Designation: D7830/D7830M − 13

Standard Test Method for

In-Place Density (Unit Weight) and Water Content of Soil
Using an Electromagnetic Soil Density Gauge1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D7830/D7830M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the
year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last
reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any consider-

1.1 This test method covers the procedures for determining ations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to
in-place properties of non-frozen, unbound soil and soil aggre- increase or decrease the number of significant digits of reported
gate mixtures such as total density, gravimetric water content data commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the
and relative compaction by measuring the electromagnetic scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in the
impedance of the compacted soil. analysis methods for engineering design.
1.1.1 The method and device described in this test method 1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the
are intended for in-process quality control of earthwork proj- safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
ects. Site or material characterization is not an intended result. responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
1.2 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
pound units [given in brackets] are to be regarded separately as
standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact NOTE 1—ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity
equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this
of the other. Combining values from the two systems may standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination
of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of
result in non-conformance with the standard. such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.
1.2.1 The gravitational system of inch-pound units is used
when dealing with inch-pound units. In this system, the pound 2. Referenced Documents
(lbf) represents a unit of force (weight) while the unit for mass 2.1 ASTM Standards:2
is slugs. The rationalized slug unit is not given in this standard. D422 Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
1.2.2 In the engineering profession, it is customary practice D653 Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock, and Contained
to use, interchangeably, units representing both mass and force, Fluids
unless dynamic calculations are involved. This implicitly D698 Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Character-
combines two separate systems of units, that is, the absolute istics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600
system and the gravimetric system. It is undesirable to combine kN-m/m3))
the use of two separate systems within a single standard. The D1556 Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in
use of balances or scales recording pounds of mass (lbm), or Place by Sand-Cone Method
the recording of density in lbm/ft3 should not be regarded as D1557 Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Character-
nonconformance with this standard. istics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3
1.3 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the (2,700 kN-m/m3))
Guide for Significant Digits and Rounding established in D2167 Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in
Practice D6026. Place by the Rubber Balloon Method
1.3.1 The procedures used to specify how data is collected, D2216 Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water
recorded, and calculated in this standard are regarded as (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the D2937 Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the
significant digits that should generally be retained. The proce- Drive-Cylinder Method
dures used do not consider material variation, purpose for D3740 Practice for Minimum Requirements for Agencies
Engaged in Testing and/or Inspection of Soil and Rock as
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D18 on Soil and
2
Rock and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D18.08 on Special and For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Construction Control Tests. contact ASTM Customer Service at [email protected]. For Annual Book of ASTM
Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2013. Published April 2013. DOI: 10.1520/ Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
D7830-13. the ASTM website.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
1
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
Used in Engineering Design and Construction density. The measurement spectrum is made up of frequencies
D4253 Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit ranging from 30 kHz to 50 MHz.
Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table
D4254 Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit 5. Significance and Use
Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density 5.1 The method described determines wet density and water
D4318 Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and content by correlating complex impedance measurement data
Plasticity Index of Soils to an empirically developed model. The empirical model is
D4643 Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) generated by comparing the electrical properties of typical soils
Content of Soil by Microwave Oven Heating encountered in civil construction projects to their wet densities
D4718 Practice for Correction of Unit Weight and Water and water contents determined by other accepted methods.
Content for Soils Containing Oversize Particles
D7382 Test Methods for Determination of Maximum Dry 5.2 The test method described is useful as a rapid, non-
Unit Weight and Water Content Range for Effective destructive technique for determining the in-place total density
Compaction of Granular Soils Using a Vibrating Hammer and water content of soil and soil-aggregate mixtures and the
D4944 Test Method for Field Determination of Water (Mois- determination of dry density.
ture) Content of Soil by the Calcium Carbide Gas Pressure 5.3 This method may be used for quality control and
Tester acceptance of compacted soil and soil-aggregate mixtures as
D4959 Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) used in construction and also for research and development.
Content of Soil By Direct Heating The non-destructive nature allows for repetitive measurements
D6026 Practice for Using Significant Digits in Geotechnical at a single test location and statistical analysis of the results.
Data NOTE 2—The quality of the result produced by this standard test method
D6938 Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the
suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the
of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods (Shallow requirements of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of
Depth) competent and objective sampling/testing/inspection, and the like. Users
E691 Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does
Determine the Precision of a Test Method not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many
factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluation some of those
2.2 Other Referenced Documents: factors.
“Development of a Non-Nuclear Soil Density Gauge to
Eliminate the Need for Nuclear Density Gauges”3 6. Interferences
6.1 Anomalies in the test material with electrical impedance
3. Terminology
properties significantly different from construction soils and
3.1 Definitions—See Terminology D653 for general defini- aggregate evaluated during soil model development, such as
tions. metal objects or organic material, may affect the accuracy of
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard: the test method.
3.2.1 impedance, n—a measure of opposition to alternating 6.2 Chemical and mineralogical composition may affect the
current (AC). results of a test. Examples of materials that may impact the
3.2.2 impedance spectroscopy, n—a method that measures results include but are not limited to, quarried materials
the electromagnetic properties of a medium as a function of containing higher concentrations of iron, volcanic rock, and
frequency. materials that have significant fractions of cemented particles,
organic soils, recycled materials or materials containing
4. Summary of Test Method asphalt, portland cement, lime, fly ash, or other stabilizing
modifiers. In most cases the effect may be satisfactorily
4.1 The total or wet density and water content of soil and
addressed by following the Calibration Procedure in Section 7.
soil-aggregate are correlated to empirical data using an elec-
tromagnetic impedance spectroscopy device. Electromagnetic 6.3 A significant increase in the conductivity of the pore
properties of the soil are determined at specific frequencies by water such as from ground water that may contain significant
measuring the changes in the electromagnetic field. A function salt deposits or contaminants. In most cases the effect may be
is generated that describes the relationship between electrical satisfactorily addressed by following the Calibration Procedure
properties over a range of frequencies. That function is in Section 7.
compared to an empirical model and other calibration checks to 6.4 This test method applies only to non-frozen soil. The
determine water content and density. electrical properties of soil change with temperature.
4.2 This method employs electromagnetic impedance spec- Generally, testing should be limited to soil temperatures above
troscopy to determine the volumetric water content and wet 10°C [50°F] and below 40°C [104°F]. Effects of temperature
on electrical properties of soils also depend on soil type.
Clayey soils are more temperature sensitive than sandy soils.
3
Accuracy of measurements improves when the temperature of
Prepared for The Department of Homeland Security under contract No.
HSHQDC-07-C-00080. Dated October 31, 2008. Available from the U.S. Depart- soil is close to the temperature used in the model calibration.
ment of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. 20528, http://www.dhs.gov. Calibration for temperature effects should be done when soil

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
2
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
temperatures differ by more than 10°C [18°F] from model display functions. The circuitry shall be designed to perform a
calibration temperatures. Calibration Procedures are given in calibration of the unit over a range of conditions and materials
Section 7. expected in the field.
6.5 The accuracy of the results obtained by this test method 7.1.2 Internal circuitry suitable for displaying individual
may be influenced by poor or incorrect placement of the device measurements to allow operators to record the results.
on the soil being tested. Non-homogeneous soils, non-uniform 7.1.3 A rugged housing designed for taking in-situ density
surface texture, large air voids that may be present may and water content measurements of soil and soil-aggregate
decrease the precision of the results. Correct placement of the mixtures during routine earthwork operations.
soil gauge is important to the quality of the electrical measure- 7.1.4 Infrared Temperature Measuring Device, shall be
ments collected by the device. capable of measuring the surface temperature of the material
being tested to 6 0.5°C [6 1°F] throughout a range of 0° to
6.6 Oversized particles in the measurement volume may 50°C [30° to 120°F].
cause an error in water content and/or density results. Where
lack of uniformity in the soil is suspected due to layering, 7.2 Soil Calibration Container—Containers for calibration
aggregates, or voids, the test site should be excavated and of the gauge as described in section 8.5.1, Container Calibra-
visually examined to determine if the material is representative tion.
of the in-situ material in general and if an oversize correction 8. Calibration
is required in accordance with Practice D4718.
8.1 For Factory Calibration information and requirements
6.7 Variation from actual values may increase for soil please refer to Annex A1.
material that is significantly drier or wetter than optimum water
content as determined using Test Methods D698 or D1557. 8.2 The soil density gauge has been designed to determine
Variation from actual values may increase for soil material that the moisture and density in a compacted soil sample without
is compacted to less than 80 % of the maximum dry density as the need for special field generated soil models. The ability to
determined using Test Methods D698 or D1557. measure moisture and density is based on multiple soil models
that were developed by studying various soil types. As the soil
6.8 Attempts to measure unknown in-place soils with a soil density gauge’s measurement performance is based on these
model that was generated from a limited range of wet density models, there will be occasions where the soil being measured
or water content values, or both, may result in density and is so different from one that has been studied previously that an
water content errors. adjustment may be required to enable the soil density gauge to
6.9 Strong electromagnetic fields such as those generated by produce acceptable results.6
high tension power lines may interfere with the device opera- 8.3 Determine the test parameters that will be used to
tion. calibrate the device. For example, selection of a pre-existing
6.10 For a circular sensor 280 mm [11 in.] in diameter, the soil model or manual entry of soil model parameters for
typical maximum measured volume is approximately 0.0034 calibration.
m3 [0.12 ft3]. The actual measured volume is indeterminate and 8.3.1 Obtain a representative sample of soil from the site
varies with the plate diameter, sensor configuration, and where in-place testing is conducted or from the borrow source.
material being tested. Results are typically influenced more by 8.3.2 Determine the laboratory compaction characteristics
the density and water content of the material near the surface. of the material to be tested. Test Methods D698 or D1557 for
fine grained soils and soil rock mixtures that exhibit a clear
7. Apparatus4,5
maximum dry density or Test Methods D4253 or Test Methods
7.1 Electromagnetic Soil Density Gauge—A device capable D7382 for predominately granular material.
of generating an electromagnetic field and measuring the 8.3.3 Information required by the device to associate the soil
differential voltage change between two electrodes. An ex- to the correct predetermined soil model may include but not be
ample of the device is shown in Fig. 1 and a sensor schematic limited to: maximum dry density; optimum water content as
section and approximate electrical fields that sense the soil is determined by Test Methods D698 or D1557; percent of
shown in Fig. 2. While the exact details of construction of the sample larger than 75 mm [3 in.]; percentage of sample
apparatus may vary, the system shall consist of: between 75 mm [3 in.] and 19 mm [0.75 in.]; percent gravel;
7.1.1 Electronic circuitry to provide power and signal con- percent sand; percent fines; coefficient of uniformity; and
ditioning to the sensor and to provide the data acquisition and coefficient of curvature in accordance with Test Method D422,
Plastic Limit, and Test Methods D4318, Liquid Limit.
4
The sole source of supply of the TransTech Soil Density Gauge (SDG)
apparatus known to the committee at this time is TransTech Systems, Inc. 1594 State 8.4 Prior to using the gauge derived water content on any
Street, Schenectady, NY. If you are aware of alternative suppliers, please provide new material, the value for water content should be verified by
this information to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive comparison to another accepted test method such as Test
careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which
Methods D2216, D4643, D4944, or D4959. Prior to using the
you may attend.
5
The Electromagnetic Soil Density Gauge is covered by a patent (patent no.: US gauge derived density on any new material, the value should be
7,219,024 B2). Interested parties are invited to submit information regarding the
identification of an alternative(s) to this patented item to the ASTM International
6
Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the A comparison to other accepted test methods is recommended on a regular
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. frequency to verify the validity and appropriateness of the calibration.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
3
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. 1 Electromagnetic Soil Density Gauge

verified by comparison to another accepted test method such as 8.5.1.2 Material used for calibration shall be representative
Test Methods D1556, D2167, D2937, or D6938. As part of a of the material to be tested and should be compacted at
user developed procedure, occasional tests should be taken optimum moisture content 62 % and should be compacted to
beneath the gauge and from samples taken beneath the gauge 95 % 6 2 %.
and comparison test be done to confirm the gauge derived 8.5.1.3 Calibration shall be performed on soil at or near
water content values. Following the manufacturer procedures temperatures expected in the field during routine testing.
for correcting the gauge derived water content and density 8.5.2 Onsite Calibration—Where prepared containers of
values. compacted samples are not available, the gauge may be
8.5 The calibration should be checked prior to performing correlated by using a minimum of three sets of test results
tests on materials that are distinctly different from material taken in an area of a compaction project where material has
types previously used in obtaining or adjusting the calibration. been placed at different water contents. The test sites shall
If a field calibration is necessary follow the procedures below. represent the range of water contents and densities, over which
8.5.1 Container Calibration—Prepare containers of com- the correlation is to be used. At least three gauge readings shall
pacted material with a known water content as determined by be made at each test site. The density at each site shall be
Test Methods D2216, D4643, D4944, or D4959 and a wet verified by tests performed in accordance with Test Methods
density calculated by dividing the mass of the material by the D1556, D2167, D2937, or D6938. The water content at each
inside volume of the container. site shall be determined in accordance with Test Methods
8.5.1.1 Containers used for preparing compacted samples D2216, D4643, D4944, or D4959. Use the mean value of the
shall have minimum dimensions of 0.66 m [2 ft] wide, 0.66 m replicate readings as the correlation point value for each test
[2 ft] long, and 0.33 m [1 ft] deep and be constructed of a site.
non-conductive material capable of retaining its shape during 8.5.2.1 Calibration shall be performed on material that is at
the compaction process. or near material temperatures expected during routine testing.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
4
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. 2 Sensor Section and Schematic

8.5.3 The mean value of the difference between the water 9.2 Place the device on the surface of the material to be
content as determined in 8.5.2 and the values measured with tested.
the gauge shall be used as a correction to those measurements 9.3 Secure and record one or more density and water
made in the field. content measurements.
8.5.3.1 The water content correction can be applied
manually, or can be entered into the device if the device is 9.4 Measure the soil temperature to the nearest 1°C [0.5°F].
equipped with an offset or correction feature. (The temperature of the material during testing should be
8.5.4 The mean value of the difference between the wet representative of the material temperature during calibration.)
density as determined in 8.5.2 and the values measured with 9.5 For proper use of the gauge and accurate values of both
the gauge shall be used as a correction to those measurements water content and density corrections to density (8.5.4), to
made in the field. water content (8.5.3) and for oversize particles (Practice
8.5.4.1 The wet density correction can be applied manually, D4718) should be applied when applicable.
or can be entered into the device if the device is equipped with 9.5.1 When there is any uncertainty as to the presence of
an offset or correction feature. oversize particles, it is advisable to sample the material beneath
8.6 The method and test procedures used to obtain the the gauge to verify the presence and relative proportion of the
electrical measurements must be the same as those used during oversize particles. A rock correction can then be made for both
routine testing. the water content and the density by the method in Practice
D4718.
9. Procedure
9.1 Preparation of Test Site: 10. Calculation of Results
9.1.1 Select a test location in accordance with the contract 10.1 Determine the Wet Density, ρt:
documents, located to be representative of the total material 10.1.1 Read the value directly in kg/m3 [lbm/ft3].
being placed and to minimize potential interferences. 10.1.2 Record the density to the nearest 1 kg/m3 [0.1
9.1.2 Remove all loose and disturbed material, or overlying lbm/ft3].
material, as necessary to expose the true surface of the material 10.1.2.1 If desired, calculate the wet unit weight, γt, as
to be tested. follows:

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
5
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
γ t 5 9.8066 3 ρ t , N⁄m 3 (1) 11.1.2 Location of test (for example, station number or
global positioning system (GPS) number or coordinates or
or
other identifiable information).
γ t 5 62.428 3 ρ t , lbf⁄ft 3 (2) 11.1.3 Visual description of material tested.
10.2 Determine the Water Content, w: 11.1.4 Lift number or elevation or depth.
10.2.1 Read the value directly in percent. 11.1.5 Name of the operator(s).
10.2.2 If the gauge determines water mass per unit volume, 11.1.6 Make, model, and serial number of the test gauge.
Mw in kg/m3 [lbm /ft3], calculate w using the equation: 11.1.7 Standardization and adjustment data for the date of
M w 3 100 the tests.
w5 (3)
ρt 2 Mw 11.1.8 Any corrections made in the reported values and
reasons for these corrections (that is, over-sized particles, water
or, if the gauge determines water weight per unit volume, Ww
content).
in N/m3 [lbf /ft3], calculate w using the formula:
11.1.9 Maximum laboratory density value in kg/m3 [lbm/
W w 3 100 3
w5 (4)
ft ].
γt 2 Ww 11.1.10 Dry density in kg/m3 [lbm/ft3].
10.2.3 Record water content to the nearest 0.1 %. 11.1.11 Wet density in kg/m3 [lbm/ft3].
10.3 Determine the Dry Density by One of the Following 11.1.12 Water content in percent.
Methods: 11.1.13 Percent compaction.
10.3.1 If the water content is obtained by electromagnetic 11.1.14 Soil temperature.
methods, use the gauge readings directly for dry density in 11.1.15 Observation made during testing including but not
kg/m3 [lbm/ft3]. The value can also be calculated from: limited to: site conditions, weather, material being tested,
equipment used to achieve compaction.
ρ d 5 ρ t 2 M w 5 dry density, kg⁄m 3 [lbm⁄ft 3 ] (5)
3
γ d 5 γ t 2 W w 5 dry unit weight, N⁄m [lbf⁄ft ] 3
(6)
11.2 Final Report (Minimum Required Information):
11.2.1 Test number.
10.3.2 If the water content is to be determined manually 11.2.2 Gauge serial number.
from a sample of soil, follow the procedures and perform the 11.2.3 Location of test (for example, station number or GPS
calculations of the chosen test method (Test Methods D2216, number or coordinates or other identifiable information).
D4643, D4944, or D4959). 11.2.4 Lift number or elevation or depth.
10.3.3 With a water content value from 10.3.2 calculate the
11.2.5 Water content as a percent.
dry density from:
11.2.6 Maximum laboratory density value in kg/m3 [lbm/
ρt 3
ρd 5 (7)
ft ].
w 11.2.7 Dry density result in kg/m3 [lbm/ft3].
11
100 11.2.8 Percent compaction.
10.3.4 Report the dry density to the nearest 1 kg/m3 [0.1 11.2.9 Name of operator(s).
lbm/ft3].
10.3.4.1 If desired, calculate the dry unit weight, γd, as 12. Precision and Bias
follows: 12.1 Precision—Complete test data on precision in accor-
γ d (kN⁄m 3 ) 5 0.0098066 3 ρ d (kg⁄m 3 ) (8) dance with Practice E691 is not presented due to the nature of
this test method. It is either not feasible or too costly at this
or
time to have ten or more agencies participate in an in-situ
γ d (lbf⁄ft 3 ) 5 0.062428 3 ρ d (kg⁄m 3 ) (9) testing program at a given site. The Subcommittee (D18.08) is
10.4 Determine the Percent Compaction: seeking any data from the users of this test method that might
10.4.1 It may be desired to express the in-place dry density be used to make a limited statement on precision. Task group
as a percentage of a laboratory density such as Test Methods D18.08.03 is looking into an ASTM sponsored interlaboratory
D698, D1557, D4253, or D4254. This relationship can be study (ILS) to generate data on a variety of soils for a precision
calculated by dividing the in-place dry density by the labora- statement.
tory maximum dry density and multiplying by 100. Procedures 12.1.1 In lieu of a Practice E691 precision study, the
for calculating relative density are provided in Test Method following information from “Development of a Non-Nuclear
D4254 which requires that Test Method D4253 also be Soil Density Gauge to Eliminate the Need for Nuclear Density
performed. Corrections for oversize material, if required, shall Gauges” is provided in Tables 1 and 2. A description of the
be performed in accordance with Practice D4718. materials tested is given in Table 3.
12.2 Density Bias—Due to the variability in materials and
11. Report: Test Data Sheet(s)/Form(s)/Final Report(s) construction practices, there is no consensus as to the most
11.1 The Field Data Records Shall Include, as a Minimum, accurate test method for measurement of density against which
the Following: this test can be compared. Accordingly, a statement of method
11.1.1 Test number or test identification. bias cannot be made.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
6
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
TABLE 1 Single Operator Precision
NOTE 1—One instrument with one operator, each at one location.
USCS SP GP-GM CL GP-GM GW-GM CL-ML
Wet Density kg/m3 2077 ± 0.9 2228 ± 17 2040 ± 4.6 2246 ± 12 1868 ± 21.2 1920 ± 15.8
[lbm/ft3] [129.7 ± 1.9] 139.1 ± 1.1] [127.4 ± 0.3] [140.2 ± 0.8] [116.6 ± 1.3] [119.8 ± 1.0]

Vol Water kg/m3 133 ± 8.0 167 ± 3.2 373 ± 1.6 151 ± 4.8 86 ± 4.8 181 ± 3.2
[lbm/ft3] [8.3 ± 0.5] [10.4 ± 0.2] [23.3 ± 0.1] [9.4 ± 0.3] [5.4 ± 0.3] [11.3 ± 0.2]

Dry Density kg/m3 1945 ± 23.2 2061 ± 13.6 1667 ± 3.3 2096 ± 6.9 1781 ± 16.4 1723 ± 12.3
[lbm/ft3] [121.4 ± 1.4] [128.7 ± 0.8] [104.1 ± 0.2] [130.8 ± 0.4] [111.2 ± 1.0] [107.6 ± 0.8]

Water (%) 6.8 ± 0.3 8.0 ± 0.1 22.4 ± 0.03 7.2 ± 0.2 4.9 ± 0.2 11.4 ± 0.1

TABLE 2 Multi-Operator Precision

NOTE 1—Four instruments with four operators at six locations.
USCS SP GP-GM CL GP-GM GW-GM CL-ML
Wet Density kg/m3 2052 ± 84.9 2185 ± 104.1 2041 ± 9.6 2235 ± 14.4 1863 ± 30.4 1869 ± 64.1
[lbm/ft3] [128.1 ± 5.3] [136.4 ± 6.5] [127.4 ± 0.6] [139.5 ± 0.9] [116.3 ± 1.9] [116.7 ± 4.0]

Vol. Water kg/m3 127 ± 22.4 159 ± 24 373 ± 3.2 146 ± 8 86 ± 6.4 184 ± 16
[lbm/ft3] [7.9 ± 1.4] [9.9 ± 1.5] [23.3 ± 0.2] [9.1 ± 0.5] [5.4 ± 0.4] [11.5 ± 1.0]

Dry Density kg/m3 1925 ± 62.5 2026 ± 80.1 1669 ± 6.4 2089 ± 8.0 1776 ± 24.0 1685 ± 48.1
[lbm/ft3] [120.2 ± 3.9] [126.5 ± 5.0] [104.2 ± 0.4] [130.4 ± 0.5] [110.9 ± 1.5] [105.2 ± 3.0]

Water (%) 6.6 ± 1.0 7.8 ± 0.9 22.4 ± 0.1 7.0 ± 0.3 4.8 ± 0.3 10.9 ± 0.7

TABLE 3 Description of Materials Tested

USCS Common Name
1 SP (Poorly graded sand with gravel) 100 mm [4 in.] Gravel Borrow
2 GP-GM (Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand) 31.5 mm [11⁄4 in.] Crushed Base Course
3 CL (Lean clay) Red Silty Clay
4 GP-GM (Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand) Graded Aggregate Base
5 GW-GM (Well graded gravel with silt and sand) Red Sand with Rock
6 CL-ML (Silty clay) Red Sandy Clay

12.3 Water Content Bias—There is no accepted reference impedance spectroscopy; in-place density; nondestructive test-
value for this test method; therefore, bias cannot be deter- ing; non-nuclear test method; quality control; soil density; wet
mined. Deviations from Test Method D2216 can be determined density
from comparison results.
13. Keywords
13.1 acceptance testing; compaction test; construction con-
trol; dry density; electromagnetic density gauge; field density;

ANNEXES

(Mandatory Information)

A1. FACTORY CALIBRATION

A1.1 Calibration—Gauges shall be calibrated initially, after facility. Impedance is influenced by chemical and mineralogi-
any repairs and at intervals not exceeding 12 months. cal composition of measured materials. This response must be
A1.1.1 Gauge calibration response shall be within 616 considered when establishing the calibration block density. The
kg/m3 [61.0 lbm/ft3] on blocks on which the gauge was materials used for calibration shall represent densities and
calibrated. This calibration shall be performed by the water contents common in earthwork projects. The density of
manufacturer, or a manufacturer certified repair and calibration the blocks shall be determined in such a manner that the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
7
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
estimated standard deviation of the blocks shall not exceed 1.0 A1.1.4 The method and test procedures used in estimating
% of the measured block density. the calibration data shall be the same as those used for
A1.1.2 Re-establish or verify the density of the block(s) obtaining the field data.
used to calibrate or verify calibrations at a period not to exceed A1.1.5 The material type, actual density or established
five years. density of each calibration block used to establish or verify
A1.1.3 Sufficient data shall be taken on each calibration calibrations shall be stated as part of the calibration data.
block to ensure a gauge precision of at least one-half the gauge
precision required for field use. The data may be presented in A1.1.6 The calibration blocks should be sufficient in size so
the form of a graph, table, equation or coefficients or stored in that the electrical measurements will not change if the block is
the gauge to allow for corrected measurements. enlarged in any dimension.

A2. GAUGE PRECISION

A2.1 Gauge precision is defined as the change in density or A2.1.2 Gauge Precision–Repetitive Method—Obtain a
water mass per unit volume that occurs corresponding to a one minimum of 20 repetitive measurements while picking up the
standard deviation change in the measured electrical signal. gauge and placing in the same location between readings.
The density and water content of the material must be stated. Calculate the standard deviation of the resulting readings. This
A2.1.1 Calculate using the repetitive method described in is the gauge precision.
A2.1.2 for wet density, use a material having a density of 1920
6 80 kg/m3 (120.0 6 5 lbm/ft3). Typical values for P are <16
kg/m3 [1.0 lbm/ft3].

APPENDIXES

(Nonmandatory Information)

X1. SOIL DENSITY AND MOISTURE FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC IMPEDANCE SPECTROSCOPY

X1.1 Variations in an electromagnetic field due to the and moisture contents which were determined by other ac-
properties of soils have been used as the basis of inferring soil cepted methods.
properties for many years. The work of Schlumberger and
X1.2.1 The impedance is written as:
Wenner (1-3)7 was directed at using electro-resistive sensing to
determine a multidimensional image of in-situ soil. Later, Z 5 R1jX (X1.1)
various penetrating probe designs were developed to determine where:
soil moisture and soil wet density (Drnevich (4) and Anderson Z = the impedance, measured in ohms,
(5)). All of these methods required that probes be driven into R = the resistance, measured in ohms,
the ground. An alternative approach has been developed using X = the reactance, measured in ohms, and
a non-invasive, circular plate and a coplanar ring. j = the imaginary unit.
X1.2 The described device, TransTech SDG, determines X1.2.2 An alternate formulation is written as:
wet density and moisture content by correlating impedance Y 5 1⁄Z 5 G1jB (X1.2)
measurement data to an empirically developed model. The
device produces an electric field in the soil at a prescribed where:
depth and measures the impedance of the material under test. Y = the admittance, measured in siemens (also known as
Electromagnetic impedance spectroscopy is then used to de- mho, the inverse of ohm),
termine the volumetric moisture content and wet density. The G = the conductance, measured in siemens, and
measurement spectrum is made up of frequencies ranging from B = the susceptance, measured in siemens.
30 kHz to 50 MHz. The empirical model was generated by X1.2.3 The susceptance may be written as:
comparing a spectral impedance property of typical soils
encountered in civil construction projects to their wet densities 2X
B5 (X1.3)
X 2 1R 2

7
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of X1.3 We analytically identified the impedance components
this standard. which best represented the control parameters (wet density and

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
8
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
gravimetric moisture). Next, the control parameters of soils ρ t 5 m d *D1b d (X1.5)
were statistically compared to spectrographic representations
where:
of the impedance components in order to verify the analytical
predictions. These representations were then used to compute pt = the wet density in appropriate units,
the predicted value of the control parameters. The results were md = the slope as determined from the empirical linear curve
that for wet density the spectrographic slope of the susceptance fit, and
bd = the offset as determined from the empirical linear curve
provided the best statistical correlation and the spectrographic
fit.
slope of the resistance provided the best correlation with
moisture. X1.4 A controlled laboratory compaction test was con-
X1.3.1 The wet density is determined by the electromag- ducted with a silty gravel, GP-GM classified soil. Proctor and
netic impedance spectroscopy measurement representing the gradation data for the material were obtained. The soil was
average value of the volume measured by the device. Based mixed with water to obtain five gravimetric water levels at 4.58
upon an analytical and statistical evaluation of the various %, 5.37 %, 6.64 %, 7.60 %, and 9.42 %, as determined by oven
spectrographic impedance properties, it was determined that a dry tests. Four were below the proctor optimum of 8.5 %. At
spectrographic evaluation of the susceptance, B, over a range each moisture level, measurements were taken at four compac-
of frequencies, provides the best empirical correlation between tion levels. At each compaction level, there were four test
the measurements and the wet density as determined by other locations and at each test location four readings were taken
accepted methods. with a TransTech SDG and a nuclear density gauge (NDG).
X1.3.2 The term used is density function, D, which is a This yields 64 data points for each moisture level and a total of
spectrographic function of the susceptance over a range of 320 data points over all moisture levels. This test is referred to
frequencies and the soil being measured. In the following as the “Large Box” test.
example, the soil is classified as GP-GM. X1.4.1 For the case of the controlled compaction study of
D GP2GM 5 ∆B GP2GM ⁄∆f (fi2fn) (X1.4) GP-GM soil with variations of moisture and compaction, the
relation is:
where:
ρ w 5 20.43698*D GP2GM 1185.23 (X1.6)
DGP-GM = the density function for soil type GP-GM based
on the slope of BGP-GM, X1.5 The volumetric water content, determined by the
BGP-GM = the susceptance measured on soil type GP-GM, electromagnetic impedance spectroscopy measurement, repre-
and sents the average value of the volume measured by the device.
f i – fn = the frequency range over which the slope of Based upon an analytical and statistical evaluation of the
BGPGM is determined. various spectrographic impedance properties, it was deter-
X1.3.3 This function is then empirically related to the wet mined that a spectrographic evaluation of the resistance, R,
density as determined by other accepted methods with a linear over a range of frequencies provides the best empirical
least squares fit in the form: correlation between the measurements and the volumetric

FIG. X1.1 Independent Wet Density versus Density Function

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
9
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
water content as determined by other accepted methods. w v 5 m w *M GP2GM 1b w (X1.8)
X1.5.1 The term used is moisture function, M, which is a where:
spectrographic function of the resistance and the soil being wv = the volumetric moisture (%),
measured: mw = the slope as determined from the empirical linear
M GPGM 5 ~ R GP2GM f2 2 R GP2GM f1 ! ⁄ ~ f 2 2 f 1! (X1.7) curve fit, and
bw = the offset as determined from the empirical linear
where: curve fit.
MGPGM = the density function for soil type GP-GM based on
the slope of RGP-GM, X1.5.3 For the case of the controlled compaction study of
RGPGM = the resistance measured on soil type GP-GM, and GP-GM soil with variations of moisture and compaction, the
f2 – f1 = the frequency range over which the slope of relation is:
RGP-GM is determined. w v 5 6.7916*M GP2GM 145.4 (X1.9)
X1.5.2 This function is then empirically related to the
volumetric water content as determined by oven dry method
and the independent wet density or other accepted methods
with a linear least squares fit in the form:

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
10
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. X1.2 Volumetric Water Content versus Moisture Function

X2. COMPARISON OF ELECTROMAGNETIC SOIL DENSITY GAUGE DENSITY AND MOISTURE RESULTS WITH
NUCLEAR DENSITY GAUGE RESULTS

X2.1 A controlled laboratory compaction test was con- X2.3 Wet Density Results
ducted with a GP-GM classified soil. Proctor and gradation X2.3.1 Using Matlab, an unpaired t-test was completed
data for the material were obtained. The soil was mixed with using the NDG wet density and the SDG wet density measure-
water to obtain five gravimetric water levels at 4.58 %, 5.37 %, ments. (Each NDG reading was an average of three measure-
6.64 %, 7.60 %, and 9.42 %, as determined by oven dry tests. ments and each SDG reading was an average of five.) The test
Four were below the proctor optimum of 8.5 %. At each accepted the null hypothesis that the mean difference is due to
moisture level, measurements were taken at four compaction chance, using an alpha of 0.05. Therefore, there is no statisti-
levels. At each compaction level, there were four test locations cally significant difference between the two sets of results. The
and at each test location four readings were taken with a standard deviation from the unpaired t-test was 6.45 lbm/ft3.
TransTech SDG and a NDG. This yields 64 data points for each Fig. X2.1 is a plot of the NDG wet density (x-axis) and the
moisture level and a total of 320 data points over all moisture SDG wet density (y-axis). The standard deviation from the
levels. This test is referred to as the “Large Box” test. 1-to-1 line of equality is shown with the dashed lines.
X2.2 Using the “Large Box” data, the wet density and water X2.3.2 Using MATLAB, the Pearson R2 correlation value
content algorithms were developed. The raw SDG frequency between the SDG’s wet unit weight and the NDG’s wet unit
spectra were processed with an electronic model, that is, weight was determined to be 0.83, thus the correlation is
equivalent circuit model of the unit’s measurement board, statistically significant.
which allowed for the generation of the soil’s measured X2.3.3 Figs. X2.2 and X2.3 show a comparison of the
resistance and susceptance versus frequency. A correlation absolute values of wet unit weight and the standard deviation
study was completed in which the measured resistance was of the readings of wet unit weight for the SDG and NDG at
mapped to the samples’ known volumetric water. The control each of the four compaction levels for the five moisture levels
volumetric water was determined from soil samples that were in the “Large Box” testing. The absolute value of wet unit
oven dried to obtain the gravimetric water and the control wet weight is the average of the 16 measurements taken at each
density. Also, a correlation study was completed in which the compaction level.
measured susceptance was mapped to the sample’s known wet
density. The control wet density was determined from the X2.4 Water Content Results
NDG. Using these relationships, two linear equations were X2.4.1 Control Water Content:
developed, one for volumetric water and the second for wet X2.4.1.1 The control water content was determined from
density as described in Appendix X1. While the SDG displays soil samples that were oven dried to obtain the gravimetric
the water content, the unit measures volumetric water. water content. On each of the five test days, different gravi-
NOTE X2.1—The reliability of the SDG improved when multiple metric water content was desired. The average water content
frequencies, a spectrographic approach, were used. Therefore, the spec-
trographic approach was used such that the slopes of the resistance and that is reported was determined by eight soil samples. Four soil
susceptance over the corresponding frequency region were calculated and samples were taken from the compaction area before the day’s
used for the correlations and subsequent algorithms. testing began and four soil samples were taken from the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
11
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. X2.1 NDG Wet Unit Weight versus SDG Wet Unit Weight

FIG. X2.2 The SDG and NDG Wet Unit Weight Averaged at Each Compaction Level (4) for Each Water Content Level (5)

TABLE X2.1 Average Water Content (Control) and Standard

Deviation
compaction area after the day’s testing finished. The average
water contents and their standard deviations are reported in the Average Water Content Standard Deviation
Test Day
(%) (%)
Table X2.1.
1 4.58 0.21
X2.4.2 Water Content Results for SDG: 2 5.37 0.20
3 6.64 0.22
X2.4.2.1 Using MATLAB, an unpaired t-test was completed 4 7.60 0.44
using the control water content, that is, oven dry results, and 5 9.42 0.86
the calculated SDG water content. The standard deviation from
the unpaired t-test was 1.67 %. Fig. X2.4 is a plot of the control
water content (Table X2.1) (X-axis) and the SDG water content
(Y-axis). The standard deviation from the 1-to-1 line of X2.4.2.2 Using MATLAB, the Pearson R2 correlation value
equality is shown with the dashed lines. between the SDG’s water content and the Control water

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
12
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. X2.3 The Standard Deviation of the SDG and NDG Wet Unit Weight at Each Compaction Level (4) for Each Water Content Level (5)

FIG. X2.4 SDG Water Content (%) versus Control Water Content (%) Using Each Day’s Average

content was determined to be 0.54, thus the correlation is X2.5 Dry Unit Weight Results
statistically significant.
X2.5.1 Control Dry Unit Weight:
X2.4.3 Water Content Results for NDG: X2.5.1.1 In making a comparison of the dry densities of the
X2.4.3.1 Using MATLAB, an unpaired test was completed
SDG and NDG, a control dry unit weight is developed based
using the control water content, that is, oven dry results, and
on the measurements of the two gauges and the oven dry water
the measured NDG water content. The standard deviation from
content (Table X2.1). The use of the average of the gauges wet
the unpaired t-test was 1.86%. Fig. X2.5 is a plot of the control
water content (X-axis) and the NDG water content (Y-axis). unit weight measurement is an attempt to accommodate the
The standard deviation from the 1-to-1 line of equality is measurement variations in the gauges as noted above. The
shown with the dashed lines. control dry unit weight is used for comparison to both the SDG
X2.4.3.2 Using MATLAB, the Pearson’s R2 correlation dry unit weight and the NDG dry unit weight. The calculation
value between the NDG’s water content and the Control water for the control dry unit weight is given by the following
content was determined to be 0.89, thus the correlation is relation:
statistically significant.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
13
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. X2.5 NDG Water Content versus Oven Dry Water Content Results Using Each Day’s Average

0.5 ~ NDG WD 1SDG WD ! The standard deviation from the 1-to-1 line of equality is
Control DD 5 (X2.1)
S 11
OvenDry WC
100 D shown with the dashed lines.
X2.5.2.2 Using MATLAB, the Pearson’s R2 correlation
X2.5.2 SDG versus Control: value between the SDG’s dry unit weight and the control dry
X2.5.2.1 Using MATLAB, an unpaired t-test was completed unit weight was determined to be 0.87, thus the correlation is
using the SDG dry unit weight and the control dry unit weight, statistically significant.
that is, above equation. The standard deviation from the X2.5.3 NDG versus Control:
unpaired t-test was 4.84 lbf/ft3. Fig. X2.6 is a plot of the control X2.5.3.1 Using MATLAB, an unpaired t-test was completed
dry unit weight (X-axis) and the SDG dry unit weight (Y-axis). using the NDG dry unit weight and the control dry unit weight,

FIG. X2.6 SDG Dry Unit Weight versus Control Dry Unit Weight

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
14
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
that is, above equation. The standard deviation from the X2.6.2 The proctor test results: max dry unit weight =
unpaired t-test was 4.88 lbf/ft3. Fig. X2.7 is a plot of the control 137.27 lbf/ft3, optimum water content = 8.5 %.
dry unit weight (X-axis) and the NDG dry unit weight (Y-axis). X2.6.3 Using the three curve fits of each data set, the
The standard deviation from the 1-to-1 line of equality is approximate peaks of each fit are:
shown with the dashed lines.
Control: maximum dry unit weight = 130.41 lbf/ft3, optimum water content =
X2.5.3.2 Using MATLAB, the Pearson’s R2 correlation 8.8 %
value between the NDG’s dry unit weight and the control dry NDG: maximum dry unit weight = 130.48 lbf/ft3, optimum water content = 10.9
unit weight was determined to be 0.91, thus the correlation is %
SDG: maximum dry unit weight = 128.14 lbf/ft3, optimum water content = 8.0
statistically significant. %
X2.5.4 SDG versus NDG Dry Unit Weight: X2.6.4 The control, NDG and SDG all have lower max dry
X2.5.4.1 Using MATLAB, an unpaired t-test was completed densities than the proctor test max dry unit weight due to the
using the NDG dry unit weight and the SDG dry unit weight fact that the electric plate compactor that was used was limited
measurements. The test accepted the null hypothesis that the in its ability to provide sufficient compaction. The dry unit
mean difference is due to chance, using an alpha of 0.05. weight standard deviation between the SDG and NDG was
Therefore, there is no statistically significant difference be- calculated to be 5.12 lbf/ft3, based on the unpaired t-test
tween the two sets of results. The standard deviation from the comparison between the NDG and SDG dry unit weight.
unpaired t-test was 5.12 lbf/ft3. Fig. X2.8 is a plot of the NDG Applying this standard deviation to the max dry densities
dry unit weight (X-axis) and the SDG dry unit weight (Y-axis). above, the SDG (128.14 lbf/ft3) and NDG (130.41 lbf/ft3) are
The standard deviation from the 1-to-1 line of equality is statistically the same.
shown with the dashed lines.
X2.5.4.2 Using MATLAB, the Pearson’s R2 correlation X2.7 Conclusion
value between the SDG’s dry unit weight and the NDG’s dry X2.7.1 SDG versus Standard:
unit weight was determined to be 0.69, thus the correlation is X2.7.1.1 The SDG and NDG wet unit weight unpaired t-test
statistically significant. resulted in the acceptance of the null hypothesis that the mean
difference is due to chance, using an alpha of 0.05. Therefore,
X2.6 Dry Unit Weight versus Water Content there is no statistically significant difference between the SDG
X2.6.1 Figs. X2.9-X2.11 are the dry unit weight versus and NDG wet unit weight results. The Pearson’s R2 correlation
water content for the control, NDG and SDG. The control dry value between the two units was determined to be 0.83.
unit weight (y-axis) was calculated using the average of the Therefore, the correlation is statistically significant.
SDG and NDG wet densities and control water content (Table X2.7.1.2 The Pearson’s R2 correlation value between the
X2.1). The R2 values of the second order fits for the dry unit SDG and the oven dry was determined to be 0.54. Therefore,
weight versus water content data were 0.22 for the control, the correlation is statistically significant. Additional work is
0.24 for the NDG, and 0.04 for the SDG. This indicates a lack needed to improve the accuracy of the SDG’s water content
of statistically significant correlation. calculation.

FIG. X2.7 NDG Dry Unit Weight versus Control Dry Unit Weight

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
15
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. X2.8 SDG Dry Unit Weight versus NDG Dry Unit Weight

FIG. X2.9 Control Dry Unit Weight versus Control Moisture (Table X2.1)

X2.7.1.3 The Pearson’s R2 correlation value between the X2.7.2.1 The Pearson’s R2 correlation value between the
SDG and the control dry unit weight was determined to be NDG water content and the oven dry water content was
0.87. Therefore, the correlation is statistically significant. determined to be 0.89. Therefore, the correlation is statistically
X2.7.1.4 The SDG and NDG dry unit weight unpaired t-test significant. The error of the NDG water content appears to be
resulted in the acceptance of the null hypothesis that the mean an offset, which may explain why the result of the unpaired
difference is due to chance, using an alpha of 0.05. Therefore, t-test says the two measurements (NDG and oven dry) are not
there is no statistically significant difference between the SDG the same, yet the result of the correlation is high.
and NDG dry unit weight results. The Pearson’s R2 correlation X2.7.2.2 The Pearson’s R2 correlation value between the
value between the two units was determined to be 0.69. NDG dry unit weight and the control dry unit weight was
Therefore, the correlation is statistically significant. determined to be 0.91. Therefore, the correlation is statistically
X2.7.2 NDG versus Standard: significant. Since the dominating factor of the dry unit weight

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
16
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13

FIG. X2.10 NDG Dry Unit Weight versus NDG Moisture

FIG. X2.11 SDG Dry Unit Weight versus SDG Moisture

calculation for low water contents is wet unit weight, the high average water content value for the SDG was 7.3 % with a
correlation is expected. standard deviation of 1.02 % and the NDG had an average
X2.7.3 General: water content value of 7.7 % with a standard deviation of 0.52
X2.7.3.1 In order to give a quick snapshot of the data %. The oven dry results had an average water content value of
presented, we can compare the average standard deviation 6.7 % with a standard deviation of 0.4 %. The standard
versus the average value of the results for each area tested with deviation can be interpreted as a tolerance or uncertainty. Thus
both the SDG and the NDG. The average wet unit weight value we can say that, on the average, the wet unit weight results
for the SDG was 136.48 lbf/ft3 with a standard deviation of obtained by the SDG are accurate to within 2.0 %, where the
2.74 lbf/ft3. For the NDG, the average wet unit weight value NDG results have a tolerance of about 1.5 %. The percentage
was 136.42 lbf/ft3 with a standard deviation of 2.00 lbf/ft3. The of uncertainty was calculated using the average standard

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
17
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D7830/D7830M − 13
deviation divided by the average wet unit weight result. about 5.3 %. However, a water content device should be
Clearly, they are both very close, which is reflected in the properly compared to an oven dry test for accuracy. In this
unpaired t-test that was performed. The water content compari- case, (and using the same methodology for uncertainty) the
son of percentage of uncertainty is not as good but are easily SDG result is within 17.6 % of the oven dry result, while the
within an order of magnitude of each other. The water content NDG result was within 15.2 % of the oven dry result. This
results obtained by the SDG and NDG are accurate to within illustrates that for actual water content assessment, they per-
14.2 % and 6.1 %, respectively, relative to the average of the form about the same.
oven dry results where the oven dry results have a tolerance of

REFERENCES

(1) Barker, R., “Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four- (4) Drnevich, V. P., Siddiqui, S. I., Lovell, J., and Yi, Q., “Water Content
electrode arrays,” Geophysics, Vol 54, No. 8, 1989, pp. 1031–1037. and Density of Soil Insitu by the Purdue TDR Method,” Proceedings
(2) Roy, A., and Apparao, A., “Depth of Investigation in Direct Current of the TDR2001 International Conference at Northwestern University,
Methods,” GeoPhysics, Vol 36, No. 5, 1971, pp. 943–959. Evanston, Illinois, September 5-7, 2001.
(3) Schlumberger, C., Schlumberger, M., “Depth of Investigation Attain- (5) Anderson, D. M., Ehni, W. J., “Electrical Geophysical Methods and
able by Potential methods of Electrical Exploration,” AIME Trans. Apparatus for Determining the In-Situ Density of Porous Materials,”
Geophys. Prosp., Vol 97, 1932, pp. 127–133. US Patent 5,861,751, 1999.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or [email protected] (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the ASTM website (www.astm.org/
COPYRIGHT/).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 17 02:01:37 EDT 2014
18
Downloaded/printed by
Christopher Maud (FCF Minerals) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.