Non-Nuclear Methods for Compaction Control of Unbound Materials (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

139 aPPeNDIX C Survey Responses 1. Please select the types of unbound materials that your agency has dealt with (check all that apply): Choice Compacted Subgrade Base Embankment Total Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Organic soil (OL and OH) 41.5% 17 2.4% 1 36.6% 15 22 Low plasticity clay (CL) 87.8% 36 9.8% 4 78.0% 32 38 High plasticity clay (CH) 68.3% 28 7.3% 3 63.4% 26 33 Low plasticity silt (ML) 90.2% 37 4.9% 2 80.5% 33 40 High plasticity silt (MH) 58.5% 24 0.0% 0 56.1% 23 28 Sands 97.6% 40 41.5% 17 87.8% 36 40 Gravel 80.5% 33 80.5% 33 70.7% 29 38 Limestone 34.1% 14 70.7% 29 39.0% 16 31 Sandstone 34.1% 14 31.7% 13 39.0% 16 21 Recycled HMA 34.1% 14 61.0% 25 39.0% 16 32 Recycled PCC 26.8% 11 70.7% 29 41.5% 17 34 2. Your agency’s current specifications for compaction control of unbound materials (e.g., soils, base materials, etc.…) are based on (check all that applies): Choice Count Percent Relative compaction (density based) only 12 29.3% Relative compaction (density based) and moisture content 34 82.9% Stiffness/strength related measurements 5 12.2% Other (please specify): 6 14.6% 3. What is your agency’s acceptance criterion for unbound base layers (check all that apply)? Choice Base Compacted Subgrade Embankment Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Minimum average relative compaction values higher than 8 19.5% 9 22.0% 9 22.0% Individual relative compaction values higher than 34 82.9% 31 75.6% 34 82.9% Moisture content within limits of 20 48.8% 21 51.2% 27 65.9% Other 10 24.4% 11 26.8% 7 17.1% 4. What is your agency’s acceptance criterion for compacted subgrade soils (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Minimum average relative compaction values higher than 9 22.0% Individual relative compaction values higher than 31 75.6% Moisture content within limits of 21 51.2% Other 11 26.8% NCHRP PROJeCT 20-5 Topic 44-10

140 5. What is your agency’s acceptance criterion for compacted soil layers in embankments (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Minimum average relative compaction values higher than 9 22.0% Individual relative compaction values higher than 34 82.9% Moisture content within limits of 27 65.9% Other 7 17.1% 6. Please describe the extent of usage of intelligent compaction in projects in your state (check all that apply): Value Count Percent Implemented in field projects 3 7.3% Evaluated in research studies only 10 24.4% Demonstrated its usage 11 26.8% Plan to use in the future 13 31.7% Not used nor evaluated 17 41.5% 7. Does your agency have different QC/QA specifications (e.g., number of test points is reduced) when intelligent compaction is used? Value Count Percent Yes 1 8.3% No 11 91.7% 8. Please describe your agency’s level of interest in using non-nuclear density devices for compaction control of unbound materials: Value Count Percent Interested and have already implemented it 3 7.3% Interested and will implement it 2 4.9% Interested but have not implemented it 18 43.9% Not Interested 4 9.8% Other (please specify) 14 34.2% 9. What are the main obstacles that will stop/impede the implementation of non-nuclear density devices for compaction control in your state (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Need for new testing equipment 21 51.2% Lack of funds 11 26.8% Lack of trained personnel 15 36.6% Familiarity of contractors with such devices 20 48.8% Other (please specify): 23 56.1% 10. What is the extent of usage of non-nuclear density devices for compaction control of unbound materials in your state (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Research 11 26.8% In-house evaluation 13 31.7% Field test section or demonstration project 11 26.8% Developmental or experimental specification 0 0.0% Production specification 0 0.0% Not yet utilized 29 70.7% 11. Which of the following devices has your agency used or evaluated for measuring density (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent MDI 6 14.6% EDG 12 29.3% SDG or SQI 5 12.2% None 29 70.7% Other (please specify): 2 4.9%

141 12. Describe the extent of evaluation your agency has done for the following devices (check all that apply): Choice Not Evaluated Demonstrated Its Use Evaluated Through In-house Research Evaluated Through University/Consultant Research Total Responses Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) MDI 76.2% 16 4.8% 1 14.3% 3 9.5% 2 21 EDG 40.9% 9 22.7% 5 36.4% 8 13.6% 3 22 SDG or SQI 66.7% 14 9.5% 2 19.0% 4 9.5% 2 21 13. Which of the following devices has your agency developed or is currently developing specifications for use in density measurement of unbound materials (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Moisture Density Indicator (MDI) 0 0.0% Electrical Density Gauge (EDG) 0 0.0% Soil Density Gauge (SDG) also known as Soil Quality Indicator (SQI) 0 0.0% Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) based Devices 0 0.0% None 19 79.2% Other (please specify): 5 20.8% 14. Which of the following devices has your agency implemented its use in field projects for measuring density and compaction control (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Moisture Density Indicator (MDI) 0 0.0% Electrical Density Gauge (EDG) 0 0.0% Soil Density Gauge (SDG) also known as Soil Quality Indicator (SQI) 0 0.0% Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) based Devices 0 0.0% None 5 50.0% Other (please specify): 5 50.0% 15. Ease of Use—EDG Value Count Percent Easy 0 0.0% Moderately easy 2 14.3% Slightly complex 3 21.4% Complex 3 21.4% I don’t know 4 42.9% 16. Ease of Use—MDI Value Count Percent Slightly complex 2 20.0% Complex 2 20.0% I don’t know 0 60.0% 16. Ease of Use—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Easy 1 8.3% Moderately easy 1 8.3% Slightly complex 1 8.3% Complex 2 16.7% I don’t know 7 58.3% 16. Level of Calibration Needed—EDG Value Count Percent Time-consuming 7 58.3% I don’t know 5 41.7% 16. Level of Calibration Needed—MDI Value Count Percent Time-consuming 3 33.3% I don’t know 3 66.7%

142 16. Level of Calibration Needed—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Time-consuming 2 18.2% Simple and quick 1 9.1% I don’t know 2 72.7% 16. Testing Time—EDG Value Count Percent Short 0 0.0% Moderately short 4 33.3% Slightly long 3 25.0% Long 1 8.3% I don’t know 4 33.3% 16. Testing Time—MDI Value Count Percent Short 1 11.1% Moderately short 1 11.1% Slightly long 1 11.1% Long 1 11.1% I don’t know 2 55.6% 16. Testing Time—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Short 1 8.3% Moderately short 4 33.3% Slightly long 1 8.3% 16. Level of Expertise Required—EDG Value Count Percent High Intermediate I don’t know 4 5 3 30.8% 38.5% 30.8% 16. Level of Expertise Required—MDI Value Count Percent High 2 22.2% Intermediate 2 22.2% I don’t know 2 55.6% 16. Level of Expertise Required—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent High 2 20.0% Intermediate 3 30.0% 17. Cost—EDG Value Count Percent More expensive 0 0.0% About the same 2 13.3% Less expensive 3 20.0% I don’t know 10 66.7% 17. Cost—MDI Value Count Percent More expensive 0 0.0% About the same 0 0.0% Less expensive 1 9.1% I don’t know 10 90.9% 17. Cost—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent More expensive 0 0.0% About the same 1 8.3% Less expensive 1 8.3% I don’t know 10 83.3%

143 17. Cost—TDR-based devices Value Count Percent More expensive 0 0.0% About the same 0 0.0% Less expensive 0 0.0% I don’t know 0 0.0% 17. Durability—EDG Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 1 7.1% Fair 3 21.4% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 10 71.4% 17. Durability—MDI Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 1 10.0% Poor 1 10.0% I don’t know 8 80.0% 17. Durability—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 2 18.2% Fair 1 9.1% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 8 72.7% 17. Safety—EDG Value Count Percent Safe 6 42.9% Moderately safe 1 7.1% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 7 50.0% 17. Safety—MDI Value Count Percent Safe 3 30.0% Moderately safe 0 0.0% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 7 70.0% 17. Safety—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Safe 4 36.4% Moderately safe 0 0.0% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 7 63.6% 17. GPS compatibility-EDG Value Count Percent Yes 1 7.1% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 13 92.9% 17. GPS compatibility-MDI Value Count Percent Yes 2 20.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 8 80.0%

144 17. GPS compatibility—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Yes 2 20.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 8 80.0% 18. Accuracy—EDG Value Count Percent Good 1 6.7% Fair 4 26.7% Poor 4 26.7% I don’t know 3 40.0% 18. Accuracy—MDI Value Count Percent Fair 1 9.1% Poor 3 27.3% I don’t know 2 63.6% 18. Accuracy—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Fair 2 16.7% Poor 3 25.0% I don’t know 7 58.3% 18. Repeatability—EDG Value Count Percent Good 2 14.3% Fair 4 28.6% Poor 3 21.4% I don’t know 5 35.7% 18. Repeatability—MDI Value Count Percent Good 1 10.0% Fair 2 20.0% Poor 1 10.0% I don’t know 6 60.0% 18. Repeatability—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 1 9.1% Fair 1 9.1% Poor 3 27.3% I don’t know 6 54.6% 18. Recommendation for use—EDG Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 9 64.3% I don’t know 5 35.7% 18. Recommendation for use—MDI Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 4 40.0% I don’t know 6 60.0% 18. Recommendation for use—SDG or SQI Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 5 45.5% I don’t know 6 54.6%

145 19. Based on your agency’s experience, please indicate the compatibility of the following devices with various unbound materials (check all that apply): Fine Grained Soil Sand Unbound Base Material Total Responses Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count MDI 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 2 EDG 71.4% 5 71.4% 5 85.7% 6 7 SDG or SQI 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 1 20. Which of the following devices has your agency used or evaluated for compaction control of unbound materials (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Clegg Hammer 6 14.6% GeoGauge 19 46.3% DCP 20 48.8% LWD 13 31.7% PSPA 1 2.4% SCS 0 0.0% BCD 1 2.4% Other (please specify): 6 14.6% None 15 36.6% 21. Describe the extent of evaluation your agency has done for following devices (check all that apply): Not Evaluated Demonstrated Its Use Evaluated Through In- House Research Evaluated Through University/Consultant Research Responses No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Clegg Hammer 70.6% 12 11.8% 2 17.6% 3 17.6% 3 17 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) 20.8% 5 45.8% 11 50.0% 12 33.3% 8 24 Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) 45.5% 10 22.7% 5 40.9% 9 13.6% 3 22 GeoGauge 19.0% 4 23.8% 5 52.4% 11 33.3% 7 21 Portable Seismic Property Analyzer (PSPA) 76.9% 10 15.4% 2 23.1% 3 7.7% 1 13 Soil Compaction Supervisor (SCS) 100.0% 14 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 14 Briaud Compaction Device (BCD) 92.3% 12 7.7% 1 7.7% 1 0.0% 0 13 22. Which of the following devices has your agency developed or is currently developing specifications for use in compaction control of unbound materials (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Clegg Hammer 0 0.0% GeoGauge 0 0.0% Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) 5 20.8% Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD), please specify type (e.g., Zorn, Prima 100) 3 12.5% Portable Seismic Property Analyzer (PSPA) 0 0.0% Soil Compaction Supervisor (SCS) 0 0.0% Briaud Compaction Device (BCD) 0 0.0% Other (please specify) 2 8.3% None 16 66.7%

146 23. Which of the following devices has your agency implemented its use in field projects for compaction control of unbound materials (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Clegg Hammer 0 0.0% GeoGauge 0 0.0% Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) 2 16.7% Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD), please specify type (e.g., Zorn, Prima 100) 2 8.3% Portable Seismic Property Analyzer (PSPA) 0 0.0% Soil Compaction Supervisor (SCS) 0 0.0% Briaud Compaction Device (BCD) 0 0.0% Other (please specify) 2 16.7% None 7 58.3% 24. Ease of Use—BCD Value Count Percent Easy 1 14.3% Moderately easy 0 0.0% Slightly complex 0 0.0% Complex 0 0.0% I don’t know 6 85.7% 24. Ease of Use—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Easy 4 40.0% Moderately easy 1 10.0% I don’t know 1 50.0% 24. Ease of Use—DCP Value Count Percent Easy 7 38.9% Moderately easy 9 50.0% Slightly complex 1 5.6% I don’t know 3 5.6% 24. Ease of Use—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Easy 6 37.5% Moderately easy 6 37.5% Complex 1 6.3% I don’t know 6 18.8% 24. Ease of Use—LWD Value Count Percent Easy 2 14.3% Moderately easy 5 35.7% Slightly complex 4 28.6% I don’t know 1 21.4% 24. Ease of Use—PSPA Value Count Percent Easy 0 0.0% Moderately easy 0 0.0% Slightly complex 1 16.7% Complex 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 83.3% 24. Ease of Use—SCS Value Count Percent Easy 0 0.0% Moderately easy 0 0.0% Slightly complex 0 0.0% Complex 0 0.0% I don’t know 7 100.0%

147 24. Level of Calibration Needed—BCD Value Count Percent Difficult 1 20.0% Time-consuming 0 0.0% Simple and quick 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 24. Level of Calibration Needed—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Difficult 1 12.5% Time-consuming 1 12.5% Simple and quick 2 25.0% I don’t know 2 50.0% 24. Level of Calibration Needed—DCP Value Count Percent Difficult 1 5.9% Time-consuming 2 11.8% Simple and quick 12 70.6% I don’t know 5 11.8% 24. Level of Calibration Needed—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Difficult 3 21.4% Time-consuming 1 7.1% Simple and quick 6 42.9% I don’t know 9 28.6% 24. Level of Calibration Needed—LWD Value Count Percent Difficult 1 9.1% Time-consuming 3 27.3% Simple and quick 3 27.3% I don’t know 6 36.4% 24. Level of Calibration Needed—PSPA Value Count Percent Difficult 1 20.0% Time-consuming 0 0.0% Simple and quick 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 24. Level of Calibration Needed—SCS Value Count Percent Difficult 0 0.0% Time-consuming 0 0.0% Simple and quick 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 24. Testing Time—BCD Value Count Percent Short 1 20.0% Moderately short 0 0.0% Slightly long 0 0.0% Long 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 24. Testing Time—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Short 3 33.3% Moderately short 2 22.2% I don’t know 1 44.4%

148 24. Testing Time—DCP Value Count Percent Short 5 27.8% Moderately short 8 44.4% Slightly long 4 22.2% I don’t know 3 5.6% 24. Testing Time—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Short 8 53.3% Moderately short 4 26.7% I don’t know 7 20.0% 24. Testing Time—LWD Value Count Percent Short 3 23.1% Moderately short 7 53.9% Slightly long 1 7.7% I don’t know 2 15.4% 24. Testing Time—PSPA Value Count Percent Short 0 0.0% Moderately short 1 20.0% Slightly long 0 0.0% Long 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 24. Testing Time—SCS Value Count Percent Short 0 0.0% Moderately short 0 0.0% Slightly long 0 0.0% Long 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 24. Level of Expertise Required—BCD Value Count Percent High 0 0.0% Intermediate 1 20.0% Low 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 24. Level of Expertise Required—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Intermediate 2 22.2% Low 3 33.3% I don’t know 4 44.4% 24. Level of Expertise Required—DCP Value Count Percent Intermediate 7 38.9% Low 10 55.6% I don’t know 2 5.6% 24. Level of Expertise Required—GeoGauge Value Count Percent High 3 20.0% Intermediate 5 33.3% Low 3 20.0% I don’t know 4 26.7%

149 24. Level of Expertise Required—LWD Value Count Percent Intermediate 8 66.7% Low 1 8.3% I don’t know 3 25.0% 24. Level of Expertise Required—PSPA Value Count Percent High 1 16.7% Intermediate 0 0.0% Low 1 16.7% I don’t know 4 66.7% 24. Level of Expertise Required—SCS Value Count Percent High 0 0.0% Intermediate 0 0.0% Low 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 25. Cost—BCD Value Count Percent Expensive 0 0.0% Moderately expensive 0 0.0% Not expensive 0 0.0% I don’t know 6 100.0% 25. Cost—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Moderately expensive 3 33.3% Not expensive 2 22.2% I don’t know 4 44.4% 25. Cost—DCP Value Count Percent Moderately expensive 4 22.2% Not expensive 12 66.7% I don’t know 2 11.1% 25. Cost—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Expensive 1 6.7% Moderately expensive 7 46.7% Not expensive 1 6.7% I don’t know 6 40.0% 25. Cost—LWD Value Count Percent Expensive 5 38.5% Moderately expensive 5 38.5% I don’t know 3 23.1% 25. Cost—PSPA Value Count Percent Expensive 1 16.7% Moderately expensive 0 0.0% Not expensive 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 83.3% 25. Cost—SCS Value Count Percent Expensive 0 0.0% Moderately expensive 0 0.0% Not expensive 0 0.0% I don’t know 6 100.0%

150 25. Durability—BCD Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 1 20.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 25. Durability—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Good 3 33.3% Fair 1 11.1% I don’t know 5 55.6% 25. Durability—DCP Value Count Percent Very good 6 33.3% Good 8 44.4% Fair 3 16.7% I don’t know 1 5.6% 25. Durability—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Very good 1 6.3% Good 5 31.3% Fair 3 18.8% I don’t know 7 43.8% 25. Durability—LWD Value Count Percent Very good 2 15.4% Good 5 38.5% Fair 2 15.4% Poor 1 7.7% I don’t know 3 23.1% 25. Durability—PSPA Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 1 16.7% I don’t know 5 83.3% 25. Durability—SCS Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 25. Safety—BCD Value Count Percent Safe 1 20.0% Moderately safe 0 0.0% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 25. Safety—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Safe 3 37.5% Moderately safe 0 0.0% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 62.5%

151 25. Safety—DCP Value Count Percent Safe 6 35.3% Moderately safe 9 52.9% Slightly hazardous 1 5.9% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 1 5.9% 25. Safety—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Safe 11 68.8% Moderately safe 1 6.3% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 25.0% 25. Safety—LWD Value Count Percent Safe 4 33.3% Moderately safe 4 33.3% Slightly hazardous 1 8.3% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 3 25.0% 25. Safety—PSPA Value Count Percent Safe 1 20.0% Moderately safe 0 0.0% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 25. Safety—SCS Value Count Percent Safe 0 0.0% Moderately safe 0 0.0% Slightly hazardous 0 0.0% Unsafe 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 25. GPS compatibility—BCD Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 25. GPS compatibility—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 2 22.2% I don’t know 7 77.8% 25. GPS compatibility—DCP Value Count Percent Yes 1 5.9% No 9 52.9% I don’t know 7 41.2% 25. GPS compatibility—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 4 26.7% I don’t know 11 73.3%

152 25. GPS compatibility—LWD Value Count Percent Yes 4 33.3% No 2 16.7% I don’t know 6 50.0% 25. GPS compatibility—PSPA Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 25. GPS compatibility—SCS Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 26. Accuracy—BCD Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 1 16.7% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 83.3% 26. Accuracy—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Good 2 25.0% Poor 1 12.5% I don’t know 5 62.5% 26. Accuracy—DCP Value Count Percent Very good 4 23.5% Good 8 47.1% Fair 3 17.7% Poor 1 5.9% I don’t know 1 5.9% 26. Accuracy—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Good 2 12.5% Fair 3 18.8% Poor 7 43.8% I don’t know 4 25.0% 26. Accuracy—LWD Value Count Percent Very good 2 16.7% Good 4 33.3% I don’t know 6 50.0% 26. Accuracy—PSPA Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 1 16.7% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 83.3%

153 26. Accuracy—SCS Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 26. Repeatability—BCD Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 1 20.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 26. Repeatability—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Good 2 28.6% Fair 1 14.3% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 57.1% 26. Repeatability—DCP Value Count Percent Very good 1 5.9% Good 9 52.9% Fair 5 29.4% Poor 1 5.9% I don’t know 1 5.9% 26. Repeatability—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Very good 1 6.7% Good 2 13.3% Fair 2 13.3% Poor 7 46.7% I don’t know 3 20.0% 26. Repeatability—LWD Value Count Percent Very good 1 8.3% Good 6 50.0% Fair 1 8.3% I don’t know 4 33.3% 26. Repeatability—PSPA Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 1 20.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 26. Repeatability—SCS Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0%

154 26. Recommendation for use—BCD Value Count Percent Yes 1 20.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 26. Recommendation for use—Clegg Hammer Value Count Percent Yes 2 25.0% No 1 12.5% I don’t know 3 62.5% 26. Recommendation for use—DCP Value Count Percent Yes 11 64.7% No 2 11.8% I don’t know 4 23.5% 26. Recommendation for use—GeoGauge Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 8 57.1% I don’t know 11 42.9% 26. Recommendation for use—LWD Value Count Percent Yes 9 69.2% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 4 30.8% 26. Recommendation for use—PSPA Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 1 20.0% I don’t know 4 80.0% 26. Recommendation for use—SCS Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 0 0.0% I don’t know 5 100.0% 27. Based on your agency’s experience, please indicate the compatibility of the following devices with various unbound materials (check all that apply): Fine-grained Soil Sand Unbound Base Material Total Responses % No. % No. % No. No. Clegg Hammer 50.0% 3 66.7% 4 33.3% 2 4 GeoGauge 36.8% 7 42.1% 8 21.1% 4 9 DCP 65.0% 13 65.0% 13 50.0% 10 16 LWD 53.8% 7 76.9% 10 69.2% 9 10 PSPA 1 100.0 % 1 100.0% 1 1 SCS 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 BCD 1 100.0 % 1 100.0% 1 1 28. Please describe your agency’s level of interest in implementing stiffness/strength based specification for compaction control of unbound materials: Value Count Percent Interested and have already implemented it 2 4.9% Interested and will implement it 6 14.6% Interested but have not implemented it 19 46.3% Not Interested 9 22.0% Other (please specify): 5 12.2% 100.0%

155 29. What are the main obstacles that will stop/impede the implementation of stiffness/strength based specification for compaction control of unbound materials in your state (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Need for new testing equipment 22 55.0% Lack of funds 10 25.0% Lack of trained personnel 19 47.5% Familiarity of contractors with such devices 18 45.0% Other (please specify): 21 52.5% 30. What is the level of implementation of stiffness/strength based specifications for compaction control of unbound materials in your state (check all that apply)? Value Count Percent Research 19 67.9% In-house evaluation 15 53.6% Field test section or demonstration project 9 32.1% Developmental or experimental specification 4 14.3% Production specification 3 10.7% 31. For which of the following devices and unbound materials did your agency develop a target modulus/strength value for compaction control (check all that apply)? Compacted Subgrade Soils Embankment Base Responses % No. % No. % No. No. Clegg Hammer 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 GeoGauge 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 1 Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) (e.g., Zorn, Prima 100) 75.0% 3 75.0% 3 75.0% 3 4 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) 80.0% 4 100.0% 5 60.0% 3 5 Portable Seismic Property Analyzer (PSPA) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 Soil Compaction Supervisor (SCS) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Briaud Compaction Device (BCD) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 32. Which of the following devices has your agency evaluated for measuring the in situ moisture content of unbound materials (check all that apply)? Not Evaluated Demonstrated Its Use Evaluated Through In- house Research Evaluated Through University/Consultant Research Currently Use Responses No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. DOT600 100% 28 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 28 Moisture Analyzer 100% 27 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 27 Speedy Moisture 29.0% 9 29.0% 9 25.8% 8 0.0% 0 32.% 10 31 Field Microwave 53.3% 16 6.7% 2 13.3% 4 0.0% 0 40.0% 12 30 MDI 86.2% 25 0.0% 0 3.4% 1 6.9% 2 3.4% 1 29 EDG 75.0% 21 7.1% 2 17.9% 5 7.1% 2 0.0% 0 28 SDG 89.3% 25 0.0% 0 7.1% 2 7.1% 2 0.0% 0 28 33. Accuracy-DOT600 Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 14 100.0%

156 33. Accuracy—Field Microwave Value Count Percent Very good 2 8.3% Good 13 54.2% Fair 1 4.2% Poor 1 4.2% I don’t know 7 29.2% 33. Accuracy—Moisture Analyzer Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 14 100.0% 33. Accuracy—Speedy Moisture Value Count Percent Very good 3 10.7% Good 10 35.7% Fair 5 17.9% Poor 2 7.1% I don’t know 8 28.6% 33. Repeatability—DOT600 Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 12 100.0% 33. Repeatability—Field Microwave Value Count Percent Very good 2 8.7% Good 13 56.5% Fair 1 4.4% Poor 1 4.4% I don’t know 6 26.1% 33. Repeatability—Moisture Analyzer Value Count Percent Very good 0 0.0% Good 0 0.0% Fair 0 0.0% Poor 0 0.0% I don’t know 11 100.0% 33. Repeatability—Speedy Moisture Value Count Percent Very good 3 11.5% Good 10 38.5% Fair 6 23.1% Poor 2 7.7% I don’t know 5 19.2% 33. Ease of use—DOT600 Value Count Percent Easy 0 0.0% Moderately easy 0 0.0% Slightly complex 0 0.0% Complex 0 0.0% I don’t know 12 100.0%

157 33. Ease of use—Field Microwave Value Count Percent Easy 6 26.1% Moderately easy 9 39.1% Slightly complex 1 4.4% I don’t know 7 30.4% 33. Ease of use—Moisture Analyzer Value Count Percent Easy 0 0.0% Moderately easy 0 0.0% Slightly complex 0 0.0% Complex 0 0.0% I don’t know 12 100.0% 33. Ease of use—Speedy Moisture Value Count Percent Easy 7 26.9% Moderately easy 9 34.6% Slightly complex 4 15.4% Complex 2 7.7% I don’t know 4 15.4% 33. Recommendation for use—DOT600 Value Count Percent Yes 0 0.0% No 1 8.3% I don’t know 11 91.7% 33. Recommendation for use—Field Microwave Value Count Percent Yes 13 56.5% No 4 17.4% I don’t know 6 26.1% 33. Recommendation for use—Moisture Analyzer Value Count Percent Yes No I don’t know 11 1 0 0.0% 8.3% 91.7% 33. Recommendation for use—Speedy Moisture Value Yes No I don’t know Count 13 9 4 Percent 50.0% 34.6% 15.4%

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation