Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UserName8372861 t1_iwetw2k wrote

Sounds interesting, but you’re not getting away from using a nuclear densitometer for testing the actual compaction. I could see using this for adjusting the unit’s speed though.


Spinaccio t1_iwf06ha wrote

If it can accurately predict failure points while rolling, even guessing, it could save billions in repairs and insurance claims. Redo a potential soft spot, then bring in the nuke. Right now the standards I’ve seen for compaction testing leave potential holes like Swiss cheese. More testing is good.


mbod t1_iwk3ulv wrote

What's the use in predicting a fail point in the road base gravel when you pave in June, and then the seasons, weather, temperature, ground water, frost level, humidity, traffic variations and countless other variables come into play?

With this tech you might be able to prevent 0.01% of deficiencies.


Spinaccio t1_iwnvopv wrote

Don’t know where you get 0.01%. Current QC requirements in the US that I work with call for roll testing, visually observing a heavy object rolling over the substrate, hoping to see any soft spots in the substrate, and Nuclear densitometer testing which is highly localized and in my experience used to show an average compaction over an area. Adding testing that is more widespread, even without 100% accuracy, gives quality control an additional tool to find soft spots in a roadbed before it is paved over.