Compaction and Volume Change Behavior of Embankment Soil: Gamiller@ou - Edu

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017 GSP 300 325
Compaction and Volume Change Behavior of Embankment Soil
Gerald A. Miller, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1

1
Professor, Univ. of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd St., Rm. 334, Norman, OK 73072. E-mail:
gamiller@ou.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/21/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract
This paper examines the state of practice relative to soil compaction and volume change behavior
related to settlement of embankment soils. Typical design practices and compaction
specifications are discussed relative to construction of embankments for supporting building and
highway infrastructure. Observations of behavior of compacted soil during constant water
content compression and in response to wetting are discussed relative to typical compacted soil
conditions. Finally, recommendations for improving the state of the practice for design and
construction of compacted soil embankments are provided.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses the state of the practice regarding compacted soils used to support highway
and building infrastructure. It focuses primarily on volume change behavior of compacted soil
and embankment settlement. This paper does not purport to address the state of practice
everywhere and will necessarily be biased toward the local practice the author is most familiar
with. However, many of the concepts and practices employed locally are universal and so are the
underlying mechanics and unsaturated soil behavior. What is apt to vary most across the United
States, and the world, is the degree to which new technology is being adopted for compaction
and compaction quality control. A tremendous amount of literature is available on soil
compaction and compacted soil behavior. It is not possible to address all of the good work done
in this area in a single paper, thus the author has been selective in citing works needed to
emphasize important points relative to compacted soil behavior and particularly for those points
that have important implications on practice.
Soil compaction is an essential part of earthwork during construction of civil works.
Mechanical behavior of compacted soils depends on numerous factors related to the soil type,
method of compaction, initial conditions, and post compaction changes in water content and
stress conditions. Soil compaction and compacted soils have been studied extensively over many
years and remain the subject of research related to unsaturated soil mechanics and advances in
compaction technology. This paper focuses on the state of practice related to compaction and
volume change behavior of compacted soils as used in the construction of embankments
intended to support highway and building infrastructure. It does not address the behavior of
compacted soils used in low permeability barrier applications or dams, and only generally
addresses permeability characteristics of compacted soils as they relate to embankment
performance.
Practically all projects involving construction of fill embankments will utilize laboratory
compaction tests to define soil densities and water contents to be targeted during construction.
As such, this paper addresses the state of the practice related to testing, analysis, and design of
© ASCE
PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

compacted soil embankments. Aspects of mechanical behavior observed through laboratory

testing important to fill performance are discussed. In addition, the influence of typical
compaction methods and specifications used in the field are discussed relative to the behavior of
compacted soils under varying conditions during and after construction.
Generally, the state of the practice regarding compacted soils for embankments has
remained relatively unchanged for decades. However, our understanding of compacted soil
behavior as it relates to unsaturated soil mechanics has advanced significantly in parallel with
advancements in research and improved methods of testing mechanical properties of unsaturated
soils. Therefore, this paper discusses important aspects of compacted soil behavior and how the
state of practice might evolve to address problematic behavior associated with settlement of
compacted soil embankments.
2. STATE OF PRACTICE
2.1 State of Practice – Construction of Compacted Soil Embankments
The author has been involved with the study of compacted soils and embankments in Oklahoma
for over two decades and so has comprehensive knowledge of local practices. In preparing this
state of practice paper, the author interviewed local geotechnical engineers and the Chief
Geotechnical Engineer for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. In addition, the author
consulted with colleagues in other states to get a sense of the state of practice beyond Oklahoma.
Furthermore, numerous published resources were reviewed such as roadway and geotechnical
design manuals from several states across America. Thus, the state of practice as represented in
this paper does not necessarily reflect the state of practice everywhere, but a reasonable cross-
section of typical states of practice across the USA.
In many ways, soil compaction has not evolved much since the development of the
theory of compaction by Proctor in the 1930s (Proctor 1933) and the Proctor compaction test
remains the basis for establishing compaction criteria. Our understanding of compacted soil
behavior and how to assess this behavior in the laboratory has advanced significantly, but basic
principles of the construction methods used to compact soil are virtually unchanged. The basic
practice involves matching equipment to soil type, collecting representative soil samples and
testing in the laboratory to establish the reference densities and moisture contents, and quality
control testing to ensure proper density and moisture conditions are achieved in the field.
While equipment has evolved over the decades with improvements in mechanical and
electrical systems, the basic roller types have essentially remained similar and include
sheepsfoot, padfoot, smooth drum and multi-tired pneumatic types. Depending on soil
conditions, vibratory compaction is typically available with smooth drum and padfoot type
rollers. It is well established that sheepsfoot rollers produce significant kneading action needed
for proper compaction of clayey soils and are best for soils that are predominantly composed of
plastic clayey fines. Smooth vibratory drum rollers are best for cohesionless sands and gravels,
and rubber tired rollers are good for a wide range of soils containing fines and coarse grained
particles. The padfoot roller, similar to a sheepsfoot but with drum protrusions having a shorter
shank and larger, typically rectangular cross-section, have proven to be effective for a large
range of soil types from clayey soils to intermediate soils. There are numerous excellent
publications that go into extensive detail on the differences, applications and operation of these
various machines (e.g. Holtz 1990, Holtz et al. 2011).
© ASCE

Compaction of soil during construction of embankments for highways and buildings is

typically driven by end-product specifications (Holtz et al. 2011). Among other things, typical
specifications will address equipment to be used with different soil types, and requirements for
loose lift thickness, relative compaction and moisture contents during compaction, and the type
of compaction test to be used in the laboratory. The specifications also address requirements for
quality control testing such as the frequency and type of methods used to measure the in place
density and moisture content. To satisfy specifications, the end product, i.e. measured relative
compaction and moisture content in the compacted soil, must meet requirements established in
the specifications. Requirements for relative compaction and moisture content are based on the
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content established in the laboratory for the soil
being used. For this purpose the ASTM Standards D 698 and D 1557 for Standard and Modified
compaction effort are used (ASTM 2017).
Advances in compactor machine technology have occurred over the decades since
Proctor’s seminal work; however, the end-product goals, i.e. desired moisture content and
relative compaction have not changed. This has been and will remain a standard approach to
earthwork for the foreseeable future for good reason. The reason is that the moisture content and
dry density of a compacted soil uniquely define the state of that soil for a given method of
compaction, from which the expected soil behavior may be assessed in light of post construction
changes in stress and moisture conditions. On the other hand a parameter like stiffness, which
has also been suggested as a quality control parameter, does not uniquely define the state of the
soil and cannot be used to assess the expected soil behavior. This is particularly true for fine-
grained soils where the matric suction, and hence moisture content, and dry density both have a
strong influence on soil mechanical properties. In such a soil, it is possible to achieve the same
stiffness with different combinations of dry density and moisture content. Hence, stiffness does
not uniquely define the state of the compacted soil. In granular soils, stiffness may be a more
reliable predictor of compacted soil state since matric suction is typically low and water has less
influence on soil behavior.
While stiffness may not be a suitable parameter to define the state of a compacted soil, it
has proven useful for improving the quality of compacted soil in the field through the advent of
“intelligent compaction”. Intelligent compaction provides a method to continuously monitor the
soil response during the compaction process by monitoring the dynamic behavior of the
compaction roller (e.g. Mooney et al. 2010, Chang et al. 2011). Some advances have also been
achieved by monitoring machine drive power during compaction and relating that to soil
conditions (e.g. Thompson & White 2008). By continuous mapping of the soil response for each
compacted lift, it is possible to achieve a degree of uniformity in the compacted soil not
achievable with typical point measurements of density and water content. While companion
measurements of density and water content are still needed, for reasons explained above,
providing uniform compaction throughout each lift will provide a better fill and more uniform
support to the overlying structures. This is one area of compacted soil construction technology
that has seen significant improvement. With advanced GPS monitoring and continuous mapping
of the compacted soil response, intelligent compaction will have a significant impact on the
quality of the end-product. That is a more uniformly compacted fill via essentially continuous
quality control monitoring. Given that poorly compacted soils are a major reason for poor fill
performance (e.g. Briaud et al. 1997), intelligent compaction has great potential for improving
construction.
© ASCE

2.2 State of Practice – Design of Compacted Soil Embankments
In assessing the behavior of soil embankments, engineers are mainly concerned with settlement,
heave and stability against shear failure. Settlement and heave characteristics can be examined
using one-dimensional testing in an oedometer. Depending on the nature of the project and
organizations involved, mechanical property testing may be limited and analysis and design of
embankments may largely depend on estimating mechanical soil properties and behavior solely
on the basis of results of routine index property tests. In many cases, there is no detailed
assessment of the embankment performance, relative to fill settlement, and engineers simply rely
on compaction testing, end product specifications and experience for achieving desired
performance of embankments. For example, local practice involving construction of fill to
support overlying structures, what might be termed “structural” or “select” fill, is typically
driven by specifications and not direct assessment of stability or settlement of the fill material
selected. The geotechnical report will typically include statements restricting the type of soil that
can be used; for example: liquid limit less than or equal to 30, plasticity index less than or equal
to 15, percent of fines less than 20 percent. Statements regarding the relative compaction and
moisture contents required during construction will also be specified; for example: soils should
be compacted to a density greater than or equal to 95% of the maximum dry density and
moisture content during compaction should fall between 1 percentage point dry and 2 percentage
points wet of the optimum moisture content from a standard Proctor compaction test.
Generally, volume change and stability of the structural fill are not evaluated on a case by
case basis for routine building construction. Instead the geotechnical reports will include
standard language regarding the bearing capacity and expected settlement of structural fill.
Commonly, allowable bearing capacity of 100 kPa (2,000 psf) to 125 kPa (2,500 psf) is specified
for footings founded in structural fill and estimated settlements of up to 1% of the height of the
fill are indicated. For many projects involving relatively thin layers of fill and lightly loaded
columns with relatively small footing sizes, this approach works reasonably well. However, as
fills get thicker and loads get larger, it is prudent to evaluate the potential settlement of the fill on
a case by case basis. Even fills compacted to specifications can experience significant
settlements (e.g. Lim & Miller 2004) when embankment heights become large.
For construction of embankments supporting transportation infrastructure, often there is
little or no analysis of internal fill settlement, and engineers rely on construction specifications to
achieve the desired product. For example, in Oklahoma and many other states, there is an
implicit assumption in the design process that as long as the soil comprising the embankments is
compacted to within specifications the engineering performance will be acceptable. This may
work well for high quality granular soils, but given the wide variety and significant amounts of
fine-grained soils that are often involved, a “one size fits all” approach is not a good idea. This is
especially true as embankments get larger, soils get more plastic, and potential for post
construction moisture changes increases. Specifications and design manuals that address
embankments typically do not focus on adverse effects of mechanical response of embankment
soils. Beyond the classification and compaction testing of embankment soils, very little if any
mechanical testing of embankment soils is mentioned in guidance documents. On the contrary,
most, if not all of the attention is focused on the mechanical response of foundation soils. This
observation is supported by discussions with local engineers and a review of selected state
department of transportation (DOT) documents from across the USA, summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 represents documents that provide guidelines for design and construction of highway
© ASCE

embankments. The table indicates which documents mention compressibility of compacted soil
and how it is to be addressed. While a couple of the examples include vague references to
settlement due to volume change of compacted fill, most do not. Most, however, address in some
detail the settlement due to compression of foundation soils. Of the documents listed, the
Oklahoma roadway design specifications provide the most explicit discussion of settlement
originating in the fill. However, a recent discussion with local engineers indicated that this issue
is rarely addressed in practice.
TABLE 1 - Summary of DOT documents reviewed to assess extent that

settlement due to fill volume change is addressed

Addresses Fill
Volume
Change?
Document (Yes or No) Comments
California DOT, Caltrans Geotechnical
No
Manual, Embankments, (2014)
Connecticut DOT, Geotechnical
No response to wetting tests listed
Engineering Manual (2005, Rev. 2009)
Iowa DOT, Design Manual, briefly mentioned that embankment
Geotechnical Design, Embankments, Yes design should consider settlement
Chapter 200, 200F-2, (2014) of fill materials
Minnesota DOT, Geotechnical
Engineering Manual
No
Geotechnical Engineering Section
(2017)
briefly mentions high fills and
New York DOT, Geotechnical Design
Yes possible compression of fill
Manual, Chapter 12 Draft (2012)
materials
North Carolina DOT, Geotechnical
Investigation and Recommendations No
Manual (2016)
Ohio DOT, Specifications for
focus on foundation, no explicit
Geotechnical Explorations (2016) and No
mention of “fill” settlement
Embankments Checklist
Oklahoma DOT, Geotechnical however based on discussion
Specifications for Roadway Design Yes w/DOT engineer not widely
(2015) adapted in local practice
South Carolina DOT, Geotechnical
No
Design Manual, Ch. 17 (2010)
Washington State DOT Geotechnical
Design Manual, Chapter 9 No
Embankments (2013)
3. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE STATE OF

PRACTICE
While the approach to embankment design has not evolved much over past decades, knowledge
of compacted soil behavior has improved significantly through extensive research readily found
in the published literature. For example, response of compacted soils to wetting in relationship to
volume change has been thoroughly studied, important lessons have been revealed, and testing
and analysis techniques have evolved. While there is some evidence that change is slowing
© ASCE

coming, in the author’s opinion, the state of the practice regarding embankment design lags the
state of the art regarding understanding of compacted soil behavior. In the following sections
some observations in support of this opinion are presented along with recommendations to
improve the state of practice relative to design of compacted soil embankments.
3.1 Volume-Change Behavior in Compacted Soils at Constant Water Content
3.1.1 Variation in Degree of Saturation and Rate of Compression

Immediately after compaction, compacted embankment soils are generally in an unsaturated state
with densities and moisture contents near optimum conditions. In the absence of external
wetting, compacting soil layers above a soil element leads to decreases in void ratio, increases in
degree of saturation, and decreases in soil suction as volumetric compression occurs under
increasing total stress. Soil elements may approach saturation if significant volumetric
compression occurs depending on the initial stress conditions, initial density, initial water content
and compressibility of the soil. Consider for example, the results of constant water content
oedometric compression tests on a moderately plastic clayey soil shown in Fig. 1. One of the
samples was compacted to a relative compaction (R) of 95% based on standard Proctor density at
4% dry of the optimum moisture content (OMC), and the other to R=100% at the OMC. The
sample compacted dry of optimum never reached a saturated state even at a vertical stress of
1600 kPa; however, the sample compacted at optimum approached saturation a stress level of
800 kPa. While these stress levels would only be present in high embankments greater than about
40 m in height, samples compacted wet
-5 of optimum may approach saturation at
OMC+2 much lower stress levels. This is
indicated by the dashed line
representing estimated degrees of
0 saturation for compression of a sample
compacted at OMC plus 2% (OMC+2).
Vertical Strain (%)
These observations are important in that

they counter the notion that settlements
5 of compacted soils occur during
construction. For clayey soils
compacted dry of optimum and at the
lowest densities allowed by
10 specifications, soils may remain
OMC & γ dmax
unsaturated with a continuous air phase
OMC-4 & 0.95γ dmax and the rate of compression may be
relatively faster and occur mostly
15 during construction. However, for soils
1 10 100 1000 60 80 100 wet of optimum and at higher densities,
Vertical Stress (kPa) Degree of and subjected to higher stress
Saturation (%)
conditions toward the bottom of
FIG. 1 - Constant water content oedometer tests embankments, soils may approach
on clayey soil at two different initial states; saturation during self-weight
soil: CL, PI=13, %fines=97, %<2μm=51 compression and longer term
© ASCE

consolidation type settlements of the soil may occur (Barden et al. 1979, Barden and Sides
1969).
Another important observation with respect to Fig. 1 is that the soil compacted dry of
optimum, in spite of being at a lower dry density, has a similar compressibility at stresses less
than 200 kPa, compared to the soil compacted at optimum moisture content. This is attributed to
the significant matric suction that develops in the soil at lower moisture content. This
observation shows that soils at two different compacted states can achieve the same stiffness, as
discussed previously.
Information that depicts settlement characteristics of embankment soils under field
conditions, that allows for examination of self-weight compression and wetting-induced

compression, is not readily found in the published literature. Generally, there has been extensive
focus on the settlement of underlying foundation soils, but considerably less emphasis on the
embankment soils. Centrifuge modeling experiments by the author and colleagues have provided
some insight (Miller et al. 2001). One interesting observation is that self-weight settlement of
embankment soils dry of optimum is not simultaneous to construction and may occur over longer
time periods than expected. Consider for example the data in Fig. 2 collected during centrifuge
modeling of an embankment consisting of a fine-grained clayey silt (CL, PI=8). The model
embankment was spun up to 165 g, at which point it had a prototype height of about 20 m. The
purpose of the centrifuge modeling was to study self-weight and wetting-induced compression of
embankment soils, with most focus on the latter. Data in Fig. 2 represent the self-weight
settlement behavior of one of the models during spin up and then during self-weight compression
after maximum centrifugal acceleration was reached. For this model, soil was compacted to 95%
of standard Proctor density and to a moisture content 5% dry of optimum. In examining this data,
what is most interesting is that the self-weight settlement continued over a period of about 250
days (prototype time) after
25
reaching the maximum g-
Embankment
20
Height (m)
level corresponding to an
15 embankment height at 20
10 m. Note that suction
5 changed very little during
0 this period as indicated by
Settlement (cm) pressure (kPa)
-5 the negative pore water

Pore water
-10 pressure response at the

-15 embankment mid-height
-20 as shown if Fig. 2. If 250
0 days or more are needed to
2 complete self-weight
4
6 settlement of a low PI soil
8 compacted 5% dry of
10
12 optimum, it is expected
14 that considerably more
16
100 200 300 400 500 600 time would be needed for
Time (days) settlement in higher PI
FIG. 2 - Self-weight compression behavior of a centrifugemodel soils compacted near or
embankment (prototype scale); soil: PI=8, %fines=73, R=95%, beyond optimum moisture
compacted 5% dry of optimum conditions.
© ASCE

3.1.2 Soil Deformation and Stiffness 0

1
In Fig. 3, compression curves for two 2
soils, a clay and a sand, obtained from 3
Vertical Strain (%)

4
constant water content oedometer tests
5 Clay: CH, PI=43, 95% fines
are presented. The curves show the
0
compression behavior up to a vertical 1
stress of 200 kPa for different moisture 2 OMC-4
contents relative to the OMC. These 3 OMC-2
curves were obtained during response to 4 OMC

OMC+2
wetting tests on compacted samples 5 Sand: SW-SM, PI=0, 9% fines
prior to inundation with water. One 6
1 10 100 1000
important observation is that
Vertical Stress (kPa)
compression of the clay is similar at the
OMC and dry of the OMC, but wet of FIG. 3 - Typical compression behavior of two soils
from constant water content oedometer tests on
the OMC considerably more compacted samples with different intial water
compression occurs. For the sand, there content at vertical stressesup to 200 kPa
is relatively little variation between the
compression behavior and no discernable pattern for different moisture contents. Another
important observation is that the clayey soil compacted at OMC+2 began to exhibit considerably
more compressibility above 100 kPa vertical stress compared to soils at and below the OMC.
This indicates as the compaction moisture content increases, the transition from recompression to
normal compression type behavior occurs at a lower stress (i.e. lower apparent preconsolidation
stress).
0.05 In Fig. 4, the recompression
0.04 Granular Soils index is plotted against compaction
Recompression Index, cr
0.03 moisture condition for 15 cohesive

0.02 soils and 7 granular soils (sands). For
0.01 this comparison, the recompression
0.00 index was computed using void ratios
corresponding to stresses at 6 kPa and
0.04 Cohesive Soils 100 kPa. Trends in this figure confirm
0.03 that for a given soil, generally the
0.02 recompression behavior is relatively
0.01 insensitive to the compaction moisture
0.00 conditions for granular soils. With few
OMC-4 OMC-2 OMC OMC+2 exceptions for the cohesive soils,
Water Content Relative to OMC (%) compression behavior dry of optimum
FIG 4 - Recompression index versus water content to optimum does not change much with
relative to OMC for 15 cohesive soils and 7 granular changes in compacted moisture content
soils, from oedometer testing. Samples compacted for a given soil, but generally a
to relative compaction, R=95% noticeable increase in compressibility
occurs wet of optimum. For clayey soils in Fig. 4, the recompression behavior correlates
reasonably well to the plasticity index for soils compacted dry of the OMC, as shown in Fig. 5.
For granular soils, correlations were established between recompression index and initial dry
© ASCE

0.04
density, degree of saturation, percent of
0.03
fines and clay size fraction as shown in
0.02 Fig. 6. As with clayey soils,
0.01 2
OMC+2: cr=0.0140PI+0.000277 r =0.17
coefficients of determination (r2) were
higher for soils compacted dry of the
Recompression Index, cr
0.04 2
OMC: cr=0.0107PI+0.000127 r =0.14 OMC.
0.03
Numerous experimental
0.02
observations in the literature show that
0.01
the apparent preconsolidation stress or
0.04
yield stress for a compacted soil at a
0.03 OMC-2: c =0.00533PI+0.000296 r2=0.56
r given density increases with increasing
0.02
suction (e.g. Alonso et al. 1990,
0.01
Jotisankasa et al. 2007). Beyond the
0.04 2 preconsolidation stress, experimental
OMC-4: cr=0.00536PI+0.000285 r =0.57
0.03 observations have shown that the slope
0.02 of the normal compression line under
0.01
constant suction loading in the
0 10 20 30 40 50 laboratory may increase, decrease or
Plasticity Index, PI remain the same with increasing
FIG. 5 - Recompression index versus plasticity suction (Sheng et al. 2008). However,
index for 15 cohesive soils compacted to different observations from constant water
water contents relative to the optimum moisture content compression tests indicate that
content (OMC) and relative compaction, R=95% the slope of the normal compression
line increases with lower initial water content corresponding to higher initial suctions (e.g.
Jotisankasa et al. 2007). The constant water content compression behavior better simulates
conditions in embankment soils in the absence of external wetting. This implies that for soils
compacted to the same density the preconsolidation stress will be higher for soils compacted dry
of the OMC and lower wet of the OMC; and beyond the preconsolidation stress, for a given
change in stress more compression will occur for soils compacted dry of optimum.
3.2 Volume Change after Wetting Compacted Soils
3.2.1 Magnitude of Wetting-Induced Deformation
Depending on soil type, compacted soils may swell when wetted at low stress levels and
compress (“collapse”) when wetted at higher stress levels. There are many factors that affect the
response to wetting including: soil type; initial density and moisture content; stress conditions,
including vertical and horizontal net normal stresses and matric suction; stress history and stress
path during wetting; and degree of wetting, among others. Numerous researches have
investigated response of compacted soils to wetting in both the swelling and collapse regimes. A
complete treatment of this work is beyond the scope of this paper; however, Table 2 summarizes
some significant publications related to volume change in compacted soils. Journal papers listed
in Table 2 are generally focused on wetting-induced compression and in many cases swelling
behavior.
It is generally recognized that the response to wetting is best modeled in the laboratory by
bringing samples to the desired stress state before inundation with water. This is also referred to
© ASCE

m4 m3 m2 m1 b as the “wetting after loading”

r2
OMC-4 0.00020 0.00262 -0.00064 0.00002 -0.03896 0.54 Method A in the ASTM Standard D
OMC-2 0.00036 0.00129 -0.00105 0.00011 -0.02259 0.82 4546, “Standard Test Methods for
OMC 0.00034 0.00224 -0.00071 -0.00002 -0.04156 0.41 One-Dimensional Swell or Collapse
OMC+2 0.00000 0.00161 -0.00071 0.00025 -0.01873 0.56
0.025 of Soils.” However, the double-
cr=m4*F+m3*CF+m2*DD+m1*S+b oedometer method (Jennings and
F=percent of fines Knight 1957) has been used
CF=clay size fraction (%)
Predicted Recompression Index, cr
0.020 DD=initial dry density (kN/m3)

extensively in the past and offers
S=degree of saturation (%)
some advantages over other
methods. The double-oedometer

method involves testing two
0.015
nominally identical samples; one is
inundated with water under the
seating load, allowed to swell and
0.010
then loaded incrementally as in a
standard oedometer test on saturated
specimens (i.e. ASTM D 2435
0.005 Standard Test Methods for One-
Dimensional Consolidation
Properties of Soils Using
0.000 Incremental Loading), while the
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 other is incrementally loaded from
Measured Recompression Inex, cr the as-compacted state without

FIG 6. - Measured vs. predicted Recompression Index, cr; inundation. Resulting log stress vs.
strain curves are plotted as shown in
measured cr obtained from oedometer tests on seven
the left graph of Fig. 7. To interpret
sands prepared at four different moisture conditions; the results, the basic assumption is
cr is determined based on secant line from 6 to 200 kPa
that the difference in strain between
the curves at a given stress represents the swelling potential or collapse potential, when the as-
compacted compression curve is below and above the saturated curve, respectively. It has been
the author’s experience that collapse potential is predicted reasonably well with the double
oedometer in comparison to wetting-after-loading oedometer tests on the same soil (e.g. Lim and
Miller 2004).
Results of double-oedometer tests shown in Figs. 7 and 8 represent the same soil
compacted to two different initial conditions. Soil represented in Fig. 7 was compacted to a
relative of compaction of 95% based on standard Proctor compaction and 4% dry of the OMC.
Soil represented in Fig. 8 was compacted at the maximum dry density and OMC. Soil compacted
dry of the OMC shows considerable tendency for swelling at low stress levels and collapse at
high stress levels. The swelling tendency is associated with the moisture deficiency and high
suction present in soil compacted dry of the OMC. At higher stress levels, the suction provides a
metastable soil structure that is lost upon inundation with water, leading to volumetric
compression (“collapse”).
In the sample compacted at OMC and maximum dry density, significant swelling is also
indicated at low stress levels due to the higher density and significant suction in the soil. Even
though the degree of saturation is higher than for the sample at OMC-4%, it is low enough that
significant suctions would be expected in this sample as well. Above about 200 kPa, the soaked
© ASCE

(s) and as-compacted (ac) curves converge, which also corresponds to the point at which the ac
sample becomes saturated, as indicated in the graph on the right of Fig. 8. For the OMC-4
sample in Fig. 7, the soil never reaches saturation for the range of stresses applied.
TABLE 2 – Summary of topics and some journal papers and books that address
wetting-induced deformation in compacted soils
Topic References
Unsaturated Soil Behavior and Barden et al. 1973, Lawton et al. 1989,
Wetting-Induced Volume Change Tadepalli & Fredlund (1991), Basma and
– General Tuncer 1992, Lawton et al. 1992, Fredlund

and Rahardjo 1993, Lu & Likos 2004, Sun et
al. 2007, Taibi et al. 2011
Partial Wetting Collapse Houston et al. 1993
Field Prediction of Collapse Houston et al. 1988
Collapse Settlement in Model and Brandon et al. 1990, Lim et al. 2001, Lim &
Field Embankments and Fills Miller 2004, Thorel et al. 2011
Chemical Treatment and Lawton et al. 1993, Miller et al. 1997, Rao et
Collapse/Swelling Behavior al. 2001
Suction Measurement/Control Rao and Revanasiddappa 2000, Jotisankasa et
and Collapse Testing al. 2007
Influence of Stress Anisotropy on Lawton et al. 1991, Pereira and Fredlund 2000,
Collapse Sun et al. 2004
Constitutive Modeling Alonso et al. 1990, Wheeler and Sivakumar
1995, Sivakumar and Wheeler 2000, Gili &
Alonso 2002, Gens et al. 2006, Sun et al. 2007,
Ferber et al. 2008, Mašín & Khalili 2008,
Romero and Jommi 2008, Sheng et al. 2008,
Casini 2012, Zhou et al. 2012, Rojas et al.
20015
Numerical Modeling of Collapse Liu et al. 2003, Zheng et al. 2017
Effect of Wetting/Drying on Rao and Revanasiddappa 2006, Rosenbalm
Collapse/Swelling Behavior and Zapata 2017
Soil Structure and Volume Rao and Revanasiddappa 2003, Barden and
Change Behavior Sides 1970, Cerato et al. 2009
Geotechnical Practice for Houston et al. 2000, Fredlund et al. (2012),
Collapsible Soils Leong et al. 2013
The differences observed in the behavior of the soil compacted to different initial states is
extremely important to consider relative to post-construction behavior of embankment soils. Of
particular importance is that expected post-construction response to wetting is highly dependent
on the initial compacted state of the soil. This point is further emphasized through Fig. 9. Data in
Fig. 9 represent response to wetting tests conducted on 22 different Oklahoma soils, all
compacted to R=95% based on standard Proctor, at 4 different moisture conditions (OMC-4,
OMC-2, OMC, and OMC+2). Samples were inundated at a vertical stress of 200 kPa, and the
resulting vertical strain due to wetting is reported as the “Collapse Index” in Fig. 9. The R=95%
represents the minimum allowed by typical embankment specifications and represents the worst
© ASCE

-5 case for collapse potential

within specs. The moisture
content range also encompasses
0 the range typically allowed by
specs. Observing Fig. 9 reveals
that significant collapse strains
Vertical Strain (%)
5
can occur for soils compacted
within specifications even at the
highest moisture contents
allowed by specifications. To
10
put it in perspective, 5% strain
over 10 m of embankment
height represents 50 cm of
15 settlement. With respect to Fig.
OMC-4 & 0.95γdmax - s
OMC-4 & 0.95γdmax - ac 9, it is important to note that if
soils were compacted at a higher
20 density corresponding to
1 10 100 1000 50 60 70 80 90100 R=100%, collapse behavior
Vertical Stress (kPa) Degree of would be greatly reduced or
Saturation (%) eliminated for some soils and
FIG. 7 - Double-oedometer data from testing a compacted swelling might have occurred.
soil at 95% of standand Proctor density and 4% dry of This is illustrated in Fig. 8 for
the OMC; soil: CL, PI=13, %fines=97, %<2μm=51 the soil compacted at R=100%
and OMC. The point is that the
-5
tendency for volume change,
whether collapse or swelling
behavior, is strongly dependent
0 on the initial density and
moisture condition relative to the
line of optimums, and can be
Vertical Strain (%)
5 significant even for soils

compacted within specifications.
10 3.2.2 Rate of Wetting-Induced

Deformation
15
OMC & γdmax - s
It is important to recognize that
OMC & γdmax - ac the rate of deformation upon
wetting is not instantaneous; it
20 depends largely on the rate the
1 10 100 1000 50 60 70 80 90100 wetting front moves through the
Vertical Stress (kPa) Degree of soil and the degree of wetting
Saturation (%) (e.g. Houston et al. 1998). This is
FIG. 8 - Double-oedometer data from testing a compacted controlled by a number of factors
soil at 100% of standand Proctor density and at the OMC; including the hydraulic gradient
soil: CL, PI=13, %fines=97, %<2μm=51
© ASCE

and unsaturated permeability

2
6 OMC+2: CI=0.189PI+0.064 r =0.53 characteristics of the soil. For situations
4 where soil boundaries are completely
2 immersed in water, hydraulic gradients
0 will be large and water will more rapidly
2
Collapse Index, CI (%)
6 OMC: CI=0.213PI+0.091 r =0.64 wet the soil. This condition occurs in

4 laboratory oedometer tests where samples
2 are fully immersed in water and in field
0 conditions where fills are submerged,
6 such as an embankment built within a

4 reservoir before. In field situations, other
2 factors such as desiccation crack
2
0
OMC-2: CI=0.397PI+0.125 r =0.72 formation are important to consider.
For many embankments, full
6
immersion at the fill boundaries does not
4
2
occur but increases in moisture contents
2
0
OMC-4: CI=0.564PI+0.139 r =0.78 may occur due to precipitation, irrigation
0 10 20 30 40 50 and moisture exchange with the
Plasticity Index, PI atmosphere. For highway embankments,
FIG. 9 - Collapse index versus plasticity water can accumulate in granular layers
index for 22 soils compacted to different beneath pavements and provide a source
water contents relative to the optimum moisture of continuous wetting. In Fig. 10, water
content (OMC) and relative compaction, R=95% content measurements made during a
(after Lim and Miller 2004) forensic investigation of a 13.7 m high
embankment 3 years after construction
w measured in 1990
Range of OMC for fill soils
indicate that significant wetting had
Average w from construction records, 1987 occurred in a relatively short time period.
0 In place density and moisture content
records indicated that the soil, which was
1
a low plastic, weathered clayey shale, on
2 average was placed well below the
3 optimum moisture content but average
Depth (m)
relative compaction was close to 100%.

4
During the forensic investigation,
5 alternating layers of wet and dry soil and
6 perched water were encountered while
7
drilling and sampling. In addition, the
OMC Range
pavement subbase was saturated.
8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Settlements of 12-24 cm were estimated
Water Content, w (%) from differential movement between the
embankment and wing walls and are
FIG. 10 - Comparison of water content
determinations for a highway embankment largely attributed to wetting of the fill.
during construction and forensic investigation That the rate of wetting was relatively fast
in this case can be attributed to two likely
factors. First the soil was compacted well dry of optimum and likely had a structure consisting of
relatively large macro-clods and large macro-pores. The large macro-pores greatly enhance
© ASCE

0.0 hydraulic conductivity (Benson and

Daniel 1990) allowing water to penetrate
the soil relatively quickly. The second
0.2 factor, was that there was a source of
water at the top of the embankment in the
subbase. This produced a positive pore
Vertical Strain (%)
0.4
SM OMC-4 water pressure at this boundary, which
SM OMC+2
greatly enhanced the hydraulic gradient
0
and provided a near continuous source of
water. This case demonstrates the

1 importance of proper moisture control
2 regardless of relative compaction. It
3
CL OMC-4 further demonstrates, that post-
CL OMC+2 construction wetting can occur in
4 CH OMC-4
CH OMC+2 embankments that are not prone to surface
5 water flooding.
6 Additional insight into the rate
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 dependent nature of wetting-induced
Time after Wetting (min.) compression can be gained from studying
FIG. 11 - Vertical strain versus time after wetting the time-deformation curves in Fig. 11
for three different soil types compacted to OMC-4 obtained from wetting samples in an
and OMC+2 oedometer under vertical stress of 200
kPa. Results from three different soils are
shown including a silty sand, lean clay and fat clay. For clayey soils compacted dry of optimum,
some amount of time passes after which an abrupt change is observed in the curves. This delay is
roughly 10 minutes for the lean clay and 100 minutes for the fat clay. The dual porosity pore
structure typical of soils compacted dry of optimum may be the cause of this. The water likely
penetrates the macro-pores rapidly, as evidenced by the initial compression, but then much more
time is required to penetrate the micro-pores within the clods, which may account for the abrupt
change in the slope of the curves. For the fat clay, the soil on the margins of the clods will swell
more, and the unsaturated permeability will be lower, which will slow the movement of water
into the interior of the clods more than the lean clay. For the soils compacted wet of optimum,
the curves are more gradual, reflecting the more uniform pore size distribution in the soil.
It is also significant that the time for wetting-induced collapse to occur was on the order
of 100 to 1,000 minutes for the clayey soils. Thus, even when fills are fully exposed to
inundation with water, settlements may continue to occur over a relatively long time.
4. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

REGARDING COMPACTED SOILS
Observation 1: In many areas, the state of practice is such that the potential of settlements due
to volume change in fill materials is not thoroughly addressed during design of embankments
and fills used to support buildings and highway infrastructure.
© ASCE

Recommendation 1: Evaluation of potential settlements attributed to fill materials should be a

routine part of practice, particularly for high fills and settlement sensitive structures. A
hierarchical approach can be used whereby simple empirical methods of evaluation can be used
for minimal threat situations, and more advanced laboratory testing, such as response to wetting
tests, can be used for high threat situations.
Observation 2: In the absence of external wetting, the rate of settlement of the compacted soil in
an embankment due to self-weight compression depends on the soil type, initial water content
and structure of the soil and changes in stress during construction. This type of settlement may
occur beyond the end of construction.
Recommendation 2: Where the potential for significant self-weight settlement exists, analysis
methods used for embankments should consider the rate of settlement in light of expected ranges
in moisture and density.
Observation 3: In the absence of external wetting, soils compacted wet of optimum may
experience greater self-weight settlements compared to soils compacted dry of optimum.
However, the rate of settlement is expected to be less for wet of optimum soils.
Recommendation 3: Where the potential for significant self-weight settlement exists, the
magnitude of settlements should be evaluated with consideration of expected ranges in moisture
contents and density.
Observation 4: For a given relative compaction, soils compacted dry of the OMC will have
larger preconsolidation stresses and lower recompression indices compared to soils compacted
wet of optimum. However, potential for wetting induced compression is greater for soils
compacted dry of optimum.
Observation 5: For some soils, significant wetting-induced compression can occur even in soils
compacted on the dry side of the OMC and within specifications (e.g. R=95% standard Proctor
density).
Observation 6: Compacting soil to higher relative compaction, such as R=100% of standard

Proctor density, can greatly minimize or in some cases eliminate the potential for wetting-
induced compression.
Recommendations 4, 5, 6: Careful consideration should be given to defining moisture

conditions relative to the OMC and relative compaction to be used in specifications for
construction of fills. For cases where large fill settlements are possible and settlement sensitive
structures are involved, consideration should be given to using more stringent specifications. For
example, relative compaction of 100% based on standard Proctor density or 95% of modified
Proctor density could be specified. A zoned approach could be used to address the most severe
stress conditions, such as in the bottom zone of deep fills. Alternatively, chemical treatment has
been shown to greatly minimize collapse potential and reduce overall compressibility of soils.
Where modified specifications are used, they should be supported by one-dimensional
© ASCE

compression testing to study the self-weight compression and wetting-induced volume change
characteristics of the fill.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful for the work of University of Oklahoma faculty, graduate students and
staff who have worked on the various research projects over many years. And for the financial
support of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Oklahoma Transportation Center
that provided funding for much of the work.
6. REFERENCES
Alonso, E. E., Gens, A., & Josa, A. (1990). “Constitutive model for partially saturated soils.”
Géotechnique, 40(3), 405-430.
ASTM (2017). ASTM Book of Standards Volume 4.08: Construction: Soil and Rock (I): D420-
D5876, ASTM International.
Barden, L., Madedor, A. O., & Sides, G. R. (1969). “Volume change characteristics of
unsaturated clay.” Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div.
Barden, L., & Sides, G. R. (1970). “Engineering behavior and structure of compacted clay.”
Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div.
Barden, L., McGown, A., & Collins, K. (1973). “The collapse mechanism in partly saturated
soil.” Engineering Geology, 7(1), 49-60.
Basma, A. A., & Tuncer, E. R. (1992). “Evaluation and control of collapsible soils.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 118(10), 1491-1504.
Benson, C. H., & Daniel, D. E. (1990). “Influence of clods on the hydraulic conductivity of
compacted clay.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(8), 1231-1248.
Brandon, T. L., Duncan, J. M., & Gardner, W. S. (1990). “Hydrocompression settlement of deep
fills.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(10), 1536-1548.
Briaud, J. L., James, R. W., & Hoffman, S. B. (1997). Settlement of Bridge Approaches:(the
Bump at the End of the Bridge) (Vol. 234). Transportation Research Board.
Caltrans (2014). Geotechnical Manual: Embankments. California Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_manual/manual.html
Casini, F. (2012). “Deformation induced by wetting: a simple model.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 49(8), 954-960.
Cerato, A. B., Miller, G. A., & Hajjat, J. A. (2009). “Influence of clod-size and structure on
wetting-induced volume change of compacted soil.” Journal of geotechnical and
geoenvironmental engineering, 135(11), 1620-1628.
Chang, G., Xu, Q., Rutledge, J., Horan, B., Michael, L., White, D., & Vennapusa, P. (2011).
Accelerated implementation of intelligent compaction technology for embankment subgrade
soils, aggregate base, and asphalt pavement materials (No. FHWA-IF-12-002).
Ferber, V., Auriol, J. C., Cui, Y. J., & Magnan, J. P. (2008). “Wetting-induced volume changes
in compacted silty clays and high-plasticity clays.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(2),
252-265.
Fredlund, D. G., & Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. John Wiley &
Sons.
© ASCE

Fredlund, D. G., Rahardjo, H., & Fredlund, M. D. (2012). Unsaturated soil mechanics in
engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Gens, A., Sánchez, M., & Sheng, D. (2006). “On constitutive modelling of unsaturated soils.”
Acta Geotechnica, 1(3), 137.
Gili, J. A., & Alonso, E. E. (2002). “Microstructural deformation mechanisms of unsaturated
granular soils.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 26(5), 433-468.
Holtz, R. D. (1990). State of the Art Report 8: Guide to Earthwork Construction. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC.
Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D., & Sheahan, T. C. (2011). An introduction to geotechnical

engineering. Pearson Education, Inc., 853p.
Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., & Spadola, D. J. (1988). “Prediction of field collapse of soils
due to wetting.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114(1), 40-58.
Houston, W. N., Mahmoud, H. H., & Houston, S. L. (1993). “A laboratory procedure for partial-
wetting collapse determination.” In Unsaturated Soils: (pp. 54-63). ASCE.
Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., Zapata, C. E., & Lawrence, C. (2001). “Geotechnical
engineering practice for collapsible soils.” In Unsaturated soil concepts and their application
in geotechnical practice (pp. 333-355). Springer Netherlands.
IADOT (2014). Design Manual: Geotechnical Design, Embankments. Chapter 200, 200F-2,
Iowa Department of Transportation. Originally Issued: 01-15-14
https://iowadot.gov/design/design-manual
Jennings, J. E., & Knight, K. (1957, September). “The prediction of total heave from the double
oedometer test.” In Proc. Symposium on Expansive clays (Vol. 7, No. 9, pp. 13-19).
Jotisankasa, A., Ridley, A., & Coop, M. (2007). “Collapse behavior of compacted silty clay in
suction-monitored oedometer apparatus.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133(7), 867-877.
Lawton, E. C., Fragaszy, R. J., & Hardcastle, J. H. (1989). “Collapse of compacted clayey sand.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(9), 1252-1267.
Lawton, E. C., Fragaszy, R. J., & Hardcastle, J. H. (1991). “Stress ratio effects on collapse of
compacted clayey sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(5), 714-730.
Lawton, E. C., Fragaszy, R. J., & Hetherington, M. D. (1992). “Review of wetting-induced
collapse in compacted soil.” Journal of geotechnical engineering, 118(9), 1376-1394.
Leong, C., Widiastuti, S., & Rahardjo, H. (2013). “Estimating wetting-induced settlement of
compacted soils using oedometer test.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering of the SEAGS &
AGSSEA, 44(1), 26-33.
Lim, Y. Y., & Miller, G. A. (2004). “Wetting-induced compression of compacted Oklahoma
soils.” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 130(10), 1014-1023.
Liu, S. H., Sun, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2003). “Numerical study of soil collapse behavior by
discrete element modelling.” Computers and Geotechnics, 30(5), 399-408.
Lu, N. & Likos, W. J. (2004). Unsaturated soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey.
Mašín, D., & Khalili, N. (2008). “A hypoplastic model for mechanical response of unsaturated
soils.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 32(15),
1903-1926.
Miller, G., Muraleetharan, K., & Lim, Y. (2001). “Wetting-induced settlement of compacted-fill
embankments.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, (1755), 111-118.
© ASCE

MNDOT (2017). 2017 Geotechnical Engineering Manual Geotechnical Engineering Section.

Minnesota Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/geotmanual.html
Mooney, M.A., Rinehart, R.V., Facas, N.W., Musimbi, O.M., White, D.J., & Vennapusa, P.K.R.
(2010). Intelligent Soil Compaction Systems. NCHRP Report 676, Transportation Research
Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 173p.
NCDOT (2016). Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations Manual. North Carolina
Department of Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Unit.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Geological/Pages/Geotech_Requirements_References.asp
x
NYSDOT (2012). Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 12 Draft. State of New York
Department of Transportation, Office of Technical Services, Geotechnical Engineering
Bureau, October 1, 2012. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-
services/geotechnical-engineering-bureau/gdm
ODOT (2016). Specifications for Geotechnical Explorations. ODOT_SGE_2016-07-15, Office
of Geotechnical Engineering, Ohio Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Geotechnical/Pages/Manuals.aspx
ODOT (2016). Geotechnical Engineering Design Checklists: 3B_Embankments. Version 4.0
August 07, 2013, Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Ohio Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Geotechnical/Pages/Checklists.aspx
ODOT (2015). Geotechnical Specifications for Roadway Design. State of Oklahoma Department
of Transportation. June 29, 2011 (Revised July 2, 2015).
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/roadway/Geotech/
Pereira, J. H., & Fredlund, D. G. (2000). “Volume change behavior of collapsible compacted
gneiss soil.” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 126(10), 907-916.
Proctor, R. R. (1933). “Fundamental principles of soil compaction.” Engineering News Record,
111(9), 245-248.
Proctor, R. R. (1933). “Description of field and laboratory methods.” Engineering News-Record,
111(10), 286-289.
Rao, S. M., & Revanasiddappa, K. (2000). “Role of matric suction in collapse of compacted clay
soil.” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 126(1), 85-90.
Rao, S. M., Reddy, B. V. V., & Muttharam, M. (2001). “The impact of cyclic wetting and drying
on the swelling behaviour of stabilized expansive soils.” Engineering geology, 60(1), 223-
233.
Rao, S. M., & Revanasiddappa, K. (2003). “Role of soil structure and matric suction in collapse
of a compacted clay soil.”
Rao, S. M., & Revanasiddappa, K. (2006). “Influence of cyclic wetting drying on collapse
behaviour of compacted residual soil.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 24(3), 725-
734.
Rojas, E., Pérez-Rea, M. L., López-Lara, T., Hernández, J. B., & Horta, J. (2015). “Use of
Effective Stresses to Model the Collapse upon Wetting in Unsaturated Soils.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(5).
Romero, E., & Jommi, C. (2008). “An insight into the role of hydraulic history on the volume
changes of anisotropic clayey soils.” Water Resources Research, 44(5).
Rosenbalm, D., & Zapata, C. E. (2016). “Effect of Wetting and Drying Cycles on the Behavior
of Compacted Expansive Soils.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 29(1).
© ASCE

SCDOT (2010). Chapter 17 Embankments, SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. South

Carolina Department of Transportation.
http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_Geotechnical.aspx
Sheng, D., Fredlund, D. G., & Gens, A. (2008). “A new modelling approach for unsaturated soils
using independent stress variables.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(4), 511-534.
Sivakumar, V., & Wheeler, S. J. (2000). “Influence of compaction procedure on the mechanical
behaviour of an unsaturated compacted clay. Part 1: Wetting and isotropic compression.”
Sun, D. A., Matsuoka, H., & Xu, Y. F. (2004). “Collapse behavior of compacted clays in
suction-controlled triaxial tests.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4.

Sun, D. A., Sheng, D., & Sloan, S. W. (2007). “Elastoplastic modelling of hydraulic and stress–
strain behaviour of unsaturated soils.” Mechanics of Materials, 39(3), 212-221.
Sun, D. A., Sheng, D., & Xu, Y. (2007). “Collapse behaviour of unsaturated compacted soil with
different initial densities.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(6), 673-686.
Tadepalli, R., & Fredlund, D. G. (1991). “The collapse behavior of a compacted soil during
inundation.” Canadian geotechnical journal, 28(4), 477-488.
Taibi, S., Fleureau, J. M., Abou-Bekr, N., Zerhouni, M. I., Benchouk, A., Lachgueur, K., &
Souli, H. (2011). “Some aspects of the behaviour of compacted soils along wetting paths.”
Thompson, M. J., & White, D. J. (2008). “Estimating compaction of cohesive soils from machine
drive power.” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 134(12), 1771-
1777.
Thorel, L., Ferber, V., Caicedo, B., & Khokhar, I. M. (2011). “Physical modelling of wetting-
induced collapse in embankment base.” Géotechnique, 61(5), 409-420.
Wheeler, S. J., & Sivakumar, V. (1995). “An elasto-plastic critical state framework for
unsaturated soil.” Géotechnique, 45(1), 35-53.
WSDOT (2013). Geotechnical Design Manual: Embankments. M 46-03.08, Washington State
Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M46-03.htm
Zheng, Y., Hatami, K., & Miller, G. A. (2017). Numerical simulation of wetting-induced
settlement of embankments. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 31(3).
Zhou, A. N., Sheng, D., Sloan, S. W., & Gens, A. (2012). “Interpretation of unsaturated soil
behaviour in the stress–Saturation space, I: Volume change and water retention behaviour.”
Computers and Geotechnics, 43, 178-187.
© ASCE

Compaction and Volume Change Behavior of Embankment Soil: Gamiller@ou - Edu

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Compaction and Volume Change Behavior of Embankment Soil: Gamiller@ou - Edu

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017 GSP 300 325

Compaction and Volume Change Behavior of Embankment Soil

Gerald A. Miller, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

compacted soil embankments. Aspects of mechanical behavior observed through laboratory

2.1 State of Practice – Construction of Compacted Soil Embankments

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

Compaction of soil during construction of embankments for highways and buildings is

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

2.2 State of Practice – Design of Compacted Soil Embankments

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

TABLE 1 - Summary of DOT documents reviewed to assess extent that

settlement due to fill volume change is addressed

3. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE STATE OF

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

3.1 Volume-Change Behavior in Compacted Soils at Constant Water Content

3.1.1 Variation in Degree of Saturation and Rate of Compression

These observations are important in that

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

conditions, that allows for examination of self-weight compression and wetting-induced

-5 the negative pore water

-10 pressure response at the

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

3.1.2 Soil Deformation and Stiffness 0

Vertical Strain (%)

curves were obtained during response to 4 OMC

0.03 moisture condition for 15 cohesive

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

3.2 Volume Change after Wetting Compacted Soils

3.2.1 Magnitude of Wetting-Induced Deformation

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

m4 m3 m2 m1 b as the “wetting after loading”

0.020 DD=initial dry density (kN/m3)

methods. The double-oedometer

Measured Recompression Inex, cr the as-compacted state without

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

– General Tuncer 1992, Lawton et al. 1992, Fredlund

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

-5 case for collapse potential

5 significant even for soils

10 3.2.2 Rate of Wetting-Induced

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

and unsaturated permeability

6 OMC: CI=0.213PI+0.091 r =0.64 wet the soil. This condition occurs in

6 such as an embankment built within a

relative compaction was close to 100%.

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

0.0 hydraulic conductivity (Benson and

water. This case demonstrates the

4. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

Recommendation 1: Evaluation of potential settlements attributed to fill materials should be a

occur beyond the end of construction.

Observation 6: Compacting soil to higher relative compaction, such as R=100% of standard

Recommendations 4, 5, 6: Careful consideration should be given to defining moisture

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D., & Sheahan, T. C. (2011). An introduction to geotechnical

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

MNDOT (2017). 2017 Geotechnical Engineering Manual Geotechnical Engineering Section.

PanAm Unsaturated Soils 2017

SCDOT (2010). Chapter 17 Embankments, SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. South

suction-controlled triaxial tests.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4.