DOCSLIB.ORG

Geotextile Wrap-Face Wall Using Marginal Backfill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geotextile Wrap-Face Wall Using Marginal Backfill GEOTEXTILE WRAP-FACE WALL USING MARGINAL BACKFILL ________________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia ________________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Civil and Environmental Engineering ________________________________________________________________________ by BRANDON R. PARRISH Dr. John J. Bowders, Jr., Thesis Supervisor DECEMBER 2006 The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled GEOTEXTILE WRAP-FACE WALL USING MARGINAL BACKFILL Presented by Brandon R. Parrish A candidate for the degree of Masters of Science in Civil & Environmental Engineering and hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. __________________________________________ John J. Bowders, PhD, PE Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering __________________________________________ J. Erik Loehr, PhD, PE Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering _________________________________________ Allen Thompson, PhD Department of Biological Engineering ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to think my family and friends for their support and encouragement throughout my life and education. I want to especially thank my parents, Brad and Cora Parrish, for making my education possible. I want to thank Erin Sutton for her patience and support throughout the duration of this project. A special thanks to Dr. John Bowders for his guidance and expertise in the completion of this thesis. I also want to thank the University of Missouri-Columbia faculty for their guidance throughout my graduate education. Completion of this project could not have been possible if it were not for help from fellow students and others associated with project, and I would like to recognize them at this time: Andy Carrigan, Missouri Petroleum; William Hawkins, BBA Nonwovens; Dhani Narejo, GSE; Jeff Bertell, Paul Koenig, Dr. Allen Thompson, Andy Boeckmann, Jianhua Li, Peng Li, Nathan Textor, University of Missouri; Neal Kaplan, North Carolina; Young Kim, Korea; Brad Parrish, Palmerton and Parrish; and Erin Sutton, Missouri State University. ii ABSTRACT A concrete retaining wall was constructed during October/November 2005. The height of the wall was 9 feet with a stem width of 0.83 ft, while the width of the base was 1.83 ft. The backfill was a low plasticity clay (CL). As a result of this design, the wall was not able to withstand the lateral pressures from the backfill and noticeable cracks in the wall developed within one month after backfilling. The backfill soil was then removed to relieve pressures on the wall until a remediation scheme could be developed and implemented. A geotextile wrap-face wall was chosen to reinforce the soil mass behind the existing concrete wall, which now acts as a facade. The geotextile wrap-face wall was designed with a high strength woven geotextile with seven layers of reinforcement. The in-situ soil (CL), a marginally suitable material, was used for the backfill. Extensive drainage was incorporated in the design and construction of the geotextile wrap-face wall to decrease backfill pore pressures. A gap between the face of the geotextile wall and the back of the concrete wall allows for deformation of the wrap- face wall without contacting the concrete wall. Index and compaction tests were performed on the backfill soil and interface shear tests were conducted with the geotextile and soil to provide design parameters. The geotextile wrap-face wall was constructed in July 2006, and the performance was monitored. During the monitoring period, four months post construction, no significant lateral, nor vertical movements have occurred, and the drainage system experienced significant flows. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................ii Abstract...............................................................................................................................iii Table of Contents................................................................................................................iv List of Tables....................................................................................................................viii List of Figures......................................................................................................................x 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview/Background.................................................................................1 1.2 Study Project................................................................................................4 1.3 Objective......................................................................................................5 1.4 Scope............................................................................................................5 1.5 Thesis Layout...............................................................................................5 2. Literature Review.....................................................................................................7 2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................7 2.2 Christopher and Stulgis, 2006......................................................................7 2.3 Sandri, 2006.................................................................................................9 2.4 Lawson, 2006.............................................................................................10 2.5 Hatami and Bathhurst, 2006......................................................................10 2.6 Koerner et al., 2006....................................................................................11 2.7 Stulgis, 2006 & Geosynthetics June/July, 2006.........................................11 2.8 Summary of Literature Review..................................................................12 3. Description of Existing Wall and Site Details.......................................................14 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................14 iv 3.2 Issues of Concern for Existing Wall..........................................................20 3.3 Summary of Existing Concrete Wall.........................................................24 4. Geotextile Wrap-face Wall Design and Design Parameters..................................25 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................25 4.2 Backfill Soil Laboratory Testing and Results............................................28 4.3 Geotextile/Clay Interface Testing Results.................................................31 4.4 External Stability of Wrap-face Wall Design............................................45 4.4a Backfill Soil Compaction...............................................................51 4.5 External Stability of Wrap-Face Wall Design...........................................51 4.6 Assumptions Used in Wrap-face Wall Design..........................................54 4.7 Summary of Geotextile Wrap-face Wall and Design Parameters.............57 5. Geotextile Wrap-face Wall Construction Issues....................................................60 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................60 5.2 Construction Issues....................................................................................60 5.3 Temporary Fascia Support.........................................................................60 5.4 Backfill Compaction..................................................................................64 5.5 Drainage.....................................................................................................68 5.6 Geotextile Overlaps...................................................................................70 5.7 Void Between Back of Concrete Wall and Wrap-Face Wall....................72 5.8 Summary of Construction Issues...............................................................73 6. Documentation of the Field Construction of the Geotextile Wall.........................75 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................75 6.2 Photo Documentary of Field Construction................................................76 v 6.3 Actual Field Construction vs. Design Specifications.............................................................................................96 6.3a Change in Stability Resulting from As-Built Conditions..............99 6.3b External Stability of Concrete Wall with Geotextile Wall Contact.....................................................................................................102 6.4 Summary of Geotextile Wrap-Face Wall Field Construction................. 105 7. Field Performance Monitoring System................................................................106 7.1 Introduction..............................................................................................106 7.2 Concrete Wall Crack Monitoring.............................................................106 7.3 Concrete
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agricultural Soil Compaction: Causes and Management
    October 2010 Agdex 510-1 Agricultural Soil Compaction: Causes and Management oil compaction can be a serious and unnecessary soil aggregates, which has a negative affect on soil S form of soil degradation that can result in increased aggregate structure. soil erosion and decreased crop production. Soil compaction can have a number of negative effects on Compaction of soil is the compression of soil particles into soil quality and crop production including the following: a smaller volume, which reduces the size of pore space available for air and water. Most soils are composed of • causes soil pore spaces to become smaller about 50 per cent solids (sand, silt, clay and organic • reduces water infiltration rate into soil matter) and about 50 per cent pore spaces. • decreases the rate that water will penetrate into the soil root zone and subsoil • increases the potential for surface Compaction concerns water ponding, water runoff, surface soil waterlogging and soil erosion Soil compaction can impair water Soil compaction infiltration into soil, crop emergence, • reduces the ability of a soil to hold root penetration and crop nutrient and can be a serious water and air, which are necessary for water uptake, all of which result in form of soil plant root growth and function depressed crop yield. • reduces crop emergence as a result of soil crusting Human-induced compaction of degradation. • impedes root growth and limits the agricultural soil can be the result of using volume of soil explored by roots tillage equipment during soil cultivation or result from the heavy weight of field equipment. • limits soil exploration by roots and Compacted soils can also be the result of natural soil- decreases the ability of crops to take up nutrients and forming processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study on Slope Stability Changes Caused by Earthquakes—Focusing on Gyeongju 5.8 ML EQ
    sustainability Article Case Study on Slope Stability Changes Caused by Earthquakes—Focusing on Gyeongju 5.8 ML EQ Sangki Park , Wooseok Kim *, Jonghyun Lee and Yong Baek Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 283, Goyang-daero, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si 10223, Gyeonggi-do, Korea; [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (J.L.); [email protected] (Y.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-910-0519 Received: 16 July 2018; Accepted: 16 September 2018; Published: 27 September 2018 Abstract: Slope failure is a natural hazard occurring around the world and can lead to severe damage of properties and loss of lives. Even in stabilized slopes, changes in external loads, such as those from earthquakes, may cause slope failure and collapse, generating social impacts and, eventually causing loss of lives. In this research, the slope stability changes caused by the Gyeongju earthquake, which occurred on 12 September 2016, are numerically analyzed in a slope located in the Gyeongju area, South Korea. Slope property data, collected through an on-site survey, was used in the analysis. Additionally, slope stability changes with and without the earthquake were analyzed and compared. The analysis was performed within a peak ground acceleration (PGA) range of 0.0 (g)–2.0 (g) to identify the correlation between the slope safety factor and peak ground acceleration. The correlation between the slope safety factor and peak ground acceleration could be used as a reference for performing on-site slope stability evaluations. It also provides a reference for design and earthquake stability improvements in the slopes of road and tunnel construction projects, thus supporting the attainment of slope stability in South Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stabilization and Repair Solutions for Local Government Engineers
    Slope Stabilization and Repair Solutions for Local Government Engineers David Saftner, Principal Investigator Department of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota Duluth June 2017 Research Project Final Report 2017-17 • mndot.gov/research To request this document in an alternative format, such as braille or large print, call 651-366-4718 or 1- 800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota) or email your request to [email protected]. Please request at least one week in advance. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC 2017-17 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Slope Stabilization and Repair Solutions for Local Government June 2017 Engineers 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. David Saftner, Carlos Carranza-Torres, and Mitchell Nelson 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Department of Civil Engineering CTS #2016011 University of Minnesota Duluth 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 1405 University Dr. (c) 99008 (wo) 190 Duluth, MN 55812 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Local Road Research Board Final Report Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 15. Supplementary Notes http:// mndot.gov/research/reports/2017/201717.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) The purpose of this project is to create a user-friendly guide focusing on locally maintained slopes requiring reoccurring maintenance in Minnesota. This study addresses the need to provide a consistent, logical approach to slope stabilization that is founded in geotechnical research and experience and applies to common slope failures.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Geosynthetics to Improve Road Performance
    2011-20TS Published December 2011 Using Geosynthetics to Improve Road Performance What Was the Need? To increase performance, roads are sometimes reinforced The use of geogrids in road with geosynthetic polymer materials, including geogrids foundations clearly benefits and geotextiles. Geogrids consist of polymers formed into TECHNICAL relatively rigid, gridlike configurations. They are com- pavement performance, monly placed between the subgrade and base or base potentially leading to longer SUMMARY and subbase layers of roads to add strength and stiffness and to slow deterioration. Geotextiles are polymer fabrics service lives for roads and Technical Liaison: that may also provide some reinforcement, but are used Lou Tasa, MnDOT reduced maintenance costs. primarily to: [email protected] • Facilitate filtration and water drainage through road foundation soils without the loss Administrative Liaison: of soil particles. Dan Warzala, MnDOT [email protected] • Provide separation between dissimilar base materials, improving their integrity and functioning. Principal Investigator: • Provide a stable construction platform over soft or wet soils, facilitating the movement Tim Clyne, MnDOT of equipment and the process of soil compaction. [email protected] Of several kinds of geotextiles, Type V is the most commonly used in Minnesota, primarily as a separator. Despite the relatively widespread use of geosynthetics in LRRB PROJECT COST: reconstructing paved county roads and state trunk highways as well as in constructing $30,000 new roads, their performance has not been well documented in Minnesota. Research was needed to obtain field data that would indicate whether geosynthetics extend the service lives of roads and reduce the need for maintenance.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Compaction / Pore Space
    Soil Compaction / Pore Space Bulk density is defined as the ratio of oven dried soil to its bulk volume, which indicates the volume of particles and the pore space between particles. By Clarence Chavez Aggregate Stability and Infiltration Demonstration Poor GdGood Water Quality Soil Soil Health Health Poor Good Nutritional Soil Soil Value Health Health CO2 Poor Good Crop Yields SilSoil Soil and Quality Health Animal Health Health and production Non-compacted VS Compacted Soil Types Water Mineral Mineral Air OM Note: IWM 3 soil data interpretation table for IWM planning can be used also. Bulk Density Field Testing Bulk Density Ideal Bulk Bulk Densities that (Soil Type Densities restrict Table 4. pg. 57) (g/cm3) root growth sands, < 1.6 > 1.80 loamy sands sandy loams, < 1.4 > 1.80 loams S. C. loams, loams, clay loams < 1.4 > 1.75 silts, < 1.3 > 1.75 silt loams silt loams, silty clay loams < 1.4 > 1.65 S. clays, silty clays, some clay loams < 1.10 > 1.58 (35-45% clay) clays (> 45% clay) < 1.10 > 1.47 Soil Penetrometer: Use and Cost The ideal resistance of your top soil should be less than 200 psi. I f you take a reading of more than 200 psi in the field at Field Capacity then you may start to have the making of a hardpan or compacted soil. Cornell Soil Health Assessment Training Manual 2nd Edition (2009) $150 to $300 ea. Soil Penetrometer: PSI Table 10 to 300 PSI 300 to 400 PSI > 400 PSI Moisture Content shldhould be at fifildeld capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE)
    INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is available here: https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library This is an open-access database that archives thousands of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and maintained by the Innovation and Development Committee of ISSMGE. Session 3/9 The Compaction of Soil for Earthworks and the Performance of Plant Le compactage des sols pour les travaux de terrassement, le comportement et l’efficacité du matériel by W. A. Lewis, B.Sc., A.M.I.C.E., Road Research Laboratory, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England Summary Sommaire This paper discusses the results of recent research work on soil Cet exposé passe en revue les résultats des recherches sur le com­ compaction carried out at the Road Research Laboratory. The pactage des sols effectuées récemment au Laboratoire de Recherches work has comprised broadly:— Routières en Angleterre (Road Research Laboratory). L’étude a compris en général: (1) Consideration of the factors affecting the selection of the mois­ ture content at which to compact soil in earthworks. 1° Le choix de la teneur en eau à laquelle le sol doit être com­ (2) Investigation of the state of compaction required in road pacté lors de l’exécution de terrassements. embankments. (3) Study of the performance of plant used for compacting soils. 2° Le contrôle du compactage dans l’exécution de remblais. An account is given of investigations of the performance of the 3° L’observation et la critique des résultats obtenus avec le ma­ types of compaction plant usually employed in the British Isles, and tériel utilisé dans le compactage des sols.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio State Soil Balancing Project Summary
    OHIO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER Ohio State Soil Balancing Project Summary Caroline Brock, Cassandra Brown, Steve Culman, Doug Doohan, Cathy Herms, Doug Jackson-Smith, Matt Kleinhenz, Subbu Kumarappan, The Ohio State University Soil Balancing Team What is Soil Balancing? Soil balancing is a soil management strategy founded on base cation saturation ratio (BCSR) theory. BCSR theory prescribes the use of soil amendments, commonly gypsum and high-calcium lime, to achieve an ideal ratio of the base 55% cations calcium, magnesium, and potassium (Ca, Mg, K). The Practiced soil commonly preferred ratio is 65% Ca, 10% Mg, and 5% K. balancing 45% Why the Interest? more likely to... Did not * use gypsum or The sparse academic research on soil balancing has been practice soil unable to support its effectiveness. Despite this fact, our hi-cal lime * rate maintaining conversations with farmers in recent years suggested that balancing BCSR ratios as soil balancing was being widely used. In our 2018 survey important or very of organic corn farmers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and important to farm Michigan, we found that about half of the 859 respondents management. reported using soil balancing on their farms. (See Figure 1). Survey respondents who used soil balancing reported many improvements which they attributed to soil balancing. More than 70% reported improvements in soil quality, nutrient Figure 1. Percent of Organic Corn Grower Survey availability, crop quality and yield, soil biological activity, and Respondents Who Reported Using Soil Balancing. A little over half of our survey respondents reported using infiltration/drainage. A smaller number (40-50%) reported less soil balancing on their farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Study of Soil Compaction DELON HAMPTON, Senior Research Engineer, and E
    Field Study of Soil Compaction DELON HAMPTON, Senior Research Engineer, and E. T. SELIG, Manager, Soil Mechanics, IIT Research Institute, Chicago Full-scale field tests dealing with soil compaction for highway construction were undertaken to determine the following: (a) the desired characteristics of compacted soil, (b) how best to measure and specify the proper compaction, and (c) the effectiveness of various methods of achieving compaction. The test variables included were type of soil or base course material, moisture con­ tent, lift thickness, type of compactor, compactive effort, and number of roller coverages. Measurements of the soil properties were made using a cone penetrometer, 6- in. bearing plate, CBR apparatus, seismograph, portable nuclear moisture/ density instrument, nuclear Road Log­ ger and sand cone, together with conventional moisture content procedures. The experiments were divided into 6 sets, 3 for subgradc s oils and 3 for base cour s e ma­ terials, each incorporating some of the independent var­ iables for different purposes. Statistical techniques were used for planning the experiments and analyzing the data. This paper describes the scope of the field tests, the plans and procedures and the type of information being obtained. •IN 1964, the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads in conjunction with 14 states and Puerto Rico undertook sponsorship of a comprehensive study of soil compaction. The re­ search comprised three parts. North Carolina State of the University of North Carolina at Raleigh was to evaluate the state of the art of compaction of s oil and r ock materials for highway purposes. The Ohio State University was to study fundamental properties of soils in the labor ator y, on a r heological basis, to deter mine whal lhe basic pr op­ erties of soils in relation to soil compaction are.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Soil Drainage and Compaction
    East Balhagardy Soil Nutrient Network Meeting 02-11-17 Soil Compaction Managing Soil Drainage and Compaction Key factors for movement of water in the soil • Soil Texture • Soil Structure • Soil Compaction Soil Texture What is Soil? Soil Texture • It describes the physical composition of the soil – % of sand, silt and clay • Refers to the mineral fragments of the soil only – water and organic material are not considered – only considers particles <2mm • Texture is a stable soil property - does not change measurably over a long period of years 7 Soil texture classes 0 100 10 90 20 80 30 70 Clay 40 <0.002 mm 60 0.06-0.002 mm Clay Silt 50 50 60 40 Silty clay Sandy clay 70 30 Silty clay Clay loam loam 80 20 Sandy clay loam 90 10 Sandy loam Sandy silt loam Silt loam Loamy Sand 100 0 sand 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sand 2-0.06 mm 8 Soil texture & water • The sizes of pores in a soil are related to its texture – Sands have large pores – Clays have small pores • Large pores allow free drainage – Sandy soils drain more easily than clays • Small pores store water – Clay soils have a bigger water holding capacity than sandy soils 9 Water in soil • Gravitational water – drains freely from large pores – only available to plants for a short time • Capillary water – held in small pores – available for plants • Hygroscopic water – held tightly around small particles – not available to plants 10 Soil Structure Soil structure: the importance of macropores • Macropores and cracks : allow water infiltration and drainage, keep the soil aerated reducing nitrous loss and increase water uptake and crop yield.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Geotextiles on the Compaction Properties of Soils
    d 2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus Effect of geotextiles on the compaction properties of soils S. Nilay Keskin P rof. PhD., Süleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Engineering-Architecture, Department of Civil E ngineering, Isparta, 32260, Turkey. Ömür Çimen T.Selçuk Göksan Soner Uzundurukan A ssist. Prof. PhD., Süleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Engineering-Architecture, Department of Civil Engineering, Isparta, 32260, Turkey. Mehmet Karpuzcu M s. Of Science, Civil Engineer, Isparta, 32260, Turkey KEYWORDS: Geotextile, Compaction, Clay, Sand, Pumice. ABSTRACT: In order to improve the engineering characteristic of the soil, several methods have been applied such as compressing the soil, using supplementary materials, carrying out thermo operations and using geotextile. Nowadays, usage of geotextiles in stabilization of the soil is increasing gradually. The geotextile products used for different purposes in soil and foundation engineering are produced in a great variety. In this study, the effects of woven and non-woven geotextiles on the compaction parameters of sand, clay and pumice were investigated. For this aim, compaction tests were conducted on sand, clay and pumice specimens. Compaction tests were also conducted on the specimens that were reinforced with one layer of geotextile and reinforced with two layers of geotextiles respectively. And results obtained from these tests were compared. No significantly effect was observed of geotextile reinforcement of pumice on the quality of compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum water content values of clayey soil were obtained on the experiments that were conducted on the clayey soil reinforced with one layer of propex 6062 (woven).
    [Show full text]
  • GEOTECHNICAL NOTES November 2016
    GEOTECHNICAL NOTES November 2016 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for all subgrade inspection and soil compaction testing associated with any work within a City right-of-way, private property subject to a public access easement, or private property subject to City easement for public utilities or public improvements; and/or any work associated with a sediment control facility, or stormwater management practice. This work shall be completed by or under the supervision of a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Maryland. For the purposes of these notes and associated approved plans, this Engineer shall be referred to as the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be an independent firm from the Applicant. 2. Any plans subject to NRCS-MD Pond Code 378 Standards/Specifications, as shown on the plans, shall supersede these notes when these notes are less stringent or in case of conflict. Any reference to the Engineer in the 378 Standard/Specifications shall be the Professional Engineer who stamped and sealed the design plans. Any reference to the Geotechnical Engineer shall be the Geotechnical Engineer as defined above or the Geotechnical Engineer who completed certain aspects of the pond design. 3. All inspections, tests, supporting data, reports, and certifications shall be provided to the City of Rockville Department of Public Works (DPW) and shall be sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Daily inspection reports, if requested by the City, can be provided without being immediately sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer. These reports shall be compiled, reviewed, sealed and then submitted to DPW at a later date as agreed upon by the City.
    [Show full text]
  • SOIL COMPACTION and STABILITY By: Charles S
    SOIL COMPACTION AND STABILITY By: Charles S. Gresser, P.E., Construction Materials Testing Division Manager It’s difficult to stick with the basics if you can’t remember them. Here’s a brief review of the fundamentals of soil compaction and stability, along with advice about dealing with unstable subgrades. Geotechnical engineers have to answer questions about soil compaction and stability on a regular basis. The questions often asked by architects, developers, contractors and civil engineers are “How can compaction results be obtained that are greater than 100 percent?” and “How can soil that meets compaction requirements be unstable?” SOIL COMPACTION To review some basics of soil mechanics, compaction is the process by which a mass of soil consisting of solid soil particles, air, and water is reduced in volume by the momentary application of loads, such as rolling, tamping, or vibration. Compaction involves an expulsion of air without a significant change in the amount of water in the soil mass. Thus, the moisture content of the soil, which is defined as the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of dry soil particles, is normally the same for loose, uncompacted soil as for the same soil after compaction. Since the amount of air is reduced without change in the amount of water in the soil mass, the degree of saturation (the ratio of the volume of water to the combined volume of air and water) increases. When used as a construction material, the significant engineering properties of soil are its shear strength, its compressibility, and its permeability.
    [Show full text]