Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Implementing a fast, practical, and rational quality control

technique at a soil mixture production plant, based on a
continuous and quantitative classification of materials: A case
study
Romer D. Oyola-Guzmána,* , Rómulo Oyola-Moralesb
a
Centro de Investigación en Ciencia Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada del Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Legaria 694, Col. Irrigación. C.P.
11500, CDMX, Mexico
b
Universidad Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno, Facultad Politécnica. Av. Ejército Nacional s/n, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This study analyzed the variability in the production of batches of a soil mix prepared from
Received 10 July 2018 cohesive and granular material, in an improved materials production plant. For soil
Received in revised form 22 August 2018 analysis, a non-dimensional number known as characteristic factor was used, in order to
Accepted 24 September 2018
provide a quantitative and continuous classification for the mix; in addition, it was sought
to link this non-dimensional number to particle size-analysis and liquid limit of soils
Keywords: obtained from the same geological formation. This study shows that with the use of a
Quality control
quantitative and continuous classification, quality control was optimized not only during
RAMCODES
Characteristic factor
production at the production plant but also at the construction site. It is also shown that if
Compacted soils the characteristic factor of the soil mixture is close to the predefined characteristic factor,
Soil improvement there is a high probability that the mechanical response of the material measured at the
production plant will be close to the mechanical response evaluated at the construction
site, as long as the conditions of water content and dry unit weight are close to the optimum
value of the compaction curve’s laboratory.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Soil improvement by mixing two materials is a common technique used in construction of roadways [1]. This technique is
especially used when cohesive material is involved, because construction standards set a specific range of values for the
liquid limit, the plasticity index, and the bearing capacity (i.e. California Bearing Ratio, also known by CBR), and because, in
general, in cohesive soils these values do not fall within the required range [2]. The problems with the mechanical and
plasticity properties of cohesive soils have promoted the development of technology for soil improvement; such techniques
often involve mixing soils with polymers, chemical products, cement, and other materials ([3–6]).
The mixture of granular material and cohesive material is preferred over any other soil improvement technique, as long as
both materials are readily available in quantity and quality [1].
Regarding soil improvement techniques, it is frequent to find in the literature investigations in which soil improvement is
carried out in the laboratory, where the investigator controls variables at will, and where the working material is dry, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.D. Oyola-Guzmán).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00199
2214-5095/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 R.D. Oyola-Guzmán, R. Oyola-Morales / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00199

weight is dosed, particle grain size is controlled, and environmental temperature and relative humidity are controlled [2]. In
contrast, at civil construction sites, conditions are hardly controlled: aggregates are wet, the dose generally is done by
volume, the grain size is affected by changes in geological formation, etc. [7].
In production plants of soil mixtures, soil batches are frequently accepted if they possess a certain particle grain size, if
they fall within consistency limits, and if they meet the qualitative classification ASTM D3282 [8]. This qualitative
classification can lead to erroneous “false-positive” acceptance of a batch of material; for example, a material classified as A-
4 with a 1% variation above the liquid limit and above the plasticity index can be erroneously classified as A-7 [8]. This abrupt
leap in the qualitative classification of soils can be solved through the use of a quantitative and continuous soil classification
criterion [9], such a criterion would be especially useful in production and quality control projects, in which a minimum
difference in particle grain size and consistency limit can lead to a precipitated decision to reject or accept a batch of
improved material, entailing economic losses and waste of time for construction companies.
In 2002 Sánchez-Leal and collaborators published RAMCODES, an acronym of Rational Methodology for Compacted
Geomaterial’s Density and Strength Analysis [10], a methodology which essentially deals with most aspects of design and
quality control of compacted soils. In subsequent publications, Sánchez-Leal and collaborators included into RAMCODES
various methodological techniques related to the optimization of aggregates for asphaltic mixtures (gradation chart) [11], to
the optimization of binding in asphaltic mixes (polyvoid) [12], to the design of compacted materials based on performance
criteria [13], and to quality control of asphalt mixtures and compacted soils using resistance maps that are based on
statistical techniques and multifactorial experiments [14].
The RAMCODES methodology defined the “characteristic factor” (Fp) as a non-dimensional number in which particle grain
size and plasticity properties are involved, in order to provide a quantitative and continuous classification of soils [9,10,13]. In
addition, because the RAMCODES methodology proposed a characteristic factor for asphaltic mixes, the characteristic factor for
soils mixtures provides a quasi-linear relation between basic material properties (i.e. particle grain size and liquid limit) and
density potential (i.e. maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content) for soils from the same geological region [11].
The characteristic factor (Eq. (1)) for soils containing granular and cohesive particles (soil mixes) is given by:
F
F p ¼ ð1 þ wL Þ ð1Þ
1þG
where wL represents the liquid limit of the material, F represents the fraction of the material which passes sieve N 200, and G
represents the fraction of the material retained in the sieve N 4; each of these values is expressed in decimal form.
According to the quantitative and continuous classification of soils, for a given characteristic factor value, the mechanical
response of a material remains relatively constant, when the proportion of fine particles and the liquid limit are varied
independently or in combination [10].
This study presents a case study in which the characteristic factor was used for analysis of the variability in the production
of batches of soil mixtures in a production plant in Urubó, Bolivia. In addition, the variability in the mechanical properties of a
soil resulting from mixing cohesive soil and granular soil was analyzed, which will be used as base course for hydraulic
concrete pavement and its response in quality control tests at a civil construction site.

2. Methodology

2.1. Origin of materials

Granular soil was obtained from bank storage of materials located on the banks of the Piray River; the cohesive soil was
obtained from the site called Colinas del Urubó; both sites are located to the west of Santa Cruz city, Bolivia. Materials were
not submitted to any treatment before the mixing process.

2.2. Experimental methodology

Representatives samples of the material were taken from stockpiled materials laying on the work esplanade of the Urubó
mixtures production plant, located in Colinas del Urubó. Samples were transported for characterization to the laboratory of
soil mechanics.
At the production plant, materials were descriptively classified as granular and cohesive, and submitted to particle size-
analysis [15], submitted to analysis of specific gravity of soil solids [16], and submitted to compaction test in laboratory [17].
In addition, consistency limits of the cohesive soil were analyzed [18]. Granular and cohesive soils were also classified
according to RAMCODES methodology, as well as to standard ASTM D3282 [8] for the classification of materials for highway
construction purposes.
The material resulting from a mixture whose properties were pre-established by the engineers in the materials
production plant (see Fig. 1a and b) was used for analysis of particle size [15], of consistency limits [18], and for
laboratory compaction test [17] (see Fig. 2a and b). This material was also tested for bearing capacity in the laboratory;
CBR was thus assessed at maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content [19]. The soil was classified according
to RAMCODES methodology for compacted soils (Eq. 1) [10], and according to the qualitative classification of soils
suggested by ASTM D3282 [8].
 R.D. Oyola-Guzmán, R. Oyola-Morales / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00199 3

Fig. 1. a) Esplanade for material mixing. b) Mixing of cohesive and granular material.

Fig. 2. a) Sampling of a batch resulting from the mixing of cohesive and granular materials. b) Weight measurement of a sample resulting from the
laboratory compaction.

After transport of the material from the production plant to the civil construction site, after its proper placement in the
construction area, and after compaction with optimum water content, CBR was measured in situ. The dry unit weight was
measured in the field using the sand-cone method [20]. Samples were taken for subsequent particle size-analysis and for
analysis of consistency limits; the values obtained from these tests were used to calculate the characteristic factor of the
material at the construction site.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the results of the tests for the mechanical characterization of cohesive and granular soil, which were the
raw materials used to obtain the soil mixture.
According to data shown in Table 1, the descriptive classification used for material identification at the Urubó production
plant matches ASTM D3282 [8] qualitative classification, which means that the working materials were granular and
cohesive soils. Table 1 also shows that the characteristic factor for cohesive soil was 1.45, while for the granular soil the
characteristic factor was 0.03; and according to the continuous classification, there are numerous types of soils between
characteristic factor values of 0.03 and 1.45.
For the material prepared from mixing cohesive and granular soil at the Urubó plant, the plasticity index was 7.76%, the
dry unit weight was 20.16 kN/m3, the optimum water content was 10.71%, CBR was 40%, and Fp was 0.51. According to
particle size-analysis the sand percentage was 57% and the silt-clay percentage was 43%.
Fig. 3 shows the variations of the characteristic factor obtained from analysis of particle size and plasticity properties at
the Urubó production plant. The characteristic factor was measured for 30 batches of the mixture of soil. The minimum value
for the characteristic factor was 0.46, while maximum value was 0.57 (Fig. 3).
Fig. 4 shows the dispersion of the characteristic factor of the mixture batches in relation with a target characteristic factor
(Fp = 0.51), which was defined by the production engineer in the Urubó production plant. Fig. 4 also shows that the mixture
batches satisfied the minimum value of compaction percentage ( 97%) and CBR ( 40%) requested by the company that
ordered the mixture.
4 R.D. Oyola-Guzmán, R. Oyola-Morales / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00199

Table 1
Characteristics of soils used as raw materials to generate the soil mixture.

Material 1 Material 2
Descriptive classification Cohesive Granular
Classification (RAMCODES) 1.45 0.03
Classification (ASTM D3282) A-7-6(15) A-3(0)
Specific gravity (ASTM D854) 2.70 2.63
Liquid limit (%) 50.1 –
Plasticity index (%) 24.8 Non plastic
% passing sieve N 200 (0.075 mm) 97.2 3.9
Optimum water content (%) 18.6 6.5
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 17.42 17.92

Fig. 3. Variations in the value of the characteristic factor for different batches of soil mixture at the Urubó production plant.

Fig. 4. Dispersion of the values of the characteristic factor and its effect on CBR and compaction percentage for 30 batches of the soil mixture.

Fig. 5 shows the variability in the minimum CBR value, evaluated at the optimum conditions of compaction for the
mixture with Fp = 0.51, in relation to materials with Fp values close to 0.51 that were compacted and evaluated at the
construction site, and under conditions that were close to the optimum water content and to 100% of compaction
percentage.
 R.D. Oyola-Guzmán, R. Oyola-Morales / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00199 5

Fig. 5. Variations between CBR measured in the laboratory and CBR measured at the civil construction site under optimum compaction conditions for a soil
with a target characteristic factor of 0.51.

4. Discussion of results

This study shows that with the use of the characteristic factor it is possible to perform quality control analysis both at the
production plant and at the construction site, estimating the mechanical response of the material from the value of the
characteristic factor.
Variability of the characteristic factor in mixtures of cohesive and granular soil with a target Fp value of 0.51 is explained
by the change in particle size and liquid limit of the raw materials. This variability could also be explained by the fact that the
mixtures were prepared by volume, and also by variations in the ability of the wheel load operator, as the selection and the
quantity of raw materials are factors that directly influence material production. Fig. 3 shows that in the first 15 batches there
was little variability in the values of the characteristic factor, which was a consequence of a wheel load operator who was
more experienced, in comparison with the operator who prepared batches 15–30.
Fig. 4 shows that as the characteristic factor of soil mixtures produced at the Urubó plant is closer to the target
characteristic factor, there is a higher probability of reaching the minimum value of compaction percentage and CBR at the
construction site. Fig. 4 shows that only five batches of the mixture (from a total of 30 batches) did not fulfill the minimum
compaction percentage and that all the batches did fulfill the minimum CBR required by the company which ordered the
mixture. The fact that only five batches of the mixture did not meet the required compaction percentage can be attributed to
accidental production errors, as four of the five batches that did not meet the minimum compaction percentage were very
close to the required value.
It was not possible to predict the Fp of the soil mixture using the proportion of the mixture and the Fp values of the
materials that compose the mixture. After applying the law of multiple proportions, it is evident that the calculated Fp of the
soil mixture is not in concordance with the average Fp of the raw materials, this discrepancy is due to the characteristic factor
involving the liquid limit, in addition to the grain particle size proportion.
By comparing the CBR results evaluated in the laboratory, and the CBR evaluated at the construction site (Fig. 5), it can be
noticed that as the characteristic factor of the material is close to 0.51 there seems to be a linear correlation that is valuable
for quality control.

5. Conclusions

In order to obtain a soil mixture with a pre-established CBR of 40%, the material proportion with Fp = 0.03 was 57% and the
proportion of material with Fp = 1.45 was 43%.
The batches of material mixtures produced at the Urubó plant with a characteristic factor that was close to the target
value of 0.51, had a high probability of fulfilling the required mechanical response (CBR), evaluated both at the laboratory and
at the civil construction site.
Through the use of the characteristic factor, the compaction percentage and CBR were anticipated for each batch of the
material produced at the Urubó plant, which allowed making immediate adjustments at the construction site, when
necessary, before the final placement of the material.
The characteristic factor was incorporated into conventional quality control of the materials at the civil construction site;
however, this addition does not imply that traditional quality control methods (analysis of compaction percentage, analysis
of CBR in situ, etc.) should no longer be performed.
6 R.D. Oyola-Guzmán, R. Oyola-Morales / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00199

The characteristic factor provided a fast, practical, and rational quality control method that was suitable for utilization at
the construction site, as this non-dimensional number was used after the mixing of the materials for quality verification of
the mixture. In addition, the characteristic factor allowed us to evaluate the quality of the material in a quantitative way
before, and after, it was placed and compacted at the construction site.
By using the characteristic factor, the Urubó production plant provided increased reliability to its clients, by
producing a material that fulfills all particle size requirements, and by providing values of the mechanical response of
the material that are to be expected as long as compaction is performed in conditions that are close to optimum
compaction.
From this study it is proposed that the characteristic factor be used to modify the conventional payment scheme, in which
payment to the producer is done if the material fulfills the required particle size and meets qualitative classification
standards. This payment scheme does not guarantee from the producer an adequate mechanical response, even if the
compaction method is properly performed.
Finally, at the production plant, during the production of materials that must meet specific requirements, the
characteristic factor can be used for quality control during the process of mixture preparation, during verification of the
material before transport to the construction site, and after the material has been placed and compacted.

Conflict of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons
who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the
manuscript has been approved by all of us.
We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and
that there are no impediments to publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have
followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), Programa Institucional de Formación
de Investigadores (PIFI), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Centro de Investigación en Ciencia Aplicada y Tecnología
Avanzada (CICATA-Legaria). This work was performed in collaboration with Universidad Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno
(UAGRM), RONERFE Ltda., “Planta de mezclado de materiales Urubó”, “Colinas del Urubó”, and in collaboration with Eng.
Mario Foianini and his family. Authors wish to thank to all the supporting staff and all those whose collaboration was
invaluable for this research work.

References

[1] M. Gaafer, H. Bassioni, T. Mostafa, Soil improvement techniques, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 6 (12) (2015).
[2] F. Changizi, A. Haddad, Improving the geotechnical properties of soft clay with nano-silica particles, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Ground Improv. 170 (2) (2017)
62–71 Thomas Telford Ltd..
[3] J.K. Appiah, V.N. Berko-Boateng, T.A. Tagbor, Use of waste plastic materials for road construction in Ghana, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 6 (2017) 1–7
Elsevier.
[4] H. Fatehi, S.M. Abtahi, H. Hashemolhosseini, S.M. Hejazi, A novel study on using protein based biopolymers in soil strengthening, Constr. Build. Mater.
167 (2018) 813–821 Elsevier.
[5] P. Lindh, Optimising binder blends for shallow stabilisation of fine-grained soils, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Ground Improv. 5 (1) (2001) 23–34 Thomas
Telford Ltd..
[6] M. Mirzababaei, A. Arulrajah, M. Ouston, Polymers for stabilization of soft clay soils, Procedia Eng. 189 (2017) 25–32 Elsevier.
[7] M. Omar, A. Shanableh, A. Basma, S. Barakat, Compaction characteristics of granular soils in United Arab Emirates, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 21 (3) (2003)
283–295 Springer.
[8] ASTM D3282, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[9] F.J. Sánchez-Leal, Correlation of maximum density and optimum water content with index properties, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils 2 (2002).
[10] F.J. Sánchez-Leal, P. Garnica Anguas, J. Gómez López, N. Pérez García, RAMCODES: Metodología racional para el análisis de densificación y resistencia de
geomateriales compactados, Publicación Técnica, 2002 (200).
[11] F.J. Sánchez-Leal, Gradation chart for asphalt mixes: development, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (2) (2007) 185–197 American Society of Civil Engineers.
[12] F.J. Sánchez-Leal, P.G. Anguas, M. Larreal, D.B. López Valdés, Polyvoids: Analytical tool for superpave HMA design, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (8) (2011) 1129–
1137 American Society of Civil Engineers.
[13] F.J. Sánchez-Leal, Interpretation of CBR-test results under the shear-strength concept of unsaturated soil mechanics, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, (2002) .
[14] F.J. Sánchez-Leal, Diseñando suelos compactados con la tecnología RAMCODES, XX Seminario Venezolano de Geotécnia, (2012) .
[15] ASTM D 6913, Standard Test Methods for Particle-size Distribution (gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis (ASTM International.), West Conshohocken,
PA, 2017.
[16] ASTM D854, Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[17] ASTM D1557, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)),
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[18] ASTM D4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
 R.D. Oyola-Guzmán, R. Oyola-Morales / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00199 7

[19] ASTM D1883, Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils, ASMT International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2017.
[20] ASTM D1556, Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2015.