Compaction Notes

7/27/2019 Compaction Notes

1/37


2/37

Slide 2 of 37Revised 2/2012

14.330 Soil Mechanics Soil Compaction

WHY COMPACT SOILS?

Figure courtesy ofSoil Compaction: A Basic Handbookby MultiQuip.


3/37



Volume (V)

Weight (W) =

Conceptual

(Figure 4.1. Das FGE (2005))

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

Silty Clay (LL=37, PI =14) Example

(from Johnson and Sllberg 1960, taken

from TRB State of the Art Report 8, 1990)


4/37



LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. Proctors)

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

6 inch

Mold

4 inch Mold

Ejector

Modified Hammer

Standard Hammer

Soil Plug

Soil Plug

Scale


5/37



TestASTM/

AASHTO

Hammer

Weight (lb)

HammerDrop

(in)

CompactionEffort

(kip-ft/ft3)

Standard

(SCDOT)

D698

T-995.5 12 12.4

ModifiedD1557

T-18010 18 56

LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST

SUMMARY


6/37



TestSTANDARD

ASTM D698/AASHTO T-99

MODIFIED

ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180

Method A B C A B C

Material 20%

Retained by

#4 Sieve

>20%Retained on

#4

20%Retained by

3/8 in Sieve

>20%Retained on

3/8 in

< 30%Retained by

3/4 in Sieve

20%Retained by

#4 Sieve

>20%Retained on

#4

20%Retained by

3/8 in Sieve

>20%Retained on

3/8 in

< 30%Retained by

3/4 in Sieve

Use SoilPassing Sieve

#4 3/8 in in #4 3/8 in in

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

No. of Layers 3 3 3 5 5 5

No. Blows/Layer 25 25 56 25 25 56


SUMMARY


7/37




SUMMARY



8/37



LABORATORY COMPACTION TESTS (i.e. Proctors)

Automated Proctor

Equipment(Figure courtesy of Humboldt)

Manual Proctor Test

(What youll be doing)(Figure courtesy of westest.net)


9/37



w

d

+

=

1

From soil

composition

notes:

Optimum Moisture Content

OMC = 11.5%

Maximum Dry

Density

MDD ord,max =112.2 pcf

SP-SM

% Fines = 6%

Zero Air Voids

(ZAV) Line

Gs = 2.6


10/37



s

w

s

wswszav

Gw

wG

Ge

G111

+

=

+

=

+

=

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

ZERO AIR VOIDS LINE

zav= Zero Air Void Unit Weight:

w

Volume (V)

)Solids (WWeight of

sd

+

==

1


11/37



FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL COMPACTION

1. Soil Type

Grain size distribution

Shape of soil grainsSpecific gravity of soil solids

2. Effect of Compaction EffortMore energy Greater compaction


12/37



Lee and Suedkamp (1972)

A. Single Peak(Most Soils)

B. 1

PeakCohesive Soils LL70

afterFigure 4.5. Das FGE (2005)

TYPES OF COMPACTION CURVES

Moisture Content w

DryUnitWe

ight

d

ABC

D


13/37



EFFECT OF

COMPACTIONENERGY

Figure 4.6. Das FGE (2005).

In general:

Compaction Energy = d,max

Compaction Energy = OMC


14/37



EFFECT OF COMPACTION ON COHESIVE

SOILS


OMC

Wet SideDry Side

Dry Side Particle

Structure

Flocculent

Dry Side Particle

Structure

Dispersed


15/37




Hydraulic Conductivity (k):Measure of how water flows

through soils

In general:

Increasing w= Decreasing k

Until ~ OMC, then increasing w

has no significant affect on k

EFFECT OFCOMPACTION ON

COHESIVE SOILS


16/37




Unconfined CompressionStrength (qu) :

Measure of soil strength

In general:

Increasing w= Decreasing qu

Related to soil structure:

Dry side FlocculentWet Side Dispersed

EFFECT OFCOMPACTION ON

COHESIVE SOILS


17/37



FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT4 Common Types:

1. Smooth Drum Roller2. Pneumatic Rubber Tired Roller

3. Sheepsfoot Roller (Tamping Foot)

4. Vibratory Roller (can be 1-3)Smooth Drum

Pneumatic Rubber Tired Sheepsfoot Vibratory Drum


18/37



FIELD COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

Photographs courtesy of:

myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com

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

boulanger/

Holtz and Kovacs (1981)


19/37




MVH-402DS

Reversible Plate

MT-76D

Diesel-Powered Rammer

MVC-77H

Vibratory Plate


FineGrained

Soils

CourseGrained

Soils

CourseGrained

Soils


20/37




from Holtz and Kovacs (1981)


21/37



FIELD COMPACTION TESTING

Relative Compaction (R or C.R.):

5 Common Field Test Methods:

1. Sand Cone (ASTM D1556)

2. Rubber Balloon Method (D2167)3. Nuclear Density (ASTM D2922)4. Time Domain Reflectometry (D6780)

5. Shelby Tube (not commonly used)

100(%)

max,

)(=

d

fielddR


22/37



FIELD COMPACTION TESTING

METHOD

SAND CONE(ASTM D1556)

BALLON(ASTM D2167)

NUCLEAR(ASTM D2922 &

ASTM D3017)

TDR(ASTM D6780)

AdvantagesLarge SampleAccurate

Large SampleDirect Reading

Obtained

Open gradedmaterial

FastEasy to re-performMore Tests

FastEasy to re-performMore Tests

Disadvantages

Time consumingLarge area

required

SlowBalloon breakageAwkward

No sampleRadiationMoisture suspect

Under research

Errors

Void under plateSand bulkingSand compactedSoil pumping

Surface not levelSoil pumpingVoid under plate

MiscalibrationRocks in pathSurface prep req.Backscatter

Under Research

afterSoil Compaction: A Basic Handbookby MultiQuip.

Photographs courtesy of Durham Geo/Slope Indicator and myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com.


23/37


24/37



ReferenceCity of

LynchburgSCDOT

QCSCDOT

QA

USBREarth

Manual

NAVFACDM7.02

FM 5-410

Year 2004 1996 1996 1998 1986 1997

Roads1 per lift

per 300 LF1 per lift



per 250 LFBuildings or

Structures

1 per lift

per 5000 SF

Airfields

1 per lift

per 250 LF

EmbankmentMass Earthwork

1 per lift


per 2500 LF 2000 CY 500 CY

Canal/ReservoirLinings

1000 CY 500-1,000 CY

Trenches &Around Structures

1 per lift

per 300 LF 200 CY 200-300 CY1 per lift

per 50 LF

Parking Areas1 per lift

per 10000 SF1 per lift

per 250 SY

Misc.1 per areas of

doubtful

compaction

1 per areas of

doubtful

compaction

FIELD COMPACTION TESTING FREQUENCIES


25/37



State DOTsMaximum Lift

Height

Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio,

Oklahoma

Max. 0.15 m (6 in) lift

before compaction

Connecticut, KentuckyMax. 0.15 m (6 in) lift after

compaction

Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, Wisconsin

Max. 0.2 m (8 in) lift before

compaction

Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas,

Wyoming

Max. 0.3 m (12 in) lift before

compaction

New YorkDepends on Soil &

Compaction Equipment

FIELD COMPACTION TESTING LIFT HEIGHTS

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


26/37



COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS & RATINGS FOR USCS SOILS

USCS

Sym.

Compaction

Equipment

d,maxD698

(lb/ft3)

Evaluation for Use as Fill

Compression& Expansion

Embankment Subgrade Base Course

GW

Rubber Tired

Smooth Drum

Vibratory Roller

125 135Almost

NoneVery Stable Excellent Good

GP

Rubber Tired

Smooth Drum

Vibratory Roller

115 125Almost

None

Reasonably

Stable

Excellent to

GoodPoor to Fair

GMRubber Tired

Sheepsfoot

120 135 SlightReasonably

Stable

Excellent to

Good Fair to Poor

GCRubber Tired

Sheepsfoot115 - 130 Slight

Reasonably

StableGood

Good to

Fair

after U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (now ERDC). (1960). The Unified Soil

Classification System, Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vicksburg, MS.


27/37




USCS

Sym.

Compaction

Equipment

d,maxD698

(lb/ft3)




SWRubber Tired

Vibratory Roller

110-130Almost

None

Very Stable Good Fair to Poor

SPRubber Tired

Vibratory Roller100-120

Almost

None

Reasonable

stable when

dense

Good to

FairPoor

SMRubber Tired

Sheepsfoot

110-125 Slight

Reasonable

stable when

dense

Good to

Fair

Poor

SCRubber Tired

Sheepsfoot105-125

Slight to

Medium

Reasonable

stable

Good to

FairFair to Poor




28/37




USCS

Sym.

Compaction

Equipment

d,maxD698

(lb/ft3)




MLRubber Tired

Sheepsfoot

95-120Slight to

Medium

Poor Stability Fair to PoorNot

Suitable

CLSheepsfoot

Rubber Tired95-120 Medium Good Stability Fair to Poor

Not

Suitable

MHSheepsfoot

Rubber Tired

70-95 High

Poor Stability

Should not be

used

PoorNot

Suitable

CH Sheepsfoot 80-105 Very high Fair StabilityPoor to

Very Poor

Not

Suitable




29/37



DYNAMIC COMPACTION

US44 Expansion

Carver, MA.Figure 1. FHWA-SA-95-037.

Figure courtesy of www.betterground.com


30/37



DYNAMIC COMPACTION

afterFigure 5 (FHWA-SA-95-037).


31/37



DYNAMIC COMPACTION US44


32/37



(from Hajduk et al., 2004)



33/37




(from Hajduk et al., 2004)


34/37



VIBROFLOTATION

Figure 4.18. Das FGE (2005) (after Brown, 1977).

Photograph courtesy of http://www.vibroflotation.com


35/37



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

VIBROFLOTATION


36/37




VibroflotationProbe Spacing

Vibroflotation

Effective GrainSize

DistributionsFigure 4.21. Das FGE (2005).


37/37



Figure courtesy of www.groundimprovement.ch.

COMPACTION ASSOCIATED COSTS

Date post:	02-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anu-vishnu
View:	230 times
Download:	0 times

Compaction Notes

Documents