Air voids based spec

[geotechguy1]

Just curious if anyone outside of New Zealand has run an air voids based compaction spec instead of the a dry density / proctor based spec.

For reference, in NZ it's common to have compaction specifications based on minimum and average % air voids and either undrained shear strength from a vane or clegg values from clegg impact hammer. Anyway it seems to work quite well but the journal paper about it that gets referenced here was authored by a really annoying competitor company and I'd prefer to avoid having to refer to it at all.

 

[BigH]

Talk to Lawrence Wesley

 

[geotechguy1]

He's retired now so haven't been able to get in contact with him. Have managed to get in contact with Orense at U of Auckland for some pumice-related stuff though.

Wesley's book and research is very useful though

 

[Ron]

Through technician based QA testing, air voids determination is not as practicable as common density testing. It would be more expensive and time consuming.....not the quick and dirty of in-place density testing.

 

[geotechguy1]

They just get the % air voids out of nuclear densometer tests

My main issue with it is it's easy to cheat, at least in the sense that because a shear vane isn't a specialized piece of equipment the constructors can do the tests themselves (or makeup the tests themselves, as the case may be) then add water to the fill to cheat the airvoids test for when the testing firms comes with the nuclear densometer. Then again I've always had low confidence in density testing done by techs back in Canada but you can sort of fool the constructors and the techs by making them think it's all about the density and water content but also have them record the % air voids.