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