Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Purdue e-Pubs
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report Series 1969 Civil Engineering
Recommended Citation Highter, W. H. Temperature Effects on the Compaction and Strength Behavior of Clay. Publication FHWA/IN/JHRP-69/30. Joint Highway Research Project, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1969. doi: 10.5703/1288284313766
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.
TEMPERATURE
AND
EFFECTS
ON
THE
OF
A
COMPACTION
STRENGTH
BEHAVIOR
CLAY
SEPTEMBER
1969
NUMBER
30
by
WILLIAM
H.
HIGHTER
JHRP
PURDUE UNIVERSITY AND INDIANA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
Final Report
6-1U-9
Project:
C-36-36I
A Final Report "Temperature Effects on the Compaction and Strength Behavior of a Clay" by William H. Highter, Graduate Assistant in Research on our staff is presented to the Board for approval. The research was directed by Professors A. G. Altschaeffl and C. W. Lovell, Jr., and was used by Mr. Highter for his MSCE thesis.
The practical motivation for this study was the feasibility of increased cold weather earthwork in Indiana. The compaction and strength behavior of a single sandy clay was studied over a temperature range of It was found that low temperature compaction had about 35F to 85F. the same effect as reducing the compactive effort, i.e., the maximum unit weight was decreased and the optimum water content was increased. The ascompacted strength and stiffness were also reduced. On the other hand, when the soil was compacted to the same density, warm and cold, the colder While the experimental results are soil was both stronger and stiffer. limited, it appears that by slightly increasing the compactive effort, cold (but unfrozen) clayey soils may be compacted to produce satisfactory subgrades and embankments
The report is presented to the Board as fulfillment of the Plan of Study approved by the Board on November 28, 19fc>7.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attachment
Copy
:
F W. W. W.
.
L. H. L. G. K. M. E.
R. H. J. A. V. E. G. A. F. B.
R.
D.
C. M. w.
Final Report
by
6-1U-9
Project No.:
C-36-36I
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana
http://www.archive.org/details/temperatureeffecOOhigh
:-:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Project for the financial support which made this thesis possible.
The writer also wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. V. L.
Anderson for his advice concerning the statistical aspects of this study
and to Mr. Richard James, statistical consultant to the Civil Engineering
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
viii
1
h
6 11
13 lU lU 19 23
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Soil Preparation Compaction Strength Determination
DESCRIPTION OF SOIL
25
27 2? 27 32 kl kl
51 5^ 56 59
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects
on on on on on on
Dry Density Unconfined Compressive Strength Strain at Failure the Initial Tangent Modulus the Secant Modulus Measured to the Secant Modulus Measured to q /2
SUMMARY
60
Lv
Page
65
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY
67 69
APPENDIX
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
Page
10
2.
3. h.
25
28
3^ 35
......
...
5.
6.
7.
8.
36
37
Analysis of Variance Table for the Secant Modulus to Peak Stress Analysis of Variance Table for the Secant Modulus to One-half the Peak Stress
38
9.
39
10.
6l
vl
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
12
15
2.
3.
16
lo
20
5.
6.
22
2*4
7.
8.
9.
26
33
10.
The Moisture - Density Relations for Four Compaction Efforts The Effect of Compaction Temperature on the Moisture Density Relation
The Unconfined Compressive Strength Water Content Relationship, (T = $5, T
-
**2
11.
^
^8
12.
Dry Density
t
= 35)
-
13.
la *y
-
lb.
The Unconfined Compressive Strength - Dry Density 85) Water Content Relationship, (T = 55, T
50
15.
52
16.
The Effect of Compaction Effort and Water Content on the Initial Tangent Modulus
55
vii
Figure
IT.
Pa*e
The Effect of Water Content and Testing Temperature on the Secant Modulus to Peak Stress
58
18.
viii
ABSTRACT
Highter, William H. , MSCE, Purdue University, August, 1969. Temperature Effects on the Compaction and Strength Behavior of a Clay Major Professors: A. G. Altschaeffl and C. W. Lovell, Jr.
The effects of temperature in the 35F to 85F range on the compaction and strength characteristics of a kaolinitic clay soil have been reviewed.
The clay was compacted with a Harvard miniature device and un-
at which the undrained strength is tested affects the soil pore pressure.
It was found that the strength of soil tested at the same tempera-
compaction temperature.
INTRODUCTION
Present-day construction practice generally provides for the placement of soil in highway subgrades, embankments and backfills during non-
freezing weather.
the coldest days of winter could produce Benefits to the general public,
bility study, other questions must be answered before a decision regarding the practicality of such cold weather earthwork in a particular
During the cold season in northern Indiana, the in-situ soil beneath a frozen crust is at a low temperature and is probably at a relatively high water content.
up to five feet thick [2J, but it is the underlying cold, but unfrozen, soil that would be utilized for earthwork operations. An examination of the results of cold weather earthwork is needec
to establish the influence of the cold temperature at the time of com-
compaction are associated with smaller maximum dry densities and larger
optimum water contents. Other evidence
[
i:
before an evaluation can be made of the additional design and construction considerations necessitated by cold-weather earthwork.
This research intends to fill one gap in the general area of knowledge of temperature effects on compacted soil behavior.
It
addresses
The significance of any differences noted is also examined. The work reported here
is
is
wl
The results of
which compaction variable (among those selected for study} has the
most influence upon the resulting strength behavior of the compacted
product.
While the results will answer only a few of the mass of the
Temperature Effects
maximum dry density and a decrease in optimum water content with increasing temperature at the time of compaction over a temperature range of
35 F to 115 F.
creasing temperature over a range of 125 F to increasing temperature over this same range.
35
temperature .
perature decreased.
Youssef et al. [9] showed that the optimum moisture content of a
soil compacted at the standard Proctor compaction effort increased with
The
relation was commensurate with the change in bulk water viscosity with
temperature.
Limited to values of natural occurrence and excluding freezing of soil water. This relationship is available in any number of references, such s the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics".
Burmister [h] cited a case history which showed that increasing the
compaction temperature from 35F to 65F resulted in an increase in maximum dry density and a decrease in optimum water content for the modified
Proctor compaction effort.
He reported a greater increase in maximum
smaller gravel content than for those with a greater gravel content.
pcf:
Laguros
'
procedures) an increase of
compaction is increased, the maximum dry density increases and the opti-
Such inter-
dicted that a decrease in temperature would expand the double layer and decrease the strength of a clay at a given density.
Implicit in this
ture dependency of pure water, the double layer repulsions were unchanged
over a temperature range of 0C to 100C.
Campanella and Mitchell [15] showed that soil pore water pressure
increases are induced in saturated clays under constant total stress
when the temperature is increased, i.e., effective stresses were decreased with increasing temperature.
Conversely, decreases in tempera-
ture reduced the pore pressure, and increased the effective stress.
higher testing temperatures were also found to produce higher pore pressures (lower effective stress) at all strains during undrained shear.
This served to substantiate his equation for shearing resistance of soils (derived from rate process concepts) that included terms for temperature
effects.
Youssef et al.
[9]
While
all soils have the same low remolded strength at the liquid limit, the
marks the water content delimiting brittle and plastic response of the
remolded soil.
plastic limit implies at least a stiffening due to the lower temperature. Lambe [8] reported that samples compacted at lower temperatures have
warmer (by the same compaction procedure and at the same moisture content).
He reasoned that the cold soil has a thicker double layer due to
Samples compacted
The dispersed
with equal compaction efforts), the sample then tested for strength at a
lower temperature would have a higher strength than one tested at a higher temperature.
Noble and Demirel [IT] consolidated clay slurry samples at different temperatures and then tested them for shear strength at temperatures
indicated that (for a given test temperature) the higher the temperature
at the time of consolidation, the higher the shear strength.
It must be
The higher
These data also lend support to the results of Laguros [6] who observed
an increase of shear strength with increasing temperature for samples
found that the undrained shear strength increased with decreasing test
temperatures Sherif and Burrous [l8] studied the effects of temperature on the
shear strength of saturated cohesive soils for a temperature range of
75 F to 150 F.
consolidation temperature (75 F), an increase in testing temperature resulted in a reduction in undrained shear strength.
Also, for the same
the same, the strength will be larger for the higher temperatures.
r
.
(0
1
B
H
4)
^10)^
O
in
-S
p
H -H
-rC
>>
C
H
41
O > U
41
6 h 3 4> in p m a) 41 ^ h
P,
4>
v.
a!
P
09
Ii 4)
^
41
c V. P a +>
01 0)
>
P.
4)
3 o C p
0)
4, (0 41
r-<
<
1
Ih a) 4)
o o c
V
P.0-.
01
o
>>
3 C
a)
41
-n
4) 01
-p
Xt *4
x:
01
o C
41
T3 U}
41
-H
OH
C
H
to
Cy
r,
m
1
C O
cj
r.
to 4>
to 41
"O
a) (0 4) CO 0) 0)
p
(0
fc
U
P.
3
in 01 4>
t-<
dJ
H
as
P -H
P
4) 01
41
U
1
to 41 to
x)
C P 3 O
4) OJ
H5
rH
P,
o as e Oi a) r. O -P &,o<fl
J-i
1
P P
U o
0)
O
T5 -H H V 3
-o
w3
H rH _J P.-.H cc
01 a}
a a) c < 3 -rH U -3 4) Ih T) o 01 Jh C 4) 3
to
41
ti ^
P
tJ
0)
OUi) O V
E
a}
r-i
o
J
rl
>
3
rH
3 P
+->
+j
aJ
a)
4)
u U 3
O 3 P O 3 3 4> U O U P u o E
4) rH rH Vl X>
41
x:
to
41
to
3*3
r<
41
-O
.*
I*
4)
p
0} r<
41
fX
1)
C C
H x;
+J
a) t,
fc,
>>rH
aJ
x:
o)
t,
p p
fHH O
3 O
P
01
41 j-
PP
-h
4)
3
01
4) r.
o
a!
p
4) to CO 41 h
CO 4) oi at 41 t. CJ 41
rH
"3 H
u 3 3
CO 4)
T3
ITS
C
03 a)
~
^i
<-l
iH
\p
^H
3 p
0)
^H rH
41
a!
0)
rH tw
4)
4)
ao
to 01
4)
C O
JS
XI
I O
-H
XI
H 2
rJ
this interaction which has not been considered in any detail is the
statistical analysis.
Hookean spring
(E,
Murayama
decreased
meters E
and E
Murayama and Shibata [19] reported that a given total stress produced larger percent strain at higher temperatures.
Thus, the scii
12
HOOKEAN
E,
SPRING
HOOKEAN SPRING Eo
SLIDER
DASH POT
THE
FIGURE CLAY
I
OF
MURAYAMA [7]
L3
of foundations.
For the latter reason, the elastic modulus and secant moduli were experi-
The Influence of Structure on the Behavior of Cohesive Soil Lambe [13] postulated that for a given compaction effort, the
Seed and Chan [20] found that kaolinite compacted to a more flocculated structure (water content less than optimum) has steeper stressstrain curves and attained a larger peak stress at lower strain than did
dispersed structure and consequently for a given total stress the more
flocculated structure would develop lower pore pressure than a more
dispersed structure.
with more flocculated structures developed about the same pore water
pressures as samples with more dispersed structures.
Lll
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Soil Preparation
The first phase of the soil preparation procedure consisted of mixing the predetermined constituents, No. 285 Ottawa Sand and Edgar Plastic
0.255
and
of the
by weight.
prepared.
Less than 5000 gms. were actually needed for the samples to be
It was found, however, that mixing less than 5000 gms.
resulted
sand and clay particles; this was ascertained by noting the variation in
The dry sand and clay were mixed together for a period of 10 minutes
Figure
This curve was produced by mixing a known weight of glass bails of approxi-
After mixing
for an indicated time, four samples of about 100 gm. were taken from
four different points in the mixer.
different depths of the mix (near the surface and near the bottom) at
opposite corners of the mixer, and the other two samples were taken at
the two different depths near the center of the mixer.
The ratio of
FIGURE
THE PORTER
SOIL
MIXER.
16
2 O H <
DC =>
O
111
h-
3
7L
xX
22
'
^
.
Ill
o o I- w
ft
LU Ll
li_ Li-
^
h-
O Z X ^
LJ
>LU
lijt
I
1.
2 O O ros O
Id
LU*
CC => UJ
oX
U_ I-
39Vfcl3AV
X11AJ
39Vd3AV
31dlAIVS
17
glass beads by weight of each sample was compared to that of the entire
mix.
After the ten minute "dry" mixing period, water was dripped into the
mix, by hand, from a 100 ml. graduated cylinder over a ten minute period. Some water was lost by evaporation and some was inadvertently spilled on
the side of the mixer and on its blades; this water never became part of
the mix.
a water content 12% higher than that desired in the mix batch.
After water was added, there followed an additional ten minute wet
mixing period.
During this period any soil that stuck to the blades of
Selected
sampling from various parts of the mixer showed little variation of the
tions in the mixer; the maximum size of the aggregations increased with
the magnitude of the water content.
In order to break down these aggre-
gations, all batches of the soil were passed through a Victorio Producto
h.
These "rods"
were prevented from forming by continually scraping the strainer attachment with a spatula as the strainer handle was turned.
a soil having 3/l6 inch maximum size aggregations.
Water content samples were then taken from various points in the
mix.
FIGURE
19
plastic bags.
for
2*4
hours.
t
.
5/5
of the desired
It was found that by storing the soil in shallow pans the soil
This made
1F
of 85F.
Compaction
The
The
FIGURE
COMPACTION
21
grease and the top of each soil layer was scarified before the succeeding
layer was compacted. This practice reduced the moisture-density varia-
tions in the samples, and prevented them from failing alone a horizontal
It
ture at which testing was to proceed. A five day curing time was selected for samples because there is
evidence of a change in strength during the first few days after compaction.
It is believed that there is a tendency for the sample to swell
pressures in the water near the boundaries which are larger than those
already present in the partly saturated soil.
The effective stress is
ever, seeks an equilibrium with time and the negative nore pressures
equalize.
Lambe [8] noted that removing a sample from the mold in which it
was compacted causes a reduction in pore pressure.
22
10,000
UJ
>
(/)
JT
in UJ a: CL
2~
CJh-
9000 8500
OI ~ ^ Q 2 Wqj 2 o o 2 3
ii_
^v^^
8000
< 1
hv>
<
7500
7000
2
TIME (DAYS)
FIGURE 6 VARIATION IN UNC0NFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WITH CURING TIME.
.
23
Strength Determination
This was done to provide lateral support for the piston between the
This lateral
top of the sample and the 300 pound capacity proving ring.
support was necessary if the ends of the sample were not exactly parallel;
this was the case for a small number of samples
Axial
Lambe
[21] recommended a strain rate of 0.5-2.0 percent per minute for the
rate of about 1 percent per minute for the soil used in this study. time to failure varied from 2.5 minutes for high compaction effect
-
The
low
water content samples, to 21 minutes for low compaction effort - high water
content samples.
After each sample was tested to failure, a water content determination was made.
FIGURE 7 COMPRESSION
THE
TEST
UNCONFINED APPARATUS.
25
DESCRIPTION OF SOIL
The soil used in this study was a mixture of Edgar Plastic Kaolin
(Edgar Plastic Kaolin Company) and No. 285 crushed Ottawa s and (Ottawa
Silica Company).
ly to produce a soil which was 80% Kaolin and 20% Ottawa sand by weight
Table
Identification Test
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
60%
37%
55%
32%
NI
Plasticity Index
Specific Gravity of Solids
23%
23%
2.60
2.65
2.61
79%
L7*
26
sj;
-J
/>
/ /
^
<z >, tn i
o*
h
:
a
2P
m,
(8*
3/
*5
CD CO UJ
a
H;
/
/
f
,/ /
*
*
y*
X f
/
j
o
CD
C\J
y //
O'
UJ
^^
O
__^-"-^
*\
^
CO
) <I2 s
szz^
lA 00 <(/ ro j_
^<
|6
UJ
o
00
o S
o
<i>
o m
o *
o
10
1H9I3M A8
27
Experimental Results
A grand total of 5^0 samples were prepared and tested in accordance
of these samples and the results of the testing are fully presented in
the Apt endix. These results of testing represent the raw data for the
raw data.
Statistical Analyses
The Analysis of Variance method (ANOVA) was the procedure used in
this study.
The ANOVA
method is discussed in most statistics texts (for example [22, 23, 2t])j
therefore, a detailed discussion of ANOVA will not he necessary.
An ANOVA Model T, the fixed effects model, was used in this study.
It was a complete factorial model with partial nesting.
The four
Three different compaction efforts, four water content levels per compaction effort, three compaction temperatures and three testing temperatures (35F, 55F, 85F) were used.
28
were not the same for each compaction effort because the water contents
were related to the optimum water content for each compaction effort.
Thus the water content factor was nested in the compaction effort factor,
Table
Table
Compaction Effort
5-20-20*
5-20-30 5-25-40
23 21 20
29
27
22
2k
26
* 5
Equation 1.
[23].
ijklm
= v + a
+
i
h(i)
\
ikl
+ 6
1
+ aY
ik
+ a5
il
+ Y
\l
+ 6Y
i(jk)
+ e6
l(jl)
+ aY6
+ 6Y6
i(jkl)
+ G
i(Jklm)"-
U)
where:
i
k
1
1.
The response of the soil at high water contents precluded the use of values much wetter than the optimum.
29
1,2,3^,5 (replicates)
0.,.* i(j)
!
= true effect of
th
J
th
i
level of factor 1
a6
ii
of factor
*6 ki
and the 1
th
level of factor
BYw
1k
level
B6.,
-v
level
U
level of factor
nested
ay6.
level
level of factor
3,
and the
&Y&*
kl
\="true
level
1
of factor 2, the k
ijklm
30
i(lklra)
treatment combination.
This model assumes that
u
,, ijklm
are
normal and independently distributed (NID) with zero mean and constant
standard deviation,
(homogeneity of variances).
In such a design,
random.
A single constant temperature room was used for both the 35F and 55F
compaction and testing temperature levels.
a temperature change in this room.
It took 2h hours to effect
procedure could and should have been used. The non-full-randomization induces a concern in the analysis that
the time-wise progression of the testing produces its own major influence
on the results.
A detailed analysis of some representative data was
made.
The large variations which are noted in the data are seemingly
statistical inferences.
obtained.
31
base 10) of all the data was made with the expectation of making the
possible reason for this is that due to the length of time required
to accomplish this study, more than one laboratory assistant was used
in the compaction process.
reproduce his own work with little variation, but variations between
different technicians was larger.
the
The ANOVA procedure essentially tests a series of hypotheses concerning the equality of certain mean values and variances between
various cells of the statistical model.
was used for this study.
A type
I
error, a = 0.05,
dry
);
strain at failure
trimmed before they were ejected from the Harvard miniature mold.
The result of this disturbance was that samples exhibited large
strains that were not commensurate with initial small stresses.
This
Statistical Results
The results of the ANOVA for each of the dependent variables are
shown in Tables
U
through 9.
33
13,800 PSF
1250
STRAIN
FIGURE
9
FIVE
.
WITH
3i
o o o
C\J
no
LPv
CO
0\ o
>>
o o
o o o
---
+J
$-.
Vi
W>
05
35
C W
<r
cm
CN
W\
rO
ro
-<
o s e CO 00) ho ^ H
o.
w
<v
o.
*^
H0
36
<r
-i
-<
.-<
cm
00
O -O
en
.-<
cm
"
cm
o O
->
-<
2*
00
a.
u
<H
^
^-j
c
*j
< h
ft,
* u
W
01
4
ft.
C O S O H *4 OH H V CO -HO >^H ^H wW m cm
4)
r-
a.
^ JZ
a.
01
~"
es
-<r
CM
CM
cn
-H
CM
37
fo
cm
m
>
.-*
oo
eo O r^
vr r
-a-
o a o
->
'
b
o
=
t)
u
C
CO O
save
H
<u
-h
h
E
<u
cm
cm
en
rH
38
M N N
ooooooooo
1
:
O
Q>
9 3
a S
o. o.
co
a.
39
n n n
oo
f-l
cm
r-l
>n r*
oo ON
-<
CM
CM
oo
oo
oo
Irt
lO
33
lO
r-C
pH
CM
CM
60
W
P a o o <
CU
jj
-w
o.
o.
w>
3 o
Wi <0
CM
CM
CO
-<
CM
.0
for y
(com-
paction effort),
for significance.
Similarly, factors 23 in
3
and factors 2U in
were
is compaction
temperature
is testing temperature).
'+
kl
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Effe c ts on D ry Density
were
Con-
AASHO
This plot indicates that the $-20-30 and $-2$-i+0 kneading compaction
levels give larger dry densities than the $-20-20 level (as well as
significant. The second independent variable, water content, also had a significant effect on the dry density.
for this factor because water content was nested in the compaction
k2
LEGEND
STANDARD
AASHO
COMPACTION
5 LAYERS, 25 APPLICATIONS/LAYER, 40 LB. SPRING 5 LAYERS, 20 APPLICATIONS/LAYER, 30 LB. SPRING 5 LAYERS, 20 APPLICATIONS/LAYER, 20 LB. SPRING
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The temperature at which the soil was compacted was also significant.
between the 35F and the 85F levels of compaction temperature; the
higher temperature generally was associated with a higher dry density.
This increase of dry density with increasing compaction temperature
was so gradual that contrasts revealed no significant difference in dry density for soil compacted at 35F vs. 55F and for soil compacted
at 55F vs. 85F.
89 pcf was attained at the three compaction temperatures , but that the
water content required to produce this density increased with decreasing temperature.
at this density would change with the compaction temperature; the lower
kk
94
93 92
91
ZERO
AIR
VOIDS
LINE
90 h
O
Q_ w
89
88
87
86
85
b
lJ
EFFORT
LAYERS
Q
Q
a.
84
COMPACTION TEMPERATURE LEGEND'.
83 82
81
-
4
23
35 55 85
80
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WATER
CONTENT (%)
FIGURE
RELATION.
*5
to other phenomena or the soil skeleton has become more rigid and re-
Although the
compaction temperature and testing temperature factors showed no significance when considered as single factors, the interaction of compaction
In such cases,
but that when the effects of one factor are averaged over the
Contrasting the three levels of compaction effort revealed a significant difference in strength between all three levels.
1.
All samples were tested at the compacted water content, i.e., there was no simulation of an increase of water content such as normally occurs in the service environment.
U6
.:
For a riven
appeared to increase with increasing compacthe increases were not larp:e enough to be
Contrast-
ing revealed (for samples compacted at 85F and then tested at the 35F.
55F, 85 C F testing temperature levels) that the samples tested at 35F
tested at 85F.
those samples tested at 35F and 55F or for those tested at 55F and
85F.
The effect that various factors and interactions have on the un-
appeared to produce larger dry densities than the 5-20-20 level but
this effect was not statistically significant.
significant difference in
levels.
I7
strength.
undrained strength, but the experimental evidence shows that the density
factor apparently prevails.
Thus, for samples compacted at different tem-
Cooling a
t
sample creates lower (more negative) pore pressures than already exist
in a partially saturated soil.
The three compaction effort levels and their associated water conFor the three figures
the compaction temperature level is 55F, and the testing temperature leve]
i*a
"*&,
**>,
FIGURE
*><*
.
THE UNCONFINED 12 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH -DRY DENSITYWATER CONTENT RELATIONSHIP. 35") (Tc =55
*9
8
LU
S On\
*Qr
'Or
V,
FIGURE 13 THE UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH - DRY DENSITYWATER CONTENT RELATIONSHIP. (Tc =55= T t
.
>o
^
FIGURE 14 COMPRESSIVE
THE UNCONFINED STRENGTH - DRY DENSITYWATER CONTENT RELATIONSHIP. (Tc -55, Tf =85).
.
densities for the two lower levels of compaction effort are only Blig
different, the resulting unconfined compressive strengths are significantly
different.
for plotting may not all indicate that the contrasts are significant when,
in fact, they are significant.
in the
unconfined compressive strength test were compaction effort, water content, and compaction temperature.
testing
-
a given density on the dry side of optimum decreases with increasing com-
water content factor was nested in the compaction effort factor and that
15000
14000
k
EFFORT-
LAYERS
LB.
13000
25 APPLICATIONS/LAYER
40
12000
I
SPRING
1000
10000
9000
[EFFORT -5 LAYERS
(20 APPLICATIONS/LAYER
J 30 LB. SPRING
8000
7000
EFFORT-
6000 L5 LAYERS
20 APPLICATIONS
5000 20
LB.
LAYER SPRING
4000
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
WATER CONTENT
FIGURE
15
(%)
TEMPERATURE
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH.
higher compaction effort levels vere associated with lover water contents.
There was also a significant difference in
the 85F levels of compaction temperature.
t
53
This increase of
55F levels of compaction temperature nor between the 55F and 85F
levels.
This effect
This is further
There were no
Contrasts revealed a
compaction effort.
effort.
Although contrasts could not be made for the water content factor
levels because of the nesting problem, the data suggest that the tangent
to the second level of water content (for the two lower compaction
at a water content about one or two per cent greater than the optimum
A line of
required to attain this density (80.5 p C f) increases with decreasing compaction effort.
It can be
of the soil at this water content becomes more dispersed with decreasing
compaction effort.
tangent modulus.
becomes more fully dispersed, at the higher water contents, the tangent
moduli decrease
greatly.
55
LEGEND
89.5 pcf 5 LAYERS, 20 APPLICATI0NS/LAYER,20 LB. SPRING 5 LAYERS, 20 APPLICATIONS/LAYER,30l_B. SPRING
5 LAYERS, 25 APPLICATIONS/ LAYER, 40 LB. SPRING
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
TANGENT MODULUS.
is the
Although neither
seemed to be significant when analyzed separately, their interaction was statistically significant.
on this modulus.
temperature - testing temperature. Contrasting the means of this modulus showed that there was a
significant difference between levels
the compaction effort factor.
1
and
of
compaction effort.
The data revealed that for samples compacted at 85F, the lower the
testing temperature the greater the secant modulus measured to
q.
57
-This relationship was not significant for the 35F and 55F levels of
compaction temperature.
Contrast also indicated that for a given compaction temperature,
Similar
testing temperature
pacted at the same effort, temperature, and water content), the modulus
decreases with increasing testing temperature.
It
58
EFFORT:
LAYERS, 20 APPLICATIONS/LAYER, 20
LB.
SPRING
5lOr
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
WATER CONTENT
.
(%)
THE EFFECT OF WATER CONTENT FIGURE 17 AND TESTING TEMPERATURE ON THE SECANT MODULUS TO PEAK STRESS.
59
\ 12
and
compaction effort.
tion effort factor, no contrasts could be made on the other two sources
of variation of this variable.
60
SUMMARY
Table 10 is a compilation of those factors and interactions of factors that had a significant effect on each of the variables considered.
It is seen that the compaction effort factor and the water content fac-
tor are the most fundamental independent variables because they have a
significant effect on each of the six dependent variables.
It is felt
that the reason for this is due primarily to the effect these factors have on the dry density variable, 7,.
effort and water content not only affects the magnitude of dry density,
but perhaps just as importantly, affects the resulting soil structure. The soil structure is considered to have an important effect on the other
dependent variables.
lated that this factor also affects the soil structures which in turn
phenomenon of decreasing dry density with decreasing compaction temperature (for constant compaction effort and water content) can be compensa-
&
J>
CO
CO
S5
co
CO
01
co
a)
co
to
co
co
co
co
CO
CO
(tut not
-;e
in
peak stress.
-st-
variables.
It
is ex-
pected that this interaction also had an effect on the dry density variable which in turn would have affected these variables, but
not
verified statistically.
der.-
in
iarre
The verity
92
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
AND
perature the two dependent variables would increase with increasing compaction temperatures.
Due to the assumed dependence of pore pressure on
CONCLUSIONS
Low testing temperatures have a significant effect on the unFor soil compacted under identicai conditions, the
drained strength.
The dry density appears to have an overriding influence on the However, the effects of water contents
1.
pressures: both as these are residual to the compaction process and as they are changed during shear.
It
is
response, strength and strength parameters, compressibility characteristics and the like for a variety of soils.
'-'
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Lovell , C. W., Jr., and A. M. Osborne, "Feasibility of Cold Weather Earthwork," Highway Research Rrcord No. 248, 1968, pp. 13-27.
2.
Sowers, G. B. and G. F. Sowers, Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations , Second Edition, The Macmillan Company, 196l, p. 103.
3.
Hogentogler, C. A., and E. A. Willis, "Stabilized Soil Roads," Public Roads , Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1936, pp. H8-50.
Bur-mister, D. M.
k.
Proceedings
5.
"Applications of Environmental Testing of Soils," , ASTM, Vol. 5b, 1956, pp. 1351-1371.
Burraister, D. M. , "Environmental Factors in Soil Compaction," Symposium on Compaction of Soils , ASTM, STP 377, 196**, pp. 1*7-66.
6.
Laguros , J. G. "Effect of Temperature on Some Engineering Properties of Clay Soils," HRB Special Report 103, 1969, pp. 186-193.
,
7.
Murayama, S., "Effect of Temperature on Elasticity of Clays," HRB Special Report 103, 1969, pp. 19^-203.
"Residual Pore Pressures in Compacted Clay," Lambe, T. W. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 196l, pp. 207-211.
,
8.
9.
Youssef, M. S., A. Sabrey, and A. K. El Ramli, "Temperature Changes and Their Effects on Some Physical Properties of Soils," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 1961 pp. U19-421.
,
10.
Osborne, A. M. , "Feasibility of Cold Weather Earthwork in Indiana," Joint Highway Research Project No. 15, June 1967, Purdue University, pp. 8I-6U.
,
11.
Johnson, A. W. and J. R. Sallbere, "Factors Influencing Compaction Test Results," HRB Bulletin 319, 1962, pp. 49-52.
Belcher, D. J., "A Field Investigation of Low-Cost Stabilized Roads," Research Series No. 8l, Engineering Experiment Station , 25:2A, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1Q41, n. 29.
Lambe, T. W. , "Compacted Clay: Structure," Transactions Vol. 125, I960, pp'. 682-717.
,
12.
13.
ASCE,
Ik.
Mitchell, J. K., "Temperature Effects on the Engineering Properties and Behavior of Soils," HRB Snecial Report 103, 1969, vv. 12-15.
Campanella, R. G. and J. K. Mitchell, "Influence of Temperature Variations on Soil Behavior," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings , ACCE, Vol. 9 * , SM 3, May 1968, pn. 709-73U.
1
15.
16.
Mitchell, J. K., "Shearing Resistance of Soils as a Rate Process," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 90, SM 1, Jan. I96U, pp. 29-61.
Noble, C. A. and T. Demirel, "Effect of Temperature on Str< Behavior of Cohesive Soil," KRB Special Report 103, 1969, Dp. 20U219.
17.
18.
Sherif, M. A. and C. M. Burrous, "Temperature Effects on the Unconfined Shear Strength of Saturated, Cohesive Soil," HRB Special Report 103, 1969, pp. 267-272.
19.
Murayama, S. and T. Shibata, "Rheological Properties of Clays," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 196l, pp. 269-273.
Seed, H. B. and C. K. Chan, "Structure and Strength Characteristics. Transactions , ASCE, Vol. 126, 196l, pp. 13^-1^07.
20.
21.
Lambe, T. W.
p.
115.
22.
23.
Guenther, W.
C,
Analysis of Variance
Prentice-Hall, 196U
Ostle, B., Statistics in Research , Second Edition, The Iova State University Press, 1963. Scheffe, H.
,
2U.
25.
Scheffe, H., "A Method for Judging All Contrasts in the Analysis of Variance," Biometrika , Vol. hO, 1953, pp. 87-10U.
Oven, D., Handbook of Statistical Tables
,
26.
APPENDIX
69
APPENDIX
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Tangent Modulus
Secant Modulus t0 Secant Modulus
(psf)xlC
593 561 585 660 515
587
u
(psf)
1*890
(in/in) (psf)xio'
.0156 .0135 .0165 .0157
.011*5
(psf)xlO
325
1*28
Llll
L112
879 522
565 622
A four digit number is used to represent the independent variables. The first digit represents the compaction effort levels. Its code
is: 1 = 5 - 20 - 20; 2 = 5 - 20 - 30; and 3 = 5 - 25 - 40 (number of layers - tamp applications per layer - Hookean spring constant). The second digit represents the water content levels which are nested in the compaction effort levels in accordance with the following diagram:
Water Content
23
25-
{%)
27 29
21 23 25 27
Thus each compaction effort level is associated with four water content levels.
The third and fourth digits represent the levels c temperature and testing temperature, respectively. and 3 = 85 F. 1 = 35F 2 = 55F ; are:
;
9 6
70
Variable Code
1113
(pcf)
*u (psf)
Tangent Modulus
-3
Secant Modulus to
Secant Modulus
(psf
(in/in) (psf)xlO
.0156 .0192 .0151 .0163 .0175
(psf
6260 6870
61*70
81*2
1*60
800
771
375
1*1*9
1*31
1*06
1121
8U.8
81*.
81*.
1122
1*670
i*7l*0
5050
1*90
51*0 1+92
1*90
535
1*92
262
285
21*1*
1123
81*.
85.1*
608
1*18
600
361*
530
1*1*9
260 253
21*1
516
1*1*1*
505
505
1131
.0203 .0238
.011*9
6520 7730 6870 6680 5660 5960 6510 6870 6590 6290
631*0
.0188 .0175
.0685 .0538
.01*1*3
1*1*7
1*15
1*89
518
1*56
1132
303.1 318.1
335
.0690 .0680
.0287 .0295 .0276 .0268 .0250
307.3 312.5
230
211*
1133
527 597
1*97.5 51*5.5
89.3
1211
82.5 83.1 83.9
81*.
230 228
21*3
529
.0256
.0281*
83.1
332
391
329
71
Variable Code
1212
\
(psf)
61*60
Tangent Modulus
Secant Modulus to c^
(psf;/
./odulus
tO (psf
(pcf)
(in/in) (psf)xio"''
.0325 .0380
.031*14
601*
1*1*3
6370
61*20
61*20
6U90
.0396 .0377
.0362 .0352 .0336 0399 .0376
515
1*31
1*66
569 507
1213
7710 8120 7390 76U0 7190 6910 7870 7600 IkkO 7380
5250
1*890
670
59**
626
l3
650
1*79
1*86
1*79 1*36
1221
.0366 .0358
.031*8
71*8
.0369 .0353
.081*7
1222
91.5 91.6 92.6 92.8 92.3 91.8 91.3 90.9 91.0 90.9
.0717 .0831
.0861*
275 225
l*ll*
620 681
61*1
.0833 .0803 .0718 .0595 .0569 .0568 .0289 .0312 .0317 .0287 .0291
.0792 .0323 .0632
.079**
.0881*
367
691 691
691*
1223
1231
86.0 86.0 86.0 85-6 85.0 95.9 95-9 95.9 95-6 95-6 9^.0 93.5 93.0
93. U
657.5
575 695
67I4
7770
767
1232
7250 7370 6700 7150 7670 6660 6550 5770 636O 6390
1233
332
391*
1*10 1*01
1*35
93.0
.06U1
8 1 6
72
Variable
Yd
(pcf)
u (psf)
Tangent Modulus
-3
Secant Modulus to a
u
.
Eecant Modulus to /?
-
(in/in) (psf)xlO
.0951 .0815 .0826
.0721*
(pSf)x
(pf)x]
1311
88.3 89.0
88. U
6510
61*10
89.0 88.1
1312
20k
2l*U
222
21*8
.07U6
85.1
5U.6
51*.
l*
320
90.6 90.6 90.0 90.0 90.0 91.0 90.6 90.5 91.2 89.3
91.1*
285
301*
1*1*3
166.8 171
208 187.5
1*82
63.0 60.1
50.1*
1313
75.1*
6320
1321
91.3
91. k
91.2 90.9
1322
131.5 125.5
107
1*1*1.5
1*71
.1173 .1250
.121*5
55.1
1*8.1
1*9.5
.1176 .1106
.lUll*
.1351*
.135*
2U8 2U2
262 210 210 210 127
U56 320
3U1
37**
53.3
56.1*
1323
35.1 3U.1
31*.
U610 U610
1*1*20
.1351*
.1570
.01*08
29.1*
1331
68.5 67.8
1332
37.0
161
.0631
.01*61
.0558
.01*8-3
323
86.9 86.9
66. Q
86.9
88.0 80.8
67.1*
87.7
6U.
ol*. 5
.
U0.3
80.8
56.1*
7 8
1 9 9
8 6
Variable
d (pcf)
92. k
%
Jj>sf)
261*0
Tangent Modulus
-3
Secant Modulus
toq u
(pjnxio"^
13.2
11*.
Secant Modulus to n /?
__ JpjJf )jclO.
(in/in) (psf)xlO
.2010 .1730 .1869 .1800 .1310 .1728 .1808
.186**
1333
20.6
23. U
1*3.1
13.1*
36.6
1*9.1*
1U.6 i.l
90.2
89. k
3UUO 3180
.1739
.11*67
1**13
27.2
23-1*
1*0.7
1*100
1*180
.161*9
33.9
31*.
1+220
uuo
3550 3560 3580
35*40
39.2 33.7
38.1*
2U. 2U. 5
22.0
17.5 17.5 15.8 17.0 17.0 20.6 16.9 18.0 18.1
18.1*
33.7 35.3
25.8 27.2
21*.
3620
3250 3560 3500 3600 3U60
2U.6 25.9
uo.i*
25.9
29.8 27.2 29.1 28.9
29.1*
1**22
31.8
5*.l
1*0.0
50.1
1*1.5
11*23
3720 3750
1*280
21.7
20.1* 23.**
35.
35.1*
1*5.3
1*0.7
1*0.7
U020 UlUo
3980 3710 3810 3710 3870
.1582
.11*38
39-6 53.3
21.2
2c.
1*0.2
1**31
7'.
<?
Tangent Modulus
3
(psf)
(in/in) (ngf)xlO"
.1838 .1838 .1981 .1844 .20U9 .16U0 .1850 .1855 .1364 .1638 .0152 .0149 .0183 .0152 .0173
70.9 68.0
88. 6
67.0 94.8
46.2 39.2 68.0 92.9 12.2 1050 897 1050 869 1050
1034 1100 1160 1013 1355
1*33
2111
83.2 83.4 84.2 83.5 83.6 83.3 83.3 83.7 83.7 83.9
1050 878 1004 869 1050 1000 950 1113 905 1130
831 740 820 530
594
2112
.0152 .0144 .0110 .0162 .0139 .0140 .0165 .0170 .0183 .0190
.0176 .0164 .0152 .0154
.0161*
2113
2121
9550 8650 8450 8350 6650 9200 9080 9320 7780 8370
2122
84.0 84.4 84.8 83.0 83.9 83.8 83.8 83.8 84.3 84.3
660
675 675 675 554 63c
1044
819
2123
619
930
Yd
Tangent Modulus
-3
Cecant Modulus to a
u
Secant Modulus
to
,J?
(pcf)
(psf),
(psf
2131
8U.U
8U. li
81*.
i*
.0153
.0131
695
695 686
560 695
7050
761*0
7820 7^10
7U90 8U50 79UO 7770
71*20
2133
805
7110
6**70
uoo
1*31
1*97
1*72
1*35
2212
.0222
.02*0
.0250 .0225
.021*1*
1*1*9 l*l*l
1*23
1*09
9070
81*70
.0197 .0188
8330 9070
859
'--
723
111*0
1*82
719 1100
1005 1081
"
87.0 2222
86. C
1*11
369 369
.0226
.023**
9790
906
U3I*
l*7i*
1*77
1095
1*80
101*0
u U
\
(pcf)
%
ipsf
961*0
961*0
Tangent Modulus
f
Secant Modulus
to -3
u
>
Secant Modulus to /2
'
(in/in) (psf)xlO
.019
1*
(psf)xl0~
1*96
1*96
xlO
2223
85.6 85.6
85. U
.0191*
9900
961*0
85.6 85.5
2231
87.7 87.0 86.2 86.9 86.9
814.7
9870
1279 1087 1136
111*5
1*55
1*96
1*1*2
1122
901
2232
85.4
814.8
85.1 65.8
1*16
*51 1*96
818 676
75*i
1*72
1022
921*
507
305 3U6
798 889
867 812 925 1002 959
2233
89.1*
89. l
355 358
31*1*
7980
71*90
71*00
U10 525
Ul2
7560
79**0
526
71*0
466
1*10
525
526
581 63* 502 507 521
631*
2312
.01*50
2313
.01*52
.0370
.
90.3
2321
.01*88.01*99
293 230 288 220 227 213 241 216 211 220
.ouio
.01*81
.0390
.01*35
720 863
668 756
77
d (Cf)
Tanpent Modulus
3
<paf)
11U6 1035 9920
10*40
(In/in) (psf)xlO"
Tecar.t Modulus
to
/2
1
2322
90.5 90.5
00.
.0532 .0570
.01478
90.5
90. U
9510
1077 1031 101U
10 1U
.OU65 .0U88
.0U22 .036U .0368
2323
90.1
90.
It
9300 1097 1038 1137 1050 1025 1180 1038 1066 1066 1029
625
89.3 88.0
89.1*
96C 895
88*4
89.5 88.6
91U
151*5
309 259
257
27**
857 ^75
2332
91 .2
.OU97 .0396
.0*493
.0*493
.0*4
33
856 930 1019 1019 723 782 735 873 780 807
165 181 162.5 138 183
.
9980 1191
11*40
.OU76
.0*460 .0*473
1170 1198
2lll
93.2 92.6 92.1 92.8 91.1 92.9 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.9 93.5 93.5
93. U
8230 7830
79*40
360 256
83.5
.
7820 7600
66.10 661+0
.0886
163 300
30*4
68.4 6C.5
2U12
.1399 .1326
.1*400
15**.5
2*42
kU.U UQ.h
1*6.6
U7.*4
109.5
.
230
25*4
2U13
7060
7I43O
93.6
188.5
2*43
51.5 67.1
.1501
1*1.5
Variable Code
2U21
(pcf
u (psf)
Tancent Modulus
Secant ModuluE
to q
u
J
Secant Modulus
/?
>
(in/in) (psf)xlO
.1281 .1425 .1443 .1498
.131*3
(pgf)xlO
48.2 41.8 40.3 40.0 43.7
121
7130 6940 7520 6840 7380 9870 9870 1061 9640 9130
73.4
34 3
2422
93.4 93.4 93.2 93.5 92.5 92.6 92.0 92.6 92.6 92.0
343 430
351 331
2423
521
2431
.1472 .1658 .1383 .1460 .1469 .0644 .0650 .0673 .0575 .0585 .0476 .0460 .0473 .0465 .0492 .0202 .0204 .0200 .0214
.
2432
3111
914
1181
020.5
1230 885
1530 153C 1445 1740 1530
3112
2 U
Variable Code
3113
Yd
(pcf)
u (psf)
137
Tangent Modulus
(psf)xlO
901*
(in/ in)
-3
Secant Modulus to q u ?
(pjf)xlO"''
Cecant Modulus
to
a
/2
6U0
681*
3121
.0195
.0171*
1300 1UU0
151*0
1200
1315
.570
1200
1315
11*70
71*3
88.0
88. U 88. 88. k
1700
191*0
685 780
791* 71*5
2130
1110
91*0
3123
88. h
88.1*
72U
61*2
11*02
13**3
1650
11*25
8U2
801*
IU10 1370
11*10
981*
1650
981*
1U03 1355
131*8
11*10
li*10
.
88.9
3132
1U19 1582
1310 1058
111*5
1170 1155
11*85
71*5
1155
ll*80
.0292
.0371*
1155 9280
3133
1323 1525
11*11
139 1188
500
5**2
580
3211
1531 1380
ll* 46
668
710
fc05
71*1*
1200 1165
160**
1U01
1528
BO
"ode
d (pcf)
Tangent Modulus
f
Secant Modulus
t
Secant Modulus
to q 12
u
(psf)
(in/in) (psf)xlO
.OU75 .0449 .0457 .0446 .0445
.0253 .0284 .0269 .0257 .0269 .0212 .0210 .0189 .0210 .0185
-3
0%i
359 376 344 358 342
(psfJxlO"^
(pf)xlO"'
3212
1526 1498
li*65
1430
14 30
1506 1511
1U63 1607 1601 1649 1533 1420 1362 1377 1362 1188
1488 1488 1429 1394 1366
3213
606
577
3221
1305 1425 1310 1230 1131 1190 1310 1500 1485 1310
1395 1535 1615 1620 1580 1155 1540 IU45 1446 1778
725 820 871 78U 860 717 800 710 724
brtr
3222
.0349 .0315 .0261 .0270 .0277 .0286 .0228 .0265 .0274 .0270 .0278 .0297 .0243 .0289 .0304
.0404 .0461 .0421 .0368 .0419 .0449 .0399
.04 30
3223
1601 1492 1548 1380 1397 1409 1758 1638 1721 1730 1206 1318 1275 1213 1214
1233 1226 1173 1256 1203
3231
3232
3233
.0443 .0415
Code
Tangent Modulus
f
Secant Modulus to q
u
Secant Modulus to a
(pif)x]
Lp.c
U_
(pBf)
(in/in) (paf)xlO" 3
.01*90
KlO"
358
31*1
3311
9**.
1601
93.5 9^.0
9<*.l
1559
1571*
93.9
3312
111*5
11*1*5
592
359 376
31***
1575
3313
.OUQ
.01*57
.01*1*6
.01*1*5
358
31*2
.0521*
1367 1393
13*9
881
833
1357
IU5I*
.0528
.01*83
1366 1372
135**
821 ooU
.0U8l
.Ofc86
7c0
qou
3323
oU.O
9U.6
9I4.O Qi*.3
1317 1U89
l!*68
.0161
.01*85
.OU56
.0531*
9U.8
3331
Qn.J
.01*38
.0575
.051*9
ll21
11*27
1015
S332
170
191*5
-'UC
572
531*
17 UO
1*80
1635
1*93
8 3 3
6 4
%
(psf)
Tangent Modulus
3
Secant Modulus to q
ModuJ
-
to
95.1
9**.
95.0
31*11
.0606 .0742
<0553
.0663 .0596
.0877 .0867 .0803 .0813 .0966
630 685 750 871 1220 2U8 272 262 125.5 212
382 58U
l*2t*
182.5
171
211*
UU2 572
170 235
.
89.1*
176.5
125.5
11*7
3U12
95.0 95.1
9*.5
9U.6
9<*.5
3**13
.0836 .0790
.0804
.0773 .0794
.0664 .0950 .0713 .0733 .0908 .01^2 .0959 .1037 .0972 .1037
1*98
U6U
129.8 91.8
131
113.8 103
80.0 91.0 81.1 8U.1 8l.l
177.5 201
178
3**21
9.U
199
23**
139
.
9**.3
3**22
.0716
.
4O0
in
202 271
-
Z.00
3U23
.01*71
?o u
598 U89
3l31
94.0
91*.
ou.o
9**.
217
3i*7
97.
%
(psf)
C f
Tangent Modulus
Secant Modulus to q
u
(psf;
(In/in) (pBf)xlO" 3
.0735 .0671 .0589 .0616 .0616
3^32
9*.9
9^.6 9^.9
95. 95.
fc
i*
177
*90
525
3U33
1*3.9
25.5