Permeability (cm/s) Dry density (Ibf/tt?) 10 5 105 107 122 118 Fron tals kes 1 T ° fs | | | i | | | | | | | | 12 13 7 18 19, 1 T + > Shows change in moisture and density from permeation __} x Ss oF —— | mS Water content (%) (a) Compaction-permeability tests on Jamaica sandy clay. Change in permeability with molding water content (af Lambe, 1958). 2.0 1.9 418 Dry density (Mg/m?)Fra Heuspeyeas 7 800 kPa Surcharge 6 Total settlement 5 400 kPa_} paction ci Saturation settlement. 400 Settlement (in % of original height) 2 200 1.8 1 100, 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 Water content (%) Total settlement (under given surcharge) ——— Saturation ("collapse") settlement FIGURE 4.10 Collapse’’ settlement and total settlement of compacted soil under load. [Huder (1964).]' T T T Dry of optimum | Optimum Wer of optimum water ' content | 7 1 ' | 1 . 4 : Kneading | i z i | 3 ' ' £ 3] 1 t \ 5 ‘ Vibratory 1 2 1 { z ' 1 | ' ~ t J Static f 1 T 4 ‘ 1 a) : ' 7” 1.80 nm t © Static compaction | © Vibratory compaction | % Kneading compaction | 110 t t 178 7 1 = 108 — q 2 ' % = i 3 2 z 5 106] 170 B e | 5 é | | | ie é 104| j——}—1 A | 3 | 1.65 102 | Ss : ater 2168 Molding water content (%) 1.60 (a) Fig. §.7(@) Shrinkage as a function of water content and type of compac- tion (atter Seed and Chan, 1959). fron Utes mata2.0 Zero-air-void curve (Gj = 2.75) 18 es Standard compaction curve é & St6 a 3 > 6 14 % Swell mM. 12+ 1.0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content (%) FIGURE 4.11 Percent swell related to placement conditions. {Holtz and Gibbs (1956).] Fron NarranawPROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOIL, 20 “tem, CBR as molded 15-- CBR after z soaking a 10 = & 5 0 ———E————— 18 4 é S Z 3 S17k =| 16 l | | ! 6 10 14 18 22 Moisture content FIGURE 4.2 26 Density and CBR as a function of initial water content for a typical silty clay (CL). (After Yoder (1959). Copyright John Wiley & Sons.] Swell (%) Fine Wausau12 Strenath (stress required to cause 25% strain) vs. water content 1 1 L 1 10 Unconsolidated- undrained tests | Confining pressure = 10 ka/em? Stress required to cause 25% strain (kg/cm?) o 10 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 = 3 Strength (stress required to cause 5 ‘5% strain) vs. water content e 10 L i ae # Layers Tampsper Foot i layer pressure 3 6 a7 15 276 psi 2 e7 15 136 psi B4 15 65 psi s 8 2 2 a oO a fee coe 116 water content, 112 108 104 | Dry density (ibf/ft?) 100 100120: 14161 Molding water content {%) (b) Strength as a function of compactive effort and molding water content (after Seed and Chan, 1959). Fion Wolke EovacyPROPERTIES OF COMPACTED som. 67 Dry density (tim) 1.6 7] " Mn, Zero-ait-void curve Modified compaction “i a{ Sanuion © 100% 15 Ni, “ 14 0 ‘8 CBR=6 1.3 1.2 en som = og oe ao sen 0 4 Molding water content (%) FIGURE 4.5 ‘Soaked CBRs as a function of placement conditions of a highly plastic clay. [Seed (1959) using data from Bell (1956).] Fis Unus naan66 MECHANICAL MODIRCATION 100 8 (approximate 3 80 fo of Woop & co < Dispersion 3 tends to e* \ reduce Strength B 20 19% 2 wet5% ° wet7% J ° 15 406 17 18, 19 20 Dry density (vm*) FIGURE 43 (Unsoaked) strength versus dry density. (Based on stabilometer test results given by Seed (1959).] 40 ? Molding water content (%) —> 5 30 © 8 % 20} 3 10}— 14 16 18 20 Dry density (vim?) FIGURE 4.4 Soaked strength versus diy density. [Based on soaked CBRs by Turnbull ‘and Foster (1958).] From Weusamey‘Axial stress (MPa) 0.8 T T T T Static compaction - dry of opt. | 0.6| 1 | Static compaction - wet of opt. 0.4] 0.2 Kneading compaction - wet of optimum ° 5 10 Axial strain (%) sioi FIGURE 4.6 18 Stress-strain curves in unconfined compres- (Lee and Hal (1968).] Fron Wray mau!‘apysu 09 0) ade asous apie Kacy Jaqwaid yonut opie Aigy sari 2p sayeasd Agus 20 mes amy ynogy opt Kcr panraud Buypans {soy 9q ue ops oa tpoyuanaid Suypans sox astoe opis icy sagt yeqaomoe ap ic, 2248 pam opp cy Aipides asour sayeprjoruao aps iq, ‘ofa omssaid ‘iq m1 ops Aap ‘ares amnssoud 0] a}q)se2xdui09 as0Mn opis 12§4 vonvouad £4 ‘0m yon peonpas Aymiquatiiad opts Kicy ‘yqvoniad a1om opys Aig sup 0} aaqyroetamionn app ict ineaidaiod Jno ny ‘eloar ans‘ so. sq. eq yea yp aiom ape Aicy ‘opus asom ape ict woapredion, ‘ojiouduiog wnuiido 10 1M pus wnwndo Jo Aig ueeMiog eBppedoia |10S Jo UOSuBdWOD 4-3 BIBWA She Yop) werDey density (41) Dey density (te) s 10 oS os 1 ty = s3}-§ q Le 27 S| 2 Fer pes 7 se sL-E © 2 oo 9 Wo “0 9 eo 7 e090 100 Alive dena (8) Ave ety 8) Ory oes ut?) ry erty WH) Fe , —el g2y-g & €,\-§ a é é 9 tha (6) 15ers 3 sLE (3) 8 oe pas : i Fig, 8.19 Donaty-dopt relationship for 5870 Kg roter operating at 27.5 HE tora 240 om i holght (aftr D’Appotonia, ot al, 1969) Aetative density (8) Rettive density (8) so 70 6 9 (50 60 7 60 % ° ° vo 1 1 3 ge? E 2 Minium 4 4 é Bilowable 3, Be relative deity = 75% 4 \ ‘ Densty-depth 5k tions for s tage ie height Using Srole pases Fig. Ex. 5.2 Approximate mathod for determining lit height required to fachlove a minimum compacted relative density of 75% with five roller passes, using dala fora large lit haight (after O'Appolonta, et al. 1963),