Mladen Gagulic VTAOT [email protected] 802‐828‐6405

Andy Mergenmeier FHWA [email protected] 410‐962‐7971

Scott Seiter OK DOT [email protected] 405‐521‐2186

Steven Ingram AL DOT [email protected] 334‐206‐2335

Ron Horner ND DOT [email protected] 701‐328‐6904

James Hammons MS DOT [email protected] 601‐359‐9770

Darin Tedford NV DOT [email protected] 775‐888‐7784

Anne Holt Ontario Ministry of Transportation [email protected] 416‐235‐3724

Michael San Angelo State Materials Engineer [email protected] 907‐269‐6234

David Savage CMEC [email protected] 407‐628‐3682

Dick Reaves Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. [email protected] 919‐819‐4551

Greg Uherek AMRL [email protected] 240‐436‐4840

Dennis Anderson Electrical Density Gauge [email protected] 775‐741‐3897

Jesus Sandoval‐Gil AZ DOT jsandoval‐[email protected] 928‐200‐4260

Timothy Ramirez PENNDOT [email protected] 717‐783‐6602

Ali Regimand President [email protected] 919‐875‐8371

Wallace Heyen NE DOR [email protected] 402‐479‐4677

Evan Rothblatt AASHTO [email protected] 202‐624‐3648

Lyndi Blackburn ALDOT [email protected] 334‐206‐2203

Jack Springer FHWA [email protected] 202‐493‐3144

Jerry Daleiden Fugro [email protected] 512‐977‐1800

Victor (Lee) Gallivan Gallivan Consulting, Inc. [email protected]

Charles Hasty GA DOT [email protected] 404‐608‐4708

Robert Lutz AMRL [email protected] 240‐436‐4801

Brett Trautman MO DOT [email protected] 573‐751‐1036

Kevin Kennedy MI DOT [email protected] 517‐322‐6043

Robin Graves Vulcan Materials Company [email protected]

Timothy Ruelke FL DOT [email protected] 352‐955‐6620

Casey Soneira AMRL [email protected] 240‐436‐4863

William Troxler, Jr. Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. [email protected] 919‐485‐2200

Richard Bradbury MEDOT [email protected] 207‐441‐2474

Greg Stellmach OR DOT [email protected] 503‐986‐3061

Michael Sullivan MS DOT [email protected] 601‐359‐1666

Maria Knake AMRL [email protected] 240‐436‐4804

Chris Abadie LADOTD [email protected] 225‐248‐4131

James Williams MS DOT [email protected] 601‐359‐7007

Desna Bergold WAQTC [email protected] 801‐721‐7146

Mark Felag RI DOT [email protected] 401‐641‐8279

Charles Babish VADOT [email protected] 804‐328‐3102

Hany Fekry DelDOT [email protected] 302‐760‐2551

AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials

101st Annual Meeting ‐ Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Technical Section 1b Meeting Attendance

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

10:15 am ‐ 12:00 pm CST

APPENDIX A

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Page 1 of 6

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS Mid‐Year Web Meeting

Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:30 pm – 4:30 pm EST

TECHNICAL SECTION 1b

Subsurface Exploration, Soil Instrumentation, Soil Stabilization, and Field Testing of Soils

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

Chairman James Williams called the meeting to order thanking everyone for their attendance. The membership and friends were encouraged to continue the strong support of TS 1b and the SOM by participating in TS and SOM ballots as well as Task Forces. The Chairman acknowledged the hard work of the TS over the last few years in updating and creating new standards. Reid Kaiser (NV) has taken a new job with NV and was thanked for his service to TS 1b as the Research Liaison. Darin Tedford (NV) volunteered to be the new Research Liaison for TS 1b and he was thanked for his willingness to serve in this role.

II. Roll Call Attendees Present Williams, III, James A. Mississippi Department of Transportation Chair Barnhart, Tracy AMRL Liaison Johnson, Brian AMRL Liaison Lacinak, Henry AASHTO Liaison Knake, Maria AMRL Member Soneira, Casey AMRL Member Rivers, Benjamin Federal Highway Administration Member Springer, Jack Federal Highway Administration Member Voth, Michael D Federal Highway Administration Member Horhota, David J Florida Department of Transportation Member Smith, Timothy E. Maryland Department of Transportation Member Tedford, Darin P Nevada Department of Transportation Member Boisvert, Denis M. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Member Burnett, Robert A. New York State Department of Transportation Member Seiter, Scott Oklahoma Department of Transportation Member Zwanka, Merrrill E South Carolina Department of Transportation Member Heinen, Caroline Texas Department of Transportation Member

Lane, Becca Ontario Ministry Of Transportation Associate Member

Jones, Cecil L American Concrete Institute Friend Reaves, Dick Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc. Friend Fish, Marc New Hampshire Department of Transportation Visitor Clarke, Chris Oklahoma Department of Transportation Visitor Thomas, John Oklahoma Department of Transportation Visitor Si, Jimmy Texas Department of Transportation Visitor Sangiuliano, Tony Ontario Ministry of Transportation Visitor Jowers, Robert Tennessee Department of Transportation Visitor Smith, Travis Tennessee Department of Transportation Visitor Hannah, Amir TRB Visitor Cowsert, Jack North Carolina Department of Transportation Visitor

APPENDIX B

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Page 2 of 6

Peoples, Chris North Carolina Department of Transportation Visitor Fontaine, Leo Connecticut Department of Transportation Visitor Schoup, Heather Illinois Department of Transportation Visitor

Fernandez, Ben Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Visitor

Abadie, Chris Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Visitor

Benson, Michael Arkansas Department of Transportation Visitor The following changes in membership were recommended to the Chairman: Roger Pile (Pine Instruments) is no longer with Pine and should be removed as a Friend Reid Kaiser (NV) has been replaced by Darin Tedford (NV) as a Voting Member Haleh Azari is no longer with AMRL Travis Smith (TN) requested membership on the TS as a Voting Member Leo Fontaine (CT) requested membership on the TS as a Voting Member

III. Approval of Technical Section Minutes Minutes of the TS 1b meeting held on July 29, 2014 in Minneapolis, Minnesota were distributed prior to the Mid‐Year Webinar to the TS for review. The TS unanimously approved by voice vote the minutes of this meeting. (M/S, NY/OK). See Appendix A

IV. Old Business

A. SOM Ballot Items Item Number: 5 Description: SOM ballot item to revise T 298, "High‐Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles." See pages 2 and

85‐99 of the minutes. Affirmative 46 of 53 Negative 0 of 53 No Vote 7 of 53

South Dakota Department of Transportation

In paragragh 5.2.4 change piezoresitive to piezoresistive

Editorial

Idaho Transportation Department

‐ Item 3.2.1. The description of Hammer cushion is incorrect and should be replaced with the following: Hammer cushion: the material placed between the hammer striker plate and the drive cap or helmet to protect the hammer during driving. Add "to protect the pile during driving" at the end of the description of Pile cushion. ‐ Item 3.2.8: Replace all the word "column" with "pile".

Resolution of Comments: The comment from SD editorial in nature and was changed editorially by the Chairman prior to publication. The comments from ID were taken under advisement and editorial changes made by the Chairman to provide clarity to the standard prior to publishing.

APPENDIX B

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Page 3 of 6

Item Number 6 Description: Concurrent ballot item to revise T 99 and T 180." See pages 3‐4 and 100‐132 of the minutes. Affirmative 45 of 53 Negative 1 of 53 No Vote 7 of 53

Rhode Island Department of Transportation Negative

A1.1.2 states to "Obtain the sample in accordance with AASHTO T 310". Note: there is no note of sampling method in AASHTO T 310. Rhode Island has indicated they will withdraw their negative if a reference is added to specifically point to Section 9.6.

Virginia Department of Transportation

Some suggested editorial changes to make to both T99 and T180 are: Table 1 : 0.333+/‐ 0.0005 should be changed to 0.0333+/‐ 0.0005 Table 2: 0.07500+/‐ 0.0009 needs to be changed to 0.0750+/‐ 0.0009

Oregon Department of Transportation

Final version of T 180 should delete T 224 as one of the "Referenced Documents" since the information is being added to T 180 in the Annex. This looks like it was done for the version of T 99 but not for T 180.


‐ Replace 3.1.1 with the following: A mold having volume of 0.000943 +/‐ 0.000014 cu.m (0.0333 +/‐ 0.0005 cu.ft.) with an inside diameter of 101.6 +/‐ 0.4 mm (4.0 +/‐ 0.016 in.) and a height of 116.4 +/‐ 0.5 mm (4.584+/‐ 0.018 in.) (Figure 1). Determine mold volume in accordance with section "Calibration of Measure" of T19M/T19 for Unit Mass of Aggregate. ‐ Replace 3.1.2 with the following: A mold having volume of 0.002124+/‐ 0.000025 cu.m (0.075 +/‐ 0.0009 cu.ft.) with an inside diameter of 152.40+/‐ 0.7 mm (6.0 +/‐ 0.026 in.) and a height of 116.4 +/‐ 0.5 mm (4.584+/‐ 0.018 in.) (Figure 2). Determine mold volume in accordance with section "Calibration of Measure" of T19M/T19 for Unit Mass of Aggregate. ‐ Add "Figure 1 ‐ Cylindrical Mold and Base Plate (101.6 mm Mold)" below the figure in page 103 same as in T 180 on page 119.

Florida Department of Transportation

Affirmative with comment regarding the new requirement of performing an additional pill such that there is a minimum of 2 determinations over the optimum moisture. We would suggest to make this a note and not a requirement because this could increase sample size and test time driving up consultant costs for these tests. For granular soils with shallow proctor curves, we would prefer if the test method allows some judgment to use 4 points versus mandating 5 points (or more) which wouldn't add much greater precision for these types of soils while possibly resulting in increased costs.

Resolution of Negative:

RI agreed to withdraw their negative vote based on the chair agreeing that a reference in Section A1.1.2 to point directly to T 310, Section 9.6 would provide clarity to the standard. This change was made prior to publishing by the Chairman. Resolution of Comments: VA, ID, and IL comments related to the dimensional requirements of the molds were investigated and corrected by TF 12‐02 and the Chairman. Corrections to the dimensional requirements were made by the Chairman prior to publication. The comment by OR regarding referenced documents was changed editorially by the Chairman prior to publishing. The comment from FL will be taken under advisement for further investigation by TF 12‐02.

APPENDIX B

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Page 4 of 6

Item Number 7 Description: Concurrent ballot item to revise T 272, "Family of Curves “One‐Point Method." See pages 3‐4 and 133‐141of the minutes. Affirmative 46 of 53 Negative 0 of 53 No Vote 7 of 53


- Section 3.1: Label the figure of Family of Curves as "Figure 1". - Section 6.3.1: In second sentence, change "nearest one g" to "nearest 2 g" (2g to be consistent with tolerance of 0.005 pound). Make same change in 10.3.1 - Section 15.1.4: Add "3/4 in." behind 19 mm.

The Comments from ID were taken under advisement by the Chairman. Appropriate changes were made to the standard editorially by the Chairman prior to publication. Item Number 8 Description: Concurrent ballot item to discontinue T 224, "Correction for Coarse Particles in the Soil Compaction Test." See pages 3‐4 of the minutes. Affirmative 45 of 53 Negative 1 of 53 No Vote 7 of 53 Rhode Island Department of Transportation Negative

From the minutes it states, In the early 1970â€™s the replacement model was eliminated. T 224 was developed for oversized and is a mathematical calculation. The information in T 224 should be added as an appendix in T 99 and T 180. If this is discontinued, is the information added to T 99 and T 180 as stated? Rhode Island has indicated they will withdraw their negative after email discussions.

Resolution of Negative: RI withdrew their negative vote based on changes to T 99 and T 180 passing SOM ballot.

B. TS letter ballots

Reconfirmation Ballot for the following: ‐ M 092‐10 Wire‐Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes ‐ M 231‐95 (2010) Weighing Devices Used in the Testing of Materials ‐ T 225‐06 (2010) Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation ‐ T 306‐11 Progressing Auger Borings for Geotechnical Explorations ‐ TP 100‐12 Deep Foundation Elements under BI‐Directional Static Axial Compressive Load ‐ TP 104‐13 Rapid Axial Compressive Load Testing of Deep Foundation Units Ballot closed February 13, 2015. All reconfirmation ballots passed the TS. Based on comments related to M 92 being a Category C standard identical to the ASTM version, the TS indicated that the Chairman should ballot to discontinue M 92. The Chairman agreed to submit a TS ballot prior to the annual meeting. Ben Rivers (FHWA) recommended changes to T 225 which resulted in the formation of TF 15‐01 consisting of Ben Rivers (FHWA – Chair), David Horhota (FL), and Bob Burnett (NY). The TF will recommend changes to T 225 for future TS ballot. AL asked on the T 306 ballot about the status of the update to the 1988 AASHTO Subsurface Investigation Manual. NCHRP 21‐10 was funded to update the manual based on advances in technology and current practice. James Williams and Ben Rivers are on the panel for the project and anticipate an updated draft of the manual to be submitted to AASHTO for adoption within approximately two years.

C. Task Force Reports

APPENDIX B

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Page 5 of 6

TASK FORCE 10‐02: Research needed changes to update T 298. ‐ James Williams (MS) Lyndi Blackburn (AL), David Horhota (FL) Item Number 5 on SOM Ballot. The work of TF 10‐02 resulted in balloted changes to T 298. The TF was discontinued and thanks given to the TF for their work to update this standard. TASK FORCE 10‐04: Development of a new provisional standard for the In‐Place Determination of Density and Water Content of Soil and Aggregate by Subsurface Electrical Method. TP 112 ‐ Dennis Anderson, Cecil Jones, Jim Pappas (DE), Reid Kaiser (NV), Georgene Geary (GA), Bob Burnett (NY) TP 112‐14, Determining In‐Place Density and Moisture Content of Soil and Soil‐Aggregate Using Complex Impedance Methodology was adopted by the SOM in 2014. Cecil Jones provided an update of ongoing work in various states utilizing the technology. The TF will continue as the technology advances and more data is acquired. The Chairman thanked TF 10‐04 for their efforts and continued work in this area. TASK FORCE 12‐01: Address comments on Technical Section Ballot 12‐01 to revise M 147. ‐ Andy Babish (VA), Jamie Blanton (LA), Georgene Geary (GA), Scott Seiter (OK), and James Williams, (MS) A survey was conducted to gauge the use of the standard. Based on the survey, there was interest in maintaining the standard. The TF was continued to look at potential updates. TASK FORCE 12‐02: Address negative votes and comments related to Technical Section Ballot 12‐04 to revise T 99 and T 180. ‐ Garth Newman (WAQTC), Scott Seiter (OK), Jamie Blanton (LA), David Horhota (FL), James Williams (MS) Item Number 6 and 8 on SOM Ballot. Work of this TF resulted in major changes to T 99 and T 180. The Chairman asked that the TF be maintained to help modify the standards prior to publishing. The TF may be discontinued at the annual meeting.

V. New Business

A. Research Proposals The research liaison for TS 1b is Darin Tedford (NV). The research liaison is responsible for compiling potential research needs. The TS was encouraged to contact the research liaison or the TS Chair with potential topics.

B. AMRL/CCRL Issues None Noted

C. NCHRP Issues Amir Hannah (TRB) updated the TS on the NCHRP process and deadlines. Amir encouraged the SOM TS to endorse potential research needs statements.

D. Correspondence, calls, meetings/ Presentation by Industry Dick Reeves from Troxler asked to give a presentation to the TS at the annual meeting related to the newly introduced Troxler E‐Gauge.

APPENDIX B

of 42

Tech Section 1b

Page 6 of 6

E. Proposed New Standards None Noted

F. Proposed New Task Forces Task Force 15‐01 was organized to propose changes to T 225.

G. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation AASHTO staff will generate a reconfirmation ballot for TS 1b standards requiring reconfirmation prior to the 2016 publication.

H. Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes) The Chairman will generate a TS ballot to discontinue M 92 prior to the annual meeting.

VI. Open Discussion

VII. Adjourn

APPENDIX B

of 42

Meeting Date:

Standard

Designation

Summary of Proposed Changes Subcommittee Only or

Concurrent?

M92 Remove from publication TS Ballot

Task Force Name Summary of Task Names of TF Members

15‐01

Update T225 to show that the double tube core

barrel is the standard, but the single tube is still

used for harder rock. Also, there was a

suggestion to add a description of the use of

photography in this standard. See the comments

on the reapprovals for more details.

Ben Rivers (FHWA) is the

Chair, David Horhota

(FL), Bob Burnett (NY)

are also members, Ben

will contact GA DOT to

see if they want to

participate due to their

commment on

photography.

Research Liaison: Darin Tedford (NV)

TS 1b Mid Year Web Meeting Summary

Items approved by the TS for Subcommittee Ballot:

2/26/2015

New Task Forces Formed:

Other Action Items:

Task Force 10‐02 is disbanded.

APPENDIX B

of 42

Meeting Date:

Standard

Designation

Summary of Proposed Changes Subcommittee Only or

Concurrent?

M 92 Discontinue publication Subcomittee

T 272 Revise based on WAQTC recommendations Subcommittee

R XX (New

standard)

New standard entitled "Developing a Family of

Curves." The intent is to replace Appendix XI of T

272. Subcommittee

T 255

Revise to include the definition and use of Triple‐

Tube Core Barrels Subcommittee

Research Liaison: Darin Tedford (Nevada)

‐Jeff Seiters would like to work with Pennsylvania to further explain calibration requirements in

the nuclear density gauge standards. Jeff will report back to the Tech Section at a future

meeting.

TS1b Meeting Summary

Items approved by the TS for Subcommittee Ballot:

August 4, 2015 10:15 AM EST

New Task Forces Formed: None.

Other Action Items:

‐Task Force 12‐02 will hold a conference call to discuss how many points passed optimum are

required for granular soils. AASHTO staff volunteered to help facilitate the call.

‐Motions were made by the Tech Section to endorse 3 research needs statements: Evaluation

and Consideration of Site Variability in the Geotechnical LRFD Design (TRB Committees AFP30,

AFS30, AFP20), Development of a Permanent Deformation Test Procedure for Evaluating Rutting

Potentials of Pavement Granular Base/Subbase Layers (TRB Committee AFP70); Including the

Effects of Shrink/Swell and Frost Heave in Mechanic Empirical Pavement Design (TRB Committee

AFS60)

APPENDIX C

of 42

TS 1b SOM Ballot Items

Num. Ballot Item SOM Concurrent 1 M 92, Wire Cloth Sieves for Testing Purposes, is identical to

ASTM E-11-09. In the interest of cleaning up the historical “Category C” standards, this ballot is to discontinue publishing M 92. See page 2 of the minutes.

X

2 Revise T 272, Family of Curves – One-Point Method, based on WAQTC recommendations. In addition to deleting information contained in other standards, the revision removes the appendix for developing a family of moisture-density curves. The development of a family of curves is proposed as a new standard practice. See pages 2 and 17-29 of the minutes.

X

3 Adopt a new Standard Practice, R-XX, Developing a Family of Curves. The intent is to replace the Appendix XI of T 272. See pages 2-3 and 30-34 of the minutes.

X

4 Revise T 225, Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation, to include the definition and use of Triple-Tube Core Barrels. The revisions also provide new language cautioning the use of Single-Tube Core Barrels. These changes are proposed by Task Force 15-01. See pages 3 and 35-42 of the minutes.

X

APPENDIX D

of 42

Standard Method of Test for

Family of Curves— One-Point Method for Determining Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture

AASHTO Designation: T 272-10XX

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001

APPENDIX D Attachment 1

of 42

TS-1b T 272-1 AASHTO


Family of Curves—One-Point Method for Determining Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture

AASHTO Designation: T 272-10XX

1. SCOPE

1.1. These This methods is of tests are for the rapid determination of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a soil sample utilizing a family of curves andusing a one-point determination and an individual moisture/density curve or a family of curves.

1.2. One-point determinations are made by compacting the soil in a mold of a given size with a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) rammer dropped from a height of 305 mm (12 in.). Four alternate procedures are provided as follows:

1.2.1. Method A—A 101.6-mm (4-in.) mold; soil material passing a 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve (see Sections 5 and 6);

1.2.2. Method B—A 152.4-mm (6-in.) mold; soil material passing a 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve (see Sections 7 and 8);

1.2.3. Method C—A 101.6-mm (4-in.) mold; soil material passing a 19.0-mm (3/4 in.) sieve (see Sections 9 and 10); or

1.2.4. Method D—A 152.4-mm (6-in.) mold; soil material passing a 19.0-mm (3/4 in.) sieve (see Sections 11 and 12).

1.3. The methods described herein correspond to the methods in T 99 and must be chosen accordingly; that is, when moisture-density relationships as determined by Method C of T 99 are used to form the family of curves, then Method C described in this procedure must be used for the one-point determination (Note 1).

Note 01—Direct reference to T 99 is made throughout these test methods, and most terminology, apparatus, and procedures are the same.

1.4. In addition, the concepts described herein are applicable to one-point determinations and moisture-density relationships as specified in T 180, with appropriate apparatus and method used as required.

1.5.1.2. The following applies to all specified limits in this standard: For the purposes of determining conformance with these specifications, an observed value or a calculated value shall be rounded off “to the nearest unit” in the last right-hand place of figures used in expressing the limiting value, in accordance with the rounding-off method of ASTM E 29.

1.6.1.3. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.


of 42


2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1. AASHTO Standards:

T 19M/T 19, Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate

T 99, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop

T 180, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop

T 224, Correction for Coarse Particles in the Soil Compaction Test

2.2. ASTM Standard:

E 29, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications

3. DEFINITIONSIGNIFICANCE AND USE

3.1. The method described herein corresponds to the methods in either T 99 or T 180 and must be chosen accordingly; for example, when moisture-density relationships as determined by Method C of T 99 are used to form the family of curves, then Method C described in T 99 must be used for the one-point determination.

3.1.3.2. A family of curves is a group of typical soil moisture-density relationships determined using T 99 or T 180, which reveal certain similarities and trends characteristic of the soil type and source. Soils sampled from one source will have many different moisture-density curves, but if a group of these curves are plotted together, certain relationships usually become apparent. In general, it will be found that higher unit mass soils assume steeper slopes with maximum dry densities at lower optimum moisture contents, while the lower unit mass soils assume flatter, more gently sloped curves with higher optimum moisture contents (Figure 1).


of 42


Figure 1—Example of Curves

4. METHOD SELECTION

4.1. See T 99 or T 180.

4.2. One-point determinations are made by compacting soil using T 99 or T 180 and one of the procedural methods described therein:

Method A—A 101.6-mm (4-in.) mold; soil material passing a 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve. Sections 5 and 6.

Method B—A 152.4-mm (6-in.) mold; soil material passing a 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve. Sections 7 and 8.

Method C—A 101.6-mm (4-in.) mold; soil material passing a 19.0-mm (3/4 in.) sieve. Sections 9 and 10.

Method D—A 152.4-mm (6-in.) mold; soil material passing a 19.0-mm (3/4 in.) sieve. Sections 11 and 12.

4.3. The method used to compact the sample shall be the same method and procedure used to develop the moisture/density curve or family of curves used for the reference curve(s).

2000

1900

1800

126

124

122

120

118

116

114

112

110

Family of Curves—One-Point Method

Dry

Den

sity

, kg/

m3 S

et

Dry

Den

sity

, pcf

Set

8 10 12 14 16

One-Point ValuesDry Density = 1871 kg/m3 (116.8 pcf)Moisture Content = 11.2%

Max Density = 1906 kg/m (119.0 pcf)Optimum Moisture Content = 12.7%

1871 kg/m3

116.8 pcf

1906 kg/m3 (119.0 pcf)

Moisture Content %11.2 12.7


of 42


4.5. APPARATUS

4.1.5.1. See T 99 or T 180 for the selected method., Section 3.

METHOD A

5.6. SAMPLE

6.1. See T 99, Section 4.Refer to T 99 or T 180.

6.1.1. Follow the initial drying step in 'Sample' section of T 99 or T 180 or;

5.1.6.1.2. Sieve sample over the appropriate sieve.

6.7. PROCEDURE

7.1. The representative sample needs to be between 80 to 100 percent of the optimum moisture. Adjust the moisture content, if necessary. The maximum density determination will be more accurate the closer the moisture content is to the optimum moisture content.

7.2. Compact the prepared soil using the selected procedural method.

7.3. Determine the wet density of the compacted sample according to T 99 or T 180.

7.4. Determine the moisture content using one of the following methods: T 217, T 255, or T 265.

7.5. Determine the dry density using the wet density determined in Section 7.3 and moisture content determined in Section 7.4 according to the calculation Section in T 99 or T 180.

6.1. Thoroughly mix the selected representative sample with sufficient water to dampen approximately 4 percentage points below optimum moisture content. Greater accuracy in the determination of the maximum density will result as the moisture content used approaches optimum moisture content. Moisture content of the sample should never exceed the optimum water content.

6.2. Form a specimen by compacting the prepared soil in the 101.6-mm (4-in.) mold (with collar attached) in three approximately equal layers to give a total compacted depth of about 125 mm (5 in.). Compact each layer by 25 uniformly distributed blows from the rammer dropping free from a height of 305 mm (12 in.) above the elevation of the soil when a sleeve-type rammer is used, or from 305 mm (12 in.) above the approximate elevation of compacted soil when a stationary mounted type of rammer is used. During compaction, the mold shall rest firmly on a dense, uniform, rigid, and stable foundation (Note 2).

Note 2—Each of the following has been found to be a satisfactory base on which to rest the mold during compaction of the soil: a block of concrete, with a mass not less than 91 kg (200 lb) supported by a relatively stable foundation; a sound concrete floor; and for field application, such surfaces as are found in concrete box culverts, bridges, and pavements.

6.2.1. Following compaction, remove the extension collar, carefully trim the compacted soil even with the top of the mold by means of the straightedge, and determine the mass of the mold and moist soil in kilograms to the nearest 5 g, or determine the mass in pounds to the nearest 0.01 pounds. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in kilograms, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 1060, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in kilograms per cubic meter, of compacted soil. For molds

Formatted: Heading 3


of 42


conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in pounds, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 30, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in pounds per cubic foot, of compacted soil. For used molds out of tolerance by no more than 50 percent (T 99), use the factor for the mold as determined in accordance with T 19M/T 19.

6.3. Remove the material from the mold and slice vertically through the center. Take a representative sample of the material from one of the cut faces, determine the mass immediately, and dry in an oven at 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F) for at least 12 h, or to a constant mass to determine the moisture content. The moisture sample shall have a mass not less than 100 g.

METHOD B

7. SAMPLE

7.1. Select the representative sample in accordance with Section 5, except that it shall have a mass of approximately 7 kg (16 lb).

8. PROCEDURE

8.1. Follow the same procedure as described for Method A in Section 6, except for the following: Form a specimen by compacting the prepared soil in the 152.4-mm (6-in.) mold (with collar attached) in three approximately equal layers to give a total compacted depth of about 125 mm (5-in.), each layer being compacted by 56 uniformly distributed blows from the rammer. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in kilograms, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 471, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in kilograms per cubic meter of compacted soil. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in pounds, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 13.33, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in pounds per cubic foot, of the compacted soil. For used molds out of tolerance by no more than 50 percent (T 99), use the factor for the mold as determined in accordance with T 19M/T 19.

METHOD C

9. SAMPLE

9.1. If the soil sample is damp when received from the field, dry it until it becomes friable under a trowel. Drying may be in air or by use of a drying apparatus such that the temperature does not exceed 60°C (140°F). Then thoroughly break up the aggregations in such a manner as to avoid reducing the natural size of individual particles.

9.2. Sieve an adequate quantity of the representative pulverized soil over the 19.0-mm sieve. Discard the coarse material, if any, retained on the 19.0-mm sieve (Note 3).

Note 3—The discarded coarse material may be utilized in T 224.

9.3. Select a representative sample having a mass of approximately 5 kg (12 lb) or more of the soil prepared as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2.


of 42


10. PROCEDURE

10.1. Thoroughly mix the selected representative sample with sufficient water to dampen it to approximately 4 percentage points below optimum moisture content. Greater accuracy in the determination of the maximum density will result as the moisture content used approaches the optimum moisture content.

10.2. Form a specimen by compacting the prepared soil in the 101.6-mm (4-in.) mold (with collar attached) in three approximately equal layers to give total compacted depth of about 125 mm (5 in.). Compact each layer by 25 uniformly distributed blows from the rammer dropping free from a height of 305 mm (12 in.) above the elevation of the soil when a sleeve-type rammer is used or from 305 mm (12 in.) above the approximate elevation of each finely compacted layer when a stationary mounted type rammer is used. During compaction, the mold shall rest firmly on a dense, uniform, rigid, and stable foundation (Note 2).

10.2.1. Following compaction, remove the extension collar and carefully trim the compacted soil even with the top of the mold by means of the straightedge. Holes developed in the surface by removal of coarse material shall be patched with smaller-size material. Determine the mass of the mold and moist soil in kilograms to the nearest 5 grams, or determine the mass in pounds to the nearest 0.01 pounds. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in kilograms, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 1060, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in kilograms per cubic meter of compacted soil. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in pounds, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 30, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in pounds per cubic foot, of compacted soil. For used molds out of tolerance by no more than 50 percent (T 99), use the factor for the mold as determined in accordance with Section 8 (Calibration of Measure) of T 19M/T 19.

10.3. Remove the material from the mold and slice vertically through the center. Take a representative sample of the material from one of the cut faces, determine the mass immediately, and dry to a constant mass using a drying apparatus described in T 99 to determine the moisture content. The moisture sample shall have a mass no less than 500 g.

METHOD D

11. SAMPLE

11.1. Select the representative sample in accordance with Section 9.3 except that it shall have a mass of approximately 11 kg (25 lb).

12. PROCEDURE

12.1. Follow the same procedure as described for Method C in Section 10, except for the following: Form a specimen by compacting the prepared soil in the 152.4-mm (6-in.) mold (with collar attached) in three approximately equal layers to give a total compacted depth of about 125 mm (5 in.), each layer being compacted by 56 uniformly distributed blows from the rammer. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in kilograms, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 471, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in kilograms per cubic meter, of compacted soil. For molds conforming to tolerances given in T 99 and masses recorded in pounds, multiply the mass of the compacted specimen and the mold, minus the mass of the mold, by 13.33, and record the result as the wet density, W1, in pounds per cubic foot, of the compacted soil. For used molds out of


of 42


tolerance by no more than 50 percent (T 99), use the factor for the mold as determined in accordance with Section 8 (Calibration of Measure) of T 19M/T 19.

8. MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION

8.1. An individual moisture/density curve as determined by T 99 or T 180 or a family of curves as developed by R XX may be used for the reference curve(s).

8.2. Individual moisture/density curve:

8.2.1. Moisture content must be within in 80 to 100 percent of optimum moisture of the reference curve. Compact another specimen, using the same material, at adjusted moisture content if the one-point does not fall in the 80 to 100 percent of optimum moisture range.

8.2.2. Plot the one-point moisture content as the abscissa and the corresponding dry density (unit mass) of the soil as ordinate to define the one-point on the reference curve.

8.2.3. Use the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content defined by the curve when the one-point falls on the curve or within ±2.0 lbs/ft3 of the curve at the one-point moisture content (Figure 1).

8.2.4. Perform a full moisture/density relationship if the one-point determination cannot meet these requirements.

x

x

x

x

x

x

108.0

102.0

104.0

106.0

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³96.0

Dry

Den

sity

PC

F

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

98.0

100.0

One‐point Moisture Content = 14.2%One‐point DryDensity = 102.1 lbs/ft3

80% of optimum moisture = 16.8 * 0.8 =13.4%

Maximum Dry Density = 104.0 lbs/ft3

Optimum moisture = 16.8%

100.9 lbs/ft3 at 14.2% One‐point density is within 2.0 lbs/ft3

of the reference curve

Formatted: Heading 3


of 42


Figure 1—Determining maximum dry density and optimum moisture content using individual moisture/density curve.

Formatted: Normal


of 42


8.3. Family of curves:

8.3.1. Plot the one-point moisture content as the abscissa and the corresponding dry density (unit mass) of the soil as ordinate to define the one-point on the reference family of curves.

8.3.2. If the one-point falls on one of the curves in the family of curves, use the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content defined by that curve

8.3.3. Draw a new curve through the plotted one-point parallel and in character with the nearest existing curve in the family of curves when the one-point falls within the family but not on a curve.

8.3.4. Determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content as defined by the new curve. The moisture content must be within in 80 to 100 percent of the determined optimum moisture content. (Figure 2)

8.3.5. Perform a full moisture/density relationship if the one-point determination does not fall within the family or cannot meet the 80 to 100 percent range.

Figure 2— Determining maximum dry density and optimum moisture content using family of curves.

x

x

x

x

x

x

16

98.0

100.0

1412 22%% % 20

Dry

Den

sity

PC

F

% %%% 18

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

%

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

108

94.0

96.0

108.0

102.0

104.0

106.0

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

Formatted: Normal


of 42


CALCULATIONS AND REPORT

13. CALCULATIONS

13.1. See T 99, Section 12.

14. MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION

14.1. The calculations in Section 13.1 shall be made to determine the moisture content and corresponding oven-dry mass (density) in kilograms per cubic meter (pounds per cubic foot) of the compacted specimen. The dry density (unit mass) of the soil shall be plotted as ordinate and the corresponding moisture content as the abscissa to define one-point within or on the family of curves (Figure 1).

14.2. If the one-point falls on one of the curves in the family of curves, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content defined by that curve shall be used (Note 4).

14.3. If the one-point falls within the family but not on a curve, a new curve shall be drawn through the plotted one-point parallel and in character with the nearest existing curve in the family of curves. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content as defined by the new curve shall be used (Note 4).

Note 4—If the one-point plotted within or on the family of curves does not fall in the 80 to 100 percent of optimum moisture range, compact another specimen, using the same material, at an adjusted moisture content that will place the one-point within this range.

14.3.1. If the family of curves is such that the profile of a new curve to be drawn through a one-point is not well defined or in any way questionable, then a full moisture-density relationship shall be made for the soil in question to correctly define the new curve and verify the applicability of the family of curves (Note 5).

Note 5—New curves drawn through plotted one-point determinations shall not become a permanent part of the family of curves until verified by a full moisture-density relationship.

15.9. REPORT

15.1.9.1. The report shall include the following:

15.1.1.9.1.1. The method used (Method A, B, C, or D).

15.1.2.9.1.2. The optimum moisture content as a percentage to the nearest whole number.

15.1.3.9.1.3. The maximum density to the nearest 0.5 kg/m3 (1.0 lb/ft3).


of 42


15.1.4. In Methods C and D, indicate if the material retained on the 19.0-mm sieve was removed or replaced. 15.1.5. Type of face if other than 50.8-mm (2-in.) circular. Note 6—Inherent variability of soils places limitations on this method of test. The person using this test method must realize this and become thoroughly familiar with the material being tested. Knowledge of the AASHTO Soil Classification System and ability to recognize the gradation of soils are requirements for this work.

Formatted: Normal


of 42


APPENDIX (Nonmandatory Information) X1. DEVELOPING A MOISTURE-DENSITY FAMILY OF CURVES X1.1. The purpose of the family of curves is to represent the average moisture-density characteristics of the material. The family must, therefore, be based on moisture-density relationships that adequately represent the entire mass range and all types of material for which the family is to be used. It may be that particular soil types have moisture-density relationships that differ considerably and cannot be represented on one general family of curves; in this case, a separate family may be developed. Also, moisture-density relationships for material of widely varying geologic origins should be carefully examined to determine if separate families are required. X1.2. When a small number of moisture-density relationships are being used to develop a family of curves, plot the point representing the maximum density and optimum moisture content for each relationship on a single sheet of graph paper. Draw a smooth curve as close as possible to connect all the points. This line will define the maximum density and optimum moisture content of the material represented by this family of curves. At 1-kg (2-lb) increments, draw moisture-density curves with slopes similar to the slopes of the original moisture-density relationships. Slopes should gradually steepen, going from low to high maximum density material. X1.3. When a great number of moisture-density relationships are available, the above procedure can be modified by using average values. Tabulate the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and slope for all moisture-density relationships in each 1-kg (2-lb) increment of density. Average the maximum densities and optimum moisture contents for each increment and plot these values. As before, draw a smooth curve as close as possible to connect all the points. Determine the average slope for each increment, and at each 1-kg (2-lb) increment, draw a moisture-density curve using this average slope value. A computer may be used to accomplish this work. X1.4. The accuracy of a family of curves can be checked by comparing the maximum density and optimum moisture content from an individual moisture-density relationship with that obtained using the One-Point Method and family of curves. A point representing 80 percent of optimum moisture content is taken from the individual moisture-density relationship and used as described in the One-Point Method to determine the maximum density and optimum moisture content from the family of curves. These values are compared with the values from the individual moisture-density relationship. The difference represents the maximum variance expected when the One-Point Method and family of curves are used for material represented by that individual moisture-density relationship. This comparison should be made for all types of material over the mass range of the family. Based on these results, some adjustments may be necessary to the family, and/or it may be recognized that the family is not applicable to some types of material. Families based on relatively few moisture-density relationships will generally require the closest scrutiny, because it can be expected that a larger number of relationships will give better average conditions.

Formatted: Normal


of 42

Standard Practice for Developing a Family of Curves

AASHTO Designation: R-XX



of 42

TS-1b R XX-1 AASHTO

Standard Practice for

Developing a Family of Curves

AASHTO Designation: R XX

1. SCOPE

1.1. This standard practice provides a process for developing a family of curves using multiple individual moisture/density relationships (curves) developed according to T 99 or T 180.

1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.



T 99, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop

T 180, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. family of curves - a group of soil moisture-density relationships (curves) determined using T 99 or T 180 which reveal certain similarities and trends characteristic of the soil type and source.

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

4.1. All curves used in a family must be developed using a single Method: A, B, C, or D of T 99 or T 180.

4.2. Curves are plotted on a graph; the family is developed by drawing a smooth line through the maximum density/optimum moisture points. At least three curves are required to form a single family.

4.3. Generally, it will be found that higher unit mass soils assume steeper slopes with maximum dry densities at lower optimum moisture contents, while the lower unit mass soils assume flatter, more gently sloped curves with higher optimum moisture contents (Figure 1).


of 42

TS-1b R XX-2 AASHTO

Figure 1—Example of Curves

5. DEVELOPING A MOISTURE-DENSITY FAMILY OF CURVES

5.1. Sort the curves by Method (A, B, C or D of T 99 or T 180). At least three curves are required per family.

5.2. Select the highest and lowest maximum dry densities from those selected to assist in determining the desired scale of the subsequent graph.

5.3. Plot the maximum density and optimum moisture points of the selected curves on the graph.

x

x

x

x

x

x

16

98.0

100.0

1412 22%% % 20

Dry

Den

sity

PC

F

% %%% 18

lb/ f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

%

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

108

94.0

96.0

108.0

102.0

104.0

106.0

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³

lb / f t ³


of 42

TS-1b R XX-3 AASHTO

5.4. Draw a smooth, “best fit,” curved line through the points creating the spine of the family of curves (Figure 1).

5.5. Remove maximum density and optimum moisture points that were not used to establish the spine.

5.6. Add the moisture/density curves associated with the points that were used to establish the spine. It is not necessary to include the portion of the curves over optimum moisture.

Note 1: Intermediate template curves using slopes similar to those of the original moisture-density curves may be included when maximum density points are more than 2.0 lbs/ft3 apart. Template curves are indicated by a dashed line.

5.7. Plot the 80 percent of optimum moisture range when desired:

5.7.1. Using the optimum moisture of an existing curve, calculate 80 percent of optimum moisture and plot this value on the curve. Repeat for each curve in the family.

5.7.2. Draw a smooth, “best fit,” curved line connecting the points plotted on the curves that parallels the spine.


of 42

TS-1b R XX-4 AASHTO


of 42


Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation

AASHTO Designation: T 225-06 (20102015)16



of 42



Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation

AASHTO Designation: T 225-06 (20102015)16

1. SCOPE

1.1. This method covers a procedure for diamond core drilling designed to secure intact samples of rock and some soils that are too hard to sample by soil sampling methods. This method is primarily for obtaining data for foundation and slope design and similar civil engineering purposes, rather than for mineral development and mining.



T 206, Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils

T 207, Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils

2.2. ASTM Standard:

D 5079, Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Rock Core Samples

3. EQUIPMENT

3.1. A Rotary Drilling Machine—capable of providing a rotary motion and hydraulically, or mechanically, actuated feed or thrust.

3.2. A Water or Drilling Mud Pump—or air compressor capable of delivering sufficient drilling fluid volume and pressure for the size of the hole to be drilled.

3.3. Core Barrels—as required.

3.3.1. A Single-Tube core barrel—consisting of a hollow tube with a threaded head at the upper end to fit the drill rod. The lower end of the barrel is fitted with a blank or set reaming shell, a core lifter, and a core bit.

3.3.2. A Double-Tube core barrel (swivel-type)—having a swiveling inner barrel that is contained in the core barrel suspended on a bearing hanger. Drilling fluid is routed between the inner and outer barrels. This method improves core recovery. More sophisticated double tubes are available having an inner tube that extends into the core bit, and the core lifter mounted inside the inner tube to protect cores of a soft or friable formation.

3.3.3. Single-Tube Type, WG Design—consisting of a hollow steel tube, with a head at one end threaded for drill rod, and a threaded connection for a reaming shell and core bit at the other end. A core lifter, or retainer located within the core bit, is normal but may be omitted at the discretion of the geologist or engineer.


of 42


3.3.4. Double-Tube, Swivel-Type, WG Design—An assembly of two concentric steel tubes joined and supported at the upper end by means of a ball or roller-bearing swivel arranged to permit rotation of the outer tube without causing rotation of the inner tube. The upper end of the outer tube, or removable head, is threaded for drill rod. A threaded connection is provided on the lower end of the outer tube for a reaming shell and core bit. A core lifter located within the core bit is normal but may be omitted at the discretion of the geologist or engineer.

3.3.5. Double-Tube, Swivel-Type, WT Design—is essentially the same as the double tube, swivel-type, WG design, except that the WT design has thinner tube walls, a reduced annular area between the tubes, and takes a larger core from the same diameter bore hole. The core lifter is located within the core bit.

3.3.6. Double-Tube, Swivel-Type, WM Design—is similar to the double tube, swivel-type, WG design, except that the inner tube is threaded at its lower end to receive a core lifter case that effectively extends the inner tube well into the core bit, thus minimizing exposure of the core to the drilling fluid. A core lifter is contained within the core lifter case on the inner tube.

3.3.7. Double-Tube, Swivel-Type, Large-Diameter Design—is similar to the double tube, swivel-type, WM design, with the addition of a ball valve to control fluid flow in all three available sizes and the addition of a sludge barrel to catch heavy cuttings on the two larger sizes. The large-diameter design double-tube, swivel-type core barrels are available in three-core-per-hole sizes as follows: 23/4 in. (69.85 mm) by 37/8 in. (98.43 mm), 4 in. (101.6 mm) by 51/2 in. (139.7 mm), and 6 in. (152.4 mm) by 73/4 in. (196.85 mm). Their use is generally reserved for very detailed investigative work or where other methods do not yield adequate recovery.

3.3.8. Double-Tube, Swivel-Type, Retrievable Inner-Tube Method—in which the core-laden inner-tube assembly is retrieved to the surface and an empty inner-tube assembly returned to the face of the borehole through the matching, large-bore drill rods without need for withdrawal and replacement of the drill rods in the borehole. This system is also known as the wire-line method. The inner-tube assembly consists of an inner tube with removable core lifter case and core lifter at one end and a removable inner-tube head, swivel bearing, suspension adjustment, and latching device with release mechanism on the opposite end. The inner-tube latching device locks into a complementary recess in the wall of the outer tube such that the outer tube may be rotated without causing rotation of the inner tube and such that the latch may be actuated and the inner-tube assembly transported by appropriate surface control. The outer tube is threaded for the matching, large-bore drill rod and internally configured to receive the inner-tube latching device at one end and threaded for a reaming shell and bit, or bit only, at the other end.

3.3.9. Triple-Tube, Swivel-Type—is similar to the double tube, swivel-type, WM design, with an inner liner into which the core is directly housed. The inner liner is commonly made of a split steel tube, but split stainless steel tube liners and whole acrylic tube liners are also available. The inner liner is extruded hydraulically from the inner tube. Triple-tube barrel systems are available for conventional or wireline methods. Triple-tube core barrels area available with reaming shell sizes A, B, N and larger. Set bit core diameters are slightly smaller compared to WM set bit core diameter sizes to account for the inner liner thickness.

3.3.9.3.3.10. Longitudinally Split Inner Tubes—As opposed to conventional cylindrical inner tubes, these allow inspection of, and access to, the core by simply removing one of the two halves. They are not standardized but are available for most core barrels, including many of the retrievable inner-tube types.

3.3.10.3.3.11. The size and design nomenclature shall be in accordance with the standards adopted by the Diamond Core Drill Manufacturers Association.


of 42


3.4. Core Bits—The core bits shall be set with diamonds, tungsten carbide, or similar hard materials appropriate to the hardness of the materials being drilled and shall be furnished in X- or M-design or equivalent as required. The sizes of the core barrels and bits shall be as given in Table 1.


of 42


Table 1—Sizes of Core Barrelsa

Hole, Diameter

Core, Diameter

Size in. mm in. mm EWX, EWM 1.5 38.1 0.812 20.6

AWX, AWM 1.957 49.2 1.375 30.2

BWX, BWM 2.375 60.3 1.625 41.3

NWX, NWM 3 76.2 2.125 54.0

23/4 by 37/8 in. (69.9 by 98.4 mm) 3.875 98.4 2.687 68.3

4 by 51/2 in. (102 by 140 mm) 5.5 140 3.937 100

6 by 73/4 in. (152 by 197 mm) 7.75 197 5.937 151 a As standardized by the Diamond Core Drill Manufacturers Association, Bulletin No. 2. Other sizes may

be specified, but should be so noted.

3.5. Drive Pipe or Casing—Standard weight or extra heavy pipe, as required by the nature of overburden or the drilling method, shall be furnished where necessary for driving through soils to bedrock. The casing or pipe shall have an inside diameter of sufficient size to accommodate the largest size core barrel to be employed. The inside of the casing or pipe shall be free of burrs and obstructions.

3.6. Auxiliary Casing—When it is necessary to case through formations already penetrated by the drill or when no drive casing has been employed, casing shall be provided with an outside diameter that will fit inside the hole and an inside diameter that will permit the use of the next smaller bit and core barrels. Standard sizes of casing are given in Table 2.

Table 2—Standard Sizes of Casing

Outside

Diameter Inside

Diameter Will Fit Hole Drilled by: Size in. mm in. mm

EX 1.8125 46 1.5 38.1 AWX, AWM

AX 2.25 57.2 1.906 48.4 BWX, BWM

BX 2.875 73.0 2.187 60.3 NWX, NWM

NX 3.5 88.9 3.0 76.2 23/4 by 37/8 in.

(69.9 by 98.4 mm)

3.7. Drill Rods—The drill rods shall have an inside diameter that will permit the flow of drilling fluid through the rods in a quantity sufficient to provide an upward velocity of the fluid between the rod and the hole wall that will remove the cuttings effectively.

3.8. Auxiliary Equipment—Auxiliary equipment shall be furnished as required by the work including roller bits, fishtail bits, wrenches, equipment for mixing the drilling mud, hand tools, safety equipment, etc.

3.9. Core Boxes—Core boxes of wood or other durable material shall be provided for protection, transport, and storage of the cores. The boxes shall be provided with longitudinal spacers that will separate the core into compartments. Small blocks that fit snugly between the spacers shall be provided to secure core in place and/or fill space if the material recovered is insufficient to completely fill the box. The top of the core length, which corresponds to the shallowest depth, should be placed at one corner of the box and the core placed progressing downward in a continuous manner to the deepest depth, through the compartments toward the opposite corner. The top and bottom of the core length and each run shall be clearly indicated on the longitudinal spacers or blocks with waterproof marker. The top and bottom of the core length shall also be


of 42


clearly indicated on the box cover, at the corresponding corners along with the core depths. Additional guidance regarding labeling and use of core boxes can be found in ASTM D 5079.

4. PROCEDURE

4.1. When formations are encountered that are too hard to be sampled by soil sampling methods, the core drilling procedure shall be used. A penetration of 1 in. (25 mm) or less for 50 blows (Notes 1 and 2) according to T 206 shall be considered as indicating that soil sampling methods are not applicable.

Note 1—When the subsurface investigation requires a sample for testing and identification for material that has a penetration-resistance between N = 100 specified in T 206 and 50 blows per inch, coring may be required. Materials such as very stiff clay or weathered shale bedrock can be sampled using core barrels such as the Denison-type Double-Tube Core Barrel. The sampling can be enhanced by the use of air for the drilling medium and the use of bits with hardfaced steel teeth.

Note 2—The limit of 50 blows per inch (25.4 mm) may be increased if the core recoveries prove to be small and samples can be secured by the soil sampling method.

4.2. Firmly seat the casing on bedrock or hard material to prevent loose materials from entering the hole and to prevent the loss of drilling fluid. Level the surface of the rock or hard material when necessary by the use of a fishtail or other bits. If an open drill hole can be maintained without casing, the casing may be omitted. Bentonite mud is often effective in maintaining an open hole without the use of casing.

4.3. Begin the core drilling using the NWX or NWM double tube swivel-core barrel. The first core run will usually be 5 ft (1.52 m) because of nonuniform conditions at the soil rock contact (Note 3). The NWM barrel should be inspected prior to lowering into the hole to ensure that the swivel is in good working order and rotating freely. The clearance between the inner barrel, when incorporated in the barrel, and the bit should be checked and adjusted if necessary to ensure that the space between the bit and the inner barrel is sufficient so as not to restrict the flow of drilling fluid. Either type barrel should be inspected for dents or bends that impair rock recovery. The barrel should also be checked for material left in the barrel from previous drilling to ensure the barrel is clean and unobstructed. The core retainer should be inspected, and if worn excessively or damaged, it should be replaced. The choice of bit setting shall be consistent with the type of material to be drilled. (Use eExtreme caution care not to should be exercised to avoid dropping foreign material into the hole. Should an object be dropped into the hole and not be recoverable, the hole may have to be abandoned the hole and start a new one.). Inspect all drill rods to be used for straightness. If any rods display bends when rolled over a flat surface, they should not be used.

Note 3—In soft materials, a larger starting size or triple-tube system may be specified; where local experience indicates satisfactory core recovery or where hard, sound materials are anticipated, a smaller size or the single-tube type may be specified in place of the NWX or NWM tube, and longer runs may be drilled. Single-tube type barrel should only be used where hard, sound materials are anticipated, and where the consequence of core quality and natural discontinuities would not adversely impact the design or construction of the facility for which the subsurface investigation is being conducted.

4.4. Lower the barrel into the hole, using care to set the barrel on the formation to be drilled gently to prevent damage to the bit or buckling of the barrel. Measurement of barrel and rods to be used is essential; measurement shall be to the nearest 0.1 ft (30.5 mm). Log the depth when the barrel makes contact with the bottom of the hole. If the depth is more than 0.1 ft (30.5 mm) less than the depth logged from the previous run, there is probably loose material or core in the hole. Connect the drill chuck to the string of tools and connect the drilling fluid supply line. Prior to rotating, lift the string of tools slightly and start the circulation of the drilling fluid. Allow the fluid to circulate until a full-flow condition is reached. Lower the tools slowly to the bottom and seat the bit by slowly starting the rotation and slowly increasing the vertical pressure, maintaining full flow of the

Comment [W1]: Revised based on MoO comments on TS Ballot.


of 42


drilling fluid. When the bit is seated, adjust the vertical pressure and the rotation to achieve proper penetration in accordance with the formation being drilled (Note 4). Log the depth where the coring began to the nearest 0.1 ft (30.5 mm). If the flow of the drilling fluid is blocked during drilling, raise the bit slightly to allow the fluid flow to return. If the flow does not return, remove the drilling tools and correct the problem as necessary to maintain adequate flow of the drilling fluid. A judgment may be required when different types of material are encountered in a given run and recovery is less than 100 percent of the actual thickness of a given formation. To aid in making this judgment, the rate of penetration and the drilling fluid color and texture shall be monitored as drilling proceeds. The depths where changes are noted in the penetration rate and/or the color and/or texture of the cuttings in the return fluid are to be recorded for reference when this judgment is required. It may be desirable to retain samples of the cuttings contained in the return fluid at changes of color or texture or onset intervals.

Note 4—The life expectancy of the bit and the rate of penetration are dependent upon proper force on the bit and the peripheral velocity of the bit. The peripheral velocity should be as high as possible without causing undue strain on the drill rig or excessive vibration of the drilling tools. The force on the bit should be adjusted to match the information and the design of the bit. (For a given bit design, a softer formation would require less force than a harder formation.) It may be necessary to anchor the drill rig to obtain sufficient force on the bit.

4.5. After drilling a depth equivalent to the length of the barrel (not to exceed 10 ft (or 3.05 m) and minus any loose material noted during the seating of the barrel), remove the core barrel from the hole, and remove the core from the barrel. Place the core in the core box in such a manner that the top of the rock stratum will be located at one corner of the box as described in Section 3.9. When the run is greater than the length of the first compartment, the next compartment to the right is measured and temporarily marked at a point that will be equivalent to the difference between the length of the compartment and the length of the run measured from upper left to lower left. The first segment of rock removed from the core barrel (bottom of core run) shall be placed in the box so that the bottom of the core is either at the lower left end of the left compartment or at the temporary mark in the next compartment to the right. Each additional piece removed from the barrel shall be placed in the box one after another, orienting each piece of core with the direction of the box so that the upper stratum is to the upper and/or left of the box in respect to the lower stratum. Proceed to place the core in the box from the lower end to the upper end as the core is removed from the barrel in such a manner that the top of the stratum falls in the upper left end of the left compartment as described in Section 3.9. When all of the core has apparently been removed from the barrel, check the barrel by inserting a ruler into the core barrel and check the length to ensure that all of the material has been removed. After all the material has been removed from the barrel, adjust the core in the box so that the pieces are consolidated together to represent as nearly as practical their in situ length, taking care to fit the broken pieces together in such a manner that will not cause a false measure of the recovered core. Measure the recovered core to the nearest 0.1 ft (30.5 mm) and record the recovery. After performing the measurement for core recovery, mark the depths of the top and bottom of the core and each noticeable gap in the formation by a spacer block clearly labeled. Wrap delicate cores, or those that change materially upon drying, in plastic film or seal in wax or both, when such treatment is considered necessary by the engineer. Subsequent core runs from the same project and hole shall continue this procedure with the top of the next run beginning at the bottom of the last proceeding run. Measure the length of the run from the end of the last run from upper to lower in the compartment, utilizing the next compartment to the right when the compartment will not accommodate the entire run, and mark the bottom of the run with a temporary marker. Place the first segment of rock removed from the core barrel (bottom of core run) at the newly established temporary mark. Place the core in the box as described previously.

4.6. When soft materials are encountered from a core run that produce less than 50 percent recovery changes in the type of barrel, a change to drilling procedure or soil sampling should be considered. If soil samples are desired, secure such samples in accordance with the procedures described in T 206 or T 207. Resume diamond core drilling when refusal materials are again encountered.

Comment [W2]: Revised based on MoO Comment.


of 42


4.7. Because rock structure and the occurrence of seams, fissures, cavities, and broken areas are among the most important items to be detected and described, take special care to observe and record these features. If broken rock or cavities prevent the advance of the boring, (1) cement the hole or (2) ream and case, or (3) case and advance with the next smaller-sized core barrel, as the conditions warrant. Follow the same procedure where fissures are encountered that cause the loss of drilling fluid return (Notes 5 and 6).

Note 5—Whenever the drilling water loss indicates conditions of engineering or geologic importance, the procedure for advancing the boring will be as determined by the engineer.

Note 6—Other optional procedures are as follows: (1) In soft, seamy, or otherwise unsound rock, where core recovery may be difficult, the M-design core barrels may be specified. A triple-tube system may alternatively be specified to best maintain core structure, discontinuities, and moisture. Moisture sensitive and degradable rock may warrant special handling, transport, storage and expedited testing procedures.; (2) In hard, sound rock where a high percentage of core recovery is anticipated, the single-tube core barrel may be employed.

5. REPORT

5.1. The report shall include the following:

5.1.1. Project identification, boring number, location, type of drill rig, and driller;

5.1.2. Elevation of the ground surface;

5.1.3. Elevation of groundwater, including dates and times measured;

5.1.4. Elevations (or depths) at which drilling water return was lost;

5.1.5. Size and design of core barrel used. Size and length of all casing and any movements of the casing;

5.1.6. Length of each core run and the length or percentage, or both, of the core recovered;

5.1.7. Description of the rock in each run;

5.1.8. Structure including stratification, angle of dip, cavities, fissures, and any other observations that could give information on these features;

5.1.9. Depth, thickness, and apparent nature of the filling in each cavity or soft seam in the rock;

5.1.10. Depth of sample cuttings retained from the drilling fluid;

5.1.11. Any changes in the character of the drilling fluid; and

5.1.12. Dates of beginning and end of boring.

Comment [W3]: Modification based on MoO comments.


of 42

First Name Last Name Title Email Phone TSTrudy Keefer AASHTO [email protected] 240-436-4824 TS1bGeorgene Geary GGfGA Eng [email protected] 770-337-5817 TS1bAngela Wong ICF [email protected] 202-572-9450 TS1bBill Schiebel CO DOT [email protected] 303-398-6501 TS1bJennifer Albert FHWA [email protected] 717-221-3410 TS1bSteve Lenker Director AM [email protected] TS1bSejal Barot MD SHWA [email protected] 443-572-5269 TS1bRoss Metcalfe MT DOT [email protected] 406-444-9201 TS1bJohn Melander John M Me [email protected] 847-942-2332 TS1bGarth Newman WAQTC [email protected] 208-334-8039 TS1bCecil Jones Diversified [email protected] 919-616-5139 TS1bDavid Newcomb Texas A&M [email protected] 979-676-0471 TS1bJeff Seiders Raba Kistne [email protected] 512-904-9177 TS1bMichael Doran TNDOT [email protected] 615-350-4105 TS1bBrian Johnson AMRL [email protected] 240-436-4820 TS1bChris Peoples NC DOT [email protected] 919-329-4000 TS1bNelson Gibson FHWA [email protected] 202-493-3073 TS1bMerrill Zwanka SC DOT [email protected] 803-737-6682 TS1bMatthew Bluman AASHTO (A [email protected] 240-436-4849 TS1bRobyn Myers Troxler Elec [email protected] 919.549.8661 ext 2217 TS1bDeborah Kim AASHTO [email protected] 202-624-5883 TS1bRobert Burnett NYSDOT [email protected] 518-457-4711 TS1bRon Holsinger Consultant [email protected] 301-916-2507 TS1bJosiah Beakley American C [email protected] 972-894-2906 TS1bScott Andrus UTDOT [email protected] 801-965-4859 TS1bMladen Gagulic VTAOT [email protected] 802-828-6405 TS1bAndy Mergenme FHWA [email protected] 410-962-7971 TS1bScott Seiter OK DOT [email protected] 405-521-2186 TS1bSteven Ingram AL DOT [email protected] 334-206-2335 TS1bRon Horner ND DOT [email protected] 701-328-6904 TS1bJames Hammons MS DOT [email protected] 601-359-9770 TS1bDarin Tedford NV DOT [email protected] 775-888-7784 TS1bAnne Holt Ontario Mi [email protected] 416-235-3724 TS1b

Michael San Angelo State Mate [email protected] 907-269-6234 TS1bDavid Savage CMEC [email protected] 407-628-3682 TS1bDick Reaves Troxler Elec [email protected] 919-819-4551 TS1bGreg Uherek AMRL [email protected] 240-436-4840 TS1bDennis Anderson Electrical D [email protected] 775-741-3897 TS1bJesus Sandoval-GAZ DOT [email protected] 928-200-4260 TS1bTimothy Ramirez PENNDOT [email protected] 717-783-6602 TS1bAli Regimand President [email protected] 919-875-8371 TS1bWallace Heyen NE DOR [email protected] 402-479-4677 TS1bEvan Rothblatt AASHTO [email protected] 202-624-3648 TS1bLyndi Blackburn ALDOT [email protected] 334-206-2203 TS1bJack Springer FHWA [email protected] 202-493-3144 TS1bJerry Daleiden Fugro [email protected] 512-977-1800 TS1bVictor (Lee)Gallivan Gallivan Co [email protected] TS1bCharles Hasty GA DOT [email protected] 404-608-4708 TS1bRobert Lutz AMRL [email protected] 240-436-4801 TS1bBrett Trautman MO DOT [email protected] 573-751-1036 TS1bKevin Kennedy MI DOT [email protected] 517-322-6043 TS1bRobin Graves Vulcan Mat [email protected] TS1bTimothy Ruelke FL DOT [email protected] 352-955-6620 TS1bCasey Soneira AMRL [email protected] 240-436-4863 TS1bWilliam Troxler, Jr. Troxler Elec [email protected] 919-485-2200 TS1bRichard Bradbury MEDOT [email protected] 207-441-2474 TS1bGreg Stellmach OR DOT [email protected] 503-986-3061 TS1bMichael Sullivan MS DOT [email protected] 601-359-1666 TS1bMaria Knake AMRL [email protected] 240-436-4804 TS1bChris Abadie LADOTD [email protected] 225-248-4131 TS1bJames Williams MS DOT [email protected] 601-359-7007 TS1bDesna Bergold WAQTC [email protected] 801-721-7146 TS1bMark Felag RI DOT [email protected] 401-641-8279 TS1bCharles Babish VADOT [email protected] 804-328-3102 TS1bHany Fekry DelDOT [email protected] 302-760-2551 TS1b