Download - 14.330 Soil Compaction - Faculty Server Contactfaculty.uml.edu/.../14.330/documents/14.3302013SoilCompaction.pdfSoil Compaction LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS ... T-99 5.5 12 12.4 Modified

of 38Revised 02/2013

14.330 SOIL MECHANICSSoil Compaction

SOIL COMPACTION BASICS

Courtesy of http://www.extension.umn.edu

Soil Compaction:Densification of soil by

the removal of air.

Figure courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip.



WHY COMPACT SOILS?




Volume (V)Weight (W) γ

Conceptual(Figure 4.1. Das FGE (2005))

MOIST UNIT WEIGHT () VS.MOISTURE CONTENT (w)

Silty Clay (LL=37, PI =14) Example(from Johnson and Sallberg 1960, taken

from TRB State of the Art Report 8, 1990)



LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. PROCTORS)

Typical Proctor Test Equipment(Figure courtesy of test-llc.com)

6 inchMold

4 inch Mold

Ejector

Modified Hammer

Standard Hammer

Soil Plug

Soil Plug

Scale



TestASTM/

AASHTO

HammerWeight

(lb)

Hammer Drop(in)

Compaction Effort

(kip-ft/ft3)Standard(SCDOT)

D698T-99

5.5 12 12.4

ModifiedD1557T-180

10 18 56

LABORATORY COMPACTIONTEST SUMMARY



TestSTANDARD

ASTM D698/AASHTO T-99MODIFIED

ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180

Method A B C A B C

Material≤ 20%

Retained by #4 Sieve

>20% Retained on

#4≤ 20%

Retained by 3/8 in Sieve

>20% Retained on

3/8 in< 30%


≤ 20% Retained by

#4 Sieve

>20% Retained on

#4≤ 20%


>20% Retained on

3/8 in< 30%


Use Soil Passing Sieve #4 3/8 in ¾ in #4 3/8 in ¾ in

Mold Dia. (in) 4 4 6 4 4 6

No. of Layers 3 3 3 5 5 5

No. Blows/Layer 25 25 56 25 25 56

LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY




LABORATORY COMPACTIONTEST SUMMARY



Automated ProctorEquipment

(Figure courtesy of Humboldt)

Manual Proctor Test(“What you WILL be doing”)

(Figure courtesy of westest.net)

LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. PROCTORS)



wγ γd

1

From Soil Composition

notes:

Optimum Moisture Content OMC = 11.5%

Maximum DryDensity

MDD or d,max = 112.2 pcf

SP-SM% Fines = 6%

Zero Air Voids(ZAV) LineGs = 2.6



s

w

s

wswszav

GwwG

γGe

G γ 111

Dry Unit Weight (d) (i.e. no water):

zav = Zero Air Void Unit Weight:

wγ

Volume (V))Solids (WWeight of γ s

d

1

ZERO AIR VOIDS LINE



1. Soil TypeGrain Size DistributionShape of Soil GrainsSpecific Gravity of Soil Solids

2. Effect of Compaction EffortMore Energy – Greater Compaction

FACTORS AFFECTING SOILCOMPACTION



Lee and Suedkamp (1972)

A. Single Peak(Most Soils)

B. 1 ½ PeakCohesive Soils LL<30

C. Double PeakCohesive Soils LL<30

orCohesive Soils LL>70

D. No Definitive PeakUncommonCohesive Soils LL>70after Figure 4.5. Das FGE (2005)

Moisture Content w

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght

d

ABC

D

TYPES OFCOMPACTION CURVES



Figure 4.6. Das FGE (2005).

In general:

Compaction Energy = d,max

Compaction Energy = OMC

EFFECT OFCOMPACTION ENERGY



EFFECT OF COMPACTION ONCOHESIVE SOILS


OMC

Wet SideDry Side

Dry Side ParticleStructureFlocculent

Wet Side Particle

StructureDispersed




Hydraulic Conductivity (k):Measure of how water flows through soils

In General:

Increasing w = Decreasing kUntil ~ OMC, then increasing whas no significant affect on k

EFFECT OFCOMPACTION ONCOHESIVE SOILS




Unconfined Compression Strength (qu) :Measure of soil strength

In General:

Increasing w = Decreasing qu

Related to soil structure:Dry side – FlocculentWet Side – Dispersed

EFFECT OFCOMPACTION ONCOHESIVE SOILS



FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT4 Common Types:

1. Smooth Drum Roller2. Pneumatic Rubber Tired Roller3. Sheepsfoot Roller (Tamping Foot)4. Vibratory Roller (can be 1-3) Smooth Drum

Pneumatic Rubber Tired

Sheepsfoot Vibratory Drum



Photographs courtesy of:

myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com

http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/boulanger/

Holtz and Kovacs (1981)

FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT



FineGrained

SoilsCourseGrained

Soils

CourseGrained

Soils




from Holtz and Kovacs (1981)




Relative Compaction (R or C.R.):

5 Common Field Test Methods:1. Sand Cone (ASTM D1556)2. Rubber Balloon Method (D2167)3. Nuclear Density (ASTM D2922)4. Time Domain Reflectometry (D6780)5. Shelby Tube (not commonly used)

100(%)max,

)( d

fieldd R

FIELD COMPACTION TESTING



METHOD

SAND CONE(ASTM D1556)

BALLOON(ASTM D2167)

NUCLEAR(ASTM D2922 &ASTM D3017)

TDR(ASTM D6780)

Advantages • Large Sample• Accurate

• Large Sample• Direct Reading

Obtained• Open graded

material

• Fast• Easy to re-perform• More Tests

• Fast• Easy to re-perform• More Tests

Disadvantages• Time consuming• Large area

required

• Slow• Balloon breakage• Awkward

• No sample• Radiation• Moisture suspect

• Under research

Errors• Void under plate• Sand bulking• Sand compacted• Soil pumping

• Surface not level• Soil pumping• Void under plate

• Miscalibration• Rocks in path• Surface prep req.• Backscatter

• Under Research

after Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip.Photographs courtesy of Durham Geo/Slope Indicator and myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com.




Sand Cone Method(D1556-07)

F 13

Balloon Method(D2167-08)

Figures courtesy of Soil Compaction: A Basic Handbook by MultiQuip and TRB State of the Art Report 8, 1990.

Nuclear Method(D2922-05 & D3017-05)




Reference City of Lynchburg

SCDOTQC

SCDOTQA

USBR Earth

Manual

NAVFAC DM7.02 FM 5-410

Year 2004 1996 1996 1998 1986 1997

Roads 1 per liftper 300 LF

1 per liftper 500 LF



Buildings or Structures

1 per liftper 5000 SF

Airfields 1 per liftper 250 LF

EmbankmentMass Earthwork


1 per liftper 2500 LF 2000 CY 500 CY

Canal/Reservoir Linings 1000 CY 500-1,000 CY

Trenches &Around Structures

1 per liftper 300 LF 200 CY 200-300 CY 1 per lift

per 50 LF

Parking Areas 1 per liftper 10000 SF

1 per liftper 250 SY

Misc.1 per areas of

doubtful compaction

1 per areas of doubtful

compaction

FIELD COMPACTION: TEST FREQUENCY



State DOTs Maximum LiftHeight

Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma

Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift before compaction

Connecticut, Kentucky Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift after compaction

Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin


Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, Wyoming


New York Depends on Soil & Compaction Equipment

After Hoppe (1999), Lenke (2006), and Kim et al. (2009).

FIELD COMPACTION: LEFT HEIGHTS



FIELD COMPACTION: ONE POINT PROCTORSC-T-29: Standard Method of Test for Field Determination of

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content of Soils by the One-Point Method

General Procedure:• Run one (1) Proctor Test DRY

of OMC.• Plot Test on Family of Curves• Match to a specific curve:

Take MDD and OMC Values from Table.

Family of Curves



USCSSym.

CompactionEquipment

d,maxD698(lb/ft3)

Evaluation for Use as FillCompression & Expansion Embankment Subgrade Base Course

GWRubber TiredSmooth Drum

Vibratory Roller125 – 135 Almost

None Very Stable Excellent Good

GPRubber TiredSmooth Drum

Vibratory Roller115 – 125 Almost

NoneReasonably

StableExcellent to

Good Poor to Fair

GM Rubber TiredSheepsfoot

120 – 135 Slight Reasonably Stable

Excellent to Good Fair to Poor

GC Rubber TiredSheepsfoot

115 - 130 Slight Reasonably Stable Good Good to

Fair

COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS & RATINGS: USCS SOILS

after U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (now ERDC). (1960). “The Unified Soil Classification System,” Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vicksburg, MS.



USCSSym.

CompactionEquipment

d,maxD698(lb/ft3)


SW Rubber TiredVibratory Roller

110-130 Almost None Very Stable Good Fair to Poor

SP Rubber TiredVibratory Roller

100-120 Almost None

Reasonable stable when

dense

Good to Fair Poor

SM Rubber TiredSheepsfoot

110-125 SlightReasonable stable when

dense

Good to Fair Poor

SC Rubber TiredSheepsfoot

105-125 Slight to Medium

Reasonable stable

Good to Fair Fair to Poor






USCSSym.

CompactionEquipment

d,maxD698(lb/ft3)


ML Rubber TiredSheepsfoot

95-120 Slight to Medium Poor Stability Fair to Poor Not

Suitable

CL SheepsfootRubber Tired

95-120 Medium Good Stability Fair to Poor Not Suitable

MH SheepsfootRubber Tired

70-95 HighPoor StabilityShould not be

usedPoor Not

Suitable

CH Sheepsfoot 80-105 Very high Fair Stability Poor to Very Poor

Not Suitable




DYNAMIC COMPACTION

US44 ExpansionCarver, MA.Figure 1. FHWA-SA-95-037.

Figure courtesy of www.betterground.com



after Figure 5 (FHWA-SA-95-037).

DYNAMIC COMPACTION



DYNAMIC COMPACTION: US 44



(from Hajduk et al., 2004)

DYNAMIC COMPACTION: US 44



Figure 4.18. Das FGE (2005) (after Brown, 1977).Photograph courtesy of http://www.vibroflotation.com

VIBROFLOTATION



Figure 4.19. Das FGE (2005) (after Brown, 1977).

VIBROFLOTATION




VIBROFLOTATIONPROBE SPACING

VIBROFLOTATIONEFFECTIVE GRAIN

SIZEDISTRIBUTIONS




Figure courtesy of www.groundimprovement.ch.

COMPACTION: ASSOCIATED COSTS

Download - 14.330 Soil Compaction - Faculty Server Contactfaculty.uml.edu/.../14.330/documents/14.3302013SoilCompaction.pdfSoil Compaction LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS ... T-99 5.5 12 12.4 Modified

Top Related