Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1969
Recommended Citation
Harris, Marvin Tartt, "A study of the correlation potential of the optimum moisture content, maximum dry
density, and consolidated drained shear strength of plastic fine-grained soils with index properties"
(1969). Masters Theses. 7121.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7121
This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This
work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the
permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.
A STUDY OF THE CORRELATION POTE...""JTIAL OF TF.E OPTIHUM HOISTURE CONTENT,·
BY
THESIS
Degree of
Approved by
£{~
183282
ii
ABSTRACT
soils with index properties was investigated in this study. The inter-
The most important relationships were with the plasticity indices and
the percentage of particles smaller than two microns; the highest degree
shear parameters with the plasticity index was the most significant.
dieting the compaction and shear parameters from index properties have
gator is hopeful that this fact and other facts brought out herein will
Preface
these materials both during design and construction have changed radi-
cally from the rather crude empirical procedures of early times to the
tory classification tests which they can use to determine the index
increase our basic understanding of soils, but will offer several other
ing properties.
to Miss Neale Zinser for typing this dissertation. And finally, I owe
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Preface . iii
I. INTRODUCTION • • • . • 1
A. Purpose of Investigation 1
B. Scope • 3
c. Methods of Analysis . 4
E. Turnbull 10
G. Jumikis • 12
III. DISCUSSION 19
A. General . 19
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
B. Graphical Analysis • • • • 19
1. Compaction Properties 20
C. Regression Analysis 24
1. General 24
2. Shear Parameters • 26
a. Cohesion 26
3. Compaction Properties 30
V. CONCLUSIONS 41
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
2. Proctor Plots • • • • . • • • • • • • • • e; • • 45
a. Plasticity Penetration Resistance Versus Moisture
Content 45
b. Soil Characteristics Curves • 45
3. Ohio State Engineering Experiment Station - Graphical
Plots 46
Plasticity Index 47
Densities .................... 47
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(~ontinued)
Figure Page
Plasticity Index 53
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(continued)
Figure
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61
- Arithmetic Plot • 62
- Arithmetic Plot • • 63
- Arithmetic Plot • • • 64
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 66
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • 67
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • 68
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 69
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 70
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 71
X
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(aontinued)
Figure
Plot • . • • • • • • • • • • 72
Plot • • • • • • .......... • • • 73
- Arithmetic Plot • 74
Logarithmic Plot 77
- Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 78
- Logarithmic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • 79
Arithmetic Plot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81
Logarithmic Plot • • • • • • • • . . . . . 83
xi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(continued)
Figure
- Arithmetic Plot 88
Soils 95
xii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
( aontinued)
Figure Page
LIST OF ILLUST~~TIONS
( conti. uedJ
Figure
Values •• . . 131
Values • 137
Equation) • • • 144
Soils . . • . 152
Soils • • . • • • • • • • • • 153
11. Chart III - Rating Chart of Graphical Plots - All Soils 154
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of Investigation.
and the consolidated drained shear strength, with their index proper-
for these tests; however, through the use of such procedures, the number
results will be provided. Office and field engineers often find them-
results, which for some reason may appear to be in error. These engi-
neers may be far displaced from the laboratory where the testing was
simple matter to detect erroneous test results and thereby form the
·have an excellent tool which will enable them to rapidly detect these
troublemakers.
B. Scope.
soils of the coastal plains, soils of the filled valleys, and recent
the plastic fine-grain soils of these divisions because they are more
nonplastic fine-grain soils. For the above reason and for the lack of
tion accuracy which can be achieved when soils of different origin are
ing the analysis to soils of similar origin. Then, finally, the soils
C. Methods of Analysis.
ties are related. Multiple linear regression analyses will then be used
The analysis will provide the linear equation that best fits the data.
from the results of the regression analysis. The tools of error analy-
sis will be used to evaluate the accuracy of both the prediction equa-
D. Test Data.
tracted from the soils portion of design memoranda for past and present
These memoranda dealt with the embankment design for large reservoir
.5
shear test results. The data have been tabulated and are presented in
1906.
density, and shear strength. The results of such studies can be used
results from several sources. It was the initial intention of this in-
tion factors to the raw data. This does appear to be an area of con-
rather crude field methods developed for construction control. For ex~
the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density with a crude mea-
tance test. This method was based upon the variation of soil plasticity
These readings were made for each compacted specimen used in developing
the Proctor curve. From these data, convenient plots such as shown on
with plasticity needle readings made in the newly placed fill to relate
field moisture and density to the Proctor optimums. This method of re-
sure of plasticity was used quite extensively during the early 30's for
field control.
ships between the optimum moisture and.maximum density, and their rela-
numbering over one thousand, are shown on figure 3. These plots re-
brought out in this study. As can be seen from the examination of graph
two equations were developed which can be used to closely approximate the
D
Maximum dry density in pounds =
l + D-C
62.5Gs
where:
=-
CA
D
B
A = % passing No. 4 sieve
Gs = Specific gravity
SL = Shrinkage limit
These equations are based upon the assumption that the maximum dry den-
sity and optimum moisture content are equivalent to the density that can
be achieved by compacting a specimen at the shrinkage limit, where the
available water just fills the voids of the soil mass. To verify the
10 soil samples with widely varying index properties. The greatest dif-
ference between the predicted and test maximum was about 5%; the optimum
points.
evaluate the accuracy of the predicted results. They felt that the
amount of supporting data did not warrant unqualified use of these equa-
Davidson and Gardiner found that the calculated and laboratory values
Davidson and Gardiner found that the magnitude of the error both in the
case of the optimum moisture and the maximum dry density was related
were made for both properties. These plots, shown on figure 4, revealed
a near linear relationship between the error and the plasticity index.
where:
312-2X
Kl 300
K2 = X/3-4
X = Plasticity Index
Davidson and Gardiner point out that the greatest limitation of these
modified formulas is that they cannot be used with accuracy for soils
cons;i.deration.
E. Turnbull( 6 ).
classification area was defined as the area above the graph of the
classification area for the 25 and 40 blow efforts; these plots are
presented on figure 5. This chart was found to fit the test data very
within ±1.0 percentage point of the actual test result and 91 percent
of the value falls within a range of ±1.5. It was concluded that grain
moisture content.
samples from the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. These soils were taken from
13 soil types. The procedures described by Lambe(S) were used for the
optimum moisture by not more than a few moisture points. There were
were developed for the plastic limit, liquid limit, and plasticity
index with optimum moisture. These coefficients were .854, .437, and
the plastic limit to be highly significant and the correlation with the
plasticity index was nonsignificant. Since the plastic limit was found
was made utilizing the plastic limit and optimum moisture data. The
moisture for the soil types considered; however, since the regression
equation should be used with caution even for soils within the very
G. Jumikis( 9 ).
1. A very definite maximum dry density exists for each soil type
encountered.
crease in plasticity.
content (standard Proctor) with the liquid limit and plasticity index.
This graph has been found to be very useful in predicting the optimum
moisture content of the glacial soils found in the Neward area and other
tions established in these studies have been proven useful, and have
found much application in the office, laboratory, and field. The first
optimum moisture contents against the plastic and liquid limits to the
arithmetic scale. This study was based upon test data of 972 soil
samples from 31 states. The most fruitful result of this study was the
states. The comparison of these results with the actual test data is
dieted values was within two moisture content percentage points of the
for soils east of the Mississippi River and least for soils from non-
soil areas west of the Mississippi River. The accuracy of the maximum
dry density from the chart was investigated by making estimates of the
density for 532 laboratory samples including the original 510 verifi-
ing test results, which means that this chart is sufficiently accurate
(10) .
In 1961, the Bureau made a second study to Lmprove the method
for predicting the optimum moisture and maximum dry density. Six hundred
soil samples were selected from the files of the Bureau based upon geo-
plasti~ limit, and good correlation of maximum dry density with optimum
moisture content and plastic limit. Five regression analyses for the
optimum moisture and four for the maximum dry density were made to
2.0 (No. 10), 0.42 (No. 40), 0.074 (No. 200), 0.020, 0.005, and 0.001.
The standard errors of estimate for the optimum moisture and maximum
dry density equations above were ±2.17 and ±4.32, respectively. (The
mum moisture contents and maximum dry densities will be within one
prediction results based upon Yemington's chart and the results utiliz-
ing the equation developed in the second study revealed that predictions
based upon the plastic limit and fineness average were slightly better
than those obt~ined from the chart. It was concluded that the formulas
Simons report that their experience indicates that the friction angle
for any given clay varies with so many different factors that a close
with the plasticity index by plotting friction values for the consoli-
dated drained strength against the plasticity index and then deriving
a mean curve. A plot similar to the Bjerrum and Simon's curve is pre-
St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans. This report established
undrained (Q) and consolidated drained (S) shear strengths with index
dated undrained shear strength with natural water content and plasti-
the direct shear test was found to be related to the plasticity index.
ton per square foot, and tended to inc~ease with increasing values of
following equation: c "" 0.0015 PI. Plots taken from this report
these charts has been verified for only a limited number of soils and
total number of studies which have been made to investigate the inter-
this time.
prediction.
19
III. DISCUSSION
A. General.
results of this analysis will be presented. The final segment will con-
B. Graphical Analysis.
mum dry density, and both shear parameters versus the index properties
cent passing #4 sieve minus percent passing on #200 sieve), and the
index, average sample water content (direct shear test), and percentage
mum dry density was also made to determine the relatLonship between
The first series of graphs was made utilizing all the test data
in one graph without regard to soil origin, then the scope of consider-
ation was narrowed to the data on soils of the individual soil groups,
and finally to the data on soils of one small geographic area. The
1. Compaction Properties.
using all the test data without regard to soil origin indicated the
index, and the plastic limit, and slightly related to the activity
versus maximum dry density, figure 22. Graphs based upon data on soils
ity of these graphs was somewhat greater than the graphs that utilized
data from all soil groups, i.e., residual, loessial, glacial, etc.
The liquid limit relationship with the optimum moisture content again
Graphs based upon data on soils from glacial areas revealed a some-
what different picture. The most significant graphs were those con-
content graphs for glacial soils was slightly less than the graphs with
significant.
table V, were also plotted. These graphs were made to investigate the
The graph of optimum moisture content versus the specific gravity was
58 thru ~·
22
the index properties considering all soil groups on one ·graph indicated
good correlation with the plasticity indexes and only slight correlation
The best correlation was with liquid limit, as can be seen by exami-
nation of figure 24. The least significant ~raph was with specific
gravity. The graphs relating maximum dry density of residual soils 'tdth
graphs utilizing data from all the primary soil groups. Agai~, the most
direct relationship was maximum dry density with liquid limit. Those
istics, percentage sand, and percentage fines were only slightly signi-
The most direct relationships were found with percentage fines, per-
centage sand, and liquid limit. The plastic limit and plasticity index
maximum dry density with the plasticity indexes and less significant
cant, except those graphs considering only glacial soil data. Examina-
tion of the glacial soil graphs revealed that the liquid limit, plasti-
and the plasticity index, liquid limit, optimum moisture content, maxi-
mum dry density, average sample water content, and activity coefficient
was among the least significant of those made. As in the case of the
percentage fine, percentage sand, and percentage clay for glacial soils
were slightly more linear than the plasticity graphs. Although the
which follows. The results of the graphical analysis have been tabu-
C. Regression Analysis.
achiev~ maximum prediction accuracy from the least amount of input data.
~he ~inear parameters that best fit the data. The program has a built-
many other forms. The pure data~ along with the logarithm transforma-
any cause or effect implication. The fact that two variables may be
one has a direct effect on the other; however, such mathematical re-
one can predict that 68% of the predicted results will be within one
standard error and 95% of the results will fall within two standard
Analysis are presented for both the arithmetic and logarithmic analyses
for the most significant analyses on tables I thru IV. These results
2. Shear Parameters.
to r~t exceed .30 for all singular and multiple correlations considered
except for those which focused only upon the soils of glacial origin.
existing between this shear parameter and the index properties. The
data on soils from glacial areas, when considered separately, were found
the cohension parameter with the index properties and to show the in-
creased strength of the correlation when the scope was limited to the
probable errors in most cases would far exceed the allowable errors
the standard error of the equation (equation 1) developed for the glacial
soils was considerably less than the errors or equations developed from
not exceed the error of the final glacial equation, prediction can be
justifiably based upon the plasticity index alone. This equation has
soils, figure 50. The use of this equation should be limited to glacial
soils and to those situations where precise estimates are not required.
was found to be more closely related to the index properties than the
remaining four considered the residual and glacial soil data separately.
28
the index properties. All analyses yielded results which were very
cated that the r ,lationship of the angle of friction with the plasticity
maximum dry density, and the average water content of the direct shear
activity coefficient and the plastic limit was far below the signifi-
cance level.
also presented on table VII. These results show that several procedures
tion 31,
values. This accuracy would be acceptable for all but the most precise
~29
was found to be somewhat more accurate than the equations developed for
tions 28, 33, 28A, and 33A were the most efficiently developed. Exami-
nation of the computer output data revealed that the standard error was
in the regression equation. In all cases the plasticity index was the
the standard error reduction beyond this point was not significant.
upon the plasticity index in lieu of the more complex equations which
equations 26, 28, 33, 26A, 28A, and 33A be modified by eliminating all
terms except the constant and plasticity index terms in order to simplify
Use of the above simplified forms should not result in more than four
3. Compaction Properties.
lished between the optimum moisture content and the activity coefficient,
which did not appear to be slightly related to the optimum moisture con-
tent was the specific gravity. The equations developed in the regres-
52 and 35A thru 51A. Simple correlation coefficients for analyses 35,
determined that the highest degree of simple correlation with the opti-
mum moisture content could be achieved with the liquid limit and maximum
properties was about .90, which was indicative of a nearly linear rela-
tionship. The standard error for the developed maximum density and
liquid limit equations was about ±1.20 an4 ±2.00 respectively in both
41, 41A, 42, and 42A, could therefore be used to estimate the optimum
ively predict the Proctor moisture and density. For example, if limit
data are available, one can utilize the liquid limit in conjunction with
the graph on Plate 11 to evaluate the optimum moisture content; and then
use this value in the determination of the maximum density from figure 22.
31
The error resulting from the regression equations 44 and 44A, which
included only the plasticity index, waa slightly greater than that of
and 44A would increase the range of possible error approximately five-
the optimum moisture content can be made by using the plasticity index
in this equation, its use will probably be limited due to the increased
error of prediction and its intimate relationship with the liquid limit.
The optimum moisture content versus plastic limit relationship was found
city indices. Equation 43, which employs only the plastic limit to pre-
were all found to be related to the optimum moisture content in the all
tables I thru IV, revealed a very low level of significance for all but
46 and 46A can be used to predict the optimum moisture content in cases
·technician who must perform the standard compaction tests with no guid-
cise prediction is not required, and equations 46·and 46A could prove
32
.~~.
error of prediction.
thru 40 and 35A thru 40A. The standard error of these equations was
Equations 35, 36, 38, and 40 are the most accurate of the equations
of these equations is not great. Equations 35, 36, 38, and 40 can be
has been developed based upon equation 52 relating the optimum moisture
content to the liquid limit and plasticity index. This graph is pre-
sented on figure 67. The choice of equation 52 was based upon error
the Casagrande plasticity chart. This graph has an added advantage over
and dry strength. One can now readily see the increase and decrease
creases in the plasticity index and liquid limit .. It would appear that
did result from these analyses. Five categories of data were considered
soils from the Meramec Park Project included residual soils and alluvial
flood-plain deposits.
St. Louis District soils, and the Meramec Park soils separately were
cients and standard error of estimates of equations 47, 48, 50, 47A,
and 50A. A number of factors including the data categories under con-
sideration both with respect to origin and geographic area and the
be noted that the residual, St. Louis District, and Meramec Park regres-
sion analyses were based upon 120, 59, and 20 data observations; whereas,
the analyses utilizing all the test data in a single regression analysis
cients, especially in the case of the soils of the coastal plains. The
very high ~egree of accuracy. The standard error in these analyses was
approximately ±1.4, which meant that about 70% of the predicted values
of the optimum moisture content would not deviate more than ±1.4 moisture
points from the actual optimum moisture content, and that about 95% of
the results would not deviate more than ~2.6 moisture points. Although
use should be limited to the soils of glacial origin and to soils of the
which could be used to estimate the Proctor maximum dry density. The
results of these analyses were very consistent with the results of the
maximum density with the plasticity indices and the percentage of clay
centage of fines and the percentage of sand based upon computed correla-
The results of the maximum density versus specific gravity analysis were
standard error, and the equations developed in these analyses are pre-
Thepe analyses considered all the soil data without regard to origin or
14A thru 19A, on figure 70. Simple correlation coefficients for the
most significant analyses are presented in table II. The most precise
which related the maximum density and liquid limit. Equation 14 has
figure 55. Based upon this equation, the maximum density could be
13, 15, 15A, 25, and 25A resulted from this series of regression analyses.
In only two of these equations, 10 and 11, was the standard error re-
versus the liquid limit ar:d the plasticity index. This graph was made
covering the optimum moisture content. The standard error which may
result from use of this chart as a predicting aid should not exceed
with the maximum dry density. The geographic and origin considerations
District soils, Meraroec Park soils, and the residual soils were, as be-
fore consistent with the results of the all soil analysis. The liqu~d
examining equations 20, 21, 23, 20A, and 23A in the regression summary.
between the maximum dry density and liquid limit than in the regression
to predict the maximum density with accuracy that exceeds that of any
tions may limit their use. Examination of the computer output data
ti.on accuracy.
of sand and percentage of fines were slightly greater than those of the
equations, 22, 24, 22A, and 24A, was approximately ±3.5 pounds. This
they were developed, and only then after the validity of the equations
with data taken from the second Bureau of Public Roads Report(lO) which
and standard Proctor compaction results on 100 soil samples from widely
was based upon complete coverage of the soils of the major soil groups;
filled valleys. The data have been tabulated in tables V and VI.
were seler:t:ed for this analysis because they are considered to be among
rapidly be evaluated from available data; and, because they were used
presented on figures 65 and fL, the lack of sufficient data and the
Two equations were. evaluated for each of the 100 data observations
moisture content and dry density, along with the deviation from the
moisture points, and that 67 percent of the predicted values did not
exceed the actual laboratory result by more than ±1.5 moisture points.
The standard error of estimate for the 100 deviations was ±1.67 moisture
cent of the results should be within 1.67 moisture points of the actual
values.
deviated less than ±3 pounds and that 71 percent deviated not more than
±4 pounds. The standard error for this analysis was ±3.9 pounds.
To relate the error in the maximum dry density with the error in
These computations were based upon the average of the optimum moisture
were based upon the average of the optimum moisture and maximum dry
optimum moisture was about 9 percent, whereas the error in the dry density
appear that the accuracy of dry density equation, equation 53, was some-
what better than that of the optimum moisture equation, equation 52.
the normal distribution; however, this does not void the probability
statements made earlier regarding the error of the dry density predic-
tions and nonrepresentative data. Even though the exact cause of this
of both the optimum moisture content and dry density equations. This
that about 70 percent of the predicted values was less than the standard
The error of the developed cohesion and friction angle equation was
V. CONCLUSIONS
(4) The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were
revealed a much greater prediction accuracy for all analyses where the
correlation is to be achieved.
in this study. These equations have been tested and found to be suf-
ful tools to those working in the field of soil mechanics and other
allied fields.
43
VI. APPENDICES
.• 43a
APPENDIX A
GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
--~.
"'\.... "'
..
MONT A MA.
OliO OM
o•''oo.' ,..
,~-
..
•
WtO•tMO
-.,
Nil lAllA
P_IA''•
_..,
COIOIA•O
.......
.._
"
..-
A•II..OMA
NIW MtltCO
r RESIDUAL
2 GLACIAL
3 LOESSIAL
4 SOILS OF' THE fiLLED VALLEYS t.
GREAT PLAINS OU'TWASH MANTLE
5 SOILS Of IHE COASTAL PLAINS
Figure 1. Geographic Map Showing Soil Sampling Locations ,p..
,p..
Graph Showing the Plasticity Needle Penetration
Resistance of a Soil When Compacted at Various .1200
13Q.J.. \ • n C.
y¢
1oisture Contents by a Particular Method
~~
100 n
('~
,....,.
50
,., \ 12o+ .J.1 I \\ \>·
~
~0
0
~
Q(<
b.
b.
o'<".
~
100~
,.....
Ill
\
(/)
N ~· rt
-~
•r-l
..0
r-l
'-"
(!)
.
,....,.
(J)
..0
r-l
'-"
I
1/
•
I
l
5
~
ooz
1-'·
()
t-'·
rt
"-<:
ro
\ •l
(.) r-l (0.
,~I
'
~ •rl
(lj 0
+.J tf.l
r.
-~ 10 (.
~
4-l
\
Ul 0 00•"
(!) i=l
p::;
w
.iJ
..c t' (ll
rt
~ 0.0
•rl ~ 1"1
Ill
.~50 (!) t';1-'· rt
~ f-'·,
\
+.J
(lj 0
~ :>- (.1 :::1
+.J ~ 9
(!) A 00;:>;::!
p..
ffi
'\
\
(ll
Ul
t-'·
(/)
rt
c:
10 \ 80i-
\
\
\
'\
ooro
::l
()
8 0 ... 12
4 16 20
Moisture content, % of dry weight
70 10 \24 lQ 20:' .. - 30
Moisfure content/% of dry weight
'
a) Plasticity Penetration Resistance vs. Moisture Content b} Soil Characteristics Curves
Figure 2. Proctor Plots after Proctor 1933) +=--
\,.n
5 5 13
4 4
12
.
(\"')
+.1
4-1
3 ....... 11
3 ~
00 ·00
Q) Q) s:l
1;11) 00 •ri
cO cO
+.1
~
Q)
+.1
~
Q)
t'
•ri
() () 00
H H 1=1
Q)
Il-l
2 Q)
Il-l
2 A
Q) 10
H H -1-J
p... p...
~
<.<:) <.<:) •ri
..
/
Q)
~
....:I ....:I"
~ Il-l :>-.
H
" 1 ...:I" 1 A 10
....:I
...:I ...:I
5 25 9216 1
-
5 195 5 15
Optimum Moisture Content in Percent Moisture Content in % Dry Weigh
(Dry Weight) c) Dry Density Vs. Moisture
a) LL, PL, & PI Vs. Dry Density b) LL, PL, & PI Vs. Opt. Mo~sture Content .p..
Figure 3, Ohio State Engineering Experiment Station-Graphical Plots (after o.s.u. 0'\
(')
:>... a) Correlation Between Calculated & Standard Proctor Densities 0
l-IP-! ti
0 ·ti
.1-1 I ro
m ()
1-1 1-1
....0
rt
0 0
,0 1-1
m 1-1
,...:t!J:l
I Q)
00 •
.
Arbitrary Simplification Y =
. . . ... . • • ..-.!!!!: -
---- - - __. ~
::s
>:tj
~
:>.m
.1-J.j.J
·r-1 s::
•.
. . .. . .
•• ••• .. •
.. . .
.. ' •• ...--!!S • ..
1'1'
0
ti
00 Q)
1=1 () . .
... . . ....•. -~.. .. •• ••••
• • ... • • • • .. • • • • • • • oe;.
A
Q) 1-1
CU
. ... .... " • •
•
f:i
rcj
Q)
.j..J.I-J
P-1
;>..
•
... ,· . •
(lj ·r-1
.-l 00
•
B~
r-lA
(lj
t.)
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 40
Plasticity Index
1=1
0
•r-1 -6 (')
0
.1-J
cu b) Correlation Between Calculated & Standard Proctor Optimum Moisture Contents ti
ti
•.-I
• - (After Davidson and Gardiner 1949) ro
~ ()
rt
A
1-'•
;:..,,-...
1-1 Q)
0 1-1
.1-1 ::l
.... ... • • • •
0
::s
1-:tj
(lj.I-J • • • • •
Ill
(')
1-1 00
0 •r-1 1'1'
0
,0 0
m;;E: • ti
S
,...:t I
I § ~
'"d •r-1 N
Q).I-J
.j...l p.. -12
1'00
.-l'-"
::l Plasticity Index
u
.-l
I'd Figure 4. and Gardiner Plots Qf Prediction Error vs. the Plasticity Index ..p.
0 idson and Gardiner '"-I
.•.
0
~ ~!ffi~.
•
~"'
.. ~
1!
~
~
~
I= I 111111 II I II IJJJHJ Ill I I I Iii-~ ~
·~20 ~
~
~
C)·
·~
1\.."
r
~.
~
~
'J.'\
~1111111! 1 1 1 1 1 I I i i I I I I I I · I I ·I I I I
~-~
·1- I I tt
'\
401 e Wt ..
Classification Area "'A .. ' 'Z.
.P•
o::>
49
60%
55 /
so L
~- ~ .
~
45
.
/
40
-1-1
"M
•M
s 35
~, I
~
.....:l
'"d
"M
::l
0'
7?
"M
' ' .....:l 30
25 ~
'b
/.
I
20
~
C)
"i
15 ~"'·
-.,
10
5 10 15 20 25 3J 35 4U
LIQUID LIMIT
12 12 1s 20 25 30 35 4o 45 so ss 60 65 10 75 eo 85 90
15 ~///
v 119 ~~v.
~~/ / / ~~ ~
"~v___...vvv
14 15
20
1- ~ ,___]JV~~
10!~
/v V v
i
..J
25
""
~r--
10
0
v vOp!/
L-::::: ~lt~~ _.vl.---"v l / .... -
......
/
v
/
v~-"
--
~ 30
~~- +- . 1~?- 1--- V"
1-
(/)
5 35
- ~"~-t,~ 95
"" .,
3
~-e .. .o;~v !--'
(I~........
L-- v
~~ ~~"v
----
1-- 1--
l:==~--
lt-!,1)"i'),o 7 ,. __
Q.
' - -·oe--s 211
40 ,.r
4-.s, .JJ>i T9 a 29
45
NOTE:
r---
NUMBERS BETWEEN CURVES
IDENTIFY ZONES OF OPTIMU
"' - .. ,Q:- 86
....:·~1-84
112
31 ~r-
50
MOISTURE CONTENT AND
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. ' '\ ·- -- -- --
"--- ·- -- -
-- so n: --
-7
33
76 -
-1-
34_
3~
Example: Given: Plastic limit - 20 Find: Average maximum dry density and
Liquid limit • 35 optimum moisture content.
Answer: 110 p.c.f,density and 16 percent
moisture.
a) -Relation of average maximum dry density and optimum moisture eontent to
plastic limit and Uquid limit•
. ,;..
100
l'INEMESS AVERAG£ FINEf1ESS AVERAGE
t---1
! 1--lll~--·1~--7 1--·1--·1--·1--·1--2 1--l l-,_+J,_+2,_+',_+*,_+,
0 1--+4
"T IT J"T I"T
Alabama••••••••••••••••••••• Residual ••••••••••••••••••••••
Arlwna•••••••••••••••••••••••••••do·-·········-···········
3 10 12 1 ..i.
ArkllllSal..................... Roomt alluvium ••••••••••••••
Conncc~lcut •••••••••••••••• ._ Olaclal •••••••••••••••••.•••••• •..•
"T I "T I ·-a-2 ·-r,--r 2
10
1 l 7
XentuelcJ•••••••••••••••••••• .Rooldual•••••••••••••.•••••••. e 18
~~::t.:.:::::::::::::::::: "(iii:.:~::::~::::::::::::::::::: ·-rJ·-rj·-r 3
•
6
a '
7
2 I
Nebrnsl:L.................... Ootw..b.••••••••••••••••••••• 1 7 7 I&
~=~:-~:::::.::-::::::::.:::: ~!1::::::::::::::::::::::1 :::: ....I I ....
1 I ····
2 I ----
1 I .-···
l I ····
11 I 2 1~ I
I •
~ ~ I ..i"
New Medoo ..•••••••••••••••• ,.Rooldual•••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••
Nortb C!llollna.•••••••••••••••••••do......................... •••• •... •... .... } f 1 ··r
Norlb Dakota................ Glacial........................ •••• 112 2 2 2 4 '2
-2,.2
~......::::::::::::::::::::1 ~~~.:::::::::::::::::::::i ::::
Tuu..... ---·----····-······ Coe.stol pJI\In clay•••••••••••••
Te>as........................ Rooldual......................
Vermont..................... Oladal........................ .... ....
Otdo. •••••••••••••••••••••••• IAellltrlne••• ••••••••••••••••• ••••
1---
.... ....
····~····j···-~·-··
···• ···· •••· ••·•
•••• •••• •••• , ••••
------
1 1
....
1 a11
••••
F.
I
10
1
11
••••
--------
n2
2
2 •••• ••••
····~ 3
l 1
•2
1
1
7
••.•
I
I
a •••• •..• ••••
2, ••••
71 ·•••2 ····
l
...
1
••••
1•••
•••• •••• •••• • ••
···· ~--· ···
2 •••• •••• •••• •••• • ••
-
'l"ota~a.................. ...........•.•.•................ 1 1 ! a 1 1
j a I a 11 21 211 ... t2 tao I
11 1 eo 1 1 1 1
I
~
Figure 8, Bureau of Public Roads Prediction Deviation Table (after the B.P.S. 1958).
\.n
1-'
5
40
,.---..
Ul
Q)
Q)
~30
Q)
•
if{j
0
•ri
+J
()
·ri
H
~ 20' ••
4-l
•
0 •
(l)
bh
~
•
-& 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80
PLASTICITY INDEX
Figure 9. Bjerrum and Simon's Plot of Consolidated Drained Angle of Friction Versus Plasticity Index 1..11
N
53
40 --. -
..
I LEGE NO
l
JS . ·- --
SYMBOL·
0
DISTRICT
ST. I..OUIS -
0 ME~ PHIS
" 0 4 VIC'<SBURG
""
NOTE: NO S TEST DATA
II) AVAILABLE ,ON THIN
w 30 (HS, o.$') SPf:CtMENS,
w
0~"'
a: ON NORMALLY CON-
g SOLIOATEO SOILS FROM
K
' NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT.
0
z 0 0
~
25 1-·
........ 0
.
04
~r----... 6·
---
0 il.
0 A 0 A
20
0 1---
0
-
' 4
15 .
0 10 2.0 30 40 50 &0 70
PLASTIC~TY INDEX
a) Consolidated Drained Angle of Friction
Versus Plasticity Index
0.20 I I
-
• LEGENO
SYMBOL DiSTRICT
---
0 ST. LOUIS
1- 0.15 - a MEMPHIS
-·
u.. A VICKSBURG
a
U)
a:
NOTE: NO S TEST DAtA
AVo\ILABLE,ON THIN
(H ~O.S") SPECIMENS, ,....._...... .
w ON NORMALLY CON-
a. ·--<)-- t--A·,..- --
(()
0.10 f- SOLIOATEO SOILS fROM
NEW ORl.EANS DISTRICT. _.. __....0
z
g
z
0
0
0 __....""
K a
c' = 0.0015 PI
.......:....- 1S"
-
0
v 0.05 -- ----
0 0
_o_..o - o_.... -o
~0
0 A 0
0
0 ----- 10 2.0 30 40
PLASTICITY INDEX
50 60 70
3
I ..
..
= 7.12 . •
...
2-'f" OPT. + .26 (LL) •
.w
1=1
<1.1
.w •• •• . -~
- . • •
l:l
.. .
.. .
.. . . . ..... .. ./
0 •
.. ..
u
~
2-
. ... .. -
<1.1
.w - •
~ : ...
~--.~
'
a
... . .. ·. .
::l .
-~
.w
0
At
J .
. .
. .
• • • . •
. . ... .
• •
r = .87
• .
. . ..
I
.... ..
10110 2J
3~---------
40 50 60 70 8
Liquid Limit
Figure 11. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Liquid Limit
(All Soils Arithmetic Plot) I VI
.p.
',·
4£.1-
3'
~
2* . ....
• • . •
..
.• •.. •••
.. ..•• .• . . ....
• •• •
281- . .
... ... ...• ..• • •
"•.
.. :''
. .: i·...·...·..• •.. ." . .
•.·. .: ••••
. .' ' .......... .
. .. ...•. .... . ...
lsi-
•
•
. •• •.• .
... ...
• •
101
10 1~ it 2! 3t 4b st 6~ 7d sJ 93 1do
Liquid Limit
Figure 12. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Liquid Limit
(All Soils - Loga~ithmic Plot) I V1
IJl
~~~·.
35
30
I . • •
•
.
• •
•
4-1
1=1
25
OPT. 8. 27 + .so (PL) .• . . •
•
•
•
•
Q)
4-1
1=1
0 .• •
• • • •" •• • •
.•
t)
... . •
• • • • •
...,
~
Q)
4-1
• .. • .
. •
• •
~ 2 . • . • .. •
• •
• • . .Y. •
13 '1. •
. .· • •• •
.~4-1
p..
.. . ..·~ . ... .... . ..•• . . •
0 • •
1.51 -~-- . •. • •
• .. •. • .• •. •• •
. • -
r = .59
... . • •
. •
• !••• ··: ••• •• ••
•
.
10 L •
0 s· 10 15 20 25 30 35
Plastic Limit
Figure 13. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Plastic Limit
(A 1 1 C'-..1'1- A-~~~-~-J- T~-~~' I
V1
0\
40-1-
3o+
.j..l
t: 25+
Qj
.j..l
p
.. .. ..
. .. .. . .
0
C,)
l--4
Qj
20
..
. . .: ....:.. . ..
.w
~ . 4
s . . .. .. .. •
§
·rl
. .
.. . .. ... ... ..... . . . ..
. •.. .. . ·..
.j..l
0..
0 15
...
.... .
.. . .
10 1
I
5~
'
I
10 1J 2b ts 3b 4J 6d 7d 80 90 100
Plastic Limit
Figure 14. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Plastic Limit
(All Soils - Logarithmic Plot) I Vl
-.J
35
30
30+
.IJ
l=l
(l)
..
~
p 25+
0
.. ..
u
H
(l)
.. .. ~ ... ,•
..
~
.. . .
~ +'·
..
20
~
~
•.-! • .. .. . ...
.IJ
0
(:!..
.· .. ~
..
15+
10
0 15
I
I
20
.
f
.
I I
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index
Figure 16. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Plasticity Index
1.11
(All Soils - Logarithmic Plot) \0
35
30
I .
•
• •
OPT. = 13.3 + 4.25 A.C. •
.j..) 25
• ••
~
.j..)
p •
. •
•
0
(.)
••
. • •
H
(J) • • •
.j..)
(lj • •
20 •
.• ,.••.. • • • .
:::s:
• ~
•
~ •
.s
..., ' • •
... ...~· •• •
.
. .•
.j..)
0
p..
•
. • • •
•
•
•
• . •
151- __,...,.-- -
• •• • • •
•• •• • • • • r = .42
•
•
•
•
•• • •
•
• •
• • ••
• •
. . •
10 I •
0 0.13 --6 .1 6~-.
·~
•
25 •
OPT. = 9.67 -f .31 (% clay) • •
•
•
2 •
.. • • •
.. • •
• ••• • •
.•. .••• • .
•
• •
• 0
1 •
•• •
. ..
•
0
•.. • •
• •
•
• •
•
10
• r = .67
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
Percentage Clay
Figure 18-. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Percent Clay 0'\
All Soils - Arithmetic Plot' ......
•,
30+
•
zs+ •
• •
• • •
• • • ••• •
• • • •
20-l- •• . • •
•
•
.• •
. ..
•
• • • •• • • • •
• • •• •
•• • •
(I)
Q)
s::l
•r-1 ... . •
• • • • .
• •
• •
•
• •• • ..
. . .. .
•• •••
• • •
• •
"'Q)"' • • • • • • •• " • • • •I • • •• •
••• • • • •
~ 15 • • •
•• • ••
• .. .
• • •• •
•
••
•
• • •
•• •
+J
• • •• • •• ...
•
••
• •
.. ..
§ • •
• • •
()
,..,
Q)
P-I • •
•
• •
• • •
~··
•• . •
• . • •
• •
• •
lOt •
r • .43
I
5
20
I
30
I
40 s! 6! 7!
Optimum Water Content
at 9! 1!o
Figure 19. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Percent Fines
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I 0\
N
130 T
•
• . ••
•
+
•
. .. . . •• .• •• •
120 •
..• • • •••• .. . . ••
. • . • .• •• • •• •• • .
t
•
•
•
. •• • •• ••••• • .•:-•. • • •
• • . • ,.
. . •• ... .• •
• • • • • •• • .
;;:.., 110 •
•
• • • . . • • • • • .•
••• • • •
• • • . ••
•
.... •
~
•rl
CJ)
t:: .. •• •
•
• • • • . .• • •
. . ••
• • •
•
(1)
AM
l»I.H
~
• •
•
•
•
• ••• • \
. .
• • • •
•
1-1 ........
~ CJ) •
. • • • ..
• • ••
•
§~
100 .. • •
•
.~ ' . • • • ••• ••
@ ~
~
90 •
r = -.46
•
80 I
30 4t st 6b 701 sol 9t 1£0
Percentage Fines
Figure 20. Maximum Dry Density.Versus Percent Fines
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I 0\
(,.)
13crt"
• •
•
.. •
•
.
• .. .
•
12crt'
• • . • •
• • • .. .
•
• . .. . •• • • ' .• . •. •
•
. ..
-
~.IJ
lH
Ul
..0
r1
;: llcrt-
•
• -
•
• .
• •
..
.
.:
•
.
•
. . •. • . . •
. .
. •
.. . .. .•. .•..• .... . • . - ••
•
• . ..• : f
•
.IJ
•t-1
• • • • •
. . • • . . .. . • .
• .
Ul
g
• : -
•• . . ... . ••• • • •. . • •
A •
•
. . ...•. • . •
:>-.
1-1 •
•
•
. • " . .
. . ..• • . .
A •
lOoT •
g Max. D. = J.l9 - .54 (PI)
M
•
.~ •
@ .. t
~
•
•
90-1-
r = -.78
80 I
0 J 110 1~ 2J
Plasticity Index
2J 3J 351 4J
Figure 21. Maximum Dry Density Versus Plasticity Index
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I 0\
~
,,
13
...•
120 •
..
:~·=.:
.,
·~ . •
:>.
,jJ
110
•r-l
"
@
(/)
. . ... •
A
:>rt'l
1-1-IJ
A4-1
s
§::1
........
til 100
Max. D. = 142.18 - 2 (OPT)
"' ..
•r-l ••
•
~ •
r = -.95
90 •
0 5 1 15 2 2 3 3
Optimum Water Content
Figure 22. Maximum Dry.Density Versus Optimum Moisture Content
All Soils - Arithmetic Plot 0\
Ln
130
120--. •• ' •
• .
I •
' .. . .•. . . •
•
• •• • . . •
('I)
. . •
!>-,4-J
~-~~
A......_
(/J
100
s~ • •
.~
@ I .. . ;.
•
•
;:;.::
. .• .
901 Max. D. = 116.0 - 8.06 (AC) r = -.42
80
0 0!3 0!6 o:9 1!2 1!5 1J8 2!1
' Activity Coefficient
Figure 23. Maximum Dry_Density Versus Activity Coefficient
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot 0\
0\
67
II)
• 00
I
II
1-l 00
•
•
.. ..
..
...
.. . .........
•
..
.. .·· """
'"'
·-...·.·
N
....
r-1
II
•
:
. .•.
.
.
...
•
0
r-1 0 0 0 0
00
r-1 r-1 0"\
'"'
t;::J.JjSqt
~::J.1Su~a ~~a mnmJxew
..... .• •
120 -r ...._ .• .. .•
\
•• ..
• • • •
.t
•
• .• . •.•
•
•
•
•
•
• ,~:
, ••.•. :• . . ••
• •
•
. . ... •.
••
•
110 + •
• • ' • • - •
• • • . •
•• •
••
. •
• .
• • •
:>. • • c •
-1..1 100 • •
. .. •
•o-i
til
• •• ••
j:l • •
Q)
AM
•• • •
1>-,4-1
-1..1
• • •
~-~---- • •
A til
a~
Max. D. = 125.5 - .95 (PL) ~
• •
• •
~ 90
·r-l
@
::;:: •
I r = -.59
_._ •
80
70 1 1 2 25 3 3
0
Plastic Limit
Figure 25. Maximum Dry Density Versus Plastic Limit (All Soils - Arithmetic Plot)
~
(X)
13
1201'" ............._
.. •. .• • ••
• ....• .••
•• •• • •
.
•
. •
.. . •
-~·· -
• • •
•• • •
• •• •
::>..
+J
·r-1
11
. •
• ........ •
(/) • • • • .. •
l=l
(I) • • •
A<"''
•
••
+J
::>..4-l
~-~- •
• •
..•
A (/)
10 •
1=1~
::I •
.~~ •
• •
ro
;:;:::
•
•
•
• ............._
90+ Max. D. = 122.3 - ,55 (% Clay) r = -.66
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Percentage Clay
Figure 26. Maximum Dry Density Versus Percentage Clay
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) 0\
\0
o.rl- •
• •
• •
0.4....
• • •
. o. .
.
f.:t!' • •
Ul
.
E-t • •
•
•
...
p
0
•rl
(j) o.
• .. -
•
•
<!.)
...d
• • •
0
0 •
• •
• •
• •
• . r = -.07
o.lf • •
• •
... ••
•• • I
•
•
• • •
oI
0 sl lJ•
• 1\ . 2J 2J 301 351
Optimum Water Content
Figure 27. Cohesion Versus Optimum Water Content
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I -.....!
0
o.s-+- •
• •
0.4-+-
•
• •
0.3-+-
""..
CJ:l
• •
E-i
..
t:::
0
·rl
Ul
Q) 0.2+
.. • •
..c0 • •
(.)
r = -.07
..
• •
•
• •
0.1-i-
• •
• •
•
•
. • •
0
50
I
6d
l
7d
I
8cf
l
9~
I
wo
.. j
-,
I
1Io 120
Maximum Dry Density
Figure 28. Cohesion Versus Maximum Dry Density
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) '-1
f-'
••
o.s+" •
0,1
•
• • •
•
•
. o.J. • • • •
~
. •
.E-1
Cfl
I •
• •
. I •
o.i . .•
!=!
0
-
•.-!
Cl)
• •
(\)
,c:
u
0
- •
•• •
•
• •
• • r = -.23
0.1+ • • •
•
•
•
•
o0I J lJ lJ zJ 2J 301 3~
Plastic Limit
Figure 29. Cohesion Versus Plastic Limit
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) -
"N
,'.
o. 5-+- •
o.4j
• • •
·. ~ •
•
•
..
. . ..
.
ILl
..
Cf.l
'E-1
0"
0.3
1 •
. •
. ..
• •
.
•
•
..
..,.;0 . •• • ..
(/)
0)
,L:l
0
c.:>
0.2t
.
• .
•
. • •
• -• •
• • •
• .
... .. .• ••
. . .. •
O.lT
.. •
•
. '
•
• r = -.06
•
•
. • .
•
.
" •
0 I .
10 2! I \
I t I I I
30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid Limit
Figure 30. Cohesion Versus Liquid Limit
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I '-)
w
50
•
.
40
• •
. • .:..... •
• t ••
• •
• •
• • '
3
•
.
• •
....
.....
-& •
... •. ..
~
• ..,. •
(])
.-1
.. . . ....
00
~ • •
p
0
2
•
..
•r-l
,j.J
(.)
·r-l
1-1
• .
. I •
r....
0
50 6 7 8 9 1~0 110 120
Maxi~um Dry Density
Figure 31. Friction Angle ~ Versus Maximum Dry Density
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot) "--1
.1:-
o.s-+- •
•• • • •
0.4 .....
50
• •
4o 1- . .
• • •
'• • •
• •• • •
.
• •
• • •
•
.• .• .•. .• . '
• •
. . ..
.
-e-
30.....
I • •
•• • • • •
'
<lJ O t r 0 f
r-1 • • • •• • •
M • • •
!=!
..:t: • • • •• • • •• •• • • •• • • - .,....,___ • •
!=! • • ••
0 • • •
j
(.)
20 •
. •.: - •
. • ••
•r-1
~1-1
•
.
•
. •
•
•
•
..
.. ••
• •
10-r- • •
<j> = 38 - .26 (LL) r == -.62
0
I
10 20
t 30
I 4
I I I I t I
50 60 7 80
Liquid Limit
Figure 33. Friction Angle ~ Versus Liquid Limit
"-J
0\
40T . .
.. ... • ..
• • •
.
30+
•
• • •
. • ·........
••
• . . •• •
•
•
.•••
• •
•
. • .
Q)
r-1
bO
l=l
•
. •
• •
• .....
<!1
!=(
• • •
0
•r-l
.w
0
•r-! •
H
fz.l
I
-&
15*"
10 I I l I I & I I 1 t
1sF 2\5 3d 4~ Stl 6! 7(f'' s~ 9rr 1on
Liquid Limit
Figure 34. Friction Angle Versus Liquid Limit
(All Soils - Logarithmic Plot) -.j
-..j
50
.•• .·..
40-1- •
••
. ... •• ••.
•• •
•
.... •.• •
.• •••••
-._
..
• •• .
•
-&
Q)
.. 30r ..•. ... .. . . . .. .. •-••••• • •
--~
.-I
.- . ....-... • ..... ~-
bl)
.!il
~ . . .. ..•.
•
0
•rl
.1-)
() 20
.•
•
... • . .•
•.-I • •
• • •
1-1
P<f . • •
•
•
10+
<fl = 41.3 - .77 (OPT) •• r = -.54
•
0
0 5 l l 2 25 3 3
Optimum Water Content
Figure 35. Friction Angle $ Versus Optimum Moisture Content
Soils - Arithmetic Plot ......,
(X)
40""""
..•. ..••
•
• •••
• • •
30-1-
•
... •
.. •
•
.• ..... ... •
•• . •....• • • ••
. ... • .• ... • . .•
~
0
•r-1 •
•
25-1-
. -
-!-)
C)
•r-1
•
rt •
~
0 .. . ••• •
bh
Q)
2o-f- •
.!i! •
-Er
. ... •
•
1st-'
10 1
10 1~ 2~ 2sF 3t
Opt~mum
4of
Water Content
stf 6()*2 7ol s~ glP· 10~ I
Figure 36. Friction Angle Versus Optimum Moisture Content
(All Soils - Logarithmic Plot)
'-J
1.0
so+
•
40+ • •
.. •
•
.. . .
• •
30+
• "
•
• . ..
-&
.
ill
I •
r-l
OJ)
~
<!!
I . • • •
~
0
•rl
-1-l 2ot . •
•
C)
•.-l •
~
~
lJ •
•
r = -.21
0 I
10
f
20
I
30
I
40 s!
Percentage Fines
f
60 70
I
80
I
•
40+ • •
•
•
.. . ..•. .• ••• •• • • .• • . . • •
• •• • • • •• • • •
(1)
,....;
• •
• •
. • . •
• •
. •
• • .• • •
•
•
• • .• •• • "• • . • •..
00 30
~ • • • . .. • .
. .•. • .••. •• •• .• ••• ..• ••
•
p • • •
•
. •• . •• • .• .• " •• • ••
0
•..-!
.j..J
•
.• •• .•
(.)
,..
•..-!
..
~
20
. • • . •• - ~
•
•
-& I
•
• .. • • •
•
r -.11
10 -1-
oI
0 51 101 15t 2~
Plastic Limit
2! 301 351
.... ' . • •
•
(l)
r-1
zs-+
. ..
. . • • • .. ... •
bl}
~
jj
. ..
0
•ri
.w
(.)
.. .
•
.... •
•ri zo-+- • • •
~ • • •
-e- • •• • •
• • •
15- • •
6
•
10
I I I
~r
t I t t I I
10 15 20 25 30 40
Plasticity Index
50 70 80 9t 100
Figure 39. Friction Angle Versus Plasticity Index
(All Soils - Arithmetic Plot)
00
N
so+
I I J
0 I
0 13 '
20 30
Plasticity Index
Figure 40. Friction Angle Versus Plasticity Index
(All Soils - Logarithmic Plot) 00
(....)
25r
•
•
• • • •
• •
•
20+
•
,•
•
• ••
•
•
'• . •
.
•
• • ••• • •
• .
• • • • •
.jJ
s::c:u •• •• ••• •• •
• •
• •
.. ...
.jJ • •
~ 15 • • • •
0 • • •
u
Q)
14
. '
• • -• • ••
;:I
.jJ
•
(I)
·r-1
• •
j! •
10
s •
.~ •
.jJ
p..
0
st •
r = .64
o I
0 lJ 2J 3J 4J sJ 6J 7J
Liquid Limit
Figure 41. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Liquid Limit
(Glacial Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I 00
.p.
25T
..
,.
.•
.. •
20+
. • .• .
• • ..• •
" • • .. • •
.w
1=1
<!)
.
•
• • •
•
• •
• • • •
.w
u
1=1
0
15
'
..
•
•
•.
••
••
••
•
••
•
•
•
• •
•
<!)
H
;::l • .. • • • •
•
.w
(/)
•r-1 • • •
0
::E: •
s 10
~ •
·r-1
.w
p..
J
0 r = .58
I I I
5 10 f 1~
Plastic Limit
w 25
•
.. ..
20
t .• . .•
•
... •
- . . .--. • •
.... •
.. • •• • •• • .• • •
+J
t=:
(!) •• :
+J
t=:
0
(.)
(l)
15
•• •
.. •. •• • •
•• .•
H
;:!
•
+J
(/)
•rf •
0
~
a 10 -1-
~
•rf
I •
+J
p..
0
5 ..... r = -.43
20 •
.tJ
~
.tJ
(:l
15
0
u
(!)
H
E
UJ
·rl
0
~ 10
5s OPT = 4.52 + .14 (%F)
·rl
.tJ
p.
0
5 r = •71
30 40 50 60 7 80 90 10
Percentage Fines
Figure 44. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Percent Fines
(Glacial Soils - Arithmetic Plot)
co
-...1
so I
0 51 101 lJ 201 2~ 3ol 3s I
Percentage Sand
Figure 45. Maximum Dry Density Versus Percent Sand
(Glacial Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I (X)
co
•
130T
• ·• •
•
• •
•
120-l-
• • •
• • • ••
• • • •• •
• •• • • •
:>-.
.1-J 110 .
• ..••• ••..• • • .....• .
• • . . .•
•r-1
• • •• • •
(fJ
!:l
<l)
AM .• •• .. .. ..
.1-J
•
l>-,4-l
~-~-
•• •
A (fJ
•
~::1 100
• • •
•r-1
X •
~
go+
~ = -.60
80 I I I I I I f
0 HJ 201 30T 40T 50 I 60 I 70 I
Liquid Limit
Figure 46. Maximum Dry Density Versus Liquid Limit
(Glacial Soils - arithmetic Plot) co
\0
130"1- -
•
•
•
12crT
"'
•
• ..
- .-. •
~
lloi-
• •
... ".
.. .. . •
• . , • . •• • • • • ••
;;>-,
,jJ
·r!
(fJ
'
,, .. .•• . ..
g •
.. ..
A\'1
,jJ #
•
?-.'H
~ ~ lOoi"' I" • •
s~
§
.
•r!
X
(1j
~
r = -.43
9o+
80 I
I I I I 251
;,;l
5 lJ lJ 2J
Plastic Limit
Figure 47. Maximum Dry Density Versus. Plastic Limit
(Glacial Soils - Arithmetic Plot) \()
0
•
• •
••
• •
•
12t. • • •
•
• • •
• •• •
• •
•• • •
.• • • • ..
• • ••• •
;:>-.
llot- • • •
•• • • • • • • •
•
..
••
•,
~
•.-1
CJ)
• •
-: •
•
• "'• . •
~ • • •
AM
~ •
;:>-.4-1
1-4 ........ • •
..
A CJl 1081-
a~ •
.~ •
M
r = -.46
~
90-t-
1
3~
8o
0 1A 2d 4d sol 6J 10 I
Plasticity Index
Figure 48. Maximum Dry De~sity Versus Plasticity Index
(Glacial Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I
....
\0
120
:>. 110
-1-l
•r-1
(/)
ffi
AC"l
-1-l
:>,4-1
).1 ......
A m
s~ 100
g
·r-1
90
80
30 4 50 60 70 80 90 10
Percentage Fines
Figure 49. Maximum Dry Density Versus Percent Fines
Glacial Soils - Arithmetic Plot) \0
N
o.
0.4'
\0
w
zst •
•
••
2J. • • • •
• •
• •
• • ••
• • • •
•
• •
..
.j..J 't
0Q) • • •
+J
0
1 • • • • •
• •
u
0
• • • •
Q)
l-1
• • •
•
..
::s •
.j..J
C/l • •
•rl
0
:z: 10+
a
§
•rl
.j..J I r = -.66
p..
0
5 l
oI
0 51 1~ 151 2! 251 3! 3!
Percentage Sand
Figure 51. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Percent Fines
rm::lr.i.<~1 Soils - Arithmetic Plot}_____ ~-~--------- I ..,..
\.0
35
• •
30
I
I •
• •
• •
.jJ
~
I / •
Q)
.jJ 25
~ I • •
.(.)
o
Q)
•• •
1-1
::;!
. ••
••
.•
.jJ
Ul
•r-1
0
20
•
~ OPT = 6.18 + .29 (LL) •
~a • ..
. .• ..
•r-1
..
w
.jJ
0
ll..
I •
1ST •
••
.• . r = .92
• •
10 I I I I I I I I
10 2 30 40 so 60 70 80
Liquid Limit
~igure 52. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Liquid Limit
(Residua~ Soils - Arithmetic Plot) \0
VI
35.....
30+.
+J
r::
zst •
~
..• •
QJ
+J
r:: • •
.• •. •
.. ••• ....• .......... •
.
0
u
• ••
1-1
QJ
+J
Ill 20
,
. •• ••.. • ..• • ~
. • '
::;: •
§
•
• •••• .• • • .....
• . .•
•
..• . • • • • •• • ... .... .. •
l':l
•rl
• .. • •••.. . .
+J
p..
0
• .
. . . ... r = .87
• .. .. . .
1 •
•
• .. •
.. • . .: ...... • •
10 I 0
•
1~ z! 401 3~ 5~ 6~ 701
Plasticity Index
Figure 53. Residual Soils Optimum Moisture Content Versus Plasticity Index \.0
(Residual Soils - Arithmetic Plot) 0\
35-t-
..
30-~'-
,
•
- . .
.
+J
ffi
+J
p
25-t-
•
.
0
u
. • •
H
Q)
+J . •
~
zo-t- • • .
• .• - • •
s ,•
~
·M
+J
.• • .•.• . .. •
...• . .• .•.
p.
0 •
• • •
15+
' . •
•
r = -.59
.....
$
•• ••
•
..• •
.. '
•
10 J
10 151 2~ zsl 301 3k 4h 45t
Plastic Limit
Figure 54. Optimum Water Content Versus Plastic Limit
(Residual Soils - Arithmetic Plot)
\0
-....!
130
..
120
•,.
• ~
•
••
110
~ .
•• •
. .. .. .·• ... •
.j.J
·rl • • • •
..••
fJl .
~
4)
At""l
.j.J •
~~~-~
A
~-~-
fJl
100 • • •
a::l • •
Max. D. = 127. - .49 (LL) • •
.~ •
~
90
r = -.89
80
10 20 30" 40. 50 6 70 8
Liquid Limit
Figure 55. Maximum Dry Density Versus.Liquid Limit
(Residual Soils - Arithmetic Plot) \0
CXl
130 .....
•
120+
•
t
...
.......
••• •
• •
•
.• • •
••
•
•
. •
• •• • ,'
I • • • . .. ..•
,
•
..
• •• • •
•• . ..•
~
.w
110
.
'!. , •
• • • • .
• •. ... .•
•
•rl
Ul
•. .. • • • . . .. •
. ••. -. - • .
g •
• •
• •. ... •.
AC"'l •
~4-l
+J
..
•
• • •
. . . . •
.. • . ...
H- • • •
A Ul
,.0 • • • • •
§r-1 .
.~
•
. . .•. . . • . • •
.•. •
:X: • • •
('(j
:::<::
•
•
90 + ,. . •
r .60
~
W).
•
•
~ 80 I
• J l _1_ •
45
I
" " # •
.•" • •
#
•• •
•.. • •
.. ... •
110+ . .. .... 4
•
'
.. • ••
•• .
•• ••
. •
.•• • ..• .
• ••
••
•• ... •• •
•
•
~ 100+ • •• I •
+J • • •
•rl • • • •
...
(f)
!=l • •
- •
Q)
(::lC"1
+J
~4-1
•
...
A (f) •
s~ 90+ •
;:l
.~
@ ••
~
r = -.82
80-t-
70
lb
•
2tf
I I
30 .[Jf
I _j_
SOl 601
.
70 1
0
Plasticity Index
Figure 57. Maximum Dry Density Verses Plasticity Index
(Residual Soils - Arithmetic Plot) f-1
0
0
130
•
'
120
-
-
:>..
.;:
co
110
• •
~ II
•
0
:>.+J
C'f) --
1-14-1
o- !1)
g~ 100
1:i
·r-C
~ Max. D. = 125.9 - .46 (LL)
;:E!
•
90
r = -.96
80
10 :l 3 4 5 60 70 80
Liquid Limit
Figure 58. Maximum Dry.Density Versus Liquid Limit
(Meramec Park Soils - Arithmetic Plot) 1-'
0
......
130 -t-
'
120l •
•
•
• • •
' 1101-. • •
?-.
...., •
·n(() • • •
~
Cl.l •
PC""'!
?-.-1-1
•
H4-1
A--.....
(() 100+ •
§~
.~
~ •
90 +- r = -.94
80
10
I
151
I
2Cf
I
2?" 3-cf
..
35'
_t__
4d
I
45
Plasticity Index
Figure 59. Maximum Dry Density Versus Plasticity Index
~
(Meramec Park Soils - Arithmetic Plot) 0
N
130-1-
120"1-
•
• •
•
•
•
111
>..
.j.J • •
•rl • •
•• •
(J)
l=l
Q) •
~ • •
P.,4J
C")
•
1-14-1
~-
(J)
~~ l00-1- •
·rl
@
:::.:: • •
91 r = •7
80 l
10
1
15 20
I I
25
I
30 35
I ~
40
I I
45
I
Plastic Limit
Figure 60. Maximum Dry Density Versus Plastic Limit ~
(Meramec Park Soils - ArithmPtil' Plot) 0
w
35
30
+J
(:I
Q) I I
+J
(:I
0 25
u
Q)
1-1
::1
+J
(I)
•rl
0
2-:l
a 20 f' OPT = 5.35 + .31 (LL)
·n~
+J
p..
0 I ·._/ • •
•
•
15 ~ .., • r = .97
10
10 3 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid Linti t
Figure 61. Optimum.Moisture Content Versus Liquid Limit
(Meramec Park Soils - Arithmetic Plot) I-'
0
~
---~-
35
30+
oi-l
s::
Q)
251 .
•
•
oi-l
s::
0
u I •
!-<
Q)
oi-l
~
~
.~
20l • •
•
•
•
•
oi-l
p.. • •
0 • • • •
• • r = .96
15-l- •
•
•
10
0
I
1-,; 20
_._
'
36
.
4d
Plasticity Index
f
s6
•
6~
I
7d
1-'
0
Figure 62. Optimum Moisture Content Versus Plasticity Index V1
30-1-
.j.J
t::
(])
.j.J
0
t::
0
25t
- •
•
.,
(])
H
:;j
.j.J
CIJ
I •
20t
..-I
0
):! •
s •
•
.~
.j.J
p.
0 I • •
• • •
••
154-
• r = .69
•
•
10 1 •
10 lJ 2J 2J 3J
Plastic Limit
31 401 451
40T
• •
•
t:: I • •
0
•r-1
oiJ
()
•r-1
~
H
301 •
• •
.. I
4-1
0
Q)
r-1
~
00
20 ..... - •
I
-&
• •
101 •
oI t I
0 10 2A 3! Plasticity4!Index 50 6~ I
70
41 •
• tl
•
~
0
•r-1
., • •
..
+J
(.)
·r-1
!-1
f:r.l
30+ • • •
4-1
0
Q)
r-1
bO
li! .. •
-e-
20t ~
10+
oI I
10
I
20
I
30 4~ 5~ 601 70
i
80
Liquid Limit
Figure 65. Angle of Friction Versus Liquid Limit ,_.
(Meramec Park Soils - Arithmetic Plot)_ ___ .. I 0
co
:<
Ql
'8H
:>.
.j..l
'M
CJ
'M
.j..l
{/)
ro
r-{
P-1
ol so I I I ffl I I { '--1 ( •I I I Iu , I ( I I II I
h
I I I I L' I I --
I I I I I I I f I
d f I I I I_[ I I / ·-
Liquid
Figure 66. Graphical Relationship of Maximum Dry Density
to the Pla~ticity Index and Liquid Limit 1-'
0
\0
@
"d
p
H
p.,
~
·,...(
()
·,...(
~
Ul
ro
.--1
P-1
0' , f f v I I I ( ( I I I I II I { { I I I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 "" "" 0 ~ - 80 .90 100
Liquid Limit
Figure 67. Graphical Relationship of Optimum Moisture Content
to the Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit
I-'
I-'
0
-
410
I (/)
310
I !=!
0
I ·rl
I .w
m
I
• ~
Ql
I (/)
,..c
I ' 0
.
210
,, ,
I
z0
,,, '
I
,
110 ''
,,, ' ' ',
.,, '~
Std. Dev. Std. Dev.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Error Distribution
Figure 68. Predicted Versus Actual Optimum Moisture Content .....
1-'
.....
/
Error Distribution
Figure 69. Predicted Versus Actual Maximum Dry Density .......
.......
N
113
APPENDIX B
TABLE I
Simple Correlation Coefficients
Angle of Intenal Friction
Analysis 28 (All Soils)
%F .22 1.0
AC • 54 . 06 1.0
0 LL PL PI Opt. Max D. we
0 1.0
~
LL .65 1.0
PL .10 • 61 1.{)
TABLE I (CONTINUED)
Angle of Friction
Analysis 27 (Residual Soils)_
0 LL PL PI Opt. Max D. HC
0 1.0
LL .59 1.0
0 LL PL PI Opt.
(/; 1.0
LL .70 1.0
T;\fiLJ: II
Simple Correlation Coefficients
Maximum Dry Density
Equation #10 (All Soils)
Max d. % s %F LL PL PI
Hax d. 1.0
% s .41 1.0
Max d. % s %F S.G. LL
Max d. 1.0
% s .41 1.0
%F .46 • 97 1.0
Max d. % s %F LL PL PI
Hax d. 1.0
% s .39 1.0
TABLE I I ( CONTINUl·:D)
. Equation 4f22 (Glacial Soils)
Max d. %s %F LL PL PI
Hax d. 1.0
%s .66 1.0
Max d. %s %F LL PI
Max d. 1.0
%s .76 1.0
T.\BLE Ill
Simple Correlation Coefficients
Cohesion
Analysis 2 (All Soils)
c 1.0
%F .01 1.0
AC .22 . 04 1.0
LL • 05 1.0
PL .22 • 61 1.0
PI .02 • 94 • 30 1.0
c LL PL PI Opt.
c 1.0
LL .56 1.0
PL • 01 .33 1.0
PL • 27 . .67 1.0
TABLE IV
Simple Correlation Coefficients
Optimum Hoisture Content
Annlysis 35 (All Soils)
Opt. AC LL PL PI
Opt. 1.0
AC .42 1.0
Opt. %s %F LL PL PI
Opt. LO
%s .40 . 1.0
%F .43 .97 l.O
LL .89 .• 32 .33 1.0
Opt. %s %F LL PL PI
Opt. 1.0
%s .36 1.0
TABLE IV (CONTINUED)
Analysis 49 (Gbcia1)
Opt. %s %F LL PL PI
Opt. 1.0
%s .66 1.0
Opt. %s %F LL PL
Opt 1.0
%s .81 1.0
1
2
Ii-1
BA-2
Glacial
Glacial
Sandy Clay CL
Sandy Clay CL
3
2
30
29
67
69
-- 2.74
2.71
-
-
24
35
14
15
10
20
11.2
14.2
124.5
114.9
DS
DS
8.1 .03
- - 29-
31 Shelbyville
Shelbyville
3
4
BA-3
BB·i
Glacial
Glacial
Gra, Clay (CL)
S. Clay (CL)
3
10
26
16
71
74
-
--
2.73
2,73 -
- 32
40
17
17
15
23
13.5
10.0
117.7
112.4
DS
DS
9.7 0
12.7 ,03 29
Shelb}>'Ville
Shelbyville
- - -
---
5 BB-1 Glacial S~ Clay (CL) 1 25 74 2.70 3416 18 15.5 114.0 DS Shelbyville
6
7
BC-3
:BC-1
Glacial
Glacial
S, Clay (CL)
S, Clay CL-ML
3
0
28
47
69
53
-- 2.74
2.72
34
17
15
13
14
4
15.0
10,5
117 .o
125.4
DS
DS
-
6.8 0
- -32 Shelbyville
Shelbyville
8 29-1 Residual Cby (CL) 0 0 94 31 2.66 .so 4318 25 19.1 102.7 DS 21.1 0.1 28 P.crPw.ec
9 20-2 Residual Clay (CH) 0 7 93 45 2.68 .• 98 6218 44 23.9 95.1 DS 25.2 0.14 20 1-'.eramec
10 26-1 Res!.duol Sandy Clay CR 0 27 73 58 2,71 1.38 11131 80 36.6 so.o ~ 39.0 0.19 21 Meremec
11 33-1 Ruidual S11ndy Clay CL 0 26 74 20 2.66 .55 2716 11 14.8 ll3.5 DS 17.5 0.18 30 Mera:nec
12 9C-1 Residual Sandy Clay CL 0 44 56 16 2.65 .50 2416 8 13.0 115.4 DS 15.0 0,18 34 Mcramec
13 56-1 Residual Clay CL 0 2 98 25 2,60 .64 3620 16 17.5 106.7 :00 20.6 0 34 Hersm.cc
14 29-J
15 41-1
ltesidual
Residual
Clay CR
Clay CR
0
0
12
24
88
76
42
33
2.74 1.73
2.66 .98
99
56
26
19
73
37
41.0
22.0
76.5
99.4
DS
:OS
- -- --
-
Mcra:nec
¥~ra:nec
16 167-2 R..::osidca 1 Clay CL 0 26 74 35 2.68 .89 48 17 31 18.8 106.4 DS 21.7 0 24 Mcrar.~ec
17 27-1 D'..esidusl s. Clay CL 0 33 77 26 2.66 .69 30 12 18 14.0 115.6 DS - - - Merarncc
18
19
31-1
179-1
R.aaidual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
8
10
92
90
14
29
2.66
2.66
.64
.45
29 20
31 18
9
13
16,4.
15.7
106.5
110,5
DS -
DS 18.0
- -
.04 32
Meramec
Meramec
20 167-1 Residual Cla:; CL 0 8 92 31 2.68 .61 36 17 19 17.1 108.3 DS - - - Mcrernec
21 174-3 Reaidua1 S. Cl&y CL 0 28 72 32 2.66 ,81 43 17 26 16.7 100,3 DS - - - Mcrar.>ec
--- -- --
22
23
23·2
215-1
F~~d.tlual
Residual
Cllly CL
S. Clay (CL-ML)
0
0
14
32
86
68
27
6
2.68
2.74
,96
.83
45 19
17 12
26
5
20.1
9.5
101;,7
124.2
DS
DS
P.
- He ranee
Heramcc
24 :n-2 Residual S, Clay CL 0 3 97 23 2.66 .74 35 18 17 15.3 109.8 DS Mer a:nee
25 142-1
26 71-1
Residual
Residual
Cl!!y CL
S. Clay (CL-ML)
0
0
24
45
76
55
24
14
2.66
2,64
.46
.43
29 18
20 14 6
11 16.2
10.5
108.9
118.7
DS
DS
- - 35-
13,5 0
Meramec
:1-lerat:tec
. 27 72-2 Reaidual Clay CL 0 18 82 30 2.68 .70 39 18 21 16.3 109.7 DS 19.2 0 32 Meramec
-
--- - -
2S P-42 Glacial Clay CH - 2.72 69 16 53 21.3 101.6 DS 24.5 0.25 11 Cannon
- -
--- --
29 r-41 Glacial Clay CL 2,69 . 42 16 26 18.7 105.2 DS 21,0 0.16 24 Cannon
30 P-3 Glscial Silty Clay CL
. - - 2.69
- 40 14 26 17.6 107.5 DS 19.7 .05 21 Cannon
31 P~2 'Glacial Clay CL - 88- 2.72 . 46 16 30 18.8 104,6 DS 20,7 .10 25 Cannon
32 555-Bl
33 555-B2
Glacial
Glecial
S, Clay CL
S. Clay CL
0
0
12
13 87
-
-
2,68
2.68
-- 36 15 21
36 15 21
16.3
17.1
108,0
106,7
DS
DS
17,8
17.4
0,12
.12
28
29
Cannon
Cannon
34 560-El
35 561-Bl
Glacial
Glacial
Silty Clay CL
s. Clay CL
0
0
8
22
92
78
-- 2,66
2.68
-
-
40 18 22
32 10 16
17.6
16.3
105.7
103.8
DS
DS
-
18.0
- -
.02 32
Cannon
Cannon
:36 567 Glacial S. Clay CL 0 16 84 - 2.67 - 23 13 10 12.8 116,5 DS 14.5 .02 34 Cannon
...... ·,
N
N
TABLE V - SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
37 ~74 Glacial Clayey Silt ML 0 29 71 22 2.67 .22 19 14 5 13.5 114.9 DS 15.5 0 36 Canr:on
38 574-2
39 . 575-B2
Glacial
Glacial
s. Cl.:~y CL
Clay CL
0
0
22
9
78
91
25
31
2.67
2.67
.64
.55
30
32
14
15
16
17
15.4
16.1
111.4
108.8
DS
DS
-- -- -- C.:~nnon
Cannon
40 576-Bl Glacial S. Clay CL 0 39 61 18 2,67 .72 26 13 13 15.3 110.6 DS - - - Cannon
41 577 -Bl Glacial s. Clay CL 0 13 87 27 2.66 .59 32 16 16 14.8 110.7 DS - - - Cannon
42 577-B2 Glacial Clay CL 0 7 93 29 2,66 .62 32 14 18 12.4 107,9 DS - - - Cnnnon
43 579-132 Glacial S. Clay CL 0 11 89 25 2.66 .52 29 16 13 15.2 110.1 DS - - - Cannon
44 539-IH
45 573-Bl
Glacial
Glacial
Silty Clay CL
S, Clay CL
0
0
0
36
94
64
31
17
2.68
2,66
.61
.41
34
22
15
15
19
7
17 .o
12.1
107 .3
118.7
DS
DS 14
- 0- 35- Caii.r.on
Cannon
46 575-B1 Glacia 1 S,Clay, Silt (CL-ML)O 26 74 23 2.67 .26 20 14 6 14.0 113.7 DS 15.2 0 32 Cannon
47 578-B1 Glacial S.ClayCL 0 15 85 27 2.67 .48 30 17 13 16.2 109.1 DS 18.5 0 32 Cannon
48 578-32 Glacial S. Clay CL 0 9 91 23 2,69 .64 34 16 13 16.5 108.0 DS 19 .o 0 28 Cannon
49 579-Bl Glacial Silty Clay CL 0 9 91 27 2.66 .52 29 15 14 16.0 104.0 DS 17.8 0 36 Can0on
50 l:f-1750 Residual S. Clay CL - - -- - 2.69 - 22 14 8 12.2 119.9 DS - - - Dc~..;een
-- -- --
--
51 1752 Rcsidu::~l S. Clay CL - - 2.69 22 13 9 11.8 121.3 DS - DcQueen
52 1753 Residual S. Clay CL - - - 2.64
2.64
22
23
l3
13
9 11.9 121.7
122.4
DS -
12.2 .2 33.1
De Queen
53 17 51 Residual S. Clny CL 0 50 50 13 .64 9 11.9 DS DeQuecn
54 3754 Residual S. Clay CL - - - - 2.69 - 23 18 10 14.0 111.8 DS - - - D.; Queen
55 17 SG Residual S.ClayCL - - - - 2.68 - 26 13 13 12.5 120.0 DS 12.3 .4 32.6 De Queen
56 9825 Residual Silt Sandy (CL-ML) 0 56 44 15 2.67 .13 18 14 4 12.2 118.2 DS - - - DcQueen
57 9328
58 17 923
Residua 1
Residual
S. Clay CL
S. Clay CL
0
0
47
20
53
80
14
21
2.64
2.64
.71
.43
24
22
14
13
10
9
14.1
13.2
116.1
116.3
DS
DS 15.2 0
-
- - 35.9 DeQueen
DeQueer.
59 . 17924 Residual Clay, S (CL-NL) 0 47 53 20 2.72 .35 19 12 7 11.9 119.6 DS 14.0 0 35.5 DcQueen
60 17%0 Rcsidunl Clay, S (CL) 0 32 68 20 ·2.69 .55 23 12 11 13.0 117 .o DS 15.1 0 24.9 DeQueen
61 17943 Resid:Jul Clay, S (CL-ML) 0 40 60 14 2.68 .so 20 13 7 13.5 117 .o DS 15.6 .1 36.3 lft1Queen
62 17449 R£si.du31 Clay, S, (CL) 0 42 53 18 2.70 .44 '· 22 14 8 13.9 115.0 DS 16,1 .1 35.7 DcQuee!l
63 17 Glacial Clay, S. (CL) 0 3 97 23 2.69 .83 39 20 19 16.8 106.5 DS - - Saylorville
64 14
65 173
Glacial
Glacial
S. Clay (CL)
Clay CH
0
-
40
-
60
-
25
-
2.71
2.69 -
.84 35
55
14
21
21
34
12.8
20.2
116.3
103.1
DS
DS
-
-
-- -- Seylorvi11e
ear lyle
66 33-1 Glacial Clay CH - - - - 2.69 - 53 21 32 21.9 100.1 DS - - - Carlyle
67 33-2
68 34-1
Glacial
Glacial
Clay CL
Clay CL -
- -
-
-
-
-- 2.67
2.67
-
-
35
38
17
20
18
18
16 .o 111.7
18.4 • 103.4
DS
DS 18 .o
- - -
.18 25 .o
Cnrlyle
Carlyle
-
--- -
69 50-1 Glacial Silty Clay - - 2.63 34 17 17 16.4 109.5 DS 22 0 33 Carlyle
70 50-2
71 62-1
Glacial
Glacial
Clay CL
Clay CL
--
~
-
-- 2.68
2.6!!
-
-
36
40
17
20
19
20
16.2
18.8
109.9
104.4
DS
DS 18.1
- - -
.08 27
Carlyle
Carlyle
-')
~~ 157-1 Glncial Clay CL - - - - 2.70 - l•2 18 2l• 17 .2 107.8 DS 23.0 .02 29 Carl::le
t-:"'
N
w
TABLE V ~ SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
Primary Laboratory Com2action Data Shear - Data
Observation Soil Classification Mechanical Analysis Sp. Act, Opt, Nax.Dry Test
!.;o' Division (Unified Soil) Gravel Sand Fines %Clay Gr. Coef£. LL PL PI Water Density Type lVC c tJ Project
-- --- -- -- ---
73 177·2 Glacial Clay CL 2.69 37 20 17 16,6 109,0 DS 19,4 0 34 Carlyle
74 mf'-1 Glacial Clay CH 2,71 64 21 43 22,6 97.3 DS 23,0 .02 29 Carlyle
75 160-1
76 175-1
Glacial
Glacial
Clay
Clay
CL
CL
-- - --- ---
2.69
2.68 --
37
40
18 19
20 20
17 .o
17.2
107.2
107.9
DS
DS
19,0 .08 23,8
-16 -.13 27.5
-
Carlyle
Carlyle
77 6
78 22
Gbcial
Glacial
Clay
Clay
CL
CL
- -
- - - -
2.68
2.69 -
46
42
19 27
17 25
17.5
16.5
103.7
108,2
DS
DS 16 ,24 25.1
Carlyle
Carlyle
79 34 Clay CL -. - - - 2.67 -- 38 20 18 18.4 103,4 DS 18 ,18 25 Carlyle
- --
Glacial
60 53
81 66
Glacial
Glacial
Clay CL
Clay CL
-- -- 2.70
2.72 -.55
42 16 26
39 18 21
17.6
19.0
106.3
103.0
D3
DS
21
24
0
0
25.6
30.9
Carlyle
Carlyle
82 7 Glacial Clay CL 0 6 94 18 2.67 30 20 10 18.5 105.2 DS 28.2 0 32.4 Rend Lake
- --
--- --- --
83 1 Glacial Clay CL 2,67 26 15 11 14.0 114.0 DS 18.6 0 31.5 r..end L.:!ke
54 7
85 11
Glacial
Glncial
Clay CL
Clay CL -
- -
2.70
2.69 -
38 16 22
40 20 20
15.7
21.0
110.6
99.9
DS
DS
19.8
27.9
.06
.01
25.3
26.1
Rend Lake
Rencl L"lke
86 3 Glacial S. Clay CL 0 19 81 23 2.69 .70 33 17 16 14.5 114.9 DS 14.4 0 34 !l.e:nd Lake
87 29 Glacial Clay CL 0 13 87 24 2,66 ,71 38 31 17 16.3 .109.3 DS 19.1 .15 33 Rend L:!kc
88 31 Glacial Clay CL 0 8 92 27 2.68 .56 33 18 15 18.8 105.1 DS 21.4 .11 32 Rend Lake
89 572 Glacial Clay CL 0 4 96 35 2,66 .74 49 23 26 21.6 100,1 DS 24.1 ,13 24 Rend T~1":2
90 573 Glacial S. Silt (ML) 0 33 67 18 2.64 ,06 17 16 1 12.8 118.4 DS 16.5 .05 3-'1- Rend I.oke
91 611 Glacial Clay CL 0 13 87 28 2.66 .64 40 22 18 17.4 105.2 DS 23.0 .05 34 Rend L'lke
92 613 Glacial s. Clay CL 0 28 72 15 2.70 .54 26 18 8 13.5 116,1 DS 16.3 ,08 35 Rend I.Nke
93 60 Glacial S, Clay CL 0 22 78 20 2.69 .65 24 16 13 13.5 116.3 DS 16.4 ,06 33 Rend Lake
94 42 Glacial S. Clay CL 0 ' 26 74 23 2.70 .87 38 18 20 16.4 115.4 DS 19.8 .10 30 Rend Lake
95 11
S6 . 17
Residual S. Clay CL 0 23 77 - 2.70 - 33 22 11 18.4 103,3 DS 19.5 0 29,6 Carr Fork Res,
".esidual S. Clay CL 0 38 62 15 2.70 .75 29 19 10 15.2 112.7 DS 17 0 30,7 Carr Fork Res,
97 35 Residual S. ClayCL 0 26 74 15 2.67 .60 29 20 9 16.4 108.2 DS 18 0 31 Carr Fork Rea,
93 C-A Residual S. Clay CL 15 24 61 - 2.74 - 30 20 10 14.2 118,0 DS 17 0 28 Carr Fork Res.
99 11765 Residual Clay CL 7 40 53 19 2.68 1.42 38 11 27 llf.O 113.2 DS 14 0 25 Proctor Res.
lCO 11763 Residual Clay CL 0 7 93 30 2.68 1.00 43 18 30 18.5 101,9 DS 19 0 23.6 Proctor Re:J.
101 11746 Residual Clay CH 0 22 78 17 2.72 2.30 52 13 39 18.5 105.9 DS 18 .15 16.2 Proctor Res.
102 117E4 "!~ Clay CH 0 12 88 25 2.66 1.56 54 15 39 20.8 100.2 DS 21.5 ,30 16.3 Proctor Res.
103 911 * S. Clay CH 0 20 80 20 2,74 1.40 47 19 28 23.2 100.0 DS - - 35- Optima Res.
104 T?-1 *Residual S. Clay CL 0
--
49
--
51
--
- 2.65 -- 37 17 . 26 14.8 110.0 ns 14.6 0 Optima Res.·
-- --
105 1 Clay CH 84 41 43 19.5 99.0 DS 14.0 0 17 Clinton Res.
IG5 2 Residual Clay CL - 32 18 14 15.5 112.0 DS 16 0 27 Clinton Res.
107
108
3
4
Residual
Residual
Clay CH
Clay CH
-
-
-
-
-
-
-- -
- -- 82 42 40
61 23 38
20.0
21.0
99.0
98.0
D3
DS
19
21.5
0
0
17
21
Clinton Res.
Clinton Res,
* Soils of the filled valleys and Great Plains outwash mantles
.
1-'
N
.f:'
TABLE V - SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
--
110 7 Residual Clay CH 58 21 25.0
37 97.0 DS 25.5 0 24 Clinton Res.
- - -
---
111 8 i\csidual Clay CH 61 21 40
21.5 90,5 DS 24.0 Q 21.5 Clinton Res.
112 10
113 ll
:1\.esidual
Residual
Clay
Clay en
CL -- .- -- -- -- 40 19 21
17.5 106.5 DS 20.5 0 28 Clinton Res.
. . . 63 23 40
24.5 94.0 DS 28.5 0 21 Clinton Res.
-- --- -- -- -- ---
114 13 Residual Clay CL 41 23 18
18.5 101,0 DS 20.5 0 24 Clinton Res,
115 15 Residual Clay CH 51 19 32
24.0 97,5 DS 27 0 23 Clinton Res.
---
116 16 Residual Clay CH 55 20 35
20.0 99.5 DS 23.5 0 23.3 Clinton Res.
117 17
118 18
Residual
Residual
Clay
Clay
CL
CL
-- -- -- -- -
-
48
43
21
19
21.0
27
24
20.0
98.0
101,0
DS 21
DS 23
0
0
26
24.7
Clinton Res.
Clinton Res.
119 20 Residual Clay CL - - - - -- -- -- -- -- 39 21 18
18.5 104.5 DS 21.5 0 24 Clinton ;-~es.
--
120 21 Residual Cl;:.y CL 44 17 27
20.0 103.0 DS 22.5 0 26 Clinton Res,
121 22 Residual Clay CL
- - -- - 49 22 27
22.5 97.5 DS 26.5 .20 24 Clinto::: Res,
--- - --- -- --
1""... 23
~ Residual Clay CL 37 18 19
17.5 107.5 DS 18.5 0 30 Clinton Res.
123 24 Residual Clay CH ~ 42 16 26
20,0 102.0 DS 22 0 25.0 Clinton Res.
124 26
125 33
Residual
Residual
Clay
Clay
CH
CL -
-- - - -- -·--
40
44
15
16
25
20.0
28
21.0
lOlf.o
101,0
DS
DS
22.5
23.5
0
0
26
25
Clinton Res,
Clinton Res.
126 35
127 64C
Residual
Residual
Clay
Clay
CH
CL 0
- - 72- 15-
28 2.69
- ,60
54
26
15
13
39
21.5
12.1
9
·99.5
118.7
DS
DS
24
12.5
0
0
21
36.3
Clinton Res.
Canyon Dam
l~Q
'-- sse Residual Clay CL 0 33 67 15 2.68 .80 25 13 12
13.8 115.7 DS 13.8 0 35.3 Canyon Dam
129 71C Residual Clay CL 0 , 17 83 25 2.70 .96 35 11 24
15.6 112.6 DS 15.8 0 21 Car.yon Dam
130 61C Residual Clay CL 0 20 80 25 2.66 .so 33 13 20
16.1 108,4 DS 16.0 0 31.2 Canyon r.:m
.131 66C Residual Clay CH 0 11 89 30 2,63 1.30 55 16 39
24.2 96.5 DS 24.2 .4 15.9 Canyon D:.m
132 4443 Clay CL 0 12 88 35 2.67 1.06 49 14 35
16.4 109,7 DS 17.1 0 22 Bnrdwell
133 4434
* Clay CH 0 19 81 18 2.67 2.34 62 20 42
23.6 95.4 DS 23.6 0 21.5 Jmrdwell
134 4440 * Clay CH 0 28 72 - 2.65 - 58 16 42
19.5 102.6 DS 19.9 0 22 Bardwell
135 441+1
* Clay CH 0 2lf 76 24 2.66 1.74 57 14 43
15.8 109.8 DS 16.4 0 17.1 Eardwell
135" 4442
* Clay CH 0 7 93 40 2.66 1.30 72 20 52
24.4 95.6 DS 24.0 0 16.4 Bard...-ell
137 4444
* Clay CL 0 27 73 23 2.67 1.09 37 12 25
14.9 113.2 D3 15.7 0 27.2 Bardwell
133 B39
** Clay CL 0 40 60 -- 2.69 - 26 13 13 12.3 118.0 DS 12.0 .24 34 AbiQuiu
139 32
** Clay CL 0 29 71 2,72 - 31 15 16 15.1 113.0 DS 14.9 .06 31.2 AbiQuiu
**
ll>O
141
B-2-3
B-1-4
** Cla;i
Cl;:y
CL
CL
0
0
30
35
70
65
-7 2.74
2.70
-
2.57
29
32
13 16 13.7
14 18 15.4
117.2
111.9
DS
D~
lt: .o
,....
(~.
. ,,:.
.27 28,4
.20 25.7
AbiQuiu
AbiQuiu
142 1-5
** Clay CL 2 38 60 10 2.71 1.90 33 14 19 15.0 113.4 D3 !.:J. 5 .20 29.6 AbiQuiu
1'·3 1~6
**
. ."=* Clay CL 1 29 70 23 2,71 .78 34 16 18 14.1 114.3 f;S :..· .. 0 .21 29.6 AbiQuiu
144 1-7 ** Clay CL 7 21 72 32 ~"!
"t...l- ,88 48 20 28 16.0 110.7 DS lu.l .53 27 .6 AbiQuiu
* Soils cf the Coastal Plains; ** Soils of the Filled Valleys and Great Plains outwash mantles
1-'
"-='
VI
.·qJ:. ·- ./. -·'-"· ...~~
.:2.~'-'"
~ ~-r ~ J·: :,T;lf:f!Y" ·1-'~ . >i i tv ·;.;·:~ c f!',
·~··
•J F
d
..v_ ~~- ;. •·; -. ; 'Y! _;;_ ~-':' ,(; iJ .:::1 . kj' ., • ._.-,..,_:,• ;_c· l . .J--·
·; .,'-'"~"· •. "" ' ~,.,
20 ;-;.
,..l.t
·;
'· .... - .- --~ ~ r) ~;,__, ~ ·: ..._-~J'
·. "'-./"~ ·-: :.2 .tJ ~ '? ·.,- f
·-~ ·~· L'--? ..,;;.· ,i. ..... ;;~7 ':1 JC' ,., '.1-_·.,"',::
L2f'l l., "! ~· ](j ~ 7"Z 100,..~ ; > .l lYeq ~ ~ .J •.<~- r ·.t· -'1
., """"' ....
't?·,;.
l• J l: .1'! l6 .. ?. :..:::9.0 0 ·""'"''I
.L' :1~-~v-:.:.:;.~,.-;
;
',' 10', ,o
'!
t.,.r 17
~
.···
,•3
18J
2~ .. ::. 92.9
.
~ ~!
:1.0
l
.. _:-;
["'
·-
.1
~"'
17
~:r:.v·t::x·~
~>_-~·:; T:'l:'O ' ~-H'
,5.0 j_iO,.O
..;; •'-" -'
0 •.A ;) ~/'C: r: t.;:;-;;_
;j
17 '~, ;-o<>.O .: 0 -25 "'
<.0 Jt . ;.t.:i-:;:-·..:e
I~ j 5 91) 1)'1.0 ,, "
,.\.._ .. v .. 60 ;.:g i)tc·-~~~--~~'1':1.
~!
.. 21 98 .. 5 'l\ 1 • ~-~l 1;) St,_-t~ ;':.t·.--n
4 ·~% '35 21. lVO~.; ...~t. 0 t.o S L-·;.:: ~- \'~\r:
!\('•:: ~
..
$
~
2f• 3?.
·:.n
,?'
• .l .:.w•. o
.
-
-
-.. -
-
:~::o:<=~·:'.tJtl
!';
.... ~
..F-'!
,-L.
·-'
:.._~
~
•. -
~·l
~;- ~
~;
3S
F
:;''·
i .~
.. ~;
13.3
3-'! .. V
i6,!J
76.:
97 ,Q
10!:'.:1
'
til
17
C·
0
2(.1
~·
St.0--·
~ t~"~:!:
1 -:'~-:.;:.:t
:!-:-:c~.<.-:t:
16 0n
n
-
';
:t'J '· ~ ·"'-"* 4' 1} ~c_ • l,ifT ;J 1 f:'. 2!: s l..t:.>": ~~ ;___:.; ;~
u._ ' . 2: .
t•
'.
'
..
tJ
,,
165
Ci.l
--
14
~:;.;::.. -.:_~· -.-
Residual
..: -~ ,;~.)
Clay cz.
·- L
·-·0 l
~J
98
; ~\
.:!.b~
~
40
40 2~ .•. b
""
........
13
F7.5
10.:1.0
.\.-'•::t
us
---;
"',
20
0
0
~-;:
27
3t:oc:<~ .... l'
Stocktc.a
166 15 Residual Clay en 0 15 85 -- 2.77 - 17 29 48 31 ss.o DS 35 0 17 Stockton
--
169 A-30 Residua 1 S, Clay CL 0 35 65 2.69 12.2 120.4 DS 11.8 .48 28,4 Table Rock Dam
170
171
36-1
36-2
Residual
Residual
S, Clay
S, Clay
CL
CL
0
0
37
42
63
58 14
2.68
2.68
-.85 23.9 13.2 10.7 12.4
24.9 13.0 11.9 12.7
120.1
119.2
DS
DS
12.3 .35
12.2 ,27
34.2
34.6
Table
Table
Rock
Rock
Dam
Da;:o.
172 B-5 Residual Clay CL 0 7 93 21 2.65 .48 39.6 19.5 10.1 18.2 104.2 DS 23.4 .41 21.8 T:Jble Rock D:Jn
173
174
10
20
Residual
Residual
S, Clay
s. Clay
CL
CL
0
0
22
24
78
76 ---
2.67
2.67
-- 26,2 15.1 11.1 12.5
24.6 14.3 10.3 v•• o
118.1
116,0
DS
DS
13.1 ,50
- - -
33.1 Table
Table
Rock
Rock
D.:1:a
Do:a
175 13 Residual S. Clay CL 0 37 63 2.68 - . 23.2 12,0 10.3 12.0 121.0 DS -14.2 -,30 -33.4 Table Rock De::1
176
177 17
33 Residual
Residu~l
S, Clay
S, Clay
CL
CL
0
0
26
24
74
76 23
- 2.68
2,67
-.so 39.3 15.5 23.8 16.0
32.2 13.8 18.4 14.6
111.1
1.15 .s
DS
DS 14.1 .60 27.5
Tcblc
Table
Rock
Rock
Dc:a
De::~
s
--- -- 22,1 DS
178 32 Residual S, Clay CL 0 95 2.65 35.3 16,6 18.7 15.6 112.1 15.1 .65 27.3 Table fulck fu::~
179 41 Residual S, Clay CL 0 45 55 2.66 14,3 7.8 12.0 117,9 DS 12.0 .32 32.6 Table Rock D""'
180 62 Residual S, Clay CL 0 40 60 2.67 - 23.3 13.6 9.7 11.9 120,5 DS - - - Table Rock Dnc
t->
N
0'\
TABLE V - SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
--
201 21 Residual Clay CL 40 27 19 20.3 105.0 DS 23 0 25.5 Helvern
202 22 Residual Clay CL - - -
-- -- ---
46 20 26 19 103.5 DS 22 0 27.5 ~lvcrn
- -
--- -
203 23 Residual Clay CL 46 20 26 20 101.0 DS 23 0 28.5 Hclvern
20'• 24 Residual Clay CL - - 49 32 17 20,5 102.5 DS 23 0 26.5 Hclvern
205 25
206 26
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
-
-
"
-
-
-
-
- - -
55 25 30 22
59 24 35 20.1
100.5
105 .o
DS
DS
25
-
0
0
25.5
31
Melvern
Melvern
207 1 Resid'lal }lL 0 43 57 - 2.57 -- 41 26 15 18,2 106 .o DS 13 .11 2t, l:!artwe 11 Res,
---
203 3 Rasidual HL 0 49 51 2.64 42 28 14 18.2 106 .o DS 19 ,10 35 Har~·ell Res,
;,::.~g 5 Residual HL 0 46 54 2.66 - 37 15 22 20.0 104.1 DS 21 .49 17 Hartwell Res.
210 c-8
211 C-9
Residual
Residual
CH
l1L
0
0
45
62
55
38 -
2.65
2,67
-- 52 27 25 19 .s
41 32 9 16.4
103.1
108.3
DS
DS
22
16
.13
0
3S .. ~:
37.5
Ha rtwe 11 Res •
Hartwell Res.
212 C-15 Residual CL 0 48 52 - 2.68 - 38 26 12 18,4 104.3 DS 20 0 35 Hartwell Res.
213 C-16
214 C-21
Residual
Residual
HL
l1L
0
0
55
60
45
40 --
2.70
2.72
-- 34 29
26 27
5 16.4
5 16,2.
105 ,8.
. 111,8
DS
DS
16
16
0
0
41.5
35.5
Hartwell Res.
Hartwell Res.
215 BB
216 BA
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
25
31
75
69
-- -
-
-
-
47 20 27 19.0
35 18 17 15.6
106.0
113,2
DS
DS
16
-
0
- -
35.5 Bruce-Eddie Dam
Bi:uce-Eddie Dam
1-'
N
-...!
TABLE V - SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
Cbserva tion
Primary
Soil
Laboratory
Classification
. Mechanical Analxsis Sp. Act.
ComEaction Data
Opt, Max. Dry
__2hear - Data
Type
1'\0, Division (Unified Soil) Gravel Sand rines %Clay Gr. Coeff. LL PL PI Water Density Test we c (J Project
217
218
A-26
AP·l9
Residual
Residual
Silt ML
Silt (CL-ML)
0
0
22
35
78
65
-- --- -- 32
26
24
21
8
5
16.7
14,0
111.7
117,6
DS
DS
-
-
-- -
-
Bruce-Eduie Da:n
Bruce-Eddie Dam
219
220
AP-5
AP-l.
Residual
Rcsidt•al
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
45
38
55
62
--
-- -
- 38
37
22
23
16
14
15.0
15.0
117.2
114.3
DS
DS
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bruce-Eddie Da:n
Bruce-Eddie Dam
221 AP-76 Rcs:!.dual Clay CL 0 22 78 - - 36 19 17 14.6 114.0. DS - - - Bruce-Eddie Da:n
222
223
AP-70
73
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
8
7
92
93
-
25
2.73
2.71
-
,88
39
41
18
19
21
22
19.3
20.3
107 .o
103.0
·ns 22
DS 18
0
0
30
27
Bruce-Eddie Dat:1
Bruce-Eddie Dam
Z24
225
B-63
7-1
*
*
Clay CH
Clay CL
0
0
3
14
97
86
-
--
2.60
2.61
-- 58
46
27
26
31
20
27.8
22.0
89,5
100.5
DS
DS
-- --- -- -
Okstibbcc Crc~k
Ok.atibbec Creek
-
---
226 7-2 Clay CH 0 8 9Z 2.67 56 26 30 24.0 96.4 OS Okatibbec Creek
*
227
223
12-1
27-l
';'f.
*
Clay CL
clay en
0
0
44
22
56
78 ---
2.62
2.58
-- 37
45
20 17
22 23
17.0
21.2
108.0
101.0
DS
DS
-
-
- O~tibbec Creek
Ok:ltibbec Creek
229
230
7-3
C-2 * Clay CH
Clay cr.
0
0
5
20
95
80 -
2.62
2.64
-- 62 26 36
1,8 22 26
24,8
19.8
94.9
104.2
DS
DS
25.5
20.3
0
0
22 Okatibbec Creek
24.5 Okatibbec Creek
231 32820 *Residual Clay Cl! 0 17 83 34. 2.59 1.03 59 24 35 27.5 90.8 DS 27.2 0 22 Hartis Creek
232 32319 Residual Clay CL 0 42 58 18 2.66 1.28 '•4 21. 23 22.3 101.0 DS 21.5 0 30 Martis Creek
--
---
233 ::j076 Residual Clay CL 0 32 68 2.65 52 26 26 25.5 94.8 DS 23.4 0 32 Martis Creek
234
235
103
105
** C!ay CL
Clay CL
- -
-
-
- -
-- 29 7 22
28 16 12
15,2
14.6
114.0
116.0
DS
DS
-
- 0·
.03 25
29
Coyote Valley
Coyote Valley
23& 242 ** Clay CL 0 23 77 - 2.69 - 43 18 25 17.9 109.0 DS - .12 19 . Coyote Valley
**
23f>
239
254
** Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
2
4
98
96
-- 2.73
2.72
-
-,86
48 25 23
42 17 25
19.2
16.7
107 .o
110.6
DS
DS
- 0
12.5 0
23
23
Coyote Valh:y
Coyote Valley
B9
** 18 .o - - -
240
241
C-A
C-B
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CH
0
0
'5• 96
95
25
48
2,67
2.74 .76
43.5 22 21.5
61.1 24.7 36.4 26.5
106.8
95.5
DS
DS 31.3 .18
~nnroe Reservoir
18,1 Honroe Reservoir
2!12 c-c Residual Clay CH 0 17 83 42 2.74 1.06 68,7 24.0 44.7 22.7 100.0 DS 27.2 .17 23 Monroe Reservoir
2lt3 C-D Residual Clay CL 0 11 89 32 2.76 .71 40.4 17.6 22.8 16.4 110.5 DS 21.4 .09 26 Monroe Reservoir
2L.4 C·A Glncial Clay CL 15 22 63 22 2.75 .57 32.1 19.5 12.6 12.8 122.6 DS 18.1 0 23.2 Union City
.245 c-c Glacial S. Clay CL 23 24 53 13 2.74 .82 30.1 19.4 10.7 12.6 123.0 DS 17.6 0 28.4 Union City
246 e-x Glacial S, Silty Clay CL 6 13 81 8 2.69 1.00 30,3 22.1 8.2 16.6 108,0 DS 17.9 0 :n.5 Union City
2!,7 C-Y Clacia 1 S Cr Clay CL 26 16 58 -- 2.73 - 29.2 19,1 10.1 lQ,g 125.5 DS 13.9 0 31.3 Union City
:..:..,o
249 C-A
c-z Gleci~l
Glaci~l
Gr S, Clay CL
S. Clay CL
13
3
24
22
63
75 16
2.75
2.66
-
1.25
28 17.3 10.7
38.3 18.2 20.1
11.4
15.5
124.8
112.0
DS
DS
-
18,7
-,25 - Union City
18.4 Green River
250 C•B Glacial G't'. S. Clay 13 32 55 14 2,66 1.24 35,4 18.0 17.4 13,9 114.3 DS 18,9 .15 23.5 Green River
251 C·F Glacial Silty Clay 0 10 90 20 Z.69 ,38 30.5 22.9 7 ,lj l7 ,6 108,0 00 20,6 .05 :n.4 Green River
252 C-G Glacial Cr. S. Clay 13 24 63 25 2.71 ,69 41.7 24.5 17.2 17 .s 10.5.8 DS 25 0 .31.4 Grean River
* Soils of the Coastal Plains; ** Soils of the Filled Valleys and Great Plains outwash mantles
1-'
N
co
TABLE V - SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
Primary Laboratory Co!!!!!action Data Shear - Data
Observation Soil Classification Mechanical Analzsis Sp. Act, Opt. Max.Dry Type
No. Division (Unified Soil) Gravel Sand Fines 7.Clay Gr. Coeff. LL PL PI Water Density Test 'IVC c ~ Project
253 C·l Glacial S. Clay CL 0 15 85 15 2.67 .70 32,6 22.1 10.5 20.0 104.6 DS 22.5 0 29.5 Green River
254 C-2 Glacial Clay CL 0 15 85 24 2.69 .51 33.1 20.9 12.2 18,6 108.2 DS 21.6 0 30.6 Green River
255 C-3 Glacial clay ct 13 12 25 18 2.69 .75 36 22.5 13.5 18.6 107.8 DS 20.7 0 31.0 Green River
256 A Residual s. Clay CL 0 31 69 24 2.70 .55 30.9 12.7 13.1 16.4 111.4 DS 17.6 0 32 Cpue Run
257 c Residual S. Clay CL 0 30 70 15 2.68 .77 28 16.5 11.5 15.7 112.3 D3 17 0 31 Cpue Run
258 D Residual S. Clay CL 0 8 92 35 2.73 .59 .41.7 21 20.7 17 109.8 DS 19.2 0 23 Cpue Run
259
260
64487
634176
wcssis1
Loessial
S. Silt ML
S. Clay CL
2
0
46
36
52
64
10
25
2.68
2.73
,69
.57
30.3 23.4
29.7 15.5
6.9 17.3
14.2 15.5
106.2
114.2
DS
DS
-15.5 0- 18.8
- Eau Gnlleau
Eou Gallc:lU
261 634175 Loessial S. H Clay (CL-ML) 0 10 90 13 2.72 .45 26 20.2 5,8 15.5 113.2 DS 15.6 0 31.8 Esu Galle$lu
262 64489 Loessia1 S. H Clay (CL•ML) 0 5 95 15 2.70 .43 26.8 20.3 6.5 16.0 111.5 DS 15.9 0 36.2 Eau Gallcau
263 64400 Loessial C. Clay CL 3 28 69 28 2.73 .37 37.2 16.9 10.3 16.0 112.8 DS 16.1 0 26.3 Eau Gallcau
264
255
10634
10637
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
1
7
17
25
82
68
-- 2.71
2.69 -
- 28 13
29 13
15 13.8
16 12.7
114.5
118.3
DS
DS
14
13
.1
.1
29.8
28.5
Waco
Waco
266
267
10626
10636
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
4
2
32
23
64
75
-- 2.62
2.64 ---
30 12
37 15
18 16.0
22 15.2
110.2
110.2
DS
DS
16
15
0
.1
25.7
23.8
Waco
'ibco
268 10630 Residual Clay CL 0 14 86 - 2.67 43 13 30 16.4 109.5 DS 17 0 23 Waco
269 10630 Residual Clay CL 0 7 93 -- 2.64 - 46 15 31 18.7 102.7 DS 19 .1 26.7 Waco
270
271
10631
10632
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
7
14
93
86 -
2.64
2.67
-- 46 15
43 13
31 22.4
30 19.3
96.6
101.3
DS
DS
22
20
.2
0
27
23
Waco
Waco
272 A-ll Clay CL 0 26 74 18 2.69 .78 25 11 14 13.0 116.2 DS 11.2 .2 33.4 Hugo
273 A-18
** Clay CH 0 6 94 59 2.71 .78 66 20 46 22.2 98.4 DS 20.4 .3 22.3 l!.ugo
274 C-12 ** Clay CL 0 32 68 34 2.69 .77 39 13 26 15,8 110.0 DS - -- - Hugo
** -
-DS 30- -.61 12--
275 D-14 Clay CL 12 26 62 28 2.72 1.00 42 14 28 16.4 110.1 DS Hugo
**
--
276
277
"B-3
U-9
Glacial
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CH
9
0
35
0
56
100
-- 2.74
2.69
30 15
54 28
15 14.3
26 *22
110.0
100.0
Weatville
Tuttle Creek
--- ---
278 U-10 Residual Clay CL 0 2 98 2.69 40 23 17 *18 108.0 DS 37 .23 15 Tuttle Creek
279 U-10 Residual Clay CH 0 0 100 2.72 63 24 39 *23 102.0 DS 30 .27 10 Tuttle Creek
280 Tl'19 Residual Clay CL 0 2 98 2.65 36 14 22 *14 118,0 DS 12 0 30 Tuttle Creek
281 C-53 Residual Clay CL 0 0 100 -- 2.68 - 37 15 2~ 21 100.0 DS 16 .40 11 Tuttle Creek
Z82 C-33 Residual Clay CL 0 0 100 2.68 -- 37 15 22 21 100.0 DS 20 .40 13 Tuttle Creek
283
284
D·li7
D~l77
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
4
4
96
96
-- 2.69
2.69 -
41 23
41 23
18" 20
18 20
102.8
102.8
DS
DS
26
25
.40
.20
23.3 Tuttle Creek
19.3 Tuttle Creek
2!!5
286
D-347
D-199
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
0
0
5
10
95
90
-
-
2.68
2.66
-- 33 18
32 23
15 19
9 19
101.0
103.5
DS
DS
24
18.8
.12
.18
22
28
Tuttle Creek
Tuttle Creek
287
288
D-199
A
~sidual
Glacial
Clay CL
S, Clay CL
0
0
10
37
90
63
-12 2.66
2.71
-
.99
32 23
26.6 14.7
9 19
11.9 12.6
103,5
121.0
DS
DS
24
14.9
.07
0
28
30
Tuttle Creek
Buck Creek
** Soils of the Coastal Plains
. 1-'
!--.)
\()
TABLE V - SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST DATA
---
305 8 Residual Silt ML 0 62 38 2.67 41 32 9 16.4 109.3 DS 16 0 37.5 lfurtwell Dam
306 9 Residual Silt ML 0 48 52 - 2.68 38 26 12 18,4 104.3 DS 20 0 35 Hartwell D::m
307 10
30$ 96
Residual
Residual
Silt ML
Clay CL
-
0
- 75-
25
-
28
2.70
2.75 .72
34 24
41 21 20
5 16.4
17.6
105.8
113.0
DS
DS
16
17.7
o· 41.5 Eartwell Dam
0 24.5 New llope
309 30
310 21
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CH
-
0
-
16
-
84
-
40
2.69
2.69
-
1.22
47 25 22
80 31 49
20.8
25.4
102.6
96.8
DS
DS
23.3
32.8
0
0
28.5 New Hope
23 New Hope
311 15 Residual Clay CH 0 28 72 25 2.79 .44 31 20 11 14.4 115.0 DS 14.9 0 29.3 New Hope
312 ·1o
313 102
Residual
Residual
Clay CH
Clay CH
-
0
- -
21 79
-
44
2.69
2.69
-
1.02
75 30 45
75 30 45
26.8
26.6
90.1
91.8
DS
DS 21.3
- -
0
-New Hope
17.5 New Hope
314 15
315 90
Residual
Residual
Clay CL
Clay CL
-- -
- --
-
-
2.79
2.75
-
-
31 20 11
41 21 20
14.4
17.6
115.0
113.0
DS •
DS 17.7
0
0
29.5 Carters
24.5 Carters
316 91 Residual Clay CL -- - --
- - 2.68 - 42 25 22 20.8 102.5 DS 21.4 0 30.5 Carters
317 92 Residual Clay CL - 2.73 - 75 30 45 26.8 90.1 DS 27.3 0 16 Carters
1-'
w
0
SUMMARY OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS DATA AND
DEVIATIONS OF ACTUAL VALUES FROM PREDICTED VALUES
TABLE VI
Actual-
Predicted
Location Soil BPR Actual Predicted }Lax. Devi-
Sampled ~ Samele No, LL PL n Opt. ~· Max.___!i_e_nsity at ion
I-'
w
.j::--
Actual-
Predicted
Location Soil BPR Actual Predicted Max. Devi-
~amp led Nama PI
S!,!!!Ele No. ~ l1 Opt.
~· Max. density ation
71. N, Carolina Orange silt loam 31335 46 18 28 17 111 105.5 -5.5
72. N. Carolina Iredell loam 31338 66 24 38 21 102 97.2 -4.8
73. N. Carolina Davidson clay loam 31341 70 38 32 27 93 92.0 -1.0
I-'
w
0'\
S~~RY OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS DATA AND
DEVIATIONS OF ACTUAL VALUES FROM PREDICTED VALUES
TABLE VII
Opt. Devi-
at ion
Location Soil BPR Actual Predicted Actual-
Sampled Name SamEle No, !:!! !!! ll OEt• ~· Op.t. Predicted
85. Texas Abilene clay loam 32134 ·3o 18 12 17 107 15.2 -1.8
f-'
+o-
w
Table VIII
Suumary of Rsgrension Analysis (Arithnetic Equation3)
Multiple Seopo of
Std. :r;rror Corrlillation Conaidor-
Analyo"is No. Developed Equation o! Esti~at• Coefficient Rtion
..,..
I-'
..,..
Table VIII
Summar,r o! Regression Analysis (Arithmetic Equations)
l~ultiph Scope o!
Std. Error Correlation ConnidGr-
Analrsis No. n.veloped Equation of Eati;ttah Coefficient ation
20 _( Max. d. • 171t.3 - ·37 <L.L.) - .48 (~) - .42 (PL) St. Louis
- .29 (~) ) 2.87 ·9'* Diestrict
21 ( Max. d. • 159.1 - .44 (L.I.• ) - .33 (%F) - .19 (PL)
- .24 (~) + .01 (P.I.) ) 3-91 .90 Residual
22 ( Max. d. • 178.2 - .52 (%F) - .86 (LL) - ·.3.3 (~S)
+ .57 (PI) ) 3·43 .86 Glacial
2.3 ( Jbx. d.'" 12.5.9- .77 {Ll) + .17 O~S) + .38 {H)
+ .03 (%P) + .29 (A.C.) ) 2.73 .98 Meraraec Park
.....
.p..
IJ1
Table VIII
Hu:n:11ary of j~e.;ression ,\nalysie (A.rit1.ntetic E.:tuationa)
24 ( ihx. d. "' 140.93 - 1.0 (LL) ..- .71 (:H) - .12 (%F) Coastal
- .. 0,5 ()OS) 3.30 .92 l·lnins
1-'
.t:::-
0\
Table VIII
SUQ&ary of Hogresaion Analysis (Arithmetic ~uations)
Multiple 8copo o!
Std. Error Carr· elation Concider-
.A.nal;raia t:o. Devolopcd Equation ot ~;stiaate Co~tfi'icient at ion
......
.t:-
'-J
Table VIII
S~ary o! Rogr•a2ion Analysis (Arithmetic Equations)
Multiple Scope o!
Ana.l ylli 15 DeY~lop e ~ Equation Std. Error Correlation Con.e id &r-
of Eati11ah Coefficient &Uo:!
~7 ( Opt • - 3·55 + .33 (LL) + .12 ($F) - .12 (PI)
+ .04 (%S) ) 1.94 .91 St. Loui~
51 Opt • 6.50 + .~5 (PL) + .13 (LL) - .07 (~S) 1.30 ·95 eo .. stnJ.
52 Opt • 6.23 + .)4 (LL) - .11 (PI) 2 .88 All Soils
.53 Max. d. E 128.4 - .58 (LL) + .13 (PI) lt-.1,5 .86 " "
r->
-~"
():)
Table VIII
Sl!ll'.lml~ of Rep;uuion A.nalJ'Gia ( Logarit.h:dc Equations)
Multiple se,pe of
Std. Error Corrola tion ConGid<s:r-
.A.n:U.;yraio lo. DeYelopcd Equations ot Estimate Co(t!!ici.cnt ation
l~A log Max. •· • 2.35 - .20 log {LL) \.03 .86 ..Ul z:::>ila
1,5-.A ( lo' M~. 4. • 2.4o - .28 loc (LL) + .05 log (PI)
+ .01 lo~ (P.L) ) 3.98 .87 I! N
1?-A los Max. •· • 2.15 - .10 lee (P.I.) 5 .. 2:; ·72 . "
18...! le1 ~ax. 4.· • 2.0) ~ .07 Io, (A.C) 7o39 .4} ~ M
19-A leg ~ax. d. • 2.17 - .57 lsa {%0) 6.,2 ·57 " "
2Q-A ( 1&£ tiax. 4. • 2.6J - .3~ ~, (LL) + .o8
. . . 10 log (~) + .02 a 1 (PL) + 00
lo'
(~ )
(P.I)
2.94 .91 St. LoU!fS Di.:Bt.
22•.1. ( log ~ax. d. • 2.67 - .zz los (%F) - .11 log (LL)
+ .02 los (PI) - .01 lc~ (~) - .03 log (P.L) ) :;.61 .8,3 Glacial
23-A { log ~ax. d. • 2.8o - .58 los (tL) + .23 log (A.C)
- .o8 log (%F) - .o1 (%S) ) 2.77 .98 Mer~ec Pl!U'k.
z.e.-A ( lei Max. d. x 2.}0 + ,03 log (~S) - .35 log (LL)
+ .16 los {~I) + .01 log (%F) ) }.36 .91 Coastal Plains
2.:;-A. ( loe Max. d. • 2.40 - .24 log (LL) + .03 log (PI)
- .03 log (PL) + .01 log (A.C) ) 3.98 .87 All lilOila
1--'
~
1.0
Table VIII
SmM&r7 of Regrullion Ana.l.J"Sio ( Logar.ith!aic Equations)
Hultiplo Seope of
Std. Error Corrct~lc.tion Connidc:or-
.Al:!Al)'sia M&. Developed £quations of Eat~ate Coeffici~t ation
26-A ( loJ 9 •1.88 - .92 log {LL) + •55 lo3 (PL) + .14 log (PI)
+ ·~5 lo' (Opt) ) }.}1 ·73 Gla.ebl.
27-A ( lo1 ~ • 1.01 - .16 l~a (PI) - .48 log (Opt) + .22 lo~ {VL)
+ .16 log (I.C) + .~~ l&g (K~x. d.} - .06 log (LL) ) 4.22 .'{4 Re.!I!Hl.u:U
28-J. ( log - • ·5' • Zl log (PI) + .~6 log {Max. d.) + .15 10~ (%F)
- 10 10~ (O.P.f) + .01 lo' t B.C) + .01 lo~ (W.C) ) }.88 .76 All mila
):,D-A 1·~8 C$ a 1.8!t - .50 15§1 (~C) + .17 ag (.PL) 5·37 .4~ . .
.31-A lo~ ~ • 1.80 - .2, l$a {PI) - .0\ leg (I.C) 4.~8 .. 66 " ..
~2-A l~g ¢ • - 2.~4 + 2.02 los (Rax. d.) + .l} leg (W.C)
J~A log ¢• 2.12 - .76 log (OPT) + .19 log (W.C) 5·13 ·53 " II
35-A ( log OPT = .o8 + .561o1 (LL} + .19 log (PL) - .05 log (A.C)
- .02 log (P.I) ) 2.06 .89 II
"
A!-0-A log OPT • .~7 + •71 log (LL) - .09 (PI} + .04 (PL} 2.01 .88 11 II
t-'
VI
0
Table VIII
Sum•ary of iogreasion Anal7da ( Lo~itllalie Equation•)
Multiple Scop& of
Std. Error Correlation Conzider-
Anal,. sis Ko • DeYeloped Equation of Eatillate Coe!!ieient ation
41-A loa on • .29 + .6o loa (LL) 2.07 .e7 All ooils
42-.A. lDt~ OPT • 6.89 ... 2.77 log (Max. d.) 1.21 ·96 " If
~~A lo~ OPT • .88 + .28 log (PI) 2.79 ·13 " n
J--1
l..n
J--1
·---·-'--
152
1.,S X
Sample W.C. X
A.C. X
Cohesion -
Max. d. X
Opt, w.c. X
LL X
PL X
PI X
-·
i.F X
·-
%S X
Sanmle W.c. X
A.C. X
S.G. X
153
Cohesion
Ll -x
PL X
PI X
%S X
%F X
%C X
f---~.c. X
Oot. w.c. X
S.G. X
154
I.J X
T'J. X
PI :X
i',S
- X
•;..F X
'/.C X
A.t. X
Ca
Opt,
s. c:.
~\,- c
- X
X
---
Optimum
:·loisture
Content
LL X
PL X
- )\
X
PI X . X
~'S X
'J.F X
'/C X
A.c. X .
s. (,~ X
.',ngle of
Internal
rricti0:1
Max. d. ~X
LL X X
Opt, w.c. X X
/..F X
Pl. X
PI X X
%S X
Sample 1-J,C,
A.C.
X
X -
Cohesion
Hax. d. X
LL X
Oot. \.J. c. X
'i'oF X
PL X ··-
PI X
i'oS
~le 1~.c.
--·-
X
X
AC ·-· X
155
LL = Liquid Limit
PL = Plastic Limit
PI = Plasticity Index
A. C. = Activity Coefficient
%F = Percent Fines
%s = Percent Sand
%c = Percent Clay
S .G. = Specific Gravity
156
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dams; Engineering News Record, Vol III, No. 10, Sept. 7, 1933,
p. 286-289.
1949, p. 477-481.
(6) Turnbull, J. M., Computation of the Optimum Moisture Content in
(8) Lambe, T. W. (1951), Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York,
p. 43-49.
(9) Jumikis, A. R., Geology and Soils of the Newark, New Jersey,
(processed).
VIII. Vita
The author, Marvin Tartt Harris, was born on July 11, 1941, in
St. Louis. His college education was acquired from the University of
of Hissouri and an employee of the St. Louis District of the Army Corps
engineer for the Heramec Park Project, a 200-foot-high Earth and Rock-
fill Dam.