I get comparing it to the proctor library, I just wasn't sure if it was intended to be another way to verify the nuke. From what you're saying, it's more of a guide to which proctor to use and not an indicator of compaction.
I guess I'm not fully versed in the area of one-point proctors. Are they only performed in the area of a nuke test? IE, is it the same as doing a sand cone to verify a nuke gauge, only simpler and faster? And how close or far away do the numbers have to be to verify or negate your gauge's...
Missouri isn't much on sand cones. I've probably run more in 2 months than anyone else in our company (granted, we had to do 40 sum-odd test pits where 2-6 sand cones per hole were normal). We had a QA (our competition) test along side us with their nuke, and he said he's been in this business...
Maybe I need some clarification, as I'm only a lowly technician, but how does a sand cone really verify the nuke at all? For example, you do a sand cone test, for which the typical hole is 4-6 inches deep (unless there's some other method I'm unaware of), meanwhile a nuke test can read a foot...
In my experience, i've never seen an asphalt company lay layer upon layer of asphalt in the same day - usually a base layer or two on separate days, followed by a surface layer at a later day. I assume it is alright, in theory, to place another layer of asphalt on another layer so long as the...
