glenn degroot engineering and research center bureau of ...soil-cement facings are discussed....
TRANSCRIPT
Glenn DeGroot Engineering and Research Center
Bureau of Reclamation
May 1971
MS-230 (8-70) Bureau of Reclamation ICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGl
Soil-Cement Slope Protection on Bureau of Reclarnation Features
7. A U T H O R ( S )
Glenn DeGroot
9. PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N N A M E A N D ADDRESS
I Same
8. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N REPORT NO.
REC-ERC-7 1-20
10. WORK U N I T NO.
Engineering and Research Center Bureau of Reclamation
14. SPOhSORING A G E N C Y CODE
11. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO.
JUL 25 1977 IS. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES
1
Denver, Colorado 80225 PE OF REPORT A N D PERIOD
- 1 C b V E R E D 12. SPONSORING A G E N C Y NAME A N D ADDRESS-- C
Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado
16. A B S T R A C T
A summary of Bureau ot Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection is presented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureau structures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, construction control testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successful performance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used as the basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limits established by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau have been fine, silty sands; a summary of test results i s presented. The soil-cement is: ( 1 ) mixed in a continuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a combination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edge of the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken at most features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has been generally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on Cheney Dam in Kansas. Has 17 references.
- 17. K E Y WORDS A N D DOCUMENT A N A L Y S I S
a. DESCRIPTORS--/ *soil cement/ *slope protection/ *erosion control/ sands/ gradation1 soil compaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing/ compaction equipment/ performance tests/ records/ ' construction/ embankments1 bibliographies1 soil investigations1 construction controll construction equipment1 tests1 *earth dams/ dam construction/ durability
b. IDEN TIFIERS--/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kansl Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Texl Glen Elder Dam, Kansl Starvation Dam, Utah c. COSATl Field/Group 13M
21. NO. OF PAGE
104 22. PRICE
. 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Ava i lab le from the National Technical Information Service. Operations Division. Springfield. Virginia 22151.
19. SECURITY C L A S S (THIS REPORT)
UNCLASSIFIED 20. SECURITY C L A S S , ( T H I S PAGE)
SOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURE8
by Glenn DeGroot
May 1971
Soils Engineering Branch -
Division of General Re'pouci Engineering and Reseanlr CI Denver, Colorado
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF T H E INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Rogers C. 6. Morton Ellis L. Armstrong Secretary Commissioner
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This summary report was prepared under the supervision of A. A.Wagner, formerly Head, Physical Properties and Construction ControlSection (retired); W. Ellis is presently Head of the Section. H. J. Gibbsis the Soils Engineering Branch Chief. Some of the informationcontained in this report has been extracted from previously publishedSoils Engineering reports as referenced. Prior to publication, the text ofthe report was checked by R. R. Ledzian and reviewed by C. A. Lowitzand C. W. Jones, Head, Special Investigations and Research Section.
CONTENTS
IntroductionTest Procedures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Standard Identification Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Durability Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compressive Strength Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cement Content and Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gradation and Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Durability Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compressive Strength Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effects of Compaction, Time Delay, Water Content, Etc. . . . . . . . . .
Construction Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Material Excavation and Stockpiling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Proportioning and Mixing of Materials. . . . . . . . .Transporting and Placing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compacting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Curing and Preparation for Next Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction Control Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proportioning and Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Density and Compaction Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical Cement Content Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction Control Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Record Coring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX
Identification and Compaction Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Freeze-thaw Durability Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Wet-dry Durability Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Compressive Strength Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Compressive Strength vs. Placement Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Compressive Strength vs. Placement Water Content. . . . . . . . . . . . 90Compressive Strength vs. Time Delay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Construction Control Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Soil-cement Record Core Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Example of Summary of Field and Laboratory Tests of Compacted Soil-cement. . . . 104
LIST OF TABLESTable
123
Comparison of compressive strength testing methods. . . . . . .Summary of construction control results. . . . . . . . . . .Summary of tests on record cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
12
223
3
3468
10
1212141517
18
18191919
202226
82021
Figure
1011
12
131415
1617
18
19
20
21
22
2324
252627
28
CONTENTS-Continued
LIST OF FIGURES
12
General gradation limits for soil-cement materialSummary of gradation test results on soil-cement
material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Soil-cementdurability test results-Bonny Test
Section ..........................Summary of freeze-thaw durability test results
onsoil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of wet-dry durability test results on
soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Soil-cement compressive strength test results-
BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . .Summary of 7-day compressive strength test results
onsoil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of 28-day compressive strength test results
onsoil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effect of density on compressive strength of
soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effectof densityondurabilityof soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . .Effect of placement water content on compressive
strengthof soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effect of time delay on compressive strength of
soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effectof timedelayoncompactionof soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . .Spreadingof untreatedsoil-BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . .Dumping of portland cement from sacks-Bonny Test
Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Distribution of the dumped cement-Bonny Test Section . . . . .Mixing cement with soil by a tractor-drawn,
self-powered, rotary-type mixer-Bonny TestSection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applying water to soil-cement prior to wet mixing-BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Initial compaction of the soil-cement with asheepsfootroller-BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Final compaction by pneumatic-type rolling providedby a loaded truck-Bonny Test Section . . . . . . . . . . .
Light surface scarification of the completedsoil-cementlayer-Bonny TestSection. . . . .
General view of soil stockpile and pugmill formixing soil-cement-Lubbock RegulatingReservoir. . . . . . . . . .
Soil-cementprocessing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cement vane feeder and soil feed belt to pugmill-
Cheney Dam""""""""""'"Insideof pugmill-CheneyDam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soil-cementplacingoperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spreading soil-cement on placement area-Merritt
Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Closeup view of spreader box used to place even,
uniformlift-Merritt Dam. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
3
4
5
6. . . . . . .
7. . . . . . . .
8
9
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
ii
Page
2
3
5
5
6
7
7
7
89
9
91010
1011
11
11
11
11
11
1213
141415
15
15
Figure
29
30
31
32
33
34
3536
3738
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
CONTENTS-Continued
Sheepsfoot roller used to compact lower portion ofthe lift-Merritt Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pneumatic roller used to compact upper portion oflift-Merritt Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General view of placing and rolling operations-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. . . . . . . . . .
General view of placing and rolling operations-Cawker City Dike. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Placing and rolling second lift-Merritt Dam upstreamslope modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power brooming to clean surface prior to placementof next lift-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Watering inplace soil-cement-Starvation Dam . . . . . .Watering inplace soil-cement with side broom spray-
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of Bonny Test Section-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 67+50 showing normally
anticipated wear pattern-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . .View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 40+00 showing normally
anticipated wear pattern-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 110+00 showing moderate
breakage of facing-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 85+75 showing moderate
breakage of facing-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Repair of soil-cement-Cheney Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . .General view of Cheney Dam, Station 88+00 looking
east-October 1971 .....................Closeup view of Cheney Dam at Station 95+90 showing
Zone 1 material exposed-October 1971 . . . . . . . .View of patch on Cheney Dam at Station 85+80-
October 1971 .......................General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 18+00 looking west-
Septem ber 1968 ......................Closeup of Merritt Dam showing erosion of feathered
edge-September 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 27+00 looking east-
September 1968 .............General view of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir showing
weathered material, Sta. 51-March 1968General view of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, from
outlet structure-March 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir showing erosion
of feathered edge-March 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
iii
Page
16
16
17
17
17
1818
1822
22
22
23
2323
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
EstimatedFeature Location near Year volume Reference
constructed (cu yd) report
Merritt Dam Valentine, Nebraska 1963 51,000 EM-6714Merritt Dam Modification Valentine, Nebraska 1968 13,400 EM-6113Cheney Dam Wichita, Kansas 1964 180,000 EM-6685Lubbock Regulating Reservoir Lubbock, Texas 1966 53,000 EM-7296Glen Elder Dam Beloit, Kansas 1967 -68 138,000 EM-7197Downs Dike Beloit, Kansas 1967 63,000 EM-7378Cawker City Dike Beloit, Kansas 1968 86,000 EM-7378Starvation Dam Duchesne, Utah 1969 72 ,000 EM-7149
INTRODUCTION
The developmen\,of projects in areas where rock riprapis scarce has created a need for other means of slopeprotection. A number of alternate slope protectionschemes such as soil-cement, concrete paving, steelsheet, and asphaltic concrete have been investigated.The background of these investigations is given inEM-652.1*
The use of soil-cement slope protection was first triedby the Bureau of Reclamation on Bonny Test Sectionin eastern Colorado. Soil-cement was not used directlyon the face of the dam as this was considered to beexperimental work. A special embankment wasconstructed along the south side of the reservoir andfaced with soil-cement. Detailed descriptions of thetest section and construction procedures are given inEM-6521 and EM-6302. The successful performance ofthe facing in the test section led to the conclusion thatsoil-cement could be used as slope protection on majorhydraulic structures.
To date (1970), the Bureau of Reclamation has usedsoil-cement slope protection on seven majorwater-retaining structures. Most of these structureshave been on the Great Plains, an area where suitablerock for riprap occurs only in scattered locations.
However, one of the structures is in Utah and thepossible use of soil-cement has also been investigatedfor structures located in areas normally thought of asbeing near mountainous areas. However, even inmountainous areas, the haul distance for suitable rockcan be many miles. If a suitable source for soil-cementmaterial is available at a short haul distance, the use ofsoil-cement may be competitive and should be
investigated. Soil-cement is usually considered for analternate method of slope protection if the hauldistance to a suitable rock source exceeds about 20miles. Nevertheless, the nearest rock source, or sources,must be investigated so that alternate bids can beobtained if found by the designer to be desirable.
The following table lists the locations of soil-cementfacings constructed to date. The table also gives theyear of construction, estimated yardage in thespecifications and Soils Engineering Report numberwhich presents the results of the investigation testingprogram.
The figures in the Appendix also show test results fromthree features on which soil-cement was investigatedbut was not used. These three are included since thesoil types were somewhat different from the soils usedon other structures. These features are Little PanocheCreek Detention Dam, California (EM-712)10; Red
Bluff Reservoir Bank Stabilization Area, California(EM-692) 11; and Conconully Dam (EM-746) 12.
The purpose of this report is to present a summary ofthe Bureau's experience with soil-cement facings todate. In addition, the durability results in some of thereferenced reports were computed with variousassumptions. These test results have been recomputedwith the same assumption used on all the tests.
A seepage test section was incorporated into the slopefacing on the Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Thissection included provisions for measuring the amountof water which permeated the soil-cement. The datacollected showed that the soil-cement on that featurehad quite low permeability. Report No.REC-ERC-71-13 entitled Soil-Cement Seepage Test
*Numbers refer to references at end of text.
10
80 20
70 30
to 0Z WiJj 60 40~<I>
""f-a. w
~500:
50 f-W Z<) W0: <)
~40 60 ffia.
70
80
90
Section, Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, CanadianRiver Project, Texas,13 gives a complete summary ofthe test section details and observations.
TEST PROCEDURES
The first step in any construction project is to findsuitable material and soil-cement is no exception tothis. Although almost any material can be used toproduce soil-cement, certain more desirable materialtypes have been outlined. Figure 1 shows gradation
.074
N~~.
0149 .297 .590 1.19 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 76.2
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND GRAvEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
Figure 1. General gradation limits for soil-cement
material.
limits which experience has shown to be generallyacceptable materials for soil-cement slope protection.The gradation of the material should be parallel to thelimits; that is, there should be a good distribution ofthe particle sizes from the smallest to the largest. Thelimits defined by the higher numbers on the figurewould usually require lower cement contents for anequal quality of soil-cement than the finer materials.This is due to larger surface area of particles per unitvolume in the finer materials as well as the higherpercentage of voids (that is, lower density) generallyobtained in the finer-grained material. As previouslystated, these gradation limits do not include all thematerials which could be used for soil-cement, butmaterials outside these ranges would be expected torequire higher cement contents. Also materials coarser
than Gradation 3 would be quite coarse to mix andplace as soil-cement.
Standard Identification Tests
After a potential material source has been located,more detailed testing is performed. Standard testprocedures are used for gradation and Atterberg limitstests. In addition to the standard ASTM stirringapparatus for gradation tests, the wrist shakerdispersion method has often been used. The gradationtest specimen is set up the same as for the standardgradation test. However, the specimen is dispersed in a250-milliliter Erlenmeyer flask and agitated for 10minutes with a device known as a wrist shaker. Asimplied by the name, this device imparts a motionsimilar to that of shaking the flask by hand with a wristaction. There are no moving parts in contact with thesoil and the dispersant action is less violent than thatobtained with the standard ASTM stirring device. Acomparison of the gradation curves obtained by thetwo methods gives a qualitative estimate of thedurability of the.. individual particles. A similarcomparison could be obtained using the air dispersionmethod which is now a standard ASTM test procedure.
If the gradation and Atterberg limits of the materialindicates that it is within acceptable limits, Proctorcompaction tests are performed. The cement contentrequired for producing soil-cement is estimated basedon the gradation characteristics and the Proctormaximum dry density of the material with an averagecement content based on soil type. The average andestimated cement contents are shown in Tables 1 and 2of Portland Cement Association Publication CB-1114. These cement contents are for use as pavementbase on highways and are generally low for use inhydraulic structures. Because of the direct exposureand erosion conditions, the cement contents should beincreased by about 2 percent for use as slopeprotection. Proctor compaction tests are normallyperformed on the material at the cement contentestimated and at cement contents 2 percent above andbelow that estimated. Test specimens of thesoil-cement are placed according to the compactiontest results at each cement content. However, if thecompaction test results indicate that cement contentdoes not change the compaction characteristicssignificantly, an average value may be used.
Durability Tests
Du rability tests are performed on com pactedspecimens to determine the resistance of thesoil-cement to the effects of wet-dry and freeze-thawcycles. The wet-dry tests are performed in accordance
2
with ASTM Test Designation 0.559 and thefreeze-thaw tests are performed in accordance withASTM Test Designation 0-560 with the exceptionsdiscussed below. The ASTM procedures do not requireweights at each of the 12 brushing cycles. The weightsbefore and after brushing for each test cycle areobtained in Bureau tests. From these data, the amountof soil-cement brushed off at each cycle can bedetermined. Since the ASTM procedures do not requireweights for each cycle, the loss must be computedfrom the final weight. Hydration of cement chemicallycombines water which cannot be driven off by the finaldrying at 1100 C. Because of this chemically combinedwater, a correction has to be made to the final dryweight. Assumptions for the amount of the water ofhydration have been made based on cement contentand soil type. Obtaining the weights as done by theBureau laboratories eliminates the need for theassumption mentioned above. The percent loss iscalculated by dividing the accumulated soil-cement lossthrough the 12 cycles by the initial dry weight. Thismethod of calculating the loss probably overstates theloss by a small amount since the accumulated losses arewet weights rather than dry weights. Nevertheless, thepercent losses computed from the accumulated weightlosses are usually less than those computed using theassumption for hydration, and the losses continue todecrease at increasing cement contents, a trend whichdid not always develop using the assumption forhydration.
Compressive Strength Tests
Compressive strength specimens are formed at the sameplacement conditions as the durability specimens. Theprocedures used for molding the specimens generallyconform to ASTM Designation 0-1632 although therehas been some variation of the procedure used. Moldscurrently in use were fabricated from seamless tubingand produce specimens 2.8 inches in diameter by 5.6inches high (7.1 by 14.2 cm). Most specimens arecompacted with the drop hammer apparatus althoughsome specimens have been compacted using a hydraulicloading jack or compression machine. Either methodseems to produce suitable specimens. The soil-cementspecimens are usually left in the mold for 2 days in 100percent relative humidity storage prior to extrudingthem. Extrusion is accomplished by applying a steadyload to one end of the specimen with a hydraulic jackor compression machine. After extrusion, thespecimens are stored at 100 percent relative humidityand 720 F (fog room curing).
Compressive strength specimens are formed for testingat 3-, 7-, 28-, and 90-day ages. Prior to testing, thespecimens are normally soaked in water for a period of
4 to 24 hours. The specimens are then capped with aclay-sulfur compound. The unconfined compressivestrength tests are performed in accordance with ASTMDesignation 0-1633. A hydraulic testing machine isused and the load is applied at about 20 psi (1.4 kg/sqcm) per second.
CEMENT CONTENT AND MATERIALSELECTION
Gradation and Density
The gradation of the material has considerableinfluence on the workability and acceptability as asource for soil-cement. As previously mentioned,materials with large amounts of gravel would bedifficult to mix and place as a uniform layer. On theother hand, materials which are very fine would also bedifficult to mix adequately. As shown on Figure 2,
SIEVE ANALYSIS
90 10
80 20
70 30
"z~60
~
:;J40 Z
~:;;
"'50f-
~60"'::'
Limits of gradatIOns fromthe 7 features an whichsall- cement was used.
70
80
90
~ *oc: ~100
0.074 .149 .297 590 1.19 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.! 76.2
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND GRAVELFINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
Figure 2. Summary of gradation test results on
soil-cement material.
most of the materials tested by the Bureau ofReclamation on features which used soil-cement couldbe classified as fine, silty sands. These materials aremostly in general gradation Limits 1 and the finer sideof Limits 2. Individual gradations for more detailedcomparisons are shown in the Appendix on pages 29through 46. The exceptions to these statements are thematerials from projects which did not actually use
3
soil-cement. The materials from Little Panoche CreekDetention Dam and Red Bluff Reservoir were sandsand gravelscontaining up to 50 percent plus No.4, andthe average gradation from these features is identifiedon Figure 2 as coarser material. The other material wasfrom Conconully Dam and was a "rock-flour" siltwhich contained only 5 percent sand. Although thesematerials were not used, test results showed thatacceptable soil-cement could have been produced fromthem.
The State of New Mexico has used a materialcontaining 25 percent gravel on Ute Dam! 5 . However,the water surface on this reservoir has never been raisedto the level of the soil-cement and no performance dataof the soil-cement under wave action are available.
Another thing to take into consideration in theselection of soil-cement material is the presence of"clay balls" (rounded balls of fines and sand which donot break down during ordinary processing). Alluvialsand deposits which might otherwise be acceptableoften contain layers of silt and clay. These layers arecaused by low flows in the depositing stream and allalluvial deposits have this characteristic to a certainextent. "Clay balls" in the material tend to go throughthe processing intact and do not disperse through thesand. A small amount of minus 1-inch (2.5-cm) clayballs is not considered sufficient grounds to rejectotherwise suitable material. On some projects, thematerial was screened to remove larger clay balls beforethe material was introduced into the mixing plant.During the investigation stage, the material should bescreened at its natural moisture to obtain an estimateof the amount of "clay balls" present in the deposit.The "clay balls" in an auger hole sample will normallybe rather small size due to the action of the auger.However, the presence of over about 10 percent "clayballs" even of the smaller sizes will probably indicateproblems during construction. Excavation procedureswill not usually break down the clay lenses and theresult is large clods of clay within the sand stockpile.
For the type of fine, silty sands that have been used bythe Bureau of Reclamation, it has normally beenthought that 10 to 30 percent fines is the mostdesirable range. The limits shown on Figure 2 showthat most of the soils are near this range. Soils with lessfines are thought to require more cement to producesoil-cement of equal quality. This would be due to theuse of cement to fill voids which would normally befilled with fines rather than coating the soil particles tocement them together. Some indication of this can beseen in the increase of the Proctor maximum dry
density at increasing cement contents on materials withvery low percentages of fines for the followingsamples: Merritt Dam 15R-49, -111; Cheney Dam25J-X108; Glen Elder Dam 18C-X224; and DownsDike 40Y-42. A review of the durability test andcompressive strength test results in the Appendix doesnot show any clear-cut trends for these samples. Whencompared to other samples from the same featureswhich had a supposedly more favorable gradation,some of the samples deficient in fines show poorercharacteristics while others show about the samecharacteristics. An additional comparison of samplescontaining up to 40 percent fines also failed to showany definite trends. However, from the limited dataavailable for comparison, excess fines seem to be moredetrimental than a deficiency of fines. Thesecomparisons indicate that general guidelines can beused in the search for materials; however, each sampleshould be tested and judged on its own merits beforepotential sources of material are rejected.
Very little soil-cement work has been done by theBureau on soils which have plastic fines. Fines with aslight amount of plasticity would probably mix andhandle quite well; however, plastic fines would makemixing the soil, water, and cement adequately moredifficult.
Durability Tests
The ability of compacted soil-cement to resist thedestructive effects of wet-dry and freeze-thaw cyclesdetermine to a large extent whether it will form anacceptable slope protection. Standard durability testsare performed to determine the relative quality of thematerials being proposed for use. At the time theBonny Test Secton was constructed, the PortlandCement Association did not have basic criteria for thedesign of soil-cement to be used in hydraulicstructures. The criteria for use on pavement basecourse construction was that the specimen lossesshould not exceed 14 percent during the 12 cycles ofthe durability tests for AASHO Soil Classifications A-1,A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3.!4 These sOil classificationsinclude nearly all of the soils used by the Bureaualthough a few soils might fall into the A-4 if thepercent of fines are over 36 percent even though theyare nonplastic or of very low plasticity. PCArecommends a cement content which will give 10percent or less loss for A-4 soils. It was recognized thatexposure on the face of a dam would be more severethan that on a pavement base. Therefore, the cementcontent was increased 2 percent above that requ iredfor pavement base on the Bonny Test Section.! This
4
resulted in a specified cement content of 10.4 percentby dry weight for Type A soil and 8.1 percent by dryweight for Type B soil.
The specified cement contents on the Bonny TestSection produced soil-cement with maximum losses ofabout 8 percent on the freeze-thaw tests and about 6percent on the wet-clry tests. The durability test resultson the two types of soil used for Bonny Test Sectionare shown on Figure 3. The performance on Bonny
12
I- 10:I:
'"W~
\\\\\
)\Freeze - Thaw
\ Tests
\\
11 '0..,"\ "
'0
>-a:clL 8cI-ZWUa::wCl. 6J(j)
W-oJU>-U
C\I- 4
13N-422 (Type A)
Wet- DryTests
a::wl-lL«(j)(j)
a-oJ 2 Specified Cement
ContentType B ~ Type
06
CEMENT
14
BY DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL
Figure 3. Soil-cement durability test results-Bonny Test
Section.
Test Section was satisfactory and those limits havebeen used as design criteria for soil-cement slopeprotection. As noted on pages 47 and 57 in theAppendix, the losses on the Bonny Test Sectionmaterials are shown directly as reported in EM-250.16The original data for these tests were not available sothe losses could not be computed from theaccumulated losses as was done for the other samples.Also, a comparison with durability test results shownon Figures 3 and 5 indicate that the testing on thesamples from Bonny Test Section and initial programon Merritt Dam may have been performed bysomewhat different procedure. These test results show
losses which are higher and increase much more rapidlyat decreasing cement contents than similiar soils testedfrom other projects. For example, if the brushingcycles had been performed with more than the 3pounds (1.36 kg) of force specified, the losses wouldbe larger. If that supposition is correct, soil-cementtested according to the specified procedures whichshows lower losses would be about the same quality.
The durability test results from all the projects aresummarized on Figures 4 and 5 and are shown on pages
liB.'}
0 II"}
{
Intial testing programon Merritt Dam
KEY0 Merritt Dam0 Cheney Dam. Lubbock Reg. Res.
"Glen Elder Dam
'V Downs 0 ike
.a. Cawker City Dike
. Starvation Dam
12l-I
'"W;0
i;:0
'0u-0
.I-ZW
~"-
,,
"'w-'~'"
NOTE'
Tests runs at evencement contents. Pointsplotted slightly off forclarity.:\.
0'"wr;:..
"'"'~
\"
qApproximate limits of
\'V
. test data from the 7\ .. featuresonwhichsail-\ .a.
~.~ ~ cement wasused.
'Va.. :::.:\ ." o. ~~\ "& i:b
"'-- is \. "- - 'VrLAveragelosseson -7 -u-"0"-coarser materlQls~
0 ,
CEMENT CONTENT -PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL
Figure 4. Summary of freeze-thaw durability test results
on soil-cement.
47 through 66 of the Appendix for each feature. Thespecified cement contents have been 12 percent by dryweight of soil on 6 of the features on whichsoil-cement was used and 14 percent on Merritt Dam.These cement contents are above that required toproduce soil-cement with the 6 and 8 percentdurability losses. The recommended cement content onLittle Panoche Creek and Red Bluff Reservoir were 6.3and 9 percent, respectively, for these coarser materials.
5
(21.8)(
19.61 (17.7)
.14
IZ
KEY
0 Meritt Dam
°Cheney Dam
. LubbockReg. Res.
A Glen Elder Dam
"1 Downs Dike.. Cawker City Dike. Starvation Dam
f-
"'"W:0
.~ Initial testing programon Merritt Dam
~Q10
~Q
f-Z
"'U
'""'a..;, .d>-u
[,
.
~0 NOTE: Tests run at even
cement contents. Pointsplotted slightly off forclarity.
Approximate limits oftest data from the 7features on which soil-cement was used.
~
'""'t;:'" "1
"'"''3.
2\
[, "1.. 0
~ AO ~-'o-"10J. °Average losses on ~4.
t.
IY A 0
- - coarser ma erla) io"
[,--- IO'i7 '\7.
-..i: oE-"8i'-0 . 10
CEMENT CONTENT- PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT OF SOil
Figure 5. Summary of wet-dry durability test results on
soil-cement.
The coarser materials tend to show that a lower cementcontent could be used with a material with betterdistribution of grain sizes. On most facings constructedby the Bureau, the specified cement content producedsoil-cement with losses of 3 percent or less on thelaboratory test specimens. However, if the more recentsoil-cement tests have been performed with less brushpressure, the quality may be about the same. Inaddition, on some of these features, the test resultsshown in the reports referenced in the Introductionshowed higher losses than those shown in theAppendix of this report. This difference was caused bythe assumption used to calculate the results rather thanusing the actual accmumulated losses as was done inthis report. Due to the difficulties of proportioningcement and soil accurately during construction, cementcontent is usually not specified near the content atwhich the losses begin to rise rapidly. For example, onFigures 4 and 5, the upper limits of the test data beginto rise quite rapidly at 10 to 12 percent cement. The
cement content would normally be specified somewhathigher than that point. This point is also illustrated inmore detail on pages 51, 52, 61, and 62 of theAppendix for Glen Elder Dam, Downs Dike, andCawker City Dike. A cement content about 2 percentle:;s than specified would have produced soil-cementwith about the same durability test losses. However, atthe lower cement contents, a further reduction incement content would have resulted in much higherdurabil ity losses.
Compressive Strength Tests
Compressive strength test results are used mainly as aqualitative measure of quality rather than aquantitative measure. Compressive strength is a fastertest to perform and it is used in construction controltesting rather than using durability tests. The results ofthe construction control specimens can be thencompared to the investigation program tests toascertain if soil-cement about equal in quality to thattested is being produced.
Although used mainly as an indicator, compressivestrength does have some bearing on the design ofsoil-cement. Soil-cement does need some strength toresist breaking under the stresses caused by waveaction. Soil-cement slope protection can be envisionedas a series of beams placed horizontally or nearly so upthe slope. This results in an offset of each successivelayer equal to the product of the slope and layerthickness; therefore, each layer has an exposed portionwhich is not restrained on top. Waves breaking on thesurface cause pressures between the lifts if they are notproperly bonded. These pressures and the upliftscaused by breaking waves cause the exposed portion ofthe lift to act as a cantilevered beam. Wave actionprobably would not cause large stresses in this "beam"but part of the stress would be in tension. Tensilestrengths are normally thought of as being 10 to 15percent of the compressive strength. Therefore, lowcompressive strength test results might indicate thefacing would deteriorate by chunks breaking off duringwave action rather than individual grains loosening bywet-dry or freeze-thaw action.
The Portland Cement Association criteria oncompressive strength is only that the strength shouldincrease with age and greater cement content.14 Figure6 shows the compressive strength test results from tlieinvestigation work for Bonny Test Section. Thespecified cement content on these materials gave aminimum 7-day compressive strength of about 600 psi(42 kg/sq cm) and a minimum 28-day compressive
6
strength of about 875 psi (62 kg/sq cm). Thesestrengths have been used as minimum requirements onBureau features since that time.
~~
'"to~I-~ .0w>~~wgo
:>0u
E
~'"I-~
1000W<rI-~
,?"-13N-422( !Type AI
j.._D--;::1:..
13N-421 I -;:::..-(Type a)-( [}~ ::''''''''~7 Day strength,,)-~
w>in~ ~oo<r~
"8
Specified Cement ContentType B~ Type A1
06
CEMENT CONTENT-PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT
Figure 6. Soil-cement compressive strength
results-Bonny Test Section.test
The compressive strength test results are summarizedon Figures 7 and 8 and are shown individually in theAppendix (on pages 67 through 84) for each feature.
NOTE: Test run at even cement contents Points
plotted slightly off for clorlty
0
~I,
I-~Zw<rI-~
~ 1!500
I,
I-~Z
~l-V)
1000
0 6
."Average strength of th: l::.
coarser materlols--::>/ ~6./'
/' a.& ..."1
// w~ ~D/' .'V~ 0
// 1:..' :v 0 g./ "D~ O. o.
/" . t:.. 08. 0' 0 o~
_"6 0 80 o. Median strength from
0o. the 7 features on which
501' cement was used.
w>
~
8
>
~:>8 !500
0 . e 10 12 14CEMENT CONTENT - PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT
KEY0 Merritt Dam0 Cheney Dam. Lubbock Reg. Res.6 Glen Elder Dam
v Downs Oike. Cawker City Dike. Starvation Dam
Figure 7. Summary of 7-day compressive strength testresults on soil-cement.
A review of the summary figures shows that theincreasing strength requirement is met in nearly allcases. The few cases where the strength did notincrease were probably caused by normal variability oflaboratory testing. These test results also show that thespecified cement content was usually greater than thatrequired to produce the compressive strengthsdiscussed above. The strengths vary over a fairly widerange on the features using soil-cement as shown on
0
- 150
10 "100 ~
~6
8rI-~Z
<r~(f)
100W>~~w~~~~u
.rI-~ 6Z 1500 .Ot:.~ AVerage
.
strength // 0
/0
~ of the coarser /It.-\>
0
j materIOIS-y""""'/ tJ. ~'V'V
~ /~: ~. :'~
1000 // vD.6. OeD'
~.8 /' . ~ Z 011 'Median strength.
/'. fromthe7features
X . onwhich soil-~ 0
0 cement was used.
""0
NOTE; Tests run at even cement contentsPoints plotted slightly off for clarity
0 ,
CEMENT CONTENT-PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT
KEY
0 Merritt Dam0 Cheney Dam. Lubbock Reg. Res.Ll.Glen Elder Dam
'V Downs Dike.. Cawker City Dike. Starvation Dam
Figure 8. Summary of 28-day compressive strength test
results on soil-cement.
Figures 7 and 8. However, most of the strengths at thespecified cement content are above the minimumsestablished on the Bonny Test Section. The medianstrength shown is about 750 psi (52.7 kg/sq cm) forthe 7-day specimens and 1,150 psi (80.9 kg/sq cm) forthe 28-day specimens at 12 percent cement. Thesevalues exceed the minimums by about 25 percent.Some of this increased strength may have been due todifferences in testing methods as discussed below.Additional confirmation that better-graded materialswould produce good quality soil-cement with lesscement is also shown on Figures 7 and 8. The averagestrengths on these materials reach the minimums atabout 7 percent cement by dry weight of soil. This is 3to 4 percent cement less than needed for the fine siltysands to reach these same strengths.
All compression tests have been performed oncylindrical specimens but there has been some variationin the sizes used. The compressive strength tests forBonny Test Section were performed on 2- by 2-inch(5.1-by 5.1-cm) specimens. Testing programs onMerritt Dam and Cheney Dam were performed with 2-by 2-inch (5.1. by 5.1-cmL 2.83- by 2.83-inch (7.2- by7.2-cm), and 2.83- by 5.67-inch (7.2- by 14.4-cm)specimens. Since. that time, all of the features havebeen tested using the 2.83- by 5.67-inch (7.2- by14.4-cm) specimens although some 2- by 2-inch (5.1-by 5.1-cm) specimens were run for comparison. Acomparison of specimen sizes and testing methods on asample from Cheney Dam is given in Table 1.
7
Specimen Soaking Compressivesize Capping prior to strength (psi)
(inches) material testing 3-day 7-day
2.8 by 5.7 Sulfur Not 1,213 1.462soaked
2.8 by 5.7 Sulfur 1 hour 864 1,1232 by 2 Not Not 535 787
capped soaked2 by 2 Not 1 hour 410 -
capped2.8 by 5.7 Sulfur 4 hours 822 1,0942.8 by 5.7 Not 4 hours 814 1,021
capped
2000
if>~"-,
;0 ,
'"1500
'"~>-'"'"~t;;'">-
'"if>
>/'
'"if> 1000 /' >if>
ill'"'""-:> g:::; :>
::;500
Table 1
COMPARISON OF COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH TESTING METHODS
Note: Tests run on Sample No. 25J-156, Cheney Dam,12 percent cement, placed at optimum water contentand 98 percent of Proctor dry density.
These data show that the 2.83- by 5.67 -inch (7.2 by14.4-cm) specimens give higher compressive strengthresults. Table 1 also shows the drop in compressivestrength, on that sample at least, due to soaking thespecimens prior to testing. The strengths shown onfigures in the Appendix for 25J-156 are probablyhigher than they would have been if the specimens hadbeen soaked. There seems to be little difference due tosoaking for 1 or 4 hours which indicates there shouldbe very little difference between soaking for 4 or 24hours. Additional comparisons of compressive strengthon different specimen sizes are shown on pages74 ,75,78, and 790f the Appendix for Glen Elder Dam andStarvation Dam. These results show divergent trendswith higher strengths shown on 2.83- by 5.67-inch(7.2- by 14.4-cm) specimens on Glen Elder Dam butlower strengths on Starvation Dam.
Generally, it seems that the 2.83- by 5.67-inch (7.2- by14.4-cm) specimens give higher strengths than the 2- by2-inch (5.1- by 5.1-cm) specimens used on Bonny TestSection. Therefore, the higher strengths obtained at thespecified cement contents on later features may notindicate as conservative an approach as it would seem.
Effects of Compaction, Time Delay,Water Content, Etc.
The test results discussed previously in this report wereall performed under standard laboratory conditions. Inorder to estimate the effects of different conditionswhich might be encountered, series of laboratory tests
were performed on soils selected from some of thefeatures.
Some of the variations anticipated during constructionwere percent compaction, variation from optimumwater content, and time delay from mixing to finalcompaction. The tests shown on the following figureswere performed to check on these items.
Figure 9 shows average trends of compressive strengthtest results as effected by the percent compactionobtained. The results from which these trends wereobtained are shown on pages 85 through 89 of theAppendix. These tests show that an increase in thecompaction resulted in soil-cement of highercompressive strength. However, it was not consideredpractical to specify greater compaction in order toreduce the cement content. The constructionprocedures at most features have resulted in higherdensities than the 98 percent of Proctor maximum drydensity specified and this can be considered as extraquality above that required.
ISO
100
50
Note: Lines representoverage trends oftest results
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITYKEY
Cheney DamMerritt Dam
--- Glen Elder Dam
Figure 9. Effect of density on compressive strength of
soil-cement.
Further indications of the increase in quality at higherdensities are shown on Figure 10. These durability testswere run on material from Merritt Dam and show thatthe durability increases at higher densities. Althoughthe losses are low, a significant decrease in the lossesdoes occur at higher density.
8
3
...<f) :I:ILl ~d ~ 2
>-u >-~ ~a:: lJ..ILl 0...lJ.. ...<t Z
~ ~0 a::...J ILl
a.
A'\
,<wet-Dry
, ,\.
'\'-A......
.............
............
......
Merritt Dam
090 95 100
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
FREEZE-THAW OWET-DRV A
Figure 10. Effect of density on durability of soil-cement.
Figure 11 shows variations in compressive strength dueto variations from optimum water content. Generally,the highest strengths are obtained at or near theoptimum water content for the soil-cement mixture.During construction, the material is usually placed asnear optimum as possible. However, as discussed later,
2000
I:r:t-<.?ZILla::t-(f)
ILl
>(f)(f)
ILla::0..:20u
-(f)a... 1500
I
:r:...<9ZILla::...(j)
1000
ILl
>(f)(f)
ILla::0..:20u
// ,
/ _/"" .--
-"" .""".--- -./ --- -z;c -/' ".;:::--- ---/' /'./ 7 Day
"""
N
E~'".x
500KEYCheney DamMerritt DamGlen Elder Dam
a4% DRY 2% WET2% DRY OPT
VARIATION FROM OPTIMUMWATER CONTENT
Figure 11. Effect of placement water content on
compressive strength of soil-cement.
placement conditions slightly dry of optimum usuallywork better. The general trends shown on Figure 11and the more detailed results on pages 89 through 91of the Appendix indicate that compaction of 1 to 2percent dry of optimum does not greatly reduce thestrength. Sufficient water would normally be availablefor complete hydration of the cement up to 4 percentor more dry of optimum. Therefore, the reduction instrength for mixing dry of optimum must indicate thatthe cement is not as thoroughly mixed at the lowerwater contents. Mixing above optimum water contentprobably increases the water-cement ratio to a pointthat it begins to reduce the strength.
105
It is impossible under construction conditions tocompact the material immediately after mix.ing. Sincethe hydration of cement is a time-dependent reactiononce contact is made with water, some change in theproperties of soil-cement with time delay would beanticipated. Pages 92 and 93 of the Appendix show theresults of compressive strength tests run on materialswhich were mixed and then had some time delaybefore being compacted. Some decrease in strength wasfound on the time delay specimens which was probablydue to breaking down the aggregation of particles aftersome initial set. Figure 12 shows results at time delaysof 1/4, 1/2, 1, 1-1/2, and 2 hours of material at 900 Ftemperature. Even at this elevated temperature, thegreatest decrease seems to occur after 1/2 to 1 hour.This is confirmed by the data on Figure 13 whichsummarizes the results of compaction test results after
1500
100--
0 --/-28 Day
00 -,
1250
100 ) 75
50
~ 1000
,
~~""I,/)
750
"'>
~0.
"0u 500
_--6---6_-6'".., 7 Day
---6 6I
""co
~
"'~50
"'"'"'go
"8
250
Materials warmed to 90'F prior to mixingand placing. Densities and water contentsof specimens based on compaction curvesrun at Similar time delays and temperatures.
25
a
a0 0.5 10 15 2.0
TIME DELAY-HR
Figure 12. Effect of time delay on compressive strength
of soil-cement.
9
~I~ZW~Z00
crw~q~~:J~~a..0
u.0a..I
>-~
CJ)
Z 120W0
>-cr0
~
~ 115
xq~
14
12
----/---/
//"/" ./
- /" /"
-y-- ././
/ --_//
Merritt Dam
10
8mixed at 90° F.
125
Cheney DamKEY
- Time delay with material
uncompacted
-- Time delay with material
compacted, broken down
and recompacted.
--- - ---- -~ ~------- ..........
Merrit Dam """"..........
1100 I 2
TIME DELAY- HR.
Figure 13. Effect of time delay on compaction of
soil-cement.
time delays up to 3 hours. Most of these results showvery little effect up to 30 minutes and some of thetests show little effect up to 1-1/2 hours.
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
Detailed descriptions of the construction proceduresused on Bonny Test Section are given in EM-6521 andEM-6302. The pictorial summary of the Bonny TestSection construction in Figures 14 through 21 ispresented to contrast the procedures used on the testsection to those used on other features.
Figure 14. Spreading of untreated soil from the borrowarea preparatory to constructing each new soil-cementlayer, Bonny Test Section. Photo P331-700-31
3
Figure 15. Dumping of portland cement from sacks
which had been spacect to provide thei"equired percentage
of cement for the soil-cement, Bonny Test Section. Photo
P794-701-549
10
F!gure 19. Initial compaction of the soil-cement with a
sheepsfoot ro Iler .Bonny Test Section. Photo
P794-701-561
Figure 16. Distribution of the dumped cement on soil
layer with a spiked-tooth harrow prior to the start of the
mixing in-place operation. Bonny Test Section. PhotoP704-701-550
Figure 20. Final compaction by pneumatic-type rolling
provided by a loaded truck. Bonny Test Section. Photo
P331-700-26Figure 17. Mixing cement with soil by a tractor-drawn,
self-powered, rotary-type mixer. Bonny Test Section.Photo P794-701-557
~
"
.',~
Figure 21. Light surface scarification of the completed
soil-cement layer by a spiked-tooth harrow to increase
bond to next layer to be placed. Bonny Test Section.
Photo P331-700-27
The borrow areas used by the Bureau to date have beenabove water table so the material could be excavatedby normal excavation machinery. Materials belowwater table could be excavated by dragline or dredgingequipment, but additional processing and mixing mightbe required. Materials from below water table wouldhave to be stockpiled long enough to allow the excesswater to drain. The mixing of the cement into the soilis generally more efficient if the soil is fairly dry sothat soil and cement are mixed before the water
content is brought near optimum.
Material Excavation and Stockpiling
The samples submitted for laboratory testing wereconsidered to be representative of the material sourceto be used in the construction of soil-cement. Testresults on the material submitted are used to determinethe amount of cement to be added to producesatisfactory soil-cement. Therefore, during theconstruction of the facing, it is important that thematerial used is uniform and similar to that tested
during the investigation program.
Removal of oversize clay balls, if necessary, prior toproportioning the soil will result in a more consistentsoil feed but it is more difficult to do during thestockpiling operation. On most jobs, the scalpingscreen used to remove these clay balls is placed rightafter the soil proportioning device. If the soil containsa fairly constant amount of clay balls, the soil feed pastthe scalping screen should still be fairly constant.However, if the clay ball content varies appreciably,the soil feed past the scalping screen may also vary.
Since almost every natural deposit is variable to acertain extent, the construction procedures used mustmake some provision for mixing the material. Selectiveexcavation in the borrow area and mixing the materialin the stockpile is probably the most practical means ofaccomplishing this. If the material varies with depth, afull face cut should be made with the excavationmachinery. However, if the material varies with thelateral extent of the borrow area, loads from alternatespots in the borrow area should also be mixed. Afterthe material has been excavated, mixing can generallybe accomplished by stockpiling and crossbucking thestockpile. For example, part of the stockpilingoperating at Lubbock Regulating Reservoir is shown onFigure 22. The soil had been excavated at the borrowarea and stockpiled there. It was then trucked to thereservoir site and dumped at the base of the .stockpileto the left of the picture. The soil was then pushed upthe stockpile with a bulldozer and the soil feed wascharged at the top of the stockpile by the front-endloader. This operation resulted in a soil feed which wasuniform in gradation and moisture content. Similaroperations have been used on other features to achieve
mixing.
Proportioning and Mixing of Materials
Proper proportioning and mixing of soil, cement, andwater is essential to producing a consistent soil-cement~The specifications for soil-cement construction requirethat the material be mixed in a stationary mixing plant.Either continuous flow or individual batching types arepermitted, but all the soil-cement construction to datehas used the continuous flow type of plant.
A schematic drawing of a typical proportioning andmixing operation as shown on Figure 23 and the maincomponents are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Different devices have been used or attempted toprovide a constant flow of soil to the mixing plant. Themost successful device seems to be the reciprocatingplate feeder and it has been used on most of theBureau soil-cement jobs. As the name implies, the soilis fed by a plate which moves back and forth. On theforward stroke, the plate carries a ribbon of soil outthrough the orifice at the front of the feeder; as theplate makes its backward stroke, the soil on the plate is
discharged onto the conveyor belt. Since the platefeeder discharges soil on only half of its cycle, there issome variation along the conveyor belt. On someprojects, this variation has been leveled off by using ahopper on the conveyor belt which levels the materialinto an even ribbon of soil. A variation of the
reciprocating plate is the double reciprocating platefeeder. This device feeds from a double bin so thatwhen one side of the feeder is discharging soil, the
Figure 22. General view of soil stockpile and pugmill for
mixing soil-cement-lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Photo
P719-D-58953
12
Cement storoge silo
Water meter
~ .1-:~
Storage hopper
m
Soil stockpile
Vane feeder (feeds cementonto soi I conveyor be It)
Figure 23. Soil-cement processing.
other side is not and vice versa. Therefore, the total soilflow is a more constant flow.
Some attempts have been made to use a simplestrike-off gate on a conveyor belt to proportion thesoil. Although this should produce a constant flow ofsoil, it has not worked well in practice. Soil clods tendto hang up at the gate and restrict the opening and attimes the soil seems to roll or ball as it passes the gateresulting in a smaller ribbon of soil on the belt.
Another device used to feed the soil was a tread feeder.This is quite similar to the strike-off gate on a conveyorbelt except it has flights or treads instead of a smoothbelt. This device was used on Downs Dike constructionand worked satisfactorily.
Since these devices are all essentially volume measuringsystems, it is apparent that the soil supply to the feedermust be uniform if a constant weight per minute is tobe delivered. Variations in soil gradation result invariation of the density of the soil being discharged.Variations in moisture content, even on soils of similargradation, also result in density variations due to thebulking effects of moisture on sandy soils. Thisvariation causes soil-cement wetter than desired since alower weight of dry soil at a higher water content isdelivered and water at a constant rate is added in themixer.
A vane feeder has been used to proportion the cementon the features bu ilt by the Bureau. This device has a
rotating cylinder with compartments formed by 12vanes on the circumference. The feed rate can bechanged by changing the speed at which the cylinderturns. Since this device is also a volume measuringsystem, it is apparent that the cement must bedelivered to the vane at a constant density. The mosteffective way of doing this seems to be with a smallsurge hopper above the vane feeder. The level ofcement in the surge hopper is kept fairly constant withuse of a pressure sensitive switch in the surge hopper toregulate the flow from the main cement silos. Aerationis used in the surge tank to minimize arching of thecement and permit smooth flow.
Figures 22 and 24 show mixing plant setups forLubbock Regulating Reservoir and Cheney Dam. Asshown on the figure, the cement is usually added to thesoil on the conveyor. A small plow at the vane feedergives a furrow for the cement and this furrow isblinded after the cement has been added to prevent thewind from blowing the cement off the belt. Figures 22and 24 can be compared to Figures 14 and 15, to seethe difference in construction procedures from BonnyTest Section.
Since the soil feed and cement feed measure volumes,they must be calibrated to proportion the material byweight. Both feeds are calibrated running materialthrough them and weighing the soil and cementseparately. The cement vane feeder can be calibratedover the range of cement supply necessary by varyingthe speed of rotation. This allows adjustments for
13
Although the specifications usually require a minimummixing time of 30 seconds, a shorter mixing time seemsto mix the materials sufficiently in most cases. As longas the soil, cement, and moisture are thoroughly mixedinto a homogeneous material, shorter mixing times are
accepted.
As noted on Figure 25, the water required to bring thesoil-cement to the desired water content is supplied inthe pugmill. Generally no water is supplied at the frontof the mixer so the soil and cement are mixed prior toadding water. The water is sprayed onto thesoil-cement as it is being mixed and water is very welldistributed by the time the soil-cement leaves themixer. The amount of water to be added during mixingcan be determined from the water content of the soiland the desired water content of the soil-cement. If themixing plant has an accurate water meter, adjustmentsof the water content are quite easily made. Satisfactorymoisture control has been exercised on some jobswithout a water meter by making approximateadjustments of the waterline valve opening.
Figure 24. Cement vane feeder and soil feed belt to
pugmill-Cheney Dam. Photo P719-D-58954
slight variations from time to time in the soil feed rate.The specifications require that the measuring devicesshould be accurate to within 2 percent. The vanefeeder is usually calibrated at the beginning of the joband checked occasionally as the job progresses. Checkcalibrations do not normally change the calibrationcurve. The soil feed is calibrated at the beginning of thejob and usually checked a number of times a dayduring the job. These additional checks are obtained aspart of the construction control procedures and theywill be explained later in that part of the report.
Figures 16 through 18 show the mixing operation onBonny Test Section.
Transporting and Placing
As the material is mixed, it is discharged into trucks fortransportation to the placement area. On Bureau jobs,the mixing plant has been located close to theplacement area which results in a short haul time.Therefore, special protective measures for thesoil-cement being transported are usually not required.On all Bureau jobs to date, the truck hauling thesoil-cement has been driven up on the previous lift ofsoil-cement to dump the material. This requires theconstruction of temporary approach ramps to the layerbeing placed. Care must be exercised at the top ofthese ramps so the ramp does not get so thin that itdoes not protect the previous layers of soil-cement.Current specifications require at least an 18-inch(0.46-m) thickness at the top of the ramp to preventthe heavily loaded trucks from breaking up the edge ofthe previous Jifts.
The soil and cement are charged into the mixer. Themixer used on all the Bureau jobs to date has been atwin shaft pugmill. Other types of mixing equipmentwould probably also perform satisfactorily. The insideof a pugmill mixer is shown on Figure 25. The shaftsrotate in opposite directions and the soil-cement ismoved through the mixer by the pitch of the paddles.
The fresh soil-cement is dumped into a spreader whichis pushed with a crawler tractor. The use of thespreader results in a smooth lift of uniform width anddepth. Figure 26 shows a schematic diagram of theplacement operation. Figures 27 and 28 show picturesof the spreading operation and the resulting loose lift.This type of spreading equipment has been used on allto date in order to maintain close control of liftthickness and width.
Figure 25. I nside of pugmill, shafts turn in opposite
directions while spray bars supply water-Cheney Dam.
Photo P835-D-58951
14
Pneumatic roller to compactupper portion of lift.
Sheepsfaat roller tocompact lowerportion of lift.
Spreader to spreadloose lift.
Truck to haul soil-cementfrom pugmill to placement.
---------
NOTE.Apprax. 30 min. overage time from mixer to completed rollingwith continuous efficient operation
Figure 26. Soil-cement placing operation.
The soil-cement facings have been specified as ahorizontal width of 8 feet (2.4 m) or normalthicknesses of 24 or 36 inches (0.61 to 0.91 m) insome cases. This results in a rather narrow working areafor operation of construction equipment withoutconsiderable overbu ild. In order to increase theworking width, the contractor is permitted to place thematerial on a slope not to exceed 8: 1. Slopes flatterthan 8: 1 are used in most cases as it is not necessary touse an 8: 1 slope to obtain working widths of over 10feet (3.0 m). For example, if the slope of the dam is3:1, a placement slope of 10:1 gives a working widthof about 11 feet (3.4 m) which is adequate for mostconstruction equipment. A slight slope on the
Figure 27. Spreading soH-cement on
area-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58952placement
placement area results in a greater working widthwithout endangering the construction personnel orequipment.
Compaction
Since cement hydration changes the characteristics offresh soil-cement quite rapidly, the compaction mustbe accomplished as soon as possible after the materialis spread. The specifications require that the materialbe spread within 30 minutes after mixing. After thematerial is spread, compaction must be completedwithin 1 hour and cannot be left more than 30 minuteswithout having some operation performed on it.
Figure 28. Closeup view of spreader box used to place
even, uniform lift-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58949
15
A pneumatic-tired roller is used to compact the upperportion of the lift. As with the sheepsfoot roller, theweights must be adjusted at the beginning of the job toobtain the best compaction. The weight of the roller isusually increased to just under the weight which causesthe material to squeeze or creep under the roller. If theroller cannot be loaded that heavily, the weight isconsidered adequate if acceptable densities are beingobtained. A towed-type roller such as shown on Figure30 was used on Merritt Dam and Cheney Dam but on
On compacted earthwork, successive layers arecompacted together by the use of tamping rollers.However, on soil-cement construction, the entire layermust be compacted before the time limits stated aboveare exceeded. In almost all cases, this requires that theentire lift be compacted because successive lifts cannotbe placed rapidly enough to compact them together .This has been accomplished by a combination ofsheepsfoot and pneumatic-tired rolling on all Bureaujobs except the Merritt Dam Modifications and some
test sections on other jobs.
The sheepsfoot rolling is used to compact the lowerportion of the lift. The roller weights must be adjustedat the beginning of the job to produce the bestcompaction with the material being used. The bestcompaction seems to be when the sheepsfoot begins towalk out toward the end of the requ ired number ofpasses. At this weight, the roller is heavy enough tocompact the material but not so heavy that itcontinues to penetrate the material compacted onprevious passes. The required weight per foot dependson the material type and lift thickness. On Glen ElderDam, Cawker City Dike, and Starvation Dam, aself-propelled roller with 11-inch-Iong (27.8-cm)tamping teeth and pneumatic front tires was used. Thisroller is shown on Figure 32. Because of the longertooth length, a thicker lift was used at roller weights of2,600 to 3,950 pounds per foot (3,870 to 5,880 kg/m).On the other jobs, a 6-inch ( 15.2-cm) compacted liftwas used and the roller was loaded from about 1,600to 2,000 pounds per foot (2,380 to 2,980 kg/m). Theseweights probably correspond to the 200 psi ( 14.1 kg/sqcm) knob pressure used on the Bonny Test Section.lThese rollers were towed by a crawler tractor and areshown on Figures 29, 30, and 31.
Figure 30. Pneumatic roller used to compact upper
portion of lift-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58947
the rest of the jobs, self-propelled rollers were used.The towed rollers were large four-wheel rollers andwere loaded to about 28,000 pounds (12,700 kg) totalload. The self-propelled rollers were two-axle typeswith the wheels on one axle in staggered positionsrelative to the wheels on the other axle. Rollers of thistype are shown on Figures 31,32, and 33. The smoothwheels and the overlap design on the self-propelledrollers result in a smoother finished surface than withthe towed roller. Note on Figure 30, the slight ridges ofsoil-cement caused by the tire tread dry rapidly andalso interfere with the cleanup in preparation for thenext lift. The loaded weight of the self-propelled rollersvaried from 25,000 to 35,000 pounds ( 11 ,400 to15,900 kg) which is in the same range as the totalweight used on the towed rollers. The self-propelledrollers were 7- and 11-wheel rollers so the wheel weight
was somewhat less.
The results of placement moisture at or aboveoptimum can be seen on Figure 31. The rutting duringpneumatic-tire rolling shown behind the roller isusually due to placement water contents near or above
Figure 29. Sheepsfoot roller used to compact lower
portion of the lift-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58950
16
~~on ~p the slope as ~o!'n ~ F ia!Jre
one strip of soll-cement, another stri was laid next to
I so e wo cou e compacted together (Figure 33).~ specifj-;; d ifficulti~s -were -encountered in
compacting the material with pneumatic compaction
only.
F igure 31. General view of placing and rolling
operations-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Photo
P662-525-5763
optimum. The fine sand materials which have beenused for soil-cement become somewhat spongy at that
water content and make it difficult to compact themto a smooth surface. The surfaces shown on Figures 32and 33 are much smoother and show little evidence ofrutting or surface cracking. The pneumatic rolling onBonny Test Section was accomplished with a loaded
truck (Figure 20). Figure 33. Placing and rolling second lift-Merritt Dam
upstream slope modification. Photo P719-701-7
Two test sections were constructed on Glen Elder Damto evaluate the use of pneumatic rolling only. The firstsection was compacted with the same procedures asused on the rest of the job. That is: 11-1/2-inch(29-cm) loose lift compacted to about 8 inches (20 cm)with eight passes of the sheepsfoot roller and six passesof the pneumatic-tired roller. The second section wasplaced with a 9-inch (23-cm) loose lift compacted by10 passes of the pneumatic-tired roller. The followingconclusions were made on these test sections: ( 1) therewas very little difference in the densities obtained, (2)pneumatic-tired rolling only resulted in more creep andmore wheel rutting, (3) more cleanup was required dueto wheel rutting and greater number of lifts, (4) littledifference in the bond strengths was evidenced inrecord coring, and (5) because more time is requiredfor the greater number of lifts, cost savings by usingpneumatic rolling only are minimal. This lastconclusion was probably true in the case of thicker liftsused on Glen Elder Dam but probably would not betrue where a 6-inch (15-cm) lift was used with thesmaller sheepsfoot rollers.
F igure 32. General view of placing and rolling
operations-Cawker City Dike. Photo P495-731-460
As previously stated, the soil-cement on the MerrittDam Modifications was compacted by pneumatic-tirerolling only. "'!:bi~ mnrlifil'~tion was made on the riah.t~ment-w!:!ich h.aS no~ been pro.tecte~.bv ~oil-ce~e.nt.-as-- Dart of the oriainal-con~ru~tion-,- ~~ Cf -.:tb.8
-upS1r~~m fa~~ is 101 and it was ~ov~r~d with ~-.5.2-cm) la ers of soil-cement T ..I
I cted y the Bureau which was laidoarallel to the slope surface Inste 0 in the stairstep
Curing and Preparation for Next Lift
The specifications have required that the soil-cementsurfaces be kept continuously moist until the next
17
layer of soil-cement was placed. However, moist curingin excess of 7 days was not required. Side slopes ofpermanently exposed material were required to be keptmoist for 7 days. Sealing compounds or moist earthcovers have also been used to maintain a moistcondition for 7 days on permanently exposed surfaces.
Surfaces which are to receive an overlying layer ofsoil-cement must be kept clean and moist in order forthe next layer to have an opportunity to bond. Thesesurfaces are normally cleaned by power brooming toremove all loose and uncemented material ahead of thenext placement, as shown on Figure 34. Usually by thetime this brooming was done, the layer being cleanedhad set sufficiently so the broom did not affect thesurface of the soil-cement. Laboratory testing seemedto indicate that removing the compaction plane at thetop of the lift would increase the bond strength. Thisremoval would result in a surface similar to a fresh-cutsurface and could be compared to removing thelaitance layer in concrete work. Brooming wasspecified after compaction to remove the compactionplane on Glen Elder Dam, Downs Dike, Cawker CityDike, and Starvation Dam. The time of the broomingwas dependent on the set time of the soil-cement andwas done when the soil-cement had set sufficiently toprevent removing a large amount of material.
Figure 35. Watering inplace soil-cement-Starvation Dam.
Photo P66-D-66533
Figure 36. Watering inplace soil-cement with side boom
spray-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Photo
P719-D-66534
CONSTRUCTION CONTROLPROCEDURES
Proportioning and Mixing
The most critical construction control part of themixing operation is to ascertain that the materials arebeing proportioned properly. Gradation tests areperformed on the stockpile material in addition tovisual observation of the excavation and stockpilingoperations to see that uniform material of the desiredgradation is being delivered.
Figure 34. Power brooming to clean surface prior to
placement of next lift-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir .
Photo P719-D-58948
Figures 35 and 36 show watering operations using finesprays to keep soil-cement moist. The use of excessive
water, especially immediately after placement and untilinitial set, could be detrimental to developing bond tothe next lift. Applying excess water at this time can beenvisioned as increasing the water-cement ratio of thefresh soil-cement or possibly washing the cement fromthe soil particles near the surface.
The soil feed and cement feed are set to proportion thecement to the required percentage based on the dryweight of soil. As previously stated, the calibrationcurve on the cement vane feeder can be used to adjustthe cement feed. Setting the soil feed is generally
18
subject to greater variations since gradation or moisturechanges in the soil can cause variations. As long as thesame material and feeder setting is maintained, the feedrate will stay about the same. The soil feed rate can beobtained by running a timed load of soil only throughthe plant and weighing it. This requires shutting downproduction and is usually done only at the beginning ofthe day or at other times when production is disrupted.A check on the soil feed rate can be obtained byweighing a timed truck load of soil-cement. The dryweight of the material can be determined by obtainingthe water content of the material and the amount ofcement in the soil-cement is obtained from the cementfeed rate in pounds per minute. This calculationassumes, of course, that the cement feeder is feedingthe amount obtained from the calibration curve butthis seems to be a reasonable assumption if calibrationchecks show the device is reliable. These checks can bemade at any time but they are usually made at the timedensity and compaction tests are made.
Calibration and check tests on the soil feed requiremoisture content determinations whether soil only orsoil-cement weights are obtained. In order for the teststo have any benefit for control purposes, this moisturecontent must be available quickly. Hotplate moistureshave been used in some cases and the carbide moisturetester has also been used. This device measures theamount of acetylene gas produced by the reaction ofthe water in the soil with calcium carbide reagentadded to the soil. This device is fast and has beenfound to be satisfactory for control purposes.
Visual observation of the soil-cement as it is dischargedfrom the mixer is normally adequate to determine if itis properly mixed. The soil-cement should be uniformin color and texture. Very little difficulty has beenencountered in obtaining thorough mixing.
Density and Compaction Testing
Density tests are made in the compacted material inthe same manner as for normal earthwork. However,since the properties of the soil-cement material aretime dependent, the compaction test is not performedon the material taken from the density hole. Materialfor the compaction test is obtained before the materialis compacted on the placement. The spot where thematerial was obtained is marked so the field densitytest can be performed at the same location. If thematerial is obtained at the mixing plant prior tospreading, the spot is marked where the truckload isspread. A Rapid Method Compaction Test is performedon the material at about the same time the material isbeing compacted on the placement. The field densitytest results are obtained after compaction and
compared to Rapid Method Test results to obtain thepercent compaction and variation from optimum.
Compressive strength test specimens are remolded tothe fill wet density as soon as the fill wet density isavailable. The material for these specimens is obtainedat the same time the compaction material is obtainedand stored in a sealed container until the density testresults are available.
Chemical Cement ContentDeterm ination
Since the proportioning of the soil and cement aresubject to some variations, some check on the cementcontent of the soil-cement as mixed was desired. Astudy by the Applied Sciences Branch indicated that avolumetric determination of the total calcium was themost rapid.! 7 This method requires the determinationof the amount of calcium in the soil and cement as wellas the soil-cement. It is only recommended where thesoil being used has small amounts of acid-solublecalcium.! 7
Chemical cement content determinations were madeon the features listed in the Introduction exceptMerritt Dam Modification and Starvation Dam. Thesetests were not performed at Starvation Dam due to thehigh salt content of the soil. The calcium content ofthe soils used at Lubbock Regulating Reservoir andDowns Dike also had high calcium contents and theresults of the chemical cement content tests showedgreater than normal variations.
Construction Control Reports
Construction control testing is reported on Form No.7-1737. This form gives the location of each record testand the results of the compaction and density tests.The time of plant mixing, elapsed times for completionof laboratory and field compaction, and field densitytest are recorded. The results of compressive strengthcontrol specimens are also recorded as they becomeavailable. Some of these results are not available untilafter the report has been submitted and subsequentreports are therefore submitted. An example of thereport form with data recorded is shown in theAppendix.
A brief summary of construction control results fromthe facings constructed by the Bureau are summarizedon Table 2. A more complete summary giving theaverages for each month during construction is shownon pages 94 through 95 of the Appendix. A review ofthese results shows that the density of the soil-cementhas averaged 98 to 100 percent of Proctor maximum
19
Percent Variation Compressive strengthFeature Proctor from optimum (psi)
Density (percent) 7-day 28-day
Merritt Dam 102.1 0.3 dry 1,360 1,815Cheney Dam 98.8 0.3 dry 1,199 1,497Lubbock Regulating Reservoir 100.0 0.3 dry 834 1,134Glen Elder Dam 100.8 0.7 dry 854 1,071Down Dike 99.4 0.2 dry 748 1,201Cawker City Dike 99.7 0.4 dry 962 1,287Merritt Dam Modification 100.0 1.0 dry 1,006 1,556Starvation Dam 98.1 1.6 dry 769 905
Table 2
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION CONTROL RESULTSWeighted Averages from Entire Job
dry density. The water content has ranged mostly fromoptimum to 1.0 percent dry of optimum watercontent. These control results show that theconstruction procedures used have resulted insatisfactory placement conditions. The averages of the7- and 28-day compressive strength specimens are alsoshown on Table 2. As previously stated, thesespecimens are placed at fill moisture and densityconditions. Therefore, a comparison of theconstruction control test results should give anindication if the constructed soil-cement has thestrength anticipated in the investigations stage. Theseaverages are also plotted on pages 69 through 79 of theAppendix so they can be readily compared to the testresults of the investigation stage.
The construction control specimens showed somewhathigher strengths than anticipated from the initiallaboratory testing for Merritt Dam, Cheney Dam, andStarvation Dam. The construction control results fromthe other features show strengths about as anticipatedor somewhat less. Some of the lower strengths mightresult from a time delay from mixing to compacting asindicated on Figure 12. The general conclusion to bedrawn from construction control results is thatsoil-cement of at least the quality indicated by theinvestigation tests has been produced by theconstruction procedures used.
RECORD CORING
r
After the com letion of the soil-cement facicore holes were dril e on a I the features exceot the
Merritt Dam Modifications. Observation and testing ofthese cores allows an evaluation of the soil-cement as itactually exists in the facing. The drilling alsodetermines the thickness of the soil-cement facings atthe drill hole locations. On most of the features,reference points have been established at the recordcore hole locations. A steel reinforcing rod set flushwith the surface and grouted in place gives a quickvisual determination of the amount eroded from thesurface of the soil-cement since the reference point wasinstalled. These reference points are also used as a basisfor detailed profiles of the soil-cement surface. If laterinspections of the soil-cement indicate excessive wearat locations other than the reference points, anestimate of the wear can be made by comparison to theoriginal profiles.
Unconfined compression tests and durability tests areperformed on representative sections of the recordcores. These test specimens are normally soaked inwater for at least 7 days prior to the beginning of thetest to rewet the soil-cement if it has dried. The corebarrel used to obtain most of these samples has a bitwhich cuts a core approximately 2.8 inches (7.1 cm) indiameter. This is the same diameter used for standardlaboratory compression specimens. The record coresselected for compression testing are cut to alength-diameter ratio of about 2 prior to soaking inwater. The specimens are capped prior to testing. Thespecimens selected for durability testing are tested thesame as the standard laboratory test specimens afterthe curing period. The 2.8-inch (7.1-cm) diameterspecimen is smaller than the standard 1/30-cubic-foot(944-cc) specimen used for the standard durability test.
20
Compressive Durability lossesstrength (psi) (percent)
28-dayFeature Record construction Wet-dry Freeze-thaw
cores control
Merritt Dam 930 1,815 0.7 0.8Cheney Dam 1,241 1,497 0.8 0.9Lubbock Regulating Reservoir 782 1,134 1.5 4.3Glen Elder Dam 1,4 78 1,071 0.7 0.8Downs Dike 1,665 1,201 0.8 1.6Cawker City Dike 1,493 1,287 0.5 0.7Starvation Dam 905 905 0.8 2.3
SUMMARY OF TESTS ON RECORD CORES
Table 3
However, the 2.8-inch (7.1-cm) specimen has about 15percent more surface area for the same volume and is amore severe durability test.
The average of test results on the record cores for eachfeature are shown on Table 3, and the average of the28-day construction-control specimens is shown forcomparison. As shown by this comparison, thecompressive strengths obtained on the record cores arelower than the 28-day construction-control testsexcept at the Glen Elder Unit features (Glen ElderDam, Downs Dike, and Cawker City Dike).
The cores tested all appeared to be in good condition.However, some fine hairline cracking during the coringoperation may have caused some reduction in strengthwithout causing visual disturbance. The core holes atLubbock Regulating Reservoir were drilled normal tothe slope which caused the core to be taken at an angleto the top of each soil-cement layer. This may havecontributed to the low strength of these record cores.
The results of the durability tests are also shown onTable 3. A review of these test results shows that theaverage losses on the durability test specimens is verylow on all the features except for the freeze-thaw testson Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. The average loss onfreeze-thaw tests from the record cores on the slopeprotection on Lubbock Regulating Reservoir was 4.3percent, about 1.5 percent higher than that shown onthe laboratory investigation testing program.Comparison of the rest of record core test results withthe results shown on Figures 4 and 5, or the plots ofdurability test data on pages 47 through 63 of theAppendix, shows that the record cores in most cases
showed losses less than the investigation tests. Thisindicates that the soil-cement should be resistant to thedestructive effects of wetting and drying and freezingand thawing.
A small percentage of the contact planes between lifts.encountered during record coring were recovered asbonded lifts. This a In Icate a tota ac 0bondina between lavers but it does indicate the bon sjre not stron!l enouqh to withstand the stresses c~sed
JD drillina. The bonded layers recovered have all beenon features where power brooming was used to removethe smooth compaction plane. However, thepercentage of bonded layers recovered on thesefeatures was too small to be considered conclusiveproof that the brooming causes much greater bondstrengths. Direct shear tests have been performed onbonded lifts from Glen Elder Dam and Starvation Dam.These test resu Its are shown on pages 100 and 103 ofthe Appendix and show that on the bonded layerstested, the strength is nearly as high as the materialabove or below the contact between lifts. Thisindicates that the drilling may be breaking many of thebonded layers if they are weaker than the rest of thelayer and the percentage of layers bonded to somedegree may be higher than indicated.
Apparently some bonded layers have been recoveredfrom the Bonny Test Section. The constructionprocedure used on the section may have concentratedcement near the bottom of the mixing depth if the soilwas dry and allowed the cement to "sift" down as thematerial was being mixed. This may have increased thebonding where the material was mixed to the fulldepth of the layer. In other cases, wave action
21
undercut the layers and this may have been due to thematerial not being mixed to the full depth of thelayer ?
PERFORMANCE
The performance of a product during service is alwaysthe final criteria on whether it is acceptable. Most ofthe soil-cement facings in service to date have
performed very well.
Bonny Test Section has now been in place for nearly20 years. The co.nclusions stated in Report EM-6302still seem to be valid and the satisfactory performanceof th is test section was the basis for the use ofsoil-cement on the more recent features. Figure 37shows a general view of Bonny Test Section in 1966,15 years after construction. Th is picture shows therather irregular stairstep pattern caused by erosion ofthe improperly compacted material at the edge of thelifts. During construction, an attempt was made toremove these edges by blading but the soil-cement wastoo hard. Experience has shown that these irregularitiesare desirable to break up and reduce the runup ofwaves?
Figure 38. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 67+50 showing
normally anticipated wear pattern-October 1966, 3 years
after construction. Photo P835-D-56104
Figure 39. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 40+00 showing
normally anticipated wear pattern-October 1966, 3 years
after construction. Photo P835-D-56102
Figures 38 through 41 show pictures of the facing atCheney Dam after 3 years of service. Most of the wearshown on Figures 38 and 39 has been on the edges ofthe compacted lifts and was anticipated. Ourina the-
Cheney Dam
Figure 37. View of Bonny Test Section-October 1966,
15 years after construction. Photo PX-D-58945
.0. ~mo.oth .su~ace on the soil-ce~.
However, these feathered edges were not compacted as
tnor;;;:;ghly as the rest of th~ layer where the" material-
~ more restrained and these fe~thered edaes co~
22
e~pected to break off. The photographs show that thiswas the major part of the wear to the time the featureswere inspected. The edges of the lifts on Glen ElderDam, Cawker City Dike, and Starvation Dam were notcompacted in the same manner (see Figure 32) .Thestairstep appearance should develop quite quickly onthese features.
Figures 40 and 41 show areas on the Cheney Damfacing which have moderate breakage. This breakagewas reported to have occurred during a storm in Marchof 1966 when the reservoir was about at the level ofthe eroded lifts (elevation 1413). Winds in excess of 50mph (80 km/hr) with waves of 6 feet ( 1.8 m) breakingdirectly on the soil-cement were reported. A survey ofthe facing showed that some overbuild had occurredand this was in the area that the overbuild was being
Figure 40. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 110+00 showing
moderate breakage of facing-October 1966. 3 years after
construction. Photo P835-D-56108 Cheney Dam, Wichita Project, Kansas. Approximate
Station 87+26, area of soil-cement to be repaired. Lake
elevation at 1418.41. One-quarter-inch-diameter rebars
were grouted into 1/2-inch-diameter holes drilled into the
soil-cement. Photo P835-D-68953
--
Figure.41. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 85+75 showing
moderate breakage of facing-October 1966, 3 years after
construction. Photo P835.D-56106
corrected. This correction would create cantilevers ofsomewhat greater length and apparently they were notstrong enough to resist the severe wave action. Thesurvey also indicated that there was still a normalthickness of about 2 feet (0.6 m) in the broken areas.Similar breakouts were reported at elevation 1421during an inspection in 1969. These apparently werenot in areas of significant overbuild and these areaswere repaired in the spring of 1970. Figure 42 showsthe repair procedures used.
Cheney Dam, Wichita Project, Kansas. Protective surface
repair on Cheney Dam. Material was 2,500-pound
t ra n s i t-mix concrete shaped to configuration of
soil-cement. Photo P835-D-68954
Figure 42. Repair of soil-cement, Cheney Dam.
inspection and repair the damaged areas. The watersurface was lowered to elevation 1413 which exposedconsiderable damage to the soil-cement betweenelevations 1415 and 1420. Most of this damageoccurred between Stations 60+00 and 110+00. Thesestations are near the center of the dam wheremaximum wave action might be expected to occurwith the winds blowing generally down the length ofthe reservoir. Another underwater inspection at that
Another severe storm occurred in March of 1971 whenthe water surface in the reservoir was at elevation1421.4. Although the damage caused by this storm didnot appear to be severe above the water surface, aninspection by an underwater team indicated damagebelow the water surface. It was decided to lower thewater surface in the fall of 1971 and make a complete
23
time indicated that no serious damage had occurredbelow elevation 1413. Figure 43 shows a general viewof some of the most severely damaged area. As shownon the photo, some of the soil-cement lifts are'brokenoff to a nearly vertical face through the entire facing,and in some places the soil-cement forms an overhang.About 300 feet (91 m) of the soil-cement facing hadbeen completely removed exposing the Zone 1embankment materials. Figure 44 shows one of theseareas where the embankment is exposed. Another 600feet (183 m) had less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) ofsoil-cement remaining over the embankment material.
Figure 43. General view of Cheney Dam from Station
88+00 looking east. View shows some of the area of mostsevere breakage-October 1971,8 years after construction.Photo P835-D-70305
Figure 44. Closeup view of Cheney Dam at Station 95+90showing Zone 1 material exposed-October 1971,8 years
after construction. Photo P835-D-70510
The damaged areas of the soil-cement facing are beingrepaired by about the same procedures shown in Figure42. Reinforcing steel will be used to tie the patches to
the existing soil-cement facing. In addition, reinforcingsteel mesh will be embedded in the patch.
Figure 45 shows one of the patches placed in the springof 1970 at Station 85+80. These patches seem to havesurvived the storm in March 1971 very well and it wasdecided to use the same general scheme of repair. Itwas estimated that the concrete needed to repair thedamaged areas would be 2,000 cubic yards (1,530 cum).
Figure 45. View of patch on Cheney Dam at Station
85+80-0ctober 1971, 1.1/2 years after patch was placed.Photo P835-D-70306.
Figures 46, 47, and 48 show the appearance of MerrittDam in the fall of 1968, about 6 years afterconstruction. This is considered to be in generallyexcellent condition, The normal water surface has beenat and above the light colored area shown in Figure 46.Below that elevation, the facing had been continually
Figure 46. General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 18+00looking west-September 1968, 6 years after
construction. Photo P637-D-66530
24
Figure 47. Closeup of Merritt Dam showing erosion of
feathered edge-September 1968, 6 years afterconstruction. Photo P637-D-66531
Figure 48. General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 27+00looking east-September 1968,6 years after construction.
Photo P637-D-66532
covered by water and almost no erosion had takenplace as evidenced by the asphaltic curing compoundstill being intact on the surface. Above that elevation,the stairstep pattern up the slope was beginning todevelop but it did not appear that the erosion hadprogressed past the feathered edges.
Figures 49, 50, and 51 show the appearance ofLubbock Regulating Reservoir in March of 1968, about1 year after construction. Very little wear had occurredon this feature. The fetch on this reservoir is much lessthan on the dams faced with soil-cement and therubble broken loose on the feathered edges does notget completely swept down the slope. Some weatheringin place is shown on Figure 49 but this seems to besuperficial and is not considered serious.
Figure 49. General view of Lubbock Regulating Reservoirshowing weathered material, Sta. 51-March 1968, 1 yearafter construction. Photo P719-D-66536
Figure 50. General view of Lubbock RegulatingReservoir, from outlet structure-March 1968, 1 yearafter construction. Photo P719-D-60589
Figure 51. View of Lubbock Regulating Reservoirshowing erosion of feathered edge-March 1968, 1 yearafter construction. Photo P719-D-66535
25
Poor bond between lavers may also cause somewhatmore severe breaka!)p. rlurin!) ~evere wave action. Thebond between layers does not seem to have been veryood on the first soil-cement features constructed b e
Bureau. As previously mentioned, t e removal of thesmooth compaction plane at the top of each lift seemedto increase the bonding in laboratory tests. It is too earlyto tell if this has resulted in significantly increasedbonding under field construction conditions. ~means of increasing the bond, such as applyinQ a ce~tpaste between lifts and varying r.urina condition~ arebeing investigated.
The short time of exposure on most of the soil-cementfacings constructed since Bonny Test Section does notallow a complete projection of performance. Additionalevaluations should be made and published as moreperformance data become available.
REFERENCES
1. Holtz, W. G. and Walker, F. C., "Utilization ofSoil-Cement as Slope Protection for Earth Dams," SoilsEngineering Report No. EM-652, May8, 1962
2. Coffey, C. T., and Jones, C. W., "10-year Test ofSoil-Cement Slope Protection for Embankments," EarthLaboratory Report No. EM-63O,November 6, 1961
3. Jones, C. W., "Laboratory Tests on ProposedSoil-Cement Slope Protection Merritt Dam-AinsworthUnit, Missouri River Basin Project," Earth LaboratoryReport No. EM-611, March 22, 1961
4. Ellis, W., "Results of Supplemental Tests onSoil-Cement for Dam Facing-Merritt Dam-AinsworthUnit, Missouri River Basin Project, Nebraska," SoilsEngineering Report No. EM-671, March 19, 1963
5. Ellis, W., "Laboratory Studies for Final Design onSo i Is Proposed for the Dam Emban kment andSoil-Cement Slope Protection-Cheney Dam-WichitaProject, Kansas," Soils Engineering Report No. EM-668,May 14, 1963
6. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Proposed BorrowMaterials for Soil-Cement Slope and BottomProtection-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir-MainAqueduct-Canadian River Project, Texas," SoilsEngineering Branch Report No. EM-729, January 20,1966
7. Ledzian, R. R. and Hartman, V. B., "LaboratoryStudies for Final Design on Embankment andFoundation Soils and on Proposed Soils for Soil-Cement
Slope Protection-Glen Elder Dam-SolomonDivision-Missouri River Basin Project, Kansas," SoilsEngineering Branch Report No. EM-719, June 24, 1965
8. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Proposed BorrowMaterials for Soil-Cement Slope Protection-DownsDike and CaWker City Dike-Glen Elder Unit-MissouriRiver Basin Project, Kansas," Soils Engineering BranchReport No. EM-737, August 1, 1966
9. Hartman, V. B., "Laboratory Tests of ProposedSoil-Cement for Slope Protection-StarvationDam-Bonneville Unit-Central Utah Project, Utah,"Soils Engineering Branch Report No. EM-714, April 6,1965
10. Guy, S. D., "Laboratory Tests on ProposedSoil-Cement for Slope Protection-Little Panoche CreekDetention Dam-San Luis Unit-Central Valley Project,California," Soils Engineering Branch Report No.EM-712, March 12, 1965
11. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on BorrowMaterials and Undisturbed RiverbankMaterials-Channel Improvement Area and RiversideEstates Bank Stabilization-Red BluffReservoir-Sacramento River Division-Central ValleyProject, California," Soils Engineering Branch ReportNo. EM-692, July 20, 1964
12. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Soil-CementMaterials for the Modification of ConconullyDam-Okanogan Project, Washington," SoilsEngineering Branch Report No. EM-746, April 1967
13. DeGroot, G., "Soil-Cement Seepage Test Section,Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Canadian River Project,Texas," Report No. REC-ERC-71-13, February 1971
14. Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams:Laboratory Tests-Portland Cement Association-CB-ll
15. Soil-Cement Slope Protection at Ute Dam-PortlandCement Association-C138
16. McMechen, R. S., "Laboratory Studies ofSoil-Cement Materials for Test Installation of RiprapSubstitutes-Specifications No. 3227-Bonny Dam-St.Francis Unit-Upper Republican Division-MissouriRiver Basin Project," Earth Materials Laboratory ReportNo. EM-25O, November 1, 195°
17. Tramutt, P. R., "Field Method for Determination ofCement Content in Soil-Cement Mixtures," Report No.ChE-n, December 1967
26
APPENDIX
27
TEST RESULTS
29
10
10
10QIII
40!c...
801...
Cement (%) Froe. Opt..101110
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water .III(per) (%)
706.
8_3 10.0 123.0 8.1 1010.0 12.0 123.8 8.1H.8 14.0 124.5 8.1 to
10
10QIII
40!c...
801...
Cement (%) Froe. Opt. .101110llt. Vol. Dens. Water .III
(pel') (%) 706.
~.1 10.0 125.5 8.0 to9.8 12.0 126. 2 8.0
11.6 14.0 126.8 8.0 to
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II VE A IALYSII
II"" 7H1l. TIMI. "IEADINGS U. S. STANDA"D -"lEi CLEA" SOUME OPENINGS4i Iii( IIMlll 10- "II1I/I. 4MIN. IMIN. "II 10 -100 "fIO4f4081O -. - .
"'. I""
SO rr.-I 0
.oat .ooe.OOI .019 .017 .074 .149 .n-r..Do,590 1.19 ."'38 4.'11DIAMEff" OF PA"TteLE IN MILL~tl£TE"S
CLAY ('LUTIOI TO SILT (NON-'LASTIOI YIN~ I
SM
... II.I 8.1 1007U I~ite
OLA''''ICATION IYIIII80L
PECIFIC G"AVITY --ATTE"IE"G LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
COIILES
G"AVEL .-l.."lAND. 8.1."liLT TOCLAY J.O.."
NOTEs:--B.Q.Qn;}!..I.es 1..5. e~.t.PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAlCflATORY'AMPLE No.13N-420
~IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH ~.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE AI ALYSIl1I.'HIt... 7H1t... Till'" "EADINGS U. S. STAHDA"D IUIEI OLlA" SOUME.OPENINGS 1-4i IIIN MIll.
. .-- IMIN. "II 10 - .. ~I
IIMI IOMIN. "II1I/I. 4MIN. -100 -10 ~IO -. - . "'. I SO rr..0
10
10
10
7
.!:If.......i...6.10
e
II" .oat .ooe ,001 .01' .057 .074 .149 .m .Do~.590 1.1' .1&3' 4.'11DIA.Eff" OF PA"TICLE lit MILL~tl£TE"S
CLAY ('LUTK:I TO SILT (NON-'LASTIO)
... II.I 8.1100
7U I~Al!D'
OLA.WICATtOIt IYMIIOI. SMATTUIEIt8 LIMITI
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
SH"INKAQE LIMIT
COI.LEI
L
G"AVEL"""""""7TI """'D zu"liLT TOCLAY - "
IPECIFIC G"AVITY
NOTE1&~~.l!Y.J'~-~ ~-§_~~!=J.on
~~~!:_~-_._._...._---
LAlCflATORYIAMPLE No. 13N-421 ~IELD DUlGNATION UCAVATION No.,
ne:PTH ~.
31
I10
70
~.!IO~:I
§
2~....i...&.10
10
10Q...
40!
~- 801
Cement (%) Frae. ~Opt. 10:Wt. Vol. Dens. Water:
8.6(per) (%)70 &.
10.0 119.2 10.510.4 12.0 120.3 10.4 10
12,2 14.0 121.4 10.3 10
90
80
70
"! 60II)II)
f50
~Z
~4OIt:......
30
20
10
0,0 I 002 9.52 19.1 38,'
FIN A
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II VI[ A I&LYSII7H1l TIMI: RUDING. U.I. STANDARDIIRII14 CLEARSQUAREOPEN,NeI
Ii8tf( 11111116. 80 11ft ItIM UIN, IMIN,4It10 '100 ..0 f40e1O -. - ~ .
'"~ Iii r ..~ ~10
10
8.81
-~'T
10071.1 I~...CO.a I .001 .008.008 DI' D37 .074 ,14' '1I1'.Qo1"610 1.1' .Jg31 4.""
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLrfllETERI
CLAY (PLUTIC) TO liLT (NON-PLASTICII "I HI I /lUM I
OLAIBII'ICATION BVMIOL 8M
SPECIFIC GRAVITY --NOTE.Bonny- -T.es.1:-.s.e etlon
Iyp-~-"'- --- - ..---
LAIOUTOItV BAMPLENo. 13N-422.~ .-', " : ~ <'-c
,_.
<",
I HYDROMETER ANAL YS,S25HIl 7HR TIME READINGS
I MIN ...L4SMIPl 15Mlit. tOMIN 19MIN 4MIN -,""I
-- f-- --
--
1.1 .1
COB.LEI
ATTERBERG LIMITS
L.IQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
.RAVtL D.,BAND M...liLT TO CLAY ~ '.
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
'1 EL D D£IIGHATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH "T.
".,..
SI EVE ANALYSISu, S. STANDARD SERIES"'o .! CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
"100 "50 '40'10 '16 .. '4 'loa" '1(0" III{ r 5"6" ~
10
- .20
--
--
10QIII
40!c~...
50 It:
~Z
80~
- It:opt. = 70~
Water==(.rJ." ) --]fI' ==80
11'.2 ====90--
1--.= {---
,- --,
---- ----- -----
-4 ..---.-!-- -
't-Cement (oj,)
Wt . Vol.Froe.Dens.(per)118.8
----- -.. .. 1-- ,-' -- --=
14.0 15.6u
005 ,009 019 ,037 .074 149 297 .590 1.19 ,IR.38 4.16DIAMETER OF PAR-PfhE IN MILLfilETER'S
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) I 'IN~ SA~D'U" COARR
10076.2
12~5l 0
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SM
~-NOTELt1~_r:!"_~~_t:. - P.?~ -- - - --9_~~ ~!y~
--~()~s- ~!_~~--t. ~:>.~
--
LABORATORYSAMPLENo 15R-132
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
COBBLES
GRAVEL . ~,SAND --.§.L~SILTTOCLAY, ,l3 ~
PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
FIELD D£SIGNATION EXCAVATIONNoS tockp i l~EPTH FT,
-
32
10
!
80
10
~.!80~:~if~Z11140iIII
Lao
1.0
1.0
.(II
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II V[ A ~YSIS
.\I~, 1H1l. TIMe; READINGS U. S. STANDARD KRIEI CLIAR S~UARE DP£NI"'I.. iIIN: 111111111.80 IIIIIt "1IItII. 41111N. 11il1N... 10 -100 "10 4f408ao -.. - 'lilt' I W' t' ....I 0
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
8.010.012.0
.oat .000.001 .019 .031 ..014 .149 .291.D'!I9O 1.191
JI 4.11DIAIilETER OF PARTI~LE IN MILLII ETERS
CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC)
OLAIII'ICATIOIil IYMeOL
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
SP ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT--NOTEs~r.itj;_P.a.nL ---
PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOItATOItY IAM..LE No. 15R-£i.9 FIELD DESIGNATION
8.710.913.0
Frac.Dells.(pef)111.0112. 5114.0
10
JOCI...
4O!c~
8011~
Opt. 8O~
Water:(%) 10 L
11.811.2 10
10.7 10
"I 1U lfl;l,IC r'III'.111 II.'
CO"LES
GRAVlL ..JL.,IAIilD.
"'"..9.L'
liLT TOCLAY ~,
7.89.6
11.3
Frae.Dens.(pef)99.599.399.2
Left Abut.
EXCAVATIONNo.TP-A DEPTH0- 31. 0 .,-;
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE A IALYIIIIIHII.. 1H11.. TIMe; READINGS U.I. STANDARDSERIEI ~LlAR lQUARE.,OftENI.1
{ii.."IN. 1II1II1t1. 8O"1It ""IN. 41111N. 11il1N."10 -'00 .80 -4,08ao." '. ' lilt' I... r.0
10
80
10
.!:f~Z11140
iIIILJO
1
1.0
Cement (%)Wt. Val.
~.o10.012.0
D I .oat .ooe.OO9 .01' .031 .014 .141 .291 Q 1I'!I9O 1.11 1 J' 4.11DIAMETER OF "ARTICLE 1111MILLII [TERI
CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIO)
OLA...,ICATtC* IYIUO\..
IPECI'IC GRAVITY
SM
NOTE.:Merritt.. j)am._- ----
ATTIReERG LIMITS
LIOUID LIMIT
"LAITICITY INDEIe
SHRINKAGE LIMIT----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAM"LE No. 15R-X59 "IELD DESIGNATION
33
1U Itr!.lqolOO1111 I
COI.LES
IRAVlL 9,IA..D ...Jij,liLT TOCLAY -15,
'.111 II.'
10
JOCI...
40!c~
8011~
Opt. 80SWater ...
(%) 10L
18.0 1018.0
18.0 10
"I
EXCAVATIOIIINo.,AH-30lA n(PTH 0-7,0 lOT.
I10
70
~G!IO~.,.~flO~ZIIIiIII&.10
I
10
:e I ,001
10
70
GZ
if~Z11140iIII&.
I
10
IJ I DOl
HYDROMETER ANALYS'S S, VE ANALYSIS...L 7HR. TIII£ READINGS U.S. STANDAIID"RIIEI CL.EAR SQUAIIE ~NIN8S
Ii 8tH: IIIlIliI. IOIItM IIMIN, 4IIIN, IIIIN, "20 -'00 -eO '404Iao'l8 . .~. I tI' r r..0
10
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.8.0
10.012.0
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) .~
.on .074 ,14' .217 Q'8IO I." 3. 4.78DIAIiETE R OF PARTI~LE IN MILL~ ETERS
.00II .00II .011
CLASSIFICATION IYM.OL
SP£CIFIC GRAVITY
~M - ATTERIERG LIIiITS
LIOUID LIMIT---NOTES:M~rAjJ;.t- J2al.Il_- -- --
PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOIIA'TOIIY'AMPLE No. 15R-X60 'IELD DESIGNATION
8.310.212.1
Proe.Dens.(per)104.8105.6106.4
10
10GIII
4O!c~
101
~Opt. IO~Wate;r :
(%) 70&.
14.013.6 10
13.3 10
"I 11.1 II1:I iC~OOlit
'.111 II.'
OOIILES
.RAVlL .-Dor.IAIIID.
" ,. "".-.l.5.,.
liLT TOCLAY ~.,.
12.413.8
Proe.Dens.(per)107.8106.2
768' WestEXCAVATIONNo...from DH-DEPTH1.5- 7.8 I'T,
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE A ALVlIIIIHR... 7HR... TillE READINGS U. S. STANDARDSERIEI C~AII SOVAIIE ~rNIN8S;a1111( 1111111. 10 IIIN IIMIN. 4 MIN, IMIN. 8t! 10 -100 -50
'~50'". . . 1 Ii r tf'rI 0
10
.00II .00II .olf .on .074 ,141 .2170 1J!'8IO 1.1' ~~. 4.78
DIAMEUR OF P""TICLI IN IIILL~ ErERSCLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTlO)
CLAS.HfICATtOfII IYMIIOL
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
~- ATTEltIERG LIMITS
LIOUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
NOTU:.Mer.r.i.tt.. .Dam. . ....-.
~------------
LA8OUTOIIY 'AM"LE No. 15R-11OJ'IELD DESIGNATION
34
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
12.014.0
EXCAVATION No.
'.111 II.I
10
10GIII
40ZC~
101
~Z
10111
Opt . :Water
70&.
(%) 10
14.713.3 10
"I 71.1 II7:TI If'OIII
COIILES
.RAVlL Q. .,.
..,.D. ..,.. ...8.l...,.
"LT TOCLAY 19 .,.
nEl"TH I'T,
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS liVE ANALYIIS» --I 1HIl TIM!: READINGS U. S. STANDARD KRIES .1
CLUR SQUARE OPENI...I
""-.iN: IlIIIlIit. eo III'" IIIIIIN. 4 MIN. IIilIN. "e 10 8100 8110 '40830 8. 84"
-""t W'
SO r rI 0
-
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
12.014.0
.ooe .008.001 019 031DIAO~~TERI490F ':fl~'~ IN 1~~LL~~;~ER:_18
CLAY (PL.UTIC) TO SILT (NON-PL.ASTIC)
OLAIIIFICATION IYMIOL
PECIFIC GRAVITY
SP ATTERBERG LIMITS
L.IQUID LtM IT
PLASTICITY INDEX
12.914.9
Froe.Dens.(per)113.7114.2
10
10Q...
eo!c...
lOll!....
IO~Opt. :Water 10&.
(%)10
10.010.5 to
11.1 18.1 1V:1.1 ~III
--NOTESN~ti t..Dam-- --
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
I.. II.I
COIILES
GRaVEL ~..IAND 21...liLTTOCLAY J..
14.7
Proe.Dens.(per)112.8
----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAMPLE No. 15R-lll ~IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH I'T,
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE A ALYI-~HR..
I1HR.. TIMe; READINGS U. I. ITANDARD SERIEI' ~AR SOU""E OPENI...I
j"'-IIIK 1811111. eoll... IIIIIIN. 4MIN. IIIIft "e 0 8100 810 840830 ..- . "-""I W' SO rr
0
10
to
10..i,.......
¥III&.10
1
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
10 14.0
" .ooe .ooe.OOl 019 .oa1 014 .149 ., DjflllO 1.'1 1 &JI 4.18DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILL.I ETUI
CLAY ('L.UTICI TO liLT INON-'L.AlTIO)
CUI..ICAT. "M8OL
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
~M ATTlRIERe LIMITS
LIQUID 'IMIT
NOTEI:M.et'J:.U:.t. 11I1IJL - - - - --PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAMPLE No. 1 '1R-ll R ~IELD DUlGNATION EXCAVATION No.
35
I.. 11.1
10
10Q...
eo!c...
lOll!....
eol...
10&.Opt.Water 10
(%) ,
11.2 10
11.1 1U 111:! 1100
'11
COIILII
IRAVEL 2..IAIIID. .~..liLT TOCLAY 21..
"EPTH I'T,
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIE VE ANALYSIS18 7HR. TIME READINGS U. S. STANDARD KRIES' .1
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGI..oc~ I5l1lit. 801111 11II1II. 4111N. IIIIN "210 -'00 -50 'I4o*ao -.. -4 ~ ' 11ft' I' t' ....I 0
CLAY (PLAlTlC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)
CLASSIfICATION SVII.OL
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
SP ATTERIERG LIMITS
LIOUID LIMIT
CO..LfI
GRAVEL 1,IAND ~ ,liLTTOCLAY --1,--
NOTEsChen.e.y_..Dam. -- --PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
---.------------------------
LAIIORATORYIAMPLE No. 25J-X108 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH I'T.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE A ALYSII.9'Hlt..
17H1t.. TIME READINGS U. I. ITANDARD IERIEI O~AR IOVARE _OPENINGI
j""_IIIIK IUIII.. 801111 IIIIIN. 4 MIN. IIIIN "e 10 -100 -10 -4O"ao -.. - '11ft' I .,. r tf''' 10
to
80 10
710
110 12.0
Proe.Dens.(per)120.6
10QIII
40!c~
801
~z
lOi
III70"
..zif~Z11140
¥III
"10
1
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
13.7
Opt.Water
(%)9.6
10
10
.CIH .ooa .ooe.ooe 101' DS7 1074 .141 ft7 ~ 11'Il1O 1.1' .I5JI 4."DIAIIET E R OF PARTICLE IN MILLftlETERS
CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SILT ,NON-PLAITIO) ~1.81 lal _I
7" 111;11~III
CLA""'ICAT-' .VIIIOL
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SM ATTER'UG LIMITI
LIQUID LIMIT
PLAITICITY INOaX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
00 ilL t:8
GRAWL .-.Q,IAIIIID 115,lILT TOCLAY --U.,
NOTEKCheney- ..Dam- -- ---------------------------.----
LAlCMTORY,,,,IILI No. 2.~X147 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. TP- 2 D€ItTH 13.0-18.0 lOT.
36
1009.52 19.1 38.1 16.2 121 200
152
RACOBBLESFIN COA E
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
5~~ IJ~~iiTIME READINGS
"JoU.S. STANDARDSERIES"IO
"lCLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
60 MIN. 19MIN 4MIN. IMIN. -100 "50 "40"30 "16 "8 ...." ~." 1\1{3" 5"6" 0
I
0
0
0 4
0u- ~5
Cement (%) Froe. Opt. 6
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water0 (per) (%) 1
0 10.0 12.2 126. 5 9.88
12.0 14.5 127.3 9.30 14.0 16.5 126.1 10.0 9
0 I.0 I .002 .005 .009 .019 .031 .014 .149 .291
fA~.5901.19
~384.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 16.2 121!
2jDIAMETER OF PAR I LE IN MILLf' ETERS
152
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)FINE U CO FIN COA COBBLES
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL ~M GRAVEL..------..--~.,.ATTERBERGLIMITS
SA"ID--.... --..... --Jl6..,.SPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT
SILT TO CLAY...... 14.,.NOTES:£hene: -J)am..------- PLASTICITY INDEX
HYDROMETER ANALYSISTIME READINGS
4~5~~ IJ~~ii. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4MIN. IMIN "20010
SIEVEu. S. STANDARD SERIES"IO
"'00 "50 "40"30 "16 "8
ANALYSISCLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
"4 " ~. IV." 3" 5"6" ~
10
20
12.0
Proc.Dens .(per)122.0
30Q...
40ZCi.......
50 It:
....Z
60~It:...
1011.Cement (%)Vlt. Vol.
13.9
Opt.Water
(%)11.8
80
90
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)FIN MEOIU
.005 .009 .019 .037 .014 .149 .291 .590 1.19 11\38 4.76
DIAMETER OF PARf>f~LE IN MILLfMETERS
COA
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL ~L- ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
GRAVEL 1!.,.SAND ~.,.SILTTOCLAY ~.,.SPECIFIC GRAVITY --
NOTES:C-heney-.~Dam_n unnnn-PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
-----------------------------
LABORATORY SAMPLE No. 25J-149 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No AH- 265 DEPTH 0-8.0 FT.
2
0
24510
90
8 20
"!6'"'"~5....Z
~40It:...11.3
30
0...
OZCi.......
0 It:
....Z
0'"0It:...
0'"
0
0
00
ySHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LABORATORYSAMPLE No. 25J-X150FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH FT.
37
to
I80
70
~ell! 80~1ft1ft
~If50
~Z
~<IOC...II.
30
20
10
&, .002
30
Cement (%) Froe. Opt. =~-<IOZ
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water = c- ...
(per) (%) = 8011!..=.. 6.0 6.9 116.7 11.3 -'"
7.0 8.0 116.8 11.4 :: loe= C
8.0 9.1 117.6 11.6 =70:10.0 11.2 117.8 12.0 -
=12.0 D.2 118.1 11.8 -=8014.0 15.1 118.1 11.7 =
=80.~ -
38.1 78.2 127 2 ~oo152
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS25HR 7HR TIME READINGS U. S. STANDARD SERIES"'o .1
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS45 MIN 15MI~. 60 MW I9MIN 4 MIN IMIN ~ 0 8100 8so 840830 816 84 \fa' \It' lilt' j' s' ff'I 0
10
10
12.0
14.0
P:roe.Dens.(per)125.1125.9
Opt.Water
(%)8.68.8
.30Q
III40Z
C~III
SOC
-...
;-= 80:. -- 0-
C=70:===80,--=80-
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
D.916.2
.005 .009 .0'9 .037 .074 .49 .297012.590 1.19 2r,8 4.16DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLI ETERS
9.52 19.1 38.1 78.2 127 2 J?>152
CLAY (PLASTIC! TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) FINE IUM COARse: FINE ICOBBLES
GRAVEL ~...SAND. 2.l....SILTTOCLAY -2-...
CLASSIFICATION SYfII80L ~M-SP ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMITSPECIFIC GRAVITY --NOTEsCheney-..Dam. -- -- ----
PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
-----------------------------
LABORATORY SAMPLE No. 25J-156 FIELD DESIGNATION
N384,S"OOEXCAVATION No R? 1 QR
J? 'i&TH 1 .5-8.La. FT.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS25HIl 7H1l TIME READINGS
11 MIN' ISM,iI. 60 MIN.t9MtN 4 MIN. IMIN "2)0
SIEVE ANALYSISU. S. STANDARD SERIES!!!
.1CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
"-.100 'SO .40830 .18 ~ .4 fro' ~' ."" 3' (f'6" "0
to 10
80 10
70
10
8.52 19.1
ell
! 601ft1ft
If50...
Z~<IOC...II.
SO
20
0 I .002 .005.009 DI9 D37 .074 149 .297 0.590 1.19 tl\38 4.16DIAMETER OF PARTI~LE IN MILLIIlETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)I IUM
IFINE COBBLES
NOTEs;J..ubJ,2~tck... .Reg.,__ReJi.. PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
22')
GRAVEL 2...SAND. """ ..fU....
SILT TO CLAY -3.2. ...
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
~M-~C ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
----------------------------
MiBture of TP-3,4,6, and 11LABORATORY SAMPLE No.39U-X16 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. PEPTH FT.
38
10
10Q101
40!c
~Cement (%) lOll!Proe. Opt. ~z
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water 8O~(per) (%) :
8.0 9.4 118.8 9.7 TO"
10.0 11.7 120.7 9.3 1012.0 13.9 122. 3 8.714.0 16.2 124.0 8.2 to
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SI VE ANAL,Y!I!I.-- THIl TIMe:READINGS U.S. STANDARDKRIES .! CLEAR SQUARE.OHNI"I
4i: fill IIIlIli. 80- IIJIIIN. 4MIN. IIIIN. "210 -100 -10 ~IO -.. -.' lilt' 1..- r ....1 0
CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SlI..T (NON-PLASTIC)
CLASSifICATION IYMeOL
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SM ATTERBERG I..IMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
COI.LEI
IRAVlL"" .-.J!..IAND M..III..T TO CLAY ...l,g,..---
NOTES G.lelL.Eld.er._DamuPLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------Mixture of AH-l through AH-6
LAIOIUITORYIAMPLENo. 1 RC':-X??'hIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATIONNo DEPTH 0-4.0 1fT.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALY."J!I:::'il TIM.. TIMI. RUDINGS U.lo l'1.:ANDARD IERIES .! OLlAR SQUARE.OftENI"1
j"'-IIIlIlIl 10IIIN.11- 4 MIN. 11I1fI."t 0 -100 -10 -40810 -.. -.' lilt' I... r 0
80
80
10
T.zIiIf~Z10140~III
"JO
I
Q t .001 .DOI.OOI .01' .051 .aT4 .141~.o a'lIIO 1.1' I
3. 4.11DIAMETER Of 'ARTICLE IN MILLI ETERI
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO liLT (NON- PLAITIO)
ue II.I 8.1 TU 'V:l.' r'III
CL.88.IOAT- IYM80L
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SP-SM ATTIR.E" LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
CO..LEI
IRAVEL.." .~1A1III0. 9.2....81LTTOCLAY ~..
NOTES: _G.t~!L !1:J.Q~]:,-- Il~--
PLAITICITY INDeX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT----------------------------
Mixture of AH P-l through AH P-6
LAIORA'TORYIAM'LE No. 18C-X224"IELO DEStiNATION EXCAVATIONNo.
39
ftll"TH0-4. 0 1fT.
10QIII
40!:
Cement (%) Proe. Opt.lOW
...Wt. Vol. Dens. Water Z
80111
(per) (%) ~III
8.0 9.0 117.6 9.8 706.
10.0 11.3 118. 5 9.6 1012.0 13.4 120.1 9.514.0 15.5 121.2 9.3 80
~fI~'IHe) 1.18 ~~. ..,. '.tI '''I -.1 71.1 1~!.IC~oo
PAR I LE IN MILL~ ETERI 181
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 5111V[ ANALYSIS
.tlHIl. 7H1l. TIME RUDINGS U. S. ITANDARD 8IRI£I< CLEAR $OUAltE})PENIN81elltN 15M"" IOMIN.ItMIN.4MIN. IMIN."10 -100 -10 '~IO -.. - --'.
'. r rrI 0
80
I80
70
~~
~
.!IO:f...Z"'40~..,6.10
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
10
10.012.014.0
.e I .001 .008.001 .oil .037 .01' .1"'":..Q ".He) 1.18
J .3' 4."DIAMETER .oF PARTICLE IN MILL EnRI
CLAY,'LAtnC) TD SILTINON-'LASTIC) ~IN~ ~II.
Cl..AIIiFICATIOIII IYM.DL
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
SM ATTER.ERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT-~
NDTEI:DaWns- .Dike -- -- ----PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------Barnes Pit ~verburden
LAIOItATOItY IAMPLE No. 4 OY-41 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATlDN No.
10
- .
10QIII
40Z
~lOW
...
Opt. 80:1
Water:(%) 706.
10.480
10.611.0 10
11.313.215.2
Proe.Dens.(per)118.4118.6118.6
1.81 71.1 II~! ICKIO
Itl....
-'1
CO.'LEI
GRAVEL .--5...IAND ~...liLT TOCLAY......_...
DEPTH0-5.0 I'T.
r HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYIIA
a'r.i 7:\TIMEREADINGI
IMIN"~U.I. ITANDARDIERI£I CLiARlOUAltEOftENIN81
II5MI IOMIN. ItIiltN. 4 MIN. -100 -so -~IO -.. - . l1li' '..- r rr .0
80
80
7.0
.ZIif
...ZIII~III6.10
I
1.0
.a I .001 .ooe.OOI .0" .051 .07. .148DIAMETER OF
CLAY "LAIT,C) TO liLT (NON-'LA8T1CI
Cl..AII.,ICATtOfII I'I'MIOI..
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SP-SM ATTlR.ERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
NOTEI: _D.D.Wns -j) i.l<.E..- - - ----PLASTICITY INol1C
SHRINKAGE LIMIT----------------------------
Barnes Pit Stockpile
LA8ORATORY SAMPLE No. 40Y-42 FIELD DOIGNATION EICCAVATIOIII No.
40
10
C018LEI
GRAVEL 1.....IMD ~...liLT TO CLAY.. -5......
DEPTH0- 30.0 I'T.
I80
~..~i~f...."'40i101L80
10
10
.01
."'. -
..- ---.
Cement (%) Proe.Wt. Vol. Dens.
(per)10.C 11.4 119.712.0 13.4 119.514.0 15.3 119.5
r
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS IIEVE A~YIIIAlMIl. THIl TIM" READINGS U.S. STANDARD 8IRIII~ CLUR SOUME.,onNI...I
1""-1It1( IIIMlil. 80-"- .. MIN. IMIN. "e0 -100 "eO4f40880 -. J4II - 'lilt' I .. r r..0
10
.001 .008.001 D.9 DSTDIA~~TE~I490F ::;fl~'~ IN 1~~LL.f&:~ER:.7I
CLAY (PLASTIC)TO liLT (NON-PLASTIC)
OI..A...FICATIOIiI IYMtIOL
SPECIFIC aRAVITY
SM ATTERIERa LIMITS
L.IQUID L.IMIT--NOTEsC.BJalker -
_CiLy.- Dike-
PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE L.IMIT
----------------------------Shearer Pit Overburden
LAIOMfOltY IAM~LE No. 40M-134 FIEL.D DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No.
... 11.1
lei
10Q101
40!
~tOW. ,... .........
...
Opt. tO~
Water!(%) TOL
10.180
10.010.3 80
"I100
TI.I IV;~I
C08lLES
aRAVEL ~ ..lAND " 5.8..
liLT TOCLAY.."" -19...
DEPTH0-5.0 ~
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE ANALYS"
AI::k TI:iI TIM" RIEADINGS U. .. ITANDARD I!RIEI .! ~l:IAIt lOUME.OHNI"'1j'D- IIIMI. IOMIN ItMIN. "MIN. IMIN. .. 0 -100 -10 -~IO -. . lilt' , r rr 0
10
80
..if.......i101LIO
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
1
8.010.012.0
g .001 .ooe.OOl DI' .on .oT" ..49 .lIT JI c.1IO 1.1' .I, ".71DIAMUER OF ~AItTICLE IN MIL.d ~TI!R'
CLAY (PLASTIC)TO liLT ,_-PLA.TIO)
OLA...ICATtON IVMect
IPECIFIC aRAVITY
SW-SM ATTEIt'EM LIMITS
L.IQUIDL.IMIT
PL.AITICI.TY INOII;II
SHRINKAU L.IMITNOTEs:Cs.wkeJ:._City- .fiik.e.
----------------------------
Shearer PitL.AIOMfOltY IAM~LE No. 40M-135 FIEL.D DUlaNATION EXCAVATION No.
41
9.411.613.7
Proe.Dens.(per)121.3122.3122.9
lei
~. .
10Q101
40!c...
tOl
Opt.. ~
Water eDi(%) ~r8.5
.
8.980
8.6 to-~ ...~
100
"I TI.I 1V;.IIj
C08lLES
.ItAVEL 5..83
IA"'D...""""" "1'2'''liLTTOCLAY""..-..
... ItI
D("H ') 0- '0 0 ~.
10
I80
10
~.a~i~f~Z
~40.IIIILJO
I
10
lJl .001
10
10DIII
---40!
Cement (%) Proe. Opt. ~801
wt. Vol. Dens. Water~(per) (%) .80111
10.0 11.3 119.9 11.5. ~III12.0 13.4 120.7 11.5
101L
14.0 15.3 120.7 11.3 8016,0 17.2 121.1 11.0Ave. Used 119.5 11.5 10
10
10DIII
40!c
L... ...Cement (%) Proe. Opt. 801
...Wt. Vol. Dens. Water .
80111
(per) (%) ~III
10.0 11.3 119.2 11.3 101L
12.0 13.4 119.1 1l.914.0 15.3 119.5 11.7
10
Ave. Used 119.5 11.5 10
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE A IALYIII18-- 1H1l Till!: "EADINGS a-
U.I. ITANDA"DK"IEI OLU" IOUME OHNI..I4i till IIIlIlil 80- "II1II. 4111N. IIIIN. "'II10 -100 "eOf408JO -.. - 'lilt' I~ r rr rrI 0
.008 .008 .019 .057 .014 .141 .n-r.~ 1.610 I."J J' 4.1'1
DIAMETE" OF pA"TleLE IN MILL En"l... II.I .1 10011.1 I~~I 0
eLAY (PLUTIC) TO SILT CNON-PLASTIC)
OI..A"IFICATION IVII80L
SPECIFIC G"AVITY
SM ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
COBBLEI
t"AVEL .--0..lAND 8l..liLTTOCLAY ..ll..--
NOTU:.S.ta.t::.YAti.9Jl. {>liJILPLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAMplE No J.1Q.::X9.DIELD D£SI8NATION EXCAVATION No. II£pTH .,..
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS IIEVE A ALYI-HI!.. HI!.. TI... READINGI U.I. ITANDA"Dl£ltlll -"It lOUAltE ~E NI"" I.. III( elllill lei; 4111N. IIIIN. .., io -100 -10 -40810 -.. ":"'. oJ'- -
I. 'lilt" r rrrr 0
10
80
1.0
10.!
=f
....11140~IIIILJO
I
lJ I .oat .000.oat .01' .031 .014 .141 .nr.~ 1t'6IO
1.1. . 4.1'1DIAMETER OF PUTleLE IN MILL~ ETE"I
CLAY (PLA,TICJ TO liLT (NON-PLA.TIO) ~... II.I .1 11.1 I~!. I ~
181
OL"IWICATto. IVMIOL
IPECIFIC G"AVITY
8MATTE"II'" LIMITS
LIOUID LIMIT
PLAITICITY INDEX
SH"INKAGE LIMIT
COBBLEI
tItAVEL .--0..IAIVD. ~..liLTTOCLAV ~..
~-
NOTES:. ..st.arJl~QD.. .DSDL.
----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAMPLE No. 17Q-X70 FIELD DESI8NATION fXOAVATION No. ~PTH I'T,
42
10
30c:a...
4O!c
~Cement (%) Proe. Opt.loW
~Wt. Vol. Dens. Water ..O~(per) (%) ....
10.0 1l.3 118. 4 10.5 10IL
12.0 13.4 119.0 10.8 80-- 14.0 15.3 119.9 10.7
Ave. Used 119.5 11.0 80
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III V£ ANALYSIS,'u 1HR.. TIM!: READINGS U. S. STANDAItD SEItIEl CLEAIt SOUAltE OPENINGI
.~ ':it 15MIll. 80 Mill ,,- 4 MIN. IMIN. "e 10 -100 -110'40'130 -.. - I' Il1o' I
"
yo r fI'I 0
.001 .ace.oct .01' .037 .074 .14' .211 j),1190 1.1' .IR.31 4.'18DIAMETEIt OF PAltTI~LE IN MILLlii£TEItS
CLAV (P~AITIC) TO SILT (NON-P~AITIC)
I.. ...1 "I'00
1'" I~!..
CLAIIIFICATION IVMtOL
SPECIFIC GItAVITY
8M ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
COIILEI
GRAVEL"""" .-'l,"ND ~,liLTTOCLAV '
-.--.----
NOTEs:_S..t.8I.va.t w.lLDam ...-P~ASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOIUITOItY IAMPLE No. 17Q-X11. --FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH I'T.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS IIEV£ A I&LY..'
a'::'il 7:'"TIM!: READINGI U. I. STANDARDIERIEI °L:&AR lOUAltE. OPENI..I
I "M. 80 Mill "MIN. 4111N. IMilt "e 10 -100 -10 -40'130 -.. - 'Il1o' Iiw' yo r fI' ~
80
80 10
10 10c:a...
4O!c~
lOW~.
101...
10IL
..if~....iIII
"10
. 80
10 80
.a"
.ooe .ooe.oct .0" .037 .014 .141 ~ j) 11.110 1.1. . I 4.'18DIAMETER OF PAItTlCLE IN MILLII ETEItI
CLAV (PLAlTlC) TO liLT (NON-P~AlTIO)
... .... .1 1001'" .~~ 0
COIILEI
OL.AIWICAT- IVIIII80L
II"ECIFIC GRAVITY
ATTIItIE... LIMITI
LIQUID LIMIT
IItAVEL ,
""D 'liLTTOCLAV 'NOTEI:---- --------- PLASTICITV INDIX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT----------------------------
LAIOUTOItV 'AM~I No. FIELD DDIINATION EXCAVATIOIII No. IW!OTH rr.
43
10
10QIII
40!
- :(%) ~.Cement Proe. Opt., I-
Wt. VoJ.. Dens. Water i(per) (%) . III
6.0 8.0 133.7 8.0 TO&.
8.0 10.5 134.0 8..011010.0 13.0 133.1 7.8
Ave. 133.8 7.9 10
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS AIEV£ ANAl.YAIl.~~, 7HR. TIM£ READINGS U. S. STANDARD SERIEI- .! CLEAR SOUARE OHN/NOS,.1Miil. 15Mlit. 80 MIN. "MIN. 4 MIN. I MIN. ~ 10 -100 -50 "404'30 -.. -4' lilt' lit' t'
,.t' 0
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)
OLAlllflCATION IYM80L
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
GM ATTERSERg LIMITS
LIOUID L.IMIT
PL.ASTICITY INDEX
I CO.SLES
gRAVEL .-5.0,IAND ~,liLT TOCLAY - ,--
NOTEs,_Lit.t.le. _P.a.n.Qche. _..~~!!_~1s__~~~_!. Jll!IA.. -- - --- --
SHRINKAGE L.IMIT
Composite of APPY-360 0-6', -361 0-6', -362 2-8'
LAIDRATORYIAMPLE No. 41 P-X140 FIEL.D DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH lIT.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 5IEV£ & Al.YIIMII.. 7H11. TIM£ READINGS U.I. STANDARDIERI!I. loR IOUARE ~ENIN8Ifi "IN. IIIMlil 80 MIN."MIN. 4 MIN. IMIN. "II 10 -100 -50 -404'30 -.. - ",'
,. ,,' r r r
0
10
80
10
70.ItIiIfI-ItIII¥...&.30
I
~ t.OCII .ooe.OO8 D.. .037 .074 ..It .187JI
.,Il1O I. It .J8 4.,.DIAMETER Of '''''TlCLE IN MILL~ ETERI
CLAY (PLAtTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLAITIO)
t.. lal _I 7U 117!.IC?'I.
OLA...fCATtOIII IYMIOI..
IPECIFIC gRAVITY
~M ATTIRIEM LIMITI
L.IOUID LIMIT
ICOllLEI
'RAVf:L ,-8 ,1A1II0 ,liLT TO CLAY..
""...1Q..
NOTEI:Little -P-al:1ocl1e---_CrJee1l_D~t D~_____---
'LAITICITY INDEX
IHRINKA8E LIMIT
14 fraction of 41P-X140LAlCMTOItY IAM'LE No. 41P-X141 FIELD Dt:II8NATION E)fCAVATIONNo. ne:""H lIT.
44
10
!80
10
~.!IO~IIII
~f...Z"'40
~'""50
10
10
lJl .0De
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS sil V[ ANALYSIS.'" TlM£ READINGS U.S. STANDARDKRIEStle I CLEARSQUAREOPENINGS
..I::.z ~~16. 10- ItMIN. UIN. IMIN. "e 0 -'00 -sO '.oe50 -II 1"1 -4r,;, lilt' I' r rr
I . 0
Gradation Tested
10
50a
'"40!c...
lOW...zOpt. 80'"
Water:(%) 10"
7.27.36.6
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
Froe.Dens.(per)133. 5134.3135.1
8.010.012.0
10.312.715.1
10
10
1001U I~~I 1011.1.031 .074 .14e .117 1).510 1.1t .IR3I 4.'"
DIAMETER OF PARTI!LE IN MILLftl£TERS
CLAY (P~UT'C1 TO SILT (NON-P~UTIC)
... I'".01'.000 .009
C088LES
'RAVEL ~ ..54lAND. "14"
liLT TO CLAY "
r.MCLASSIfICATION SYM80L
SP£CIFIC GRAVITY
ATTERBEItG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT--PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMITNOTEs:Jle.~L:51~ f.l. -~~!!_'- --
---------------------------- Compositeof TP-101, -102, -103, 106, -107, -108LAIOItATORYIAMPLE No. 40U-X22 I'IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH ~.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II EVE A ALY~-~HR...I 1""-
TI.~ READINGS U. S. STANDARDSERIEI~ AR lOUAltE OPENINGI.UIII( 18Mil. IOMIN. ItMIII. 4 MIN. IMIN. .. () -100 -10 -.oe50 .11 I'll . . '... r r rI ..
- -~~- -- ~- 0
Gradation Tested10
10 10
10 10a101
4O!c...
lOW...Z
80101~101
10"
.zif...Z10110~...
"50 Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
Froe.Dens.(per)138.4
Opt.Water
(%).7.3
1 10
9.0 1l.9to 10
-1U 111:1.1 IfD
I.lJ I .ooe .DOII.009 .01' .037 .D74 .148 ., Do11.510 1.1. .s. 4.'"DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILL~ ETERI
CLAY (P~""TlC) TO liLT (NON-P~""TlO)
... 1..1 11.1
COI.LEI
51'RAVEL ~ ..IAIilD. "-r7"liLTTO CLAY
"
GCCLAI.IfICATtOIII I'MBOI..
SPECifiC GRAVITY
ATTIR.IIt. LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT 738NOTEs:R.e.d.Bluf.f - Res. ,,--- PLASTICITY IND£X
SHRINKAGE LIMIT----------------------------
20% from Player's Plantt'p-506 and 50980%LAIOItATOftY IAMPLE No. 40tJ-38 I'T.~""HEXCAVATION No."IELD DESIGNATION
45
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III vr A IAL.YIII..'IIL 7H1l. TIMe; READINGII U.I. ITANDARDKRIEI' CLUR IOUAltE..OI'£NINGIl'!Ibiiii II""l 80- 111M. 4 MIN. IMitt "8 0 .,00 "80 4f4081O -. - . ". I I t' If r
0
Cement (%)Wt. Vol.
10.015.020.025.0
.ooe .008.008 DI' DS7 D7" .149 .!t'1'j) 11'890"" .r
JI 4.'11DIAMETE" OF PARTICLE IN MILL £TE"I
CL:AY(PLASTIC)TO liLT (NON-PLASTIC)
Ql.A...,ICATtOlll IYMIOL
SPECIFIC G"AVITY
ML ATTERIERQ LIMITI
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
252
10.2:14.418.422.2
.u
...
Prac.Dens.(pef)105.2106.0106.0106.4
no
11.1
10Q101
40!
:lOW
Opt . ~
Water 80i(%) 101
18.3 70 IL
17.8IS. 117.5
8.1 7U 'I1;L.I:poIII
ICO.ILEI
'''AVtL .-4),lAND. 2,liLT TOCLAY 95,
10
10
80
80
"T.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE AI AL.'!IJL.11 II!'!. 1H1l. TIM& READINeS u. S. STANDARDHRIEI -~.R IO\IME..OI"ENINGIi1Ib~ IIM'I. 80... ""'. "MIN. IMltt "810 -100 .80 -'10 -. - ,''- ..
0
--NOTEI~JU:QI}H.lb_Jl'!lL --
SH"'NKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOMI'OItY ltLE No. 47P-l FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No.
10
..Ii2~.101i101IL
10
.0~ .0- .OOI.DOt DI' .017 D74 .., II11'890 1.1' I . ...'11DIAMnE" OF ItARTCLE IN MILLI nUl
CLAY(PLASTIC)TO liLT (_-PLASTIOI
OUI...ICATtOII IYMIOL
I"-ECIFIC GRAVITY
ATT.RI.M LIMITI
LIOUID LIMIT
ItLAlTIC'TY INDIII
SHRINKAQIELIMITNOTEI:- ----- - -- -- --------------------------------
U8CIItATOItY I-ItLIE No. FIELD Dlll8NATION UCAVATION No.
46
IIf:I8TH
... 11.1 8.1KID
7U I~.III)
COIIUI
8ItAVtL '"-'0. ..-,liLTTOCLAY -,
"'18TH
10
10Q101
8O!
:801
~.801101
70IL
10
10
"T.
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
16
S ECIFIED C MENT CaNT NT
14
TYPE A)
12
...cIJ\II~~ 10
'"tJ-0..CII
~IIQ..~ 8..J \
~ \ I
~ '\ I
;! \ I
~ 6 L ~ +----
-c(
~I\:
~ ! \ i..J
.
AVERAGE ~ECORD \ I
I
II
.
''\\ I
4 ---1L---~ L J ---
SOIL <R --~13t~-421 TYPE B)
:'- Ii AVERAG1 RECORD C RE
I ---+v-P-£-t-A---Wl-l:--I
I
I
N TE: Loss S AS REPO TED IN EM 2508 10 12 14
I1 -- ----.--
13N-420
2
06
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-
BONNY TEST SECTION47
16
SOIL-CEMENT URABILITY TEST RESULTS16
19.4
14
I
l~~, -
15R-~59) \~I \'
~10+ !
I 15R-X60~ I
c I
~ II
; 8 ~ i
d SPEqIFIED CEMENT
~I
dONTENT; i 1
~ 6 NOTE~_~ T E~LJil;_SJ.LL,IS-+O~u_-:-110
~ AND -Ill $ASED ON A4CUMULATED~ ' ! 15-R-X6Y
WET WEIGHT LOSSES, OTHER: I I
4 SAMPLES ACCUMULAI~JPR'C_u~ J u ---
WEIGHT LO~SES. t,i
I
'" V 15R-111Ii",
'"
12
------
2
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT -percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW1- WET-DRY-
MERRITT DAM48
16
8SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
7
I
l ~--t---
i /BASED pN ESTIMAT D LOSSES PN
!
TESTf DI SCONTI ~UED AT LE S THAN.
12 C CLES '
6
....c01GI~
~ 5-0-0...CGIu
GiC1.
~ 4...J
t SPECIFIED! CEMENT
~ I CONTENTCI:: !.. Iw,. 1
~ 3 ~~ L ~,.-+C . IV) ", IV) ". !0 ..1...J
2III+ ~ ~-
II, I
I II1
AVERtGE RECORD,
ORE !
I 25J-X108---J ---I 25J-14
25J-X1 725J-15 (HIGH
+€MP1I
2SJ-XlSr
06 8 10
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil
~ --~~
\25J- 56
12 14
FREEZE-THAW--2L- WET-DRY-
CHENEY DAM49
16
0SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITYTEST RESULTS
16 18.4
14
12
....c01GI~~ 10
"'0-0..CGIu
~Q.
~ 8-IU>-UN....
I, I
IRECORD C1RE,
II
--+
I
I
I
BOTTOM PROTECTIO
CI::W
~ 6 ~-~V)V)
0-I
4
2
06 8
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil
PPECIFIEDI
I
J~.9JJ-pr-1- ----------
PROTECTION,
--f:~~~:c:::' -
J \---------I ;
I
i
10 12 14
FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-
LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR50
16
6
...J:CJIU
~~5 I"C I- ,0
t..cUuGi 1\Do I \.
V) 4w..JU>-UN....
8SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
\\\ .
I
u_-\ +- n-I
\ !\
I
\\~ ---
i'I'I ",
I,.
7
~w~ 3 ~-~
<II(
V)V)
0..J
2i
18~-X223
1AVER GE
06
-JI
I
SPECIF ED
CEMEN CONTENT--- ~-
1
i"-
:j ""-
RECORDICORE '
I
8 10 12
CEMENT CONTENT -percent by dry weight of soil
14
FREEZE-THAW1- WET-DRY-
GLEN ELDER DAM51
16
+--C01GI~~ 5"-0+-CGI
~GIQ.
~ 4...JU>-UN-
-ur --L
I :
I
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8
7 -~-
~
~ b.IL 3 y--------------~ ~ :~ : \ I
0 ' \Q},
...J I~I \ I
. 2 40M-135:
-\-i- i .'~- ----
40t-42~\: ~'
I \~-i
AVERAGERECORD, --..
T--- ---..- , C-OREII --
AVERA E RECORD ClORE----
CAWKER CITY DI KIE
6
I
I
ii
, I-+~ +
I 
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8
7
6
I
I
i
I
III
IIi
. I ;
--r-.
~ -I--~ -,: I
:I
I
SPElcIFIED CEM~NT Ii
CONTENT
l---l-I i
i
.....c0>CII~
~ 5-g-0...cCIIuQj0..
~ 4..JU>-UN~
I
4~ ! ~w i ~
$ 3 ~---~
I nn_nt-__~~,---
nn- n.- ----
~ ' "-0
I ~..Ji
AVERAGE ~ECORD COR~2 +__n -.-
37Q-~71I
I 37Q- X69 i,
I, II I
+ j ~_.
I iI
1
" " " '-'-...
06 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT -percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW--X- WET-DRY-
51 ARV A 110N DAM53
.....cCIGI~
~ 5""tI-0..
CGIu
GiDo
~ 4..JU>UN-~wt 3-<V)V)
0..J
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8
7
6
I
-JI1
I
! I
ii
I---~I I: I!
I! I
--+---
I
II
2
RECOM ENDED CEME TCONTENT I
II
!
+-,1! !
-- t t-" I i
'":
'"'"
~
I, J ---I , I
"4 .r41P-xO.41 I
I"-..( I
I
,! \
"tI
1--- r------------
41P-~140
1
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTeNT -percent by dry weight of soi I
FREEZE-THAW-X- WET-DRY-
LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM54
16
I !,I
~ II
W I
i
~ 3 L + ---U'--- -- ------
; VS~ECIFIED C MENT
g i CONTENT
2._j_J ~_m__-
II
:
I
tr-4dU-38 !I
i
~------------
i40U-X22i
....:tII
II
~~ 5"-0..CII
~IIQ.
~ 4-'u~u
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8
7
6
I
I
-J~- -j-I I I
i
I iII
'
!
I
'
r +!
i
I
I
I II '
1
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW-X- WET-DRY-
RED BLUFF RESERVOIR55
16
SOil-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8
7
6
i
- J1- - -t--.
Ii!I I I\ I :I I .l I
-+II I
iII ,
- ~- RECOM'MENDED
I ~.
I C
I
ONTENT
i I
CE ENT
....r.01GI~~ 5
"'t:I-0..CGIU
Gia.
~ 4...JU~UN~
1
~----
~ .--
.~~---
0::W
~ 3 ~~ n
~VIVI0...J
2
!
!I
--r r ~-i
a8 12 16 20 24CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-
CONCONULLY DAM56
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
16
14
SPE IFIED CEM NT CONTEN
TYPE A
I
, I I
: I II I i
! 10
i
.
l. J---~
~ !
j
I
I
~ I I I
i8 '-+1...-
~i
0 iI
~ i \I
~
6 -
--~-'~.
---__n___-
: \ I''[;JI
T~~~--~-+---~-~ ---+ ~~- ----
\ i '~13N-422 (TYPE A)
\i
I
--nI--=--~ r-------I -- ~ 13N-421 (TYPE B)
12
4
2
06
No E:8 14
LOSSE AS REPOR ED IN EM- 5010 12
CEMENT CONTENT -percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~
BONNY TEST SECTION57
16
16SOIL-CEMENT URABILITY TEST RESULTS
I
I
~ I;; 10 r +-- !5_149
i I
I
I
3 8I
t-.t I 15R-X&O~~
I
:: : SPEqlFIED
$ 6 f tc-or~T-ENTV) ~ :~ : i~ i, I
SEE NOTE ~N FIGURE 19 I4! i I5~-
x6i---~-- ~---
i
I 15R-11d, !
~-t-15R-lll==>-',
AVERAqE RECORD ORE
19.6
14
12
-~ ""-~
2
06 8 10 12
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRy-1L
MERRITT DAM58
14 16
~ 4..JU>- '. IU . IN . :; i '.1wi'i
$ 3L + ---
onon0..J
8
7
6
.....c01..~
~ 5"'C-0..c..uGiCo
2
1
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
i '. I
I
i . i
I-~--- ~--.
I "./ BASfD ON ESTI I ATED LOSSES ON
! '.
TE~TS DISCONTINUED AT ESSi . THAN 12 CYCLES I
--r-~;---+~-:
I . I: . I
I
SPECI'fIED! CEMENTI CONTENT
~-~---~
AVERAG
~--+
,, ~
--~--, ----
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY---X-
CHENEY DAM59
16
0::W
r 6«V)V) ,0 '~ OTTOM PROTECTION
......cCIGI~
~10~-0....
CGIu
~Q.
~ 8~u>-UN~
SOIL.CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
16
-~~
21.8
14 -~'-
12 ! 1- --L--1-SPE~IFIED CEM~NT CONTENT
i . 'i ;
BOTTOM P~OTECTION SLOPE P OTECTION
r +,
[
-~----
II
~n_! ----RECORD CbRE,
, ~._.
' ~
4 nn nL~ nn- --~--I
I
2i I
RE~~~~~~~~~~
SLO~~----t- -- -
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY~
LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR60
16
~w~ 3 ~--,--~VIVI0...I
..~01
CII~
~ 5~-0..cCII~CIIQ.
~ 4...IU>-UN....
8S2L-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
9.5\\\
7
--J--~L~-~I
'I'
6
\\\1\ i\ i
I\ I :~_-i_d Jv'¥8C-X221
I
' \ I :,
\ I'
II i I,
\ ~i
SPECIFIE CEMENT\ I CaNT NT\ i\ I\ '
n -1 -
!\1\i \I
r \ I
~ ",\ j n ~~
i \ Ii
2
~-~ -.
---------
1i
AVERAGE ~ECORD
", I "-! I "-r t ",---
1
:"-
CORE "-
II
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~
GLEN ELDER DAM61
16
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS8
7
6
I I
I t-i II
II ItI
-- TV'.\ 401_~
:I\ I
\ I
\ I SPECIFI D CEMENTCON ENT
.....c01CII~~ 5-a-0...cCIIuGiQ.
~ 4~ \~ \uN \....
~ . \W I j
~ 3 ~- \ t ---~ I \ I
~40M-135:
\ il~ \1
\I I
---1 J_-i" I
I~~I
---
~ _.~--
2
j
1AVERAGER CORD CO~---
I
DOWNS D KEi
CAWKER ITY DIKE
06 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~DOWNS DIKE 40Y
CAWKER CITY DIKE 40M62
16
8SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
r--~---+
I
I
1-+
I0:: IW i I
~ 3 r~__n t_nn.c(
I :~ 1 Ig :
1"---+ ,, ~ ~--
I ,""" I", /37Q-X7
---: ~
7
6
.....c01GI~~ 5"-0..
CGIu
GiQ.
~ 4..JU>-UN....
2
1
iI
37Q-X69:
37Q-XYO-+----
I
AVER GE RECORD[CORE
I
06 8 10
CEMENT CONTENT -percent by dry weight of soil
JIi
-----
SPECI FI; D CEMENT
CON ENT
--- -----
12 14
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY---X-
51 ARV A110N DAM63
16
......c01III~
~ 5"tJ-0...cIII~IIIQ.
~ 4-IU>-UN~
0::W
~ 3<CInIn0-I
I
I
J.
I I
j~ ~I-~-- -L: I I ': I II
. I
'.'I 'I,
...
~iI I
iI
--+--
IIII
i
t-RECO~~~ND~~-~~~k~-
.
ICONTENT i:
I
II
+ 1 ---IIII. II
41P-~141I
i f--------------~
8
7
6
"2
1
06
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
---~-
-
8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~
LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM64
16
8SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
'JII !i I
I +~--: I II I I
iI
:I
,
- ~~ 1- --~i I
I
I
I
II III ,
7
6
....J:01GI~~ 5
"'tI-0...CGIU
Gia.
~ 4..JU>-UN~
--~
r t - -----
rS~ECIFIED C MENT
i CONTENTI I
II I
I
-r---
i
\-------------
,I
I
0:::W
~ 3<CInIn0..J
2
1
06
~~ ~--
\4oulX38
8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY~
RED BLUFF RESERVOIR65
16
....cCIGI~
~5"'t:I-0..CGIU
CiQ..~4..Ju>-UN-CI::IU
~3~VIVI0..J
SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS8
7
6
I
II
i
-IiII
I
-4-
IIIi
--III
2
I II I
I i
-:-~_~RE
O~6~i~~~EMENT
I I IIIII
I II I I
---T---I I-
I II
I,47P-1
1I
--t----
III
iI
0
8 12 16 20CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil
FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY~
CONCONUllY DAM66
24
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500
3000SPEC FlED CEME T CONTENT
.; 2500Q.,
:r:l-e>zw~
~ 2000w>V)V)
w~Q.~
81500
1000
I
--+
Ii
13N-42~Iii
500
1 N-420
3N-421 (T PE B)
0 1 HOUR OAKING TI E6 8 10 12
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 cm)
BONNY TEST SECTION67
(TYPE A)
14
CURE
250
200
.......NE
~CJI
-"=--:r:I-~ 150w~l-V)
W
~V)V)
w~Q.
~u
100
50
160
7 days
3500
3000
.-2500IIIc..
::cl-e>zw~~2000w>\I)\I)
w~0-~
81500
1000
500
06
Specimen Size
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
-'~ "----~
IFIED CEM NT CONTEN
1 HOUR SOAKING IME.8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
2 X 2 5 X 5 cm)in. ( CURE
BONNY TEST SECTION68
250
200
~NE
~CJI~--::cI-~ 150w~I-\I)w>\I)\I)w~0-~0u
100
50
160
28 days
500---- 15R-111
15R-49~15R X60
06 8 10 12 14
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500
3000
SPECIF ED CEMENT
CO TENT
-;;;2500Q.
::I:l-e>zw0:::1;;2000w>V)V)W0:::~~0u 1500
AVERAGE 0 7-DAY CO STRUCTIONI
CONTRoLjSPECIMENS
:
NOTE: S ECIMENS O~ 15R-110, -Ill, I1000
AND -1l8~3~~ 167 INCHES ~15R-ll8I 15R 110", 'I
~-;t-15R-X6l/-
---15R-X59
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 2.83 in.( 7.2 X 7'4m) CURE days
MERRITT DAM69
16
7
250
200
--...E
~g\
~---::I:l-e>zw0:::l-V)W>V)V)W0:::~~0u
150
100
50
0
.- 2500 ~...Eell~a.. AVE AGE OF 28 DAY CONST UCTION. a>
::z::: ~...,
~C NTROL SPE IMENS :I:C)~z C)
150w z0=: W~2000 0=:
~ILlNOTE: S ECIMENS 0 15R-110, -Ill,
V)> wV)
AND -118 2.83 x 5 67 INCHES~V)w V)
V)0=: WQ.
0=:::e Q.
81500 ~u100
AVERAGE R CORD CORE/
1000 /~15R III
15R- 59~/-50/'
/'15R-X6./
500./
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 250
3000
SPECI lED CEMEN
C NTENT
200
06 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 2.83 in. (7.2 X 7.2 cm) CURE 28 days
MERRITT DAM70
3500 ----r
250
3000
SPEC FlED CEME T 200
ONTENT
.- 2500 --NEIII
~Co, QI
~:I: --~:I:C)
~'Z C)150w
'Z~w~2000~~w
25J-156 2.83 x 5. 7 INCHESV)
> wV)~V)w SPECIM NS, NOT S AKED)L-
V)V)~WQ.
~:::E Q.
8 1500 - I
~AVERAG OF 7-DAY~CONSTRUCT :N I u 100I
CONT OL SPECIM NS I1000 ..---1
I
t---
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
500
25J-X108
50
06
1 HOU SOAKING IME.8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 em) CURE 7 days
CHENEY DAM71
3000Sp CIFIED CEtENT
200CONTENT
~.-25~O NE
'"~CoCI
..ot:J: '-'.... :J:C)25J- 56 (2.83 5.67 INC ES / ....
z / C)150w / z
~SP CIMENS, N T SOAKED) / w!;;2000 ~....w V)
> wV) >V)
AVERA E OF 28-D YV)w CONSTRU TION V)~WQ.
~~CONROL SPECI ENS Q.
81500
~AVERAE RECORD ~ORE
u 100
1000
50
500
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 250
06
1 H UR SOAKIN TIME.8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 cm) CURE 28 days
CHENEY DAM72
iAVERA E RECORD
50CORE SLOPEPROT CTION
AVERAGE 0 CONSTRUC ION CONTR LSPECIMEN , BOTTOM ROTECTION28-DAY
0 7-DAY0
6 8 10 12 14 16
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500
SPECIFIED CEMENT CO TENT
3000 BOTTOM
PROTEC ION
SLOPE
PROTE TION
.;;;2500a..
:r:::...~zWD:::
~ 2000w>ii)V)WD:::0..~
8 1500
24 HOURS SOA ING TIMEI
AVERAGE OF CONSTR CTION CONIROLSPECIM NS, SLOPE PROTECTIOli
39U-X16
1000CURE~, -
"---
250
200
~...Eu
'-...CJI..¥--:r:::...~zWD:::...V)w>V)V)WD:::0..
~U
150
100
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in.(7.2 X 14.cfJ.,) CURE days
LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR73
3000
SPECIFIED CEMENT200
CONTE T
.- 2500......N
EVI~Do
CJ\
::c ...>o!
~... ::cC) ...z C)150w z011: W
~2000 011:...W V)>
NUMB RS IN PAR NTHESES A E TESTw
V)~V)w
RES LTS ON 2- X 2-INCHV)
PECIMENS. V)011: WQ..
011:~Q..8 1500
~u100
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 250
500
(499)1000
/'/'
/'/'
/'
AVERAGE F 7-DAYCONSTRU TIONCONTROL SPECIMENS
50-
06 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2 x14.4cm) CURE 7 days
GLEN ELDER DAM74
3000SPECIFIED CEMENT
200CONTE T
.- 2500--NE
'" UQ. "-en:c~~I-
:cC) I-Z C) 150w zCI::ARE TEST w
~2000 IN PAREN HESES CI::I-w
ON 2- XV)
> -INCH SPECIMENS wV) I 8C-X223~V)w V)
V)CI:: WD.. CI::
~AVERAGE D..8 1500 RECORD CORE
~././ I u 100
(785) ././~8C-X224./ ,
I
1000I
-+AVERAGE OIF 28-DAY
CONSTRUCfrIONCONTROL ~PEC)MENS 50
500
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 -------.-250
0 4-HOUR S AKING TI E6 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~cm) CURE 28 days
GLEN ELDER DAM75
3500 --------._---~--- -_._--~~- 250
3000 -]SPECIFIED CEMENT
200CONTE T
.- 2500 ~....EIII
~Q.DI
:r: ~.......... :r:C) ...z C)
150w z0=: W!;; 2000 0=:...W V)> wV)
>V)V)w V)
0=: W~0=::I:
~8 1500
~40M-13f
u 100
1000
50
500
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
0 24-HOUR OAKING TI E6 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2x 14.4cm) CURE
DOWNS DIKE 40YCAWKER CITY DIKE 40M
76
7 days
~";;;2500N
EQ.
~en...10:
::z::~I-
::z::C) I-Z C)150w zD::: W
!;; 2000 D:::
/tI-
w V)
> wV) AVERAG RECORD C RE~V)w
V)V)
D::: WQ./// a-40M~_134
D:::~Q.
8 1500 ~/ ~' u 100?- 40Y-41
IF 28-DAY
1000CONTROLI SPECIMENS
ICAWKER ITY DIKE 50DOWNS D KE
500
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 ~ -~---250
SPECIFIED CEMENT
CONTE T
3000200
0 24-HOUR OAKING TI E6 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.6Z-in. ~cm)
DOWNS DIKE 40MCAWKER CITY DIKE 40M
77
CURE 28 days
SPECIFIED CEMENT 200CONTE T
~";;; 2500 NE
A.~,C\
::c~~::cC)
~% C)150IU %
1:11: IU
~2000 DI:~IU \I)
> IU\I)~\I)
\I)IU
Nu\I)
1:11: ERS IN PA ENTHESES RE TEST IUa.. DI:::fRES LTS ON 2- X 2-INCH
a..81500 PECIMENS
~u100
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
250
1000Av RAGE OF 7 DAY CONST UCTION
C NTROL SPE IMENS
(1018-- - --- 50
500
4-HOUR0
6 8 10 12 14 160
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. cl.2x 14.4cm) CURE 7 days
STARVATION DAM78
3000
SPECIFIED CEMENT 200
CONTE T
.- 2500 --NEIII
~Co, QI
:z:~~...:z:C) ...z C) 150w zOIl: w
~2000 OIl:...W V)>
IN PA ENTHESES RE TESTw
V)~V)w
ON 2- X 2-INCH PECIMENS.V)V)
OIl: WQ..
I
OIl::i: Q..8 1500 I
~AVE AGE OF 28~DAY CONSTRUCTION I u 100
CON ROL SPEC I ENS 37Q-X~0 (1227)(11891) ----
1000 --7Q-X71
50
500
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 250
0 4-HOUR S AKING TIM6 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. J.2x 14.4cm) CURE 28 days
STARVATION DAM79
.- 2500 ~N
EIII~a.CI
..ot:J: '-'I- :J:C)RECOM ENDED CEM NT I-z C)
150w za:CONT NT w
~2000 a:I-w en
> Wen~en enW ena: wQ. a::::i Q.8 1500
~/4-41P-Xl 1
I u 100II
/' I1000 /'
-+-;' i/'
/'/'
/' 50/'/'
500
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 250
3000
200
06
4-HOUR OAKING TI E8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in.l.2x14.4cm) CURE 7 days
LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM80
--.-2500 NE
'" REc MMENDED C MENT~Q.
I:n%: ~--I- C NTENT %:C) I-Z C) 150w z
~w~2000 ~I-
W I/)
> win~I/)w I/)
I/)
~41P- 141 wQ.~~Q.
81500 ~0I u 100I./ I./ 41P- 140./ I/'
/' I/'
100 -t--iI
I
50
500
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500250
3000200
0 4-HOUR OAKING TI E6 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
SpeeimenSize 2.83 X 5.67 in.l.2 X 14.4 em) CURE 28 days
LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM81
~.-2500 NE1/1
~DoCJI
X -¥--I- SPECIFIED CEMENT xto:) I-Z to:)150w CONTE T zDI: W
!;; 2000 DI:I-w V)
> wV)~V)
V)w V)DI: WQ.. DI::2! Q..
8 1500 ~u100
II
1000 40U-X22I
50lY-4 U-38
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 250
3000
200
06
24-HOUR SOAKING TIME8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight
SpeCimenSize~in. (~cm) CURE 7 days
RED BLUFF RESERVOIR82
.- 250......C'OE
1/1
SPECIFIE CEMENT~GoU'
:z:CONTE H~... :z:C) ...:z C) 150w :z01: w
~200 01:...
W en> wen~en enw enOl: wQ. 01:
~Q.
8 150 ~u100
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
350
300
250
200
500
024-HOUR OAKING TI E
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~cm) 28CURE
RED BLUFFRESERVOJR83
50
0
days
SOll.CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500
3000
.- 2500IIICI.
I ~REC MMENDED C MENT'/ CONTENT:J:...C)
zwa:::;; 2000w>V)V)
wa::~~8 1500
:J:...C)zwa::...V)~>-V)- V)wa::~
~u
1000II
7-DAr CURE
500
024-HOUR SOAKING T ME
8 12 16 20CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in.c7.2x14.4cm) CURE
CONCONULLY DAM84
24
250
200
--...E
~DI~--
150
100
50
0
days
.- 2500--NECII uCo '-... at
::r: -"...,.... ::r:C) ....z C)
150w zell:: W~2000 ell::
I
....w
90-AY7/
,
V)
> wV)~V)
w2-HOUR DELAY
V)
PRIORV)
ell::
/ 28- AYfr.w
~TO FORMING 011:
~~8
1500 SPECIMENS~u 100
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 .-' ~--~ -~---~~ 250
3000
200
500
I l:::..I
./ I
-DAY ).-./"
---;~ r--------
./"
1000
50
PROJECT LABORATOR DATA
6% FINES100 105
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
SpecimenSize 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2X14.4cm)
0 0
CURE days
CHENEY DAM85
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 ---_.-
3000
.- 2500..a..:z::l-e>%w~!;; 2000w>enV)
w~Q.2:8 1500
'"
. I
28-DA~-'-D0
1000
I
I
r ~
II
I
7-DAy~~A~~ I
"..,.,,
500
PROJEC LABORATO Y DATA
7% FINES
90 95 100 105PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
Specimen Size 2.83 )( 5.6L-in. cl 2..xl!lJl cm)
0
CURE
CHENEY DAM86
250
200
........C'OE
~~
~...,:z::l-e>%w~l-V)w>enV)w~Q.
!u
150
100
50
0
days
.- 2500 -NEell~a., en..¥:r: --I- :r:C) I-Z ~C) 150w za:: w
~2000 '" a::I-
w I/)
> ' wI/) ./~I/)w 0
I/)I/)
a::
28-DAY /'" wCL. a::~CL.
8 1500 ~0 u 100
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 ------ 250
3000
200
500
I
~--L---4~-Q~Y
I
1~-1000
50
0
PROJECT LABORATOR DATA
8% FINES
90 95 100 105PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
2.83 x 5.67 in. c7 .2 X 14.4 cm)
0
Specimen Size CURE days
CHENEY DAM87
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500.
'
,
---~--
300
.- 2500ena..
:z:I-~ZW0:::!;; 2000w>V)V)W0:::Q.::(
8 1500 ,
/--- ~ L~____-
cD
1000
--------.-..
I
I
128-DA:
Ii
j7-DAY
Jt/1,/ :
./ I ---~-./ 3 ',/ - DAY
500
15R-l 2, STOCKP LE
DURI G CONSTRU TION
095 100 105
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~lbm) CURE
MERRITT DAM88
250
200
--NEu
"-g\~--:z:I-~ZW0:::l-V)W~V)V)W0:::Q.
~U
150
100
50
0
days
._._n~__.__-~.- -_.- ----~-- ----
I
--
I
-~
I
---1~/1
J~tDAY:> /iI
.....----[ -~0 I - I--/-1:. ~<7~~--i'r'ft~--,-- ~-:--
i --
6:" ~//,- - - -~ 28-DAYD-
I--[-' __-4 7-DAYA -- t ---
L - ---- -~
C 211 X 2/1SF ECIMENS
I I 18C-X2~ 3
3500
3000
.- 2500titQ.
:ct-e,:)%1&.10=:~ 20001&.1
>V)V)
1&.1
0=:Q.:JE
81500
1000
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
500
02% DRY OPT 2% WET 95 100 105
WATER CONTi PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5 j 67 in. V~cm) CURE
GLEN ELDER DAM89
250
200
......NE
~goo~......:ct-~ 1501&.10=:t-V)1&.1>V)V)1&.10=:Q.~u 100
50
0
days
.- 2500 ~N
E1/1~Q.. 0>:z:~I- :z:C) I-Z C)
150w za:: PTIMUM WA ER CONTEN w!;;2000 a::I-w \I)
> w\I)~\I)
\I)w \I)a:: wCL a::~CL
81500~28-tAY
I u 100
I~I/O
I '01000
-~- - L-I
---------~7-~ /75? - -' I -
I
.
J~7-DAtY/ 50
5003-DAY
SPE IMENS PLA ED AT 98% PROCTOR A DM ISTURE CO TENTS SHO N
0 14, CEMENT B DRY WEIG T, 15R-110
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 ~ ~-- ----- --------250
3000
200
MOISTURE CONTENT- %
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. ( 7.2 X 14. ~m) CURE days
MERRITT DAM90
3500
3000
";;j 2500Go.
:cI-~ZIU~
~ 2000IU
>;;;V)IU~Q.:i
81500
1000
500
SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
----- -----
S ECIMENS P ACED AT 9 % PROCTOR AND
MOISTURE ONTENTS SOWN
2% CEMENT BY DRY WE GHT, 25J- 56
8 10 12MOISTURE CONTENT- %
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2x14.4cm)
.~/ '
~
-f_L-
-
°q
CURE
CHENEY DAM91
250
200
.-..t'<Eu'd...M-.-:cI-~ 150IU~l-V)IU>;;;V)IU~Q.~u
100
50
140
days
SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
3500 ~---- -~-~ -~-~-~-
.....
~3000
.....
II
~'
.......
.- 2500IIIc.
::cl-e>%wa:!;;2000w>01)01)
wa:CL~8 1500
28- AY
SPECIM~N PLACEDAT ~8% ROCTORAFTER 2 HOUR
~ 7tDAY--,--
I -I
---~ 1---_._-----_.--
31DAY
500SPECI ENS PLACE AT
0 ROCTOR
00
PROJECT LABORAt<>R DATA
7% FINES
1.0 1.5TIME DELAY- HOUR
2.83 X 5.67 in. (~cm)
0.5 2.0
Specimen Size CURE
CHENEY DAM92
250
200
.......N
Eu
"'-C\~~
::cl-e>%wa:I-01)W~01)01)wa:CL
~U
150
100
50
0
days
SOIL-CEMENTCOMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS4000
3500 ~-- -----250
3000 ----
200
.- 2500IIIQ.
--NE
~IJI
-'t--.
::c~C)zw~
~2000w>\i;V)
w~
~ 4~-- -I -- 90-DA~
81500 --Ll[b-- - - --,----- ~DA' I
I -- I
I ~1000 --- ~--~~L ~ I
"{L7-DA\
I
L---
~t
)-DAY
::c~~ 150w~~V)
w>V)V)
w~Q..
~u 100
---
50(
500,,)
0
PROJECT LABORATOR~ DATA
]6% FINES
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 00
TIME DELAY - HOUR
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. ( 7.2 X 14.2cm) CURE days
CHENEY DAM93
Reporting 'tardage No.of Percent Variation Av 7-day Av 28-dayperiod placed accepted Proc dens from opt comp str romp strending (cu yd) tests (av) (av-percent) (psi) (psi)
Merritt Dam-DC-5462
11-26-63 30,000 83 102.0 0.2 dry 1,410 1,88412-26-63 16,000 34 102.5 0.5 dry 1,239 1,646
Weighted averages 102.1 0.3 dry 1,360 1,815
Cheney Dam-DC-5744
4-30-64 14,200 45 99.8 0.2 dry 1,010 1,3305-31-64 14,900 40 98.2 0.3 dry 1,090 1,3406-30-64 23,400 57 98.6 0.3 dry 1,085 1,4157-31-64 30,800 88 98.5 0.2 dry 1,175 1,3958-31-64 33,900 84 98.7 0.4 dry 1,205 1,5309-30-64 43,300 99 99.2 0.5 dry 1,360 1,705
10-31-64 18,000 23 98.6 0.4 dry 1,425 1,680
Weighted averages 98.8 0.3 dry 1,199 1,497
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir-DC-6000
10-30-66 5,100 17 98.9 0.3 dry 954 1,24911-25-66 21 ,000 53 100.2 0.3 dry 830 1,14612-27-66 *21,000 45 100.2 0.7 dry 508 692
1-13-67 * 500 1 102.8 0.6 dry 669 5891-13-67 5,400 11 101.1 0.2 dry 671 901
Weighted averages 100.0 0.3 dry 834 1,134
Down~ Dike-DC-6405
9-26-67 11 ,330 26 98.3 0.5 dry 827 1,36810-26-67 38,405 85 99.0 0.1 dry 675 1,06211-26-67 19,076 46 100.6 0.3 dry 836 1,355
Weighted averages 99.4 0.2 dry 748 1,201
CONSTRUCTION CONTROL RESULTS
*Bottom lining with 7.0 percent cement, not included in the averages.
94
CONSTRUCTION CONTRO L RESULTS-Continued
Reporting Yardage No. of Percent Variation Av 7-day Av 28-dayperiod placed accepted Proc dens from opt comp str comp strending (cu yd) tests (av) (av-percent) (psi) (psi)
Glen Elder Dam-DC-6147
9-26-67 16,179 57 100.6 0.6 dry 918 1,19110-26-67 33,070 88 101.5 1.0 dry 975 1,24511-26-67 21,276 33 102.7 1.3 dry 949 1,387
4-26-68 21,091 47 100.7 0.8 dry 1,029 1,1655-26-68 31,702 71 100.8 0.4 dry 847 9866-26-68 31,196 78 100.4 0.8 dry 648 8787-26-68 28,142 72 100.1 0.4 dry 849 1,0268-26-68 9,337 21 98.6 0.9 dry 650 874
Weighted averages 100.8 0.7 dry 854 1,071
Cawker City Dike-DC-6548
8-26-68 9,886 22 100.4 0.5 dry 788 1,0099-26-68 27,043 58 99.7 0.7 dry 897 1,200
10-26-68 30,512 66 100.2 0.3 dry 896 1,17811-25-68 6,599 17 100.4 0.3 dry 987 1,3674-26-69 7,803 22 99.6 0.2 dry 1,085 1,4685-26-69 20,072 40 98.9 0.3 dry 1,113 1,5316-11-69 8,678 21 98.8 0.2 dry 1,097 1,447
Weighted averages 99.7 0.4 dry 962 1,287
Merritt Dam Modifications-DC-6654
11-14-68 13,440 38 100.0 1.0 dry 1,006 1,556
Starvation Dam-DC-6488
8-26-69 9,394 24 99.7 1.3 dry 895 1,0609-26-69 70,272 143 97.8 1.7 dry 640 880
Weighted averages 98.1 1.6 dry 769 905
95
MERRITT DAMSoil-cement Record 'Cores
Core Elevation CompressiveNo. Station (top of hole) Percent loss strength (psi)
Wet-dry Tests
3 21+70.2 2884.9 0.34 22+02.1 2876.1 0.25 27+73.6 2919.0 0.27 22+76.0 2931.7 0.79 3+77.9 2880.5 0.3
10 4+27.5 2902.0 0.512 15+00.0 2950.0 1.713 20+00.0 2950.0 0.715 20+69.0 2899.3 0.616 25+00.0 2926.5 1.617 30+00.0 2951.6 1.4
Average = 0.7 percent
Freeze-thaw Tests
3 21+702 2884.9 0.54 22+02.1 2876.1 0.56 26+14.2 2943.7 0.5
11 5+89.1 2912.8 1.09 3+77.9 2880.5 0.4
13 20+00.0 2950.0 0.815 20+69.0 2899.3 1.816 25+00.0 2926.5 0.9
Average = 0.8 percent
Unconfined Compression Tests
2-1 26+00.0 2927.8 1,3332-2 26+00.0 2927.8 9033 21+70.2 2884.9 9675 27+73.6 2919.0 6097 22+76.0 2931.7 1,236
10-1 4+27.5 2902.0 1,07710-2 4+27.5 2902.0 80512 15+00.0 2950.0 86014-1 23+50.0 2948.0 1,04614-2 23+50.0 2948.0 1,15816-1 25+00.0 2926.5 1,00616-2 25+00.0 2926.5 90317 30+00.0 2951.6 1,057
Average = 930 psi
1,815 psiAverage of 28-day construction control strength specimens
96
LaboratorySample Hole Station Elevation Percent lossNo. 25J- No. (top of hole)
178B 3 109+70.1 1400 0.7178C 3 109+70.1 1400 0.5181B 6 101+62.9 1424.1 0.9183F 8H 99+66.4 1425.5 0.8184D 9H 94+88.2 1417.9 1.4185C 10 88+31.5 1400 0.7187D 12 88+52.5 1444.6 0.8188B 13 8Ot94.6 1400 0.6191C 16H 68+62.9 1415.3 0.7192A 17 65+84.4 1400 0.5198B 23 49+88.4 1400 1.4200B 25 49+75.7 1444.5 0.5209B 34H 116+00 1423 0.7
Average = 0.8 percent
176B 1 119+89.9 1425.9 1.5177C 2 119+90.1 1445.8 0.5182B 7 101+67.7 1445.1 0.8184E 9H 94+88.2 1417.9 0.9185D 10 88+31.5 1400 0.8187A 12 88+52.5 1444.6 1.2187B 12 88+52.5 1444.6 0.8188C 13 8Ot94.6 1400 0.6188D 13 8Ot94.6 1400 0.8191B 16H 68+62.9 1415.3 1.5194B 19 65+86.8 1444.5 0.8198D 23 49+88.4 1400 1.5200D 25 49+75.7 1444.5 0.6
Average = 0.9 percent
CHENEY DAMSoil-cement Record Cores
Wet-dry Tests
Freeze-thaw Tests
Note: H indicates area placed during high temperature (approximately 1000 F).
97
LaboratorySample Hole Station Elevation CompressiveNo. 25J- No. (top of hole) strength (psi)
176D 1 119+89.9 1425.9 883177D 2 119+90.1 1445.8 888179C 4 110+01.1 1445.0 1,668180B 5 101+61.1 1400 1,018181B 6 101+62.9 1424.1 1,393182C 7 101+67.7 1445.1 1,245183C 8H 99+66.4 1425.5 733183G 8H 99+66.4 1425.5 1,481186C 11 88+53.1 1424.8 866186E 11 88+53.1 1424.8 1,215187E 12 88+52.5 1444.6 1,358189B 14 80+92.1 1422.2 828190C 15 80+90.6 1438.7 1,589192C 17 65+84.4 1400 1,142193D 18 65+86.1 1424.4 1,364194C 19 65+86.8 1444.5 1,256198C 23 49+88.4 1400 888199D 24 49+81.0 1423.8 839200C 25 49+75.7 1444.5 1,373204D 29 41 +04.4 1444.1 2,033204E 29 41+04.4 1444.1 J,808209C 34H 116+00 1423 ~,599209D 34H 116+00 1423 1,086
Average = 1,241 psi
Average of 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,497 psi
CHENEY DAMSoil-cement Record Cores
Note: H indicates area placed during high temperature (approximately 1000 F).
98
Laboratory CompressiveSample Hole Station Elevation Percent strengthNo. 39U- No. (top of hole) loss (psi)
Wet-dry Tests
21 A-3 6+50 3270.6 1.526 A-1-A 6+50 3278.6 1.430 C-2 26+00 3275.6 0.834 0-1 37+25 3281 .6 2.835 E-3 43+00 3272.6 0.842 #2 25+50 (288 ft Rt) 3264.3 * 6.3
Average (slope) = 1.5
Freeze- thaw Tests
24 A-3-A 6+50 3270.6 2.328 B-2 14+30 3274.2 4.230 C-2 26+00 3275.6 4.733 0-2 37+25 3276.6 6.838 E-3-A 42+90 3272.8 4.339 E-2-A 42+90 3280.9 3.441 #1 39+90 (152 ft Rt) 3264.3 *14.0
Average (slope) = 4.3
Unconfined Compression Tests
24 A-3-A 6+50 3270.6 70026 A-1-A 6+50 3278.6 73629 C-3 26+00 3270.6 68931 C-1 26+00 3280.6 67033 0-2 37+25 3276.6 88138 E-3-A 42+90 3272.8 86439 E-2-A 42+90 3280.9 936
Average = 782
Average of 52- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,134
LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIRSoil-cement Record Cores
*Bottom lining
99
Laboratory Depth CompressiveSample Hole Station Elevation of core Percent strength
No. 18C- No. (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)
Wet-dry Tests
424 5 119+00 1438.9 0 to 0.6 0.9426 12 72+00 1454.7 2.0 to 2.6 0.5429 23 52+00 1484.6 1.3 to 1.7 0.5431 32 65+00 1500.2 0.9 to 1.5 0.6432 33 72+00 1470.1 1.6 to 2.2 0.8433 37 81+00 1485.1 2.2 to 2.8 0.9434 39 91+00 1470.1 0.0 to 0.7 0.4436 46 105+50 1447.8 0.5 to 1.2 0.3439 53 111+00 1500.8 0.5 to 1.1 0.8441 57 119+00 1485.3 0.0 to 0.6 1.3442 61 131+00 1448.0 1.4 to 1.9 0.4
Average = 0.7
Freeze-thaw Tests
426 12 72+00 1454.7 0.0 to 0.6 1.8426 12 72+00 1454.7 2.8 to 3.4 1.2429 23 52+00 1484.6 0.6 to 1.3 0.9430 25 58+00 1455.2 1.1 to 1.8 0.5432 33 72+00 1470.1 1.1 to 1.6 0.8433 37 81+00 1485.1 1.5 to 2.2 0.5434 39 91+00 1470.1 0.7 to 1.2 0.6437 47 105+50 1470.6 1.8 to 2.4 0.7438 50 111+00 1448.6 0.0 to 0.6 0.6439 53 111+00 1500.8 1.1 to 1.8 0.9441 57 119+00 1485.3 1.1 to 1.7 0.5
Average = 0.8
Unconfined Compression Tests
425 9 100+50I
1441 .0 1.1 to 1.6 1,4 71
Average of 176 tests performed on record cores by project laboratory 1,4 78Average of 427- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,071
Depth of Shear strength (psi)bonded layer At bonded About 1-1/2 inches About 1-1/2 inches
(feet) layer above bond below bond
1.3 205 254 2311.9 115 226 116
GLEN ELDER DAM
Soil-cement Record Cores
Direct Shear Tests on Bonded Layers
DH-5, Station 119+00, Elevation 1438.9 (top of hole)
100
Laboratory Hole Depth CompressiveSample No. Station Elevation of core Percent strengthNo.40Y- DH- (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)
Wet-dry Tests
53 4 100+00 1472.3 1.2 to 1.7 1.255 13 75+35 1498.0 1.1 to 1.6 0.656 15 60+50 1482.7 1.9 to 2.4 0.6
Average = 0.8
Freeze-thaw Tests
53 4 100+00 1472.3 1.7 to 2.2 1.954 12 75+35 1483.3 1.7 to 2.2 1.557 20 43+00 1498.0 1.2 to 1.7 1.3
I
Average = 1.6
Unconfined Compression Tests
55 13 75+35 1498.0 2.3 to 2.8 1,75256 15 60+50 1482.7 1.3 to 1.9 1,39157 20 43+00 1498.0 0.1 to 0.6 1,049
Average = 1,397
Average of 86 tests performed on record cores by project laboratory 1,665Average of 110- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,201
Laboratory Hole Depth CompressiveSample No. Station Elevation of core Percent strengthNo.40M- DH- (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)
Wet-dry Tests
150 5 55+25 1471.1 1.2 to 1.7 0.6151 9 46+35 1486.0 1.1 to 1.6 0.5153 16 17+06 1486.0 0.6 to 1.1 0.6154 21 36+00 1500.1 0.8 to 1.4 0.3155 25 68+00 1470.0 1.9 to 2.4 0.4157 36 100+00 1485.0 1.9t02.5 0.3
Average = 0.5
Freeze-thaw Tests
150 5 55+25 1471.1 0.6 to 1.2 0.9151 9 46+35 1486.0 0.5 to 1.1 0.8152 13 26+08 1464.0 1.7t02.2 0.6153 16 17+06 1486.0 1.1 to 1.6 0.7155 25 68+00 1470.0 0.4 to 0.9 0.6157 36 100+00 1485.0 0.5 to 1.2 0.8
AveraQe = 0.7Average of 125 tests performed on record cores by project laboratory 1,493Average of 244- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,287
DOWNS DIKESoil-cement Record Cores
CAWKER CITY DI KESoil-cement Record Cores
101
Laboratory Hole Depth CompressiveSample No. Station Elevation of core Percent strengthNo. 370- DH- (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)
Wet-dry Tests
115 1 15+00 5625 1.8 to 2.3 0.6119 5 15+00 5705 1.4 to 2.0 0.6121 7 20+00 5645 2.1 to 2.6 0.5122 8 20+00 5665 1.8 to 2.6 1.1123 9 20+00 5685 1.9 to 2.5 1.0126 12 25+00 5645 0.5 to 1.0 0.8127 13 25+00 5665 1.6 to 2.2 0.8129 15 25+00 5706 0.6 to 1.2 I 0.7
Average = 0.8
Freeze-thaw Tests
117 3 15+00 5665 1.9 to 2.4 1.3118 4 15+00 5685 0.9 to 1.5 2.5119 5 15+00 5705 2.0 to 2.5 2.9120 6 20+00 5625 2.4 to 3.0 1.1121 7 20+00 5645 0.5 to 1.0 2.5126 12 25+00 5645 2.2 to 2.8 1.3127 13 25+00 5665 0.2 to 0.7 3.7129 15 25+00 5706 1.2 to 1.7 3.0
Average = 2.3
Unconfined Compression Tests
116 2 15+00 5641 1.1 to 1.7 817116 2 15+00 5641 1.7 to 2.3 774117 3 15+00 5665 2.4 to 3.0 780118 4 15+00 5685 2.1 to 2.7 777121 7 20+00 5645 2.6 to 3.2 821122 8 20+00 5665 1.3 to 1.8 761123 9 20+00 5685 1.4 to 1.9 733124 10 20+00 5705 1.5 to 2.1 814124 10 20+00 5705 2.1 to 2.7 752125 11 25+00 5625 0.9 to 1.5 782125 11 25+00 5625 1.5t02.2 780126 12 25+00 5645 1.0 to 1.6 726127 13 25+00 5665 2.2 to 2.9 753128 14 25+00 5685 1.4 to 1.9 590128 14 25+00 5685 1.9 to 2.5 682129 15 25+00 5706 2.2 to 2.9 741
Average = 755
Average of 28-day construction control strength specimens 905
STARVATION DAMSoil-cement Record Cores
102
Laboratory Depth Shear strength (psi)Sample Hole Station Elevation of core At Above Below
No. 370- No. (top of hole) (feet) bond bond bond
118 4 15+00 5685 1.5 94 226 201120 6 20+00 5625 1.2 139 130 181120 6 20+00 5625 1.8 137 181 242122 8 20+00 5665 1.0 52 174 184125 11 25+00 5625 3.4 * 264 211127 13 25+00 5665 1.5 54 215 216
Direct Shear Tests on Bonded Layers
*Specimen broke on bonded layer before test.
103
LOCATION TIM EDRIYDe~i~~~~t;;~~f~~ I
WATER CONTENT CEMENT CONTENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSOURCE OF SOIL METHOD OF Proctor Test ('YG) (Ib_persq In,)
OF
"II II, E-24, E-251 6
YARDAGE MATERIAL CLASSIFI- COMPACT IONf---;;nTEST TEST CATION MINUS ~1 ~@
~z FILL DRY
DENS'T'Ic~;1 FILL WATER I
:1,
CALIBRATION
I
~REPRESENTED SYMBOL NO 200 a
'I>FROM PLANT
NO (UNifiED , ~SH-SHEEPS FOOT a ~~t: ~-- --~_..
-CONTENT VARIAT-~5Y (BORROW AREA, CLASSIFI-
~:'J"
~~~"LABOR- RATIO ~I ILA80R- ION i: ~~~Ii: :I ~>~a RT-RUBBER TIRED oc
..-ATORY FILL DRY
-
I ATORV FROM~'DT;J;USISTANOAR DEN. TOTOTAL;
M'NUS OPTIMUMOPT'MUM
STATION FIELD DENSITY REQUIRED CATION DES"
z 4(~OTE IISYSTEM) E-68 ~". > g ~~4 3~~ 3~~1~~~ aOFFSET TEST NOOFPASSES 0 "0
"
I ,:,EXCAVATIONETC,}
6g I z > 0
>~-
~~MATERIAL, NO.4 IMAXIMUMLAB. MAX MATERIAL, NO.4 i (wo) I(w -w)
~~~~~~i~.~COORDINATES DES ROLLER NOS ~g a a
"
(p,cO ; (p ct,)ID~~_~IJt!DRY(g)EN
'rGi (wI)
I
'YGi 0"1.
! ~NELEV.ETC. E,;3 I
0 I.) i !!:!
1." '
;I % % I G ~(I) ~<.)
1"'" '" '"
,or ,or'n " '
,,, :; jlO} ;;: (II)
'"
(13) (14) I'1~1
(16) 117) 118) (19) I (20) (211(1), (22)(1) (23)
"(2S (26)
11-16-~-~ ~~~f 320 3_277.2
i.,,-'" 10:30 40 30 35 116.Q,n6.0 ;1l8'_8~7'6 12.2 12.3( 12'~loPt. 12.
- ---h-, - - I - - -~"'-2 U+3(L~O'RI' 1l<L 3276.7
"6Sll-4iri:- 12: 50 _n--- 30 35~
1l9'lr9'6iU~'~102.6rn']~2.J~12.3 O'-~
~~-=tt~:~~T~~~~~
Jl-~~-A-3 n+36 43_;M--
310 327_6.7"
,6SH-4RT 12:50 37 I 30 36 116.9116.91116.610().3 11.3 11.8_E,3~0.5D
1l-17-A-l V+50 38 'RL c~~ 480 3279.0 :"..,,-.~ 10:50Jtf15
50g~:~ m:"J :ii~:~iroJ:lHU i~:6 i;~6t~~ -{~:- u_(Z--1
11-17-A~'~ 46+004Q'RJ 490 ._.2.EI,J;_-u- "
6SH-4RT- l]~3() -25 . 30 631 797 - 1477
l-IR-A-l HZ!) . .3B'l\J--~- 32Z8.L II 6~1I-4RT 15:00!45 fl()
~"O 1l~.6.115.611l6.5: 9L2p3.3 113~~, 13.0, Q_.~JoI, H}-
~::::lJ"-tm-W61 -
11-19-A-L- iltOO 3]' R~ 3§0 32113.6_"
6~H-4RT 10:45:~~-~. i 119.5119.51116.9,102.2112.7 12.6jI2.5Q,LW 828 1015 1445 -
~-~2 ~~l!cl--
2§0 3_2Z1.6" ~J!H,4R:r
14:30' 15-125 ! 25
U2,l,;122.4116.9i104.7 12.0 10.4 11.81,4-,) il.(-=:- 13.3 ~~.~-lq-A-'-~ llilJL 12'M --~§~ ~-- :t2I'L1
.f:F.. ~~- 115.7: 115.7117.7 98'~11O~ _2.'Ld2_.2 2.30 r-lLJ! - -~-20-A-l ~~i4+70'-;:,"'; 520 3275.6 iQ,j~ui~_4iTij~ ~~g4J1l6.3100.9 13.5 12.8 13.40.6n 12. 12.4 63i'f 745 'lOSS -
.l~-, 4+00 39'_U 520 3~77.3 14:351 36 I 3~ ~40 1l7.21117.21118.1n.~2112.3r
12.6. 12,5.Q,l~ 12.-
. 12.3 651 893' - 16071-21-A-L ~~Rl 3§0. 3277.8
" 6SH-4RT 116.3~ 116.3!ll6.7 99'UI3.2 L13.0, ~o~t. ft ~~7732 776118S-'-::-_01_A_~ -~
~" --- -- ~6SH-4RT ------1-- :-- .-- --- 1;24- 610 860--=--26+00 34' R~ 3§<L ~79.7
""""~'
+"112.6 112~6i11X:~ lOLl 15~§-:i5.4Tl",6, O.8W
I1_01_A_' ~-!:2L~Jt'R<'- 360
d-
ml.3 I' -------1 ---()_Stl_~_4.RT
~2~1~- iiJ H117.9117.9114.8102.7113.2 12.9' 13.~0.9D 12.
- -
62t-t 7391055 -11."-A-l ,...,n,,' Re 400 _311Q,L__-
--:: I---t-t~~~tgill~~Iii6.2 101.il3.6~ii3:iti2:80.4W 12. 594 724 - -
-LG22-A_? 35""0-U' R~ 4Q<L----~ 3281.8 11 :3M 50 35 3~ 114.8, 114.81114.9r.21~"1--1l'H 13.0.1 .1D
1~ -lli--t ~~~2_.--=--~-A-' 38+75 28 'Re~ -"QQ-- -
~__22/g.~ 14:45' 55 30 33 114.21114.2115.5 98.9 13.2 lL3, 12.9 jJ.~ c-ll.~.~:i 643 763 -,-11-23-A-l _ili-29_-1:t'_Ri 580 3_279. §
"29.1 2.66 6SH-4RT 12:101 50 ,30 35 l!I.~jll7.2116.,,1Q!!.l11.9, 11.91 12.6~,ZD 12 . 12~ 713 797 f153 -i-u-n-A-.L. 4+00 31' Re -.5~--- -~-
3281J..j;~- " I 6SH,4RT 14:j]Jl~()::Eo 35 118,4.118.4 ,1l5.7,102n-3 111111.81 12.4 Q"-~J! ~H --+-765 '800 iU7 --:;u
11- "-A-1 25+00 25'RI 650 3282.3 -
" ~--I-----6SH..~EL 562 623 795~-~ Q'l~~
50.
40 60 114.5114.5116.298"21£.8 13.41 13.1 0.3W 12.
f--u--2->c &L 27_+00-14' Re- __~50_u--1 }282. 8
"'~6SH-4RT 14:15 7IJ
-55 60 115.0115.0 116.2 99.0 13.4 I
13.0r13.5 0.5D 12~q
-r- -~8~~7~---=---
1------- -- - ---- ~I ~-- ,-
L.I~
~~9.6i62Q9:616197.3r~0&616~;~5[~~~~. 6~~~ 15.~..-+~T~
~----~-
----------- I-To ~~!!- ~r 53 tests
-~ f----u_~ -~ .-3__t~sii__- 117:2117.2 '116.-0"100.2 !12.3 12.2r 12-:5 0.30 655 830 140 141'
--_-AY ~IQ.L2 13.3
f--- ~n- C ~j Cm~. f-,- -- '---- E~~---- f---
--------- -- --
I
.~'n. 1- ---
u_--
-- ----- ~-____n____-
-I ~- ~c ~~--
-- -- -1
-~- -~---- ---- ---- ----- --
I~- -~j j
~~~-
--~---- -- - - -~ - -
r---- ---+I-- --- - ~--
__n
l~1-=='
--~ f---- - --
-~ -.-
--
---~----- -- - -- -
. ..... ~~~----- ---- - -- - -
-.
----~- -----~
-f-~
_.~~
--- -~-- -
,---1c~ --~ -~-
- -
-- ----_.._-~
---t 1
--- ---- -------._~-
-~---
--_-Cn ..
---~~-
------- --.T--
~--
~--- f----+-+--~~
--- ----------- - -- ----~..
~+.. ~- ~I ~.. -~-
- -- - ~-- - .--+- - --
7-1737
~~;:~~1 or""C~."~TION SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LASaRA roRY TESTS OF COMPACTED SOIL - CEMENT
TOTAL CU- YDS. SOil-CEMENT PLACED THIS PERIOD: PROJECT___--------
FACING24,761 (pay Estimate 10-26 to 11-26) FEATURE--
SPECIFICATIONS NO.---
~--
OTHER_-
PERIOD or REPORT: FROM___19-=-~l 11-25 DATE OF REPORT: MONTH_- YEAR-~TO
....
0.j::o
*~~~;';O~~~~r re-working NOTE I~~~IS~Uf~/I~~~~~~~~ ~~E~YsD;rN~IJ:s:sE:;; S~~~~IIRED
whicheverjsqreoter
NOTE 2
*
9 to dencte t,me completed
H Columns iC.I'ond 12'0
denote elapsed
time fro~, piant-mix time,,\
Refers to Manll~l-- 1st Edit-i~n
Note 4: All soil from CaprockSand and Gravel Companypit.
(17)(18)(20)
Note 3: Offset refers to distance"'.-('OTTtcenterl ioe ofr'omoact.~d embankment.
WaterContent as spreadWater Content af'~er compaction
variation from of)thm.tm after com'P8ction
$heeT_of-
7-1750 (3-71)Bureau of Reclamation
CONVERSION FACTORS-BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
The following conversion factors adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation are those published by the AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM Metric Practice Guide, E 380-68) except that additional factors (*)commonly used in the 8ureau have been added. Further discussion of definitions of quantities and units is given inthe ASTM Metric Practice Guide.
The metric units and conversion factors adopted by the ASTM are based on the "International System of Units"(designated SI for Systeme International. d'Unites), fixed by the International Committee for Weights andMeasures; this system is also known as the Giorgi or MKSA (meter-kilogram (mass)-second-ampere) system. Thissystem has been adopted by the International Organization for Standardization in ISO Recommendation R-31.
The metric technical unit of force is the kilogram-force; this is the force which, when applied to a body having amass of 1 kg, givesit an accelerationof 9.80665 m/sec/sec, the standard accelerationof free fall toward the earth'scenter for sea level at 45 deg latitude. The metric unit of force in SI units is the newton (N), which is defined asthat force which, when applied to a body having a mass of 1 kg, gives it an acceleration of 1 m/sec/sec. These unitsmust be distinguished from the (inconstant) local weight of a body having a mass of 1 kg, that is, the weight of abody is that force with which a body is attracted to the earth and is equal to the mass of a body multiplied by theacceleration due to gravity. However, because it is general practice to use "pound" rather than the technicallycorrect term "pound-force," the term "kilogram" (or derived mass unit) has been used in this guide instead of"kilogram-force" in expressing the conversion factors for forces. The newton unit of force will find increasing use,and is essential in SI units.
Where approximate or nominal English units are used to express a value or range of values, the converted metricunits in parentheses are also approximate or nominal. Where precise English units are used, the converted metricunits are expressed as equally significant values.
Table I
QUANTITIES AND UNITS OF SPACE
Multiply By To obtain
LENGTH
Mil ......Inches. . .Inches. . . .FeetFeet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .YardsMiles (statute)
Miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
""".
25.4 (exactly)"""""""
, Micron25.4 (exactly)
"""""Millimeters
2.54 (exactly)* . . . . . . . . . . . .. Centimeters30.48 (exactly) , Centimeters
0.3048 (exactly) *""""""""'"
Meters0.0003048 (exactly) * . . . . . . . .. Kilometers0.9144 (exactly)
"""". . . . . . Meters
1,609.344(exactly)* ...""'
, Meters1.609344 (exactly) . . . . . . . .. Kilometers
., .
.
AREA
Square inchesSquare feet.Square feet. .Square yards. . . . . . . . . . .Acres.. .. ..Acres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acres.. .. .. .. .. ..Square miles. . . . . . . . . . .
6.4516 (exactly) ...,....*929.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.092903""""""'"0.836127 ....
*0.40469 . . . . . .*4,046.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*0.00404692.58999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Square centimetersSquare centimeters
Squ are meters. Square meters. . .. Hectares
Square metersSquare kilometersSquare kilometers
VOLUME
Cubicinches. . . . . . . . . . .Cubicfeet. . . . . . . .Cubicyards. . . . . . . . . . . .
16.3871 . . . .0.0283168 ....0.764555 .. . . .
. . . . . . ."
CubiccentimetersCubic meters
. . . . . . . .. Cubic meters
CAPACITY
Fluid ounces (U.S.)""'"Fluid ounces (U.S.) .,.....
Liquid pints (U.S.) . . . . . . . .Liquid pints (U.S.) . . . . . . . .Quarts (U .S.) ,.....Quarts (U.S.) . . . . . . .Gallons (U.S.)Gallons (U.S.)Gallons (U.S.)Gallons (U.S.) . . . . . . .Gallons (U.K.)
"""""Gallons (U.K.) ,.....Cubic feet. . . . . . . . . . . . .Cubic yards. . . . . . . . . . . .Acre-feet. . . . . . . .Acre-feet . . . . . . .
., .
29.5737. . . . . . . . . . , . .. Cubic centimeters29.5729 . . Milliliters0.473179 . . Cubicdecimeters0.473166
""""""""""""
Liters*946.358
""',. Cubic centimeters
*0.946331 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Liters*3,785.43 . . . . . . . . . . Cubic centimeters
3.78543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubicdecimeters3.78533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Liters
"0.00378543 . . .. Cubic meters4.54609. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubicdecimeters4.54596 . . . . . . . . . . Liters
28.3160 . . . . . . . . . Liters*764.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Liters
"1,233.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."
Cubic meters*1,233,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Liters
Table II
QUANTITIES AND UNITS OF MECHANICS
Multiply To obtainBy
MASS
Grains (1/7,000 Ibl"""'"Troy ounces (480 grains) ., . . . .
Ounces (avdp)
"""""Pounds (avdp)
""""""Short tons (2,000 Ib)""""Short tons (2,000 Ib)""""Long tons (2,240 Ib) ........
64.79B91(exactly)"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milligrams31.1035
""""""""""""""""Grams
2B.3495""""""""""""""""
Grams0.45359237(exactly). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kilograms
907.1 B5""""""""""'"
. Kilograms0.9071B5 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Metric tons
1,016.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms
FORCE/AREA
Pounds per square inchPounds per square inchPounds per square footPounds per square foot. . . .
0.070307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms per square centimeter0.689476 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newtons per SQuare centimeter4.88243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms per square meter
47.BB03 ,. Newtons per square meter
MASSIVOLUME (DENSITY)
Ounces per cubic inch. . . . . . . .Poundsper cubic foot. . . . . . . .Pounds per cubic foot. . . . . . . .Tons (long) per cubic yard. . . . .
1.72999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grams per cubic centimeter16.0185
"""""""""'"
Kilograms per cubic meter0.0160185 """" Grams per cubic centimeter1.32894 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grams per cubic centimeter
MASS/CAPACITY
Ounces per gallon (U.S.)Ounces per gallon (U.K.)Pounds per gallon (U.S.)Pounds per gallon (U.K.)
7.4B93""""""""""""'"
Grams per liter6.2362
""""""""""""'"Grams per liter
119.829""""""""""""""
Grams per liter99.779
."""".""".""".""Grams per liter
BENDING MOMENT OR TORQUE
Inch-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . .Inch-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . .Foot-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . .Foot-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . .Foot-poundsperinch. . . . . . . .Ounce-inches.. . . . . . . . . . . .
0.011521 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Meter-kilograms1.12985 x 106 . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . Centimeter-dynes0.138255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Meter-kilograms1.355B2x 107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centimeter-dynes5.4431 Centimeter-kilograms per centimeter
72.008""""""
Gram-centimeters
VELOCITY
Feet per second."
.."
.."Feet per second. . . . . . . . . . .
Feet per year . . . ."
.. .. . . .Miles per hour. . . . . . . . . . . .Miles per hour. . . . . . . . . . . .
30.48 (exactly)"""""""""
Centimeters per second0.3048 (exactly)*
""""""""'"Meters persecond
*0.965873 x 10'-6""""""'"
Centimeters per second1.609344 (exactly) , Kilometers per hour0.44704 (exactly)
""""""""'"Meters per second
ACCELERA TION*
Feet per second2 . . . . . . . . . . . *0.3048 , Meters per second2
FLOW
Cubic feet per second(second-feet) . . . . .
Cubic feet per minute. . . . . .Gallons (U.SJ per minute. . . . . .
*0.028317 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic meters per second0.4719
"""""""""""""Liters per second
0.06309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Liters per second
FORCE*
Pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*0.453592 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms*4.4482
",,""""""""""""'"Newtons
*4.44B2x 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dynes
Table II-Continued
Multiply 8y
WORK AND ENERGY*
To obtain
British thermal units (Btu) .....Britishthermal units (Btu)
"'"Btu per poundFoot-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . .
*0.252"""""""",."""""
Kilogram calories1,055.06 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Joules
2.326 (exactly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joules per gram
*1.35582 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Joules
POWER
Horsepower. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8tu per hour. . . . . . . . . . . . .Foot.pounds per second
745.700 , Watts0.293071.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watts1.35582. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watts
HEAT TRANSFER--
1.442""""'"
Milliwatts/cm degree CBtu in.lhr ft2 degree F (k,
thermal conductivity) . .Btu in.lhr ft2 degree F (k,thermal conductivity) . . . . . . .
Btu ft/hr ft2 degree F . . . . . . . .Btu/hr ft2 degree F (C,
thermal conductance)Btu/hr ft2 degree F (C,
thermal conductance)DegreeF hr ft2/Btu (R,
thermal resistance)""""8tu/lb degree F (c, heat capacity) .
Btu/lb degree F""""Ft2/hr (thermal diffusivity)
Ft2/hr (thermal diffusivity)
0.1240 . . . . . . . Kg cal/hr m degree C*1.4880
",,"""""""'"Kg cal m/hr m2 degree C
0.568"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milliwattslcm2 degree C
4.882 , Kg cal/hr m2 degree C
1.761 , Degree C cm2/milliwatt4.1B68 , J/g degree C
*1.000""""",,"""""""
Cal/gram degree C
*~:~~~O: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .cm~~';':,~
WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION
Grains/hr ft2 (water vapor)transmission) . . . . . . .
Perms (permeance) .Perm-inches (permeability) . . . . .
16.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Grams/24 hr m20.659
""""". . . . . . . . . .. Metricperms
1.67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metricperm-centimeters
Table III
OTHER QUANTITIES AND UNITS
Multiply By To obtain
Cubic feet per square foot per day (seepage)""Pound-seconds per square foot (viscosity) . . . . . .
Square feet per second (viscosity) - .Fahrenheit degrees(change)* . . . . . . . . . . . . .Voltsper mil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lumensper squarefoot (foot-candles) . . . . . . - .Ohm-circular mils per foot. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Millicuriesper cubicfoot
,"""""" - .Milliampsper square foot. . . . . . . . . . . . .
- .Gallonspersquareyard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poundsper inch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*304.8 ...,. Litersper square meter per day*4.8824 , Kilogram second per square meter*0.092903 . . . . . . . . . .. Square meters per second5/9 exactly. . .. Celsius or Kelvin degrees (change) *0.03937 Kilovolts per millimeter
10.764 . . . . . . . . . . ."
Lumenspersquaremeter0.001662 . . . . .. Ohm-squaremillimetersper meter
*35.3147,"""""
Millicuriespercubicmeter*10.7639 ,. Milliampsper squaremeter*4.527219 . . . . . . . Literspersquare meter
*0.17858""""'"
Kilograms per centimeter
GPO 839-978
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................I : ~......................................
ABSTRACT
A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection ispresented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureaustructures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, constructioncontrol testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successfulperformance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used asthe basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limitsestablished by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau havebeen fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented- The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in acontinuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a
combination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edgeof the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken atmost features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has beengenerally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on CheneyDam in Kansas. Has 17 references.
ABSTRACT
A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection ispresented - Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureaustructures- Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, constructioncontrol testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successfulperformance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used asthe basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limitsestablished by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau havebeen fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented. The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in acontinuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with acombination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edgeof the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken atmost features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has beengenerally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on CheneyDam in Kansas. Has 17 references.
ABSTRACT
A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection ispresented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureaustructures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, constructioncontrol testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successfulperformance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used asthe basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limitsestablished by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau havebeen fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented. The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in acontinuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with acombination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edgeof the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken atmost features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has beengenerally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on CheneyDam in Kansas. Has 17 references.
ABSTRACT
A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection ispresented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureaustructures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, constructioncontrol testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successfulperformance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used asthe basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limitsestablished by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau havebeen fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented. The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in acontinuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with acombination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edgeof the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken atmost features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has beengenerally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on CheneyDam in Kansas. Has 17 references.
REC-ERC-71-20DeGroot, GSOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURESBur Recla~ Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 ref, append
REC-ERC-71-20DeGroot, GSOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURESBur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 ref, append
DESCRIPTORS-/ "soil cement/ "slope protection/ "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soilcompaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing/ compaction equipment/performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies/ soil investigations/construction control/ construction equipment/ tests/ "earth dams/ dam construction/durabilityIDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah
DESCR IPTO RS-/ "soil cement/ "slope protection/ "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soilcompaction! freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing! compaction equipment/performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies/ soil investigations/construction control! construction equipment/ tests/ "earth dams/ dam construction/durabilityIDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah
REC-ERC-71-20DeGroot, GSOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURESBur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 re' append
REC-ERC-71-20DeGroot, GSOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURESBur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 ref, append
DESCRIPTORS-/ "soil c,ment/ "slope protection/ "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soilcompaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests! mixing/ compaction equipment/performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies/ soil investigations/construction control/ construction equ ipment/ tests! "earth dams/ dam construction/durabilityIDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah
DESCRIPTORS-/ "soil cement/ "slope protection! "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soilcompaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing! compaction equipment/performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies! soil investigations/construction control/ construction equipment/ tests/ "earth dams/ dam construction/durabilityIDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah