You are on page 1of 30

R. L.

Mokwa

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 SOIL PARAMETERS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The focus of the laboratory testing program was to develop soil parameters that will be used to perform analyses of the full-scale lateral load tests. The laboratory tests included soil classification, unit weight, strength (UU, CU, and CD triaxial tests), and consolidation. Tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the field test facility (natural soils) and on samples of imported materials that were used as backfill around the piles, pile caps, and bulkhead. Section 5.2 describes the results of tests on the natural soils, which consist of clayey and silty sands. Test results for the two backfill soils, crusher run gravel and New castle sand, are described in Section 5.3.

5.2 NATURAL SOILS
5.2.1 Soil Description Test results for samples obtained at different depths are described according to the project benchmark, which was established at an arbitrary elevation of 100.00 feet. The actual elevation of the benchmark is unknown, but judging from the USGS Radford North quadrangle map, it is approximately 1700 feet above mean sea level. The ground surface in the area of the test foundations was relatively flat. The average surface elevation, after stripping the topsoil, was 97.5 ft. The soil conditions at the site, which covers an area about 100 feet by 50 feet, are quite uniform. The soil profile revealed by six borings and two test pits was as follows:

107

R. L. Mokwa

CHAPTER 5

Elevation (ft) 97.5 to 94.0 94.0 to 88.5 88.5 to 84.5 84.5 to 80.5 80.5 to 77.5

Soil Description Brown silty sand and sandy lean clay with fine sands and frequent small roots. Dark brown, moist sandy lean clay with occasional gravel. Brown moist sandy silt with lenses of silty sand. Brown, moist sandy silt and silty sand. Light brown sandy lean clay and sandy silt with trace of gravel.

In general, the soils at the site consist of sandy clay, sandy silt, and silty sand with thin layers of gravel. In accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487), the soils are classified as ML, CL, SC, and CL-ML. Chapter 4 contains a description of the subsurface conditions encountered during the in situ investigation. 5.2.2 Index Properties and Unit Weights Index tests were performed to provide data necessary for classifying the soil and for developing correlations with various soil parameters. The percentage of soil passing the number 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, and natural moisture contents were determined in general accordance with ASTM D1140, D4318, and D2216. Summaries of results from these tests are shown in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1. Moist unit weights of the natural soil were estimated from triaxial and consolidation samples, and sand cone tests that were performed in the near-surface soils in accordance with (ASTM D 1556). Most of the values of unit weight fall between 115 and 125 pcf as shown in Figure 5.1 (d).

108

R. L. Mokwa

CHAPTER 5

5.2.3 Consolidation Tests Three one-dimensional consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435, on specimens trimmed from undisturbed samples. Samples BH-4, ST-4, and BH-4 ST-5 were trimmed conventionally from undisturbed soil samples to represent vertical consolidation properties of the soil. Sample BH-4, SST-3 was trimmed such that it represented horizontal consolidation properties of the soil. The test specimens were loaded at twenty-four hour intervals using a load-increment ratio of one, and they were unloaded at twenty-four hour intervals using a load-increment ratio of four. Stress-strain curves from these tests are included in the Appendix D (Figure D.1), and the test results are summarized in Table 5.2. 5.2.4 Strength Tests A total of 31 triaxial tests were performed on specimens trimmed from undisturbed Shelby tube samples and block samples. Of the 31 triaxial tests, 22 were UU (Unconsolidated-Undrained), 3 were CD (Consolidated-Drained), 3 were CU (Consolidated-Undrained), and 3 were staged CU tests. The UU specimens were tested at their natural moisture content. The CD and CU specimens were saturated by applying back pressure. The CD, CU and 21 of the UU specimens were carved from Shelby tube samples. These specimens were all trimmed to a nominal diameter of 1.4 inches and a nominal height of 3 inches. Ten of the UU specimens were carved from block samples. Four of these were trimmed vertically and the remaining 6 were trimmed horizontally. Seven of the specimens were trimmed to a nominal diameter of 1.4 inches and a nominal height of 3 inches. The other 3 specimens were trimmed vertically to a nominal diameter of 2.8 inches and a nominal height of 5.6 inches. Total stress shear strength parameters. A summary of the UU triaxial results is presented in Table 5.3. Plots of p versus q at failure are shown in Figure 5.2(a) for tests performed on samples obtained at 4 different elevations. The same results are re-plotted

109

and D.2 φ (deg) 38 35 23 28 c (psi) 7.4 There was no discernable difference in undrained behavior between the vertically and horizontally trimmed specimens. Ei does not vary significantly over the range of confining pressures that were used. Stress-strain curves for the 10 UU tests performed on block sample specimens are included in Appendix B. are as follows: Elevation (ft) 96. Consequently.005 for stiff clay and 0.R.2(b).3. The confining pressure for these tests ranged from 0 to 4 psi.8 90.0 6.200 psi was selected for use in the analyses. 110 . Values of ε50.2.0 92. The total stress parameters for the natural soils. The values increase with depth from about 0.’s (1997) recommended ε50 values of 0.4 for the natural soils.020 for soft clay.1(f).5 88. The transformation procedure is shown in Figures D. Ei.025 in the underlying softer soils. determined in this manner. D. were estimated from the triaxial stress strain curves. an average value of Ei = 6. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 in Figure 5. Values of the initial tangent modulus. the strain required to mobilize 50 % of the soil strength.2(b) as a function of q at failure and cell pressure. These are in good agreement with Reese et al. with emphasis on values measured at cell pressures less than 7 psi. or between the small diameter and large diameter specimens.0 4. L. The undrained strength parameters were estimated using the curves and transformation equations shown in Figure 5.005 in the stiff upper crust to 0. were estimated by transforming the stress-strain data using the hyperbolic formulation described by Duncan and Chang (1970).7 4.3(a). The estimated values of Ei are shown in Figure 5. The estimated variation of ε50 with depth is shown in Figure 5.

9 5. L. p′ versus q. the coefficient of curvature is 2.R.3. at failure for the CU and CD tests are shown in Figure 5. The material is produced by processing and screening quartz and limestone rock to produce a well-graded mixture containing 111 . The maximum and minimum densities determined in general accordance with ASTM D4253 and ASTM D4254 are 105 and 87. New Castle sand. About 70 % of the sand passes the No.5.65. Values of φ′ and c′ determined from these tests are as follows: φ′ (deg) lower bound best fit upper bound 27 32 32 c′ (psi) 0 0 4. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Effective stress parameters. determined in general accordance with ASTM D854.5. Virginia.3 BACKFILL SOILS 5. These materials were selected because they are representative of the types of backfill materials often used for pile caps. and the Unified Classification is SP. footings. 40 sieve and less than 1 % passes the No. Crusher run gravel.1 Soil Description and Index Properties Two soil types were used as backfill in the lateral load tests: New Castle sand and crusher run gravel.3 pcf.4 and 5. No variation of effective strength parameters with depth was apparent from the data. Crusher run gravel was obtained from the Sisson and Ryan Stone Quarry. and other buried structures.4. The coefficient of uniformity is 2. Plots of 2 grain size distribution curves are shown in Figure D. located in Shawsville.8. respectively. Plots of effective stress. is 2. 200 sieve.0. Summaries of the CU and CD test results are presented in Tables 5. New Castle sand is a relatively clean. fine sand consisting predominantly of subangular grains of quartz. The specific gravity of solids.

and 5 to 10 % passes the No. and the Unified Classification for the crusher run aggregate ranges between a GWGM and a SW-SM. 4 sieve. the coefficient of curvature is 2. 21B-Subbase and Base Material.8. The maximum and minimum densities determined in general accordance with ASTM D4253 and ASTM D4254 are 105 and 87. The maximum dry unit weight was found to be 107 pcf at an optimum water content of 12 %. 200 sieve classifies as nonplastic silt. Method 1A. The minimum dry densities were determined by pouring soil into the mold using a hand scoop (Method A) and by 112 . The soil passing the No. The dry method. Crusher Run Aggregate. respectively. 40 sieve. CD triaxial tests were performed using crusher run gravel that was scalped on the ½-inch sieve size. The maximum dry densities were determined using the wet method. Plots of 4 grain size distribution curves are shown in Figure D. L.R.5. The material obtained for this project also meets the more stringent gradation requirements of VDOT Road and Bridge Specification Section 208. The gravel is produced to meet the requirements of VDOT Road and Bridge Specification Section 205.3 pcf. Density tests were performed on unscalped and scalped samples to provide a means of correlating field (unscalped) densities with lab (scalped) densities. Moisture-density relationships were determined for the New Castle sand using the modified Proctor procedure (ASTM D1557).6.6. ML. Method 1B. The coefficient of uniformity is 23.2 Standard Density Relationships New Castle sand. Approximately 40 to 50 % of the material passes the No. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 angular to subangular grains that range in size from ¾-inch gravel to silt-size particles. The grain size distribution curve for the scalped gravel is shown in Figure D. 5. 10 to 20 % passes the No.3. This material is referred to as gravel or crusher run gravel in this report. did not yield realistic results because of bulking and segregation of the material during placement into the mold. 200 sieve. as shown in Figure 5. Crusher run gravel.

The line shown in Figure 5.6 Unscalped 147. The results were essentially the same. The differences between the two becomes insignificant at relative densities greater than 60 %.R.053Dru – 6. The first method involved placing New Castle sand into the excavation in a loose condition. a field relative density measurement of 65 % (Dru = 65 %) corresponds to a lab scalped value of Drs = 62 %. Based on these results.3 In-Place Densities Excavated zones around the pile caps and single piles were backfilled using two methods.7 7. This was achieved by end-dumping and shoveling dry sand into the excavation with no additional compaction effort.1 pcf 5. and Dru is the relative density of the unscalped material.5 was developed to correlate density values measured in the field on unscalped material with density values measured in the lab on scalped material. 113 .4 pcf 4.3. For example.4 Equation 5.5 can be represented by the following equation: Drs = 1. The drop height was maintained at a constant level during sand placement. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 filling the mold by extracting a soil filled tube (Method B).1 where Drs is the relative density of the scalped material. Moisture-density relationships were determined for the crusher run gravel using the Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) and the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) methods.9 % Scalped 146. L. The results are as follows: Modified Proctor maximum dry density optimum water content Standard Proctor maximum dry density optimum water content 135. and an average value was used. Figure 5.1 % 5.

114 . L. and medium to soft in consistency. A dryer and thicker lift of backfill (10 to 12 inches deep) was placed on the excavated surface to “bridge” over soft and wet soils. Nuclear density gauge tests were performed after compacting each lift of backfill. Consequently.6. A summary of the average results from the moisture-density tests are shown in Table 5. to account for the lower density soil in the bottom of the excavations.R. Because of intermittent rains during construction. respectively. This method was used to achieve a dense backfill condition for both the New Castle sand and the crusher run gravel. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 The second method involved placing backfill in 8-inch-thick lifts and compacting it with a Wacker “jumping jack” compactor. Sand cone tests were performed to calibrate the nuclear gage for both backfill materials. the initial lift of backfill was less dense than the backfill in the upper lifts.7. The soil water content was maintained near its optimum water content during placement. The statistical distribution of field density results are shown in Figure D. the natural soil at the bottom of the excavations was often wet. Nuclear density gauge and sand cone tests were performed during backfill placement in general accordance with ASTM D3017 and ASTM D1556. These reduced values represent the average density of the backfill in the excavations. The following values were selected for use in subsequent analyses: Backfill compacted sand uncompacted sand compacted gravel γm (pcf) 104 92 134 Dr (%) 60 10 55 The densities were reduced from the values shown in Table 5.6.

70. inside a forming jacket. A suite of tests were performed at relative densities ranging from loose to very dense. 60. which are compacted initially to densities below the target density. which were performed on reconstituted 2. Table 5. Stress-strain curves for the 19 CD tests are shown in Figures D.8-inch-diameter specimens at low confining pressures.8 contains a summary of CD test results for crusher run aggregate samples that were tested at relative densities of 50. The advantages of this procedure is that it uses the same type of compaction energy that was used in the field.4 Strength Tests Shear strength versus relative density relationships for the backfill soils were developed using the results of the CD triaxial tests. and 90 percent. A nearly uniform density is achieved throughout the specimen because compaction of each succeeding layer further densifies the underlying lower layers. with the bottom (first) layer having the lowest density.2 115 .R. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 5. Equation 5. Test specimens were prepared using the method of undercompaction developed by Ladd (1978). and compacting each layer with a small tamper.7 contains a summary of CD test results for New Castle sand samples that were tested at relative densities of 20. and 80 percent. The compaction density of each layer is varied linearly from the bottom to the top.13. The results were normalized using the φo – ∆φ approach (Duncan et al. φ′:  σ '3 φ ' = φ o − ∆φ log  p  a     Equation 5.3. L. and it provides a means of obtaining consistent and repeatable results. Table 5.8 through D. 1980) to account for curvature of the failure envelope caused by changes in the level of confining stress.2 is used to determine the friction angle. with minimal particle segregation. Specimens are prepared to a target relative density by placing soil in layers.

The 3 open symbols in Figure 5.3. 2. 3.3.7(b) for the gravel. The solid symbols represent CD test results. ∆φ is the change in φ′ over one log cycle.6. Straight lines were fit through each set of data points to determine φo and ∆φ values. These values are tabulated in Figure 5. φ′ was plotted on a semi-log scale as a function of the effective confining pressure.7(a) for the sand and Figure 5. Mathematical expressions were developed for calculating φo and ∆φ based on the relative density of the soil. Using these expressions and the relative density values presented in Section 5. These expressions were developed using the following procedure: 1. normalized by atmospheric pressure. σ′3 is the effective confining pressure.R. L. and pa is the atmospheric pressure.6 for New Castle sand and crusher run gravel. Equations representing best fit straight lines were developed for the data as shown in Figure 5. the following estimates of φo and ∆φ were calculated for the backfill materials.7. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 where φo is the friction angle at 1 atmosphere confining pressure. as shown in Figure 5. The φo and ∆φ values were plotted as functions of relative density in Figure 5.6(a) represent the results of CU tests with pore pressure measurements. 116 .

9.10 for New Castle sand and Figures D. Ei values from the transformed stress-strain plots are shown as functions of relative density in Figure 5.2. and silty sand.12. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Backfill compacted sand uncompacted sand compacted gravel Dr (%) 60 10 55 φo (deg) 40. This was done for the backfill soils at depths of 0.9. Values of the initial tangent modulus.3 32.13 for crusher run gravel. 117 . The transformed stress-strain plots are shown in Figures D. and D.300 5. Two types of backfill soils were used: a poorly graded fine sand (New Castle sand) and a well graded silty gravel (crusher run gravel).R.4 SUMMARY The natural soils encountered at the Kentland Farms field test site consisted of sandy silt. The effective cohesion is zero for the backfill soils. sandy clay. and Equation 5.0 ∆φ (deg) 7.1 45. with thin lenses of gravel.5 8.000 5.3 Effective stress friction angles were calculated using these values of φo and ∆φ. Ei. 1.3(b) for New castle sand and Figure 5. the following values of Ei will be used for the backfill soils: Backfill compacted sand uncompacted sand compacted gravel Ei (psi) 9.8 4. and 3 feet. D.11. D. Based on these plots.700 5. L.8.5.75. as shown in Table 5.3(c) for crusher run gravel. were estimated by transforming the stress-strain data using the hyperbolic formulation described by Duncan and Chang (1970). and D.

118 . • Shear strengths parameters for the backfill soils (φ′ and γm) are summarized in Table 5.8. are summarized below: • Distributions of φ. L. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 A laboratory testing program was developed to measure soil properties and to provide a basis for estimating the values of all the parameters that will be used to perform analyses of the full-scale lateral load tests. The results that will be used in the analyses described in Chapter 7. The effective cohesion is zero for the backfill soils. and ε50 are shown in Figure 5.R.3. c. • Values of initial tangent modulus for the natural soil and backfill soils are shown in Figure 5.9. for the natural soils. γm.

0 15.0 – 88.3 31.0 16.9 12. cuttings BH-4.2 28.0 – 90. SS-6 BH-4. SS-2 BH-2.2 – 81.2 24.9 63.0 33.0 38.1 - Plasticity indexc (%) Non-plastic 21.0 17.1 34.0-87.3 21. SS-6 BH-3.4 55.0 81.0 90.3 7.7 81. SS-1 BH-3.5 77.8 9. cuttings BH-2.6 26. 200 (%) Sievea (%) 85.8 22.5 – 86.1 9.5 +/95. L.5 – 85.6 3.2 61.0 87.7 64.9 59. SS-2 BH-3.0 37.8 8.0 - Dry unit weight (pcf) 89.9 9.9 27.9 27.5 77. cuttings BH-4.0 Non-viscous 40.5-83.0 29.5 82. SS-4 BH-4.7 35.6 18. SS-3 BH-2.0 – 75.0 – 75.0 – 80. SS-5 BH-2.0 72.5 92.8 21.0 32.1 10.7 – 86.5 95.3 6. SS-1 BH-2. ST-5 67.5 95.8 21. SS-7 BH-4.9 25. SS-3 BH-3.5 90. SS-1 BH-4.6 - USCSd Moist unit weight (pcf) 111 124 Natural moisturee content (%) 20.9 38.5 – 81.6 9.2 13. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.5 – 91.2 27.5 26. Borehole and sample No.3 22. SS-5 BH-3. Summary of index test results on samples of natural soil.1 10.5 92. SS-6 BH-4.5 39.5 41.5 – 94.0 – 88.8 35.2 73.5 39.2 23.0 –79.3 21.0 – 93.7 3.2 52.0 – 80.R.6 51. Elevation (ft) Finer than Liquid limitb No.7 22.1 1.5 - BH-1.5 86.1. SS-4 BH-2.8 17.5 63.5 90.0 82. ST-3 BH-4.7 68.8 24.4 51.5 87.0 – 93.1 34.2 ML CL CL ML ML SC CL ML ML ML CL CL-ML ML CL CL SC ML - 119 .5 87. SS-4 BH-3.2 83.0 – 85.8 60.6 30.3 63.7 85.

0 26.2 70.7 – 82.3 – 87. ST-3 BH-5.6 30. cuttings BH-5.8 37.6 28.4-100.7 84.5 – 76.2 84.8 68.4 97.4 24.6 21. Borehole and sample No.4 93.7 96. ST-5 BH-5.8 91.6 99-104 BH-5.3 34.6 – 89.4 96.6 91.0 – 95. ST-6 BH-6.6 USCSd Moist unit weight (pcf) 125 115 121-124 115-119 117 106-122 121-125 Natural moisturee content (%) 24.0 68.3 11. Elevation (ft) Finer than Liquid limitb No.0* 21. ST-4 BH-5. SS-1 BH-6.6 25.0 – 95.0 16.0-22.5 94.0* 26.5 97.5-95. L. ST-2 Block 3 78.3 91.6 Plasticity indexc (%) 4.0* 22.6 37.3-94.6 20.3 98.6 Dry unit weight (pcf) 103.0 87.0 ML-CL SC CL ML Notes a Type of sample Cuttings (auger cuttings) SS (split spoon) ST (Shelby tube) Block (hand cut) ASTM D1140 ASTM D 4318 c ASTM D 4318 (PI = LL – PL) d ASTM D 2487 (USCS = Unified Soil Classification System) e ASTM D 2216 b * average moisture content 120 . ST-2 BH-5.R. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.9 .0 – 91.1.5-98.91.8 10.4 21. ST-1 BH-5. 200 (%) a Sieve (%) 61. Concluded.0 – 84.0 23.3 89.9 37.

Sample Elevation (ft) 90.6x10-7 kv=1.8x10-7 kv=1. ST-5 0.5 84.030-0.5 87.030 * Sample BH-5.78 5-10 5-10 5-10 8.13-0.025-0.60 0. 121 .2.17-0.8 0. L.3-16. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.18 0.2x10-6 BH-5.040 0.035 0.14 0.7 6.42 0.17 0.14-0.013-0. ST3 was trimmed horizontal. ST-3* BH-5.R. Summary of consolidation test results on samples of natural soil.5 Po (tsf) Pp (tsf) OCR Cεc Cεr Permeability (cm/sec) Kh=6. ST-4 BH-4.4-12.

5 0.53 8.5 0..0 19. Summary of UU test results on samples of natural soil.5 2 0.21 13.5 24.10 6. vert. 1..52 4. vert. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.0 1. vert.6 95.31 1.2 27. horz.8 17.4 in dia.1 37.3.42 2.36 14. horz.91 1..6 1. 122 .3 0 13... 2.88 4.6 13. Borehole No.93 1.8 in dia. vert.4 in dia #9.87 4.4 in dia. 2.96 5.6 21.. horz.35 2. 1.3 23. 1.67 Failure criterion: maximum deviator stress.9 25.3 71.3 95.4 in dia #8.9 20.0 28. vert. vert.R. #3. 1.43 3.89 BH-5 BH-5 BH-5 Block 3 ST-2 #6 ST-2 #4 ST-2 #3 ST-2 #1 ST-3 #3 ST-3 #6 ST-3 #2 ST-3 #4 ST-4 #3 ST-4 #2 ST-4 #1 ST-4 #4 #2.1 67.3 89.3 1..3 25.4 15.0 12.4 in dia. #10.62 2.0 17.1 27. 1.4 39. 1. #6.6 to 89. #4.4 93.96 2. Sample Elevation (ft) Cell pressure (psi) 5 10 20 30 5 10 20 30 5 10 20 30 3 2 0 4 0 4 2 Strain rate (% / min) pmax (psi) qmax (psi) 20.5 20..57 1.0 45.21 2.4 in dia.1 57.3 33.3 25.9 to 91.62 5.4 20. 1.3 29.3 41.3 14. #5..4 in dia.0 9.5 33.0 53.67 Axial strain at failure (%) 3.35 16.71 4 22.8 in dia Block 1 25.5 0. L.3 to 87.6 13. vert. 2.71 18..6 95.5 91. #7.72 0.8 in dia #11.9 19.0 38.84 3.3 27.0 59.21 95.6 14.2 17.

98 0.1 0.1 0.7 15.6 39. 123 .0 15.3 30.5 88.9 50.08 0.5 84.46 BH-4 BH-5 BH-5 BH-5 BH-5 ST-3 #3 ST-3 #4 ST-3 #5 ST-1 #2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 ST-5 #3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 ST-6 #1 ST-6 #2 ST-6 #5 ST-6 #4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 0.96 15.51 4.8 Axial strain at failure (%) 10.04 5 10.1 0.5 26. L.0 83.03 Strain rate (% / min) 0.55 8. Borehole No.R.07 0.1 0.0 31.07 p’max (psi) 45.97 0.67 20.95 0.9 12.1 0.4.98 0.6 9.5 86.3 22.6 23. Sample Elevation (ft) 89.95 0.9 10.1 14.93 0.93 0.0 10.97 0.1 0.3 21.5 11.33 8.23 14.04 10.10 0.5 - B* Cell pressure (psi) 10 20 30 3.1 13.5 17.1 0.0 96.76 20.76 5. Failure criterion: maximum deviator stress.7 4.6 30.2 5.2 41.6 qmax (psi) 25.5 21.93 - Notes * B = Skempton’s pore pressure coefficient.7 9.3 21.07 0.06 0. Summary of CU test results on samples of natural soil. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.0 88.09 7.0 84.0 20.0 83.1 0.6 15.9 17.07 0.

23 ST-5 #4 BH-5 ST-5 #5 ST-5 #6 85.8 Notes * B = Skempton’s pore pressure coefficient.5. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5. Summary of CD test results on samples of natural soil.0 20.2 68.0 30.6 48.94 0.40 7.0 Strain rate (% / min) 0. L.5 85.8 19.1 84.2 38. Borehole No.010 p’max (psi) qmax (psi) Axial strain at failure (%) 4.94 14.8 0.104 0.6 28. Sample Elevation (ft) B* Cell pressure (psi) 10.96 29.R.060 0.95 0. Failure criterion: maximum deviator stress 124 .

9 γdry (pcf) 128.7 88.7 4.6 γdry (pcf) 134.6. Nuclear gage results Soil type Crusher run gravel (unscalped) Crusher run gravel (scalped) New castle sand (compacted) New castle sand (uncompacted) γm (pcf) 141.4 64.7 104.6 125 .1 104.9 Dr (%) 67. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.5 88. Average results from field moisture-density tests.R. L.4 92.1 wc (%) 4.0 109.5 3.1 99.8 10.6 72.9 Corrected results based on sand cone tests γm (pcf) 134.0 88.

5 1.7 9.5 9.1 3.4 5.5 15.8 5.1 20 20 20 60 60 60 60 80 80 80 2.4 2.2 18.5 6.R.6 26.4 4.0 13.3 3.6 6.2 12. L.5 14. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.7.7 7.1 2.6 p’ (psi) q (psi) Axial strain at failure (%) 4.7 8.0 3.9 11.8 8.9 11.7 23.0 10.0 1.2 1.1 2.8 2. Summary of CD test results on compacted New Castle sand samples.6 5.8 13.4 11.0 4.2 2.4 15.6 7.1 3.3 15.9 21.2 4. Relative density (%) Cell pressure (psi) Maximum deviator stress (psi) 6.1 14.0 4.2 1.5 9.3 126 .4 5.5 5.

7 3.3 11.4 5.8 4.R.2 50 50 50 70 70 70 90 90 90 2.1 3.0 2.9 32. Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5.0 39.9 30.8.1 4.1 4.5 19.5 22. L.0 18.4 28.9 3.8 2. Relative density (%) Cell pressure (psi) Maximum deviator stress (psi) 15.1 9.4 13. Summary of CD test results on compacted crusher run gravel samples.3 16.4 16.2 7.9 34.6 22.7 16.3 21.4 2.8 27.2 127 .8 57.6 25.1 2.9 2.7 1.8 11.7 36.0 9.6 2.3 p’ (psi) q (psi) Axial strain at failure (%) 1.9 15.0 3.9 8.0 45.8 64.

Mokwa CHAPTER 5 Table 5. φ′ (deg) Depth 0.9. Friction angle. Friction angles for New Castle sand and crusher run gravel.R.75 1.5 3 compacted sand γm = 105 pcf 51 49 47 uncompacted sand γm = 92 pcf 39 37 36 compacted gravel γm = 138 pcf 56 53 51 Note: σ  φ ' = φo − ∆φ log 3  p   a σ3 = confining pressure pa = atmospheric pressure (2117 psf) 128 . L.

05 95 Elevation (ft) 90 85 80 distribution used in analyses distribution used in analyses 75 (d) Moist unit weight. Saturation (%) 130 0 20 40 60 80 (c) SPT results.04 0.02 0. Legend for all plots split spoon sample Shelby tube sample block sample sand cone sample Figure 5. (e) Saturation.03 0. Summary of index parameters for natural soils at the test facility. 129 . (f) ε50. Unit weight (pcf) 90 100 100 110 120 (b) Plasticity index.01 0.Water content (%) 100 0 10 20 30 0 Water content (%) 10 20 30 0 10 SPT N-value 20 30 40 50 95 Elevation (ft) 90 85 sandy gravel seam 80 cemented silt layer (refusal) 75 (a) Natural moisture.00 0. ε50 profile 100 0.1.

8 Shelby tube specimen from El.5 88.7 14.sinφ)/cosφ 0 (b) σcell versus qmax.2 25. Figure 5.2 Best fit line for block sample specimens Block sample specimens.5 28.8 30.4 92.0 8.8 58.0 88.0 92.8 35 6.0 57.0 38 7.7 88. σcell (psi) 50 0 10 20 β 30 40 50 Parameters from plot (b) Elev.9 60 transformation equations sinφ = tanα c = d/cosφ α qmax (psi) 40 20 Legend for both plots 0 d Shelby tube specimen from El. 130 .5 32 4. 96.0 31.5 7.0 4. 90.6 5.5 Shelby tube specimen from El.2. El. 92.2 41.4 10 b transformation equations sinφ = tanβ/(1 + tanβ) c = b(1 .0 92.pmax (psi) 80 0 20 40 60 80 Parameter from plot (a) Elev.3 40 qmax (psi) 30 20 Summary of results Elev. φ (deg) c (psi) 96. α (deg) d (psi) 96.5 49.2 28 4. Natural soil strength parameters based on UU triaxial tests.0 11.0 90.0 90. β (deg) b (psi) 96.8 90.0 5. 88.0 3.0 (a) pmax versus qmax.

Figure 5.15000 0 1 Cell Pressure. 131 .3. and crusher run gravel. (psi) 2 3 4 5 Ei (psi) 10000 average Ei = 6200 psi 5000 0 (a) Natural soil. Relative Density (%) 40 60 15000 0 20 80 100 Ei (psi) 10000 5000 Ei = 50Dr + 6500 psi 0 (b) New Castle sand. Initial tangent modulus (Ei) for natural soil. New Castle sand. σcell. Relative Density (%) 15000 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ei (psi) 10000 5000 average Ei = 5300 psi 0 (c) Crusher run gravel.

132 .80 70 Upper Bound o d=4.9 φ=32 Lower Bound o d=0 α=23 o c=0 φ=27 Best Fit o d=0 α=28 c=0 φ=32o 60 50 q (psi) 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 p' (psi) CU test data CD test data best fit line Figure 5.4. Maximum values of p' versus q for CU and CD triaxial tests on natural soil.1 α=28 o c=4.

100 Dr (%) .6. Relative density (Dr) comparison of scalped and unscalped crusher run gravel.Unscalped (Dru) Figure 5. 133 . well graded gravel with nonplastic silt and sand 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Dr (%) .053Dru .Scalped on 1/2-inch sieve (Drs) 80 60 45 line of equal proportions 40 Drs = 1.5.4 o 20 Crusher run gravel 3/4-inch-minus.

φ' (degrees) Crusher Run Gravel Dr = 72 % 60 Dr = 47 % Dr (%) 47 72 93 φo (deg) 42 51 56 ∆φ (deg) 8 9 10 Triaxial Test CD CD CD 40 20 (b) Crusher run gravel.01 0.1 1 Note: Solid symbols represent CD results. 80 Dr = 93 % Angle of internal friction . 0 0. 0 0.80 Angle of internal friction .φ' (degrees) New Castle Sand 60 Dr = 80 % Dr = 60 % Dr = 30 % Dr (%) 20 30 60 80 φo (deg) 34 35 40 44 ∆φ (deg) 5 6 8 9 Triaxial Test CD CU CD CD 40 Dr = 20 % 20 (a) New Castle sand. 134 .01 0. open symbols represent CU results.log scale Figure 5.6.1 1 Effective confining pressure Atmospheric pressure (σ'3/pa) . Effect of density on strength of New Castle sand and crusher run gravel.

Dr (%) 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 12 10 0 20 Dr (%) 40 60 80 100 ∆φ (degrees) φo (degrees) 40 8 6 4 ∆φ = 0.42 0 0 (a.7.∆φlog10(σ'3/pa) where pa = atmospheric pressure σ'3 = effective confining pressure Note: Solid symbols represent CD results.066Dr + 3.305Dr + 28.043Dr + 5. Distribution of φo and ∆φ for New Castle sand and crusher run gravel.21 0 0 (b. Figure 5. Equation 5. 135 .Dr (%) 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 12 10 0 20 Dr (%) 40 60 80 100 ∆φ (degrees) φo (degrees) 40 8 6 4 ∆φ = 0.87 2 20 φo = 0. open symbols represent CU results.96 2 20 φo = 0.) New Castle sand.165Dr + 30.) Crusher run gravel.2 φ' = φo .

8.02 0. 136 .φ (degrees) 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2 c (psi) 4 6 8 10 90 100 γm (pcf) 110 120 130 ε50 0.03 0. (c) Moist unit weight.01 0.04 100 95 95 Elevation (ft) 90 90 85 uncemented sandy silt and sandy clay 80 cemented silt 75 85 80 75 (a) Friction angle. Legend for plots a and b. UU triaxial results from Shelby tube specimens UU triaxial results from Block sample specimens Figure 5. (b) Cohesion. Soil parameter distributions for analytical models.00 0. (d) ε50 profile.