CHAPTER 1

l
ria
Introduction

ate
dM
1.1 PURPOSEANDSCOPE

The purpose of this book is to present helpful information on soil comgaction

and fill control to nonspecialists. The information should also be useful to
academic colleagues, and especiallyso if I am successful in convincing them
hte

of the importance of a greater emphasis in their courses, especiallythose that

are heavily attendedby nonspecialists.Becauseof the focus noted, established
on the basis of 33 years of observations in both the classroom and in consult-
ing practice, I assume no prior knowledge of soil compaction, or, for that mat-
ter, soil mechanics.A careful study of Chapters 1,2, and 3 is recommended for
a better appreciation and understanding of that which follows.
rig

Chapter4presentsthe major problems in fill control, and solutionsare pro-

posed for each probl,em. Some are strictly technical in nature, while others
deal with much more sensitive matters ranging from professional ethics to
human relations. Observations made about the latter are bound to be con-
py

troversial. However, I am convinced that what is said needs to be said, openly

and forthrightly, in order to have any chance of correcting certain practices
detrimental to good engineered construction.
To provide credibility and validation to the assertions made regarding
major problems, case studies are used. In all cases, names, locales, and other
Co

possibly embarrassing details are omitted.

Chapter 5 describes some of my unpublished research results and suggests
further research efforts. I believe investigations can be pursued at many
levels-funded research, undergraduate and graduate laboratory courses,
and undergraduate and graduate projects and theses. I hope that geotechnical
consultants adopt some of the suggestions and improve and extend certain
procedures.to augment their recommendations for, and supervision of, fding
4

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 2 INTRODUCTION

operations. In some cases, for example, the suggestions regarding a compac-

tion data book (for dealing with the problems ofchangingborrow),their ability
to accumulate large amounts of data makes it feasible to develop, refine, and
validate methods rapidly.
Chapter 6, Fills and Fill Compaction, deals in detail with the technological

l
aspects of all types of compacted fills, and includes a section on potential

ria
problems with earth structures,with an emphasis on earthen dams. The intent
is to provide information helpful to those involved with the National Dam
Inspection Program, thus serving the dual purpose of improving capabilities
in the inspection and remediationofcompleted earth structures and in the full
range of activities needed for design, inspection, and construction of new

ate
earthworks.Chapter 7 complements Chapter 6with a description of all details
relating to compaction specifications.
Chapter 8 (plus some aspects of Chapter 7, notably Specification Evalua-
tion, Section 7.4) is intended to serve as a manual for fill control procedures: It
is written expressly for the typical inexperiencedyoung geotechnical engineer
dM
or engineering technologist.
As a departure from typical format, chapter glossaries are provided at the
end ofeach chapter to explain certain terms used in the chapter that could not
be explained fully within the text without adversely affecting readability.I sug-
gest that the reader review each chapter’s glossary before reading the chapter
of interest.
hte

1.2 IMPORTANCE AND NATURE OF m K

The importance of soil compaction and fill control can be emphasized by one
simple declaration: Almost no significant engineered construction occurs
without the movement of soil from one place to another. Furthermore, it
rig

should be the nature of good engineered construction that parties become

involved in earthwork operations in the followingsequence: the geotechnical
engineer, the architect and structural engineer, the fill inspector, and the con-
struction contractor. A most important nonspecialist is, of course,the owner or
client. Unfortunately, as noted in the preface, geotechnical engineers are too
py

often left out of the sequence. All too often, they are called in (late) to correct a
bad situation or to act as expert witnesses when it i s already too late for
correction.
In the ideal sequence,the geotechnical engineer explores and evaluatesthe
Co

subsurface conditions through a logical process of analyzing soil (or rock)

index properties, and then, as judgment dictates, determines appropriate en-
gineeringpropetties through laboratory and/or field testing. With a knowledge
of the loading conditions that are to be imposed by the proposed structure, the
engineer prepares recommendations for foundation type, methods of founda-
tion construction, and allowable bearing capacities at particular foundation
levels. Such recommendations are broadly based upon determining safe load-
ing intensities on foundation elements (e.g., footings) ofvarious sizes that will

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 IMPORMITDEFlNmONS 3

not result in either a bearing capacityfailure or unacceptablesettlements. More

often than not, the recommendations will entail excavation and filling opera-
tions, requiring recommendations for quality (texture) and condition (com-
pacted density) of the fill. Assuming compliance with specifications, the fill is
then judged to have a certain allowable bearing capacity.

l
The structural engineer is one of the primary recipients of the geotechnical

ria
engineer’s report. In addition to the obvious responsibility of structural de-
sign, it is his typical responsibility to prepare working drawings, including
foundation drawings. The preparation of construction specifications be-
comes a natural extension of this work, typically as notes on the drawings and
(for large projects) separate, additional documents. In the usual situation, the

ate
structural engineer will need to consult architectural drawings and geotechni-
cal reports and communicate with the architect and geotechnical engineer
when questions develop requiring their attention and expertise.
Construction engineers and contractors are, of course, the “doers.” They
bring to fruition the studies, concepts, designs, drawings, and specificationsof
dM
the architect,the geotechnicalengineer, and the structural engineer, thus com-
pleting the sequence of operations of engineered construction.

1.3 IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Sol1 Compcrcflon (Re@) The reduction of void spaces (densification) of

hte

lifts of fill by the direct application of load, impact, and/or vibration, usually
with a suitable type of compaction equipment. Lift thicknesses vary from
several inches (for clays and silts) to perhaps 2 ft for free-draining fills (sands
and gravels). (Note: One should not confuse soil compaction with consolida-
tion, the long-term reduction of void ratio of a natural soil, usually saturated,
thick deposits of soft clays or silts beneath the water table. This is usually
rig

accomplishedby the application of static surface loading (called surcharges),

resulting in the slow drainage ofporewater from the subsurfacestratum.Thus,
one principal difference is that compaction is direct and immediate.)

soil Compactlon(Laboratory) The compaction of a small but representa-

py

tive soil sample, obtained from the field, in a steel mold of standard size. The
soil is compacted usually in layers, commonly by dropping a hammer of
specified weight through a specified distance a specified number oftimes. The
energy of such compaction is chosen to simulate that of field compaction,
Co

usuallywith a rollerjudged suitable for the conditions and soil type. The mois-
ture content is varied for a series of filled molds, thus generating a compaction
curve for the soil. A typical curve is shown in Figure 1.1.

Granubr, CoheslonlessSoils Gravels, sands, and “clean” silts (those pos-

sessing no plasticity).
coheslne,Pbilc soils Clays, clay-silt mixtures, organic soils.

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 4 INmODUCTION

I I
Standard Proctor Compaction Test
I (ASTMiD698) I
130 I I I
Silty sand (SM)
I

l
Acceptable

ria
range of field
ri;' 12c /densities
esa
= 114 -
.-b
5 11c OMC

ate
n
\(

Nqte: soil tested with

ioa mechanical compactor

90
-
100% Standard Proctor = 120.0Ib/ft3
95% Standard Proctor 114.0Ib/ft3
dM
0 10 20 30
Compaction moisture (%)
Rgwe 1.1. A iypicul compaction curve.

Drainage QwiiiyDesignations
hte

1. Free-draining soils-gravels, coarser sands, and mixtures thereof.

2. Marginally dmining soils-finer sands, clean silts, and mixtures there-
of.
3. Impervious soils-clays, clay-silt mixtures. (Note that no soil is imper-
rig

vious, so the term is used in a relative rather than absolute sense.)

GemlCOrS James Kilpatrick,one of my favorite columnists and lingophiles,
suggests that ifthere is a legitimate need for a new word, invent one. Herewith,
gemicoss. It is defined as any soil that is a combination of soil types in such pro-
py

portions as to raise questions pertaining to contrasting engineering properties,

for example, cohesionless vis-&-viscohesive, plastic vis-&-vis nonplastic, free-
drainingvis-&-vismarginally draining. It may also be helpful to tell you how I
invented the word: As a child, I learned that all (most?) English words re-
Co

quired one or more vowels.Thus G is for gravel,C is for clay, SS is for sand and
silt. E,0,and I, of course, are needed vowels. The letter 1might also represent
inorganics, the soil minerals. In the Unified Soil Classification System, 0 is
used to represent organics, and M to indicate silts. EM also stands for Ed
Monahan.
There are many examples illustrating the need for the concept of the
gemicoss. Often a chart or a formula has a principal limitation of being
applicable to a certain soil type, that is, sand or clay. Blowcounts, for example,

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 IMPORWNT DEFlNmONS 5

are used for determining allowablebearing capacitiesforsunh. For clays, one

often uses the unconfined compressive strength. But what does one do with a
sand-clay mixture? Or a sand-silt-clay mixture? There is no simple answer,
other than to say that good engineeringjudgment must be employed.

l
€3Wnt/u/~Grunulcrr (Or Cohesiw)Sdk Texture that predominates in the

ria
context of dictating the overall behavior of the soil. This terminology is a
natural extension of the notion of a gemicoss. After carefully evaluating the
texture (sizesand plasticity) of the soil, one may be forced to decide whether it
is essentiallygranular or essentiallycohesive inorder tojustify the use of a par-
ticular design chart or formula.

ate
For example, if a soil is composed of 60% highly plastic clay (by weight),
with 40% sand and gravel, the soil would be an ECS,an essentially cohesive
soil, since the sand and gravel particles are, for all practical purposes, merely
isolated or “suspended” in a clay matrix, and their presence is essentially
irrelevant to the overall engineeringbehavior of the soil.Note that this exam-
ple does not fit the classificationof a gemicoss, because the conclusion (ECS)
dM
is fairly evident. A gemicoss might be 40% medium plastic clay, 60% sand and
gravel. Such a mixture raises questions pertaining to contrasting engineer-
ing properties.
As a contrasting example, if a soil is 75% gravel and sand, with 25% clay of
high plasticity, it would be rated an essentially granular soil (EGS),inasmuch
as it is reasonable to assume that the preponderance of granular particles are
hte

in contact. The significant percentage of highly plastic clay would act as

“binder.”
Thus, in summary, the simple auxilliary classification system that I pro-
pose includes five categories: granular, cohesionless soils; essentially granu-
lar soils; essentially cohesive soils;cohesive (plastic) soils; and the gemicoss.
rig

U// The soil that is selected for use at the site. It may be from a site excavation
or “imported” from elsewhere. In the latter case, the fa is termed borrow.

U// c)uU//iy lndlces Texture: grain sizes and grain size distribution of co-
hesionless soils, or plasticity (usually plasticity index, or PI) of cohesive
py

soils.
R// Cond/t/on Density (pounds per cubic foot, pcf) or relative density (per-
cent), a measure of potential settlement. For clay soils, potential expansion is
Co

often an important additional factor to consider.

Permunent stcrblllty A concept referring to the fundamental question of
whether the fill (or any soil) will remain stable uhder present andfitwe con-
ditions that may reasonably be expected to be imposed during the economic
life of the structure. Thus, a very dense, free-draining soil, which is to be per-
manently contained (laterally), is the most “permanently stable” soil, for it
cannot settle significantly, it is not susceptibleto seepage pressures, nor will it

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 6 INTRODUCTION

expand when wetted. Conversely, a cohesive (clay) soil can settle unaccep-
tably if not compacted sufficientlybut can expand detrimentallyupon (future)
wetting if overcompacted. The pressures associated with such expansion can
be substantial, causing damage to highway pavements and even heavy struc-
tures. Clays and silts are also susceptible to disturbance by seepage pressures

l
(piping,uplift) because of their relative imperviousness. Silts are also suscept-

ria
ible to frost action.

SlmulaHOn ot FIeM conditions This is an important concept concerning

the rationale that should be used for all decisions relating to laboratory testing.
Thus, what onedoes to the soil sample in thelaboratory should, in all practical

ate
respects, simulate what will be done to the soil in the field. As one of the more
obvious examples, the method and energy of compaction in the laboratory
compaction test should approximate that of construction rollers used in
the field.
dM
index pIopercfes Indicates the general nature of the subsurface problems
that must be confronted. Such index properties are (or can be) obtained
routinely and at modest expense in a typical subsurface investigation. Figure
1.2 shows, in simple flowchart form, how index properties should be used.
Note that large jobs, requiring the expenditure of larger amounts of money,
would justify the expenditure of larger amounts for field or laboratory testing
to determine engineering properties needed for design. Engineering proper-
hte

ties are defined as those measuring stress, strain, and strain rate on representa-
tive soil samples that enable computation of specific numerical values of
bearing capacity and settlement. Thus, path ABC provides a design that is
more reliable than path AC, but at considerably more cost. Path AC, for small
jobs, where extensive testing is not economicallyjustified, utilizes index prop-
erties directly for design purposes, usually by entering a chart to select allow-
rig

able bearing capacities, rather than the more expensive ABC route. Of
considerable practical importance, moreover, is the fact that index properties,
ifobtained and properly evaluated,serve as the basis for a rational testing pro-
gram (step B). In summary, index properties serve a twofold purpose and are
indispensable tools in geotechnical engineering.
py

BIOw Count, -
, andRelCrtlve Derulty Illustrativeof the foregoing de-
scription of index and engineering properties are the definitions of blow
count, density, and relative density, particularly as related to compaction and
Co

fill control and the stability and bearing capacity of granular, or essentially
granular, soils.
When a driller is sampling a soil that is expected to be an essentially
granular soil, a sampling device is driven into the soil and a blow count N
(blows per foot) is obtained. Clearly,the blow count (with any appropriate cor-
rections) is an indicator of density: the higher the blow count, the higher
the density.

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 THE ROLE OF INDEX AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES 7

A. Sampling and
index testing

l
ria
ate
C. Design B. Laboratow
or
Legend: NF= Field blow count, standard penetration test field testing
N, = Design blow cwnt (corrections to NF) (determination
IL = Liquidity index (clay soils) of engineering
9, = Unconfined compression test (cohesive soils) properties)
dM
Rgun +aDesign fbwchart.

Relative density, a laboratory-determinedengineeringpmperty,is a percent-

age of the practically obtainable maximum density for the particular soil.
hte

Thus, a soil of 100% relative density would have a negligible potential for
future settlement. Furthermore, given the thickness of the soil, a knowledge of
the relative density would allow for the computation of a specific, numerical
settlement estimate. A judgment could then be made as to whether the com-
puted settlement would be tolerable.
In this example, the blow count is an indicator (or index property) signify-
rig

ing the general condition of the soil (e.g., very loose, loose, medium-dense,
dense, very dense), whereas the relative density (involving the added expense
of laboratory testing) is ap engineering property.
With respect to fills, Ifnoclvledge,of the relative density and the compacted
density-which the designer can control by appropriate specifications-
py

permits similar computations for settlement.

Rather than list and describe all index and engineering properties in this
introductorychapter, terms will be definedwhere first used or will be included
in the chapter glossaries.
Co

1.4 THE RoLlE OF INDEX AND EWINEERINO m I E S

If the texture and blow coiints of a soil being considered as potential borrow
are determined from exploratorydrilling and sampling operations,what prac-
tical infomation can be derived from such index data?

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 8 lNmODUCllON

1A.1 case1
Case 1 involves a well-graded gravelly sand, with approximately 25% fines of
significant plasticity. (PI on m i n u s 4 fraction is determined to be 30. Liquid
limit (LL) is 65.) Blow count range, 35-60.

l
~ ~ ~ “ ~ r m , ~ r w l r rFines ( . all soils passing the No. 200 sieve, thus
K ) )are

ria
silts or clays. If fines are judged by simple and quick field tests to be signifi-
cantly plastic (clayey rather than silty), Atterberg Limits tests are ordered on
that portion of the soil passing the No.40sieve:the m i n u s 4 fraction. Result is
PI = 30; LL = 65. Such fines would be rated “high plasticity,” CH in the

ate
Unified Soil Classification System. In summary, this soil is a dense to very
dense,well-graded,essentiallygranular soil, but containing cohesive clay bin-
der. In a real situation, the locale of the potential borrow area would, of course,
be known. Thus, soil maps, geologic maps, and perhaps personal knowledge
of the area (geologic, topographic, and land-use, for example) would be avail-
able to augment the data from the exploratory program. The soil described is
dM
typical of a glacial till, soil deposited directly by a glacier in a mechanical
fashion as opposed to alluvial deposition (by say, glacial meltwater). This
accounts for the wide range of sizes, as contrasted to uniform sizes associated
with the sorting action of flowing water. Thus, one could reasonably expect to
encounter boulders in the area. Confirmation could be obtained by recon-
naissance, particularly by inspection of road cuts in the vicinity.
Before proceeding with a listing of the practical and potentially very valu-
hte

able information that can begleaned from the foregoing, I feel it is necessary to
add some commentary here regarding a very important subject: soil (and
rock) descriptions as they pertain to formal classification systems. There are
several such systems. The most commonly used, in the sense of broadest
acceptance in the United States, are the Unified system and the AASHTO sys-
tem (the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
rig

cials). The best system, in my opinion, is the Burmister system, developed by

Donald Burmister of Columbia University. It is outside the scope of this book
to present details concerning classification systems or to editorialize exten-
sively about the merits or shortcomings of each. Suffice it to say that the Bur-
py

mister system, used extensively by many of my colleagues in professional

practice in the New York/New Jersey area, forces the person using the system
to be precise in estimating and then describingthe texture of a soil sample, but
not unreasonably or unnecessarily so. With concentration and practice, one
can rather quickly develop the skill of estimating the proportions of con-
Co

stituents (gravel, sand, silt,clay)to within about 15%accuracy,the gradation of

each granular constituent (coarse, medium, fine), and the approximate plas-
ticity of any fines (silts, clays) present. Using only visual and tactile senses
(sight, feel, smell-even taste, with one soil scientist I know!) formal, unam-
biguous descriptions can be written in accordance with the explicit rules
governing the system. More information about this system is presented in
Chapter 9.

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 THE ROLE OF INDEX AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES 9

The description given for Case 1, although it will serve its purpose here, is
not in accordance with any formal system. Thus, in professional practice, it
would be of little value, since “well-graded,”“essentially granular,” and “con-
taining clay binder” have no well-defined meaning to other potential users. A
soil classificationsystem, then, is seen as a universally agreed upon language,

l
wherein all words and symbols used have specific definitions. When people

ria
describe soils without adopting a recognized system, no one, save themselves,
can be sure of what they mean. Unfortunately, it is all too common to see soil
descriptions in practice, generally written by one of our nonspecialists, that
are ambiguous, vague, and often visually useless because of usage of ter-
minology not belonging to any recognized system.

ate
For a brief yet excellent treatment of the Unified and AASHTO systems
(and some others) refer to fitter and Paquette ( l W ) , Chapter 6. For a com-
plete description of the Burmister system, see Burmister (1953,1955,1958).
With definitions,discussion,and commentaryregardingthe importance of
careful soil classification, the following list briefly gives some representative
dM
examples of valuable information pertaining to Case 1.

1. The potential borrow will be expensiveto excavatebecause of its density

and texture. Bulldozers or power shovels would probably be required.
Scrapers would require “assistance” in excavating the soil.
2. Boulders (if confirmed)could create significant additional cost,depend-
ing upon frequency and size; better check road cuts.
hte

3. The soil does not drain well ( D ~ size*

O in clay range). Hence, rain of
significant amounts on borrow area would probably create delays and
work stoppages, also possible traficking problems. Check topographic
maps for surface drainage patterns and access roads.
4. The soil has excellent texture from the standpoint of potential bearing
capacity, depending of course, on degree (energy) of compaction, but
rig

Will have poor draiudge characteristics.

5. There is slight-to-medium potential frost action.
6. If compacted sufficiently,postconstruction settlementsare no problem,
but watch out for overcompaction, which could produce expansive
py

potential because of highly plastic fines.

7. Best compactor is probably a rubber-tired roller.

lA.2 case2
Co

Case 2 involves a sand with coarser sizes predominant, fine gravel present,
and no significant silty materials evident. (Sieve test showed fines fraction to
be 7%; dilatancy test on fines confirms no plasticity-NP.) Blow count range,
15-25.

*Dlo size, also called Hazen’s effective size, can be used to estimate soil permeability.

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 10 INmODUCTlON

D E F M “ S L t m c m ” . On the basis of preliminary inspection and eval-

uation, this soil appeared to “qualify” as a selectj l l . In New Jersey, one of the
principal textural qualifications for a select fill is that it contain not more than
12% passing the No. 200 sieve. The sieve test was ordered to determine (par-
ticularly) the percent fines. The 7% confirms the select fill classification.

l
Geologically,this select fill is probably of alluvial origin. Judging by its low

ria
blow counts, it is a recent alluvium (mapped as AR on soil maps published by
SCS,the Soil Conservation Service, a division of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture) and has the following characteristics.

1. Excellent texture. It is becoming scarcer (except, of course, in shoreline

ate
areas) and is thus a valuable “commodity”; it should therefore be re-
served for special purposes and used sparingly.Typical special purposes
are trench bottoms to support pipelines and graded filters in earth-
dam construction.
2. Free-draining. Thus, not susceptibleto seepagepressures, frost action. If
dM
properly compacted, it is permanently stable (except Richter 8’s).
3. Easily excavated (low blow counts, no cohesion).
4. No laboratory compaction test is necessary (or even sensible). Write
compaction specificationson basis of percent relative density.Compact
by flooding.
5. Best compactor would be a heavy vibratory roller.*
hte

1.5 GLogsARy

Alluvial A geologic term referring to soils transported or deposited by water

(streams, glacial meltwater, etc.).
rig

Dilatancy test A simple, diagnostic test of a soil to determine degree of plas-

ticity. The finer fraction of the soil in question, generally that which passes
the No. 40sieve, is mixed with enough water to mold it into a soft, saturated
ball about Ih in. in diameter. The ball is formed into a wafer shape and
placed in the palm of the hand. The heel of the hand is then gently jarred
py

repeatedly with the other hand, while one observes the surface changes (if
any) of the wafer-shaped soil. A ready and quick shiny, glassy change in
appearance (i.e., within seconds) constitutes a positive dilatancy test, and
means that the soil is nonplastic(NP). Ifone squeezes the hand with the pat,
the surface will immediately become dull in appearance; resumed tapping
Co

will quickly recreate the shiny appearance. (The squeezing shears the soil
and allows the surface fluid to quickly drain away, thus assuming the dull
appearance. The tapping consolidatesthe soil, and the water film reappears
on the surface to yield the shiny appearance.) The quickly positive result

*I will explain these comments more fully in subsequent chapters.

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 GLOSSARY 11

identifies the soil as a “clean” silt (as opposed to, say, a clayey silt) or a fine
sandhilt mixture. The longer it takes to produce any reaction (called di-
latancy), the higher is the degree of plasticity. This and other field tests are
used by experienced soils people to assessthe plasticity rating ofthe soil in a
qualitative way. For confirmation, the PI is determined by l a w t o r y

l
analysis for the liquid limit and the plastic limit, both ofwhich are moisture

ria
contents. The numerical difference is the PI. (For details concerning field
testing or laboratory testing, see Burmister (1953, 1955,1958) and Lambe
(1951), respectively.)
Dlo size This means that 10%of the soil (by weight) is finer than that size.
Thus, it may be thought of as an indicator of the finenessof a soil; an impor-

ate
tant index in assessing the general seepage quality of a soil. (See also Sec-
tion 5.1.2.)
Frost action (frost heave) The seasonal heaving (winter) and recession
(spring breakup) of frost susceptible soils, notably silty soils. Aserious pro-
blem in highway and other route design. (See also Section 6.2.1.)
dM
Graded filter Asoil filter that provides a gradual (graded)transition for water
flow, to prevent piping, for example. (See also Section 6.1.)
Granular (cohesionless) Coarser particles of soil (gravel, sand, “clean” silts)
that exhibit no plasticity or cohesiveness.
Piping The dislodging and movement of finer soil particles under the in-
fluence of seepageof water through the soil, starting usually as a slow proc-
ess, and leading eventually to greater distress and, possibly, failure
hte

(explained more fully in Section 6.2.1).

Plasticity(plasticityindex,cohesive) Property of material (soil) that enables it
to be deformed rapidly without volume change, without rupture, and with-
out elastic rebound. The shape, of course, does change; a sculptor’s model-
ing clay is a familiar example. The specific range of moisture contents over
rig

which the soil acts in this way is called the plasticity index (PI). All soils
exhibitinga measureablePI are cohesive, meaning simplythat the particles
“stick together” naturally by other than (or in addition to) capillary forces.
Clays, clay mixtures (clay with other soil types), and organic soils are
cohesive.
py

Richter 8 The Richter scale is used to rate the intensity of earthquakes. Data
obtained from seismographs located throughout the world results in the
rating, which is on a logarithmic scale (base 10);thus a Richter 6 is 10times
more intense than a Richter 5, and so forth. A Richter 8, used somewhat
Co

facetiouslyin the text, would be a rare and very major earthquake ofdevas-
tating effect.
Unconfined compressive strength The compressivestress at failure on a cylin-
drical specimen,usually expressed in tons per square foot (tsf); commonly
performed on sampled, natural soils of a cohesive nature (e.g., clays). There
is no reason, however, that such a test cannot be performed on compacted
samples of suitable cylindrical dimension.

Copyright © 1994 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com