Determination of the acceptability of glacial tills for
earthworks
M.G. Winter
TRL Limited, Redwood House, 66 Spylaw Road, Edinburgh EH10 5BR, UK (e-mail: mwinter@trl.co.uk)
Abstract
arthwork acceptability of glacial tills presents
E some unique engineering challenges. These
largely derive from the inherent variability and
broad particle size range of till materials. This
paper presents the methods now commonly used in
much of the UK, but especially Scotland, for dealing with
glacial tills. The MCV test forms the basis of the approach
and the operation of the test is given in outline form
whereas applications of MCV tests are described in
detail. In particular, details of a method for forecasting the
MCV and predicting the moisture content up to 1 year in
advance are given. However, when the percentage of
larger particles is high and conventional laboratory tests
become inappropriate, alternative means of test are
required. The circumstances in which this may be the
case are detailed and an outline strategy for dealing
with such materials is described. The paper is written in
terms of the UK Specification. In addition, as the Irish
Specification is based on the UK Specification, the infor-
mation should be simply applied in Ireland. However, one
or two issues have arisen that may work against that end.
The basic information given in the paper should also be
applicable to countries with alternative approaches to
the specification of materials for earthworks, albeit with
modification as appropriate. The effects of the intro-
duction of design and build and design, build, finance and
operate forms of procurement on earthworks are also
described, and opportunities for innovative approaches
to waste management in the earthworks environment are
also discussed.
Keywords: compaction, earthworks, laboratory studies, till, waste
management
Glacial tills are found across a significant proportion of
the world (Hambrey 1994) and form probably the most
significant deposit in Great Britain and Ireland. The
Devensian ice sheet, for example, is estimated to have
covered up to 60% of the land area of Great Britain
(Eyles & Dearman 1981), leaving till deposits over much
of this area. As well as being of widespread occurrence,
tills are often described as being amongst the most
difficult to engineer. This is due to the significant
variations in thickness and engineering properties
encountered. Linear structures can traverse many
kilometres of deposits and the spatial variability and
complex groundwater conditions encountered in tills can
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 37, 187–204
significantly complicate both design and construction
(see also Trenter 1999).
The assessment of soil acceptability for earthwork
compaction is important to road construction. Early
techniques were based on either visual recognition of
undesirable soil types or the establishment of an upper
limit of moisture content beyond which the soil was
deemed to be unworkable. This upper limit was set by
reference to the results of two standard soil tests, plastic
limit for cohesive (fine-grained) soils and proctor com-
paction for granular (coarse-grained) soils, the results
being ‘adjusted’ according to simple guidelines and
experience. Although experienced engineers had a fair
degree of success, difficulty was regularly found in
predicting and assessing acceptability. The variability of
glacial tills presents additional challenges to this process.
This paper summarizes research, development and
implementation of methods for the determination of
acceptability for earthworking of glacial tills. In general,
most tills can be tested using the Moisture Condition
Apparatus (MCA). However, limits of use of the MCA
are important and are described. The potential of a
method for forecasting the likely acceptability of earth-
work materials is also described. In addition, the stone
content of tills can render both the MCA and other
laboratory tests inappropriate and this issue is discussed.
The contractual context for earthwork operations is
described in terms of design and build and design, build,
finance and operate, and the scope for value engineer-
ing is highlighted. Opportunities in terms of waste
management are also described.
Principles of compaction
In compaction testing (BS1377: Part 4: BSI 1990), bulk
density and moisture content ideally show a relationship
in which bulk density initially increases until the zero air
voids line is approached, reaches a maximum and then
decreases with increasing moisture content (Fig. 1a).
This is the compaction curve and its apex defines the
maximum bulk density that corresponds to the optimum
moisture content for that soil. Soils compacted at their
optimum moisture content will thus give maximum bulk
density.
An increase in the compactive effort, resulting for
instance from an increase in weight or height of fall of
the compaction rammer, produces a curve that is dis-
placed upwards and to the left. Conversely, a decrease in
compactive effort moves the curve downwards and to
1470-9236/04 $15.00  2004 Geological Society of London
188
Fig. 1. Compaction plots showing (a) the relation between bulk
density and moisture content and (b) the displacement of the
compaction curve with different comparative efforts showing
the convergence line.
the right (Fig. 1b). At moisture contents in excess of
each optimum all such curves converge to form a single
line approximating to between 2% and 5% air voids. The
point at which each compaction curve intersects with
the convergence line therefore relates maximum bulk
density, moisture content and compactive effort. Using
the degree to which air voids have been eliminated as a
measure of the degree of compaction, the convergence
line corresponds to the maximum practical level of
compaction that can be achieved during testing.
The maximum bulk density achieved is related to the
compactive effort applied and does not necessarily
equate to the highest bulk density attainable. In the field,
terms such as ‘maximum bulk density’ and ‘full compac-
tion’ are therefore meaningful only when they relate to
the plant used and the compactive effort applied. Full
compaction is achieved only when the convergence line
WINTER
is reached and soils compacted at low moisture contents
therefore require additional compactive effort to
achieve full compaction compared with soils at moisture
contents close to the optimum.
The compaction test is carried out in undrained
conditions; that is, water is not permitted to escape from
the sample mould. The bulk density increases in each
test with moisture content until the convergence line is
reached. At this point no further increase in bulk density
is possible unless water is allowed to escape, further
compactive effort being absorbed by the incompressible
water creating pore water pressures that dissipate with
time. In drained boundary conditions, as can frequently
occur in construction, the bulk density increases to the
convergence line and then moves upward and to the left
along the convergence line (see Fig. 1b) as water is
forced out. The time taken to final compaction and the
extent to which pore water pressures are developed are a
function of the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Those
soils compacted at very high moisture contents develop
pore water pressures related to the compactive effort
applied and the hydraulic conductivity.
Research (Parsons 1976; Parsons & Boden 1979)
indicates that a relationship exists between maximum
bulk density, moisture content, air voids and compactive
effort for soils. To exploit these points the MCA was
developed by TRL (Fig. 2) and further work extended
its use to granular soils (Matheson & Oliphant 1991).
Using results obtained from the MCA it is possible to
predict the potential acceptability of widely differing
soil types. Matheson & Winter (1997) gave procedures
for MCA testing and detailed guidance developed
from Anon. (1983, 1989). These are intended to
augment those given in BS1377: Part 4 (BSI 1990).
Matheson & Winter included guidance on operator
training, sample preparation, testing and processing of
results for the determination of MCV at the natural
moisture content, MCV after saturation and MCV
calibration lines. Procedures were illustrated using
flowcharts.
A test procedure attempting to simulate the above
conditions must be carried out in controlled or measured
conditions of compactive effort, maximum bulk density
and moisture content in an environment allowing water
to escape from the system if pore pressures develop.
These requirements are satisfied during MCV testing.
The moisture condition value test
The MCV test is a form of strength test in which the
compactive effort for near full compaction (between
2% and 5% air voids) of a sample of soil is determined.
The MCV is used to quantify the compactive effort
and correlates with moisture content, shear strength
and with CBR at the same level of compaction for
remoulded soils. It should be remembered that the prime
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
Fig. 2. The Moisture Condition Apparatus.
purpose of earthworks compaction is to achieve a stable
soil structure with low air voids and, consequently, to
minimize the potential for future water ingress and loss
of strength.
The MCA (Fig. 2) consists of a frame containing
a drop rammer and a mould to hold the sample. Both
the weight of the rammer and the height of fall are
kept constant. Each blow of the rammer is triggered
during the lifting operation. A counter recording the
accumulated blows allows the compactive effort to be
measured.
Three basic parameters define a soil system being
compacted: compactive effort, moisture content and
maximum bulk density. The MCA is designed with these
in mind. The moisture content, calculated as a percent-
age of the dry weight of the sample, remains constant
throughout the test. The compactive effort applied is
measured by counting the number of blows of a rammer
of fixed weight falling from a constant height onto the
sample contained in a mould. The bulk density at any
stage during compaction is equal to the weight of the
189
sample divided by the volume occupied. As the weight is
constant, maximum bulk density will occur at minimum
volume. Full compaction therefore occurs when the
rammer attains maximum penetration into the mould.
To simulate field conditions slots are incorporated into
the base of the mould. The onset of pore water pressure
can thus be judged from the appearance of water at the
base of the mould. This also indicates that the line of
increasing bulk density at constant moisture content
has reached the convergence line. Further reduction in
volume can occur only by a loss of water from the
system. Testing is therefore normally stopped when
water appears at the base of the mould.
The MCV is defined in terms of the effort required to
compact a 1.5 kg sample of soil. Each MCV relates to a
specific moisture content, which can be varied through a
series of tests to give a calibration line typifying the
material. Determination of the MCV on a saturated
sample can provide guidance on whether a calibration
line should be attempted for soils in category (c), as
defined by the limits of use (see below).
190
Fig. 3. Limits of use of the MCA (after Oliphant & Winter 1997; Matheson & Winter 1997) showing typical particle size
distributions tills from Scotland, Northern England and southern Sweden.
Limits of use
A guide to determining whether the MCA test can be
applied can be obtained by considering the proportions
of fines, sand and gravel in the excavated, or ‘as-dug’,
soil (Matheson & Winter 1997; Oliphant & Winter
1997). Three categories can thus be defined (see Fig. 3):
(a) MCA can be used;
(b) MCA cannot be used;
(c) MCA may be useable.
For soils falling into category (c) above then the MCA
may still be useable. A single MCV test performed on
the material in a saturated state can provide further
guidance on whether a calibration line should be at-
tempted. If the result of such a test indicates that there is
a potential for unacceptability then a calibration line
should be attempted. If a calibration line with a clearly
defined section of negative slope and a satisfactory
correlation coefficient is obtained then the MCA can be
used over that specific range of moisture contents.
The limits in Figure 3 are based on a lower limit of
acceptability of MCV = 8.5. Those soils that fall into
category (b) may be considered ‘free-draining’. Such
soils do not therefore have a potential to become
unacceptable, provided that they are placed in free-
draining environments. Although the data presented by
Oliphant & Winter (1997) can be used to develop limits
WINTER
of MCA use based on alternative lower limits of accept-
ability, the effect on the limits of use given in Figure 3
is small. Consequently, it is considered that the limits
presented should be adequate for most, if not all,
purposes.
The MCV test is carried out only on the particles
passing a 20 mm test sieve. The effect of larger particles
(20–37.5 mm) has been studied by Winter et al. (1998). If
an excavated sample contains more than 45–50% of
particles larger than 20 mm then the results of the MCV
test are unrepresentative of the material being used.
In this case, alternative approaches to acceptability
determination are required (see below).
This section explains the basic principles of MCV
testing for soils satisfying categories (a) and (c) above
and with less than 45–50% of particles larger than
20 mm. The basic procedures have been used success-
fully (Matheson & Oliphant 1991) on trunk road
projects since 1983.
MCV testing
No difficulty will be experienced with the majority of
soils, particularly those of a cohesive nature, and charac-
teristic curves (Fig. 4a) can be obtained. However,
problems may arise during the testing of samples having
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS 191

Fig. 4. MCV test curves (a) characteristic; (b) sample with

relatively high moisture content; (c) sample with relatively low
high moisture content.

either relatively low or relatively high moisture contents.

This will be particularly true in the testing of granular
materials, including some glacial tills.
Samples that are of relatively low moisture content
usually produce a plot (Fig. 4b) in which the change in
penetration is uniformly low and the 5 mm line is either
not reached or crossed repeatedly. A total in excess of
256 blows may be necessary to achieve a change in
penetration of less than 5 mm. The test consequently
takes appreciably longer and it is arguable whether
continuing the test to such a high number of blows is
necessary.
Tests on samples of relatively high moisture content
(Fig. 4c) may experience seepage of water from the base
of the mould. Unless the amount of water escaping from
the base of the sample is measured, or an accurate Fig. 5. Determination of MCV: (a) cohesive (fine-grained)
determination of moisture content made prior to testing, materials; and (b) granular (coarse-grained) materials.
it is imperative that testing is stopped when seepage first
occurs. Continuing the test after the seepage point is
behaviour can be expected in samples with a low fines
reached leads to an inappropriate moisture content
content and relatively high hydraulic conductivity.
determination on completion of the test as the system
has been altered by allowing a change in moisture
content to take place and this may affect the results. In Calculation of MCV
particular, the amount of energy required to compact
the soil may be increased radically during the test as the The mechanism involved in the compaction of a
moisture content is lowered by drainage of the sample. cohesive soil is one almost solely involving densification
In this context seepage is differentiated from the in its original state. The original concept of the MCV
occasional spurt of water ejecting from the base slots as test, as introduced by Parsons & Boden (1979) recog-
air escapes from the sample. Warning of the onset of nized this by calculating graphically the MCV from the
seepage can be obtained by observing the condition of steepest straight line on the change in penetration plot to
the rammer as testing progresses. Noticeable liquid give MCVss (Fig. 5a). Any difference from an MCV
(usually in the form of a mud slurry) occurring on the calculated from the ‘best fit’ line MCVbf was minimal
lower face indicates that the saturated state is being and explained as arising from processes other than
reached. The possibility of obtaining a valid MCV on simple densification and which were assumed not to be
such samples depends on the number and value of of importance to normal earthworking on site. Such
the penetration measurements taken before seepage. differences that were observed were assumed to arise
Insufficient points can lead to a 5 mm intersection not only as a result of mould confinement and, as such, were
being achieved or one inaccurately determined. This unique to the test procedure. In any event, MCVss gave
192
a conservative (pessimistic) result favouring rejection of
the soil rather than acceptance. For most cohesive soils
there is effectively no difference between MCVss and
MCVbf (Fig. 5a).
In the case of granular soils (particularly glacial tills)
the situation can be different and substantial differences
between MCVss and MCVbf can occur (Fig. 5b).
Such differences imply that energy is being used up
in processes other than simple densification. Movement
of air and water, and grain rounding and/or crushing
are possibilities. An understanding of the compaction
process actually occurring with any soil and the degree
to which the MCV test simulates this process will be the
deciding factor in whether MCVss will be adequate.
BS 1377: Part 4 (BSI 1990) recognizes these difficulties
by requiring the determination of the MCVss except in
cases where the penetration–blows curve does not form
an idealized relation similar to that shown in Figure 5a.
In such cases the MCVbf should be determined. MCVbf
will, however, give an acceptable result with all soil types
provided the mechanism of compaction is simulated by
the test. Experience, particularly with granular tills,
indicates that MCVbf is the more satisfactory of the
two techniques of calculating MCV and its use is
recommended for all soils.
It is therefore important to realize that, for granular
soils in particular, MCVss and MCVbf may be different.
Consistent use of one method at both ground investi-
gation and contract stages of a project is thus vital.
Similarly, conclusions reached through the use of
MCVss regarding correlations with undrained shear
strength and plant performance (Parsons & Boden 1979;
Parsons & Darley 1982) may not be able to be applied
directly to MCVbf. This applies particularly to granular
material in a relatively dry state. It is important to note
that the MCVbf method has been in exclusive use on
Scottish trunk road projects for around 20 years, since
the MCA was introduced. Accordingly, there is a con-
siderable body of data available for comparative
purposes.
The results of precision tests carried out to determine
MCV repeatability and reproducibility on cohesive and
granular soils are given in Table 1. These tests were
conducted in accordance with British Standard proce-
dures given in BS 5497: Part 1 (BSI 1979). The precision
of the MCV test compares favourably with the data
reported (Sherwood 1970) for tests previously used to
determine acceptability.
Calibration testing
The quality of calibration lines can be linked directly to
the certainty by which individual MCV points are
obtained. Characteristic curves lead to calibration lines
with an excellent degree of correlation. Off-line values
are nearly always the result of poor or suspect test data.
MCVs used in drawing up calibration lines should
WINTER
Table 1. Precision test results.
Soil type Repeatability Reproducibility
Sandy CLAY of 0.5 1.2
intermediate plasticity1
Silty CLAY of very high 0.8 1.6
plasticity2
Well-graded very gravelly 1.5 2.3
SAND1
Well-graded slightly clayey 1.6 2.3
silty gravelly SAND2
1
Matheson & Oliphant (1991).
2
Parsons & Toombs (1987).
Fig. 6. Calibration line determined under different conditions.
therefore be assessed for quality before being accepted.
Attempts to use all test results without regard to validity
can lead to very poor lines.
Until experience is gained, difficulty is often found in
deciding upon a moisture content range to cover the
optimum MCV spread. Samples that are relatively too
wet yield either incorrect MCVs or no MCV at all;
samples that are relatively too dry may yield MCVs
lower than expected. This is particularly true of soils
having a calibration line with a low slope. Reasons for
this have already been described. The solution in most
cases lies in reducing the range and carefully selecting
the moisture content values. The position and slope of
the calibration line determine the range, those with a low
gradient requiring samples prepared over a narrow
range of moisture contents. Experience of similar soil
types is the best guide. Matheson & Winter (1997) and
Winter (2001b), amongst others, have given some typical
test results for glacial tills.
An attempt to calibrate soil tending towards a very
wet state and one tending towards a very dry state are
illustrated in Figure 6. In the former, the number of
points obtained is insufficient for good calibration. In
the latter, two lines are apparent. That with a positive
slope results from the relatively low MCVs. Positive
slopes of this nature are referred to as the ‘ineffective’
part of the calibration line, and are at least in part due to
the complex relationship between interparticular friction
and moisture content.
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
Fig. 7. Typical calibration line.
Testing of free-draining soils, usually uniformly
graded sands and gravels, will give most trouble. In
contract terminology they are classed as ‘all weather’
materials, which will not develop excess pore water
pressures during compaction. Calibration of such soils
should not be attempted. A simple method of recogniz-
ing such soils is to use the MCV test on a sample in a
saturated state (see Matheson & Winter 1997, for further
details of the test).
Except for the determination of intercept it is import-
ant not to extrapolate calibration lines beyond
established limits. Such extrapolation can hide the effect
of high hydraulic conductivity and the existence of
an ineffective part to the line. The characteristics
of calibration lines as described above are shown
diagrammatically in Figure 7.
Application of MCV tests
Application to specifications
The work presented herein is set within the context
of the UK Specification for Highway Works and
associated Notes for Guidance (Manual of Contract
Documents for Highways Works, MCHW 2003a, b).
The National Roads Authority (NRA) of Ireland
Specification for Highways Works and associated Notes
for Guidance for earthworks (NRA 2000a, b) are essen-
tially similar to, and apparently based upon, the UK
Specification (MCHW 2003a, b) and MCA testing ought
to be easily applied. However, one or two issues have
arisen that may work against that end (Winter 2001a).
In the Irish Specification, neither moisture content nor
MCV are allowed as material properties for acceptabil-
ity for granular general fill Classes 1A and 1B. Table 6/2,
which gives the allowable grading envelopes of the
materials classes, operates on the basis of the material
smaller than 125 mm (unlike MCHW 2003a, which gives
193
the full grading). Although there is some change to the
grading envelope of Class 1A at the coarse end to
account for this, that of Class 1B remains unchanged.
These envelopes have been shown in the UK to contain
materials that do not drain freely. It is thus not entirely
clear how it is to be ensured that such materials are
placed in an acceptable condition.
Guidance on MCVs of granular materials required to
achieve certain levels of air voids is retained (NRA
2000b; NG 612). If it were not for this fact it might be
concluded that the intention was to prevent the use of
the MCV with granular general fill materials.
As in the MCHW equivalent documents, Clauses 632
and NG 632 of NRA (2000a) and NRA (2000b), respect-
ively, give the main information on the use of the MCA.
The NRA (2000a) additionally requires that MCVs shall
be determined as the average of two tests from the same
riffled sample. The MCHW documents have additional
clauses (632SO in MCHW 2003a, and NG 623SO in
MCHW 2003b) for use in Scotland. These were specifi-
cally generated from work on glacial tills (much of
which is referred to in this paper) and are intended to
assist in the use of such materials in earthworks. These
clauses are omitted fromNRA (2000a, b). These would
be a useful addition, or substitute, to future revisions.
The basic information given should also be applicable
to countries with alternative approaches to the
specification of materials for earthworks, albeit with
modification as appropriate.
Ground investigation
The objective of using the MCA at the ground investi-
gation stage is to allow recognition of those soils likely
to cause problems during construction and to prepare
calibration lines for later use. The existence of a calibra-
tion line for the soil type considerably speeds up deter-
mination of unacceptability immediately prior to and
during earthworking. Testing should be carried out on
194 WINTER
Fig. 8. Plot of MCV calibration line slope versus intercept for some southern Scotland and northern England tills (from Winter
2001b).
each major variety of soil likely to prove problematical
in terms of acceptability. Calibration lines should be
drawn up for each soil type. Samples taken for testing
must be representative. Bulk samples formed by combin-
ing smaller samples may not reflect either the true
properties of the components or the performance of the
material during earthworking.
To define a calibration line the intercept on the
moisture content axis, the slope and the limits of the line
(including any ineffective part) are required. The higher
the intercept the greater the potential of the soil to retain
water in a state of very low compaction. The lower the
slope of the line the more sensitive the soil is to moisture
content changes. This forms the basis of a useful classi-
fication for earthworking purposes and clearly allows
differentiation of those soils particularly sensitive to
moisture content changes. It is suggested that this infor-
mation is vital to efficient earthworking. A slope–
intercept plot should be made from all calibration lines
obtained. This will allow easy differentiation of the
relative sensitivity of soils to moisture content change.
An example of such a plot, including a grouping of the
soil types according to sensitivity, is given in Figure 8.
This allows the most problematical soils (those with the
highest sensitivity) to be recognized.
The low sensitivity of many ‘plastic’ glacial tills is
usually taken to be indicative of the nature of the fines.
Often these comprise rock flour rather than genuine clay
minerals. This also means that tills usually plot on or
about the T-line (Boulton & Paul 1976), which can be a
significant aid to their recognition (Fig. 9).
Early recognition of ‘all weather’ soils is important.
Attempted calibration testing of free-draining material is
not recommended. Increasing hydraulic conductivity
restricts the low end of the range of MCV values
obtained during calibration. A free-draining ‘all
weather’ material is one in which MCVs below the
specified limit for the contract cannot be obtained
during testing no matter how much water is added to the
sample during preparation. If an MCV equal to or
greater than the specified limit is obtained then the
hydraulic conductivity of the material is such that pore
water pressures are dissipating quickly and that no loss
in shear strength is experienced during compaction. It is
suggested that a test in a saturated state be carried out
on all granular soils before calibration is attempted. It is
important to note that materials classified and treated as
‘free-draining’ must be used in environments that allow
water to drain freely.
MCV limits
That calibration lines are obtained on all soil types with
a potential acceptability problem is of vital importance if
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
Fig. 9. Plasticity chart showing data for some UK and Swedish glacial tills. Non-till data is shown for comparison.
on-site testing of acceptability is envisaged during con-
struction. The presence of an ineffective part to the
calibration line can make the interpretation erroneous if
its presence is not realized, as a single MCV value could
have two possible moisture content equivalents.
Recommendations should be made in the ground
investigation interpretative report regarding the lower
and upper limit(s) of MCV for acceptability in the
contract. It is important when setting these figures to be
realistic and to allow the maximum use of on-site
materials as well as taking into consideration the type of
plant a competent contractor could be expected to use.
Estimates of the quantities of acceptable and unaccept-
able materials will of course depend on the accuracy
of the MCVs at natural moisture content and the
variations occurring between ground investigation and
contract working. Seasonal, climatic, local and other
possible variations in weather and moisture content
must therefore be taken into consideration. Smith et al.
(1993) have shown that it is possible to successfully
forecast the MCV at the earthworking stage from
ground investigation data (see next section).
As a general guide an MCV of 8.5 is recommended as
the lower limit of acceptability; a soil having an MCV
less than this limit is thus deemed unacceptable. Specific
conditions may, however, require that the 8.5 limit be
lowered or raised marginally. In addition, flexibility to
marginally alter the limit on the contract should be
allowed for. This decision should be the responsibility of
the designer and be based on the local situation, the
195
known behaviour of the material and the type of plant
proposed and used by the contractor. The possibility of
adjustments to the lower limit of acceptability requires a
continuous appreciation of the earthwork situation dur-
ing construction. The designer should be satisfied that
the material is capable of forming a stable fill and will
not impair the satisfactory operation of the construction
plant at the revised lower limit of acceptability. Varia-
tions from the conventional lower limit of MCV = 8.5
should be supported by adequate, appropriate and
robust test data. Alternative lower limits of acceptability
are unlikely to fall outside the range 7.5 % MCV % 9.0.
This approach has been developed from experience of
a wide range of Scottish glacial tills initially by Anon.
(1983, 1989) with considerable refinement by Matheson
& Winter (1997). It is designed to be sufficiently robust
to cater for all soils likely to be encountered on Scottish
road earthworks whilst having sufficient flexibility to
cater for soils that perform adequately at a lower
MCV.
For cohesive soils, maximum MCVs of 12.5 and 11.5
roughly correspond to the moisture contents at which
10% and 5% air voids, or less, would be achieved. The
equivalent maximum MCV for granular soils will be
higher: for example, a well-graded sand will have a
maximum MCV of 14.5 to achieve 10% air voids, or less.
In general, an upper limit of MCV in the range 14–15 is
found to be suitable for use with most glacial tills.
It is important to realize that the MCV test indicates
the potential acceptability of material in a drained
196 WINTER
condition. Attempts to conduct earthmoving in an
environment where water cannot escape, such as found
in conditions of closed drainage, can fail even though
saturation tests showed MCVs above the specified limit.
Excessively high moisture contents in ‘all weather’
materials may indicate the need for advanced drainage
prior to earthworking.
Forecasting acceptability
MCV tests carried out on samples obtained during
ground investigation will give an indication of the
existing acceptability provided that the sample is
representative and at its natural moisture content. How-
ever, such results should be used with caution, as natural
moisture contents are likely to vary considerably both
in the host soil and in the period between ground
investigation and contract earthworking.
A model for forecasting MCV has been developed
(Smith et al. 1998). Two computer programs were
produced to facilitate forecasts in the long term
(FORESALT) and the short term (FORESAST).
The programs are based on the SWATRER (Soil
Water Actual Transpiration Rate—Extended, Revised)
model, originally developed for use in agricultural
applications and available as public domain software
(Belmans et al. 1983; Dierckx et al. 1986). A user
interface has been added to SWATRER for each of the
long-term and short-term models, allowing the input of
data required for analysis. The input data include:
(1) ground investigation data;
(a) natural moisture content;
(b) dry density;
(c) MCV calibration line;
(d) natural moisture content MCV;
(2) saturated hydraulic conductivity;
(3) suction data;
(4) vegetation details;
(5) meteorological data.
The long-term model is for use following ground
investigation and is intended to assist the designer in
forecasting the likely acceptability immediately prior to
and during the construction period. The information
obtained from this model can be used in assessing the
proportions of excavated acceptable and excavated
unacceptable materials and thus the likely quantities of
imported fill.
The short-term model is intended to assist estimation
of soil acceptability during the construction period.
Foreknowledge of likely soil acceptability will allow
improved planning of earthworks operations, avoiding
the excavation and trafficking of unacceptable materials,
and more cost-effective use of construction plant.
Following success with a limited field trial (Smith
et al. 1993), an extensive field trial was conducted to
assess the effectiveness of the model. This involved
the use of state-of-the-art field measuring equipment,
including a capacitance device for the measurement of
soil moisture content, an automatic weather station and
the TRL suction device. The last mentioned shows
potential for use in future ground investigations to
provide suction data input for both models.
Results indicated that the model showed considerable
promise for forecasting soil acceptability. In general,
predictions of soil moisture content in high-sensitivity
soil were within 5% (by volume) and approximately 3%
(by weight). Forecasts were generally within 2–3 MCV
of the values measured.
More recent work, based upon an extensive field trial
carried out under more rigorous conditions (Fig. 10)
concluded that predictions of moisture content over
periods up to a year were reasonably reliable. However,
forecast of MCV was considered to be insufficiently
accurate for practical use (Winter 2001b), as a result of
two factors:
• Uncertainties in respect of the precise relationship
between the calibration line and the line made up from
tests carried out at different natural moisture contents
on the same soil (Fig. 11).
• For values of slope less than unity (see Fig. 8), small
errors in moisture content can lead to larger errors in
MCV. This effect increases as the value of slope
decreases and the sensitivity increases. Thus there
is a natural tendency of the process of conversion
from moisture content to MCV to accentuate any
inherent errors in the data, especially for soils of high
sensitivity (Fig. 11).
The FORESALT and FORESAST programs have
been found to be effective in the circumstances and
applications described above. However, their successful
use requires considerable experience on the part of
the operator and they have not been made publicly
available.
Earthworking
Earthworking can be divided into earthmoving and
compaction. In earthmoving, soil is excavated, trans-
ported and deposited in a disturbed state some distance
from its source. When used as fill, it is then formed
according to the design and densified and strengthened
by compaction until it is capable of withstanding the
stresses of the expected loading. Both processes are
essential features of any road construction contract and
require separate treatment for MCV application.
Difficulties in the earthworking of most soils should
be expected when the MCV drops below the lower
limit(s) set for the contract. Soils having MCVs equal to
or above this limit will generally be able to be moved
and compacted satisfactorily, provided that their MCV
is not so high as to impede the compaction process.
The procedure recommended is to study the existing
calibration line for the soil type and then to conduct
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
Fig. 10. Typical FORESALT output screen for weekly variation in MCV.
single MCV determinations whenever and wherever a
measure of acceptability is required. This can be carried
out under site conditions within 6–10 min. The need
to refer MCV points to a calibration line has been
highlighted above.
Familiarity with each soil type aids the interpretation
and use of MCV test results. Even faster MCV test
techniques (2–3 min) are possible (Matheson & Winter
1997). Such rapid techniques are not recommended until
familiarity with the soil type has been obtained. It
should also be noted that the rapid technique is approxi-
mate and does not determine the MCV, but only the
acceptability or otherwise of the soil.
It is suggested that appropriate times for the testing of
soils during earthworking could be as follows:
(1) prior to earthmoving;
(2) during earthmoving;
(3) prior to use on haul roads;
(4) during trafficking of haul roads;
(5) at intervals on stockpiled material;
(6) prior to compaction: on fill material ready for
compaction;
197
(7) prior to fill placement: on previously compacted
surfaces.
Specifications for earthworks generally recommend
that MCV tests are carried out at the rate of one or two
per 1000 m3 of general fill (up to a maximum of five
tests per day) and one per 400 tonnes of selected fill
(Anon. 1991). However, the scale of testing depends on
the size of the contract, variability of the material and
how critical the results are to the design. Consequently,
this information is given only as a guide and it is
important that a high degree of engineering judgement is
exercised in such matters. In particular, if the materials
are known to be of marginal acceptability then the
frequency of testing may need to be increased.
Earthmoving
Glacial tills often have a relatively high proportion of
cobbles and boulders. Problems of working mainly arise
from a loss of shear strength in the matrix. The MCV
test is performed on a sieved sample corresponding to
the matrix of such soils and consequently is often
198
Fig. 11. MCV calibration line and natural moisture content lines showing the potential errors in forecasting MCV.
successful in predicting acceptability for earthmoving
(but see also next section).
Under site conditions earthmoving plant operates on
soil either in a naturally compacted or in a disturbed
state. Depending on plant size, compaction of both the
in situ and the disturbed soil is likely to take place.
Under wet conditions significant reductions in shear
strength can result. The economics of making use of
on-site soils are critically dependent on the selection of
appropriate plant for the soil conditions.
The productivity of various types of earthmoving
plant has been related to the soil condition measured
by means of the MCV test (Parsons & Darley 1982).
Factors that have been related to the MCV include
speed of travel when loaded and empty, depth of rut
produced by a single pass, loss of productivity as a result
of bogging down, and the times of loading and unload-
ing. Minimum MCV values at which various types of
plant can operate effectively have also been predicted
and a formula has been derived that relates MCV to
travel speed of motorized scrapers and dump trucks.
Compaction
The disturbed soil is used in a series of layers as fill to
form earth structures such as embankments. Each layer
is compacted after placement with the prime intention of
decreasing its air voids and consequently increasing
its density and shear strength. Generally the maximum
bulk density at the natural moisture content is
targeted. To assist plant operation the Specification for
WINTER
Highway Works (MCHW 2003a, table 6/4) tabulates the
compactive effort required in terms of the number of
passes and layer thickness for different types of plant.
The process of taking a disturbed soil and compacting
it to its maximum possible density is followed in the
MCV test. The test therefore broadly simulates con-
struction compaction to measure the potential MCV.
Consequently, on-site MCV testing allows acceptability
for compaction to be determined and indicates the
compactive effort required to produce a state of near full
compaction. As already discussed, a soil in a relatively
dry state will require higher compactive effort to achieve
compaction than one in a relatively wet state. Indeed,
once the moisture content drops below a particular
level it may not be possible to compact it sufficiently
using reasonable compactive effort. De-watering or
stockpiling may be necessary in very wet soils. Such
requirements can be predicted by the use of the MCA.
The MCA indicates the potential shear strength (in
terms of MCV) of a 1.5 kg sample passing a 20 mm
sieve. In soils containing a very coarse fraction an
increase in the overall shear strength can be expected
after incorporation into an earth structure such as an
embankment. An increase in overall shear strength
beyond that predicted by the MCV test can therefore be
expected when using materials with high cobble and
boulder contents, provided that near maximum bulk
density is achieved. It may be necessary to increase the
compactive effort because of the effect of the large
boulders, or it may be possible to use material at a lower
MCV than normal.
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
Effects of high stone content
Soils can contain a broad spectrum of particle sizes,
often ranging from clay to large boulders; this is particu-
larly so for glacial tills. In contrast, laboratory test
procedures for determining the acceptability of fills for
earthworking require the removal of particles larger
than a predetermined maximum size. For example, the
removal, prior to test, of the particles larger than 20 mm
is an integral part of the MCV test, whereas the three
main BS1377: Part 4 (BSI 1990) compaction tests limit
the proportion of particles larger than 20 mm to 30%.
All of these tests are commonly used to determine
soil acceptability for earthworks compaction and the
removal of such large particles, often referred to as
scalping, can have a profound effect on the values of
measured properties.
The proportion of earthworks materials with appreci-
able amounts of particles larger than 20 mm is not
known. However, it is likely to be significant given the
wide extent of glacially deposited soils. Consequently,
for soils with high proportions of larger particles it is not
in the interests of economy to base the properties of
embankment construction materials on the limitations
of laboratory-scale tests and risk the exclusion of
readily available materials with satisfactory engineering
properties.
If the proportion of stones (defined as the fraction of
the sample between 20 mm and 37.5 mm) is small then
the stones act as discrete elements within the matrix
(defined as the particles smaller than 20 mm) with few
stone-to-stone contacts. In this case, the matrix deter-
mines the bulk soil behaviour and tests on the matrix
may thus be used in place of tests on the bulk material.
Soils with high stone contents will contain significant
numbers of stone-to-stone contacts and the stones will
thus determine the bulk soil behaviour. Tests on the
matrix material should not then be used in place of tests
on the bulk soil, as they will not be representative of the
bulk soil behaviour, and it has been shown (Winter et al.
1998) that this proportion is around 45% (Fig. 12).
Practical problems with high stone content
soils
There are a number of instances where the presence of
large particles has caused problems with acceptability
determination. In one case a Class 1A material (MCHW
2003a) with up to 50% larger than 20 mm sheared on
trafficking as a result of placement and compaction at
moisture contents in excess of those deemed acceptable.
The optimum moisture content was determined from
BS1377: Part 4 (BSI 1990) compaction tests, and accept-
ability defined relative to optimum and determined on
the basis of moisture content tests. It seems that the
optimum moisture content was determined on the
199
fraction with between 0% and 30% of particles larger
than 20 mm whereas the acceptability tests were carried
out on the excavated material with up to 50% of
particles larger than 20 mm.
Although the matrix material may control the com-
paction behaviour of the soil at up to 50% stones, the
moisture content is clearly affected by the stone content.
As the stone content increases, relatively high moisture
content, low-density matrix material is replaced by very
low moisture content, high-density stones, causing a
decrease in the moisture content of the sample (stones
and matrix) as its density increases. This is illustrated in
Figure 13, for example, and demonstrates the import-
ance of ensuring that calibration and acceptability tests
are carried out on samples containing the same range of
particle sizes.
On two other contracts it was noted that the vibrating
hammer compaction test is not appropriate to materials
with greater than 30% of particles larger than 20 mm
(table 2 of BS: 1377: Part 4). Nonetheless, the specifica-
tion for Class 6F2 materials (MCHW 2003a), which
includes up to 55% greater than 20 mm, requires testing
by this method to determine optimum moisture content
on which acceptability is based.
Earthworking for high stone
content soils
Clearly, there is a need for further guidance on the
determination of the acceptability of soils with signifi-
cant proportions of stones. There are three categories of
fill in the Specification for Highway Works (MCHW
2003a) affected by high stone contents:
• Fills to which a method specification is applied (e.g.
Classes 1A and 2C).
• Fills to which a method specification requiring the
comparison of field and optimum moisture contents is
applied (e.g. Class 6F2).
• Fills to which an end product specification is applied
(e.g. Classes 6N and 6P).
Detailed guidance on determining acceptability for
earthworks compaction of the above fill-types in relation
to stone content has been given by Winter et al. (1998).
The guidance relates directly to the UK Specification for
Highway Works (MCHW 2003a) but, being written in
terms of the type of compaction control specified, is
readily adaptable to other standard specifications.
It is particularly important that all comparative tests,
such as natural moisture content MCVs and MCV limits
or calibration lines, or field and optimum moisture
contents, are determined on samples containing the
same range of particle sizes.
At high stone contents (>50%) fills will have
higher strengths than those associated with low stone
content materials. Although particle crushing during
200
Fig. 12. Stone content against total dry density at optimum moisture content for Soils 1 to 9.
compaction will increase (Winter 1998) this may confer
benefits as small particles fill voids, producing higher
densities and thus producing a more stable mass than
would otherwise be the case.
Potentially the soundness of high stone content fills
can affect the long-term stability of earthworks. If this is
perceived as a potential problem then appropriate tests
and investigations will need to be carried out (Perry &
Parsons 1986; Smith & Collis 1993).
It is also important to ensure that compaction is
sufficient to minimize the air voids, to ensure that water
WINTER
ingress does not cause a long-term stability problem.
Measures should be taken to ensure that water shed
onto or entering the earthworks from any source is
rapidly removed (MCHW 2003a; Clause 602.15).
Contractual context
Historically earthwork construction, in common with
other elements of infrastructure construction, has been
procured with one commission for design and a separate
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
Fig. 13. Moisture content against total dry density for Soil 1. Lines of 0%, 5% and 10% air voids are shown.
contract for constructing the works. This type of
contract provided a balance of risk that was generally
weighted in favour of the contractor. Specifications were
generally prescriptive and the appointed engineer (or
his representative) was required to both inspect and
approve all work undertaken by the contractor.
In the last decade or more there has been a strong
move towards the use of design and build (DB) and
design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) and other
variants of contract procedure. This type of contract
provides a balance of risk that is generally weighted in
favour of the client. The successful tenderer is respon-
sible for both the design and construction of the road. In
addition, the fixed-price nature of DB contracts (and the
privately financed nature of DBFO contracts) encour-
ages contractors to propose innovative solutions that
may be outside the compass of the specification.
However, another change of great significance is that
of the role of the employer’s representative. This is a
different relationship: one of observation by quality
procedures (by the lodging of notifications of non-
conformances where appropriate), as opposed to the
closer inspect-and-approve role of the engineer on
traditional contracts. This means that the employer’s
representative cannot reject the contractor’s work or
materials, although the required quality system should
highlight non-compliances. For innovative solutions
the state of knowledge may be relatively limited and
the employer’s representative may find it difficult to
challenge a contractor’s proposal not to rectify non-
compliances by physical changes to the work (Winter &
Anderson 2002).
Innovation in construction has been greatly encour-
aged by the use of DB and DBFO forms of
contract. This is largely due to the financial risk being
201
placed upon the constructing consortia, so providing
significant encouragement and pressure to seek more
cost-effective means of satisfying the employer’s
requirements. This effect is greater under DBFO than
DB, as completing the construction even a short while
earlier can bring forward payment from the client (e.g.
shadow tolls). This has the effect of beginning the
payback period earlier and thus reducing the overall
period to payback and the amount of interest paid.
Value management, or value engineering, is the process
by which costs not contributing to the overall process
or the end function are eliminated. There are a number
of ways of applying the value management process,
but there are three basic elements to the process, as
follows:
• Determine the function of a project and/or any of its
constituent parts.
• Identify alternatives.
• Examine the cost and value of each alternative to
reach a decision on the best value alternative.
The process is generally thought to be best applied at
all stages of a project and can be an effective means of
stimulating the innovation process. DB and DBFO
consortia may be particularly well placed to exploit the
technique.
The downside to the increase in innovation is that, as
noted above, the overall control that clients and their
representatives can exert over a project is much less.
Mistakes have been, and will be, made. There are signs
that clients are beginning to seek to regain a greater
degree of control for their representatives. In general, it
appears likely that this will lead to a greater degree of
end product and performance specification in construc-
tion, something that is notoriously costly to achieve for
202 WINTER
earthworks. Whether this will lead to a more equitable
share of risk remains to be seen.
The introduction of DBFO contracts has increased
the time pressures on contractors to complete construc-
tion more rapidly. This has made it more difficult to
carry out earthworks at an appropriate time of the year.
Recent moves by the Highway Agency to appoint con-
tractors at a much earlier stage appear to be a positive
step towards the resolution of this problem.
However, as has been pointed out elsewhere (Reid &
Chandler 2001), the spirit in which a contract is operated
can be much more important than the form of the
contract. If the system is based on offsetting risk down
the line, the person left with cut materials may have little
incentive to use them as fill, especially if the materials
are in any way marginal. They may be concerned only
with disposing of such materials cheaply and quickly. It
may be better to adopt a partnering approach where all
parties to the contract work together to deliver con-
tinuous improvement in the construction process, thus
embodying the principles of the Egan Report (Egan
1998).
Waste management
Subsoil is usually the largest volume of material in a
road construction project and represents both the great-
est risks and opportunities in both cost and waste
management terms. Recent research has examined a
wide range of materials in the context of road landscape
materials to provide advice and guidance on minimizing
the amount of waste generated and optimizing the use of
surplus materials (Winter & Anderson 2002).
In the UK the Waste Management Licensing
Regulations, the introduction of a tax on material sent
to landfill and the aggregates levy have focused minds
upon the need to minimize waste. It is important that
this process is begun at the design stage and that due
cognisance is given to the need to maximize the value
from all available materials (Winter 2002).
Short construction timescales and financial penalties
relating to contract overruns are often cited as factors in
preventing the economic use of soil in cut-and-fill opera-
tions. However, disposal of all materials is expensive and
landfill costs and landfill tax, along with the costs of
replacement materials, provide a powerful incentive for
the reuse of subsoil. Involvement of a contractor
from the very early stages of a contract will significantly
aid in the planning of cut-and-fill operations. Such
initiatives are currently under trial in England.
The cut-and-fill operations typical of road construc-
tion, and indeed the construction of other linear forms
of infrastructure, should not be seen as a waste manage-
ment operation. Such operations form an integral part
of the construction process; in this case the creation of
an acceptable alignment in both the horizontal and
vertical. However, as an insufficient supply of site-
won cut materials leads to the often costly import of
additional material, a surplus is often generated. The
constructive, designed use of such materials to create
features that enhance the landscape, environment and
completed construction works should be encouraged.
Techniques to minimize the amount of surplus
generated and also to allow the flexible use of such
materials include the following:
• Design of new road projects to ‘fit with the landscape’
and thus minimize the generation of surplus material.
• The use of surplus material in forming screening
bunds or new landscape features close to the road
(such features must be required in the first place, per-
haps as part of environmental mitigation measures,
and cannot be used as a means of disposing of waste).
• The use of the ‘observational method’ in providing
a flexible approach to ‘cut-and-fill’ and to allow a
response to be made to various scenarios.
It is accepted that it is difficult to carry out detailed
ground investigation at the initial design and Environ-
mental Impact Assessment (EIA) stages. However, the
lack of detailed information can lead to difficulties in
preparing a strategy to deal with surplus material and
adversely affect the relevance of the mitigation measures,
such as noise bunds, defined. It is recommended that the
Environmental Statement (ES) should be written with
parameters that allow for flexibility in the design. For
example, a particular effect could be assessed in the
context of a road embankment being constructed at 2 m
and 4 m above ground level. In addition, a height of
embankment above which a particular parameter would
materially change could be evaluated and given as a
contractual limit.
Surplus subsoil is none the less frequently encountered
during construction contracts and there are a number of
areas in which the use of these materials may be
maximized. Some degree of flexibility in the design of
earthwork features is thus desirable. In the case of
earthworks the flexibility may be built into the overall
height of the earthworks, the lateral extent, the slope
angle and even the option of additional features to allow
the use of surplus materials to be maximized, based on
observations of the quantities arising during construc-
tion. Indeed, if slopes can be graded to 1:6 then at least
part can be returned to agriculture. This also requires a
flexible approach, which should be reflected in the EIA
process, but must be acceptable to the environmental
regulator if it is to be successfully implemented.
This process is analogous to the observational method
that is often used to deal with uncertainty at the design
stage in geotechnical engineering (Peck 1969; Nicholson
et al. 1997). A range of likely scenarios is identified and
designs are prepared for each. Observations at the
construction stage are then used to determine which
design option is most appropriate and construction
 GLACIAL TILLS FOR EARTHWORKS
proceeds accordingly. A similar approach is proposed to
limit the amount of surplus material to which the
intention to dispose is applied. This may at first appear
to be a convenient way around the Waste Management
Licensing Regulations. This is not the case as the
alternative designs are intended to ensure that satisfac-
tory landscape features, which are required as part of the
contract, are constructed regardless of whether the
anticipated surplus is greater or less than anticipated at
the pre-construction stage. The design options should,
where appropriate, allow for the possibility of much
greater than anticipated volumes of surplus material
being encountered. The opportunity for enhancing the
constructed landscape can then be incorporated into the
design options. This fits well with the regulatory require-
ment on many road authorities to undertake environ-
mental mitigation and improvement as part of their
activities.
Summary
Earthwork acceptability of glacial tills presents some
unique engineering challenges, largely deriving from the
inherent variability and broad particle size range of such
materials.
The MCV test has been in successful use in Scotland
for two decades for the purpose of determining the
acceptability of glacial tills for earthworking. However,
during that time significant advance in both the state-of-
the-art and the application of the state-of-the-art have
been achieved.
Detailed procedures for the use of the MCA are in
place and these include extensive and detailed advice and
guidance on all aspects of the process of earthworking,
including limits of use of the MCV. The advice and
guidance summarized in this paper is structured around
the use of the MCV for appropriate soils and the use
of other techniques for soils for which the MCV is
inappropriate. In addition, a method for predicting the
moisture content and forecasting the MCV of fills up
to 1 year in advance is described. The prediction of
moisture content is greatly preferred to the forecast of
MCV, which is prone to error because of the conversion
from moisture content.
For soils with high stone contents, conventional
laboratory tests may be inappropriate. Detailed
guidance is given on the determination of acceptability
of such materials for different forms of compaction
specification.
The contractual context for earthwork operations is
described in terms of design and build and design, build,
finance and operate, and the scope for value engineer-
ing is highlighted. Opportunities in terms of waste
management are also described.
Acknowledgements. The work presented in this paper is the
synthesis of many years of research at TRL Limited. The
203
author would like to acknowledge the significant contribution
of co-workers including G. D. Matheson, J. Perry, R. A.
Snowdon (formerly TRL Limited), J. Oliphant (formerly
Heriot–Watt University), Th. Hólmgeirsdóttir and Suhardi
(formerly University of Strathclyde), I. G. N. Smith (Napier
University) and P. Lindh (Lund University).
TRL Limited 2004. This paper has been produced by
TRL Limited. It has been based on work funded by the
Scottish Executive and others under a number of contacts.
Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the
Scottish Executive or others.
References
A. 1983. Soil suitability for earthworking—use of the
moisture condition apparatus. Technical Memorandum
SH7/83. Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh.
A. 1989. The use and application of the moisture condition
apparatus in testing soil suitability for earthworking. SDD
Applications Guide No 1. Scottish Development
Department, Edinburgh.
A. 1991. HA44/91: Earthworks—design and preparation of
contract documents, incorporating Amendment No. 1,
April 1995. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges,
DMRB 4.1.1 (November 2003). The Stationery Office,
London.
B, C., W, J.G. & F, R.A. 1983. Simula-
tion model of the water balance of a cropped soil:
SWATRE. Journal of Hydrology, 63, 271–286.
B, G.S. & P, M.A. 1976. The influence of
genetic processes on some geotechnical properties of tills.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 9 (3), 159–194.
BSI 1979. Precision of test methods. Part 1: Guidance for the
determination of the repeatability and reproducibility for
a standard test method. BS5497. British Standards
Institution, London.
BSI 1990. British Standard methods of test for soils for civil
engineering purposes. Part 4: Compaction-related tests.
BS1377. British Standards Institution, London.
D, J., B, C. & P, P. 1986. SWATRER: a
computer package for modelling the field water balance;
reference manual. Laboratory of Field and Water
Engineering, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
E, J. 1998. Rethinking construction—the report of the
construction task force. DETR, London.
E, N. & D, W.R. 1981. A glacial terrain map of
Britain for engineering purposes. Bulletin, International
Association of Engineering Geology, 24, 173–184.
H, M.J. 1994. Glacial Environments. UCL Press,
London.
L, P. & W, M.G. 2003. Sample preparation effects
on the compaction properties of Swedish fine-grained tills.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydro-
geology, 36 (4), 321–330.
L, P. & W, M.G. 2004. MCV and shear strength
properties of compacted fine-grained tills, In prep.
MCHW 2003a. Specification for Highway Works (Manual
of Contract Documents for Highway Works 1). The
Stationery Office, London.
MCHW 2003b. Notes for Guidance on the Specification for
Highway Works (Manual of Contract Documents for
Highway Works 2). The Stationery Office, London.
M, G.D. & O, J. 1991. Suitability and accept-
ability for earthworking with reference to glacial tills in
Scotland. In: F, A. C, M.G. C, J.C.
L, J.A. & M, C.F. (eds) Quaternary Engineering
204
Geology. Engineering Geology Special Publication, 7,
239–249. The Geological Society, London.
M, G.D. & W, M.G. 1997. Use and applica-
tion of the MCA with particular reference to glacial tills.
TRL Report 273. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.
NRA 2000a. Specification for Highway Works. (NRA 1).
National Roads Authority, Dublin.
NRA 2000b. Notes for Guidance on the Specification for
Highway Works. (NRA 2). National Roads Authority,
Dublin.
N, N.P., T, C.-M. & P, C. 1997. The observa-
tional method in ground engineering: principles and
application. CIRIA Report 185. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London.
O, J. & W, M.G. 1997. Limits of use of the
moisture condition apparatus. Proceedings, Institution of
Civil Engineers, 123 (1), 17–29.
P, A.W. 1976. The rapid determination of the moisture
condition of earthwork material. TRRL Laboratory Report
LR 750. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
P, A.W. & B, J.B. 1979. The moisture condition
test and its potential applications in earthworks. TRRL
Supplementary Report SR 522. Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne.
P, A.W. & D, P. 1982. The effect of soil conditions
on the operation of earthmoving plant. TRRL Laboratory
Report LR 1034. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.
P, A.W. & T, A.F. 1987. The precision of the
moisture condition test. TRRL Laboratory Report RR 90.
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
P, R.B. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the observa-
tional method in applied soil mechanics. Géotechnique, 19
(2), 171–187.
P, J.P. & P, A.W. 1986. Assessing the quality of
rock fill: a review of current practice for highways. TRRL
Research Report RR 60. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.
R, J.M. & C, J.W.E. 2001. Recycling in transport
infrastructure. TRL Report. Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne.
Received 12 February 2004; accepted 26 August 2004.
WINTER
S, P.T. 1970. The reproducibility of soil classification
and compaction tests. RRL Laboratory Report LR 339.
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
S, M.R. & C, L. 1993. Aggregates: sand, gravel and
crushed rock aggregates for construction purposes (2nd
edn). Engineering Geology Special Publication, 9. The
Geological Society, London.
S, I.G.N., W, M.G., O, J., W, S.G. &
C, J.M. 1993. Forecasting the long-term accept-
ability potential of soils for earthworking. In: Engineered
Fills. Thomas Telford, London, 109–118.
S, I.G.N., O, J., W, S.G. & W, M.G.
1998. Forecasting soil acceptability using ground and
meteorological data. Proceedings, Institution of Civil
Engineers, 131 (2), 104–114.
T, V.H. & D, R.T. 1994. Compaction control
of earth–rock mixtures: a new approach. Geotechnical
Testing Journal GTJODJ, 17 (3), 371–386.
T, N. 1999. Engineering in glacial tills. CIRIA Report
C504. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London.
W, M.G. 1998. The determination of the acceptability of
selected fragmenting materials for earthworks compaction.
TRL Report 308. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.
W, M.G. 2001a. Earthworks acceptability for glacial tills.
In: Proceedings, IEI/IGS Earthworks in Transportation
Seminar, Paper 5. Institution of Engineers Ireland,
Dublin.
W, M.G. 2001b. Application of soil acceptability fore-
casts. TRL Report 484. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.
W, M.G. 2002. A conceptual framework for the recycling
of aggregates and other wastes. Proceedings, Institution of
Civil Engineers, 151 (3), 177–187.
W, M.G. & A, C. 2002. The wise use of landscape
resources in road construction and maintenance. Viridis
Report. Viridis, Crowthorne.
W, M.G., HÓÓ, T. & S 1998. The
effect of large particles on acceptability determination for
earthworks compaction. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 31(3), 247–268.