unmar analysis fu ield waterways compaction …
TRANSCRIPT
AD-All? 835 ARMY ENGIPNCR WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICMSSURtS-ET IG8ANALYSIS FU IELD COMPACTION DATA. DEMRAY DAM. CADO RIVER, ARK--ETC(Uw
UNMAR 02 W ESTROHM. V NTORREYUNCLASSIFIED WES/MP/ft-62-A!hh hh hh lmh7m1hhohh2II hhh7hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhMEN MENOhMNEENhhMMhhhMhhEhEuEhmhhhhhhhhhmh,
* MISCELLANEOUS PAPER GL-62-4
*ANALYSIS OF FIELD COMPACTION DATA,DEGRAY DAM, CADDO RIVER, ARKANSAS
byWilliam E. Strohm, Jr.
Victor H. Torrey III
Geotechnical LaboratoryU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
( P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 gMarch 1~ WJUL 2 99 0
Final Report pApproved For Public Mele, DMstrbutioUlmie
Poe ft Offfte, Chief of Mmilneems U. S. ArmyWwshngton, D. C. 2064
ui se CWIS 311ITS and CW1S 31200
88 07 29 001
DOW" this few aim me 0 L D o VA Io.aIt 9. iree.,gisS .
The findings In this report oe not to be constr ed as an officialDopelwuet of the Amy position unless so designated.
by other mo+wited documents.
Tke esmms of tis r W ws rt to be used foradva, sim, pubicatlem, r piamtlo puwpose .Oeftln of Wed* nones does not cOmtikute enofflii andsrmet or approval of A*o se of
em . , Orcl icts.
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When, Date Bnter**
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM
1REPORT NDER 2.GOVT ACCESSIr No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
Miscellaneous Paper GL-82-4 -i J4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED
ANALYSIS OF FIELD COMPACTION DATA, DeGRAY DAM, Final reportCADDO RIVER, ARKANSAS 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(a) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMUECRe)
William E. Strohm, Jr.Victor H. Torrey III
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT. TASK
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
Geotechnical Laboratory CWIS 31173 andP. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 CWIS 3120911. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army March 1982Washington, D. C. 20314 IS. NUMBER OF PAGES
10214. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(I Efierutnt ftc Controllin Offlo) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
Unclassified
1So. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
10. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Of@ Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
t7. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebstract entered in Blook 30. It different ftrm RePort)
1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port RoyalRoad, Springfield, Va. 22151.
I . KEY WORDS (Contnule an ree. eside If necemm7 and Idefrtlfy biy block number)
Caddo Lake (Ark.) EmbankmentsDeGray Dam (Ark.) Soil stabilizationEarth dams
IS, A "WACT (aum am rse a" N nowroemr a tilatt irOr lock tuber)This report presents a review of the materials, specifications, proce-
dures, equipment, and testing pertinent to construction and compaction controlof the earth-fill embankment of DeGray Dam, Caddo River, Arkansas, constructedby the U. S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg. This report includes summationand analyses of the compaction control data submitted by the district to theU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
I (Continued)DD 143 MTIoW OFI NOV 45 IS mOETR
DO IS n Unclassified
SECUmI"TT CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Ma Data lntre0
Unclassified$1CU ITY CL ASIFICATION OP THIS PAGK(Ub.. Doiin,
20. ABSTRACT (Continued).
Statistical analyses are presented on the variation of fill water contentfrom laboratory optimum water content and the variation of fill dry density fromlaboratory maximum dry density. These analyses are based on results of fielddensity sampling in each major zone of the embankment. The overall compactioncontrol achieved for each major embankment zone is indicated by frequencyhistograms, cumulative frequency distributions, and various statisticalparameters for variation of both water content and density.
"". C TAd tiU~al' Quuoed L-i
J'ti f lea% ior
_D~strbution/
Avallabtilt? CosS
-- ,AvSll and/or
Di t SPCCial
UnclassifiedSIECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(Vl..., Data gte.,.i
PREFACE
The study reported herein was authorized by letter from the Office,
Chief of Engineers (DAEN-CWE-S), dated 7 December 1967, subject: Sum-
maries of Field Compaction Control Data on Earth and Rockfill Dams. The
study was accomplished under CWIS 31173, "Special Studies for Civil
Works Soils Problems," and CWIS 31209, "Strength-Deformation Properties
of Earth-Rock Mixtures."
This investigation was conducted by the U. S. Army Engineer Water-
ways Experiment Station (WES) under the general direction of Messrs.
James P. Sale and Richard G. Ahlvin, former Chiefs of the Geotechnical
Laboratory (GL), Dr. William F. Marcuson III, Chief, GL, and Mr. Clifford
L. McAnear, Chief, Soil Mechanics Division (SMD), GL. Principal engi-
neers conducting the investigation and analyzing results were Messrs.
William E. Strohm, Jr., Engineering Geology and Rock Mechanics Division,
GL, and Victor H. Torrey III and Yu-Shih Jeng, SMD, GL. This report was
prepared by Messrs. Strohm and Torrey.Directors of WES during preparation and publication of this
report were BG Ernest D. Peixotto, COL George H. Hilt, COL John L.
Cannon, COL Nelson P. Conover, and COL Tilford C. Creel, CE. Technical
Director was Mr. Fred R. Brown.
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ............... .............................. 1
CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ........... ...................... 3
PART I: INTRODUCTION ........... ....................... 4
Background ............ ......................... 4Purpose and Scope .......... ...................... 4
PART II: CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM AND DIKE ...... ............ 5
Description of Site and Earth Structures ..... .......... 5Field Data on Fill Materials ...... ................ . 11Compaction Requirements and Procedures ... ........... ... 15Field Sampling and Testing ...... ................. ... 20Field Control of Core and Shell Materials ... .......... .. 23Field Control of Pervious Drainage Materials .. ........ 30
PART III: FIELD COMPACTION RESULTS AND ANALYSES .. ......... . 33
Correction of Field Control Data on Fill ContainingPlus 1-in. Material ........ .................... . 33
Dam Embankment, Core ........ .................... 37Dam Embankment, Upstream Shell ..... ............... . 39Dam Embankment, Downstream Shell ..... .............. 41Dike Core (First Specification) ..... ............. .. 43Dike Core (Second Specification) ..... .............. .. 45Dike Shell, Landside ....... ................... .... 47Dike Shell, Lakeside ........ .................... .. 49Dike, Unzoned ......... ........................ ... 49Dam, Upstream Drainage Layer ...... ................ ... 51Dam, Downstream Drainage Zones ..... ............... ... 53Dike Drainage Zones ........ ..................... ... 54Summary of Compaction Results ...... ................ ... 57
PART IV: EVALUATION OF ,OMPACTION CONTROL PROCEDURES ........ ... 63
Core and Shell Materials ....... .................. ... 63Drainage Zone Materials ....... ................... ... 67
PART V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... ................. 69
Water Content and Compaction Results, Core and ShellMaterials ........ ......................... 69
Compaction Results, Drainage Materials ........... 70
REFERENCES ............ ............................ ... 72
TABLES 1-6
PLATES 1-24
2
CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be con-
verted to metric (SI) units as follows:
Multiply By To Obtain
cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic metres
feet 0.3048 metres
inches 2.54 centimetres
miles 1.609344 kilometres
pounds (mass) per cubic foot 16.0185 kilograms per cubic metre
tons (2000 ib, mass) 907.1847 kilograms
3
ANALYSIS OF FIELD COMPACTION DATA, DeGRAY DAM,
CADDO RIVER, ARKANSAS
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Background
1. This report is the third of a series of reports prepared on
analyses of field compaction control data obtained on Corps of Engineers
(CE) earth- and rock-fill dams. Data were collected and analyzed from a
number of dams to examine results of field compaction and variations in
field compaction data. As part of this effort, statistical analyses
were made of the variation of water content and percent compaction of
the fill material of several dams recently completed. The overall
objectives of the study were to improve (a) design procedures, (b) speci-
fications and control requirements, and (c) field construction control.
Purpose and Scope
2. The purposes of this study were to determine the feasibility of
(a) establishing general ranges for thg variations of in-place water
contents and percent compaction for the fill materials used and
(b) developing interrelations between compaction data and classification
data (such as Atterberg limits) for the purpose of simplifying and im-
proving correlation of field and laboratory compaction data.
3. Statistical analyses were made of the field compaction control
data for DeGray Dam, an earth-fill dam designed and constructed by the
U. S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg. The embankment materials, the
zompaction control methods, the procedures used in the analyses of field
data, and the results obtained are discussed in the remainder of the
report.
4
PART II: CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM AND DIKE
Description of the Site and Earth Structures
Plan and location
4. The general plan of DeGray Dam is shown in Figure 1. The dam-
site is located in the Athens Piedmont Plateau of the Quachita Mountain
Region on the Caddo River in northern Clark County, Arkansas, approxi-
mately 8 miles* above its confluence with the Ouachita River. The proj-
ect consists of the main earth-fill dam embankment with a maximum height
of 243 ft and a length of approximately 3400 ft, an earth-fill dike em-
bankment with a maximum height of 110 ft and a length of approximately
2-1/2 miles, a small earth-fill reregulating dam located downstream of
the main dam, a power plant located riverward of the outlet works, an
uncontrolled spillway, and associated outlet works (U. S. Army Engineer
District, Vicksburg 1962, 1963, 1972). Construction was started in
January 1964 and completed April 1971.
Geology
5. The main dam is in a rock-walled gorge about 500 ft wide at
the bottom with valley walls rising within a short distance to 300 ft
above the floodplain. The dam is founded on the Jackfork formation of
Mississippian age, having alternating thin to moderately thick strata
of sandstone and shale. The sandstone is fine- to coarse-grained, hard,
occasionally conglomeritic, quartzitic, and moderately to lightly
jointed. The shale is gray to black, hard, fissile, and moderately to
lightly jointed. Faulting and fracturing of the foundation materials is
common throughout the area.
Main dam
6. A typical dam section in the valley is shown in Figure 2. The
dam embankment consists of a central impervious core, upstream and down-
stream shells of more pervious sandy and gravelly material, a vertical
* A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measure-
ment to metric (SI) units is presented on page 3.
5
sand drain and a horizontal sand and gravel drain. Shell material was
to consist of any material from designated borrow areas except shale or
shaley clays, and was to be placed so as to grade the more pervious mate-
rial toward the outside of the section. The core was to be composed of
material with about 50 percent finer than the No. 200 sieve (U. S. Army
Engineer District, Vicksburg 1964). Because of the low percentage of
sand in the natural deposits, the design of the various filters was such
as to incorporate the maximum practicable quantity of gravel. The 10-
ft-wide, vertical sand drain was located immediately downstream of the
core and was connected to the 5-ft-thick horizontal sand and gravel
drainage layers placed on the rock foundation. For 500 ft in the valley
below el 220, the horizontal drain consisted on 1 ft of sand over 4 ft
of gravel. Elsewhere the horizontal drain consisted of a single 5-ft
sand and gravel layer except that no drain was provided above el 423.
A 5-ft-thick horizontal sand and gravel blanket was placed on the rock
foundation beneath that portion of the upstream shell constructed during
the first construction season. The upstream slope was protected with
24 in. of riprap, and the downstream slope was protected with 12 in. of
riprap. A rock toe was provided on the downstream slope.
Dike
7. A typical dike section is shown in Figure 3. The design of
the dike section is similar to that of the main dam except that the
slopes are somewhat steeper, the landside slope is protected by sod,
and no filter layer was placed beneath the upstream shell. Construction
of the dike was started before the dam.
Borrow sources
8. Impervious core and random shell materials were largely ob-
tained from the borrow areas shown in Figure 1.
a. Borrow area A. Borrow area A, which lay immediately up-stream from the spillway, was used in the construction ofthe dike. The material consisted of Pleistocene Terracesoils ranging from gravelly sandy clay (CH) to clayeygravel (GC). Since the terrace materials were somewhatheterogeneous, composite samples were selected to repre-sent the various possible gradation ranges during the de-sign and investigation stage. Generally, two groups of
6
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* ~ BqRROW
vaf~ N 0 N
~~~~~~A RELOCATION~N 0 *~SA
RO A
D,, UdSWLU * /PLLA
Z,
Fiue1 eealpa
I O~INOFAWNA
Uo S ARMY
-LiEL
arts
REUKI I t~
Id -4
\L/'~~~v~~0\ )4 )'A0RGUAIN AI
iI (NOOV uORCN AscitREA
"II">', 3O
/C
BORINGBORROWI
~C00E9RO0 E~
4 WaUEB
Figure 1. General plan
f
Notes:
I Typical abutment sections differed from valley sectionsessentially as follows: (a) No sand and gravel filter onrock foundation beneath upstream shell and (b) downstreamhorizontal drain consisted of 5 ft of sand and gravelinstead of 1 ft sand on 4 ft gravel.
2 Upstream sand and gravel filter drain installed only fromapproximately sta 4+00 to 9+00 as a filter and fordrainage of rock foundation to facilitate constructionof first season section.
A.0~E -4106-9em No MID IM,
~~,...~WI .. I.lE 'CC'I$0E*LF 2 l cton, of dam (station 4 t9
Figure 2. Valley section of dam (station 4+00 to 9+00)
I
Notes:
1 Dike section shown is typical for sta 15+50 to 73+00
and sta 118+10 to 141+00 except that (a) core widthwas greater between sta 18+30 and 69+70 and (b) no
core zone was provided at ends of the two reaches whenembankment heights were less than 41 to 48 ft.
2 Embankment sections for the remainder of the dike,primarily between sta 73+00 and 118+10 were lessthan 43 ft in height and were unzoned.
C1 .. y .. d A
.-. w, AV. W' A.b.S -. ,--,-wL /.- ID J~m4, , ,~ A, h:I)-
------- ---------- ! - - - -F ---------- T ------- -----------
-~ ~.....n~eChO.M -PY..eI, 6,.d .. r , 10' fA*'. h&AP
Figure 3. Typical dike section
d .i , , I .1
material according to their gradation were evident. Onewas a fine-grained group having 50 to 70 percent of thematerial passing the No. 200 sieve. The other was acoarse-grained group having 10 to 30 percent of the mate-
rial passing the No. 200 sieve. Natural water contentsgenerally were on the wet side of optimum, and drying wasrequired for use in the fill areas.
b. Borrow area B and its extension. Borrow area B and its ex-tension B-ext were located about 2 miles southeast of themain damsite. Materials from this location consisted ofclayey sandy gravel (GC), clayey sand (SC), sandy clay (CL),and occasional pockets of sandy silt (SM), clay (CH andCL), and silty sand (SP-SM). Maximum gravel size wasabout 3 in. Silty and sandy materials (SM and SP-SM) weremore predominant in area B-ext, which was used with borrowarea A in constructing the dike.
c. Borrow areas C, D, E, and F. Borrow areas C, D, and E werelocated about 2.5 miles downstream of the main dam. Borrowarea F was located about 3 miles west of the main damsite.The materials in these four borrow areas were similar tothose of borrow area B.
d. Pervious borrow. Since suitable borrow areas for filterand drainage materials could not be found in the immediatevicinity of the damsite, these materials were obtainedfrom commercial sources.
Gradations of materials in borrow areas A through F are shown in Fig-
ures 4 and 5 with some Atterberg limits and specific gravity values.
Specified gradations of pervious materials for vertical and horizontal
drains are shown in Figure 6.
Field Data on Fill Materials
9. District field compaction control reports contained results of
field density tests made in the main embankment and dike embankment.
Fill materials were classified visually by field personnel at the time
of the field density tests and were checked by gradation analyses and
Atterberg limit tests performed at the field laboratory. This informa-
tion was entered on the compaction control reports. Gradation analyses
to determine the percentage of plus 1-in. material and percentages pass-
ing the No. 4 sieve and No. 200 sieve were performed on each field
density sample. Atterberg limits tests were performed on as many samples
!1
lI
LLI L- Il
lil 4 51.4!
M I I. .I I
U 11111~~~ []it-H I
GRADATION CLURVES IBM GRDAIO CUV UK -- (ob 4
Fiur 4. Grdion of maeral in baro ara A, , an IX
ILLIIf IM T11I lit I itI
_ __ CRAYV DAM KGA W
GRtADATION CURVIES GRAOTIO CRVES
r LaIII.I.,dala I. Ili
Sir
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDIOMETER
A 4 2 h 14 % 3 16 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 -
1GP - 0m-j
90 G __ 10'9 ___20
-4 +
L -0
20 4~ "A-
AO__ - -60
1000.0 0.0 001 0.0I.0
20SS 14 LOU M#tJMiJ H
Fiue6+pcfe rdto fpevosmtrasfrvria n
hoiona driaelyesi0h dmaddk
IG ........0...
as possible, but were often estimated during times of heavy work load.
Table I summarizes pertinent data on soil type, yardage, number of tests,
compaction procedure, and compaction control reports. The materials used
in each zone are described below:
a. Impervious fill. The impervious fill consisted essen-
tially of gravelly sandy fat clay (CH) and sandy clay (CL)with minor quantities of clayey sand (SC) and clayeygravel (GC). Typical gradation curves of field density
samples for the dam and dike, respectively, are shown inFigures 7 and 8.
b. Shell fill. The shell fill material consisted primarilyof clayey gravel (GC) and silty sand (SM). Typical grada-
tion curves of field density samples for the dam and dike,respectively, are also shown in Figures 7 and 8. Typicalgradations for the unzoned sections of the dike are also
shown in Figure 8.
c. Pervious fill. The required pervious fill materials of
the dam and dike were obtained from three commercial pitsand consisted of gravel (GW), sand and gravel (GW), andsand (SW). The gravel and the sand were used for thehorizontal drainage layers beneath the downstream section
of the dam (below el 220) and dike, and the sand was usedfor the vertical drain in the dam and dike. The sand andgravel mixture was used in the downstream horizontal
drain of the dam above el 220 and beneath the upstreamshell section of the dam constructed during the firstseason. Typical as-placed gradations of the three typesof pervious fill materials are shown in Figure 9.
Compaction Requirements and Procedures
Compaction requirements
10. Specifications for placement water content, desired compacted
densities, and field compaction procedures are summarized in Table 1.
The contract specifications contained requirements for placement water
contents and compaction procedures, but did not stipulate minimum re-
quired densities. Construction of the dike was started first, and a
test fill was made to develop the most suitable compaction procedures.
Provision for additional rolling was included in the contract to ensure
desired compaction of the embankment. The field compaction control
criteria and procedures used in construction are outlined below:
15
I I Ill'i I I wwj 41ILl'i 1111:11 7 MII I I I I I I I I IFAII f TMITS.L! I M 1 T 11 7I IIIIII IXNI 1 1-4- MH 11 1 M[ I I I I I I II IH I I, I 11L 1 -11tu 111 1 1 fill I I I I III N I I I IIII III k I N, I I 'T, I 11 ! ? U I 1111 1 1 111 NI I I III ' x 1 rw I'MI III 1\1 I I , -411111 ISL H H I I fill & I I (if 'NI HI 1 71, 1 1 Irw I I IIH IN I Hf II III I I IL II HI I I x I I i- IIIII I" Till I I fill I I 'k I I IIIN IX NJI i I fil I T
x I I I TS LL 1 11111 till I I I I I IIIIIIII JIM I I I I I Ill N U FHII .1 19111 11111 ]fill I N ill I I I I 1 11111 1 I\ x
T1*.L IIH IIH I If I Iif] V III I If I ItI I I III fir 1 fill I
Ill' i I I H it I I [IrI l [ j . X I I Jil l I I IIf If 11 1 1 -A G ! I
1,1! T 1 DkV
W li I I iIIH: I
00 1i O.V-= i-9 'i j T. h
I ag Is
I IMI
!-,:-2047
I I 1INIl V ; "IIIIIII IIIIII I II I HIM I 1 1 )Hit I II 1 111111 1 1 rMaSUI 1 111111 1 1 111 T1+-1'NLUII117- -1 It, it I 1 1 11 1 IfIlill I If III -AjfmLLL- 4.111 1 111111 \1 11 1 1 1% 42-11 111 11 i ! I --
+ I I 111N il LA 11 1 1 1liflix III I I I IIIL I I I I44-4 .+14+ 1 (fill LI HIM
d il I i 1 1 1 i
-5
one
Figure 7. Typical gradations of materials used in main dam
til I., -" L -4..1 1 Mtl
I i I !! i l . w I II i I ixi
IIH~ ~ ~ ~ m"- I i H1 r 1
Fiur 8.l Tyia grdtin of maeil use in diket ii
III it I j I j ~ t il ) II
U.S SAA 19W 000dG Wd 0 U-& SIADA lOW 50AI fVlloldir
~~~ AAS PLACED GRDAIO LMIS
GRADATION LIMITS4
O-i -flfl00 100
C"M I'aS
a. Core.
(1) The water contents during compaction of the dam fill
were controlled within minus 2.0 to plus 1.0 percent-age points of laboratory optimum water content (U. S.
Army Engineer District, Vicksburg 1964). For thedike, the original specification was modified becauseof borrow area conditions encountered during construc-
tion. Initially, water content limits of minus 2.0to plus 1.5 percentage points were specified, butwere subsequently modified to minus 3.0 to plus 6.0.
(2) Desired minimum percentages of standard maximum dry
density were established but not specified in thecontract documents. The values were 100 percent forthe dam and 98 percent for the dike.
b. Shell.
(1) Water contents during compaction were controlledwithin minus 2.0 to plus 1.0 percentage points ofoptimum water content for the dam and minus 2.0 toplus 1.5 for the dike.
(2) The desired minimum percentage of compaction was setat 100 percent of standard effort maximum dry densityfor the dam and 98 percent for the dike.
c. Pervious fill (vertical sand drain and horizontal sandor gravel drainage layers).
(1) Sand placed in the vertical drain and sand or gravel
placed in the horizontal drainage layers were keptsaturated during compaction to achieve the desiredcompaction.
(2) The desired compaction during initial construction ofthe dike was 70 percent relative density.* This waslater changed to an average relative density of 85 per-
cent to meet the requirements of ETL 1110-2-13, "Com-paction of Cohesionless Fills and Filters." This re-quirement was used for the major portion of thevertical and horizontal drainage materials in thedike and all such materials in the dam.
Placement and compaction
11. Core and shell fill materials were placed in 8-in. loose
lifts and compacted by a minimum of either six passes of a 4-wheel
rubber-tired roller (usually loaded to 50 tons, but reduced to 32 tons
* Maximum dry density was determined using the vibratory table test
procedure prescribed in the 1965 edition of EM 1110-2-1906.
19
in a few instances). Material was usually wetted or dried at the fill
site, but a small amount of wetting or drying was accomplished in the
borrow pits. Compaction of the vertical sand drain was by four passes
of a "Tampo" Model VC-80, towed-type vibratory roller, with flooding
ahead of the roller accomplished by spray bars attached to the compactor
frame. A flexible hose connected the spray bars to a truck-mounted
water tank. Compaction of the horizontal sand or gravel drainage layers
was by eight passes of a crawler-type tractor equipped with water sprays
as described for the vibratory compactor. The sand or gravel materials
were placed in 6-in. loose lifts.
Field Sampling and Testing
Sampling of embankment fills
12. Two types of samples were obtained in the embankment:
a. Control samples (dam and dike). Disturbed control sampleswere taken for the purpose of controlling the placementand compaction of the embankment materials and at thesame time to provide a permanent record for the project.
A plan for locating control samples is shown in Figure 10.The following information was obtained on each sample ofcore or shell material (except as otherwise noted):
(1) Location of the sample in the fill (station, offset,
elevation and depth below lift surface).
(2) In situ density.
(3) Water content.
(4) Gradation (maximum particle size, percents plus 1 in.,minus No. 4, and minus No. 200 as a minimum).
(5) Five-point standard compaction test on material un-
like those previously tested (made once a week as aminimum).
For field density tests of sand or gravel drainage layers,
the following information was obtained:
(1) Location of the sample in the fill (station, offset,
elevation, and depth below lift surface).
(2) In situ density.
(3) Gradation (maximum particle size and percents minus
No. 4, minus No. 16, and minus No. 200 as a minimum).
20
II
fltWN T R tAMA
o .
• RECORD SAMPLES
CONTROL SAMPLES VALLEY SECTION-4*50 TO 9+00 RC ORDSMU RE
WATER BALLOON a CHUNK DENSITIES AfmENTSECTINNlOZSTO4+0 _ . . . . .. .. .... ..... _...,
-sv SI-O 7 .l ..- -.. c.. .-.
-,ANITMNENT SECT.I 1 O 02- mi5 TO 3249
Figure 10. Sampling plan for compaction control
9
I.1
_I
(4) Maximum-minimum density test on field density mate-rials; a correlation with gradation was also estab-lished but was infrequently used.
b. Record samples (dam only). It was planned to obtain an
undisturbed record sample (cube sample) with every tenthcontrol sample except in drainage zone materials. How-ever, it was found that intact cube samples could not beobtained in some of the more gravelly materials. There-fore, wherever gravel content precluded cube samples,disturbed bag samples were taken for the purpose of per-
forming shear tests on recompacted specimens. A total of45 undisturbed cube samples and 34 bag samples were takenin the main dam embankments; a total of 7 undisturbed
cube samples and 24 disturbed bag samples were taken inthe dike. Three water balloon density tests were madeimmediately adjacent to each undisturbed and disturbed
record sample site; a density test was performed on each6 in. of depth of compacted soil through which the recordsamples were taken (cube samples were about 13 in. ineach dimension and bag samples were composed of the mixedsoil taken through about 18 in. of compacted material).Q triaxial shear tests were performed either in thedivision laboratory at the U. S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station (WES) or in the field laboratory onspecimens trimmed from the undisturbed cube samples or onrecompacted specimens of minus 1-in. material from thebag samples. The disturbed bag material was recompactedto appropriate fill density and water content to assure
that design strengths were being attained in the embank-ment. Additionally, a standard effort compaction testwas performed in the laboratory on minus 1-in. materialfrom each bag sample to determine maximum dry density andoptimum water content. The fill water content and density
were then compared to the compaction test peak values toobtain percent compaction and percentage point variationin fill water content from optimum for the recompactedtest specimens.
Field and labora-
tory testing procedures
13. Compaction control of core and shell materials was based on
standard effort compaction tests using 4- or 6-in.-diam molds. The 6-in.
mold was used for gravelly material with the plus 1-in. fraction removed.
The 1965 edition of EM 1110-2-1906 permitted use of the 6-in.-diam mold
for soils having up to 35 percent plus No. 4 material. Either 4- or
6-in.-diam molds were used for the fine-grained soils. Compaction
22
control of sand placed in the vertical drain and sand or gravel placed
in the horizontal drainage layers was based on relative density using
the test procedure with vibrated maximum density given in the 1965 edi-
tion of EM 1110-2-1906. A 6-in.-diam mold (0.1 cu ft) was used for
vibrated density tests for the sand (maximum particle size of 1/2 in.)
and an ll-in.-diam mold (0.5 cu ft) was used for the sand or gravel
(maximum particle sizes of 3 to 6 in. plus 3-in. material removed before
testing). In-place density, with a few exceptions, was determined using
the water-balloon method. A nuclear moisture-density device was tried
but was not found reliable for the gravelly soil. An oil displacement
method using plastic sheeting to line a 3/4-cu yd hole and a buried
steel frame method* were used for a few tests in the gravel and sand-
gravel materials. Soil classification was determined by both laboratory
tests or estimated by visual observation. Field water content samples
were dried using either a hot plate or a gas burner. The water content
determination by hot plate or gas burner methods was occasionally
checked against the standard ovendrying method.
Field Control of Core and Shell Materials
Laboratory compaction curves
14. A series of 5-point standard effort compaction curves were
developed initially for each of the known core or shell soil types in
each borrow area. Additional laboratory compaction tests were performed
during construction as follows:
a. On any field density test material that on the basis ofgradation and plasticity characteristics appeared to besignificantly different than soil types previouslyencountered.
b. Once a week as a minimum check procedure.
A 3- by 3-ft by 6-in. steel frame was placed on the surface of the
previously compacted lift and subsequently buried during placement and
compaction of the next lift. After compaction of the lift was com-plete, the material above the buried frame was carefully excavated toa plane level with the top of the frame. The soil within the frame
was then removed and saved to determine fill water content and density.
23
I{
When materials contained gravel sizes 1 in. or greater, compaction tests
were performed on the minus 1-in. fraction without replacement. An ex-
ample of the information obtained for each laboratory compaction test is
shown in Figure 11. Examples of compaction curves for minus 1-in. mate-
rial (or finer) for each borrow area are given in Figures 12 and 13.
These compaction curves, performed prior to construction and supplemented
during construction, were the basis of compaction control in that their
peak values, i.e., maximum dry density and optimum water content, were
used to relate the fill density and fill water content to the specifica-
tions. The relation of the fill density and fill water content deter-
mined in a given field density test with the maximum density and optimum
water content of a particular laboratory compaction curve was accom-
plished using the control procedures described in the following
paragraph.
Control procedures
15. The technique employed to select the most appropriate labora-
tory compaction curve for comparison with the field density test results
was based on visual classification, borrow area source, gradation, and
Atterberg limits data of the field density test material. This field
data set was compared to the data sets for the laboratory compaction
curves (described in the previous paragraph and illustrated in Figure 11)
for the borrow area from which the fill material came. The 5-point
laboratory curve for the most similar borrow area material was then
selected; the maximum dry density and optimum water content values of
that laboratory curve were uged to compute the percent compaction (fill
dry density times 100 percent/maximum dry density) and the variation of
fill water content from optimum water content. The suitability of the
compacted lift could then be assessed by comparing the fill percent com-
paction to the desired percent compaction and the variation of fill
water content from optimum water content to the specified maximum per-
missible range of variation of fill water content from the optimum
stated in the contract documents. Much of the fill contained plus 1-in.
material, and it was necessary to account for this in relating fill
water contents and densities to optimum water contents and maximum
24
II
120
118
112
108
Borrow Area ASample No. 23Depth: 4.5 to 6.0 ft
Reddish gray cixy, CH
104 Max part. size: 3/4 in.
0A ILL 51PL = 20PI = 31Opt w -23.7%
100 'Yd max - 96.3 lb/cu ft
COMPACTION CURVE (DRY DENSITY)
96
92
8820 22 24 26 28 30
WATER CONTENT, PERCENT
Figure 11. Exawple of information prepared for each standard effortlaboratory compaction testj
25
.. . . .. .4- i ! :ii--- a - -.
-1 - rJ A.1 1 .~~ N"A
* ... ..
.- _..-. . .__A -L; _• -,. # '- .S . . . . . -
WATERn CON TNT, PEl CENTr
W-T - . . ,--
Figure 12. Examples of compaction curves for minus 1-in. material
(or material having a maximum particle size less than 1 in.) fromborrow areas A, B, and BX
261
-. ,- -T-- _ ..
* - - n-f' " I '
S_ -- - - a .a..
-- - - - . .. .5" "
• ~~~~~~~~~~- - - - ----..... ... . - . ..,.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. ,
- .4. , ..... * .. .. ... . . .. -
ATE"coNT.NT. PERcimv - L2 ATE CO E PrE NT:
1 -- 1----
(o maera having a maiumpricesielsstan1i.)fo
a *~ ~ 4.. . .... S- . a _ _
br, ae C, D,. Eo a F
- - .- , - :
,'4 .,- --- " a.'/ \ -- - T =-- ,Z ~- . .- .. "-
Figur 13.Examples of compaction curves for minus 1-in, material
borrow areas C, D, E, and F
27
densities, as discussed in the following paragraph.
Soils with plus 1-in. material
16. Design shear strengths were based on tests performed on
minus 1-in. material, and allowable water content limits in the specifi-
cation and desired minimum percent compaction were therefore based on
results of compaction tests on minus 1-in. material. The following
equations were used to relate the in-place dry density and water content
of fill containing plus 1-in. material to the laboratory compaction data
on minus 1-in. material:
t wIf t w G m( )
f y w Gm (I + A) (i)
W cA
wf = f x 100 (2)
where
Yf = dry density of minus 1-in. fraction, pcf
f = proportion of minus 1-in. fraction by weight expressed as
decimal fraction
t - dry density of total field density sample, pcf
Yw = unit weight of water, 62.4 pcf
G = bulk specific gravity of plus 1-in. fraction, dimensionlessm
c - proportion of plus 1-in. fraction by weight expressed asdecimal fraction
A - absorption of plus 1-in. fraction (saturated surface dryweight minus ovendry weight divided by ovendry weight),dimensionless
wf . water content of minus 1-in. fraction, percent
wt . water content of total field density sample, expressed asdecimal fraction
Values of Gm and A were either determined in the laboratory or as-
sumed. For convenience, conversion charts such as the one shown in
Figure 14 were prepared for appropriate values of A and G m In
28
I,
ZS Absorption. I-In Material 4.0%
L ~ /4
Z4Z 4 4 2 a ~ 3
22.. .n .4~gc ~. o,~t
4 L
Figue 1. -Eampe oft converion Wa ar nets fr t rcotn ad
dry k deiiaity of toa sapl and. miuM1iaterialZ.4
early dike construction, the District properly adjusted the water con-
tents and densities of field density samples containing plus 1-in. mate-
rial to those for minus 1-in. material, using such charts. Thereafter,
the District incorrectly adjusted the results of laboratory compaction
tests on minus 1-in. material to values for soils containing the same
proportions of plus 1-in. material as the field density samples under
consideration. This is further discussed in PART III (paragraph 19)
and in PART IV (paragraph 65).
Field Control of Pervious Drainage Materials
17. Results of in-place density tests in compacted drainage mate-
rials were compared to appropriate maximum and minimum density values to
determine their relative density. Details on control for the different
materials in drainage zoi. , of the dam and dike are described below:
a. Sand and gravel used beneath upstream section of main dam.As shown in Figure 2, an upstream portioi of the damshell zone was constructed first to serve as a cofferdam.In-place density tests in the sand and gravel drainagelayer beneath this section were taken by the water volume(balloon) method. Standard effort compaction tests,using 6-in.-diam mold and scalping plus 1-in. materialwith replacement, were performed on material from eachfield density test location. Comparison of results of
maximum-minimum density tests on similar materials per-formed in the Division laboratory indicated that 104 per-cent of standard effort maximum dry density was equiva-lent to 85 percent relative density. Thus, if fielddensities equaled or exceeded 104 percent compaction,
the soils were considered to have adequate relative den-sities. However, the correlation was based on one or atthe most two relative density tests.
b. Sand placed in vertical and horizontal drains of the dikeand dam. In the initial construction period of the dike,a minimum relative density of 70 percent was desired forthe sand. Since the sand exhibited a relatively consis-tent gradation from sample to sample, a single set ofmaximum and minimum density values was used. Subse-quently, as placement of fill progressed, the gradationof the material changed, and a second set of maximum-minimum density values were obtained from tests performedby the Division laboratory. With the issuance of
30
ETL 1110-2-13, "Compaction of Cohesionless Fills and Fil-ters," in December 1968, the field office was required tochange the relative density control value to 80 percentminimum with an average of 85 percent. Tests in theDivision laboratory established that 85 percent relative
density approximately corresponded to 98 percent ofstandard effort maximum dry density. This relation wasbased on one or at the most two relative density tests;however, this relation was used for approximately 34field density tests (of a total of 167 tests of sands inthe dike). Thereafter, a maximum-minimum density testapparatus (vibratory table device as described in the1965 edition of EM 1110-2-1906) was procured for thefield laboratory and the correlation of percent minusNo. 16 with relative density shown in Figure 15 was de-
veloped in the project laboratory. However, for theremainder of construction, the gradation correlation wasseldom used. A maximum-minimum density test was generally
SPECIFIED RANGE
(SEE FIGURE 6)
00M0 0 0
USED TA
MARAD NG3E9
- a27 P
-110
ccMI yD 1 25.5 - 0.; P
30 40 50 70 W 90 100
PERCENT PASSING NO. 16 SIEVE, P
NOTE: SOLID POINTS DENOTE MANUFACTURED GRADATIONSUSED TO EXTEND DATA RANGE.
Figure 15. Maximum and minimum density of sands versus
percent minus No. 16
31fItI
performed on material from each field density test onsand in the dam and drainage zones of the dike unlessseveral field density tests were made during the same day
on material having essentially the same gradation.
c. Sand and gravel in horizontal drainage layer of dam. Re-sults of field density tests were compared to results ofmaximum-minimum density tests performed generally on mate-rial from each field density test.
d. Gravel in horizontal drainage layer. During constructionof the dike, results of eight field density tests werecompared with results of maximum-minimum density tests onmaterials from the field density test locations. No test-ing was performed on the gravel placed in the horizontal
drain of the dam qince test results for the dike showedthat 85 percent relative density was easily obtained withthe field compaction procedure.
32
I
PART III: FIELD COMPACTION RESULTS AND ANALYSES
18. After the dam had been constructed, statistical analyses were
performed by WES on compaction data furnished on the dam and dike. Ini-
tial test data on areas subsequently reworked or retested were excluded
from the analyses. Analyses included frequency histograms and cumula-
tive frequency distributions (percentage ogives) of the variation of
fill water content from adjusted laboratory optimum and the variation
of fill percent compaction (the ratio of in situ dry density to adjusted
maximum dry density expressed in percent). The computation of other
statistical parameters was accomplished by computer. The normal distri-
bution curve best representing the observed data was determined by mini-
mizing the value of chi-square computed from a set of ordinates of the
normal curves and the corresponding ordinates of the observed histograms.
Descriptions and discussion of these analyses are presented in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
Correction of Field Control Data on FillContaining Plus 1-in. Material
19. As stated in paragraph 16, District personnel generally used
an incorrect procedure in comparing field densities and water contents
of core and shell material containing plus 1-in. material to results of
laboratory compaction tests on minus 1-in. material. In early construc-
tion of the dike, they correctly adjusted the field densities and water
contents of samples containing plus 1-in. material to values for minus
1-in. fractions using charts such as Figure 14 and then compared these
adjusted values to optimum water contents and maximum densities of com-
paction tests on minus 1-in. material. However, for the remainder of the
dike construction and all of the dam construction, they adjusted optimum
water contents and maximum densities from compaction tests on minus 1-in.
material to values for materials containing the same proportions of plus
1-in. material as the field samples and then related the field values
to these adjusted values.
20. The reasons why this latter procedure is incorrect are as
follows:
33
a. The water content limits specified by the designer (anddesired percent compaction) were based on results of shear
strength tests on minus 1-in. materials, expressed inrelation to optimum water contents and maximum densitiesfrom compaction tests on minus 1-in. material.
b. When field water contents and densities of samples con-taining plus 1-in. material are adjusted on the basis ofthe amounts of plus 1-in. material to values for theminus 1-in. fraction (using charts like Figure 14), theycan truly be related to the optimum water content andmaximum density of a compaction test on minus 1-in. mate-
rial and to the limits established for construction.
c. On the other hand, when the optimum water content andmaximum density of a compaction test on minus 1-in. mate-rial is adjusted to values for a soil containing the sameamount of plus 1-in. material as the field density sample,these adjusted values cannot be directly compared to thespecified water content limits or to the desired minimumpercent compaction.
21. Figure 16 demonstrates the incorrect procedure used by the
District and the correct procedure for comparing densities and water
contents of fill materials containing plus 1-in. sizes to results of
compaction tests on minus 1-in. material.
22. Since about 80 percent of the field density samples from the
shells of the dam and dike and 30 percent of the field density samples
from the core fills contained plus 1-in. material, it was considered
advisable by WES to recompute variation from optimum water content and
percent compaction using the correct procedure. This was done by assum-
ing an average value of G of 2.5 and an average A of 4.0 percent form
all plus 1-in. material. (This was done not only to simplify recomputa-
tion, but also because in many cases the values used by the District
were not determined by testing each field density sample.) Thus, all
data presented in this report relative to percent compaction and varia-
tion from optimum water content of fill materials containing plus 1-in.
material are corrected data.
23. The magnitude of errors associated with the incorrect proce-
dure previously described are discussed in PART IV.
24. As a result of funding restrictions and higher priority work,
review and revision of the initial draft of this report were deferred
34
.I
130 ADJ. Opt. w = 7.7
CURVE 3 ADJUSTED TO TOTAL SAMPLECONTAINING 29% PLUS I-IN. MATERIAL
128 GM = 2.54, A 2.75%
ADJ.Opt'.16 = FIELD DENSITY TEST
126 ADJ. Opt-O.T. VALUES.41 ' 2
= F IE LD TEST VALUES
ADJUSTED TO MINUS1-IN. FRACTION.
124
zS122
CURVE 3, FIGURE 12BORROW AREA BX
120 MINUS 1-IN. MTL
Opt. W= 11.9
118
SPECIFIED
116 - 2 t Opt. .2 LIM ITS Dt.+ II46 8 10 12 14 16
WATER CONTENT, PERCENT
CORRECT PROCEDURE INCORRECT PROCEDURE
Adjusted Field Values Field Values ComparedCompared to Opt w and to Adjusted Opt w andMax 'yd of Curve 3 Max yd of Curve 3
% Compaction:
9 .Test 1 (Al) 17.4 = 97.4 128.7
Ui =96. (142) '25- 97.1Test 2 (A2 ) 120.5 = 96.3 128.7
Variation of w from opt
Test 1 (A1 ) 11.1 - 11.9 = -0.8 I, 1 ) 8.7 - 7.7 = +1.0
Test 2 (A21 6.9 - 11.9 - -5.0 ( 2 ) 5.7 .7.7 = -2.0
Figure 16. Example of correct and incorrect procedures for comparingfield data with laboratory compaction data
-
for several years. During the interim, EM 1110-2-1911, "Construction
Control for Earth and Rock-Fill Dams," was written. In the course of
preparing that manual, it was discovered that Equation I of this report
requires the use of bulk specific gravity, G , calculated on the basism
of the saturated surface-dry weight of the oversized particles. This
value for G is obtained as given for the second method in ASTM Stan-m
dards, Part 14, Designation C-127-77, "Specific Gravity and Absorption
of Coarse Aggregate." However, the field laboratory at DeGray used the
method prescribed in EM 1110-2-1906, "Laboratory Soils Testing," which
is based on the oven-dry weight of the oversized fraction. This method
is the same as the first method given in the above referenced ASTM Stan-
dard. If G is based on the dry weight, the absorption, A , does notm
appear in the density correction equation. The version of Equation 1
which should have been used is as follows:
! f Gtt w m (3)Yf - Y G m C -t
25. Because the original compaction data set was no longer in a
form allowing expedient usage and because funds were limited, it was not
possible to determine the effects of the erroneous practice. It is
noted that the approximate maximum occurrence of plus 1-in. sizes for
DeGray materials was 35 percent. For a soil containing 35 percent over-
sized (+1-in.) particles, the erroneous equation would yield a dry den-
sity for the minus 1-in. fraction of from 1.5 to 2.0 pcf too high depend-
ing on the value of Gm This could translate to error in the computed
percent compaction of as much as two percentage points too high. It is
observed that a portion of the soils placed in the dam and dike con-
tained no oversized particles at all, while those which did averagedabout 15 percent. On the basis of these facts, it is not unreasonable
to believe that use of the erroneous equation had a negligible effect
with respect to identifying fill density samples which failed to meet
the desired percent compaction.
336 I
I
Dam Embankment, Core
26. Data for the core material of the dam were obtained from
field density sampling between sta 0+00 and 14+00 and from el 212 to 450.
A plot of fill percent compaction versus variation of fill water content
from laboratory optimum is shown in Figure 17. Of the 154 tests, 29
tests (19 percent) did not meet the established density or water content
criteria. Thirteen samples (8 percent) had adequate densities but had
water content requirements outside specified limits: 11 samples (7 per-
cent) met the water content requirements but had densities lower than
the desired minimum, and 5 (3 percent) met neither water content nor
density standards. Examination of the field data indicated that the
tests not meeting the contract specifications for water content were
dispersed randomly throughout the fill. A plot of actual fill dry den-
sity versus fill water content for the 154 samples is shown in Plate 1.
A few of the data points on Plate 1 appear questionable since they plot
on the right of the average zero air void curve for the impervious soils.
The mean field water content was 15.4 percent, and the mean field dry
density was 114.5 pcf.
Water content
27. The physical and statistical data on core fill water content
are summarized in Table 2. The frequency histogram and the percentage
ogive for variation of fill water content from optimum water content for
the field density test data are shown in Plate 2. The normal theoretical
distribution curve best fitting the observed fill water content data is
also shown superimposed on the histogram of Plate 2. For a normal array,
68.3 percent of all values (i.e., 68.3 percent of the area under the
normal curve) are within plus or minus one standard deviation (a) from
the mean. Of the 154 test values, 81.2 percent fell within plus or
minus one standard deviation. Thus, the observed distribution tends to
be more concentrated toward the mean than the normal distribution. Mean
water content was 0.3 percentage point dry of optimum water content.
Percent compaction
28. Although a value of minimum percent compaction was not
37
SPECIPIEO RANGE OF WATER CONTENT
]]6/ ! 1 I I I! I I 1 I
114
112
110
Ic0e
1015 0
104 -
102 .
96
94
92 NOTE: ALL DATA PERTAIN
TO THE MINUS I-IN.
so FRACTIONS OF THE
FILL DENSITYSAMPLES.
55
55
I I| I I I-5 -7 -16 5 ,& , . -l Z , 4 , 6 ,
VARIRTION OF FILL WPTFR CONTENT FROl LP5OtrTOST OrTIlUnlrERCENTPRE rOINT5
TE5T5 154TE'STS OUTSIOE DESIRED LIlITSN.E. DEN. W-.C-NOONLY ONLY DEN. TOTRL15 II 5 29
Figure 17. Variation of test results with respect to desiredlimits, core of dam
38
I .
required by the contract specifications, the compaction procedures were
expected to achieve densities of at least 100 percent of standard maxi-
mum dry density. Of the total of 154 samples, 10.4 percent failed to
meet the desired percent compaction. The physical and statistical re-
sults for field density are summarized in Table 3. The frequency histo-
gram and percentage ogive of fill percent compaction are shown in
Plate 3. Mean percent compaction was 103.
Dam Embankment, Upstream Shell
29. Data for the upstream shell were from field density sampling
between sta 0+00 and 12+00 and from el 219 to 446. A plot of fill per-
cent compaction versus variation of fill water content from optimum is
shown in Figure 18. Of the total of 321 tests, 127 (40 percent) had
densities or water contents outside the desired limits as follows: 73
samples (23 percent) had adequate densities but water contents were out-
side specified limits; 38 samples (12 percent) had acceptable water con-
tents but were below desired minimum percent compaction; and 16 samples
(5 percent) failed to meet both the water content and density criteria.
Those samples failing to meet water content or density requirements were
dispersed randomly within the impervious fill. A plot of actual fill
dry density versus fill water content for the 321 samples is shown in
Plate 4. The mean water content was 13.0 percent and the mean dry den-
sity was 119.0 pcf.
Water content
30. The physical and statistical water content data for the up-
stream shell are summarized In Table 2. The frequency histogram and the
percentage ogive for variation of fill water content from optimum are
shown in Plate 5. The observed data fitted very closely the theoretical
normal distributions. Mean field water content was 0.7 percentage point
dry of optimum water content.
Percent compaction
31. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction of
the upstream shell are summarized in Table 3. The frequency histogram
39
.-
116 u
114
112
110
102 ..
2 104 .. .AL D °.. ° . . I
a..- .w e I .
o .F,o . " . . .... "C .... , ,"
-, 1 t
-, - NOhiL AT ETI
TO MINUS I-IN.
AFRACTIONS OF THE9o FILL D'NSITY
0SAMPLES.
uB
TESTS OUTSIDE DESIRED LIMIITS
73 s Is 27
Figure 18. Variation of test results with respect to desiredlimits, upstream shell of dam
40
-B - -16 - - -Z -I O 4
and percentage ogive for the variation of percent compaction are shown
in Plate 6. With 69.2 percent of the total data within plus or minus
one standard deviation from the mean, the observed array is very close
to a normal distribution case. Mean percent compact ion was 103.
Dam Embankment, Downstr am Shell
32. Data for the downstream shell of the dam embankment were ob-
tained from field density sampling between sta 0+00 and sta 15+75 and
from el 214 to 449, i.e., from foundation level to the top of the dam.
A plot of fill percent compaction versus variation of fill water content
from optimum is shown in Figure 19. Of the 378 total tests, 161 (42 per-
cent) had densities or water contents outside the desired limits as fol-
lows: 84 samples (22 percent) had adequate densities but water contents
were outside specified limits; 46 samples (12 percent) had acceptable
water contents but were below the desired minimum percent compaction; and
31 samples (8 percent) failed to meet both the water content and density
criteria. Examination of the field data indicated that the tests not
meeting the contract specification for water content were dispersed ran-
domly throughout the fill. A plot of actual fill dry density versus fill
water content for the minus I-in. fraction for the 378 samples is shown
in Plate 7. The mean water content was 13.1 percent and the mean dry
density was 117.0 pcf.
Water content
33. The physical and statistical data for fill water content for
the downstream shell of the dam are summarized in Table 2. The frequency
histogram and the percentage ogive for variation of fill water content
from optimum are shown in Plate 8. The observed data are slightly more
concentrated toward the mean than a normal distribution since 72.5 per-
cent of the values fall within plus or minus one standard deviation from
the mean. Mean field water content was 0.8 percentage point dry of opti-
mum water content.
Percent compaction
34. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction of
41
ISPECIFIED RANGE OF WATER CONTENT
116 e I I 1i1 |14
~112
110
106
104 C0
.102
as
200 .100 " -
• .'., °
"*''95 Li
86 I
44
92 - NOTE: ALL DATA PERTAIN70O THE MINQS 1,4N.
to FRACTIONS OF THEFILL DENSITYSAMPLES.
86
6
54 |.J. I I I I I
-5 -0 -6 -6 -4 -, -3 -I 1 3 4 5 6 7
PRIATION Of FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LRPORATORI OfTIMUfrERCENTACE rCINT3
TESTS 919
TESTS OUTSIE DESIRED LIMITSM.C. OEM, N.C.PNOONLY ONLY DEN. TOTrL64 46 St 151
Figure 19. Variation of test 'esults with respect to desiredlimits, do,.-Lraam shell of dam
42
the upstream shell of the dam are summarized in Table 3. The frequency
histogram and percentage ogive for the variation of percent compaction
are shown in Plate 9. With 72.7 percent of the total data within plus
or minus one standard deviation from the mean, the observed array is
slightly more concentrated toward the mean than a normal distribution
case. Mean percent compaction was 102.
Dike Core (First Specification)
35. Data for the core material placed under the first water con-
tent specification (optimum minus 2 percent to optimum plus 1.5 percent)
were obtained from field density sampling between sta 18+00 and 68+00 and
from el 343 to 446 of the dike. A plot of fill percent compaction versus
variation of fill water content from optimum is shown in Figure 20. Of
the 175 tests, 41 tests (23 percent) did not meet the established com-
paction or water content criteria. Thirty-four samples (19 percent) had
I adequate detities but had water contents outside specified limits;
2 samples (I percent) met the water content standard but had inadequate
densities, and 5 samples (3 percent) met neither water content nor den-
sity standards. Examination of the field data indicated that the tests
not meeting the contract specifications for water content were dispersed
randomly throughout the fill. A plot of actual fill dry density versus
fill water content for the 175 samples is shown in Plate 10. Some data
points in Plate 10 appear questionable since they fall well to the right
of the average zero air void curve representing the impervious soils.
The mean field water content was 24.4 percent and the mean field dry
density was 99.4 pcf.
Water content
36. The physical and statistical data for fill %rater content for
the core fill (first specification) are summarized in Table 2. The
frequency histogram and the percentage ogive for variation of fill water
content from optimum are shown in Plate 11. The observed data agree very
closely with the theoretical normal distribution. Mean fill water con-
tent was 0.1 percentage point dry of optimum water content.
43
, i i I
j~rECIF1EO RNGE Of WATER CONTENT
115 s
114
112
110
100..
so - FATOSO H
106 .. . ..."
-. . . .. . *U . ..
!, o 4 .." .'. .. ..
. 00 "
FI T:LL DATASIET I
= 0 FRCINSO H
SAMPLES.
a. C DE .U--
limts cor oftedk (is pciiain
14 4
ID F R TION OF TILL 0RE OTN RnL0RTK Fl~
-. - -S -3 - 4- 12 -1 0 2 2 3
Figure 20. VariFtio oTfI COstEN result wiDtR repetIItoesrelimits core fEREthe k fOst5 seiiain
TESTS 27
Percent compaction
37. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction of
the core fill (first specification) are summarized in Table 3. The
frequency histogram and percentage ogive for the variation of percent
compaction are shown in Plate 12. With 73.7 percent of the total data
within plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean, the observed
array is relatively close to a normal distribution case. Mean percent
compaction was 104.
Dike Core (Second Specification)
38. Data for the dike core placed under the second specification
were from field density sampling from sta 30+00 to 68+00 and 120+00 to
140+00 and from el 377 to 448. A plot of fill percent compaction versus
variation of fill water content from optimum is shown in Figure 21. Of
the total of 138 tests, none had densities outside the desired limits.
Th, 4 samples (3 percent) failing to meet water content requirements
were dispersed randomly within the impervious fill. A plot of actual
fill dry density versus fill water content for the 138 samples is shown
in Plate 13. Plate 13 indicates a significant number of samples falling
well to the right of the zero air voids curve. The mean water content
of all samples was 27.3 percent and the mean dry density was 96.9 pcf.
Water content
39. The physical and statistical data for fill water content for
the dike core (second specification) are summarized in Table 2. The
frequency histogram and the percentage ogive for variation of fill water
content from laboratory optimum are shown in Plate 14. The observed data
fit very closely the theoretical normal distribution. Mean field water
content was 0.4 percentage point wet of optimum water content.
Percent compaction
40. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction of
the dike core fill are summarized in Table 3. The frequency histogram
and percentage ogive for the variation of percent compaction are shown
in Plate 15. With 71.7 percent of the total data within plus or minus
45
SPECIF JED RANGE OF WATER CONTE NT
ISO ,' u I I , ,
114
112
C3
11042 0 . .
° ,.4 .• . . •: C
• ioo "
02
NOTE: ALL DATA PERTAIN TO THEMINUS I-IN. FRACTIONS OF
0 THE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
I2 0
54
VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTEJNT FROM LABORORYK OFTIMlUMPrET FO NT5
T43T;-l ;OTS1E DESIRED LIMITS
W . C D E N . N C . A N OO;LT OWLY DEN. TOTAL6 0 0 4
Figure 21. Variation of test results with respect to desired
limits, core of the dike (second specification)
46
95 • • u
one standard deviation from the mean, the observed array is relatively
close to a normal distribution case. Mean percent compaction was 105.
Dike Shell, Landside
41. Data for the dike landside shell were from field density sam-
pling from sta 18+00 to 76+00 and 120+00 to 138+00 and from el 346 to
442. A plot of fill percent compaction versus variation of fill water
content from optimum is shown in Figure 22. Of the total of 314 tests,
105 (33 percent) had densities or water contents outside the desired
limits as follows: 86 samples (27 percent) had adequate densities but
water contents were outside specified limits; 9 samples (3 percent) had
acceptable water contents but were below desired minimum percent compac-
tion; and 10 samples (3 percent) failed to meet both the water content
and density criteria. Those samples failing to meet water content or
density requirements were dispersed randomly within the impervious fill.
A plot of actual fill dry density versus fill water content for the 314samples is shown in Plate 16. Excluding the areas reworked only, meanwater content was 12.9 percent and the mean dry density was 118.2 pcf.
Water content
42. The physical and statistical data for fill water content for
the landside shell are summarized in Table 2. The frequency histograms
and the percentage ogive for variation of fill water content from optimum
are shown in Plate 17. The observed data agree very closely with the
theoretical normal distribution. Mean field water ccntent was 0.9
percentage point dry of optimum water content.
Percent compaction
43. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction of
the landside shell are summarized in Table 3. The frequency histogram
and percentage ogive for the variation of percent compaction are shown
in Plate 18. With 69.4 percent of the total data within plus or minus
one standard deviation from the mean, the observed array is slightly more
centered than a normal distribution case. Mean percent compaction was
103.
47II JI
isrEcIFICO RNwre OF WATER CONTENT]
i15 I I - Z i 7 'I .
114
112
:Do
I:: - i98C3
104102 .-. . : : , , .
323
1) -NOTE:ALL DATA PERTAIN TOUINUS "N .•..
oe- FRCIO4 OF THEKET2 r:3
VARIATION 0OF FILL WATER CONTU1T F90MI LROORATORT OtTIflUf
TESTS $14
ECMP
rIT
TESTS OUTSIDE ESIRKEO iTN.. DEN M:.LIMIT
OWL; ONLY OEM. TOTALas * 10 IDS
Figure 22. Variation of test results with respect to desiredlimits, landside shell of the dike
48
2ISI"OEALDAAPRANT
Dike Shell, Lakeside
44. Data for the dike lakeside shell were from field density sam-
pling between sta 18+00 to 72+00 and 120+00 to 140+00 and from el 337
to 440. A plot of fill percent compaction versus variation of fill
water content from optimum is shown in Figure 23. Of the total of
312 tests, 105 (34 percent) had densities or water contents outside the
desired limits as follows: 82 samples (26 percent) had adequate densi-
ties but water contents outside specified limits; 9 samples (3 percent)
had acceptable water contents but were below desired minimum percent
compaction; and 14 samples (5 percent) failed to meet both the water
content and density criteria. Those samples failing to meet water con-
tent or density requirements were dispersed randomly within the imper-
vious fill. A plot of actual fill dry density versus fill water content
for the 312 samples is shown in Plate 19. The mean water content was
13.0 percent and the mean dry density was 117.8 pcf.
Water content
45. The physical and statistical data for fill water content for
the lakeside shell are summarized in Table 2. The frequency histogram
and the percentage ogive for variation of fill water content from opti-
mum are shown in Plate 20. The observed data is very close to the
theoretical normal distribution. Mean field water content was 0.8 per-
centage point dry of optimum water content.
Percent compaction
46. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction of
the lakeside shell are summarized in Table 3. The frequency histogram
and percentage ogive for the variation of percent compaction are shown
in Plate 21. With 68.9 percent of the total data within plus or minus
one standard deviation from the mean, the observed array approaches a
normal distribution case. Mean percent compaction was 103.
Dike, Unzoned
47. Data for the unzoned dike sections were from field density
49
5PECIFIEO RANGE OF HATER CONTENT
216 ** ""II-..y-- I Ir| I I
116
114 j112Ito2
100 "
!o 0
NOT: ALL DA P
,- . . . .-a . S
95 9" - -" " " 98-
j r, E .
0 RACTONLY O TOTA42 fIL D 14, IDS
- • I
500
NOT: ALIATAO 0 ErINLMTR£NETFOI ROADTO'l
90 . TO HE NUS -I N .
ON F OLL DENITY A
55O
a I I I i
sampling between sta 70+00 to 96+00, 104+00 to 118+00, and 140+00 to
146+00 and from el 343 to 440. A plot of fill percent compaction versus
variation of fill water content from optimum is shown in Figure 24. Of
the total of 89 tests, 31 (35 percent) had densities or water contents
outside the desired limits as follows: 23 samples (26 percent) had
adequate densities but water contents outside specified limits; 6 sam-
ples (7 percent) had acceptable water contents but were below desired
minimum percent compaction; and only 2 samples (2 percent) failed to
meet both the water content and density criteria. Those samples fail-
ing to meet water content or density requirements were dispersed randomly
within the impervious fill. A plot of actual fill dry density versus
fill water content for the 89 samples is shown in Plate 22. The mean
water content was 13.8 percent and the mean dry density was 115.5 pcf.
Water content
48. The physical and statistical data for fill water content of
the unzoned fill are summarized in Table 2. The frequency histogram and
the percentage ogive for variation of fill water content from optimum
are shown in Plate 23. The observed data agree very closely with the
theoretical normal distribution. Mean field water content was 0.9 per-
centage point dry of optimum water content.
Percent compaction
49. The physical and statistical data for percent compaction for
the dike unzoned reach are summarized in Table 3. The frequency histo-
gram and percentage ogive for the variation of percent compaction are
shown in Plate 24. With 66.3 percent of the total data within plus or
minus one standard deviation from the mean, the observed array is
slightly more dispersed than a normal distribution case. Mean percent
compaction was 103.
Dam, Upstream Drainage Layer
50. A total of 20 field density tests were made in the sand and
gravel drainage layer beneath the upstream shell of the first-season sec-
* tion from sta 5+00 to 9+00 and from 150 to 970 ft upstream of the main
Sst51
2.: I
tCIFIEO F RNGE oF WATER CONTEEDT R
116
114
112
110
106
o104
102 .
0.- 0.
o 9 98-
82 -NOTE=: ALL DATA PERTrAIN &
'TO THE MINUS W-N.0 -O FRACTIONS OF THE C
FILL- DENSITYSAMPLES.
OSS
04 1 t 4tj , ,
V92IATION Of FILL ALRL ONTENT FRODA LTARATORY OrTPERUOIHEENTIG I-IINT.
TESTS 59TESTS OUTSIE DESIRED LiMIITSN.C. DEN. .C.ANOONLY ONLY OEN. TOTAL23 6 2 31
Figure 24. Variation of test results With respect to desiredlimits, unzoned reaches of the dike
52
I
dam center line between el 210 and 214. The results are summarized in
Table 4, and individual test results are shown in Figure 25. With three
exceptions, in-place densities were greater than those corresponding to
104 percent standard effort compaction, which was assumed to be equiva-
lent to 85 percent relative density.
Dam, Downstream Drainage Zones
Vertical sand drain andhorizontal sand drainage layer
51. A total of 49 field density tests were made in the vertical
sand drain, and 17 in the horizontal sand drainage layer (excluding
original tests for areas reworked or retested). The results are
150 1 1
-DESIRED PEICENT COMPACTIONOF 104% -d max (EQUIV TO 85% Dd)
145
140 1 -VERAGEZ
u 140
Z135
20 TESTS
130 I I I95 100 105 110 115 120
PERCENT COMPACTION
Figure 25. Results of field density tests, upstream horizontalsand and gravel drainage layer, dam
53
summarized in Table 4, and individual test results are plotted in Fig-
ure 26a. All areas tested (or retested after reworking) exceeded the
requirements of 80 percent minimum relative density, and the average in-
place relative density exceeded the desired value of 85 percent. Two
tests in the vertical sand drain indicated a relative density of 79 per-
cent. These two locations were retested after the next lift had been com-
pacted and relative densities were found to have increased to 97 and 100
percent. The three unrealistically high values of relative density for
the horizontal sand drainage layer shown in Figure 26a were determined
on the basis of individual maximum-minimum density tests on material from
each field density test; no reason can be advanced for these values.
Horizontal sand andgravel drainage layer
52. A total of 43 field density tests (excluding original tests
for areas reworked or retested) were performed on the sand and gravel
placed in the horizontal drainage layer. The results are sumarized in
Table 4, and individual test results are shown in Figure 26b. All areas
tested (or retested after reworking) met the requirements of 80 percent
minimum relative density, and the average in-place relative density ex-
ceeded the desired value of 85 percent.
Dike Drainage Zones
Vertical sand drain andhorizontal sand drainage layer
53. A total of 61 field density tests were made in the vertical
sand drain, and 106 were made in the horizontal sand drainage layer (ex-
cluding original tests for areas reworked or retested). The results are
summarized in Table 5, and individual test results are shown in plots a,
b, and c of Figure 27. Explanation of the different control procedures
used in these zones was given previously in paragraph 17.
a. 70 percent relative density requirement. A desired mini-mum relative density of 70 percent was used initially onmaterial placed from sta 17+00 to 44+00 between el 357and 423. The plot of test results, shown in Figure 27a,
54
130 , I I I 1 I 1
4-t-DESIRED Dd MIN
125 I--*-DESIRED Dd AVG 1 3
7 120
0 68 0 LEGEND
w S INDIVIDUAL TESTS (49)!_ . o • AVERAGE
110 HORIZONTAL DRAINAGE LAYER8 INDIVIDUAL TESTS (17)a AVERAGE
I I I I Is0 85 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RELATIVE DENSITY, PERCENT
a. Vertical sand drain and horizontal sand drainage layer
140
4 DESIRED Dd MIN 5
I.3 DESIRED Dd AVGLL.13 5 oDD
13 - 0I"
ff 125 I •o
I Do9.
120 -- 48 TESTSI
11580 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
RELATIVE DENSITY, PERCENT
b. Downstream horizontal sand and gravel drainage layer
Figure 26. Results of field density tests, vertical sand drain anddownstream horizontal drainage layer, dam
... .. ... . - ----- 13
9C% 1-15 45 D-
t .. ....4 4 .... . .
.......... +4
o r~IO . . .
0530 so T0 to 0 /00 '10 /t 9 /,V /of 1!0 its
m'.Pt
.- t oC-t-
a. Sand (65 tests) b. Sand (34 tests)IfAlMD
/Jo YE~ ''RTICAL DMIN
...... . . ..... INDIVIDUAL t T
MIZONTAL ORAINdAU LAVERS
A 0 YC/I J
100 ------ --- b It
...... .~0 .. .... /CC0. t.t t .. ....
c. Sand (68 tes t d.i Grves8 ess
Figure 27. Results of -field den iy tests ve- ia Bandd dri ndhrzotldriae aedk
LI/toAV f s 0
indicates four tests each in the vertical drain and hori-zontal layer as having less than 70 percent relative den-
sity. However as indicated in paragraph 47, retestingof low relative density locations in similar materials atthe dam indicated significant increases in relative den-sity after placement of additional fill. Therefore, itis probable that a significant increase in relative den-sity also occurred at these eight locations, since theywere at relatively low elevations in the dike. The linesof data points in Figure 27a indicate that only two setsof maximum-minimum density values were used. The averagevalues of Dd for a total of 65 tests, shown in Fig-ure 27a, were 77.5 and 81.5 percent for the vertical drainand horizontal drainage layer, respectively.
b. 85 percent minimum relative density. A requirement fora minimum of 98 percent standard effort compaction (whichwas considered equivalent to Dd = 85 percent ) was usedfor sand placed from sta 36+00 to 50+00 between el 355and 368. The plot shown in Figure 27b indicates that allbut three test values exceeded this minimum. The averagepercent compaction for the 34 tests was 102 and 101 forthe vertical sand drain and horizontal sand drainagelayer, respectively.
c. 80 percent minimum, 85 percent average relative density.A total of 68 tests were performed under the requirementfor 80 percent minimum and 85 percent average relative
density used for the remainder of the dike pervious fill.The plot shown in Figure 27c indicates all test valuesexceeded the minimum with average relative densities of93 and 97 percent for sands in the vertical drain andhorizontal drainage layer, respectively.
Horizontal gravel drainage layer
54. A total of eight tests were performed in the horizontal gravel
drainage layer. As shown in Figure 27d, the in-place relative density
generally exceeded 85 percent, the average being 93 percent.
Summary of Compaction Results
Water content
55. The statistical results of fill water content variation from
optimum for the dam and dike listed in Table 2 are shown graphically in
Figure 28.
56. Dam. The best water content control was achieved in the core
57
m , = m m m |
SPECIFIED LIMITS
CORE f 5/CI9.AL7 T~1
'7%I7.e.3 io% Tw
US SHELL 0. 6F8 ++
IAWf OX '/U w -4
DS SVAELL 0.,S/ ~II.- I I I 1 1 P.8 -6 -4 -2 0 42 +4 46 +8 410 1VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT
FROM LABORATORY OPTIMUMa. OAM
CORE, 1I-T SPEC.1
COREZ& SPEC
24.54y -9.*6 ro :040
SHEL, LANDSt DE 21. 6.1.~6
with 410 4120
Ut4ZONED -0.94
- I - I I I I I I
Figure 28. Comparison of variation in fill water content from
optium ithspecfie liitsdamanddik
fill where less than 12 percent of the determinations were outside
specified limits. For the shell fills, about 30 percent of the determi-
nations were outside specified limits, with about 20 percent being on
the dry side. Mean variations of water contents from optimum were minus
0.3 percentage point for the core material and minus 0.7 to minus 0.8
for the shells.
57. Dike. Under the first water content specification for the
core fill, about 22 percent of the determinations were outside specified
limits, with 15 percent being on the wet side. When the water content
limits were widened in the second specification, particularly on the wet
side of optimum, only 3 percent of the determinations fell outside speci-
fications, all being on the dry side. Water content variations of the
landside and lakeside shells and of the unzoned sections of the dike were
very similar with respect to specified limits, 20 to 24 percent of the
determinations being outside on the dry side and 6 to 9 percent being
outside on the wet side. The wide range of water contents of the dike
shells shown in Figure 28 was caused by only a very few determinations
(see histograms on Plates 17 and 20).
Dry density
58. Dam. Data listed in Table 3 show that 10 percent of the
field density determinations on core material and 17 to 20 percent of
those on shell material were below the desired minimum of 100 percent
compaction. Mean percent compaction values ranged from 102.3 to 103.4,
and standard deviations between 2.61 and 2.87.
59. Dike. Only a few of the density determinations made on fill
in the various zones of the zoned dike section were below the desired
minimum percent compaction of 98; none in the core (second specification)
and 4 to 7.4 percent in the core (first specification) and shells. How-
ever, 9 percent of the determinations in the unzoned dike section were
below 98 percent compaction. Average percent compaction for all zones
ranged narrowly from 102.9 to 105.4 and standard deviations a only
from 3.05 to 3.81.
Pervious drains
60. Figure 29 summarizes density data for the sand drainage zones
59
JdLB/CU VT80 90 100 110 120 130 140
RELATIVE OENSITY TESTS ~ ~ dnx
COwl4: VS 0t D'
DIKE- VSD(A)1410(A) (VO 0 0
V3 0(c) I 2~v T
STANDARD COMPACTION TESTS STO ja
DIKE-. VSD(B)
FIELD DENSITIES NPAEt
DAM: V5D IiPAEt
DIKE:..9 (y
i(4X12)
r)(44)A)(53)
OA OR 1.COMPACTION40 60 s0 to0 120 140 ue0
RELATIVE otS TIES:-
OAIA:-19
1450 D
ACOMPAC.TIONDIKE: VSa ui0
NOTE5: 1. VSONSO, VERTIC-AL AND HORIZONTAL SAND DRAINS
RESPECT' VriLY.2. A),(B), (C) REFER TO GROUPS LISTED ON TABLE S.
S. SYMBOLS 0 11 A 0 11 INDICATE AVERAGE VALUES.
4.i -4iNotcArCS RAMCO( OF TEST VALUES.
5X INOIC.ATE5 DESIRED AVERAGE VALUES.
6(49) INDICATES NUMBER OF FIELD DENSITY TEsrs
Figure 29. Density data on sand drains, dam and dike
60
in the dam and dike. The figure shows that while average as-placed dry
densities ranged narrowly from 116.6 to 121.6 pcf, average relative
densities ranged from 77 to 116 percent, reflecting not only the
sensitivity of Dd to fairly small change in yd " but also the
method of relating in-place yd to Dd ' Desired average relative
densities of 70 percent in the early construction of the dike and of
85 percent for the dam and the remainder of the dike sand zones are
shown to have been exceeded in all cases.
61. Figure 30 summarizes the density data for the gravel or sand
4'd, L/CU FT
90 100 110 120 ,3o 140
RELATIVE DENSITY TESTS 'I
DALI: in J~dmrox.DAM: DSHSG _ =Cm° " I,
DIKE: DG 0-
STANDARD COMPACTION TESTS STD. 4,J a,DAM; USHSG
FIELD DENSIrIES IN-PLACE tacj (,8) )DAM: OSHSr k'
USHSGDIKE: DHG
O d OR COMPACTION
80 90 10o 1120
RELATIVE DENSITIESDAM:DSH5GDIKE: 14G i -
COMOPARCCTO NONDAM: USSC ---45 Gj
NOTES: 1. 05HSG AND USHSG ARE DOWNSTREAM AND UPSTREAM5AND AND GRAVEL HORIZONTAL. DRAINS, DHG ISDOWNSTREAM HORIZONTAL GRAVEL DRAIN.
2, SYMBOLS 0)0,60,111 INDICATE AVERAGE VALUES.&. INDICATES RANGE OF TEST VALUES.4. INDICATES DESIRED AVERAGE VALUES.5, (43) INDICATES NUMSER 0F FIELD DENSITY TESTS.
Figure 30. Density data on sand and gravel and graveldrains, dam and dike
61
and gravel drainage zones in the dam and dike. There was a wide varia-
tion in average field densities of the three zones (from 108.1 to 140.2
pcf) which might possibly be caused by differences in gradation.
Average relative densities were well in excess of the desired value of
85 percent.
62
PART IV: EVALUATION OF COMPACTION CONTROL PROCEDURES
Core and Shell Materials
Laboratory compaction test
62. The use of a 6-in. compaction mold has generally been re-
stricted to materials passing the 3/4-in, screen. The 1970 edition of
EM 1110-2-1906 requires the use of a 12-in. mold when the amount of plus
3/4-in. material exceeds 10 percent. Thus the use of a 6-in. mold in
compaction tests of minus 1-in. DeGray Dam material (without replacement)
migh . appear questionable. However, results of a comparative compaction
test investigation (Donaghe and Townsend 1973) indicate that the DeGray
compaction procedure produced satisfactory results.
63. In Donaghe and Townsend (1973), material from borrow area F
was tested in compaction molds ranging from 6 to 18 in. in diameter.
The soil had 9 percent plus 2-in. sizes, 22 percent plus I-in. sizes,
and 27 percent plus 3/4-in. sizes. G of plus No. 4 material was 2.5m
and A is assumed to have been 2.5 percent. A compaction test was made
on the total material in an 18-in. mold using a mechanical compactor,
and on minus 1-in. (with no replacement) and on minus 3/4-in. (with
re-lacement) using the standard CE compactor. Results of the 18-in.
mold test were adjusted using Equations 1 and 2 of paragraph 16 to minus
I-in. and minus 3/4-in. to give the following comparisons with actual
tests:
Optimum w Max yd
percent pcf
Total sample (3-in. maximum size 8.7 127.9in 18-in, mold)
1-in. max sizeTest in 6-in. mold (no replacement) 11.6 121.8Computed from total sample results 10.5 122.4
3/4-in. max sizeTest in 6-in. mold (with replacement) 10.8 122.3
Computed from total sample results 11.0 120.8
While there appears to be better agreement of water contents with the
63
I
I!
test on minus 3/4-in. material, other tests wit" the mechanical compactor
on minus 3/4-in. material indicated lower optimum water contents than
obtained using the hand compactor. The agreement of water contents for
1-in. material wild probably be closer if the method of compaction had
been the same for both the minus 3-in. and minus 1-in. materials. Maxi-
mum densities of adjusted and actual tests for minus 1-in. material are! in good agreement.,
Selection of appropriate
laboratory compaction test results
64. The preparation of a separate set of compaction curves for
each borrow area and the selection of appropriate compaction curves on
the basis of soil type, gradation, liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL),
and classification appears to have been an appropriate procedure for the
wide variety of material types and high gravel content of borrow mate-
rial. The construction control reports indicated that during initial
construction, the liquid limit and plastic limit were measured for each
field density test and subsequently were frequently estimated; the gra-
dation of each field density sample was measured (percentage of plus
1-in., minus No. 4 sieve, and minus No. 200 sieve material). A large
number of additional laboratory compaction tests were performed as con-
struction progressed.
65. The use of Equations 1 and 2 of paragraph 16 requires values
of G or A . These equations are used to adjust densities and waterm
contents of fills containing plus 1-in. material so that they can be
related to optimum water contents and maximum densities of compaction
tests on minus 1-in. material. It could not be determined from the
field reports which values of G and A were based on actual deter-
minations and which were simply estimated. For samples listed in Fig-
ures 13 and 14 having 10 percent or more of plus 1-in. material, values
of G ranged from 2.44 to 2.62 with an average of about 2.55; valuesm
of A ranged from 1.7 to 5.2 percent with an average of about
4.0 percent.
66. Figures 31 and 32 demonstrate the differences in variation of
water contents from optimum and the differences in variation of percent
64
!I
60LEGEND
z 0 OPTIMUM WATER CONTENTIi OF MINUS I" MATERIALzIO%
, OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT0.a50- OF 'MINUS I"l MATERIAL=1I¢0
RAN6 oc ERROR FOR MAA/t
-3 CORE AA' .5.ELL. FOR0S 45A 4 , IP Z 1 . W 7 "/ , ' s I Z - 0 7 ' 7 ,7 A -. L L SAAP AW j
40 - 5 7 5 .9 7 / 9' 1.3 113'30yNOTE: ABSORPTION; A 4%.
S/// BULK SPECIFIC
-/ GRAVITY) Gm z2.3
00
ce
I'- \DRY SIDE OF OPTIMUM \\\\WET SIOE OF OPTIMUM
.J
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
.CTUAL VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM OPTIMUM WATER. CONTENT
MINUS THE VALUE. OBTAINED BY THE FIEL.O CONTROL. METHOD
Figure 31. Differences in variation of water content from optimum for correct and
ncorrect procedures of comparing field water contents to optimum.
7
II
6011 1
NOTE: GM x2.4 OR Z.Gy A4 PERCENT.FO uFIELD DRY DENS ITY (TOTAL SAMPLE).
I-- LDLA5ORATORY MAXIMUM DRYW50 DENSITY OF MAINUS I-IN MATERIAL.
U
06
AV --140 Aoz/.?0 .2,9/' o LD/J9fO/
0.4 L= /0 Z.0 //OpA
:1~~ 'OP 10"(0 (0 t
d) 80LJ/
W% L
3 #-48 + + 2-
10 PERCENT COMPACT)IONOBTIE BY PRC ETHDMNTS OACTION VALUE
Figure 32. Differences in variation of percent compaction from maximum density for thecorrect and incorrect procedures of comparing field densities to maximum density
compaction when using the correct and incorrect procedures for comparing
field water content and density values with compaction test results (as
discussed in paragraph 19). Table 6 compares results of reported data
on percent compaction and variation of water contents from optimum with
values adjusted by WES. The table shows that more field samples failed
to meet water content specifications and desired minimum percent compac-
tion than were indicated by the reported District data. However, the
compaction achieved in constructing the dam and dike is considered
satisfactory since 8 of every 10 samples taken in the core and shells
met water content specifications and 9 of every 10 exceeded the minimum
desired percent compaction. More importantly, required strength charac-
teristics of in-place fill were verified throughout construction by
means of a thorough record sampling and testing program.
Drainage Zone Materials
67. Compaction control of sand, sand and gravel, and gravel mate-
rials by performance of maximum and minimum density tests on material
from each field density sample location appears to have been the best
procedure. However, the use of one relative density test for several
field density tests on practically identical material being placed during
one work shift appears to have been adequate.
68. Results of standard effort compaction tests with 98 or
104 percent maximum dry density related to 85 percent relative density
does not appear to have been a very satisfactory procedure since the
correlation was based on one or at the most two relative density tests.
-Changes in gradation and particle shape affect the maximum and minimum
density test results, and the validity of this procedure is questionable.
69. For the sand materials, the correlation of maximum and minimum
density with the percent minus No. 16 sieve (see Figure 15) was fairly
well defined. However, several tests on material with the same per-
centage of minus No. 16 sieve material indicated erratic dry density
variations, which could lead to significant errors. This correlation
was infrequently used and would not be too satisfactory unless maximum
67
variations along a fitted line for maximum density and for minimum den-
sity were less than about plus or minus 2 pcf.
68
I
PART V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Water Content and Compaction Results.Core and Shell Materials
Summary
70. The water content and compaction results for the core and
shell zones of DeGray Dam and Dike are summarized below.
71. Fill water content.
a. Fills in the core and shell zones were generally placedat average water contents slightly dry of optimum. Theextreme variations from optimum generally fell within5 percentage points above optimum to 7 percentage pointsbelow optimum for the dam and within 8 percentage pointsabove optimum to 7 percentage points below optimum forthe dike.
b. The percent of samples within specified water contentlimits for the dam and dike was not related to material
type. The variation within specified limits for the corezones ranged from 78 to 97 percent and for the shell andunzoned dike zones from 69 to 72 percent.
c. The test locations where the water content specificationswere not met occurred in a random fashion in the core andshell zones of the dam and dike. Variations in the per-centage of test results outside the specification limitsranged from 5 to 25 percent dry of optimum and from0 to 15 percent wet of optimum.
72. Dry density.
a. The average value of fill percent compaction for the damgenerally exceeded the desired value (100 percent) by
3 percentage points and for the dike generally exceededthe desired value (98 percent) by 6 percentage points.
b. The test locations where the desired density was notachieved occurred in a random fashion within all zones.
Extreme minimum values of percent compaction ranged from92 to 97 percent in the dam and 90 to 99 percent in the
dike except for a value of 82 percent in the unzonedsection of the dike.
73. Variation in fill water content.
a. The frequency distributions for the variation of fill
water content from laboratory optimum water content forthe dam and dike approach a normal frequency distribution,with a significantly higher concentration toward the mean
69
than the normal for the core of the dam and only slightlymore concentrated toward the mean for all other zones
except the dike core (second specification), which wasless dispersed than the normal case.
b. For the dam, better control was indicated for the core.For the dike, somewhat better control was indicated forthe core (second specification) and landside shell.
74. Variation in fill dry density.
a. The frequency distributions for the variation of percentcompaction for the dam and dike approach a normal fre-quency distribution, with a slightly higher concentrationtoward the mean than the normal except for the unzoned
material in the dike, which was slightly less concen-trated toward the mean.
b. For the dam, slightly better control was indicated forthe downstream shell. For the dike, somewhat bettercontrol was indicated for the core (second specification).
Conclusions
75. The selection of an appropriate laboratory compaction curve
on the basis of gradation, LL, PL, and classification of the fill sam-
ples appears to have been adequate for the variety of fill materials.
Total sample water content and density corrected for the amount of plus
1-in. material in the fill sample to obtain an estimate of water content
and density of the minus 1-in. fraction were of sufficient accuracy for
control purposes. The correct procedure of relating field test values
on fills containing plus 1-in. material to laboratory compaction tests
on minus 1-in. material is emphasized in this report primarily for
future guidance in compaction control of such materials.
Compaction Results, Drainage Materials
Summary
76. The relative density of the sand, sand and gravel, and gravel
placed in the drainage zones of the dam and dike generally exceeded the
desired relative densities. The few unsatisfactory relative densities
in the dike drainage zones were scattered in location, and several fill
70
• ' n m d m |
density tests several layers below the fill surface indicated a
significant increase in relative density.
Conclusions
77. The best procedure for determining in-place relative density
was the performance of a relative density test on material from each
field density test location. The correlation of maximum density and
minimum density for the sand with the percent minus No. 16 sieve was
infrequently used and did not appear to be sufficiently accurate for
use in controlling compaction. Results obtained using correlations of
standard effort percent compaction with relative density appear
questionable since a sufficient number of relative density tests were
not performed.
71
REFERENCES
Donaghe, R. T. and Townsend, F. C. 1973. "Compaction Characteristicsof Earth-Rock Mixtures, Report 1, Vicksburg Silty Clay and DeGray DamClay Sandy Gravel," Miscellaneous Paper S-73-25, U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
U. S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg. 1962. "DeGray Reservoir,
Caddo River, Arkansas," Design Memorandum No. 10, "Dike," Vicksburg, Miss.
_ 1963. "DeGray Reservoir, Caddo River, Arkansas," DesignMemorandum No. 11-1, "Dam," Vicksburg, Miss.
____ 1964. "DeGray Reservoir, Caddo River, Arkansas," Supple-ment A to Design Memorandum No. 11-1, "Dam," Vicksburg, Miss.
1972. "Earth Dam Criteria Report 53, DeGray Dam and Lake,
Caddo River, Arkansas," Vicksburg, Miss.
72
TableI
Fill Material. and A ec r ot
C. Yd L-- .d Da.,erdMeal-mu Fill No' of of fill P1. -- nt Minimot,Particle Plus No. 4 Volume. Field er Water Density' Procedures for Correlating Field
Soil Si. Material 1000 Dn.jty Denst Contenta or D0 Field Compaction Densities and Water Contents WitihType of Fill Cla...ifioatioa In. % cu Yd Teist.
0 Test % _____ Procedure Results of Laboratory Tosts
Main Damlal Core CH. CL 3 0 to 50 1 223 178 6.900 - 2.5 to -1.0 100% 4 passes of 50-ton 1. Control by standard compaction
GC. SC rube-tiredfroller (core and :helltdtn or 6 pas.e of aIn-place dens.ity was compared
b-tn ampng to laboratory standard comnpac.roller on -in. tion result. on miius I -in.
los lift material. correc ted for the per-
(b) Shell C L, GC 3 Sltob 10242 891 S. -00 -2.0 to .. 0 100% Same as abone centage of plos I -in. materials
SC. SM b.in thei field dens.ity material.Vd mes b. h ppropr iate laboratory ma.i-
(c1 Pervious Fill: moum dry denity, and optimum(ll vertical sand -t co"tent were selected by
drain SW 0.1 I to 17 63 S7 1,100 Saturated SS% ang D d 4 passe. of visual cla.ssification of fillwit'ih mn "Tempo 'Model material supplemented by grada.
D4 of 80% VC-80 towed- tion and Atterbeeg limit. test.d type vibratory and reference to a family of
compactor on compaction curves determined on
(2) sand and gravel 6
-, litmnsIImaeil1rec
drainage layers SW. OW. OP 6 3 to 90 199 63 3.100 Saturated 85 avgl Dd 8 pass.. of D- v.r h war e to te iu
.4:% min t rawler tractor c-in mh ateria conen detemind
d of 809. on b-int lift b, n-raei wsdtm id
d -by irect measurement. whileDike the lotal siample water content
(a) Core ClH. CL 3 0 to 10 3400 136 10, 100 .2b 0 t l+. S was. calculated by using theG.C-3.0t.60398% yd percent of plus I -in, material
1b1 Shell CL. C 3 010o60 S0s0 738 10.900 -2. 0 to -1. S 98% y 9
dmanit botonSC. SM I .Control by relative deasity
P vo( .G. G rvel 6. 28s ale 1.300 Saturated 95% avgl 0d -Main am (Ibrtd ndmnmm este
IdPeooo S.GW Gr adl 0. j prvious fill): Manimrtehorizntalwith min
horionfl D ot 0r wae nerally determined on
dralnel d mateial from rach field densilty
(dl Unsioned CL-ML.SW-SM 3 o tob6o 89 -2. 0 to +1.15 9P% y 4 Same as Main fort sand baseed ntl correlate
SM Dam. Cnre and fosadbsdncreltn
GC d hl with pe rcent 0No. 16 eleel
oAll tests (including original lest. for areas reworked and/or retested)00In respect to standard optimum water content
t In percent of standard maximum dry densitty. Ydmet t Dd 'relative deneity
I During initial constmvtion of the dike. lb. desired minimum relative density wa 70%It During early construction of the dike, a correlation of standard effort mraximum density with relative density was used for control
Table Z
Fill Water Content Data
Core. Shells, and Unzoned Sections
Variation of AdjustedAdjusted Fill Optimum Fill Water Content Percent of Test Values
Water Content Water Content from Laboratory Optimum Specified Limits With with Respect toNo. _% % Percentage Points Respect to Optimum Specified Limits
Embankment Zone Tests Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Std Dev, a in Percentage Points Below Within Above
Darn. Core 154 9.8to24.7 15.4 11. 1 to 22.5 15.7 -7.2 to +2.7 -0.26 1.24 -2.0 to +1.0 4.5 88.3 7.Z
Dam, Upstream Shell 321 6.0to22.6 13.0 9.7to22.0 13.7 -5.7to+3.3 -0.68 1.51 2.0to+l.0 17.7 72.3 j0.0
Dam. Downstream Shell 378 6.7to22.8 13.1 8.8to22.0 13.9 -6.4 to+5.4 -0.81 1.63 -2.0to+l.0 20.9 69.6 9.5
Dike, Core, lst Water 175 8.5 to 36.4 24.4 13.2 to 36.8 24.3 -3.9 to +7.4 +0.10 1.69 -2.0 to +1.5 6.9 77.7 15.4Content Specification
Dike, Core. 2nd Water 138 3.7 to 39.2 27.3 13.9 to 38.6 26.9 -3.5 to +4.4 +0.37 1.86 -3.0 to +6.0 2.9 97.1 0.0Content Specification
Dike. Landside Shell 314 6.3to25.7 12.9 7.0toZ5.9 13.8 -6.7to+8.5 -0.90 1.83 -2.0to+1.5 24.5 69.5 6.0
Dike. Lakeside Shell 312 5. 7to 32.3 13.1 8.5to 3Z. 1 13.9 -7.3to +6.9 -0.78 1.94 .2.0to+1.5 Z2.1 69.2 8.7
Dike. Unsoned 89 7.3to 35.1 13.8 9.5to36
.1 14.5 -5.3to 4. Z -0.94 1.67 -2.0 to +1.5 20.2 71.9 7.9
Table 3
Fill Density Data
Core. Shells, and Unsoaed Sections
Standard Mxirmum DesiredFill Dry Density Dry Density Minimum Percent Test Values
No. pcf pcf Fill Percent Compaction Percent Below Desired .Embankment Zone Tests Range Mean Range Mean Ranze Mean Std Dev. a Compaction Percent Compaction
Dam. Core 154 101.6 to 125.7 114.5 97.5 to in. 6 110.8 96.7 to 112.2 103.8 2.61 100.0 10.4
Dam. Upstream Shell 321 97.4 to 136.6 119.0 99.3to 133. 6 120.3 92. 3 to 112. 0 102.8 2.87 100.0 16.8
Dam. Downstream Shell 378 101.4 to 134.8 117.0 99.0 to 134.0 115.6 92.1 to 110.5 102.3 2.82 100.0 20.4
Dike, Core. lot specification 175 82.3 to 124.5 99.4 79.7 to 118.5 95.2 90.0 to 114.8 104.0 3.76 98.0 4.0
Dike. Core. 2nd specification 138 81.2 to 120.2 96.9 76.8 to 118.3 91.4 98.9to 117.5 105.4 3.0S 98.0 0
Dike. Landside Shell 314 93.5 to 138.2 118.2 92.0 to 128.5 115.2 92.6 to 111.6 103.0 3.29 98.0 6.0
Dike. Lakeside Shell 312 86.5 to 139.1 117.8 85.0 to 135.7 114.5 91.2to 112.3 102.9 3.70 98.0 7.4
Dike. Unzoned 89 87.0 to 134.0 115.5 91.9 to 126.3 107.5 82. 0 to 118.1 103.1 3.81 98.0 9.0
Table 4
Summary of Field Density Results. Drainage Materials. Dam
In-Place In-Place
No. Field Range of Max. Passing No. 4 Yd min Yd max- in-Place Yd Rel. Den. CompactionDensity Particle Sise Sieve, % lb/cu ft lb/cu ft lb/cu ft % %
Drainage Layer Tests* in. Range vAv_ Range Avg Range Ayg Range Avz Range Avg [_ R Ave
In-Place Density Compared to Standard "vd max (104% Compaction = Desired Avg Dd 85%)
Upstream 20 3 to 6 20 to 33 25 .. .. 122. I to 128. 7 132. 5 to 140.2 - - 100 to 109
Horisontal 135.1 145.6 116Sand andGravel (GP, GW)
Relative Density of In-Place Material Determined (Desired Avg Dd = 85%)
Downstream 49 3/8 to 1/2 83 to 99 90 95.6 to 103.1 109. 1 to 118.1 110.0 to 116.6 80 to 92Vertical 109.9 124.6 121.8 112
Sand (SW)
Downstream 17 I/2 89 to 97 93 103.9 to 107.3 117.7 to 120.0 117.8 to 121.5 85to 116Horisontal 110.8 121.8 126.1 154
Sand JSW)
Downstream 43 2 to 6 10 to 36 19 104.2 to 109.5 120.8 to 127.2 120.9 to 128.2 80 to 95Horisontal 117.8 137.3 138.5 111Sand andGravel (GW)
Excluding results of original tests for areas reworked and/or retested.* From standard effort compaction test or vibrated relative density test as indicated.
Table 5
Summary of Field Density Results, Drainage Materials, Dike
In-PlaceMaximum Passing In-Place y Relative In-Place
No. Field Particle No. 4 Sieve Yd min d max d Density CompactionDensity Size % lb/cu ft lb/cu ft lb/cu ft % %
Drain Tests* in. Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg
Group A: Desired Minimum Relative Density = 70%
Vertical 12 1/2 91 to 94 100.0 and 101.6 121.2 and 121.8 109.6 to 116.9 51 to 77 .. ..Sand (SW) 94 103.1 122.4 121.2 95
Horizontal 53 1 2 91 to 94 100.0 and 101.6 121.2 and 121.8 109.0 to 117.8 48 to 82 .. ..Sand (SW) 95 103.1 122.4 1Z6.2 117
Group B: Desired Average Relative Density = 85%
Vertical 7 1/2 85 to 89 .. .. 110.9 to 117.2 114.2to 119.1 100 to 102Sand (SW) 95 120.5 124.1 104
Horizontal 27 3/8 to 3/4 85 to 91 .. .. 108. 1 to 116.9 113.6 to 118.2 .. .. 97 to 101Sand (SW) 95 122.6 127.8 107
Group C: Desired Average Relative Density = 85%and Minimum Relative Density = 80%
Vertical 42 3/8 to 1/2 81 to 92 93.5 to 100.8 111.6 to 117.7 111.6 to 116.8 82 to 93 .. ..Sand (SW) 98 108.2 124.3 I24.2 110
Horizontal 26 1/2 to 3/4 76 to 88 97.2 to 105. 5 113.6 to 120.3 111.7 to 120.0 82 to 97 .. ..Sand (SW) ' 114.0 127.6 125.7 147
Horizontal 8 2 to 3 0.5 to 8 89.4 to 95.7 103.3 to 109.1 100.7 to 108.1 83 to 93 .. ..Gravel (GW) 53 99.5 113.8 113.2 98
* Excludes original tests for areas reworked or retested.
Table 6
Comparison of Compaction Control Results, Corrected and Uncorrected Data
Variation ofFill Water Content Percent of Test Values
from Laboratory Optimum with Respect to Percent of Test ValuesField No. Percentage Points Specified Limits Fill Percent Compaction Below Desired
Embankment Zone Data* Tests Mean Std Dev, a Below Within Above Mean Std Dev_ a Percent Compaction
Dam, Core U 154 -0.33 1.22 5.8 87.8 6.4 103.4 2.57 1.2C -0.26 1.24 4.5 88.3 7.2 103.4 2.61 10.4
Dam. Upstream Shell U 321 -0.59 1.26 11.1 83.3 5.6 102.7 2.51 2.2C -0.68 1.51 17.7 72.3 10.0 102.8 2.87 16.8
Dam, Downstream Shell U 378 -0.76 1.52 17.5 73.4 7. 1 102.2 2.47 3.0C -0.81 1.63 20.9 69.6 9.5 102.3 2.82 20.4
Dike, Core, let specification U 175 -0.09 1.68 8.6 79.4 12.0 104.3 3.47 2. 3C +0.I0 1.69 6.9 77.7 15.4 104.0 3.76 4.0
Dike, Core. 2nd specification U 138 +0.32 1.83 2.9 97.1 0.0 105.4 3.03 0.0C +0.37 1.86 2.9 97.1 0.0 105.4 3.05 0.0
Dike. Landside Shell U 314 -0.69 1.56 14.8 80.8 4.4 102.9 2.93 3.5C -0.90 1.83 24.5 69.4 6.1 103.0 3.29 6.0
Dike, Lakeside Shell U 312 -0.60 1.71 16.1 76.0 7.9 102.7 3.40 5.4C -0.78 1.94 22.1 69.2 8.7 102.9 3.70 7.4
Dike, Unxoned U 89 -0.79 1.57 15.4 76.9 7.7 103.3 4.03 8.8C -0.94 1.67 20.2 71.9 7.9 103.1 3.81 q.0
C U - uncorrected: C - corrected
t
150
150 ~MEAN RESULTS
140
130
'0
100
90 NOTE:- ALL DATA PERTAIN TOTHMIUIINFRCOS
OF THE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
s ,o L j. -- L, .- I,
123040 24 2 32 36
NUMBOER OF TESTS =154MIEAN FILL OENSITY = 14.5 PCFFILDRDESTEAN FILL WATER CONTENT T15.4 PERCENT FIELDDRYRDE
VERSUS FILL WATERCONTENT, CORE OF
THE DAMST
PLATE 1
*1
TPEGFI'O RANGE OF W ATER CONTENT
50 2 -2 1
I I i I I I | II i I I I | i
N: l5t
IT= 1.24 PERCENTAGE POINTSjr: 0.25 PERCENTAGE POINTS
CRY OF OFTIMiUI1
40 80
. SPECIFIED ISO LIMITS
I /,o MEAN
;20 40)
NORMAL CURVE
30 20
o 0 o a-"-1-ETrE ' N , ,
- 7 -7 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 - - -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
VARIRTION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FRO" LABORATORY OrTIflUI VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LAbORATORY OFTIIUIPERCENTAGE POINTS PERCENTAGE POINTS
PERCENT OF TOTAL SRPLES MIT" PERCENT OF TOTAL .R NLE3 WITMRE5PECT TO ONE STO. DEV. 101 .,5FFCT TO 5PFEC1IrFl LIMITS
BEje WITHIN 9='J EELOW WffIHN PSV
9.74 81.17 9.09 4.55 60.3 I 7. 14
SAl l AUdata pertain tthe o msu. 1-1a. fratios of the ftil 61e"ty oewl"I *Iubr of test, VARIATION OF FILL WATER
One sandard e tion xpr 4 in p. runm.og... poato natiWo to CONTENT, CORE OF THE DAMthe me. v artion of f11 water ton-ent Irn. laboratory optivmrmI ar*io ntio Of fill .. ter cotest fro laboratory optlmumeoprec-j I- P-ae7t50 Point.
Ij
DESIRED MT. PERCENT OF MAX. 5TO. DRY OEN.
50 I I I I I 100 10i
No 154
(": 2.51 PERCENTRGE POINTSZ: 103.36 PERCENT COMPACTION
40 80
0.Co SO 50-
DESIREDo -*"------.M--f F ANoMINIMUM-IMA
t 20 40
N0RUAL CURVE
to 20
0 I; I - . - a I I I I I I , I A55 87 51 91 15 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 84 56 88 SO 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 lZ 114 116
FILL PERCENT COMPRCTION FILL PERCENT COMFRCTION
PERCENT OF TOTRL 5AMPLES WITH PERCENT OF TOTAL SrMFLE3 YITmRESPECT TO ONE 5TO. OEV. f101 RF'rECr TO DESIRE0 I, COMIACTION
ELW WITHIN ABOV FLnw OOVE15.23 72.08 11.69 10.9 89.61
3sm: Al data pertain to the ainum 1-ia. fractions of the fill denmity se apliI - ,=Ie- of test VARIATION OF PERCENTa. On. e statndar deviation exres..4 it pernte point, relative COMPACTION, CORE OF
>" the a n variatlon of fill vater content from laboratory opiOM C O O13 THE DAMY x Neon variation of fill vater content from laboratory optioT E
expressed In percentage points
115;.
=L
+ lEAN RESULTS
ISO
140N
. *.~ *,: *, .
* •** .z*am120
1,00" " "' o
90 NOTE: ALL DATA PE:RTAIN TO THE MINUS I IN. FRACTIONSOf THE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
. *** I
So 4 it 16 to 24 to 39 36
FILL WATER CONTENT.PERCENT
NU":rl!rO" TESTS = 321
M. .* L EW
MERN FILLN 2IICFILDR DENSITY 19.PFAlR ILNTER CONTENT :3.0 PER CENT FEDDYD STVERSUS FLL WATERCONTENT, UPSTREAM
SHELL OF THE DAM
PLATE 4
I
I I!
SPECIrIEO R0CE CF WATER COMTENTJ
N= 321U= 1.51 PERCENTAGE POINTSR: 0.58 PFRCENTAGE POINTS
ORT OF OPTIrMUM40 - so
i 50
5 o 1L1GoS
1
20 - 0
o I o ' t|. | .
0 - - -4MANIr a,a..
NORMAL CURVE
10 20
-6 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -Z -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -1 - - -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 U
VARIATION Of FILL MATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTIIUn VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTIMURPERCENTAGE FOINTS PERCENTAGE POINTS
PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMPLES NITH PERCENT OF TOTAL 3FlPLE3 WITHRFP CT TO ONE STO. OEV. 1IU XF5ECT TO SPECIFIEO LIMIT5
ark-OW YjfJ.= ABOVE BEO W.ITH±IN ABOVE15.58 70.09 14.33 17.75 72.27 9.97
XOTESt ALI data portals to the als 1-1a. fractios of the fill desoity h&Me@X - YIbtr ot tests
a -Oe st&odv& deviatio s e4 in peentap points relative to VARIATION OF FILL WATERot ma. va.iton o .f fl water content from Il tory Wimn CONTENT, UPSTR EAM SHELL OF
- V foenso of fill wer content from laboatory animus THE DAMepreee4 In percentage points
III I i
DESIRED MIN, PERCfB OF MlAJ. STO. DRY DEN,
-I SO , 10
III 2.017 PERCENTAGE POINTSr102.77 PERCENT COMPACTION
40 to
L!hii
MINIMU
40 20
OF -0I L
O S 8 7 1 9 1 0t 3 9 5 97 9 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 5 1 0 7 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 11 5 1 1 7 8 4 0 6 8 8 2 9 4 9 5 9 3 1 00 1 0 2 1 04 1 0 6t
1 0 8 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 5
FILL PERCENT COMPAICTION FILL PERCENT CGnFQCTION
PERCENT OF TOTAL. WRFqLES N(TH PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMJPLES NITHRDESIRED COMPrCTION
BELW ITIN AN~v U!L AB0V
16.20 69.12 14.04 16.02 63.15
NM2SI, Al data portls to ane aes 1.1~a. gruion of aw fil dgmlt' swa.
I- NOMA NumerfVtst
L - oO standa ,owCTIO epesse Ns eo-s.a oints relatve VARIATION OF PERCENT COMPACTION,the mn variation of fill water cet f ram laborato-ry optiasmeCvEon at TfTll. Snest r, laboratory optE-- UPSTE N EAM SIELL OF TH DAMOexesed I perenae poins. sprms osarltvoV RA INO E C N O P C IN
-. ,.--,- - , .-
10 MERN RESULTS
ISO
130
150
". .[ Oo;
• J. Et .,
a . .V ...:
100
90 NOTE: ALL DATA PERTAIN TO "THE MINUS I IN. FRACTIONSOF THE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
80 L ' I ' L IL6 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
FILL ATER CONTENT.ERCENT
NUMBER OF TESTS = 378
IERN FILL DENSITY = 117.0 rCFflEAN FILL WATER CONTENT = 13.1 PERCENT FIELD DRY DENSITY
VERSUS FILL WATERCONTENT, DOWNSTREAM
SHELL OF THE DAM
PLATE 7
SPECIFIEO RANGE Of WATER CON~tENrj
so to__ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ -21
| 5,, ,0 ,
N: 378
a: 1.63 PERCENTAGE POINT3r= 0.81 PERCENTAGE POINTS
O.RY Of OF'TIMUn
40 80
,_j
- /0. 2
150 o c 60
a SPECIFIED- LIMITS -
II
0 20 I I 0
- -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 3 4 5 6 78 - -7 -6 - 5 -4 -3 - -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 79
VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTIMIUM VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTII IPERCENTAGE POINT5 PERCENTGGE POINTS
PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMlILE MITH PERCENT OF TOTAL 3AIIPLES WITHRESPECT TO ONE STO. DEV. 1I F!ESPECT TO SPECIFIEO LIMITSBELOWL WITHIN ABOVE BELO" WfIHI ABOVE13.23 72.49 14.28 20.90 69-56 9.52
W10 s All 6sts pertedo to the smus 1-In, frostines of %wN tU,1 Amty mergeOs- 6 t.e o tes.ts VARIATION OF FILL WATER
Sow *tandard ftklatm expxos.te in 9retatq. po nts roiptive t CONTENT, DOWNSTREAM SHELLthe m .- tatift of tinl voter content from Ultutay oria OF THE DAM
I T.. voriation of fill vster ontent from Inbors'oy optiam*opre.ss4 In porsaOttogo point*
DESRFO lIN. PERFENT OF MAX. STO. nRY Dn.
17- 2.02 PERCENTAGE POINTSZz 102.26 PERCENT COIPACTION.
40 s0
s o 6 0occ
MINMU MEAN
10 20
SO 50
al
115 87 89 91 031 95 211/ 99 ICIl 103 IOS 107 102 111 1131 115 117 184 OSB 08 20 12 94 26 98S 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116FILL PERCENT COMPACTION FILL PERCENT COMPACTION
PERC~ENT OF TOTAL 3ANrLE3 WITH PEtiCENT OF TOTAL 39ti'rLES WITH
RESPECT TO ONE[ STO. DEV. 10 RESPfECT TO DEED~lr 9b CO rPf:TICW
12.70 70/2.75 14.55 20. 7 79
SM/: AA. it pertain to %he Ida", 1-12, frutiow Of the fill 81% 44*1X - Xwb, of tests VARIATION OF PERCENTel he "tand. M ea t n of fi l i" cootewttrol abat or orti mmas C O M P A C T IO N , D O W N S T R E A M
the V em "rsion o fill aster ntnt fom lab t'r to lmm SHELL OF THE DAM-* ures se d In per ent ae points10
ISO 1 I I i 1 I I I I
+-4 MEAN RESULTS
140
i •*
ISO
; b.
00. %/
80 NOTE: ALL DATA PERTAIN To THE MINUS I IN. FRACTIONSOF THE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
70 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I _0 to 14 1a 22 26 so 34 38.
FILL WATER CONTENT, PERCENT
NIJIIER Of TESTS = 75MECAN FILL DENSITY =99.4 ?CF IL R ESTNEAN FILL WATER CONTENT 24.4 PERCENTFEL DYDNST
VERSUS FILL WATERCONTENT, CORE
OF THE DIKE(FIRST SPECIFICATION)
PLATE 10
iv e e
I
' ' ' ' I I I I I * 'SPECIFIE RANCE OFWATER CONTENT
N: 3-20: 1.69 PERCENTAGE POINTS too , -r-.--X: 0.10 PERCENTRE POINTS
WET OF OPTIMUI
40
Sso
.
£ ~SPECIFIED 5
U20 -
40
10 - NORMAL CURVE
02
-0 7 -6 -3 -4 -3 -2 -i 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTIMUM 0 1 ,ERCENTAGEror- 7 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7
PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMWLES WITH VARIATION OF FILL RATER CONTENT FRO" LABORATCRT OPTIIUM
RESpECT TO ONE STU. FV. 'in, PERCENTAGE POINTS
BELOW WITIN eIV PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMPLES WITH12.00 74.86 13.14 RESPECT TO strgfrrO Lffttrs
I .1s All ate pertlan to the alate I-I. fractions of theM dnity @m BELOW WIHIN ABO6.86 17.71 15.43
One sta devia- i exprese iL pet beebe points l tive o VARIATION OF FILL WATERthe man variation of fill water content freela Zboratory *2tlwmt *ts .vtion of fill ter cotet Ir laboratory 07.m CONTENT, CORE OF THE DIKE
expressed einpeeen.ce points O(FIRST SPECIFICATION)
r-I-s DESIRED "IN,. PERCENT OF HAX. STD. DAY DER.
' SO * * I 5" ' ' ,L
' I I i I
Hz 1
to17o
r -- 3.76 PERCENTRGi POINTS4 : 104.02 PERCENT COnPACTION
46
so so
or
RESPEC TOOEJQ E=I ECN fTTLSML5WT
II'
=2j Al As40tlt 0mfs11.fatouo WtUd"Wemld .0WD
U- - tbro et ARAINO ECN
20
05 p7 39 91 93 95 97 9 01 103 105 107 109 111 113 123 117 0 t , t , t i s *
FILL PERCENT CWiPACTIOM 64 88 6 90 g 92 84 88 96 :00 102 104 106 108 :20 112 114 11:5
8ILL Psa*nNT COMPPCTIO
PERCENT OP TOTAL 3AiIPLES NITH
RESPECT TO Or ! f ,0. oEV. 10m PERCENT OF TOTAL DIKLES NITN
eeeIn p 1InLse Rpo"FCT TO EREO P. COIrfCTOWN12.00 73.71 14.29 [.4
4.0O0 9.• 0
30 As da ta o t. * the s al -a~a . frito ot the ftll d11 3u
, - 3ib,, of tast VARIATION OF PERCENT* - to., ,tmdmt doratlos mae L- pertotag bit ,tW to COMPACTION, CORE
the -* .um ~lt of fill ater gtt fros *7ort optF HE IKj, .. * be 1 wa.te auon lo.:,rtoyO~ (FIRST SI'ECIF' CATION)
tI1I
140 I
+-MEAN RESULTS
120
k. too
Z100
: *
j 90
80 " % """
70 NOTE: ALL DATA PEF TO THE MINUS I IN. FRACTIONS
OF THE FILL DL.,iSITY SAMPLES.
s0 I I I I I I I I .I10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42
FILL WATER CONTENT, PERCENT
NUtMBER OF TESTS 138
NEAIN FILL DENSITY = 96.9 FCFIMEAN FILL hATER CONTENT 27.3 PERCENT FIELD DRY DENSITY VERSUS
FILL WATER CONTENT, COREOF THE DIKE
(SECOND SPECIFICATION)
PLATE 13
f IJI
I . _
1 SPECIFIED RANCE OF WATER CONTENT]
so10014
4Ol 1.6 PERCENTAGE POINTS
f= 0.37 PERCENTAGE POINTSWET OF OPTIMUM
.40 60
o -
C SPECIPICOLIMITS I
20 - 40
-MEANU I I
10 NORMAL CURVE 20
0 0l i ~ | l l ~ l
-8-7-6 -4-3-2-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -5-7 -6-5-4-3-2-1 01 234 5 6 76
VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROl LABORATORr OPTZflUMI VARIATION OF FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OrTIMUnPERCENTAGE POINTS PERCENTAGE POINTS
PERCENT Of TOTAL SAMPLES MITH PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMPLES MIT"
RE PCT TO OttF ATO. 0Ey. (M Sf3FFCT TO 5rECIFIEO LimM
BFLOW Mumsira ABOVt GF.LON WITI. mcv
27.39 63.04 19.57 2.90 97.20 0.00
51, An 6fta prtals to the a.1.t 1-L.. fre te.s, oa n m a.--lt s,ea. VARIATION OF FILL WATERM-.,. of at@ CONTENT, CORE FILL OF THE DIKE-Orne standard dvtise expressled in pevetag ploutlati to
t.e ean wor.et. of fin "ater toeteot from 1eteorary ovti- (SECOND SPECIFICATION)X" Ceo iata or fll -11 -se ontent c lboretohy qptle*,pre1'1 in pertentce oints
AD-All? 835 ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG-ETC F/S 8/13ANALYSIS OF FIELD COMPACTION DATA. DURAY DAM. CACCO RIER. ARK--ETC(UMAR 82 W E STROHM" V N TORREY
UNCLASSIFIED WES/MP/$L -82-1 NL2, 2
DESIREO Ing. FERFENT OF MAX, ITO. OR' flIhJ.
II: 138or- 5.05 PeRCENTAGE PoINTSfa 105.55 PFRCENT COmlPACTION
40 80
so 20 60DE31RED I
MAINIUM . 1-MEAN a
2- 40
NORMAL CURVg
a o I v , 8 3 9 5 9 S 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 3 1 3 12 5 1 1 7 0 4 8 6 I f 3 0 2 3 4 0 6 t8 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 8 l O 5 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 .4 1 5
FILL PERCENT COIIP4CTION FILL rERCENT C0IIPACTION
PERCENT Of TOTAL SflflIS MIT" tU3N 7 OTLSOPE3 WITHREPET TOOE T. pEV. ctm W1'3"cmT TO oTal~IAo1 S ConPACTIONd
KkE MU' I WITHIN 0190V ONO ABOVE12.32 71.74 25.94 0.00 t00.00
11=s All data 91,1.2. to M lw sa. -l. frltife at 09 flU brAly onpl.t .w,.s ~t. VARIATION OF PERCENT
U p ta-la" d-ilatlaa ""waa4 U. iamat paats.I1ative to. COMPACTION, CORE FILLI-h Q hal..-i.tfa ot till hatdf .tat.t fim laklarly opuim OF TI IE DIKE
Z*irAal tc . l .t.aam i ~aa~ (SECOND SP.C-IrTC.ATION)
160
E= AEN RESULTS
130
120
j130
•s22 30.*
100
90 NOTE; ALL DATA PERTAIN TO THE MINUS I IN. FRACTIONSOF THE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
so'4 a 2 to t0 24 t8 32 56
FILL WATER CONTENT.rI.eCENT
NUCEIR OF TESTS 140EAM FILL OENSITY = 116.2 rcrPIIRN FILL WATER CONTENT : 12.9 FERCENT FIELD DRY DENSITY
VERSUS FILL WATERCONTENT, LANDSIDE
SHELL OF THE DIKE
PLATE 16
I
FrECIFt!W maNGE or W9TER CONTENT
. . . . .1100a -2 .
ft 1.09 PERCETAGE POINTSIr. 0.50 PERCENTAGE POINTS
DRY Of OPT1RIWI
40 - o0
s.o - so
LIMITS
~ 0
-0 - - - -4-3 -2 - -0 1 013 4 5 -8-7 - -5 - - 3--2 -10 1 0534 55 7 8
VARIATION Of FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OTTIRVUM VAIATION or P1.1 MLlNAER CONTENT FRO" LABORATORY OplnUR
PERCENTAGE POITuS PERCEWTAGZ PoINWT3
PERCENT Of TOTAL. 51111PES uITM PEPCENT OP TOTAL SAIIPLES MIT"
RE5PFCT Tft Off STI). QVV. 107 RPr. ro ,rcirtri LItMS
14.33 74.52 11.15 24.52 69.43 0.01
11. A11 6to pft.*% to Who NMAs 1-1-. kS"Ut-t of the fll 40641t?. .fle
J! - *.*a toots VARIATION OF FILL WATERa. O .Qa$MW4 loyletihe oqsseoM IS V5etttm 5Stk. as1.ti taL CONTENT, LANDSIDE SHELL
tel th m- - ietlo. or fill VSOto t~ as"-% Im htalaoy o$tu. OF TI I E DI K E'i. wa oese~~t. f fill e.-t..-t ft. oea~ e vti-
tDrErirj 1H.m myc.i oPt-nnx. SMh.-CRY CEN
1 ~ 00U- 3.22 PERCENTAGE POINTS
f 02.93 ?ERCtUT C0'w12T10N4
40 0
v-I
a DESIRED20 - MINIMUM- MEAN 40
0 0.
SS587 84 It 13 2 13 Sit9 101 103 105 107 100 lit 113 115 117 64 5S 85 20 2 14 25111 LOO 200 LC04 1106 105 110 112 114 116
FILL PERCENTV C0IVC1I0H FILL PERCENT CO1PaCTION
PER2CENT Of TOTAL SAFIFLE3 NITH PERiCENT Of TOTAL 511111LES IJITII
RCT TO 015 STD. DEV. (01 RFIPPCT TOy 0591gr0 rmrFct~om
14.41S 69.43 13.92 5.05 13.95
SM$ All U4 t Qa 2 t U UiIL". I-IS. ftUtS O t thnUl 4nAtp .~pt.
I Iw or t.*'* VARIATION OF PERCENT0"C stmor knt,4Jl tlm em."s4 th pert~tw eltts Ilatl to COMPACTION. LA NDSIDEt%. ef -1liftI of fill "to etty nt ftta lobrtoy otiwm SHELL OF THE DIKE
ftC 5V.24 'a1tato of fil "1 ter CI-telC from 1.bwrtory optom*Cpflstd to Wetd?.. 1.t
lea
MEAN RESULTS
15
140
~ ~N]so A.0.-
100 *
0
90 NOTE:. ALL DATA PERTAIN 'To THE MINUS IN." FRACTIONS
OF THlE FILL DENSITY SAMPLES.
SO4 IS to t4 tie 32 36
ILL WATER COINITENT.PERCE.T
WUISER OF TESTS 312iEAN FILL OENS1TY = 1t7.5 PtTRERM FILL WATER CONTENT 13.0 fECENT FIELD DRY DENSITY
VERSUS FILL WATERCONTENT, LAKESIDESHELL OF THE DIKE
PLATE 19
.uo ,. . ...-. ..
sotoo, 1 : ....r --
t'1 0' ,4 PERCENTAGE POINTS
At 0.70 FFRCENT9$1 POWkTSDRY OF CPTIFUfl
40 so-
0 so so
+ "9LSUAITS
20-MEAN 40
02
-6 -7 -6 -5-4 -3 -- 1 0 1 234 3 679 3-0 -7 - -5 -4 -3 -2 -t 0 I 1 o
VARIATION OF FILL IiAIER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTIMUMNPERCENTAGE POINT3 VARIwTIOO OPNSLL "ATI 'a FROM LABORATORY OPTIMUM
PERCENT OF TOTAL SAtPLES WITH PERCENT OF TOTAL 3AMPLES MIT"RquTFYCT TO OT STO. REV. 101 RtEPECT TO STUPII Lt fleLe. W I AOVE B EOW T i AB~[£~i O VEnl3
14.10 13.40 I2.5O 22.12 99.23 0.65
t All 46ta puoleo toe Ia -i. tuti.. or t fil o"&"
.O. .,44 *t v1t. .op..ed is ptetow tn. @ ",1* .M VARIATION OF FILL WATERthe . ... tio. .f fill -aer. cotm frm labor.toe? "tin CONTENT, LAKESIDE
.Vft .t tlo fil .%.U tft.ttt ft I.r&Mm *Pt,. SIIELL OF THE DIK E*.l. I. l..*
- - - - _ __ _ _ _ ._ -." v
- - .-. -
OF!ITREO MtN. PFrRFNT OF nAX. STO. OnR MEN.
I F I I I I a I * 100 9I
Mo 312a=: 3.70 PERCEMTAGE POINTS
: 102.91 PERCENT COhMPACTION
40 30
o a0 DEs1RED 40
MINImUM MEAN w
10 NORMAL CUlVE 20
a'0 * . Ii i i, .I.t.IC I I p
5 87 09 91 83 45 87 s9 101 103 105 107 109 I 113 It1$ 117 34 8 08 90 92 94 96 93 100 102 104 106 LOB 110 112 114 115
FILL PERCENT COMPCTIOd FILL PERCENT COIIPaCTIOM
PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMWLES MITH PERCENT OF TOTAL SAIIPLES WIThRE.SPECT TO ONE 10. VEY, rM RPSPfCT TO DESIREO z COMPCION
fl1OW J WILIN ABOVE OEMNAB OvE13.78 68.9 17.31 7.37 92.63
E.1 All Wats prt., ".o te - 1... .r1tW @aw f d 4 l"11 - Wbo at t.e.r VARIATION OF PERCENT-. - Om.tt. dvatotom o.om.om. , n.o.b pojot. otou ml to COMPACTION, LAKESIDE
CC. ,,m l.i.tOif of flll Owt. eott &M, tmto? bo -- SHELL OF THE DIKE- U." MoOsutl or fill -to costt% fros labfma opI*m
*Olte000A to pe.eO Me p.let.
S . . .... . . .. - - . .. ..-. .-- .- ~ -- . - .- . . . -
150
M IEAN R~ESULTS
ISO
140
130
SO NOTE: ALL DATA PERTAIN rO THlE MINUS I IN. FRCTIONS• .1.1 :,,,,
soo
4 8 12 1 is t4 to S2 36
FILL WATER CONTENT.PERCENT
XUflSER 01 TESTS 09
nEAN TILL OENSITY 5IIS.S PCIfKEAN FILL RATER CONTENT 13.8 PERCENT FIELD DRY DENSITY
VERSUS FILL WATERCONTENT, UNZONED
SECTIONS OF THE DIKE
PLATE 22
I
I
IPECIIEOR OFRAKEC cO!TOT
"'I , ! * I I I 00 " " - I .5
N. 890: 1.67 PERCENTRIGE POINTSX: 0.91 PTCENTP.CE POIKT5
DRY OF OPTIMlUM40 s0 -
o- Go
I-SPECIFIE0
o I =-I-b -- MEAN "
20 I 0a 4
N4ORMAL CURVE
10 j 20
-8 -7 -5 - -4 -2 01 2 3 4 5 5 7 S-0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -1 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 1
VARI710?M OFILL MOYER CONTENT FROM LABORATORY OPTIIIUM VARIATION Or FILL WATER CONTENT FROM LABORATORt OPTIMUM'PERCENTAGE POINTS PERCNTA.E POINTS
PERCENT OF TOTAL SAIPLES WITH PERCENT Of TOTAL 59ITLE5 WITHJ[,PECT TO OKE 3TO. VEY. 101 E.ET TO.FECIFIP.O LIUr8111.01 WITfHIN FOG E KumLU WITINH rE.f!16.45 71.91 11.24 20.22 71.91 7.67
mm All M Pri t . e Inw 3,1-. fra, -s at -- nu lIt " VARIATION OF FILL WATER
&A stw ".19to "@ t*Sottea oo"mlt*s CONTENT, UNZONED,- 0 f u .t.. of fil -t.e coota p lab . -. l o ., FILL OF THE DIKE
th. -Amloa tio of fll .. tr tot tro. uto. NU" nagli
NI t~pfle4 II. e~Tc~l~ .. r it.
w
SC ou. IT0 IR I I
U: $1 PRgCE4TAGE P0114TSf103.10 r(RCENT COYWACTION
40
Sos
04
;20 DESIRED
NORMALCURVE20
g 7 5 1 9 95 9 9 l t 103 103 107 lo g 111 13 13 117 4 59 5 go 92 4 %6 9 0 02 1 4 1 9 10 1 1 114 11 6
FILL FERCENY COIFlPCTION
rPtCEt~ Of TOMot SAMFLES MIT" C£To otl 5flL3wT
sl~ hITIIIN 5~V h.a 01
S~b 15t )0.730 4.~011.fS000 f0.01 0.t ~ VARIATION OF PERCENT
W *It Al &ta PM1 *--'- -6 rcto ftwnld~ ol COMPACTION, UN ZONED
*lb Gfo @.d40010eo.'4
1 4o00 i1 l1w' FILL OF THE DIHE
vj @0 ,"m4 or fill Umter .0000 000 frm la 007~ri *PtwI
O~~~ f ., .,l~ . ill ,oo. .,1ft 0,00 ptl,0.. o01
*.TtJS~ 10 trC000
0 ~at.
In accordance with letter from DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated22 July 1977, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards forLaboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalogcard in Library of Congress MARC format is reproduced
below.
Strohm, William E.Analysis of field compaction data, DeGray Dam, Caddo
River, Arkansas / by William E. Strohm, Jr., Victor H. ITorrey III (Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station). -- Vicksburg, Miss. : TheStation ; Springfield, Va. : available from NTIS, 1982.
71, [6] p., 24 p. of plates : ill. ; 27 cm. --
(Miscellaneous paper ; GL-82-4)Cover title."March 1982."Final report."Prepared for office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army
under CWIS 31173 and CWIS 31209."Bibliography: p. 72.
1. Caddo Lake (Ark.) 2. DeGray Dam (Ark.) 3. Earthdams. 4. Embankments. S. Soil stabilization. 1. Torrey,Victor H. II. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers.
Strohmn, William E.Analysis of field compaction data, DeGray Dam : ... 1982.
(Card 2)
Office of the Chief of Engineers. III. U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station. Geotechnical Laboratory.IV. Title V. Series: Miscellaneous paper (U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station) GL-82-4.TA7.W34m no.GL-82-4
Ii
FIME